Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Aurora Suggestions => Topic started by: Steve Walmsley on August 21, 2016, 06:10:30 AM
-
Another considering change thread :)
I'm starting work on the new Fleet window and deciding how to structure it. I will be displaying fleets in a tree view (like populations), rather than a dropdown list, and I am going to build in some of the functionality from the current naval organisation tab. For example, you will be able to set up a hierarchy of naval 'administration' to which you attach your task groups.
You will also be able to have administrative 'sub-fleets' within a task group and be able to view the ships in that task group fleet with or without the sub fleets (so you can set up battle squadrons within a task group and see them individually or combined). A task group with admin sub-fleets will still move as a single entity. A ship will always be part of the task group but will be able to have a sub-fleet assignment too. The current 'sub-fleet' functionality will be removed.
You will be able to easily detach one of the admin sub-fleets, which will become its own task group, and I will add a 'join as sub-fleet' order so that sub-fleet can retain its identity if it rejoins the original task group.
Now the 'considering' part..
I think I may remove task forces. They are a little clumsy to manage and many of the staff officer functions aren't that useful considering the complexity involved. Also, I intend to allow more than one officer per ship (first officer, etc) so there won't be the need for lots of junior officer positions. Instead, I am considering having commanders (without staff officers) within the hierarchy of naval administration that sits above the actual task groups. The issue is exactly how they would benefit the task groups below them.
1) One option is simply that they wouldn't. Instead they would gain some experience for being in the role that would be useful when they returned to task group command.
2) They provide a portion of their skills to the TGs under their command, perhaps split by the total number of ships within that command - so more ships, less benefit per ship.
3) They provide a portion of their skills to the TGs under their command, which is fixed but they can handle a limited number of ships based on their rank - this is more complex because you would have to track that number (which is a lot of micromanagement)
4) They provide a portion of their skills to the TGs under their command but only within a certain radius of systems, based on their rank (similar to sector commanders for populations). This would entail having a fixed location for each naval admin node (this is my preference at the moment).
5) As there may be multiple levels within the naval administration, only the lowest level would benefit TGs. Higher levels would train the officers beneath them.
Another extra complexity may be to have certain types of admin commands with advantages / disadvantages. For example, a Survey admin command would benefit combat less but survey more and could have a longer reach. A logistics command would be weighted toward benefiting freighters, a 'Carrier Striking Force' admin command would have benefits for fighters, etc.
There would also be an issue of relative rank, so an 'admin commander' would not benefit a task group led by someone of higher rank.
I'm still considering exactly how to handle this so any comments and suggestions are welcome.
-
Each Squadron (corresponding to the current Task Group) could be assigned a Squadron Commander assigned to its lead ship (assigned by the player or picked by automatically according to some selection criteria). The Squadron Commander plus the Captain of each ship contribute to order response time and jump sickness delay. This might need a new skill for Squadron Maneuvers.
Officers could be given an Admin rating, and incur penalties to all their skills if they had more direct reports than their Admin rating (counting only commanders of vessels with a Bridge for his direct reports). Each vessel with a Flag Bridge would then be able to host a Task Force Commander, who could add their Admin rating to their direct reports for the purpose of determining whether they were over command limit. Same command limit mechanic would apply to them (meaning effectively that a good admiral is a good bureaucrat rather than a good captain), but they could in turn be assigned to a Sector Governor who could boost their admin limit. The flag bridge could be further populated by an operations officer, a public relations officer (bonus to PPV), a Jump Officer (reducing the scatter between individual fleet elements in a Squadron Jump), and assorted other flag staff as required.
Squadrons folded into each other via the sub-fleet mechanic discussed above would retain their command structure (i.e. just because six squadrons happen to be in the same spot does not mean that they lose their individual squadron flags).
[Edit:] Not strictly related, but it also sounds like a good place to tie with the multiple officers per vessel mechanic.
One way to do it would be to make your non-captain officers represent different departments - chief engineer, helmsman, tactical officer, etc. - which would be assigned to vessels with the relevant components.
So you'd always have a Captain and an XO, but you'd get:
- A Helmsman if you had engines
- A Chief Engineer if you had engineering bays or damage control compartments
- A Tac Officer if you had fire controls
- A Sensor Officer if you had military-grade sensors
- A Survey officer if you had survey modules
- A Hangar Control officer if you had parasite capabilities
- A Logistics Officer if you had cargo bays, troop bays, or large cryo bays
- A Production Control officer if you had industry (gate building, harvesting, asteroid mining, maintenance modules)
- A Planetary Ecologist if you had terraformers
- A Chief Security Officer if you had recreation, habitat, or luxury liner modules
Vessels with no Bridge would not get junior officers.
