C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[chrislocke2000]

Re logistics I was thinking you would have a unit with a rated msp per combat tick and then a separate tracking of the actual Msp. You would then require sufficient logi units to deliver supplies and as support or rear echelon units they would be open to attack.

On the fighters I like the idea of fuel limiting endurance. Could you possibly have the combat pod as a missile design rather than a new component so as to allow you to stock your carriers with different options for your fighters rather than building lots of different fighters. The fighter specific component would then be the weapons bay to hold combat pod.

[Barkhorn]

I think we need a way to have the ground combat module work for all ground targets (including atmospheric fighters).  In real life, practically every fighter can carry every type of ordnance.  The F18 Hornet can carry dumb bombs, GPS-guided bombs, laser guided bombs, unguided rockets, multiple kinds of air-to-air missiles, multiple kinds of anti-tank missiles, multiple kinds of anti-ship missiles, gun pods of varying calibers, extra fuel tanks, and ECM pods.  And these are all attached shortly before take-off.  You don't have to buy totally separate plane if you want to change from dropping bombs to shooting rockets. 

I think instead, we should have one ground combat module that, when the fighter is launched from the mothership, must be set as to what kind of weapon it will carry.  I would give fighters a higher chance to target their preferred target type as well.  As a trade-off I would require the fighters to return to their carrier and rearm, draining MSP (or a new kind of supply, called "Conventional Ordnance" or something) from the carrier.

[vorpal+5]

I would tend to agree that somehow, logistic units could also be formed up by using MSP either from ships or planets. It can be an order with some delay and a cost in fuel and or wealth, compared to having the logistic unit prebuild as a ground unit (or industry project?). Because it might feel silly or frustrating to having tons of MSPs around but no logistic units.

As for fighters, lets not forget that an atmospheric-capable fighter vs a exclusively spaceborne one is probably no something build in the same way, in particular if the atmosphere is dense/corrosive, and also because wings are more convenient in atmosphere compared to space  . So having to dedicate some space on a fighter to allow for atmospheric fighting is ok for me. But this goes beyond just a weaponized pod.

[alex_brunius]

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.

Something I would like to see when it comes to logistics is variable rates of consumption.

Real Grounds units are not going to consume at 100% their full rate until they have 0 left and then go from 100% efficiency to X% (very low) efficiency overnight / in a single update tick.

Ideally they should see a gradual reduction since when supply go below say X% of max capacity they can carry with them and no deliveries are in sight they will start to conserve their remaining stock to last longer. This means you can start to see an upcoming supply shortage well in advance and preempt it, and at first the penalty will not be so big, units will just consume a bit less and fight a slight bit worse. But if left ignored it will grow worse and worse, similar to how dept can ruin your economy gradually if ignored or how life support failures gradually can spiral out of control.

[Garfunkel]

I think we need a way to have the ground combat module work for all ground targets (including atmospheric fighters).  In real life, practically every fighter can carry every type of ordnance.

But this is actually cost-effectiveness question. Because high-tech planes are so insanely expensive, they need to be able to perform multiple roles. Even so, there still are fighter/bombers and bombers.

It's not that many decades ago when planes had very strict role separation - you had fighters, (ground)attack planes, light/medium/heavy bombers, dive bombers, torpedo bombers and long-range recon planes, and more. Partially it was because of technical limitations but specialized planes were usually better in their dedicated role.

Having said that, I'd prefer if both approaches are possible - even better if one approach is better early in the game and the other gets better later as tech improves, or something like that.

[alex_brunius]

But this is actually cost-effectiveness question. Because high-tech planes are so insanely expensive, they need to be able to perform multiple roles. Even so, there still are fighter/bombers and bombers.

It's not that many decades ago when planes had very strict role separation - you had fighters, (ground)attack planes, light/medium/heavy bombers, dive bombers, torpedo bombers and long-range recon planes, and more. Partially it was because of technical limitations but specialized planes were usually better in their dedicated role.

The main reason IMHO why we have such a massive focus on quality today is that a single piece of equipment ( plane or submarine ) on it's own carries enough missiles/nuke warheads to totally flatten a whole country.

Imagine if a single 500 ton fighters in Aurora 4X could fire 50 nukes each of them being almost impossible to stop, individually targeted and with 75 times more firepower then it takes to wreck a capital city...


