Author Topic: C# Ground Combat  (Read 2599 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hazard

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2018, 08:42:44 AM »
You will be able to base fighters at planets using maintenance facilities. However, I may add some form of airbase as well.

This should probably be a ground unit similar to one of the larger HQs in size.

As far as you want. There are unlimited army ranks now and nine different HQ sizes.

This means that effectively there are 9 ranks. It'd be nice if we had an option like with naval forces for there to be an administrative command system.


It'd probably be better if the bombardment weapons used munitions, but with the 'chance of failure' system for shipboard weapons that's sort of covered anyway.

Actually, regarding the possibility of weapons mounts needing to be taken offline for repairs/maintenance due to wear and tear when firing, right now we've got 3 shipboard systems that can explode when damaged; magazines (which get tech to lower the chance of catastrophic explosions), engines and power plants. There's a lot of power in an energy weapon's capacitors; if the weapon refuses to fire after charging or is damaged while charging that energy could do a lot of damage to the ship as it discharges. Of course, it's not a coherent energy weapon, but still.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2018, 09:05:29 AM »
I think that any ground based airfield should be more expensive and less wieldy than a space based hanger (which really just has to be a hanger, a hole in the mothership/station whereas airfields need more extensive facilities) and it'd mean they wouldn't just be an outright superior alternative to carriers even on defense, but a place to park atmospheric aircraft if you can't use carriers (eg. due to lack of space superiority) so that you can have fighter cover. The reason why I'd prefer it be a building or something is that it would make them difficult to use on the offense, meaning that functional carriers would still be an essential part of your force if you wanted fighter cover during an attack. I don't think they should just be droppable on a planet and immediately deployed ready to recieve fighters, I feel like that would take away from the utility of having a proper strike carrier force.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6655
  • Thanked: 1053 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2018, 10:24:50 AM »
This means that effectively there are 9 ranks. It'd be nice if we had an option like with naval forces for there to be an administrative command system.

There are 9 HQ 'components' but you can have more than 9 ranks if you wish because you can use the same components for different units at multiple levels. It is up to you to define your own command structure. That being said, it probably isn't necessary to have more than six or seven. The HQ system is the equivalent of the naval admin command system.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 909
  • Thanked: 26 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2018, 01:16:05 AM »
Pods can also be assigned to normal box launchers, so a fighter designed for space combat can also be used for ground combat in an emergency.

So this means you will be able to assign an autocannon pod to a box launcher? That's going to feel pretty weird.

I also second what others have wrote, that it does feel off if you won't need any resupply of munitions for air bombardment. I mean I do understand that we don't want to have to keep track different calibers of autocannon shells / ground bombs, but at least having them using same generic Supply to rearm like the ground forces will would solve that.
 

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2018, 08:44:16 AM »
How does this overhaul address the effectively Lanchesterian nature of most sci-fi 4x ground combat? So far I'm sceptical of how these changes will shift away from the mostly arithmetic formula of ground combat in these games where whoever has more stuff always wins. Even with cute things like unit counters, aircraft, and the enhanced defenders advantage, it still seems like it'll be... well, almost the same as VB6 in practice.
... Only now, with the terrain changes, it looks like it'll be harder for me to cut down most of the time and resources I'd waste trying to fight a setpiece battle. Can I still just bring a minimal army and make up the difference with orbital bombardment like in VB6, or are we gonna be more or less forced down the (frankly for me, un-fun) attrition road no matter what?
Aurora4x Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/Q5ryqdW

Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's black revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 767
  • Thanked: 35 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2018, 09:25:52 AM »
You can still nuke the planet to get rid of the defenders. Orbital bombardment is actually more effective now that you can use beam weapons and forward fire controllers to target it.
 

Offline Profugo Barbatus

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2018, 05:26:46 PM »
In fact, orbital bombardment might even give a new use for reduced sized lasers.  With ground combat ticks being in the 5 minute range if I recall, a laser that takes 2-5 minutes to recharge is still perfectly viable, and you would be able to carry a fair number of them on warships.  Low caliber since planetary range doesn't matter, low recharge since you've got the time, they would be small and lethal even after factoring in the extra reactor draw.

