Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 10:38:05 AM »
One request I have for ground forces is that we be able to transport ground troops and their equipment on colony ships and cargo ships.

More specifically, be able to split a ground formation into it's personnel and equipment separately, load them onto colony ships and cargo ships respectively, then unload and combine them at their destination.

This would allow much larger formations to be transported between friendly staging areas, but not be deploy-able directly into combat. Like using a container ship to transport tanks and equipment, and sending the troops on a cruise ship.

The way the ground units are setup, there is no division between equipment and personnel. I avoided that deliberately because of the complexities involved.
2
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 10:36:17 AM »
I know that Steve wants to keep it simple, but my feel is that 'abandon drop' will be used exclusively against defended targets. If this always damages the bay, and you can only fix it at a yard, there is no point in building non-drop bay equipped transports ever, making it pointless to even implement those.

Non-drop bays are commercial, while the other bays are military.

3
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 10:32:55 AM »
I still see a lot of problems with the approach of drop bays being damaged on an abandon drop. For one I would like to be able to swap in dropships from another ship in.
Also, how does it work with picking up drop ships? Do bays get restored then?
I want to avoid at all costs having ships sit in orbit wait on drop craft unloading, so I'd like to first abandon drop one wave, with the second wave coming in picking up the drop ships of the first wave as they send in their own.

I've decided to abstract the drop pods, so tracking pods on the ground or from one ship to another won't be possible. The ships could be different sizes so I would have to track the total drop pods tonnage and account for any damage from opposing ground forces. Also, there wouldn't be any point in having the 'Wait and Recover' order because it would always better to 'Abandon' and collect later. Finally, landing in multiple waves wouldn't be a good idea anyway, given the potential for STO units. It would be more effective to send all ships in together and divide hostile fire.

Once you abandon, the pods are lost and can't be subsequently recovered.
4
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 10:18:21 AM »
Does this mean you've moved away from the concept of "named" commanders being exceptional individuals swimming in a sea of unnamed commanders, and that a unit without a commander represents on commanded by an unnamed commander?  Or does it mean that unnamed commanders are so incompetent that they can't benefit from the skills of the higher echelon commanders?

John

The gameplay reason is to avoid having very large hierarchies filled with formations with no commanders and relatively junior officers at the top. By removing bonuses from formations without specified commanders, players have to create realistic command hierarchies, comprising between size and availability of commanders. It also avoids a potential exploit of creating a lot of very small formations to generate benefits from multi-level hierarchies, because you would need too many commanders to accomplish that (although you can still do it on a smaller scale for specialist units). On the other hand, creating a few very large formations making transport more difficult, reduces flexibility and does not allow for unused commanders to gain experience. In-game, that does translate to a situation where the assumption is that 'non-named' commanders are not skilled enough to benefit from their superiors.

BTW I've given a little more thought to headquarters components and realised that I don't even have to name them as brigade, division, etc. I'll have generic component names with a variety of command ratings and the player can name the Ground Unit Class that uses that component. That will allow players to decide for themselves how large they want their battalions or brigades (or regiments, legions, etc.).
5
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by swarm_sadist on Today at 07:44:27 AM »
One request I have for ground forces is that we be able to transport ground troops and their equipment on colony ships and cargo ships.

More specifically, be able to split a ground formation into it's personnel and equipment separately, load them onto colony ships and cargo ships respectively, then unload and combine them at their destination.

This would allow much larger formations to be transported between friendly staging areas, but not be deploy-able directly into combat. Like using a container ship to transport tanks and equipment, and sending the troops on a cruise ship.
6
The Academy / Re: Naming prefix and others tricks
« Last post by vorpal+5 on Today at 06:41:42 AM »
indeed, I goes with a more straightforward (but longer to type!) _prototype and then their role. I don't christen them to an actual name before finalization, I just name them by role.
7
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Whitecold on Today at 04:04:33 AM »
That rather depends on whether drop bays are military or not :)
All right, if you need ships to transport troops between your own colonies, but for any kind of assault they will be useless. And once you built a decent assault transport fleet, they will likely fulfill all your internal deployment needs.
I want those civ class troop transports be around, and I want them to transship into proper assault transports on location, but I just can't see how this should work if all your assault transport are one-time use only, because they a) have destroyed troop bays or b) are expanding clouds of debris.
8
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by TheDeadlyShoe on Today at 03:17:43 AM »
I don't understand why this should be any more complicated to implement than other solutions. It is a design consideration.
I know that Steve wants to keep it simple, but my feel is that 'abandon drop' will be used exclusively against defended targets. If this always damages the bay, and you can only fix it at a yard, there is no point in building non-drop bay equipped transports ever, making it pointless to even implement those. Abandon or wait feels like inflexible handling of drops when you need them to just wait five more minutes somewhere to improve your schedule.
That rather depends on whether drop bays are military or not :)
9
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by Whitecold on Today at 02:46:51 AM »
Too inconvenient to program. You'd have to program actual dropships instead of an abstraction as well as determine how well they do in a ground combat engagement. Steve wants to avoid that mess, hence the abstract 'drop' mechanics and the presumption that ground forces do not defend dropships after the drop since they are expected to either see those things leave or won't be picked up any time soon and will abandon them for better positions.
I don't understand why this should be any more complicated to implement than other solutions. It is a design consideration.
I know that Steve wants to keep it simple, but my feel is that 'abandon drop' will be used exclusively against defended targets. If this always damages the bay, and you can only fix it at a yard, there is no point in building non-drop bay equipped transports ever, making it pointless to even implement those. Abandon or wait feels like inflexible handling of drops when you need them to just wait five more minutes somewhere to improve your schedule.

Also, the combat drop is one of the central elements of any assault, and we are getting all the fancy options of non-abstract combat troops. Having abstract drop ships still does not feel adequate to me. Some types of infantry and vehicles may drop directly from orbit, some flying vehicles may be able to achieve orbit again under their own power.

Quote
As I understand it the aim is for the mothership to be at risk while it is launching the drop pods. If the drop pods were independent then the logical decision is to give them a bit of extra fuel on so the mother ship could stand off from the planet and launch in safety.
Which IMHO would be the sensible thing to do in the first place. And there again Aurora usually gives you the building blocks to build what fits your doctrine and gives you options to try out. Forcing the mothership into danger feels still just wrong to me.
10
C# Aurora / Re: Replacing PDCs
« Last post by El Pip on Today at 02:43:32 AM »
I personally kinda think it would be cleaner if you had ships that can enter atmo like fighters, that have short term troop bays in them.  Maybe disregard the idea of a 'drop pod bay' entirely and just have that module be something for mobile troop transport ships.  Then you just carry those ships in hangers on ships that have long term troop storage bays in them.
As I understand it the aim is for the mothership to be at risk while it is launching the drop pods. If the drop pods were independent then the logical decision is to give them a bit of extra fuel on so the mother ship could stand off from the planet and launch in safety.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10