C# Aurora v0.x Questions

[Jorgen_CAB]

As coded, I think it is possible.  Now you have me thinking whether it is a good idea.  I had worked on the assumption that both sides would use front line, but of course the scenario you outline is possible too.  It probably is reasonable that the strategic attacker could decline to engage and that the strategic defender would have to decide whether to abandon his fortifications to force the issue or just hold in place.  I'll give it some thought.

Sounds like a proper siege.  Sally forth early or hold out and race to see who gets the most reinforcements.   Or alternatively, seems very WW1 with a long phase of entrenchment.

I think it's very good for Aurora to have the tension building elements before the action.

I would have no real problem with it in general... waiting to fortify your troops will take time and time might be just what the defenders need to have a rescue fleet arrive and drive the offenders off the planet.

But if this is the intention with the combat mechanic you could make it less micro and simply have a command toggle for the defensive front line to not engage and in turn the opponents defensive line can't engage you either, only units with attack orders (front-line attack position) can engage the enemy forces at that point (for either side).

This would actually make sense and not force you to micro the system as much. You could make it more likely for attacking units to hit support and rear echelon units if the defending front line is not actively trying to engage. The benefit being you will not be hit by the opponent defensive front line troops anymore.

I see no reason why forces on a planet must attack each other all the time... you could very well have long periods of stalemate in fighting where no side rally want to take the initiative.

At least this is something I will use in my multi-faction campaigns and I can just sett all front line troops into support line for both side to temporarily end hostilities, sort of a temporary truce.

[Hazard]

Any force that is not actively seeking combat but knows that the enemy is, will deploy to protect its own assets as well as possible while staying outside the enemy's capacity to engage. It's extremely unlikely that in such an event an attacking force is likely to hit the support and rear echelon forces, as any defenses will be calculated to force an engagement at the outermost defenses and keep it there if possible, or if it's not supporting forces and other defenses will be positioned so that as many hard points and other defenses lay as possible between the likely axes of advance and the supporting elements of those defenses.

Support/Rear Echelon engagement is actually more likely for attacking support and rear echelon forces due to the risk of counter attacks forcing through the attacker's lines, the need to keep such forces closer to the front to give some extra space for the advance and sallies from bottled up defenders further behind the lines.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Any force that is not actively seeking combat but knows that the enemy is, will deploy to protect its own assets as well as possible while staying outside the enemy's capacity to engage. It's extremely unlikely that in such an event an attacking force is likely to hit the support and rear echelon forces, as any defenses will be calculated to force an engagement at the outermost defenses and keep it there if possible, or if it's not supporting forces and other defenses will be positioned so that as many hard points and other defenses lay as possible between the likely axes of advance and the supporting elements of those defenses.

Support/Rear Echelon engagement is actually more likely for attacking support and rear echelon forces due to the risk of counter attacks forcing through the attacker's lines, the need to keep such forces closer to the front to give some extra space for the advance and sallies from bottled up defenders further behind the lines.

While that could be true you could also view it as a rather rigid and immobile defense that are quite passive, otherwise the front line is regarded as engaging the enemy with mobile counter attacks and such. That would be the whole idea of a fortified defensive front engaging the enemy with more active warfare.

I mainly suggested it as a balancing mechanic to the option of being able to not engage defensive units as a proper intentional effect.

[Hazard]

Even during the lulls in the trench warfare of WW1 with both sides licking their wounds there was a lot of active probing of enemy positions, infiltration, intelligence gathering, maintenance of the wire and mine fields and so on. And in earlier warfare there would still be skirmishing between the archers on the walls and besiegers' archers, trying to snipe at valuable targets or just putting pressure on the other side by the risk of casualties.

Rigid and immobile a defense may be, but it's rarely passive.

Passive forces eventually get attacked to see if they're weaker than expected.

[Garfunkel]

I agree with Hazard here. We also have to remember that we're talking about combat on a planetary scale. Now it might just be a ten guys versus twenty tentacles on a planet the size of Jupiter, or it could be twenty million souls versus five billion death-machines on an asteroid, and so a mechanic should work and be reasonably "logical" in both cases.

The loophole that Jorgen_CAB brought up is, IMHO, not a loophole at all but a very valid tactic for an attacker to take when facing heavily fortified defenders, and that dilemma of sallying forth or remaining in the forts is a very real thing that has plagued human commanders through the history. But it doesn't make the attackers support/rear echelon units any more vulnerable.

I also agree with Jorgen on the tempo of planetary combat. There should be lulls and pauses where combat intensity goes down - not completely passive, as wars are never that, but no force can maintain maximum intensity forever.

[space dwarf]

Of course, if you keep all your troops back "in Support" and just plug away with artillery, what's to stop the defenders from doing the same to you?

[Hazard]

The fact that it's far more efficient for the enemy to close in and attack, since that gives him much greater chances of murdering your artillery, which would normally be sheltered by your front lines?

[Jorgen_CAB]

Even during the lulls in the trench warfare of WW1 with both sides licking their wounds there was a lot of active probing of enemy positions, infiltration, intelligence gathering, maintenance of the wire and mine fields and so on. And in earlier warfare there would still be skirmishing between the archers on the walls and besiegers' archers, trying to snipe at valuable targets or just putting pressure on the other side by the risk of casualties.

Rigid and immobile a defense may be, but it's rarely passive.