Mechanically, the junior officers could contribute their relevant ability to checks that are influenced by crew grade and officer skill: Targeting for the tac officer, Initiative for the helmsman, emergency repair times for the chief engineer, production and terraforming rates for the PCO and planetologist, load and discharge times for the logistics officer, and survey point generation for the survey officer (the rest would be for show for now, since those departments are not influenced by officer skill as far as I can tell).
The Captain or the XO would contribute to each skill check (so a Captain who is a brilliant tac officer but has ten thumbs can delegate engineering to their XO).
Crew Training would be modified by Captain + XO (again according to the rule of having two officers contribute to each modifier).
-
I like the fleet admin redesign, but I would like to keep the Task Force structure (i.e. commander, ops, fighter ops, survey, etc.) but maybe have it tailored for fleet composition. If the fleet is warship based then the survey slot is N/A'd, and without fighters the fighter ops slot is N/A'd. Maybe add in Terraforming to provide bonus for the various terraforming fleets roaming the vastness of space. Keeping these admin slots open allows for officers to benefit multiple ships and stacking the admin and sub admins does what Sector Governor and Governor combination does for the colonies they are assigned. The difference is the further down the chain the ship is from the admin level, the less affect that level does. (CNO, Fleet, Task Force, Task Group, Squadron, Ship) The ship would benefit more from the Squadron admin group than the CNO, but the benefits would add up and contribute in the end.
As for multiple officers on ships maybe the following, or something like it:
No bridge, just a commander
bridge adds an XO
wardroom adds division officers
The division officers could be assigned based on what components are placed on the ship. All ships would have a Navigator, Engineer, Communications Officer, and Supply Officer. Beam weapons add a Gunnery Officer. Missile Weapons adds a Tactical Officer. Damage Control adds a Damage Control officer. Sensors adds a Sensor Officer. Troop Transport Bay adds Security Officer (manned by ground forces). Survey sensors adds survey officer. Hangar Deck adds Flight Ops Officer. Etc, Etc, Etc...
Adding the Wardroom makes available the bonuses these officers would add to the performance of the ship. Also, adding the wardroom and not filling the slots that open up leads to the ship operating at less than optimum. The same for the bridge. Adding a bridge and assigning an XO benefits the ship, but not assigning an XO negatively affects the ship (counter to real life, I know ;) )
This all starts to get very manpower intensive, but we don't play this game because we like easy problems. We are in it for the details.
-
I don't mind losing the current TF organization if it is being replaced with "proper" chain of command.
I would recommend doing something similar to how Hearts of Iron 3 handles the bonuses that leaders gíve:
1. Major general gives 100% of his skill bonus to the single division he commands.
2. Lieutenant general gives 50% of his skill bonus to the corps he commands (and corps is 1-5 divisions).
3. General gives 25% of his skill bonus to the army he commands (and army is 1-5 corps).
4. Field marshall gives 12.5 % of his skill bonus to the army group he commands (and AG is 1-5 armies).
5. Finally on theater level, another field marshall gives 6.25% of his skill bonus to every unit that is attached to that theatre.
Then in addition to that, each HQ/general has a limited radio/communication range and units outside of that range lose all the bonuses from leadership. This forces players to keep their organization tidy and neat - even with a small army, you cannot group everything under as few leaders as possible because that limits the geographical range you can have. In Aurora, this would means that admin posts both are less effective the more ships are under it (or the more sub-admins it has) but it is also restricted in the number of systems it can oversee, like sector commanders.
So we could have admin posts (division commander - squadron commander - task force commander - fleet commander) and I would just love it if the system was customizable and supported a matrix style leadership function, ie make a ship part of 2 different organizations simultaneously. For example, all destroyers would belong to do destroyer flotillas that belong to escort vessels command for training and maintenance purposes, while at the same time they would belong to task forces for operational purposes.
-
I'd definitely like to see a more complex organization, somewhat mirroring the modern naval system. Specifically, I'd go with (for ships) squadron/TG/TF/Fleet, although fighters might be able to do the same. Each level would have its own commander, who would give bonuses to subordinate units. I agree with Garfunkel on the scaling of bonuses, although it might be interesting to have the bonuses also be affected by the flag facilities available to the commander in question. So while squadron command (2-6 vessels) doesn't require any flag facilities, a TG commander attempting to operate without flag facilities is limited to maybe 2 squadrons, a 5 HS flag bridge gives him up to 5 and/or increases the bonus he gives to them. (Say that 2 independent ships make a squadron equivalent.)