Wonder if we can use Gauss weapons, even.  You'd get some literal steel rain going on there. 
 

Offline Dr. Toboggan

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2018, 06:18:01 PM »
Is there any possibility of special forces/covert ops ground units?
I think it could be interesting to have a unit that could focus on attacking enemy installations and shipyards, but only attack during the construction cycle, and have a chance of detection. 
This would give a use for cloaked ships, which could enter enemy systems undetected and deploy these units on enemy colonies.
As it stands now, combat in Aurora is focused on decisive fleet-on-fleet/army-on-army battles, and this could give an alternative way of inflicting damage prior to the arrival of the main invasion force. 
Alternatively, there could be a more battlefield oriented role, where they target logistics/static units, but have a chance to be revealed and fight on the front line.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2018, 08:39:39 AM »
Is there any possibility of special forces/covert ops ground units?
I think it could be interesting to have a unit that could focus on attacking enemy installations and shipyards, but only attack during the construction cycle, and have a chance of detection. 
This would give a use for cloaked ships, which could enter enemy systems undetected and deploy these units on enemy colonies.
As it stands now, combat in Aurora is focused on decisive fleet-on-fleet/army-on-army battles, and this could give an alternative way of inflicting damage prior to the arrival of the main invasion force. 
Alternatively, there could be a more battlefield oriented role, where they target logistics/static units, but have a chance to be revealed and fight on the front line.
Is it actually possible to get into orbit of a developed planet undetected with the current stealth system? I know stealth reduces detection range but we're talking about avoiding detection at zero range against deep space tracking stations. Can you get your TCS down to zero?
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 423
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2018, 11:30:33 AM »
So this means you will be able to assign an autocannon pod to a box launcher? That's going to feel pretty weird.

I also second what others have wrote, that it does feel off if you won't need any resupply of munitions for air bombardment. I mean I do understand that we don't want to have to keep track different calibers of autocannon shells / ground bombs, but at least having them using same generic Supply to rearm like the ground forces will would solve that.
I thought Steve said we WOULD need to resupply.  He said the pods are ordnance and have to be manufactured and transported just like missiles.

And if you look at the design screenshot, the bombardment pod says it has 3 pods.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 10 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2018, 11:50:54 AM »
I thought Steve said we WOULD need to resupply.  He said the pods are ordnance and have to be manufactured and transported just like missiles.

And if you look at the design screenshot, the bombardment pod says it has 3 pods.

He also said they aren't expended upon use. The 3 pods are just so you can configure the loadout.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 326
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2018, 12:08:50 PM »
I believe the decision was that they'd use fuel, not ammo (and with the fuel consumption of fighters and the timescale of ground combat, that could add up fast).

If it helps, you could always flavor it as an auto-laser cannon.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6655
  • Thanked: 1053 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2018, 12:56:52 PM »
Pods won't be expended, so you will need to carry enough for a single loadout. If you want more flexibility you need multiple pods to support different loadouts.

Fighters already have maintenance requirements (maintenance facilities or hangars, plus maintenance supplies) so they won't need additional maintenance during combat. Ground units outside combat will require wealth but no consumable supplies or basing. I still haven't finalised ground unit in-combat logistics.

I know pods in box launchers seems a little odd but it provides a non-efficient way for space fighters to contribute to close air support. Having said that, it probably won't be common because even light-weight pods are likely to be size 8 or more.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 326
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2018, 01:39:30 PM »
I know pods in box launchers seems a little odd but it provides a non-efficient way for space fighters to contribute to close air support. Having said that, it probably won't be common because even light-weight pods are likely to be size 8 or more.

Hum. If this is true, any chance of letting pods be used over multiple box launchers (so that, say, 2 size 4 box launchers could fit 1 pod). I don't mind the 3x space penalty, but I don't think many people use size 8+ missiles on fighters.
 

Offline Profugo Barbatus

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2018, 08:31:48 PM »
The Missile changes that happened earlier may make larger, proper torpedo style weapons more popular. Add on the need for large launchers for support pods, and they become even more appealing. I don't see much of a problem there.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52