combat on or above surface areas on planets

[esavier]

This is not really bad idea, i think that this should be polished and straightened up, but it has a potential...
I most of invasions are mostly slapping more troops on the ground, its kind of repetitive after while. On the other side adding planetary grid means that there are a lot of stuff to take into consideration, and i mean a lot, what if planet is tidal-locked? where is rear echelon/support when you are surrounded, are there terrain considerations? are there special structures like to take for example factories or fuel refineries? How hard would it be to manage such conquest? Combat width, orbital bombardment (tactican not strategic). How AI would handle it? How hard it would be to the game (strain on pc) Some of those features i do not see point in without the others, some i would imagine that are incredibly hard to code on database engine.

Can it be chunked up into smaller feature-pieces that works together (i.e. something that can be done and tested in finite amount of time, i.e. around 3months)? Also i think that Steven should take a look at this from technical side. I believe that we can argue about anything, and there is good point on both sides on the barricade, but in the end if Steven says "no, it wont work or will take 3 years to do i am done with this goodbye" then its more on the pointless side?

[liveware]

I think a good way to implement something like this would be to make it very modular. For example, if the player wants to engage a planet at the tactical level, that could be tick box or button somewhere to toggle tactical mode on/off. If TM isoff, the game works as it does now. If TM is on (selectable on a per planet basis) a new window becomes available with a tactical map of the planet, with options for troop disposition. This type of setup would allow the tactical aspects to be separated out from the existing strategic aspects of the game, and gives some control over how many simultaneous tactical engagements a player or the game engine can handle.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think a good way to implement something like this would be to make it very modular. For example, if the player wants to engage a planet at the tactical level, that could be tick box or button somewhere to toggle tactical mode on/off. If TM isoff, the game works as it does now. If TM is on (selectable on a per planet basis) a new window becomes available with a tactical map of the planet, with options for troop disposition. This type of setup would allow the tactical aspects to be separated out from the existing strategic aspects of the game, and gives some control over how many simultaneous tactical engagements a player or the game engine can handle.

To be honest I think a tactical portion of ground combat is a terrible idea. I think that a much better simulation model would be way more interesting from a game play perspective. Tactical ground combat in any way would be a huge time sink for Steve in terms of coding that I don't think would be worth while at all. On the other hand a better more deeper simulation model could be expanded on with relatively little efforts.

[Norm49]

I like this idea but sadly it is probably a lot of work for Steve and rely complicated so I am not expecting this to become a thing, even if i would love to see this.

[Kristover]

I think a good way to implement something like this would be to make it very modular. For example, if the player wants to engage a planet at the tactical level, that could be tick box or button somewhere to toggle tactical mode on/off. If TM isoff, the game works as it does now. If TM is on (selectable on a per planet basis) a new window becomes available with a tactical map of the planet, with options for troop disposition. This type of setup would allow the tactical aspects to be separated out from the existing strategic aspects of the game, and gives some control over how many simultaneous tactical engagements a player or the game engine can handle.

To be honest I think a tactical portion of ground combat is a terrible idea. I think that a much better simulation model would be way more interesting from a game play perspective. Tactical ground combat in any way would be a huge time sink for Steve in terms of coding that I don't think would be worth while at all. On the other hand a better more deeper simulation model could be expanded on with relatively little efforts.

I think adding a tactical portion wouldn't be worth it but I would like to see two things (besides Aerospace forces and Rebuild to Template) and that is a stance setting that allows you to 'be out of contact' and a concealment tech line.  The first is to simulate a unit that is declining combat and gives you the ability to create a circumstance where you have a 'battle pause' for resupply and refit.  I think this could be simulated with making if two opposing units who have front line defense set won't engage each other.  The other change is concealment so that it is possible that a small unit could conceivably be on planet 'hiding' out and choosing to not engage or conducting 'hit and run' attacks.  This would simulate special operations/partisan activity.   You might have a separate tech line for ground detection to simulate dedicated counterinsurgent/police forces that hunt down these guys.

