Suggestions Thread for v2.4.0

[Elminster]

-Officers rescued from life pods are not automatically unloaded when the Unload Survivors order completes at a population. My suggestion is that the Unload Survivors order also unloads any unassigned officers that are onboard a ship. Alternatively, an "Unload Unassigned Officers" order be available to ships that have unassigned officers onboard.

I think you can use the "drop off commander" order to unload any rescued officers, but you are presented with a list of all ship commanders in the fleet, which can be a lot. Perhaps some highlighting of unassigned officers would be in order, if that would be simpler to implement than dropping off unassigned officers.

Yes, this is my issue with the Drop Off Commander order. If Drop off commander highlighted unassigned officers, that would be fine too in my opinion.

So I would go one step further, and suggest that (all) survivors should automatically be unloaded at the first colony the ship enters orbit.

The whereabouts of personnel within the colonies is irrelevant, so it doesn't matter where they are actually unloaded.
In previous games I often forgot about survivors, because once the ship is in orbit of a colony the overcrowd isn't a problem anymore. That lead to survivors living several years aboard the rescuing ship. Until the ship gets new orders, and out of a sudden it has problems with overcrowd.

[AlStar]

Not sure if this falls under a suggestion or a bug report; but could we get consistent aspect ratios on flags between different screens?

On the Race screen, the flag is displayed at 300 x 175; but on the Intelligence screen, it's only 230 x 175. This leads to flags that are either squished in the intelligence window, or stretched on the Race screen. Aesthetically, it would be better if they were the same.

[ExecCrawfish]

I'd love to have a memorial screen for ships; a tab somewhere in the naval organization screen that would show the history and combat rating data for lost ships.  I don't think this would be as unwieldy as saving officer data, so it might be alright to have older records not auto-deleted. 

[Garfunkel]

Even better, save that data to a different file that is only loaded on request.

[deathpickle]

any chance you can increase the amount of static defenses (machine-gun bunkers?) the ai builds? The other suggestions are more demanding.

if you ever do plan on taking another go at ground-forces balance, I have idea for an entire new feature. The problem I'm thinking to solve, is that machine-guns are too much better than personal weapons. I'm trying to think how to change the balance, such that personal weapons become the primary infantry weapon, with machine-guns performing a supporting role. The idea is that weapons get bonuses vs target formations, depending on if they are on frontline attack, defense, support, or whatever. So infantry/static machine guns shoot 6 shots when attacking any formation that is on frontline-attack, but only 3 shots when targeting something on frontline defense, or anything else. Note 3 shots is 20% more DPS than normal infantry, but infantry can tank 2.5x more. Vehicles would use a new separate mounted machine gun that shoots 6 always, so they're just as effective vs infantry as always (but of course, just as counterable by anti-tank.)

The second problem I wanted to solve, is artillery. Basically, front line being the shield, and backline being the cannon is the most fun dynamic way for things to be, because you can't just have artillery, you need a frontline to balance them out. Effectively this means there needs to be a situation where light bombardment (like your automatic grenade launchers and mortars and stuff) is the most cost effective way to kill infantry, straight up better than either machineguns, or personal weapons. That way your front lines are more willing to trade offense for defense, so you can have more artillery, and the game is much more about maximizing your back line. That incentivizes armies to use frontline attack and counter-battery fire to kill the precious backline! which incentivizes a beefier frontline with machineguns and anti tank use...  which puts everything in balance.

The idea that hopefully can make this happen, is making bombardment weapons get hit twice as often by all units or alternatively divide their fortification by 2 (and multiply to hit by 2), but then making bombardment much, much stronger, maybe even in line with mounted machineguns if it wasn't for the squishyness. An interesting way would be to keep the number of shots they fire the same as they are now, but do 2.5x their hit chance specifically vs infantry. The logic is its an explosion with a wide kill radius vs infantry, but requires a direct hit to be effective vs vehicles and structures. It needs to be strong enough that it is more cost effective at killing a front line than the front line units, but so cost ineffective defensively that it can't replace the front line units. Personally, I think all artillery (and pod bombardment) should be balanced around this, with the anti-infantry effect becoming more and more pronounced, not just light artillery. I have no idea what the exact right numbers would be.

and just throwing it out there, itd be nice if autocannons were buffed. And again, if you don't plan on doing any of this, it would still be nice for the ai to build more static defenses

[AlStar]

As far as ground combat goes, I'd just like aircraft to be moved from individually built tiny spaceships to just being a different type of ground unit.

