Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by Bremen on October 17, 2018, 01:45:00 PM »
I'm comfortable with the STO ground units being one unit just for simplicity purposes. My main concern is if you start adding things like ECCM and active sensors they might get too big to be practical, but that will have to be seen I think.
12
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by Garfunkel on October 17, 2018, 01:04:29 PM »
Modern AAA/SAM systems are mobile and, as others pointed out, mounted on multiple vehicles. Generally there are 1-3 weapon platforms, 1-3 loader platforms (for missile systems, for cannon systems there are 1-2 ammunition vehicles), a fire control vehicle, and a support/mechanic vehicle. These systems rely on external other units to provide up-to-date area surveillance information, which can also be mobile, so you could add a search radar vehicle to the total count. Similarly, for Theatre Ballistic Missiles and Artillery Missiles, the systems are roughly similar: you have multiple launch vehicles, equal number of loader vehicles, and a command & control vehicle, plus supply/support vehicles.

I don't know how feasible it would be to code something like this in C# Aurora. Once you design an ground-based STO weapon, the game automatically creates a unit that includes reactor vehicle, gauss cannon vehicle, beam fire control vehicle, and then the player can adjust their numbers for that unit? Or just design each vehicle separately and group them together, like any other ground unit? How would that fit together with static units, do they need separate components as well? Can the game easily check that all necessary components/vehicles are in a unit, without creating undue memory/CPU usage?

On one hand, being able to put ship component to vehicles would neatly sidestep any special rules issues like we had with PDCs. But I don't know how "bad" it would be under the hood, and I've understood that Steve's one priority for C# has been to streamline the code and make it more uniform, ie as few special cases as possible.
13
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Hazard on October 17, 2018, 11:02:37 AM »
It has always been difficult to fight against an enemy that has no uniform, nor needs to defend any particular ground.

This is true today, it'll be true tomorrow and it has been true in history.

Historically that has been fought either through law enforcement efforts or flat out genocide. The only way to fight such an enemy is by denying them anything to hide behind, and you can do that by convincing the general population that they're better served ratting them out, or by ensuring there's no general population left to support them.

The gun has not really changed this fact. A war still needs the resources to pursue that war.

The only thing that has changed in this equation is that people in general have grown less tolerant of genocide and similar tactics to pursue the conclusion of an asymmetrical war.
14
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by Whitecold on October 17, 2018, 09:20:17 AM »
In fact that could be a tech line - vehicle payload - that would have to be incorporated into mobile ground versions of naval components.  I would recommend the size/cost of the vehicle scale non-linearly with payload (e.g. payload^1.5) to represent the fact that (probably) a single 100 ton dumptruck is more than 10x the size/cost of ten 10 ton dumptrucks.

This would be inconsistent with how size efficiency works for all other purposes. We wouldn't have larger Trucks, Container Ships or Airplanes IRL if there was no benefit in doing so, like increased payload per investment or reduced running cost per payload.

A truck/ship/plane that's twice as long in all directions have 4 times the surface area ( resistance from air/sea/ground ) and 8 times as much volume. ( Very simplified but basic physics go in this direction ).

The formulas in Aurora are similar, larger engines or ships are more efficient than smaller ones on a per ton basis.
The real limit on ground vehicles is usually the weight limit of bridges, as well as the size of tunnels, roads and railcars. Also, STO are all static mounts, so for transport they are broken down into parts which would likely be either their own specialty vehicles or fit onto standard trucks. You would have a fire control vehicle, generators fitting into containers that power a laser in a container, which then feeds the mirror turrets on their own platforms.
There is no need to build everything into a monolithic platform on the ground, especially when you want to set it up in cramped underground bunkers.
15
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by alex_brunius on October 17, 2018, 08:42:24 AM »
In fact that could be a tech line - vehicle payload - that would have to be incorporated into mobile ground versions of naval components.  I would recommend the size/cost of the vehicle scale non-linearly with payload (e.g. payload^1.5) to represent the fact that (probably) a single 100 ton dumptruck is more than 10x the size/cost of ten 10 ton dumptrucks.

This would be inconsistent with how size efficiency works for all other purposes. We wouldn't have larger Trucks, Container Ships or Airplanes IRL if there was no benefit in doing so, like increased payload per investment or reduced running cost per payload.

A truck/ship/plane that's twice as long in all directions have 4 times the surface area ( resistance from air/sea/ground ) and 8 times as much volume. ( Very simplified but basic physics go in this direction ).

The formulas in Aurora are similar, larger engines or ships are more efficient than smaller ones on a per ton basis.
16
C# Aurora / Re: STO Operations
« Last post by sloanjh on October 17, 2018, 08:07:53 AM »
Two comments:

Yes, you make an interesting point. I started with the relatively simply idea of a weapon on the ground that could shoot into space. Then I added reactors, then fire control, then active sensors and I will probably need ECCM too. It is is becoming more detailed.

