Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 441777 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1290 on: January 05, 2018, 09:27:19 AM »
- Finally on the aircraft position have you given any thoughts to giving forces an air cover status and having bonuses / penalties based on air cover level. Ie covered, contested, unprotected, air superiority. Aircraft should have specific orders to attack other aircraft, defend or attack surface to air units. Clearly if you loose air cover you should be at a penalty on deployment and also should allow better intel for the force with air superiority.

There will be different fighter missions, including ground support, air superiority and flak-suppression.
 
The following users thanked this post: chrislocke2000

Offline sublight

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Captain
  • *
  • s
  • Posts: 592
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1291 on: January 05, 2018, 12:55:52 PM »
Originally, I wanted a situation where both sides on defence result in a low-intensity combat but once someone attacks it becomes more intense. There are issues with that approach though as highlighted by Bremen, because it becomes too advantageous to attack. Similarly, in a situation where defence means no firing, there is no disadvantage to attacking. One option though would be defence means no firing unless attacked, in which case you get to fire back. However, that leads to creating a few huge formations so your returning of fire becomes more effective. The solution needs to be size-independent. Also, a situation where defence means a lower chance to hit is the same as a situation where attacking increases the chance to hit.

I still like this concept. Maybe the the huge formation issue could be migrated by adding a counter tracking the number of individual elements as [enaged/unengaged]? Attackers will naturally try to focus fire and engage say, half their tonnage, when attacking leaving the remaining defenders out of position for high-intensity participation. If they overrun (fully engage) their randomly paired defending formation then a new defender (or support) unit is selected for partial/full engagement on that front.

The defenders can then sit and take it, order one or more units to abandon their fortifications and sortie out against the attackers to even the odds, or else order one or more attacked units to withdraw under fire.

For example say you build a new a new Guard Armored Regiment and then immediately scrap all other conventional forces to reclaim the manpower once it finishes fortifying. I find that both threatening and a mistakenly easy target and order my Guard Infantry regiment to attack. My 6882 tons engages 3441+tons (~38.5%) of the Armored regiment. Say, [22x Leman, 7x Hellhound, 4x Hydra... and the Macherious]. While you could leave everything fortified perhaps you dislike seeing the Macherious command tank as an early target, so you order the armored regiment to abandon their fortification and fully engage. In the next round I then might order all my fortified conventional forces to up and charge the now unfortified line in hopes they could turn the battle. Conversely if I had attacked with everything first then my overwhelming numbers of crappy conventionally forces would likely have just as fully engaged the Armored regiment while leaving them their full fortification bonuses.


In this case being the first to attack is advantageous
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1292 on: January 05, 2018, 01:17:55 PM »
Originally, I wanted a situation where both sides on defence result in a low-intensity combat but once someone attacks it becomes more intense. There are issues with that approach though as highlighted by Bremen, because it becomes too advantageous to attack. Similarly, in a situation where defence means no firing, there is no disadvantage to attacking. One option though would be defence means no firing unless attacked, in which case you get to fire back. However, that leads to creating a few huge formations so your returning of fire becomes more effective. The solution needs to be size-independent. Also, a situation where defence means a lower chance to hit is the same as a situation where attacking increases the chance to hit.
Again, thinking simplistically can you get around the formation size problem by you just removing the formation all together for combat? You could lump every formation on the same order into a single "army", process attacks and defensive fire for the whole army and then divide up the losses between the constituent formations? If you really want 2 large formations on attack and 20 small formations on attack to be exactly equal then the simplest solution is to reduce both to 1 identical army.

In effect the formations become just for rp colour and logistical/transportation reasons, the game treats them as a single army for combat.
 

 
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1293 on: January 05, 2018, 02:32:40 PM »
If you want to make it so two forces both set on defense wont fight, the easy way to do that is to just make it so units on defense only fire on units on attack (units on attack would engage both units on defense and attack). Then eliminate/massively reduce the supply penalty for attack, but give attackers a chance to take territory and damage rear echelon units, and it should be decently balanced. No worries about different formation sizes (however the attacker would still want either every front line formation on attack or none of them, lest they be defeated in detail).

This throws a wrench into the battle, though, in that attackers could land on a planet and just begin to fortify. If attackers permanently lose their fortification bonus, this wouldn't gain them much (they'd still have to attack eventually), but if attackers retain their fortification bonus but just don't use it on the attack, it means the attacker would want to wait to fortify before attacking, so they could retreat to the fortifications if the battle doesn't go well.

