Author Topic: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat  (Read 15558 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline waresky

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1486
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • Alpine Mountaineer..ohh Yeah!
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2009, 10:23:04 AM »
Starship Troopers come into ur Universe,Steve:).

Ty for this awesome change on crucial part of Aurora: Army.
i think r one of firsts step to lead on a planetary combat management,with maps and so on..obviously more easy to manage and not so hard same as Fading Sun's
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11684
  • Thanked: 20489 times
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2009, 10:30:42 AM »
Quote from: "waresky"
Starship Troopers come into ur Universe,Steve:).

Ty for this awesome change on crucial part of Aurora: Army.
i think r one of firsts step to lead on a planetary combat management,with maps and so on..obviously more easy to manage and not so hard same as Fading Sun's
I do want to improve the ground combat model over time so this is one of the first steps. I will be looking at ground combat mechanics again at some point in the future.

Steve
 

Offline welchbloke

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1044
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2009, 04:44:12 PM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
The HQ division becomes a Brigade HQ and you will be able to attach battalions to a Brigade HQ. This will be done on a more permanent basis rather than the ad hoc situation at the moment. You will be able to transfer battalions between Brigade HQs with some penalty yet to be decided; probably a morale loss that will recover over time.
I have added the penalty I mentioned above. When you move a unit to a new HQ, its morale drops by half. In most cases morale will take less than 3 months to increase to 100. This penalty only applies to the unit itself though and doesn't affect subordinate units, so if you move a brigade HQ from one division to another, the brigade HQ suffers a morale loss but any units attached to the brigade are unaffected. Brigade level integrity in Aurora is more important than divisional level. Bear in mind that units can (fairly rarely) increase their morale above 100. If this is the case, transferring them is generally a bad idea as their morale will stop rising post-transfer at 100.

In case you are wondering why I am bothering with this detail, it is to avoid the unrealistic situation of an army being completely and instantly re-organised after taking heavy casualties as a result of combat or a boarding attempt and not suffering any penalty.

Steve
to quote C Montgomery Burns - 'Excellent!'
Welchbloke
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11684
  • Thanked: 20489 times
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2009, 11:37:03 AM »
I just added crew surrender during boarding combat and ran my final boarding combat test. I thought it might be interesting to post the events of the test as a boarding combat example.

Boarding Action
Launched by 1st Marine Regiment HQ and three Marine Battalions (66th, 67th, 68th). Attacking vessel is a Improved Omaha class Assault Transport with four Troop Transport Bays and four Combat Drop Modules and a maximum speed of 2530 km/s. Just before the drop, the attacking units are moved from the Bays to the Drop Modules. The target is an intact fuel harvester with a speed of 277 km/s. For the purposes of the test, the fuel harvester has been upgraded to strength-3 armour. The speed advantage of the transport is 9x so the number of D10 rolled for casualties is 11. While that might seem high, consider that while the target may be slow by Aurora standards, it is still moving 277 kilometres every second!

During the combat drop, the Regimental HQ suffers 80% casualties, the 66th Marine Battalion suffers 81% casualties, the 67th Marine Battalion suffers 50% casualties and the 68th Marine Battalion suffers 56% casualties. Note that by attacking from a faster ship or by slowing down the target. these casualties would have been far lower. It is probably a good idea for assault transports to carry low-powered weapons to slow a target without causing massive damage - or perhaps some type of anti-engine weapon could be added to the game.

During the Boarding Combat phase of the same increment, the fuel harvester's armour is checked. As there is no way in, the marines begin preparing a breaching charge. 30 seconds later the charge is detonated and a single armour box is destroyed. There are still two more layers of armour so two more breaching charges are detonated in the same location at 30 second intervals. Note that the attackers will not know the strength of the armour until they break through it. The damage caused by breaching charges is just like normal damage and shows up on a ship's armour status tab.

Once the armour has been penetrated, boarding combat begins. Each round of combat lasts for five minutes with the first round taking place five minutes after the armour is penetrated. During the first round, the total combat strength of the boarders, including the Marine boarding combat bonus and any commander bonuses, is 26.68. There are no defending combat units so the defence strength of the fuel harvester is based purely on its crew. With 610 crew, the defence strength is 6.1, giving a combat ratio for the attackers of 4.3738. This means a casualty chance for the defenders of 43.7% (10x Ratio) and for the attackers only 2.3% (10/Ratio).

As expected, the attackers do not suffer any losses. There are no defending combat units so the defending crew is checked. For purposes of boarding combat losses, a number of die rolls take place equal to the crew/100 (FRU), in this case 7. If a roll is equal to or less than the casualty chance then 1-50 crew are killed. In the first round of combat, the harvester's crew acquit themselves exceedingly well and only 37 are lost, leaving 573.