The benefits of the tiny spaceship approach do not in any way offset the massive increase in micromanagement needed to effectively use them over regular forces.

[Ulzgoroth]

As far as ground combat goes, I'd just like aircraft to be moved from individually built tiny spaceships to just being a different type of ground unit.

The benefits of the tiny spaceship approach do not in any way offset the massive increase in micromanagement needed to effectively use them over regular forces.

Would an auto-allocate for air support maybe mitigate the problem without changing the architecture?

[nuclearslurpee]

As far as ground combat goes, I'd just like aircraft to be moved from individually built tiny spaceships to just being a different type of ground unit.

The benefits of the tiny spaceship approach do not in any way offset the massive increase in micromanagement needed to effectively use them over regular forces.

Would an auto-allocate for air support maybe mitigate the problem without changing the architecture?

It would help somewhat, but it wouldn't alleviate the sheer number of fighters you need to build and manage, nor would it solve the other pressing balance and mechanical problems.

[Garfunkel]

any chance you can increase the amount of static defenses (machine-gun bunkers?) the ai builds?

Agreed, any more variety for AI ground force builds would be good.

if you ever do plan on taking another go at ground-forces balance, I have idea for an entire new feature. The problem I'm thinking to solve, is that machine-guns are too much better than personal weapons.

I disagree. They are more lethal, for sure, but there is a cost to be paid for that in increased tonnage and increased GSP use. That cost is IMHO about right currently.

I'm trying to think how to change the balance, such that personal weapons become the primary infantry weapon, with machine-guns performing a supporting role.

You sound like French generals in WW1 and the interwar period. In reality, the machine gun in its various iterations has arguably been the primary infantry weapon since late-WW1 and most certainly so from WW2. The Germans built their infantry squads around the MG-34/42 and the riflemen were there just to support it. Eventually everyone else copied them to some extent. Yes, the introduction of assault rifles, ie automatic rifles shooting an intermediate cartridge that were affordable enough to equip every infantry soldier, seemed to change things but I would not go so far as to claim that the rifle is the primary weapon and the MG is the supporting weapon. This is an illusion conjured by the recent Anglo-American experiences. In other words, Afghanistan and Iraq massively distorted the understanding of war in both the US and in Britain. Yes, MGs were largely support weapons when 99% of combat is patrol and search missions in counter-insurgency operations among civilian populations. If you look at Ukraine, you'll see that the MG is the king of the battlefield, with artillery and drones coming up close seconds. There the assault rifle is just a support weapon, used only if other, more effective, weapons are not available.

And while I don't that Aurora should be a 100% realism-based game - far from it with our space mechanics and TN-minerals and all that jazz - I also do not want it to become one of those strategy games where the misguided search for 'balance' leads to yet another boring rock-scissors-paper game that is completely divorced from reality.

The second problem I wanted to solve, is artillery. Basically, front line being the shield, and backline being the cannon is the most fun dynamic way for things to be,

I disagree. Obviously the most fun and dynamic way for things to be is to have Godzilla and King Kong fight each other, with the 50-foot-tall woman as a surprise entrant to make it a 3-way fight.  I'm exaggerating for comedic effect but you really shouldn't make such blanket claims. They are just silly.

And also, artillery is lethal but it isn't THAT lethal. The vast majority of casualties from artillery happen in the first 10 seconds of bombardment. No matter how much you shell someplace, most of the time doing it is wasted because the target takes cover. Even without trenches and bunkers, just lying down cuts down casualties by 80% and digging fox holes pumps that up to 90%. Air-burst shells change the situation a little bit but not massively so. Once proper fortifications are present, the number of shells required to kill even a single soldier jump by an order of magnitude. Or two. This topic has been researched massively by literally every first world army in the world, which is why everyone is moving from lot of dumb artillery to few pieces of smart artillery. And drones, of course. It's the same for air power as well. One smart bomb that can reliably hit its target is worth more than fifty dumb bombs, all of which are far more likely to just rearrange local farmlands than hit the enemy command post you were targeting.