[SNIP]

One option I considered was to design a 'weapon mount' using the ship class design interface and make that an option for mounting on STO units. The formation element could then be a single ship with multiple weapons and fire controls, or a ground unit, depending on the context. That could then appear on the naval combat window. However, I am heading back down the PDC route then and would face the question of why other ship systems can't be in ground units. Currently STO is similar to CIWS in that it is an integrated system where design is automated. Also, it isn't completely straightforward in terms of integration with the naval combat window. BTW I know that isn't quite what you are suggesting - just a different way I could utilise existing code and mechanics.

I know you know that isn't quite what I'm suggesting, but for avoidance of doubt (to much contract-reading lately :) ):

I think the difference here is "why do all the systems need to be on a single vehicle"?  If you just have the concept of how many tons a vehicle can carry, then the components can be distributed.  In fact that could be a tech line - vehicle payload - that would have to be incorporated into mobile ground versions of naval components.  I would recommend the size/cost of the vehicle scale non-linearly with payload (e.g. payload^1.5) to represent the fact that (probably) a single 100 ton dumptruck is more than 10x the size/cost of ten 10 ton dumptrucks.  Or maybe the techline simply has a maximum size.  This dovetails nicely with your "weapons mount" idea - it morphs into "static ground fitting" (which might have zero cost/mass, since it's already built into the component) and "mobile ground fitting" which is the vehicle chassis.  This also fits well with modern AA missile units - I believe theirs typically a launcher vehicle, separate radar/fire control vehicle, separate command truck, reload truck etc., some/most of which are specially designed units.

As for "why can't other ship systems be in ground units" - let them (by default)!  You can restrict which system types have ground versions through the tech design window, and from a technobabble point of view if they want to put something on a truck or on the ground they can do so - if it doesn't make sense then it just gives them no value in gameplay.  In particular, I think ground-based missile launchers should be allowed, and let the chips fall where they will (in terms of balance).  I'm putting this in the same category as fighter weapons - this is a core physics consistency issue, and once the door is open to forbidding ground systems because of balance then it opens up a host of other decisions about every other component.

Quote
The automated route I am currently heading down presents the player with a list of his STO elements and requests targeting type and the number of weapons per target. This will be acted upon in normal naval combat to generate the combat results. It should not be difficult to code and maintain the distinction between ground and ship in this scenario. I already have PD code which picks up the ground-based CIWS and could be easily adapted to STO-PD weapons. The STO vs ships is also straightforward with the automated targeting. This keeps the ground units distinct and relatively simple while giving them a real role in naval combat.

I think the area where your solution creates the greatest benefit is for manual targeting. I am bouncing back and forth on whether to implement this in addition to the automated targeting. In that case, I probably could add an interface to the ground unit that effectively creates a 'fire control' object that can display on the naval combat window.

I'm also advocating that if there's an automated mode for ground units, there should be one for ships.  If they're following the same mechanics this should be easy.

Gotta run to work :)

John
17
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Jorgen_CAB on October 17, 2018, 05:57:41 AM »
A suggestion on the ground combat:

Population could contribute some troops/strength as well, depending on the loyalty and happiness of the planet.  A planet that loves its empire will have many patriotic citizens taking up arms themselves to help fend off the invaders, while a planet that already hates the ruling empire might even aid the invaders in getting captured.

The 19th century was the time when conscription ruled, and it was all about who could get the most men into the field, but since then, total manpower became less and less important compared to the amount of weapons you can afford, which is why we have many more professional armies again.
In Aurora the cost of equipment and weapons is likely only to rise, and the value of people without the proper equipment and the proper training to use it will fall.
Loyalty might matter in how easy it is to pacify a planet, but generally I'd consider the value of untrained volunteers nil, and if you do want to train a militia, you can spam large quantities of PWL equipped light infantry to fit the bill.

True... but increase in weapon power have also shown that asymmetric warfare have become way more dangerous as well. In fact asymmetric warfare are extremely dangerous today, what if they could be supplied things like nukes and the like. Just the introduction of the regular gun with its ease of use and lethality have shown how powerful or difficult it is to fight an enemy that have no uniform and defend no particular ground, tanks are virtually useless as are air-force and the like.

I think Aurora could simulate asymmetric warfare as well as regular warfare since they are both equally important.

Problem with asymmetric warfare is that it is purely a political, cultural or ethical driven and you can only defend against it with force and fight it with soft methods.

Aurora currently only deal with conventional warfare. The more powerful weapons get the more dangerous asymmetric warfare will become.
18
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by alex_brunius on October 17, 2018, 05:55:32 AM »
The 19th century was the time when conscription ruled, and it was all about who could get the most men into the field, but since then, total manpower became less and less important compared to the amount of weapons you can afford, which is why we have many more professional armies again.

Isn't that just because there have been very few straight up actual wars between large modern forces of similar powers?