A surrender check is performed after combat if there are no defending combat units. The combat ratio is recalculated, which in this case is 26.68 / 5.73 = 4.66. If the combat ratio is greater than 5 then a number from 1-100 is rolled and multiplied by (combat ratio / 5). The result is compared to the average of the crew species' militancy and determination. If it is higher, then the crew surrenders and they, plus any officers, become POWs and are interrogated to gain spy points. In this case, the combat ratio is still less than five so the combat continues.

Crew resistance continues and remarkably they manage to inflict an 8% readiness loss on the Marine Regiment HQ while suffering just 8 more crew casualties. The morale of the Marine HQ is affected (not surprisingly!) and falls to 94.

Round three of combat begins 17 minutes after the initial boarding attempt. Attacker strength is unaffected by the HQ losses as the HQ has no attack strength anyway so it is still 26.68. There is still 565 crew on the harvester so the defence strength is 5.65 and the combat ratio is 4.77. The Marines finally get their act together and end their tentative probing. A full-blooded assault results in 108 crew casualties without further Marine losses. This changes the combat ratio to 5.84 so a surrender check is performed. The number rolled is 41. This is multiplied by (5.84/5), which equals 47.9. This is less than the average militancy and determination of the crew (67) so the fight goes on.

In round four a further 66 crew are killed, reducing the crew to 391. The combat ratio is now 6.82. 81 is rolled on the surrender check, which is modified to 111, well above the average militancy and determination of the crew so they finally surrender after putting up a brave resistance. 39.1 spy points are gained from the 391 surviving crew. There are no officers on board.

Steve
 

Offline Beersatron

  • Gold Supporter
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2009, 02:58:20 PM »
Thanks for the example, can't wait to get my hands on it! :)
 

Offline welchbloke

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1044
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2009, 07:14:24 PM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
It is probably a good idea for assault transports to carry low-powered weapons to slow a target without causing massive damage - or perhaps some type of anti-engine weapon could be added to the game.

Steve
Looking good Steve.  Instead of dedicated anti-engine weapons, how about a target engines order? If this order is selected there is a much reduced chance to hit (would have to think about dynamics of how this would work) but a significantly higher chance of hitting the engines rather than anything else. I would only make this order available to beam weapons.
Welchbloke
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2009, 07:50:56 PM »
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
It is probably a good idea for assault transports to carry low-powered weapons to slow a target without causing massive damage - or perhaps some type of anti-engine weapon could be added to the game.

Steve
Looking good Steve.  Instead of dedicated anti-engine weapons, how about a target engines order? If this order is selected there is a much reduced chance to hit (would have to think about dynamics of how this would work) but a significantly higher chance of hitting the engines rather than anything else. I would only make this order available to beam weapons.


I agree with this, adding a specific anti-engine weapon seems a bit Star Fleet Battles to me (and it's one of the things about SFB that annoys me)
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline schroeam

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 217
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • "Let's try a new strategy, let the Wookiee win"
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #22 on: October 17, 2009, 09:29:25 PM »
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
It is probably a good idea for assault transports to carry low-powered weapons to slow a target without causing massive damage - or perhaps some type of anti-engine weapon could be added to the game.

Steve
Looking good Steve.  Instead of dedicated anti-engine weapons, how about a target engines order? If this order is selected there is a much reduced chance to hit (would have to think about dynamics of how this would work) but a significantly higher chance of hitting the engines rather than anything else. I would only make this order available to beam weapons.

Maybe also missiles equipped with thermal sensors to act as heat seeking weapons to take out the largest source of thermal energy.

Adam.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2009, 04:19:54 AM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
39.1 spy points are gained from the 391 surviving crew. There are no officers on board.

Steve

Ah, so now there's a reason not to throw a spare officer on every frighter, tug, or other civilian  ship floating around your empire.  Or maybe just a slightly increased cost to doing so.
 

Offline Kurt

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2009, 10:45:56 AM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I just added crew surrender during boarding combat and ran my final boarding combat test. I thought it might be interesting to post the events of the test as a boarding combat example.

Boarding Action
Launched by 1st Marine Regiment HQ and three Marine Battalions (66th, 67th, 68th). Attacking vessel is a Improved Omaha class Assault Transport with four Troop Transport Bays and four Combat Drop Modules and a maximum speed of 2530 km/s. Just before the drop, the attacking units are moved from the Bays to the Drop Modules. The target is an intact fuel harvester with a speed of 277 km/s. For the purposes of the test, the fuel harvester has been upgraded to strength-3 armour. The speed advantage of the transport is 9x so the number of D10 rolled for casualties is 11. While that might seem high, consider that while the target may be slow by Aurora standards, it is still moving 277 kilometres every second!

During the combat drop, the Regimental HQ suffers 80% casualties, the 66th Marine Battalion suffers 81% casualties, the 67th Marine Battalion suffers 50% casualties and the 68th Marine Battalion suffers 56% casualties. Note that by attacking from a faster ship or by slowing down the target. these casualties would have been far lower. It is probably a good idea for assault transports to carry low-powered weapons to slow a target without causing massive damage - or perhaps some type of anti-engine weapon could be added to the game.