So no, I don't think that the current ground combat mechanics need to be changed to solve a problem that does not really exist, especially by promoting ideas that are unrealistic and promote rock-scissors-paper gameplay where you have to have X and Y and Z, while running the risk of distilling all the flavour out of it.

[nuclearslurpee]

if you ever do plan on taking another go at ground-forces balance, I have idea for an entire new feature. The problem I'm thinking to solve, is that machine-guns are too much better than personal weapons.

I disagree. They are more lethal, for sure, but there is a cost to be paid for that in increased tonnage and increased GSP use. That cost is IMHO about right currently.

To second this and expand: CAP is the most lethal against unarmored infantry, there is no contest here. However, CAP is much worse against armored units - not only because of the weapon damage and penetration, but more so because it is larger (12 tons vs 5 for PW), thus a group of CAP is easier for armored forces to chew through and reduce so they can more easily target your anti-armor units. This depends on your force composition but generally will hold up, basic PW infantry (or PWL if you go all-in on the meatshield role) is better for absorbing fire.

So no, I don't think that the current ground combat mechanics need to be changed to solve a problem that does not really exist, especially by promoting ideas that are unrealistic and promote rock-scissors-paper gameplay where you have to have X and Y and Z, while running the risk of distilling all the flavour out of it.

And equally as importantly, it is important to recognize that the current ground combat system, due to its relative simplicity, does an excellent job of supporting roleplay. While it may not be "realistic", a player may create a WH40K Imperial Guard regiment, a BattleTech 'Mech regiment, or a WWI-era infantry regiment, and all of these forces will perform reasonably well on the battlefield. You can argue that "realism" dictates that a modern force structure (with TN weapons, of course) utilizing combined arms doctrine should wipe the floor with these silly and/or outdated fantasy/historical formations, and if you make that argument you are not invited to my Aurora parties anymore because the "realistic" way is simply not as much fun. 

[Kristover]

As far as ground combat goes, I'd just like aircraft to be moved from individually built tiny spaceships to just being a different type of ground unit.

The benefits of the tiny spaceship approach do not in any way offset the massive increase in micromanagement needed to effectively use them over regular forces.

I have been saying his for awhile that I think the idea of atmospheric air forces should be handled within the existing system as a capability with the AA component acting as a counter.  Also migrate the ground support skill over to ground commanders.

I really like the idea of what Steve was trying to accomplish with ground support fighters but right now I think the implementation of it really isn't fun.  The whole ground combat system exists as an operational/strategic level kind of game but then we have GSFs which are kind of a bolt-on interface with one foot in the space game and one in the ground game.  Every time I start a new game I try to work GSFs in but I always end up giving up because it is too much micromanagement and doesn't really effect the course of ground fighting very much at all. 

I'm not throwing darts at the game design here, I love Aurora and derive a lot of pleasure from it but I do think this is one misfire in what is otherwise a dream game for me. 

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Yes, I will redo the 'air' component of ground combat at some point, probably by introducing a new ground unit type to represent helicopters / attack aircraft / fighter etc.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

And equally as importantly, it is important to recognize that the current ground combat system, due to its relative simplicity, does an excellent job of supporting roleplay. While it may not be "realistic", a player may create a WH40K Imperial Guard regiment, a BattleTech 'Mech regiment, or a WWI-era infantry regiment, and all of these forces will perform reasonably well on the battlefield.

Yes, this was the primary goal of the new ground combat system.

[LuuBluum]

Yes, I will redo the 'air' component of ground combat at some point, probably by introducing a new ground unit type to represent helicopters / attack aircraft / fighter etc.

And now you have given me a reason to wait until starting the campaign that I want to do, since that sounds fantastic and I would not want to play without it.

[Kristover]

Yes, I will redo the 'air' component of ground combat at some point, probably by introducing a new ground unit type to represent helicopters / attack aircraft / fighter etc.

Thanks and apologies if I came across a pointedly critical.  I can't/don't code and I'm getting this product for free - given the amount of enjoyment I have received from it I would have paid 100USD+ for it without blinking.  I really like the current ground system and feel it is the right amount of abstraction and supports a wide range of head canon.  I really like the idea of atmospheric/aerospace play at the current level of ground combat abstraction.