Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 448662 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1800 on: September 25, 2018, 04:11:15 AM »
In my opinion it will be about a good mix of speed, ECM and armour for bringing troops to the ground.

If you build your Assault carriers properly they would enter into the combat zone and drop off the invading drop ship roughly half way and retreat back out to safety. Your drops ships would use high enough speed to avoid most slow firing heavy weapons and good enough armour to withstand the shooting of the smaller faster weapons. You will likely suffer some losses but that should be expected against a well fortified world.

I hope we will see things like missile silos/bases that can be used from the ground against ships in space as well as ground to space cannons. But there should be some advantages to bases in space as to having them on the ground or you will never build military space stations around populated planets.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1801 on: September 25, 2018, 04:17:42 AM »
Now I'm wondering how practical a 500ton fighter with both drop pods and weapon pods would be. Drop the troops off and then stick around providing fire support. Sort of like a Mechwarrior dropship.

I wonder if there's any chance fighters will auto-deploy ground units when transitioning from space to ground support.

Such a fighter wouldn't be very practical. You'd be better off with the cheaper troop transport bays, since 500 ton fighters can land and should be able to deploy their troops fast enough. After that you've got basically a gunship/transport hybrid like the Hind. It'd probably be more effective if you used specialized fighters for the roles in question. A big, wallowing 500 ton fighter that has devoted something like a major chunk of its mass towards doing something other than it's doing now is much easier a target than 5 100 tonish fighters with more guns and armour, or a 500 ton transport that has dedicated the mass that would be a gunship's weapons to armour instead.

Speed alone doesn't allow total invincibility, but it may when coupled with ECM.

Nope, just like the speed advantage, IIRC ECM only drops the chances to hit by a percentage. You could still get hit, it's just notably less likely. Having both a speed advantage and an ECM advantage would greatly lower the chances of getting hit and destroyed though.

If and when (I believe he will at some point) Steve add a transport capability to infantry such fighter types can stay in support as a mechanised tool for manoeuvring infantry and pretty much everything on the planet. I mean the strategic and even tactical possibilities on the planet should be quite obvious to everyone. These ships should not just be about moving troops to the ground, they should be used in combat as well on the planet as support elements.

The same with planet bound vehicles for moving slower units such as infantry and static forces around.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1802 on: September 25, 2018, 05:38:14 AM »
Nope, just like the speed advantage, IIRC ECM only drops the chances to hit by a percentage. You could still get hit, it's just notably less likely. Having both a speed advantage and an ECM advantage would greatly lower the chances of getting hit and destroyed though.
ECM is subtracted, unlike pretty much every other modifier, making it quite strong, especially in regard to the new missile ECM system.

A quick calculation: Tracking speed usually corresponds to 20% of space dedicated to engine at x1 speed modifier. So 40% engine at 2.5 modifier gives you 5x tracking speed, leaving 20% hit chance. With ECM 2 you are down to 0% , and STO don't have ECCM to counter.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 12:37:09 PM by Whitecold »
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2790
  • Thanked: 1052 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1803 on: September 25, 2018, 07:40:27 AM »
I think the new system looks very good on paper. Just needs testing to make sure of the details.

Having the choice between glassing a planet, cutting it off to wither away, or committing to a massive invasion are logical and sensible choices when it comes to heavily defended worlds. Remember that such worlds well be rare - nobody will have the resources and time to fortify and garrison each colony to the maximum.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1804 on: September 25, 2018, 08:06:30 AM »
I think the new system looks very good on paper. Just needs testing to make sure of the details.

Having the choice between glassing a planet, cutting it off to wither away, or committing to a massive invasion are logical and sensible choices when it comes to heavily defended worlds. Remember that such worlds well be rare - nobody will have the resources and time to fortify and garrison each colony to the maximum.
Although one benefit of the switch from PDCs to STOs is that planetary defenses will be much more mobile in C#, so it will be easier to consolidate defense on a particular strategic system. I guess there will be a lot more decisions about whether you can ignore a fortress world at a choke point to raid deeper into enemy space, or if exposing supply and reinforcement lines like that will come back to bite you. It could be a big boost for fighters as they can take cover on such a planet. Much more difficult to side step a fortress world if you know its hiding squadrons of deep space bombers.
 