Particularly at the TF/Fleet level, bigger flag facilities would allow command bonuses to apply in other star systems and to vast fleets. I'd like it to go from ships with built-in flag facilities on one end of the spectrum to specialized command ships (like USS Blue Ridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Blue_Ridge_%28LCC-19%29)) at the other.
I also like the fleet specialization idea. One thing that has never worked well for me is survey fleets, and giving survey organizations a big bonus to geographical span seems like it would make them useful.
-
I like Garfunkel's and Byron's suggestions however I think this would need some sort of chain of command summary which showed what bonuses were being applied to each ship from each officer and highlighting where bonuses were not being applied and why. Otherwise I can see with the increased complexity a lot of frustration in working out why you were getting bonuses in some places but not in others.
I like the idea of a land based command that could scale up in terms of system coverage in much the same way that a sector command does at the moment.
-
This would be a pretty radical change but I'd actually like to see the chain of command being required to form (larger) task groups. To me it seems realistic that a command structure (and the logistics to go with it) allows larger and more complicated fleets to be formed. The ship commander and task group commander can both still provide bonuses, but require the logistics to back that up. Sub groups would gain the same bonuses as the main group, and would be included in the number of ships in the group. In other words I can send 100 cruisers into battle as individual ships, but if I want them to fight as a unified force then I need to invest in a command structure.
As a start for the numbers
1-4 ships - no requirements, task group commander can be freely selected
5-9 ships - task group commander required, required rank increases with group size (like planetary governors), must be higher rank than subordinates.
10-19 ships - flag bridge required
20+ ships - fleet command required
Fleet commands would be planet based, and would support one fleet and one flag officer per construction level. That would allow you to create multiple specialized fleet commands, but at a cost.
Fighters would be treated similarly but with different numbers, and would require fighter command components above a certain squadron size.
-
I like the ability currently to create a task force for escorting, and attach it to another TF as a screening element. I'd hate to lose this ability.
-
I like the ability currently to create a task force for escorting, and attach it to another TF as a screening element. I'd hate to lose this ability.
I am removing task forces, not task groups. The task force is just an admin organisation. You can still have one task group escort another.
-
I am removing task forces, not task groups. The task force is just an admin organisation. You can still have one task group escort another.
Good. Cold drugs are a good thing. I'm going back to work now. My code should be fun to read when I recover.
-
This would be a pretty radical change but I'd actually like to see the chain of command being required to form (larger) task groups. To me it seems realistic that a command structure (and the logistics to go with it) allows larger and more complicated fleets to be formed. The ship commander and task group commander can both still provide bonuses, but require the logistics to back that up. Sub groups would gain the same bonuses as the main group, and would be included in the number of ships in the group. In other words I can send 100 cruisers into battle as individual ships, but if I want them to fight as a unified force then I need to invest in a command structure.
Interesting idea. The problem is that Aurora doesn't really allow modeling of the sort of penalties which would actually occur if you send in 100 cruisers individually, because you're in charge of all of them all of the time. Allowing that to be an effective, if micromanagement-heavy strategy, seems a little bit odd. I can see definite disadvantages to sending in all 100 cruisers in a single TG (large groups react more slowly than small groups), but I'd tend to treat reasonable groups of ships (>4?) as single units, and give bonuses from command, with command also allowing some increase in the number of ships in the TG before penalties start to accrue.
Another issue is commercial ships. Particularly early on, I tend to have large numbers of relatively small freighters in big TGs, and while it would be very realistic to have them suffer penalties in combat because they're not used to working together in close order, it would be a lot of extra work to have to split them up because of these rules.
I'd also argue against any but the very highest level of command being forced to be shore-based. Your Admiralty is unlikely to be at sea, but even today, major US fleets (the only country that really has that sort of organization any more) fly their flags afloat, on specialized command ships (which I'd really like to see). It's theater commanders who are land-based, but there's not a particularly good parallel between them and things we'll find in Aurora.
-
In terms of dealing with oversize squadrons or number of vessels in excess of control limits I would have thought just using the current mechanic of order execution delays and fire delays would be an ok option with this obviously becoming progressively worse the more ships over the limit you have.
Just had a couple of thoughts on local benefits of having appropriate skilled people in the command chain:
- Logistics officer potentially providing a further percentage improvement in fuel efficiency
- XO improving damage control rating and hence speed of repairs
- Engineering improving the maintenance life through reduced failure rates and / or reduction in maintenance supplies needed
- Weapons officer providing small percentage increase in effective range / tracking speed of fire controls or upping interception chance on missiles
- Sensors being able to provide percentage increase in effective range of actives / passives
-
Interesting idea. The problem is that Aurora doesn't really allow modeling of the sort of penalties which would actually occur if you send in 100 cruisers individually, because you're in charge of all of them all of the time. Allowing that to be an effective, if micromanagement-heavy strategy, seems a little bit odd. I can see definite disadvantages to sending in all 100 cruisers in a single TG (large groups react more slowly than small groups), but I'd tend to treat reasonable groups of ships (>4?) as single units, and give bonuses from command, with command also allowing some increase in the number of ships in the TG before penalties start to accrue.
