If your going to have ground combat you will always land 100% of your forces on 100% of the enemy force. Then its just match matching up the two sides for losses.
Incorrect, or at least it depends per player. I certainly don't build lift capacity for my entire army, or use all of it to invade a world - garrison units remain in place on home worlds and colonies for one.
That's not what he said though... he said that you land 100% of the troops with no losses and no losses to the enemy troops in return. As long as you dealt with STO first that is. At least that is what he meant.
I agree with @plasticpanzer on the main concept that ground combat is too deterministic. Technology is also in my opinion given a bit too high effect in combat. Everyone will have to pay the same for their troops and technology will essentially increase your chances to win in an almost squared rate.
In my opinion there are several more elegant ways you can make ground combat more deep. Right now I fear that ground combat is mainly complex with little depth too it. We simply need to add depth to the combat model while not adding more complexity. Something that does not also mean tons of work for Steve to implement.
In general I'm fine with ground combat being abstracted. STO being able to shoot on anything in orbit is also abstracted as things in orbit will orbit so it will eventually be in range of guns no matter what. I think that all ground to space related matters should be done in 8 hour cycles for example because then there is no real issue with when a target is in view or not in terms of line of sight, it is all calculated into the chances to hit etc.
I certainly would like ground combat to simulate what it actually is, planetary scale wars. In some cases it will just be some outpost base with a small garrison and the fight might be over in a day or two. But if you invade a planet with 400 million people with cities and a built up infrastructure it will be a huge undertaking and very difficult for any attacker and it would take allot of time. Of course it also will depend on how willing you are to damage the infrastructure and kill the inhabitants in the process... but I want the choice to decide how brutal I want my invasions to be. From a role-play perspective this is important to me.
I could care less of some people just complain that why don't you always be max brutal as that waste less resources overall and min/max the game, for me that is not what the game is about. I care about the attitudes of the people inhabiting the world.
Perhaps the invading Warlord have been promised this new world as his own land to govern... he rather sacrifice his own soldiers life than damaging the infrastructure and wealth of the planet. There are no such thing that the game can ever really model in any real sens... but it make total sense for the people in charge and why they make the decisions they do. This warlord does not care that simply crush the enemy faster by destroying half the planet is more "efficient" from a "game" perspective.
I want a "better" ground combat simulation that simply is less deterministic and to some extent look at how large a colony is, and how large the planetoid is, how big the forces is and we might get a series of small pitched battles or might get a long drawn out war. We should be able to set the goal of any attack and how willing we are to damage the property of the planet and how civilians are to be handled during the war. These goals also could be changed during a war as other things surrounding a a war change too.
The amount of time that each ground combat round take should not be set to only 8 hours, this should in my opinion be the highest mode of intensity of any ground combat. The higher the intensity the more logistical cost the war should have. Intensity should go from 8 hours to perhaps 5 days between ground combat rounds. You also could throw in some special events into combat that could service as a mechanic for resistance movements and asymmetric warfare.
A defender should be able to use a some or even all their forces in a special field position called asymmetrical or guerrilla line or something. They will now have a really tine width and perhaps be 10% harder to hit but they will generate guerrilla events that mainly effect enemy troop morale and if you are lucky can do some serious damage too. Sure... using guerrilla tactic in a barren moon with next to no infrastructure would be suicide...
...but in a mountainous jungle planet with 500m people and a very dense infrastructure they would have a field day and be VERY effective. An enemy that does not choose to be very ruthless probably will stand almost no chance of winning unless they are VERY patient and can win the population support rather than combat the troops there.
Something that can simulate such things would probably be much less work as it is still abstracted, but would add depth to a the combat mechanic.
My current assessment of the ground combat is that it is mainly is complex with fairly low depth.
