There are two problems with this approach:
First, any approach which only provides a positive preferential targeting effect, even if it is small, renders a combined-arms formation almost strictly inferior mechanically to a single-class formation (all-INF, all-VEH, etc.). While the random targeting we have now does have its flaws, it succeeds at keeping combined-arms and single-class formations equally viable which supports player roleplay...this is I would argue a very important function of the current ground combat mechanics and should be at the forefront of any mechanical changes.
Second, the way to counteract the above would be to make Concealment cause a negative targeting malus, i.e., if your Recon is not enough to overcome enemy Concealment your forces are more likely to shoot at the "wrong" target. I think such a counter-mechanic would be frustrating to players (ground units are already very complicated, why add yet another confusing mechanic to think about?) and doesn't really solve any balance problems.
The problem is that if your opponent has, for sake of example, an even mix of CAP and MAV, and you send a mixed force of 50% INF and 50% VEH for example, then:
- With purely random targeting every enemy weapon has a proportionally even chance of hitting either type of unit. The CAP and MAV are about equally effective (aside from GSP usage).
- With even a small targeting bonus, say +10%, suddenly the CAP is hitting your INF 55% of the time and the MAV is hitting your VEH 55% of the time, so the enemy killing efficiency is 110% compared to the random case.
Now consider if you send a force of 100% VEH (similar arguments will apply for INF):
- With purely random targeting, the CAP has nearly zero efficiency and the MAV has about 100% efficiency, which is roughly the same on balance as the mixed formation case.
- However, with preferential targeting...nothing changes. The enemy remains at the same efficiency - which means they are not getting +10% kill rates because of your mixed formation.
I am simplifying considerably, but the essence of the argument holds, and the choice of whether to use all-INF or all-VEH formations depends on the ratio of weapons the enemy is using and the relative kill rates against the units you are deploying - for example, MAV kills one tank per shot which is 62 tons, while CAP kills 6 infantry per shot which may be 30 tons (6x PW) or 72+ tons (6x CAP, LAV, etc.). However, with even a small preferential targeting choice effect, combined formations become strictly sub-optimal, which is not really in the spirit of Aurora and blemished what is honestly a 98% well-balanced ground forces system even if there are some flaws (MAV/HAV supply consumption) and some players wish it were different (e.g., more/more-accurate logistics modeling).
--- Firstly, quick fire off; RECON is what gives you Preferential Targeting. CONCEALMENT reduces RECON, but not below 0. No RECON means no preferential targeting at all, and no malus from CONCEALMENT since it has nothing to conceal
from. The idea of RECON being used is that in order to have a preferred target the units must know what is coming
before it gets there. Otherwise, the current model is sufficiently granular to assume that the randomness we have now is units picking targets at the point of engagement versus being prepared ahead of time for said engagement.
--- Next, my argument on the effects of preferential targeting:
- Enemy is Combined Arms: 7/1 ratio of INF and Medium Vehicle with MED Armor, MAV and CAP
- Your Forces are Combined Arms: Same as Enemy.
--- Results: With 100% preferential targeting it's a wash, assuming tech parity and a few other things for simplicity.
- Enemy is same Combined Arms, your forces are pure Med Vehicles instead.
--- Results: With 100% Preferential Targeting you wipe the enemy but take 50% casualties.
- Enemy is same Combined arms, but your pure INF.
--- Results: With 100% preferential targeting you lose everything, but the enemy takes 50% casualties.
If AA is too powerful so be it; I haven't
that much experience with GSFs so I'll defer here.