I mean sure you can point to things like Desert Storm or the 2003 Invasion of Iraq but desert warfare is a bit special and tend to disproportionately favoring the side with a technological edge and air-supremacy, since there is nowhere to hide.

I don't think the Modern US forces would have done equally well if they had to go back into the jungles in Vietnam for example and fight man to man against an enemy that for all intents and purposes can afford to arm somewhere in the ballpark of 100-1000 men for the same $ price as getting a single US soldier there costs. And this holds true pretty much no matter how advanced weapons or how much firepower you have. The limitation isn't in either firepower, range or accuracy of weapons if you will be fighting close range combat in low visibility conditions.

The combat ability of untrained men also depends greatly on morale and motivation. If your fighting in defense of your home for the survival of your race against alien slime scum your probably a bit more motivated than if your fighting for a corrupt middle eastern dictator that hides in a bunker and expects you to die so he can conquer more oil and become even richer.
19
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Whitecold on October 17, 2018, 04:03:10 AM »
A suggestion on the ground combat:

Population could contribute some troops/strength as well, depending on the loyalty and happiness of the planet.  A planet that loves its empire will have many patriotic citizens taking up arms themselves to help fend off the invaders, while a planet that already hates the ruling empire might even aid the invaders in getting captured.

The 19th century was the time when conscription ruled, and it was all about who could get the most men into the field, but since then, total manpower became less and less important compared to the amount of weapons you can afford, which is why we have many more professional armies again.
In Aurora the cost of equipment and weapons is likely only to rise, and the value of people without the proper equipment and the proper training to use it will fall.
Loyalty might matter in how easy it is to pacify a planet, but generally I'd consider the value of untrained volunteers nil, and if you do want to train a militia, you can spam large quantities of PWL equipped light infantry to fit the bill.
20
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by amram on October 17, 2018, 02:35:21 AM »
Quote from: Ranged66
A suggestion on the ground combat:

Population could contribute some troops/strength as well. . . snip. . .
I would tend to agree that some of the citizenry would volunteer if it seemed to them there was a need to.   

A few questions come to mind if we consider the citizenry rising up to join the fight:
  • Can they leave the infrastructure that supports them in hostile environments to go fight?
  • Are they self armed in entirety, or to some percentage?
    • If not self armed, can the soldiers arm them and if so, how many guns can they distribute? Presumably 100k soldiers do not have enough guns to arm 4 million volunteers.   You have probably already lost the orbitals so good luck shipping in more guns before the fight is over.
    • If they are self armed, do all civilians possess a gun or only some fraction.  Does the fraction that volunteer apply only to the armed percentage, or the total population yielding both armed and unarmed volunteers
    • What value, if any, might unarmed volunteers hold?  Some bonus to recovery/replacement rates for lost personnel?
  • Should player government and/or commander traits and/or administrator traits be used to influence the expectation/willingness to accept/seek out volunteers?
  • Is there a limit to how many will be useful at any given task?  Absurd example, 1 million civvies trying to do the work that was done by 100 personnel will probably get nothing done, just get in each other's way.
    • Is there a tipping point?  Seems reasonable that while too many would be detrimental, too few would benefit from adding some more.
    • Are there any roles they might be a viable substitute?  Seems plausible that for any such role, while too few and too many both don't get enough done, the optimal quantity might also not get enough done.
  • Should they be affected by research as if they were a ground force unit?  I would think yes, today we can buy guns far better than we could have in the 1800's, research tends to advance what we can obtain.
  • Can they leave the infrastructure to venture out into the hostile atmosphere to be resistance fighters?
    • If not, you won't be doing much resisting staying bottled up in the domes
    • If you can leave the dome to resist, how likely are people to resist knowing the hostiles can simply vent every dome they encounter and let your supplies run out to end you.
    • If its a breathable atmosphere, then resistance in any taken populated areas seems plausible.   Outright combat or just a modifier to efficiencies?
  • Is there really a point where the civvies would be so disloyal as to turn on you?
    • The grass would have to be known, not thought, but known to be greener on the other side of the fence before they turn on you.   Wealthier, benevolent, and have treated conquered planets well already?  The civvies might just try to trade you in for a better life.
    • xenophobia, biological/environmental compatibility, and ability to even communicate is likely to be a factor.   Even if the grass is greener, do they leave the planet suitable for you, or terraform it to them and leave you restricted to infrastructure in perpetuity?
    • if you know the grass is definitely greener right here, then its a choice between helping and apathy, not rebellion.   If the invaders are known to mistreat the conquered, apathy is less likely, if they are known to exterminate it seems absurd, and in both cases, rebellion/assisting the invaders seems incredibly unlikely.

Perhaps none of that matters at all and it all simply hides behind abstractions, and you get 'given' a number of civilian combat units presumed to have equal traits but lesser abilities than standard soldiers, at the cost of some population loss, and what you do with them is up to you.   Presumably once the battle is over any surviving volunteers auto disband and rejoin the population.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10