[Malorn]

I think adding a tactical portion wouldn't be worth it but I would like to see two things (besides Aerospace forces and Rebuild to Template) and that is a stance setting that allows you to 'be out of contact' and a concealment tech line.  The first is to simulate a unit that is declining combat and gives you the ability to create a circumstance where you have a 'battle pause' for resupply and refit.  I think this could be simulated with making if two opposing units who have front line defense set won't engage each other.  The other change is concealment so that it is possible that a small unit could conceivably be on planet 'hiding' out and choosing to not engage or conducting 'hit and run' attacks.  This would simulate special operations/partisan activity.   You might have a separate tech line for ground detection to simulate dedicated counterinsurgent/police forces that hunt down these guys.

I agree, some sort of way to 'avoid engagement' for forces on a planet would be a useful thing.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think a good way to implement something like this would be to make it very modular. For example, if the player wants to engage a planet at the tactical level, that could be tick box or button somewhere to toggle tactical mode on/off. If TM isoff, the game works as it does now. If TM is on (selectable on a per planet basis) a new window becomes available with a tactical map of the planet, with options for troop disposition. This type of setup would allow the tactical aspects to be separated out from the existing strategic aspects of the game, and gives some control over how many simultaneous tactical engagements a player or the game engine can handle.

To be honest I think a tactical portion of ground combat is a terrible idea. I think that a much better simulation model would be way more interesting from a game play perspective. Tactical ground combat in any way would be a huge time sink for Steve in terms of coding that I don't think would be worth while at all. On the other hand a better more deeper simulation model could be expanded on with relatively little efforts.

I think adding a tactical portion wouldn't be worth it but I would like to see two things (besides Aerospace forces and Rebuild to Template) and that is a stance setting that allows you to 'be out of contact' and a concealment tech line.  The first is to simulate a unit that is declining combat and gives you the ability to create a circumstance where you have a 'battle pause' for resupply and refit.  I think this could be simulated with making if two opposing units who have front line defense set won't engage each other.  The other change is concealment so that it is possible that a small unit could conceivably be on planet 'hiding' out and choosing to not engage or conducting 'hit and run' attacks.  This would simulate special operations/partisan activity.   You might have a separate tech line for ground detection to simulate dedicated counterinsurgent/police forces that hunt down these guys.

I absolutely agree that there need to be some more simulation effect of the sort that you describe.

In addition to this there should be some sort of front mechanic so you can't overwhelm an enemy using ten times the weight numbers as it is not realistic to do that. In the real world it is difficult at best to get a 3 or 4 to one strength ratio at any point in a battle line due to presenting too many target will work against you and hinder your own both tactical and strategic movement. Force concentration should instead be air-force, artillery and orbital bombardments job in general. From a math perspective then artillery is rather expensive for what it does as there is no mechanic to reduce the effectiveness of the front line in relation to overwhelming the enemy front line.

There also could be stances for how much devastation you will do to the enemy infrastructure and civilians and it will have en effect on how offensive you can be and reduce your fire power in order to avoid hitting civilian targets.

There are many small things you could add the the ground combat model to increase the simulation perspective without too much coding effort or changing how things work.

The current model are a bit too deterministic and gives too many one sided results. Using the mechanics as is will never really have two sides ending up in a stalemate and I think that is a problem. It should be possible for an attacker to assault a planet just to find out they can't beat the enemy and they withdraw to a defensive stance. The defender also can't attack as that would leave them vulnerable. It would then be a classic stalemate. Sadly this will never really happen as now one side will always win as there are no real defensive stance in the game.

[Kristover]

I mean planets are big places so right now there is no option to 'land on the other side of the planet' and go on defense for a month or two while I build combat power.  If the defenders want to break entrenchment and push me off planet before I build enough force to overwelm them, than go for it. 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I mean planets are big places so right now there is no option to 'land on the other side of the planet' and go on defense for a month or two while I build combat power.  If the defenders want to break entrenchment and push me off planet before I build enough force to overwelm them, than go for it.

Obviously the easiest thing is to never allow defensive lines to hit each other at all. In addition there also should be a maximum capacity in how many attacking size can attack any combined (attacking and defending) size as well. This could then be modified be general traits and stuff... but it would make things more dynamic and realistic. In addition the larger two armies get the less of the forces would engage all the time... so to show that a combat against a small garrison at an military outpost might take a few days given the right attacking force but invading an enemy home system could take years to resolve. One way to solve it would be to make combat rounds shorter if the forces are smaller and longer if the forces are greater to simulate that large conflicts are way more drawn out and can't be as intense in general. really small conflicts might have a combat round every two hours while epic wars have a combat round every 5-10 days. Having 8 hour combat reports for two years might be a bummer.... there even could be a sepparate combat event log so as not to clutter up the regular event log... I actually think they game could do well with a separate combat event log in general.