I was thinking that the penalty in sending in individual ships is that they don't get the bonuses from your one brilliant TG commander, whereas a 100 strong task group would all get his bonuses. So rather than adding on penalties, more about taking away a bonus.
Another issue is commercial ships. Particularly early on, I tend to have large numbers of relatively small freighters in big TGs, and while it would be very realistic to have them suffer penalties in combat because they're not used to working together in close order, it would be a lot of extra work to have to split them up because of these rules.
You could treat commercial ships as exempt from the rules, but I agree that this is rather unsatisfactory. Do you really use TG of 20+ freighters? Below that size you'd just need to assign a senior officer as TG commander, which seems like a realistic cost of assembling big convoys. And I always have some useless captains and admirals who are perfectly suited to pulling that assignment.
I'd also argue against any but the very highest level of command being forced to be shore-based. Your Admiralty is unlikely to be at sea, but even today, major US fleets (the only country that really has that sort of organization any more) fly their flags afloat, on specialized command ships (which I'd really like to see). It's theater commanders who are land-based, but there's not a particularly good parallel between them and things we'll find in Aurora.
In many ways I'd agree, but could the US admirals fly their flags afloat without all of the land based admin and support functions? That said I guess I wouldn't be opposed to using large components instead.
-
I was thinking that the penalty in sending in individual ships is that they don't get the bonuses from your one brilliant TG commander, whereas a 100 strong task group would all get his bonuses. So rather than adding on penalties, more about taking away a bonus.
I see where you were coming from. I'm in favor of throttling bonuses based on available command/flag facilities, which I think amounts to much the same thing.
You could treat commercial ships as exempt from the rules, but I agree that this is rather unsatisfactory. Do you really use TG of 20+ freighters?
I do. Rather frequently in my big games, which involve a lot of ships.
Below that size you'd just need to assign a senior officer as TG commander, which seems like a realistic cost of assembling big convoys. And I always have some useless captains and admirals who are perfectly suited to pulling that assignment.
It's not a proper convoy, though. It's more of an administrative convenience in most cases, keeping down the number of groups I have to order around. I'd be very much in favor of making those groups react much more poorly in combat than proper commanded convoys.
In many ways I'd agree, but could the US admirals fly their flags afloat without all of the land based admin and support functions? That said I guess I wouldn't be opposed to using large components instead.
It depends on how you define 'land based admin and support facilities'. If you define them as broadly as possible, then no, it's obviously impossible for any navy to function without shore facilities. But we already have most of those facilities modeled in Aurora. If you're suggesting that flying the flag afloat is basically a formality, and the actual work is done ashore (the extreme example being the RN, which gives its bases ship names for historical reasons), then I think the answer is yes. US flagships are quite large and dedicated solely to the purpose of basing the fleet staff. Yes, lots of work is done by subordinate units ashore, but that's all modelable in Aurora as-is.
-
One thing to keep in mind is that currently Aurora is quite flexible when it comes to what kind of games you want to play, so it would be awesome if this functionality was kept, so Steve should avoid hard-coded limits. If a player wants to run a race that operates a silly, inefficient organization, that should be possible. Which is why I'm not a fan of strict numerical limits on what officers can command.
-
I've been thinking about this over the last few days (although no time to code until today). There are three main options:
1) A commander can control a certain number of ships. I believe this would be too much micromanagement, as players would have to keep track of this and adjust when ships changed fleets or new ships were built
2) The benefit provided by the commander is diluted across all ships under his command. Easier than 1), but may lead to the situation where the 'power gaming' route is to create a lots of small admin commands, which I don't think would be good for the game either.
3) Location-based, with the range at which other systems can be influenced based on rank. This is my current favoured option because there is no need to micromanage and no 'power game' need to create more commands than you require.
Option 3) does have the realism drawback that one good commander can influence a lot of ships, but this is no different than sector commanders influencing population. Also, if I create different types of admin command (Military, survey, logistic, patrol, etc.) with different bonuses, this will allow a lot of variety within the same systems.
In terms of the benefits, I am assuming something on the lines of 1/4 the major bonus of the commander to ships within the command (Survey bonus for a survey command, Logistic bonus for logistic commands, perhaps a boost to crew training in military commands, etc), plus some secondary effects such as survey commands having greater ranges. Although I haven't really made a final decision on how this will work.
