Author Topic: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops  (Read 3686 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline blue emu (OP)

  • Commander
  • *********
  • b
  • Posts: 344
  • Thanked: 2 times
What sort of combat formations do I need?... Line Battalions + Forward Observer, HQ+Artillery, etc

How big should they be?

What sort of elements should they contain?

What stance should each formation have?... Front Line Attack for Line Battalions, Support for HQ+Art, Rear for STOs, etc

Any other tips?
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2991
  • Thanked: 2249 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2021, 10:38:22 AM »
Oh hi.  :P

I'm gonna link you to a big ol' effortpost I made a while back which digs into some of the logistical questions about ground forces and planetary invasions. The tl;dr version is that while for Precursor planets a couple 100k tons will usually be plenty, for invading a NPR homeworld you need multi-million tons of ground forces, with at least 10-15% of your tonnage being logistics elements.

In terms of combat formations, it depends on how you want to organize your forces, and nearly anything will be fine (numbers and technology are far, far more important than force composition in general). Probably the best way to sort this out is to work backwards and design your formation hierarchy first. A pretty basic four-level hierarchy might be:

XXXX Army HQ (CON, LOG)
Each army controls:
    XXX Corps HQ (MBL or HB, HAA, CON, LOG)
    XXX Corps HQ (MBL or HB, HAA, CON, LOG)
    XXX Corps HQ (MBL or HB, HAA, CON, LOG)
    Each corps controls:
        XX Division HQ (MB, MAA, LOG)
        XX Division HQ (MB, MAA, LOG)
        XX Division HQ (MB, MAA, LOG)
        Each division controls:
            X Brigade (line infantry and/or armor formations)
            X Brigade (line infantry and/or armor formations)
            X Brigade (line infantry and/or armor formations)


You'll notice that each layer of hierarchy controls three subordinate formations - this is different than in VB6 when each HQ level controlled four formations. The difference is because the ratio between commander ranks (with automatic promotions turned on) is 3:1 in C#, whereas it was 4:1 in VB6. You can count out that each Army-level hierarchy includes a total of (1+3+9+27) = 40 formations, so you will need 40 commanders to lead those formations effectively.

This leads to the important point that the size of your ground formations is really going to be tied very closely to how many commanders you have/can generate. If I have, say, 200 ground force commanders, I can form up roughly 5 Army-level hierarchies to form my invasion forces (discounting the need for some commanders to be in charge of planetary garrisons and other defensive forces). So if I need, let's say 5 million tons of soldiers in my best estimation, split between 200 formations since that is how many I can effectively command, each formation needs to be about 25,000 tons.

(Note that if I used a "traditional" 5,000-ton battalion as my basic formation type, I would need a whopping 1,000 commanders to lead my invasion, which is probably not feasible until fairly late in the game. Don't even get me started on building an OOB out of 1,000-ton companies... shudder...)