Sixty plus percent casualties before the combat starts, against a relatively low speed ship.  Hmmm...I guess no one will be making boarding attempts against intact warships, which tend to be much faster.  

Not that that is a bad thing <G>.

Kurt
 

Offline Kurt

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
  • Thanked: 3389 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2009, 10:47:43 AM »
Quote from: "boggo2300"
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
It is probably a good idea for assault transports to carry low-powered weapons to slow a target without causing massive damage - or perhaps some type of anti-engine weapon could be added to the game.

Steve
Looking good Steve.  Instead of dedicated anti-engine weapons, how about a target engines order? If this order is selected there is a much reduced chance to hit (would have to think about dynamics of how this would work) but a significantly higher chance of hitting the engines rather than anything else. I would only make this order available to beam weapons.


I agree with this, adding a specific anti-engine weapon seems a bit Star Fleet Battles to me (and it's one of the things about SFB that annoys me)

I agree wtih the above statements.  Having weapons that target specific systems just seems too pat to me.  However, it might be interesting, as stated above, to be able to target specific systems - weapons, engines, crew quarters, etc.

Kurt
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11684
  • Thanked: 20489 times
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2009, 11:09:17 AM »
Quote from: "Kurt"
Sixty plus percent casualties before the combat starts, against a relatively low speed ship.  Hmmm...I guess no one will be making boarding attempts against intact warships, which tend to be much faster.  

Not that that is a bad thing <G>.
That is pretty much what I was aiming for. Boarding combat shouldn't be a standard tactic against warships unless they have been severely damaged. Against slow moving types such as asteroid miners or fuel  harvesters, it should be possible but difficult. Although bear in mind that using a 10,000 km/s assault shuttle design for the combat drop against the 277 km/s harvester would have avoided any casualties during the drop.

Steve
 

Offline ShadoCat

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 327
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • http://www.assistsolar.com
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2009, 11:21:02 AM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Boarding Action
Launched by 1st Marine Regiment HQ and three Marine Battalions (66th, 67th, 68th). Attacking vessel is a Improved Omaha class Assault Transport with four Troop Transport Bays and four Combat Drop Modules and a maximum speed of 2530 km/s. Just before the drop, the attacking units are moved from the Bays to the Drop Modules. The target is an intact fuel harvester with a speed of 277 km/s. For the purposes of the test, the fuel harvester has been upgraded to strength-3 armour. The speed advantage of the transport is 9x so the number of D10 rolled for casualties is 11. While that might seem high, consider that while the target may be slow by Aurora standards, it is still moving 277 kilometres every second!

During the combat drop, the Regimental HQ suffers 80% casualties, the 66th Marine Battalion suffers 81% casualties, the 67th Marine Battalion suffers 50% casualties and the 68th Marine Battalion suffers 56% casualties. Note that by attacking from a faster ship or by slowing down the target. these casualties would have been far lower. It is probably a good idea for assault transports to carry low-powered weapons to slow a target without causing massive damage - or perhaps some type of anti-engine weapon could be added to the game.

It seem to me that the speed of the target doesn't matter as much as the ability of the target to shift its speed relative to the attacker.

Maybe, instead of anti engine weapons that people seem to have trouble with (though just about every PC based 4x game has them), you allow tractor beams to hold onto the target.  

This use of tractor beams wouldn't allow you to alter the movement of a powered ship on the map scale but it could damp out the jinking that the target might be able to do.  Think of it like hooking a elastic cord between the two.  As long as the attacker has the engine speed to match maneuvers, the tractor allows the attacker to do a better job of it.  Also, it might be posssible to use the tractors as a route for the boarding party to follow.

Another question:

If the armor already has pieces blasted out of it, do the boarders take advantage of that?

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11684
  • Thanked: 20489 times
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2009, 11:27:58 AM »
Quote from: "ShadoCat"
If the armor already has pieces blasted out of it, do the boarders take advantage of that?
Yes they do. The boarders will look for existing holes in the armour. If none exist, they will use breaching charges on the column where the armour has suffered the most damage

Steve
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Ground Forces: Transportation, New units, Boarding Combat
« Reply #29 on: October 19, 2009, 10:51:47 PM »
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
Quote from: "Kurt"
Sixty plus percent casualties before the combat starts, against a relatively low speed ship.  Hmmm...I guess no one will be making boarding attempts against intact warships, which tend to be much faster.  

Not that that is a bad thing <G>.
That is pretty much what I was aiming for. Boarding combat shouldn't be a standard tactic against warships unless they have been severely damaged. Against slow moving types such as asteroid miners or fuel  harvesters, it should be possible but difficult. Although bear in mind that using a 10,000 km/s assault shuttle design for the combat drop against the 277 km/s harvester would have avoided any casualties during the drop.

Is the assault pod system (forget exact name) small enough to fit into ship w/o a bridge (i.e. GB engines)?

John