You could add another layer to that by allowing bombardment units to still hit units on defense, so that if both sides choose defend then their artillery will still pound positions, but that wouldn't work with the support approach you were going for before where support formations can be assigned a front line formation and will fire on anyone that engages them. However, this risks making defense too hard since it would allow the enemy to land ground forces, not attack, and just keep bombarding the defending troops (including from orbit) until they gave up and launched their own assault.

Overall, it's a bit of a more complex scenario but one with potential balance issues.


On the other hand, I was thinking of attack as more like a fast assault, and therefor two sides both on defense would work out more like trench warfare in WWI, with constant skirmishing. This would probably result in a simpler, more attrition based fight, but that isn't a downside to me (to me the strategy and complexity is more in the strategic layer and space battles).

An invader could set their troops on defense and settle in for the long haul; they wouldn't have any fortification at first, but would slowly build some. Or they could go for an quick assault, hoping to disable the enemy STO weapons quickly as well as take some of the territory which is the whole point of invading in the first place.
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1294 on: January 05, 2018, 02:58:10 PM »
On the other hand, I was thinking of attack as more like a fast assault, and therefor two sides both on defense would work out more like trench warfare in WWI, with constant skirmishing. This would probably result in a simpler, more attrition based fight, but that isn't a downside to me (to me the strategy and complexity is more in the strategic layer and space battles).

An invader could set their troops on defense and settle in for the long haul; they wouldn't have any fortification at first, but would slowly build some. Or they could go for an quick assault, hoping to disable the enemy STO weapons quickly as well as take some of the territory which is the whole point of invading in the first place.

I think the above is on the lies of where I am heading. Defence/fortification on both sides is an attrition fight. I've starting coding on the basis that only formations on attack (normal weight) can potentially select Support Formations (25% weight) and Rear Echelon (5%). In addition, when units are killed by an attacking formation they take double morale penalty and attacking formations gain double morale bonus when killing the enemy. So Attacking is a way to wear down the enemy support structure (morale and support formations) and boost your own formations into high quality more quickly.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 06:59:13 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1295 on: January 05, 2018, 04:54:08 PM »
Just taking a stab at an idea:

When attacking, units have a chance to overrun positions. This is represented by reducing fortification levels when that fortification protects a unit.

When an attack is made against a unit, the hit chance is rolled, then it's compared against armor and hp. If the attack would be a kill (IE it penetrates armor and successfully rolls vs the enemy hitpoints), then the target's fortification level is rolled as normal. If the unit would die, it dies. If the fortification level saves the unit, it loses a level of fortification. If both sides are defending I think this probably shouldn't happen, to give an advantage to attacking (it obviously wont happen to a unit when it's attacking since it wont have any fortification to roll anyways).

(Since I assume fortification is tracked by element, this would be averaged out; ie if an element has 100 infantry at fortification 3, and fortification saves 1 soldier from an attack, the fortification is reduced by .01, to 2.99)

Units on attack maintain (but don't use) their current fortification value, so you can attack with a unit for awhile then send it back to its previous fortifications. However, units on attack don't gain fortification, while units on the defense will gradually rebuild up to their maximum self fortification value. There's a balance there; units on defense increase their fortification, units on attack reduce enemy fortification.

In other words, fortification works kind of like extra lives. Or if you play D&D, the mirror image spell. This means that when an invasion force first arrives, the defenders have a very large advantage, but if the attackers strike hard and fast they'll wear down the advantage. It also means fortification will never get completely "worn down" to 1; the lower it gets, the more losses you'll take but the less often the fortifications will get lowered. It also keeps construction units relevant in combat, by slowly rebuilding the "extra lives".
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 05:08:35 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1296 on: January 06, 2018, 05:12:47 AM »
not sure if it is even possible to solve the land combat satisfying at all in a 4X game... :(

I don't know any 4x game with an even "acceptable" ground combat mechanic... just look at what Stellaris is trying to chance in 2.0...

it's always "the bigger army wins, most likely with no casualties at all"...

there is a point why ground combat is very basic in the games like Endless Space, Stellaris, etcpp

...

If you want to make the enormous chances and detailed parts you want to integrate in C# really work, I am afraid a whole new "land combat" is needed - much more detailed - something like the space combat were you move and order individuel troops/formations to do tasks.. attacks... etcpp ... a simplyfied ground combat as now with this much detail in formation design, stats etc is not going to work I am afraid.. if there would be an easy solution, I am thinking the big AAA games would have used it as the "ground combat" part is an enormous problem for all the 4X games -.-

but to add a detailed ground combat would be a whole game for itself - not sure if it would be worth..