So that covers very briefly the broad ideas of organization and formation size. Specific questions:
  • Line brigades can be whatever you like: infantry, vehicles of any class, etc. Generally infantry and static are better defensive units and armored vehicles are better on the offensive, however even on the offensive it is still good to have infantry to eat shots for your heavy hitters. Any combination of weapon types will be effective if it is not too crazy, but a good general rule is to have plenty of CAP as it is very good against infantry, and mix in some (but not too much) LAV/MAV to kill armored units. Set these to front-line attack or defense as appropriate - the only difference is that Attack uses the Evasion (Hit Mod) stat and Defense uses the unit fortification to determine hit modifiers.
    • For infantry brigades, usually a lot of PW with a mix of CAP and LAV will work. You can use LB to model mortars and Static MAV for heavier anti-tank guns, but you don't have to.
    • For armor brigades, the standard medium tank is a Vehicle with MAV and CAP, and many players will complement these with a 2xCAP anti-infantry tank as CAP-heavy formations are usually most effective.
    • I'm also fond of "mechanized" brigades with infantry and LVH+CAP for armored personnel carriers, but this is more of a flavor thing and doesn't do anything terribly special for you mechanically.
  • Support brigades can generally include artillery, AA if you want it (NPRs do not use ground support fighters so AA is purely cosmetic), CON if you have it, and supplies (but see below). Generally, formations with MB should be in the Support echelon, and anything with MBL, HB, or no artillery should be in the rear echelon. Make sure to set artillery support for the line brigades with the click+drag interface so the artillery actually fires in support.
  • In terms of logistics, if you read my linked post you'll find that there are two main options:
    • Traditionally, LVH+LOG has been used at higher HQ levels to automatically resupply subordinate formations - however, LVH+LOG is not cost-effective as you get some 40% as much resupply per build point expended compared to infantry-based supply units.
    • Since 1.12 with the Unit Series and Replacements feature, the most cost-effective option is to equip every formation with 5-10 days worth of INF+LOG-S units, and use large "supply dump" formations of only LOG-S elements set to be used as replacements (and stick these in the rear echelon). These do not even need to be in your hierarchy and will replenish any formation at that population as LOG-S elements are consumed or lost to enemy fire. The downside is that you do need 5-10% of the units (by tonnage) in every formation to be logistics elements, which somewhat diminishes initial combat power, but this isn't going to be a big problem in practice especially with formations in the 20,000-ton or larger range.
  • One other tip, because if I don't mention it someone else will - transport capacity is a big limit as building a lot of transports is an expensive and time-consuming process. In many cases, it is a best practice to establish a forward base on a nearby moon to assemble your troops, and then rapidly shuttle them back and forth with drop ships in waves.
  • Also do not discount the use of non-drop-capable ships to do some of the landing work, they may be slower but the unloading time is about as long as it would take to load the troops from the forward base, so you can still put a lot of troops on the ground more quickly by using non-drop transports to help.

Any more questions, shoot them out. I'm likely gone much of the day but I'm sure many other forum members are happy to answer!
 
The following users thanked this post: AlStar, HKO2006, serger, Sebmono, nakorkren

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2796
  • Thanked: 1054 times
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2021, 09:11:39 AM »
You can emulate a real-world military if you want. People have done it, Marski most famously modelled an entire Soviet Motorized Rifle Division down to a squad level, and it'll work well enough. It's a lot of micro to create and manage them.

Leaving aside the commander issue, game mechanics makes it preferable to have 2:2 ratio of line and support formations because an artillery formation can only support a single line formation at a time.

As for formation sizes, using 5,000 tons as a foundation is a good idea because a single large troop transport bay has that much room. I go with 5,000-ton battalions as my smallest unit and then do 25,000-ton regiments of 4 battalions and the Regimental HQ+supply+AAA.

There is little point in putting infantry or vehicles into artillery formations because while they can soak up some counter-battery fire, their presence just makes the artillery formation more likely to be targeted in the first place. Similarly, for offensive units you want to avoid static units because they really reduce the chance of the formation to achieve a breakthrough.

Speaking of which, if a formation gets wiped out, the enemy gets a breakthrough. This has been tested and the conclusion is that few large formations are better than lots of small formations - but the effect is small enough that any tech difference will nullify it, as will commander bonuses.
 

Offline Marski

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 389
  • Thanked: 139 times
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2021, 04:37:22 PM »
I'm dropping this thread link here, sure the IRL formations aren't meta (but who gives a damn about that). However they go a long way to providing a basic template and reference point from which to work out toward making your own OOB.
 

Offline serger

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 634
  • Thanked: 120 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2021, 09:25:54 AM »
Ground commander's bonuses still aren't accumulating down the command hierarchy, AFAIK, so mechanically you really need no more then 3 levels of hierarchy (just to separate frontline, support and rear formations), and it's entirely ok to go with 2 levels only. Deeper hierarchies are just for fun.
 

Offline serger

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 634
  • Thanked: 120 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2021, 10:17:11 AM »
+ Forward Observer, HQ+Artillery

How big should they be?

Mechanically you need no Forward Observers, because they are useful for close air support only, and it's a headache with current interface to stack enough CAS crafts to be usefull at all, and if you have no overwhelming tech advantage, then enemy AA will make your CAS smth like very expensive and ineffective expendables.
Though I like to add Forward Observers to my formations. Just because heck you, that's why.

Artillery is rather dirty thing now, because too much collateral damage even after lowering it with last patch, and it's not the best damage dealer, so if you want to minimax - you can go without artillery support at all.
I'm playing with manually modified DB now, so my arty formations are significantly relatively deadlier and less dirty, yet many times more voracious with supply, and it makes them quite effective while their share in overall force composition is not too large. With vanilla DB I'll have them nevertheless, just for fun, yet in lower numbers, because it's not very joyful for me to feel myself bloody stupid.