I've been working on the Fleet window today and I think I will make it a combined Fleet / Ship window. I'll post a screenshot later to show what I mean.
-
This is very much a work in progress but the screenshots below show the current sidebar for the Fleet window. There are four levels. Admin Commands, Fleets (or Task Groups), Sub-Fleets and Ships.The Admin Commands in green and the sub-fleets in light blue are purely admin constructs and don't appear on the tactical map.
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/Fleets01.PNG) (http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/Fleets02.PNG)
Every race starts with a single top level Admin Command (which can't be deleted but can be renamed). All other Admin Commands descend in a tree from this one. You can only attach an Admin Command to another Admin Command but you can have an unlimited number of levels in the Admin Command hierarchy.
Fleets can only be attached to Admin Commands. Many fleets can be attached to a single Admin Command but each fleet can only be attached to one Admin Command
Sub-Fleets can only be attached to a Fleet, or to another sub-fleet. You can have an unlimited number of levels within the sub-fleet hierarchy. These are used to organise the ships within the larger fleets. Sub-fleets have no on-map function and all ships within the sub-fleet hierarchy move within the parent fleet.
A Ship can be attached to a Fleet or to a sub-fleet. When attached to a sub-fleet, it is still a member of the parent Fleet at the top of the sub-fleet hierarchy.
The tree has full drag and drop functionality so you can move Admin Commands, Fleets, Sub-Fleets and Ships around as long as the above rules are followed. You can also drag ships and sub-fleets between different fleets as long as they are in the same physical location. Entire sections of the tree can be moved with a single drag-drop. Also, you can open up multiple Fleet windows and drag and drop between the trees in two different windows.
You will be able to detach a sub-fleet with a single click, at which point it becomes a full fleet in its own right. Any sub-fleets further down the hierarchy become sub-fleets of this new fleet.
I will create a 'join as sub-fleet' order so when one fleet joins another, its ships will comprise a sub-fleet within the joined fleet allowing them to detach as a whole unit.
There is still a lot of work to do in this area, one item of which is to include some visual cue for when a fleet is out of range of its admin command.
-
So, if I get it, Admin Commands get some kind of staff officers, and the fleets and sub-fleets are directed by the senior officer present?
-
On sub-fleets:
First, from the description, it sounds like the new fleets are what we used to call task groups, i.e. something that can be moved with a single move order.
Second, I think you should build the ability of constituents within a fleet/TG to independently move around the base course. One of the things I liked in (I'm pretty sure it was) the old computer version of Harpoon was having a tactical layout for a task group. It had 2-3 concentric zones (e.g. core/screen/scout); each zone was divided into several arcs. You could put an escort in one of the zones and it would do sprint/drift ASW within its zone without the human having to micromanage. Aurora is a little different here, but the current system already has the ability for one TG to key its motion off another.
One thing Rule the Waves does (which I got hooked on from the Off Topic thread, btw) is have "divisions" as the smallest grouping of ships that can take move commands. When in full realism mode (where you're the Admiral), you give them orders such as "scout" "screen" "support" "independent" and their AI decides what they'll do.
So I think you might want to consider having the grouping immediately beneath "fleet" also have significance on the map - you might call it "element" (as in "a picket element" or "the inner screen element"). The idea is that the elements would generally conform to the fleet's base course, but might position themselves at some stand-off distance. Rule the Waves also sets things up so certain roles are only available to certain types of ships (e.g. "scout" can't be given to DD since that was out of doctrine in WW1). In Aurora, designs could have flags like "area escort" or "tight escort" that could be used by AI to assign them to special elements that would behave in various ways.
John
-
On sub-fleets:
First, from the description, it sounds like the new fleets are what we used to call task groups, i.e. something that can be moved with a single move order.
Second, I think you should build the ability of constituents within a fleet/TG to independently move around the base course. One of the things I liked in (I'm pretty sure it was) the old computer version of Harpoon was having a tactical layout for a task group. It had 2-3 concentric zones (e.g. core/screen/scout); each zone was divided into several arcs. You could put an escort in one of the zones and it would do sprint/drift ASW within its zone without the human having to micromanage. Aurora is a little different here, but the current system already has the ability for one TG to key its motion off another.
One thing Rule the Waves does (which I got hooked on from the Off Topic thread, btw) is have "divisions" as the smallest grouping of ships that can take move commands. When in full realism mode (where you're the Admiral), you give them orders such as "scout" "screen" "support" "independent" and their AI decides what they'll do.