Passive forces eventually get attacked to see if they're weaker than expected.

Within the game mechanic that would be units set at Attacking Frontal Position... they would act like skirmishers in smaller numbers. So that would be well simulated in an abstract way.

You could very well have a few tank companies or similar keep harassing the enemy forces or some such.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I agree with Hazard here. We also have to remember that we're talking about combat on a planetary scale. Now it might just be a ten guys versus twenty tentacles on a planet the size of Jupiter, or it could be twenty million souls versus five billion death-machines on an asteroid, and so a mechanic should work and be reasonably "logical" in both cases.

The loophole that Jorgen_CAB brought up is, IMHO, not a loophole at all but a very valid tactic for an attacker to take when facing heavily fortified defenders, and that dilemma of sallying forth or remaining in the forts is a very real thing that has plagued human commanders through the history. But it doesn't make the attackers support/rear echelon units any more vulnerable.

I also agree with Jorgen on the tempo of planetary combat. There should be lulls and pauses where combat intensity goes down - not completely passive, as wars are never that, but no force can maintain maximum intensity forever.

You could represent this by setting your defensive line to passive by reducing the chances an element with actually do an attack during every 3 hour setting on both sides. You don't need to halt the conflict entirely. Whatever make sense and is easiest from a game mechanic perspective.

I do think that the potential way you can do it in the current iteration of the combat rules will require unnecessary micro and should be "fixed" since it is not intentional. Replace it with a way to reduce the tempo of the fighting. Sometimes you might just save on supplies for a  shipment of supplies to reach the planet or industry to produce it or something.

Especially when you role-play there can be many reasons for two sides to want to be throwing rocks at each other and never really engage their troops fully, just stall for time for some reason or just spare lives while diplomacy or some other conflict to resolve the issue.

Let's say I play a multi faction Earth and two factions go to war, perhaps they do not want to play out a full scale war on Earth and make it about a specific colony using mostly space marines and ships in the target system to deal with the conflict... I really think this is an important consideration.

There should be an easy mechanic to simulate this without having to micro units and shuffle them from front to support line.

[Rabid_Cog]

Do two empires at war automatically fight if their ground units are on the same planetary body? Back in VB6 Aurora you actually have to set your units to "Attack" otherwise they just stand there looking at the enemy (or defend themselves if the enemy sets their units to attack).

[Jorgen_CAB]

Do two empires at war automatically fight if their ground units are on the same planetary body? Back in VB6 Aurora you actually have to set your units to "Attack" otherwise they just stand there looking at the enemy (or defend themselves if the enemy sets their units to attack).

I hope we will get something similar in C#... you don't always want to engage ground troops in all locations during every type of wars. There should hopefully be that option.

[Nori]

I've read the changes list over time, but I think I might be missing something. Has size 1 missile (abuse) spam been mitigated. It seems like missiles are generally going to be slower and/or shorter range, but I'm not sure that addresses excessive size 1 spam.

[TCD]

I've read the changes list over time, but I think I might be missing something. Has size 1 missile (abuse) spam been mitigated. It seems like missiles are generally going to be slower and/or shorter range, but I'm not sure that addresses excessive size 1 spam.

There are a lot of moving parts, but there is a notable change to ECM/ECCM for missiles, as both are now a fixed 0.25 MSP for missiles, and the missile ECCM is what counters ship ECM for hit chance. Steve said that "Large volleys of size-1 missiles will be less effective in a heavy EW environment and no longer have a huge advantage in launching speed (due to the missile launcher changes)." Obviously that may or may not hold true in actual playtesting.

Box launchers also got nerfed a bit I think, especially give them an explosion chance which makes the old size 1 box launch ship very vulnerable now.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I've read the changes list over time, but I think I might be missing something. Has size 1 missile (abuse) spam been mitigated. It seems like missiles are generally going to be slower and/or shorter range, but I'm not sure that addresses excessive size 1 spam.

You will eventually need to use electronics in them in order for them to be accurate, this will make them bigger in general. You are likely to use AMM at 1-2 in size for this reason.

Small missiles will probably have quite restrictive range as ASM as you will need allot of electronics in them now and smaller engines are less fuel efficient than before, especially with a high power setting. If the yield in them is too small you can also begin absorbing some of them on your passive defenses such as shields etc... this is something many don't consider as a viable way to combat missiles. You are not forced to stop them all, just enough to not hurt you too much.

These factors should make missiles grow relatively large in comparison to how they were designed before.

Although you will need a decent tech level before electronics is usable. The way I see it the first two levels and ECM and ECCM rarely make them better, rather worse in many cases. At 20% I think it is a toss up if they are usable or not, in some circumstances they perhaps is usable in others not so much. I think these techs should start at 20% and not 10%... the first level could be more expensive as a compensation.

I could see that you perhaps want to have both slower long range missiles and shorter ranged faster missiles against enemy ships, they would probably both serve a purpose in the game. You could also want larger missiles with smaller sub munition missiles (MIRV). But they have their own problems since they are very slow and subject to be intercepted before the sub munition is released.

[Nori]

Thanks for the replies. I had to refresh my memory on how ECM affected missiles in the VB version. It appears that ECM got far better against missiles in C# because it now effects their hit chance, if I'm reading this all correctly.

I wasn't too sure how the lower range would change size 1s but it would probably make them pretty short ranged now that you mention it.