Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Bremen on Today at 06:04:50 PM »

This ends up having its own problems as well, either insuring that you want completely homogenous units (IE every formation having the same ratio of tanks to infantry) or else never wanting to mix different types of units on the same front line (if all of your front line forces are light vehicles, preferential targeting doesn't matter).

People keep suggesting preferential targeting and I think it's a bad idea. Random targeting is both keeping things simple and the best way to encouraged combined arms units.
I don't see how random encourages combined armies, I don't see any synergy effect that makes combined arms. I am looking for some way to punish all tank formations, or any other single unit type formation, and I don't see how to do it without there being some difference if some units are in the same formation or somewhere else.

Infantry are better at some things and tanks are better at some things, so all things being equal, you'd generally prefer to have armies be a mix of both. However, if units preferentially target what they're good at hurting, then that's a reason not to have both tanks and infantry available as targets - preferential targeting increases your effectiveness if an enemy has both infantry and tanks but does nothing if the enemy is all tanks or all infantry.

I don't see why you're particularly interested in making sure a combined arms army isn't a formation of tanks and a formation of infantry as opposed to two formations of both, though. I think a major point of the combat system so far is that for formations assigned to the same position it doesn't really matter if the formations are big or small or how they're organized.
2
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Whitecold on Today at 05:23:19 PM »

This ends up having its own problems as well, either insuring that you want completely homogenous units (IE every formation having the same ratio of tanks to infantry) or else never wanting to mix different types of units on the same front line (if all of your front line forces are light vehicles, preferential targeting doesn't matter).

People keep suggesting preferential targeting and I think it's a bad idea. Random targeting is both keeping things simple and the best way to encouraged combined arms units.
I don't see how random encourages combined armies, I don't see any synergy effect that makes combined arms. I am looking for some way to punish all tank formations, or any other single unit type formation, and I don't see how to do it without there being some difference if some units are in the same formation or somewhere else.
3
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Bremen on Today at 04:37:30 PM »
I had an additional idea for ground combat. Preferential targeting during combat leads to favoring monolithic unit compositions and army compositions to minimize damage, but I was thinking what about preferential targeting against optimal weapon matches during the formation targeting phase, but unweighted targeting during the actual combat phase?
This would represent commanders picking good matches for engaging formations, and it would lead to favor mixing up units, as otherwise your tanks will face mostly heavy guns, while your infantry runs into heavy machineguns. For mixed formations, there is no obvious optimal match.
The bonus could scale with commander skill, making well led armies taking better engagements.

This ends up having its own problems as well, either insuring that you want completely homogenous units (IE every formation having the same ratio of tanks to infantry) or else never wanting to mix different types of units on the same front line (if all of your front line forces are light vehicles, preferential targeting doesn't matter).

People keep suggesting preferential targeting and I think it's a bad idea. Random targeting is both keeping things simple and the best way to encouraged combined arms units.
4
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Last post by Hazard on Today at 03:34:32 PM »
That is at least partially dependent on the type of planet you are fighting on.

Planetary environments that better support fortifications will better support such strategies.
5
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Last post by Whitecold on Today at 02:08:16 PM »
I had an additional idea for ground combat. Preferential targeting during combat leads to favoring monolithic unit compositions and army compositions to minimize damage, but I was thinking what about preferential targeting against optimal weapon matches during the formation targeting phase, but unweighted targeting during the actual combat phase?
This would represent commanders picking good matches for engaging formations, and it would lead to favor mixing up units, as otherwise your tanks will face mostly heavy guns, while your infantry runs into heavy machineguns. For mixed formations, there is no obvious optimal match.
The bonus could scale with commander skill, making well led armies taking better engagements.
6
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Last post by DEEPenergy on Today at 11:58:53 AM »
Hi Steve

How long will it take for a formation to fortify using construction equipment? Will it be worth it to dig in your army in an invasion and fight a big defensive slog?
7
C# Aurora / Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Last post by Father Tim on Today at 11:43:08 AM »
Under the old system, I used Assault Infantry (10/5) and Garrision units (0/10) exclusively -- until Marine Companies came along, and then I put at least one of them on each of my ships, but not in my regular ground forces.  (Plus Replacement and HQ units, of course.)

My plan is to be inspired by the British Army (circa 1850-1916), and have each 'Regiment' feature one 'Battalion' of crack, front-line troops, a second 'Battalion' of quite good, almost-front-line troops, a third 'Territorial' battalion, a fourth 'training' battalion, a fifth 'reserve' battalion, and a sixth. . . 'Volkssturm' for lack of a better term. . . battalion.

More important formations might end up with a seventh, eighth, ninth, and even tenth 'battalions'.  The implied hierarchy of 'lower battalion number equals better troops' will be kept, so I imagine my Imperial Guard-equivalent will have two crack battalions, and two almost-as-good ones.

Each 'Regiment' will be mainly a single troop type, so infantry, cavalry and artillery Regiments.  Like the Honourable Artillery Company, which will probably mount as many guns as a Soviet-era Artillery Division.  I'm less concerned with matching modern military unit size conceptions than I am with flavour.
8
C# Aurora / Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Last post by Hazard on Today at 05:27:06 AM »
Tanks can fight without infantry support.

If they're fighting on a large, flat plain.

Anywhere else, or anywhere where infantry can fire a few shots of AT weapons and then run and fade?

Tanks need infantry support, because otherwise they're going to get torn apart.
9
C# Aurora / Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Last post by Bremen on Today at 02:43:59 AM »
There's a good collection of them on the first page of the Real World Ground Templates thread (keep scrolling down).
10
C# Aurora / Re: C# Ground Forces Composition
« Last post by Whitecold on Today at 01:57:14 AM »
Does anyone have the link with the screenshots of the component stats? I can't seem to find them again, would be useful for the theorycrafting.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10