So I think you might want to consider having the grouping immediately beneath "fleet" also have significance on the map - you might call it "element" (as in "a picket element" or "the inner screen element"). The idea is that the elements would generally conform to the fleet's base course, but might position themselves at some stand-off distance. Rule the Waves also sets things up so certain roles are only available to certain types of ships (e.g. "scout" can't be given to DD since that was out of doctrine in WW1). In Aurora, designs could have flags like "area escort" or "tight escort" that could be used by AI to assign them to special elements that would behave in various ways.
John
Yes, Fleet is Task Group.
I plan to replicate the current 'formation' functionality from VB6 Aurora. This was based on Harpoon and allows you to designate a threat axis (based on an enemy contact for example), a task group to protect and a distance. The task group will move to position itself between the threat and the protected task group at the desired range. In C# Aurora, I will have the same and you can detach a sub-fleet to take up that role. I will add the formation orders to the sub-fleet, so they can be acted upon when it detaches and I will retain the formation orders when the escorting fleet becomes the sub-fleet or a large fleet.
-
There is still a lot of work to do in this area, one item of which is to include some visual cue for when a fleet is out of range of its admin command.
Will there be a building connected with each admin command? If not, presumably the power gamers can keep creating new colonies in each system their fleet is in and moving their commands appropriately.
Also, does this mean the flag bridge component is now irrelevant?
Edit- Oh, I should also say that I love the new drag and drop functionality. That will make a huge difference, and is a great addition. Thanks so much for all your work on this Steve, its very exciting.
-
Will there be a building connected with each admin command? If not, presumably the power gamers can keep creating new colonies in each system their fleet is in and moving their commands appropriately.
Also, does this mean the flag bridge component is now irrelevant?
Edit- Oh, I should also say that I love the new drag and drop functionality. That will make a huge difference, and is a great addition. Thanks so much for all your work on this Steve, its very exciting.
I am considering some form of building, although it would house multiple admin commands. This is partly because it would provide a target for enemy attack, putting senior officers at risk, and partly because I believe that having command headquarters in key systems adds to the 'feel' of the game. This may have to be mobile in some way (Command Centre component instead of a building), or perhaps could be prefabricated. I still have to give this some thought
I've not decided what to do with the flag bridge yet. One option is that fleet (task group) commanders have some impact on the ships under their immediate command (beyond the current RP aspects) and this is reduced if they are in a ship without a flag bridge.
-
I would really like to see some form of seagoing command, with multiple tiers. The powergamer problem can be solved by setting a threshold for the maximum number of ships which can benefit from a commander's full bonus, and not giving any additional benefit if there are less ships in the command. So long as the thresholds are reasonably high, you're not going to penalize normal players.
If anything, I'd want to encourage players to split up their forces a bit more than seems typical now. I tend to lump all of my units together (within reason), instead of using formations or maneuvering separately against the enemy. Having it so that a typical player might want to run 3 or 4 TGs in a typical fleet might well make gameplay better.
As for buildings vs mobile for fleet commanders, I'd go with something vaguely like the maintenance/recreation system. It's easiest to do from planets, but a big ship can do the job, too.
-
Thanks for the reply Steve, sounds good.
Byron, I think the number of TGs is simply based on micromanagement. Its so much quicker to stick everything in one TG than setting up multiple TGs with formation and protection orders. I might do that every once in a while if I expect a battle to be particularly close, but otherwise...
-
Thanks for the reply Steve, sounds good.
Byron, I think the number of TGs is simply based on micromanagement. Its so much quicker to stick everything in one TG than setting up multiple TGs with formation and protection orders. I might do that every once in a while if I expect a battle to be particularly close, but otherwise...
I get that, but I think it would be relatively simple to tune the numbers so that in most cases, the penalties to having one TG are pretty small and/or it's not really worth it to make more than 3-4 TGs for all but the largest battles. Powergaming will always happen unless you take really extraordinary steps to stop it. The key is not making it too powerful relative to normal play.
-
I will add the formation orders to the sub-fleet, so they can be acted upon when it detaches and I will retain the formation orders when the escorting fleet becomes the sub-fleet or a large fleet.
When I read this, it made me confused about whether or not you were thinking about nesting of escorts (I wasn't). Now that I am, I think this gets at the heart of what I'm proposing. I think the question to think about is "If B is escorting A, and C is escorting B, what happens to C's orders if B is merged into A (e.g. to transit a wormhole)? What happens when B is split out again? And who (B or C) controls these behaviors".