---

what I am thinking... maybe making the chances to ground combat in 2 steps...

step 1 including the stuff with formations, design etc as planed atm but with more or less a "ground combat" as in VB6 without too much chances - not optimal but workable - to not delay C# more than nessassary

Step 2 after the first C# version is done, integrating a better ground combat mechanic in the first 1-2 patches...

this would a) not delay C# too much and b) would give Steve and the community time to make a concept of ground combat wich might work without time pressure

...

not optimal but ... ground combat with all the detail the new design mechanic opens up will be highly complicated, a system wich Steve has a lot time to invest but proofs to be "the same as before", too complicated, too one-sided, too broring or too stressful etcpp would be lost time and even more unsatisfying as it would be "lots of work with nothing gained" ... better to make it workable  for the moment and plan to make it "really work with all the details" and rightly planed in C#1.1
« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 05:33:46 AM by King-Salomon »
 
The following users thanked this post: El Pip, ChildServices

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1297 on: January 06, 2018, 08:08:11 AM »
not optimal but ... ground combat with all the detail the new design mechanic opens up will be highly complicated, a system wich Steve has a lot time to invest but proofs to be "the same as before", too complicated, too one-sided, too broring or too stressful etcpp would be lost time and even more unsatisfying as it would be "lots of work with nothing gained" ... better to make it workable  for the moment and plan to make it "really work with all the details" and rightly planed in C#1.1

Part of the reason for the more detailed ground design process is to give players more investment in, and attachment to, their ground forces. Other reasons includes creating more interesting invasion mechanics at a strategic level, replacing PDCs, having more interesting planetary environments and making planets harder to conquer. It isn't primarily about detailed combat mechanics at the same level as naval combat. They mechanics need to give the player some consequential decisions during combat and be heavily influenced by the player's strategic design choices. There is quite of lot of detail during combat resolution, with the various factors influencing the to hit role, but most of that happens after the player makes his decision.

 
The following users thanked this post: Person012345, Rye123

Offline Froggiest1982

  • Gold Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 1331
  • Thanked: 589 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1298 on: January 07, 2018, 02:36:37 AM »
For what it's worth I entirely agree with Steve on this.

Planetary warfare is a completely different beast then galactic warfare.  In small thinking, it does not matter if you do have the best aircrafts in the world if you not able to take ports or structure on the ground with as effective troops.  This option will bring an actual different thinking level while planning invasions.  My guess is AI will use different formations and doctrines as well therefore just drop unit or bombard a planet will not guarantee your success like it was pretty much done with the old system where only a few units were available.  @Steve Walmsley sorry to bother you, but are you also thinking to introduce some sort of exhaustion to ground units? I've seen the terrain modifiers, but I believe a sort of exhaustion factor will simulate the logistic/supply penalty of long wars with the possibility of introducing an engineer or logistic division able to mitigate such effects adding an extra layer of strategy/planning.  Basically, these units will provide the required supplies to carry on daily operations.  The possibility of having these units "mandatory" (not only for invasions but pretty much used as maintenance supply works for warships) will probably make it easier to program rather than a separate mechanism which I guess will be hard for you as for anybody to set up.

Thanks

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1299 on: January 07, 2018, 02:26:27 PM »
For what it's worth I entirely agree with Steve on this.

Planetary warfare is a completely different beast then galactic warfare.  In small thinking, it does not matter if you do have the best aircrafts in the world if you not able to take ports or structure on the ground with as effective troops.  This option will bring an actual different thinking level while planning invasions.  My guess is AI will use different formations and doctrines as well therefore just drop unit or bombard a planet will not guarantee your success like it was pretty much done with the old system where only a few units were available.  @Steve Walmsley sorry to bother you, but are you also thinking to introduce some sort of exhaustion to ground units? I've seen the terrain modifiers, but I believe a sort of exhaustion factor will simulate the logistic/supply penalty of long wars with the possibility of introducing an engineer or logistic division able to mitigate such effects adding an extra layer of strategy/planning.  Basically, these units will provide the required supplies to carry on daily operations.  The possibility of having these units "mandatory" (not only for invasions but pretty much used as maintenance supply works for warships) will probably make it easier to program rather than a separate mechanism which I guess will be hard for you as for anybody to set up.

Thanks

There will be some form of logistic units. I've been holding off on exactly how they work because of issues around tracking supply point usage but it finally struck me how to do it. Each logistic unit (probably static base type) will use up a set amount of maintenance supply points (MSP) during creation. When combat takes place, each side will use up a certain amount of MSP (to be determined) during each combat phase, based on that type of units engaged.