As for HQ - mechanically you need them in frontline and arty support for sure, to provide commander's bonuses, and your HQ unit have to be large enough to cover at least an average expected size of it's formation (so at least half the full pre-battle size of this formation) to use commander's bonuses effectively. The bigger your formation - the more relatively effective it's HQ will be, because HQ's own relative size will drop with nonlinear scale, yet it's minor effect. You can use spare HQ units too, yet mechanically they are just useless junks of TN minerals. Higher HQs are just for flavour, because hierarchical bonuses stacking is still broken, AFAIK.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2021, 10:20:37 AM by serger »
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2991
  • Thanked: 2249 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2021, 10:40:09 AM »
Mechanically you need no Forward Observers, because they are useful for close air support only, and it's a headache with current interface to stack enough CAS crafts to be usefull at all, and if you have no overwhelming tech advantage, then enemy AA will make your CAS smth like very expensive and ineffective expendables.

FFD are also used to assign support from ships in orbit at a rate of one ship per FFD component, which is an alternative to ground support fighters and somewhat less micro intensive. I'm not sure if this is a better approach than having a fleet do orbital bombardment directly, but I know it is at least cleaner (less collateral damage) and less demanding on beam warship MSP consumption.

Quote
Artillery is rather dirty thing now, because too much collateral damage even after lowering it with last patch, and it's not the best damage dealer, so if you want to minimax - you can go without artillery support at all.
I'm playing with manually modified DB now, so my arty formations are significantly relatively deadlier and less dirty, yet many times more voracious with supply, and it makes them quite effective while their share in overall force composition is not too large. With vanilla DB I'll have them nevertheless, just for fun, yet in lower numbers, because it's not very joyful for me to feel myself bloody stupid.

The major benefit of (vanilla) artillery units is that they are good damage dealers that are unlikely to suffer heavy losses due to living in the support or rear echelon, compared to frontline formations which are either bullet sponges (infantry) or heavily armored and can absorb a lot of fire. They are not the strongest raw damage dealer but they will survive for a long time compared to low-armor frontline units, and can be built much cheaper than heavily armored frontline units. Over the course of a long battle they prove highly efficient.

It is worth noting by the way, collateral damage is not being reduced until the 2.0 patch, so we have not yet seen if the 80% reduction is going to be enough to make artillery less destructive to planetary installations.
 

Offline Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1704
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2021, 11:24:04 AM »
It is worth noting by the way, collateral damage is not being reduced until the 2.0 patch, so we have not yet seen if the 80% reduction is going to be enough to make artillery less destructive to planetary installations.

Honestly, I stopped using heavy bombardment and just started to use long range bombardment and light bombardment. Long range are not set to support and will only do counterbattery fire. This has worked quite well for me and leaves me wondering whether or not the 80% reduction is going to completely over-compensate.
 

Offline serger

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 634
  • Thanked: 120 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2021, 12:27:06 PM »
I'm not sure if this is a better approach than having a fleet do orbital bombardment directly, but I know it is at least cleaner (less collateral damage)

I was sure on the opposite and so didn't use orbital bombardment aside of glassing needless planets, yet I haven't calced or tested and just cannot remember the cause of my confidence.

The major benefit of (vanilla) artillery units is that they are good damage dealers that are unlikely to suffer heavy losses due to living in the support or rear echelon

We have to take stock of average expected breakthrough effects to calc damage dealing correctly, and you have to deploy as much frontline attack units to keep breakthroughs, as possible, so the more artillery support - the less breakthroughs you do and more breakthroughs you suffer during the early combat phases.
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2991
  • Thanked: 2249 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2021, 01:04:53 PM »
I'm not sure if this is a better approach than having a fleet do orbital bombardment directly, but I know it is at least cleaner (less collateral damage)

I was sure on the opposite and so didn't use orbital bombardment aside of glassing needless planets, yet I haven't calced or tested and just cannot remember the cause of my confidence.

It is "cleaner" because supporting ground units means the fleet fires fewer shots to do the same damage compared to general orbital bombardment. I think the downside is that since your ships only fire once per 8-hr combat increment that regular bombardment will kill things much faster - but messier.