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1805 on: September 25, 2018, 02:06:02 PM »
It'd be nice if we could have some way of performing the sort of special operations mission against planetary defense cannons like there were against coastal defense cannons in previous wars. It doesn't fit the current system design for ground combat though.
Would be a nice option to have infiltrator units which can land in small cloaked ships and sabotage energy grids, so planetary defenses are off. There should be of course a chance to get detected. But if they succeed, energy would be off for something between 2 to 8 hours which could give you an edge in an initial landing of your troops.
And it should only be possible at the beginning of a fight. Not multiple times when there are already boots on the ground.

These new ground options are really nice. Will give supply runs to a sieged planet quite an importance. Although I was wondering, since there are no more PDCs will it still be possible to build bunkers? Also for minerals, fuel, etc?
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2790
  • Thanked: 1052 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1806 on: September 25, 2018, 03:52:54 PM »
You can't steal anything from a colony until it has surrendered to you. So fuel and minerals are safe. While you can't build bunkers, your defending units will fortify themselves and the planetary fortification bonus will help there too. Depending on the planet. Your construction units can even improve that fortification level.

it will be easier to consolidate defense on a particular strategic system
Yes, it will be, but it will still require some forethought. Since you need to use your troop transports to move the defending units to the planet/body in question first. So unless you knew days/weeks/months beforehand that the invasion is coming, you won't have time to ship much to the target body. Of course, it makes sense to fortify a vulnerable body beforehand if you are advancing towards known alien space, but if you don't know that. Then again, creating pre-positioned REFORGER/MEU style units at strategic locations that can be moved relatively quickly when needed is again a valid real-life strategy and seems it will work in C# Aurora since there will be more choke-points and corridors, instead of spider-webs when it comes to the Jump Point network.

Oh and your point about weighing the risks of leaving your supply route vulnerable as you bypass a fortress world gives me the idea of creating hidden fighter bases on asteroids / dwarf planets that are out of the direct lines between JPs. Put few tracking stations there, few maintenance facilities and a bunch of fighters. Rotate squadrons between the hideout and the populated planet to combat deployment time overrun if necessary. If the enemy attacks the planet, hit them from behind. If the enemy bypasses the fortress, raid their ammo/supply/fuel ships.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1807 on: September 25, 2018, 04:55:01 PM »
It should be quite easy to find good planets or rocks that give you good fortification bonuses so you can turn them into hard to conquer military bases. These can hold a few fighter squadrons to harass enemy forces... invading them will take time and energy and will allow you time to react and perhaps even come to the bases rescue in time.

There are many interesting new twist and turns with the new systems in C# Aurora... it will become really interesting what we can do and how it will all turn out.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1808 on: September 25, 2018, 06:27:36 PM »
There are such things like entertainment modules. Sure, they're 100 000 tons IIRC, but that's a shore leave facility you can plop down anywhere in C# Aurora. Combine it with civilian magazines, some maintenance modules, the Ordnance and Fuel Hubs and some Shuttle Bays and you've got an approximately 500 000 ton minimum civilian station that you can anchor in deep space for optimal back line raiding. Combine it with a stealthy high efficiency carrier to move your high thermal and electronic signature fighters around and finding that station will be a massive bother if the system's large enough.
 

Offline space dwarf

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • s
  • Posts: 42
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1809 on: September 27, 2018, 03:59:19 PM »
With regards to the latest change - I find it strange that there's no factor of area denial with ground-based anti-air units.  I'd have imagined that just the inclusion of them actively firing on fighters in the battlefield would somewhat reduce the effectiveness of their ground bombardment due to occasional evasion at the least.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1810 on: September 27, 2018, 08:01:25 PM »
On the ELINT addition... I'm already piecing together a stealth prowler with a large sensor to spy on unsuspecting populations.  ;D
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11664
  • Thanked: 20419 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1811 on: October 06, 2018, 12:55:50 PM »
I've been thinking about the ground combat some more and decided to make a couple of changes. The first is that during front-line combat, rather than each element attacking a hostile element, it is now each individual unit in a formation attacking a random hostile unit within the hostile formation (still based on relative size). This is for a couple of reasons. I don't want to discourage small elements within a formation (such as infantry MG, AA or AT) and as things stand small elements would be eliminated when a large element attacked. On the other hand, i don't want huge overkill for the attacker in that situation. Also, it seems more reasonable that a formation is based on combined arms and that tanks and infantry would attack together, not separately.

The second change is for breakthroughs. I've added a more complex version because I wanted it to be more meaningful and potentially more likely, plus provide a reason to value high morale, vehicle-focused formations on front-line attack.