Lets assume that each logistic unit includes 100 MSP. If combat consumes 230 MSP that would use up two logistic units with a 30% chance of a third unit being consumed. Over time, that will work out fine with no record-keeping needed. If no logistic units remain then combat will become far less effective (major penalty to hit, or perhaps no offensive fire at all). This will give an incentive to land a number of logistic units with the initial invasion, plus the potential for resupply runs against hostile defences.
 
The following users thanked this post: Froggiest1982

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1300 on: January 07, 2018, 02:37:19 PM »
Are the logistics units themselves used up, or the MSP they carry?

I think it should only be the MSP being used up, so I can resupply them with cargo holds or maintenance storage bays instead of the comparatively-heavy troop transport module.  It also doesn't make much sense RP-wise for the units themselves to be used up.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1301 on: January 07, 2018, 02:45:00 PM »
I've been working on a new component for fighters (the fighter combat pod), which would be used by fighters on ground combat missions. A fighter with the appropriate order would fly to a planet (facing any defences en route) and enter low-level ground combat mode (which makes it immune to STO units but vulnerable to AA units during the ground combat phase). The pod is designed in the Create Research Project window and replicates some of the functions of the ground combat components, such as bombardment or anti-air. Anti-air in this case effectively allows the fighter to dogfight hostile fighters near the planetary surface. Each pod would fulfil one function so you would need to design different fighters to fulfil different missions (air superiority, ground support, anti-tank).

My initial thought to was to make the pods one use only but much smaller than the equivalent ground combat component (20% size), so the fighter would have a significant impact and then return to reload. However, that raised some issues.

1) If it is one use only, that means stepping through the increments necessary to get the fighters to and from the planet (past the planetary defences), which means ground combat involves a lot more micromanagement.
2) Depending on the interval of ground combat phases (and I am thinking hours not days), with the necessary micromanagement the fighter could actually return and reload for every combat phase, which would make it very powerful in situations without planetary defences.

So, I think the fighters will have to have modules similar to those of ground units, which allows them to stay in the fight until shot down or they choose to pull out. Effectively energy weapons rather than bombs. I would like to have some limitation though on their endurance though so I have a couple of ideas:

1) They also use MSP when firing so would be limited to how much MSP they carry
2) Being in low level combat uses fuel (although less than in space) so once their fuel runs low they would need to return home.

In either or both of these cases, the fighters would stay in combat for a while, which removes a lot of the micromanagement but still create the flavour of sending carrier-based fighters to support the ground battle.

How does that sound?
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1302 on: January 07, 2018, 03:50:12 PM »
I'm still of the opinion that fighters should use the same weapons in both space combat and ground combat, to be honest, or else they're really two separate things (as you're pretty much never going to want a fighter with both types of weapons).

Of those two options, though, I'd definitely go with the fuel. Exact amount of fuel use would probably depend on how slow ground combat is compared to space combat.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1303 on: January 07, 2018, 04:01:19 PM »
There will be some form of logistic units. I've been holding off on exactly how they work because of issues around tracking supply point usage but it finally struck me how to do it. Each logistic unit (probably static base type) will use up a set amount of maintenance supply points (MSP) during creation. When combat takes place, each side will use up a certain amount of MSP (to be determined) during each combat phase, based on that type of units engaged.

Lets assume that each logistic unit includes 100 MSP. If combat consumes 230 MSP that would use up two logistic units with a 30% chance of a third unit being consumed. Over time, that will work out fine with no record-keeping needed. If no logistic units remain then combat will become far less effective (major penalty to hit, or perhaps no offensive fire at all). This will give an incentive to land a number of logistic units with the initial invasion, plus the potential for resupply runs against hostile defences.

If you want to do it like this either let ground units or ships use MSP to create logistics units or just have all MSP usage in a ground combat round tallied and subtracted from the total planetary stockpile of the faction, fractional MSP lost on chance basis.

Consumable logistics units are otherwise really inconvenient.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1304 on: January 07, 2018, 04:42:11 PM »
I think that the idea is that having logistics units means a fleet can just drop the infantry units and leave orbit without also needing an order to drop x MSP.

Instead, would it be possible to just set an MSP stockpile for a formation in the same way that you set deployment time while designing ships? Ideally it would then show you an estimate on how long the supplies would last for normal usage and combat. Then the formation's cost and transport size could increase proportionately (but without any additional units/elements in the formation), and when you landed the units they would take the MSP with them. If on a planet with an MSP stockpile ground units would then attempt to refill up to their designated stockpile size.