Quote
The major benefit of (vanilla) artillery units is that they are good damage dealers that are unlikely to suffer heavy losses due to living in the support or rear echelon

We have to take stock of average expected breakthrough effects to calc damage dealing correctly, and you have to deploy as much frontline attack units to keep breakthroughs, as possible, so the more artillery support - the less breakthroughs you do and more breakthroughs you suffer during the early combat phases.

This would be difficult to calculate but with a lot of testing we could draw some conclusions. I suspect that probably 3:1 ratio of frontline to artillery formations ends up being close to optimal - as in most modern formations and as "enforced" by the in-game commander rank ratio.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2021, 01:05:30 PM »
The major benefit of (vanilla) artillery units is that they are good damage dealers that are unlikely to suffer heavy losses due to living in the support or rear echelon

We have to take stock of average expected breakthrough effects to calc damage dealing correctly, and you have to deploy as much frontline attack units to keep breakthroughs, as possible, so the more artillery support - the less breakthroughs you do and more breakthroughs you suffer during the early combat phases.

 --- Remember that if you're comparing equal tonnages for effectiveness then your numbers are going to be skewed as well. You have to remember to divide that tonnage up across the attack elements, defense elements, fire support elements and the logistics HQ arm. The only time when an equal tonnage comparison matters is when you have a strict tonnage limit on your forces. Which means you ALSO have to account not only for the size of the forces themselves AND the size of their transports, but you have to factor in how many transports you can make as well. Artillery does damn good damage for something that can be mounted on a 12 Ton Static unit, given 50% more armor than Light Vehicle and costs like... at most 4 1/2~5 BP or something to build.
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2991
  • Thanked: 2249 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2021, 01:14:04 PM »
The major benefit of (vanilla) artillery units is that they are good damage dealers that are unlikely to suffer heavy losses due to living in the support or rear echelon

We have to take stock of average expected breakthrough effects to calc damage dealing correctly, and you have to deploy as much frontline attack units to keep breakthroughs, as possible, so the more artillery support - the less breakthroughs you do and more breakthroughs you suffer during the early combat phases.

 --- Remember that if you're comparing equal tonnages for effectiveness then your numbers are going to be skewed as well. You have to remember to divide that tonnage up across the attack elements, defense elements, fire support elements and the logistics HQ arm. The only time when an equal tonnage comparison matters is when you have a strict tonnage limit on your forces. Which means you ALSO have to account not only for the size of the forces themselves AND the size of their transports, but you have to factor in how many transports you can make as well. Artillery does damn good damage for something that can be mounted on a 12 Ton Static unit, given 50% more armor than Light Vehicle and costs like... at most 4 1/2~5 BP or something to build.

Yes, this is a big benefit as the cost of artillery is relatively cheap compared to heavily armored units or the cost of replacing your tactical ablative materials infantry after every battle. This is why serger in his rebalance and myself in my own modded DB have bumped up the costs of artillery significantly.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2021, 03:34:37 PM »
 --- So in no particular order, here are some ground units and tips on how they work, how to use them etc. More an inane, aimless ramble than anything else, but I'll try to be concise, yeah? I won't go too in-depth on more "common" units like say, a Static unit with Heavy Bombardment, because that's fairly straightforward and others have done a better job at that than me anyway. In this thread even to boot. :D

The Main Battle Tank:

   - Eponymous in the modern military lexicon, the Main Battle Tank (or MBT for short) is the workhorse attacker of any major conventional army. This is true in Aurora as well, where this unit is most commonly represented by a Medium Vehicle, itself clad in Medium Vehicle Armor and armed with both a Medium Anti-Vehicle weapon (MAV) and a Crew-Served Anti-Personnel weapon (CAP). This unit functions well versus both Medium Vehicles and Infantry, while being overkill against Light Vehicles in most cases. In some games I have made modifications to this type of unit, one of which involves swapping the Crew-Served Anti-Personnel weapon for a Heavy Crew-Served Anti-Personnel (HCAP) weapon to make the tonnage a nice, round 70 Tons versus the 62 Tons of a typical MAV/CAP. Another modification I've made is to swap the Medium Anti-Vehicle weapon for a Medium Autocannon (MAC), a modification that I'm quite fond of, mainly due to how well it combines with the next unit.