In current behavior (I suspect) B knows about A and C knows about B, but A doesn't know about B and B doesn't know about C. In other words a TG knows who it's escorting, but the escorted fleet doesn't know who it's escorts are (it's been a long time since I've messed with this, so I don't remember if this is true). I think what I'm suggesting is that you give the C# Fleet object a collection of
escort TG objects. Actually, now that I think of it, you've probably already got this - I assume you're implementing your command structure as a tree, so each command knows its sub-command nodes. So what I'm really suggesting is that you add a flag to a sub-command indicating it's an escort, and that you add commands to the fleet that allow you to e.g. "Recall escorts (for jump)" or "Deploy Escorts". Now that I think of it, you might want to deploy escorts into different formations (under missile threat or beam threat, for example). What would be really cool is if you had a Formation object that remembered a canned set of escort deployments. You could then have a DeployEscorts(Formation) command on the parent fleet that would automagically set the orders of the constituents. This would also make nesting easy - the formations could nest. So for example you could have an AMM forward picket with a few beam-armed PD escorts escorting a bigger formation, and you could remember the configuration.
This of course leads to the development of a formation editor screen. I suspect you'd want to have two abstractions in it: a "FormationTemplate" object that can be put in a library and used as a starting point for a particular fleet's formations, and an "Element" (or TG) object that is used by FormationTemplate to position the elements of the formation. When creating a formation for a particular fleet, you'd start with a formation template, possibly set distance parameters, and assign sub-fleets/TG to the elements in the formation instance.
This is complicated enough that I imagine it's in the "do it later" wish list (assuming you like the idea) - just wanted to get the idea out there. And if you're thinking along those lines, I'd advocate thinking about a naming convention where a Fleet is a mobile command that has constituent task groups that can show up as counters on the map or be hidden (as it is now).
John
PS - Don't remember if you've gone there or not, but now is also the opportunity to add the ability to bind multiple allowed missile load-out configurations to a class of ships.
-
When I read this, it made me confused about whether or not you were thinking about nesting of escorts (I wasn't). Now that I am, I think this gets at the heart of what I'm proposing. I think the question to think about is "If B is escorting A, and C is escorting B, what happens to C's orders if B is merged into A (e.g. to transit a wormhole)? What happens when B is split out again? And who (B or C) controls these behaviors".
In current behavior (I suspect) B knows about A and C knows about B, but A doesn't know about B and B doesn't know about C. In other words a TG knows who it's escorting, but the escorted fleet doesn't know who it's escorts are (it's been a long time since I've messed with this, so I don't remember if this is true). I think what I'm suggesting is that you give the C# Fleet object a collection of
escort TG objects. Actually, now that I think of it, you've probably already got this - I assume you're implementing your command structure as a tree, so each command knows its sub-command nodes. So what I'm really suggesting is that you add a flag to a sub-command indicating it's an escort, and that you add commands to the fleet that allow you to e.g. "Recall escorts (for jump)" or "Deploy Escorts". Now that I think of it, you might want to deploy escorts into different formations (under missile threat or beam threat, for example). What would be really cool is if you had a Formation object that remembered a canned set of escort deployments. You could then have a DeployEscorts(Formation) command on the parent fleet that would automagically set the orders of the constituents. This would also make nesting easy - the formations could nest. So for example you could have an AMM forward picket with a few beam-armed PD escorts escorting a bigger formation, and you could remember the configuration.
This of course leads to the development of a formation editor screen. I suspect you'd want to have two abstractions in it: a "FormationTemplate" object that can be put in a library and used as a starting point for a particular fleet's formations, and an "Element" (or TG) object that is used by FormationTemplate to position the elements of the formation. When creating a formation for a particular fleet, you'd start with a formation template, possibly set distance parameters, and assign sub-fleets/TG to the elements in the formation instance.
This is complicated enough that I imagine it's in the "do it later" wish list (assuming you like the idea) - just wanted to get the idea out there. And if you're thinking along those lines, I'd advocate thinking about a naming convention where a Fleet is a mobile command that has constituent task groups that can show up as counters on the map or be hidden (as it is now).
John
PS - Don't remember if you've gone there or not, but now is also the opportunity to add the ability to bind multiple allowed missile load-out configurations to a class of ships.
Most of the above is already in VB6 Aurora. You can already create formation plans then deploy and recall escorts to/from the main body. There is a Formation table in the database that holds the information. The planning section is on the second tab of the TG window while the deploy and recall escorts buttons are among the buttons at the bottom of the same window.
Your example of “you could have an AMM forward picket with a few beam-armed PD escorts escorting a bigger formation, and you could remember the configuration” is possible in VB6 Aurora.
I will try to make this easier though in C# Aurora and improve the UI. The formation editor should probably be visual as per Harpoon rather than the current set of dropdowns.