[Froggiest1982]

I mean planets are big places so right now there is no option to 'land on the other side of the planet' and go on defense for a month or two while I build combat power.  If the defenders want to break entrenchment and push me off planet before I build enough force to overwelm them, than go for it.

Obviously the easiest thing is to never allow defensive lines to hit each other at all. In addition there also should be a maximum capacity in how many attacking size can attack any combined (attacking and defending) size as well. This could then be modified be general traits and stuff... but it would make things more dynamic and realistic. In addition the larger two armies get the less of the forces would engage all the time... so to show that a combat against a small garrison at an military outpost might take a few days given the right attacking force but invading an enemy home system could take years to resolve. One way to solve it would be to make combat rounds shorter if the forces are smaller and longer if the forces are greater to simulate that large conflicts are way more drawn out and can't be as intense in general. really small conflicts might have a combat round every two hours while epic wars have a combat round every 5-10 days. Having 8 hour combat reports for two years might be a bummer.... there even could be a sepparate combat event log so as not to clutter up the regular event log... I actually think they game could do well with a separate combat event log in general.

Looking at what has been done with Stellaris and with Terraforming in Aurora you could tie the front size considering:

Dimension of Planet
Water extension
Terrain

All the above in a formula should result in a max amount of tons involved in a battle to match Aurora ground units mechanic.

Now I think a 50/50 split would be fair and that is personal but assuming Steve would really retouch the orbital mechanics I think a 50/50 could lead to some interesting combats where bombardment or STO will be essential to win.

Of course only in case both armies fill the max ton allowed.

So maybe on Earth you could have a front of 500,000 tons while on Luna only 150,000 tons. Anyway the formula and the best way would be up to Steve of course.

All formations set as attack on front will contribute to the max tons allowed when the others are back either bombardment, echelon or support.

I just guess the above might be very hard to code.

[Droll]

I mean planets are big places so right now there is no option to 'land on the other side of the planet' and go on defense for a month or two while I build combat power.  If the defenders want to break entrenchment and push me off planet before I build enough force to overwelm them, than go for it.

Obviously the easiest thing is to never allow defensive lines to hit each other at all. In addition there also should be a maximum capacity in how many attacking size can attack any combined (attacking and defending) size as well. This could then be modified be general traits and stuff... but it would make things more dynamic and realistic. In addition the larger two armies get the less of the forces would engage all the time... so to show that a combat against a small garrison at an military outpost might take a few days given the right attacking force but invading an enemy home system could take years to resolve. One way to solve it would be to make combat rounds shorter if the forces are smaller and longer if the forces are greater to simulate that large conflicts are way more drawn out and can't be as intense in general. really small conflicts might have a combat round every two hours while epic wars have a combat round every 5-10 days. Having 8 hour combat reports for two years might be a bummer.... there even could be a sepparate combat event log so as not to clutter up the regular event log... I actually think they game could do well with a separate combat event log in general.

Looking at what has been done with Stellaris and with Terraforming in Aurora you could tie the front size considering:

Dimension of Planet
Water extension
Terrain

All the above in a formula should result in a max amount of tons involved in a battle to match Aurora ground units mechanic.

Now I think a 50/50 split would be fair and that is personal but assuming Steve would really retouch the orbital mechanics I think a 50/50 could lead to some interesting combats where bombardment or STO will be essential to win.

Of course only in case both armies fill the max ton allowed.

So maybe on Earth you could have a front of 500,000 tons while on Luna only 150,000 tons. Anyway the formula and the best way would be up to Steve of course.

All formations set as attack on front will contribute to the max tons allowed when the others are back either bombardment, echelon or support.

I just guess the above might be very hard to code.

This would also provide a way to make frontline defence a sensible formation position to use when attacking. You could have it so that defensive formations do not or only contribute a % combat width to the max active combat tonnage in the front. Effectively creating a realistic defensive and offensive line for the attacker through gameplay mechanics.