The Tank Destroyer:
    - The ubiquitous Tank Destroyer of WW2 fame is often represented in Aurora by a Light Vehicle armed with a Medium Anti-Vehicle weapon. Light Vehicles are restricted to Light Vehicle Armor and only sport one slot for a module, versus the Medium Vehicle's two, but make up for it by being smaller, cheaper and by being harder to hit... and therefore harder to damage. This last advantage, however, can only be used when on the attack making the Light Vehicle an excellent choice for a Tank Destroyer. I like to pair these with MAC/CAP Main Battle Tanks to deal with enemy tanks more effectively. Their bonus evasion I find quite helpful when paired with the bigger, beefier tank to soak enemy fire for it.

The Infantry Fighting Vehicle:
    - Perhaps others have a recipe for an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) that differs from my own, but this is mine and it's loosely based off of the real life Bradley IFV. A Medium Vehicle with Light Armor, my IFV is armed with a Light Autocannon (LAC) and a Light Anti-Vehicle weapon (LAV). I typically use it to "hide" about 15~20 tons worth of Infantry, as the way Aurora's target selection rules work, the bigger units take priority over the smaller ones via a weighted random selection process. I very often pair this vehicle with the Tank Destroyers mentioned above, which I call a "Light Attack Vehicle" (LAV), as well as the MAC/CAP Main Battle Tanks and the aforementioned 15~20 Tons of Infantry to form a cohesive and versatile Armored Vehicle formation for the purposes of attacking. This IFV does quite well against enemy Light Vehicles while still retaining some effectiveness against Infantry. It's rather survivable against said targets as well, thanks to it's Medium Vehicle Hit Points. A simple upgrade would be to use Medium Vehicle Armor instead of Light Vehicle Armor, but I prefer the latter for flavor... and cost.

The Armored Personnel Carrier:
    - Infantry are quite a poor choice for an offensive force, however they do have one merit in this regard and that's density of firepower. This same virtue also makes them much more resilient in the face of losses, requiring the enemy to kill more of them to reduce their firepower than other units. However, this resilience is effectively nullified by the squishy-ness of Infantry, they have the lowest Hit Points and worst armor of pretty much any unit. Enter the Armored Personnel Carrier (APC), a Light Vehicle armed with a single CAP that can be used to effectively shield 5~20 tons of Infantry from the ire of enemy Infantry. Yep, turns out that the best counter to Infantry is usually Infantry of your own, armed with Personal Weapons (PW). Using Aurora's target selection to our advantage however, we can leverage the APC's superior Hit Modifier, Armor AND Hit Points to soak damage for our Infantry if we so choose to use them on the attack.
Pro Tip: Do NOT use Infantry for offense.
Pro Pro Tip: If you DO use Infantry for offense, make sure to use a lot of them. Shouting URRRAAGGGHHH! is mandatory optional. :)


The Assault Gun:
   - An unorthodox design that I'm nevertheless fond of and field with abhorrent frequency is what I consider to be my take on the Assault Gun of WW2 fame. Partly for function, but mostly because I'm all about that StuG Lyfe, this unit serves in my "Flex" Infantry... itself an abomination. This unholy thing is a Medium Vehicle, usually clad in Medium Vehicle Armor and armed with a Medium Autocannon and a Medium Bombardment weapon (MB). "Flex" Infantry is something i use from time to time in Planetary Defense Forces (PDF) and as part of "Second Rate" units... units that are smaller and less powerful which I use on smaller transports escorted by smaller fleets to attack less important / more poorly guarded enemy targets parallel to my main thrust. This unit serves to allow these units to serve a, albeit inefficient, support role to my main forces in lieu of juicier / more worthy targets as "Second Rate" units, while as PDFs they can help the cheaper, squishy-er Infantry to hold the line alongside larger, purpose built defensive formations until the main force arrives to reinforce them or the enemy starts to falter... at which time they can be "flexed" into the attack role to press their advantage. In larger PDFs such as those on more important worlds or those reinforced ahead of an expected attack, these serve in said "Flex" Infantry by providing Medium Bombardment to proper formations, shoring up defensive formations if they get chewed up, and/or helping to press the attack if the enemy begins to falter / retreat. The combination of Medium Vehicle Hit Points, Medium Vehicle Armor, and it's MAC/MB armament make it a really big target to help it soak while also letting be effective against Static and Infantry elements. A very cursed vehicle indeed. :)