-
Most of the above is already in VB6 Aurora. You can already create formation plans then deploy and recall escorts to/from the main body. There is a Formation table in the database that holds the information. The planning section is on the second tab of the TG window while the deploy and recall escorts buttons are among the buttons at the bottom of the same window.
Your example of “you could have an AMM forward picket with a few beam-armed PD escorts escorting a bigger formation, and you could remember the configuration” is possible in VB6 Aurora.
I will try to make this easier though in C# Aurora and improve the UI. The formation editor should probably be visual as per Harpoon rather than the current set of dropdowns.
Cool - sorry I didn't remember the details of what's already available better. I like the idea of a visual editor.
John
-
Really like the new fleet window and the idea of a visual fleet formation editor. Couple of thoughts:
- On the fleet window it would be helpful if, when you click on a ship or fleet, then other fleets / ships in the same location where highlighted so you can quickly see where you can drag and drop to. Alternatively have a filter which only shows ships in that location when fleet window opened.
- I was also wondering about a logistics version of that window where for each ship it details ordnance, maintenance and fuel held such that you can quick move this stuff around rather than using the current miscellaneous tab in the ship window.
I have to admit that I don't use the fleet formation piece as much as I would like largely because of the missile intercept mechanics and the effectiveness of area defence v final defensive fire which to me means keeping everything as a single blob is really the only logical position. If it was possible to manage missile intercepts so that an escort on picket was able to engage missiles going through their engagement range rather than just landing in their engagement range on any 5 second tick then that would make the whole formation piece far more valuable and better used.
-
Some sketch-thoughts.
1. Any leader can operate with some number of _subordinates_, not ships, planets etc. I think this global law can be coded through some quite simple and "natural" rules, as those:
1.1 Each direct (next-level) subordinate is adding some probability of "lag" (failure of delivering commands or leader bonuses in this cycle). This increase can be level-independent, and I think a value of 5% for each subordinate will be fine, so operating with 6 or even 12 sub-units of little importance will be ok, but if you want to use your really valuable battleships and task forces properly, then you must deploy them in 2, 3 or 4 sub-units maximum.
1.2 Each rank gives an ability to operate with problems, that was delivered by some number of overall, lowest-level subordinates. Lieutenant will be ok with dozen of crew members, for example, and Fleet Admiral will operate with millions of crew members fleet. I think, 5-times increase of overall subordinate number for each rank level will be fine. Exceeding this rank-dependant number of overall subordinates will result in proportional penalty, so twice number of overall subordinates - is simply halving all leader bonuses, for example.
1.3 Contrariwise, the same numbers of direct and overall subordinates can be valued, calculating probability of increase in leader skills, so overladen leader will make more errors, but will train himself quicker. It must be some non-linear dependence, I think some fractional power will be fine. This rule can prevent from huge structures under command of most skilled leader, and the same way it prevents from empty staff structures, that can train officers doing nothing at all.
2. Normally (without lags of overladen) any leader deliver some part of his bonuses to his direct subordinate, and I think one half of bonus value (therefore a quarter - to next level of sub-subordinates, etc.) will be fine.
3. Hierarchy is quite stiff thing. So:
3.1 Any subordinate must be of lower rank or the same rank with closer promotion time. Unconditionally.
3.2 Those, whose leader have the same rank as theirs, must have some probability of "pissed of" event, resulting in those probable outcomes: additional lag, decreasing of training level or another unit value, and even resignation of this subordinate.
4. Each separating interstellar jump in any command chain is an extra probability of lags (the same way as in p.1.1, but lag probability value may be higher - about 25% for fleet command, I think) and extra penalty in delivering leader bonuses (25% too, I think). For administrative bonuses these values may be lower, may be about 10%, or it may depend on some tech level.
5. Any bonuses depends on stationary objects (infrastructure, stores, system traffic control local features, etc.) in the same way, as on moving objects (as staff, ships, laboratory samples, etc.), and that can be coded, if each administrator position will have some "knowledge of stationary" value, that will drop with changing leader or moving fleet to another system, and command position will have the same "knowledge of movables". Those values can rise depending on leader values (I think 1 month for increasing from 0 to 100% is great, and a year is maximum adaptation time for any lazy ass). This rule will prevent from shuffling leaders at will, even before battle or another burning need.
6. It will be great to see the same principles not only in fleet structures, but in army too, and in government administration (empire - sector [- system] - colony hierarchy), and maybe in colony branches too! R&D leader scientist can lead the whole branch, not only one project, for example, and factory fleet specialists can be used as SY administrators - and the same way, each one can pick the only SY, or all shipyards of colony, [system,] sector or empire.