The relevant new section of the rules is below. I've also updated the original post: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109786#msg109786

****************************************************************************

Once a front line formation (or a light bombardment element in the Support position) has been matched against a hostile formation, each friendly individual unit (a soldier or vehicle) in that formation engages a random element in the hostile formation, with the randomisation based on the relative size of the hostile formation elements. The targeting on an individual unit level represents that the different elements in a front line formation will generally be attacking in conjunction (infantry supporting tanks, etc.).

Once all front line attacks have been concluded, each unit in each element providing supporting bombardment will engage either the hostile formation being targeted by the friendly formation they are supporting, or one of the hostile formation's own supporting elements (counter-battery fire). If the hostile formation is targeted, each unit in the supporting artillery element engages a random element in the hostile formation, with the randomisation based on the relative size of the hostile formation elements (the same as front-line vs front-line). If a hostile supporting element is targeted, all fire is directed against that element. This represents the difference between providing supporting fire in a combined arms front-line battle and targeting specific hostile artillery for counter-battery fire. The decision to target the hostile front-line formation vs hostile support elements is based on the relative sizes.

Supporting medium artillery will choose between hostile forces in Front-Line or Support field positions (and will ignore any elements in Rear Echelon field position for purposes of relative size), while heavy artillery can select targets in any field position. In other words, if the enemy has supporting heavy artillery in a rear echelon position, you will only be able to target those elements with your own heavy artillery (or ground support fighters, or orbital bombardment support).

Once all the initial combat is complete, there is a chance for a breakthrough. Each defending formation is checked according to the following procedure:
  • A Cohesion Damage value is determined for each formation element using the following formula: Element Class Size * Units Destroyed in Combat Phase * (100 / Element Morale)
  • The total Cohesion Damage is summed for all elements in the formation and compared to the formation size. This value, from 0 to 100%, is the Formation Cohesion Rating
  • For each front line formation that attacked the defending formation, a Breakthrough Value is determined for each formation element
  • Static elements have zero Breakthrough Value. Vehicle elements use the following formula: Element Class Size * Element Units * (Element Morale / 100). Infantry elements use the same formula as vehicles with a further modifier of 0.5.
  • The total Breakthrough Value is summed for all elements in the attacking formation and compared to the formation size. The value is multiplied by 2 if the formation has a field position of Front Line Attack. This value, from 0 to 200%, is the Formation Breakthrough Rating
  • A Breakthrough Potential value is determined for the attacking formation by multiplying the defending Formation Cohesion Rating by the attacking Formation Breakthrough Rating. If this value is equal to or greater than 30%, a breakthrough has occurred for that attacking formation.
  • Each formation that creates a breakthrough mounts a second attack. This attack does not benefit from supporting artillery or fighter support. However, it functions as if the attacking formation has a field position of Front Line Attack, which means all hostile formations are potential targets, not just those on the front line.
The breakthrough rules mean that defending formations that suffer casualties may allow attacking formations to penetrate their lines and conduct a second attack. This is more likely under the following circumstances: A single defending formation is attacked by multiple attacking formations, the defender suffers a high casualty percentage in a single ground combat round (potentially because the formation is small in size), the defender suffers disproportionate casualties to elements with larger unit classes, the defender is low morale, the attacker is primarily vehicle-based, the attacker is on front-line attack, the attacker is high morale.

****************************************************************************
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1812 on: October 06, 2018, 04:51:11 PM »
Security troops for artillery is pretty much useless now, especially for heavy artillery.

Also, you want armour for your artillery that's better than their damage rating, to prevent getting counter bombarded into oblivion.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1813 on: October 06, 2018, 06:02:56 PM »
I'd suggest adding an armor multiplier into the breakthrough calculations somewhere. Since cost scales by armor, without it a unit with double the armor is half as likely to get a breakthrough than the same cost in lighter armored units. Plus it kind of makes sense that an elite, highly capable group of vehicles the enemy has trouble damaging would have an advantage in a breakthrough vs the same number of more basic units.

Or perhaps some way to scale the bonus based on enemy weapon effectiveness vs the armor. That way tanks would do well at breakthroughs against infantry if they didn't have any anti-vehicle weapons, but not so well if they had a bunch of bazookas.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1814 on: October 07, 2018, 01:29:08 PM »
This is a minor suggestion not worth its own post in the suggestions thread.

Could we perhaps change the names of the ground force command bonuses?  Some of the acronyms for them overlap.  Like GCA is for Attack, Artillery, and Anti-Air.