The Maneater:
   - This unfortunately named unit is something I very rarely use due to how... gamey it feels. Little more than a pair of CAP modules mounted on a Medium Vehicle clad in Medium Vehicle Armor, this thing not only chews up enemy Infantry, but it does so while being more or less impervious to the kinds of weapons they can field in retaliation. A far more expensive version uses a Heavy Vehicle instead, replete with Heavy Vehicle Armor and a pair of HCAP modules in lieu of the CAP modules. This one isn't just better protected, nor even just more effective against even Light Vehicles, but it's also far more future proof. For as time marches on so to does your tech, and by extension what was once able to be eaten up by CAP eventually gains the armor to resist it. Likewise, what Medium Armor once stopped with relative eventually begins to chew through it like a tweaker through a Crave Case. As I mentioned... I don't use these because they feel gamey, but they DO work quite well as the final word in Anti-Infantry. Expensive though... especially for their role.

The Support Tank:
    - Another cursed unit courtesy of my demented mind, and again another unit I tend to field quite regularly despite it's... affronting lack of sensibility. A Medium Vehicle with Medium Vehicle Armor that's armed with a combination of LAC/MAC. Yes, two autocannons. Of different calibers. On the same tank. However, I find them to be quite effective against everything as big as or smaller than a Medium Vehicle. Despite sub-par penetration against Medium Vehicle Armor the sheer volume of S H E T these things throw tends to chew them up regardless. Against Light Vehicles it is all the more pronounced and against Infantry... well, it's a really inefficient CAP with enough armor to shrug off most Infantry weapons. I have never made a "Heavy" version, as it seemed to me that the Heavy Autocannon (HAC) paired with the Medium Autocannon wasn't nearly as useful as the former. These I typically pair up with Tank Destroyers since their size let's the zippy, nippy little bastards do their job while their peculiar armament complements their weaknesses while enhancing their strengths.

The Heavy Battle Tank:
   - Essentially a Heavy Vehicle version of the Main Battle Tank I mentioned earlier, this unit not only uses a Heavy Vehicle as the base, but also uses Heavy Vehicle Armor AND swaps out both the MAV and the CAP for a Heavy Anti-Vehicle weapon (HAV) and Heavy Crew-Served Anti-Personnel weapon. I find this version tends to age more gracefully than it's predecessor, with both the HAV and HCAP losing effectiveness more slowly as time marches on, while the Heavy Vehicle Armor likewise retains it's potency for longer against MAV and even HAC to a lesser extent. The Heavy Vehicle's higher Hit Points also help quite a bit as time goes on. Unlike the MBTs, I typically don't build a HAC/HCAP variant since unlike the MAC/CAP this unit doesn't really benefit as much from the Tank Destroyer or even the IFV really. Often enough I'll pair these up with the Support Tanks I listed above, as their LAC/MAC combo does wonders to complement the HAV/HCAP of this unit, while the bigness of these HBTs, or perhaps H-MBTs, allows them to soak damage that would otherwise slaughter the squishy-er Medium Vehicles.

The Blursed Artillery:
   - A Medium Vehicle, with either Light or Medium Vehicle Armor to taste... I go with Light myself, and armed with both a Light Anti-Aircraft (LAA) weapon and a Light Bombardment (LB) weapon. I place these in artillery formations to both defend them from Ground Support Fighters (GSFs) and provide some Light Bombardment to the units they're supporting. Currently however, it is worth nothing that Non-Player Races (NPRs) do not use GSFs, so the LAA is wasted. A blursed unit indeed.

The Blursed-er Artillery:
   - Nothing fancy, just a Medium Vehicle with Light Vehicle Armor armed with both a Medium Anti-Air (MAA) weapon and Medium Bombardment weapon. As stated before, NPRs don't really use GSFs, so the MAA is wasted, but it's worth noting that MAA functions when assigned to support a formation directly, thus increasing the utility of this particular configuration. MAA also defends it's own formation against GSFs, so this unit can be thought of as the big brother of the Blursed Artillery, definitely Blursed-er and quite possibly the Blursed-est of all.

Mah Mighty Howitzer:
   - Last, but certainly not least is my favorite Self-Propelled Gun (SPG) recipe. It's worth noting that SPGs, when used in the Support Position like Artillery should, do not really have any impact on the gameplay more than any other vehicular mounted anything. Neither Tactical nor Strategic mobility is modeled. That all said, Mah Mighty Howitzer is a Medium Vehicle with Light Vehicle Armor armed with both a MAV and a Long-Range Medium Bombardment (MBL) weapon. I like it for several reasons, not the least of which is that due to how breakthrough mechanics in Aurora work, it's very likely that the forces breaking through will be some flavor of vehicle, thusly the MAV tends to be nasty surprise for them. As well, these units can be shifted to an Attack position to provide additional Anti-Vehicle against faltering enemy forces, although this tends to do terrible things to squishy-er units that share a formation with them and as such tends to work better when they are in a formation all their own. The MBL allows the unit to fire on enemy MB, MBL and Heavy Bombardment (HB) armed units when fielded in the Support position. A more expensive, but likewise more dangerous version can be had by merely up-armoring this unit to Medium Vehicle Armor. However, I do eventually like to produce a Heavy Vehicle version complete with the Heavy Vehicle Armor, HAV and HB, which is able to effectively soak counter-battery fire and deal grievous damage to enemy Light and Medium Vehicles that manage to achieve a breakthrough.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2021, 03:43:51 PM by xenoscepter »
 
The following users thanked this post: smoelf, BAGrimm, nuclearslurpee

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2991
  • Thanked: 2249 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2021, 04:03:01 PM »
Love this post as I always appreciate seeing how people inject personal flair and flavor into their ground units. However, on one point...

Mah Mighty Howitzer:
snip snip
I like it for several reasons, not the least of which is that due to how breakthrough mechanics in Aurora work, it's very likely that the forces breaking through will be some flavor of vehicle, thusly the MAV tends to be nasty surprise for them.
snip snip

I feel obliged to point out that this misunderstands how breakthroughs work, as a breakthrough does not give the defenders an extra round of fire - only the attackers. As such, any frontline component in a support-echelon element is completely useless as they will not even fire in self-defense against a breakthrough.

See the description of breakthroughs on the wiki or from Steve's dev post here.

-

As for the other unit types, I use most of these in some variations. I like to vary my MBT design especially in multiple-faction setups for a bit of flavor: HVH+MAV/CAP with 4 armor is not more expensive per ton and gives fewer units with better durability (HP); VEH+HAV/CAP or VEH+MAV/HCAP are other fun designs. TDs I rarely actually use but they are a standard design I think. IFVs and APCs are also pretty standard, I use LVH for both with IFVs mounting LAC instead of CAP. I have considered using VEH+LAC/LAV or similar for these but usually I don't like having so much vehicle tonnage in my infantry platoons, but it might be worth trying in a future campaign setup. Typically for assault guns I consider LVH+MAC as the AC line of weapons is very good against static units specifically so the mechanics and flavor fit well, similar principle goes for assault or siege tanks with 2xMAC. Your "Maneater" is my "Infantry Support Tank", probably overpowered at least against standard NPRs and honestly not something I use a lot of due to a lack of real world equivalents since 1940 or so.

One vehicle I use quite a lot but have yet to see anyone introduce is the Multiple Rocket Launcher (MRL)/Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), which is a VEH+2xLB and light armor. With the LB component it is serviceable in a frontline formation but equally usable as a battery in a support-line artillery brigade to augment firepower for low cost. There are not a lot of things more fun to imagine in ground combat than rocket launchers.

Generally I avoid the heavy weapons of all types as their high tonnage and GSP requirements make them challenging to use effectively.
 

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1157
  • Thanked: 318 times
Re: Please give me some tips on building and using ground troops
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2021, 04:34:20 PM »
~snip~
I feel obliged to point out that this misunderstands how breakthroughs work, as a breakthrough does not give the defenders an extra round of fire - only the attackers. As such, any frontline component in a support-echelon element is completely useless as they will not even fire in self-defense against a breakthrough.
~snip~

 --- Yeah, no it seems that's totally how it works. Huh, that's kinda crap as it means there is literally no reason to defend anything in the Support / Rear Echelon positions. At least not organically that is. That's a bit dumb in my opinion, although not terribly unlike real life I suppose. Then again... rear Fire Bases, HQs and the lot do tend to be rather well defended on the whole.