Then you hardly would mind paying 10 or even 50 times as much for superior quality since you only need a single bomber getting through and launching to inflict certain doom for your opponent.

[Person012345]

The main reason IMHO why we have such a massive focus on quality today is that a single piece of equipment ( plane or submarine ) on it's own carries enough missiles/nuke warheads to totally flatten a whole country.

Imagine if a single 500 ton fighters in Aurora 4X could fire 50 nukes each of them being almost impossible to stop, individually targeted and with 75 times more firepower then it takes to wreck a capital city...


Then you hardly would mind paying 10 or even 50 times as much for superior quality since you only need a single bomber getting through and launching to inflict certain doom for your opponent.

Bombers aren't the main way of carrying nukes any more. ICBM's are and fighters can't shoot them down so it doesn't explain the focus on high quality strike fighters and ASFs.

[Barkhorn]

But this is actually cost-effectiveness question. Because high-tech planes are so insanely expensive, they need to be able to perform multiple roles. Even so, there still are fighter/bombers and bombers.

It's not that many decades ago when planes had very strict role separation - you had fighters, (ground)attack planes, light/medium/heavy bombers, dive bombers, torpedo bombers and long-range recon planes, and more. Partially it was because of technical limitations but specialized planes were usually better in their dedicated role.

Having said that, I'd prefer if both approaches are possible - even better if one approach is better early in the game and the other gets better later as tech improves, or something like that.

Of course you had, and still have specialized planes.  But you'd be hard-pressed to find a single fighter from the 30's on which was unable to carry any bombs at all.  The P51 for instance was designed to escort strategic bombers at high altitude.  And yet even the P51 could carry up to 1000lbs of bombs.

[Hazard]

The reasons for high quality and expensive aircraft are that in peace production runs are limited and because, quite frankly, you need high quality aircraft to compete or an utterly uneconomic investment in low quality aircraft.

No seriously, in a war those extremely expensive aircraft will drop in price because the R&D costs and the prices of the factories and machines to build those planes and their parts can be spread over many times their peace time sales number.

Every fighter generation since the invention of flight has, in some manner, vastly outperformed the preceding generation of fighters. To the point that you see silly kill/death ratios even in simulations and training flights. Because of this it's much cheaper (not to mention much better for morale) to buy high quality aircraft from the current generation than anything else for the same duties.

[Scandinavian]

Some thoughts and observations on combat aircraft:
- It should be possible to base (and resupply) them on planets, with the appropriate infrastructure (starports, landing fields, etc.).
- It should be possible for attacking ground forces to construct and/or capture such infrastructure.
- I am a fan of the planes having to return to rearm after every run unless adequate groundside infrastructure is in place, provided the associated micromanagement is adequately automated (which should not be an insurmountable challenge).
- Aircraft should be more expensive than equivalent killing power in artillery and AA elements.
- Aircraft should be assigned to a forward fire control unit in order to function in a ground attack capacity, except perhaps against vehicles that are not dug in. In practice, even total air dominance without a groundside element has proven practically worthless against a properly dug in opponent (see, e.g., NATO's 1999 war to partition Serbia).
- As long as air power is restricted to killing aircraft and moving vehicles or running CAS in support of a forward fire control element, I see no problem with air power being the king of battle. Blasting moving vehicles and flying CAS is what air power is great at.

[TCD]

I also like the idea of using fuel to limit fighter deployment. I see no justifiable reason that explain why fighters can only be equipped with bombs, so I think using fuel makes a lot of sense.

In fact, I think you could argue that fighters in an atmosphere would have a higher fuel consumption than in space? You have to overcome gravity and friction after all. Or is the argument that in an atmosphere you fly at a small fraction of your total speed? (What would it actually mean to have an atmospheric fighter that flies at 20,000 km/s?)

[ardem]

Steve what is the fortification creation time, my feeling is is should be an exponential time. What I mean by that you get to the first 1/4 of maximum really quickly (a week), next 1/2 a little longer and the last 1/4 a long time (years) this shows the different type of fortifications. Such a trench to concrete facilities.

Also the destruction should be quite quickly though, I hate to see maximum fortification achieved by attacker within a month, or destruction of the fortification go, then in the next tick it ramps up again, it should be related to how long real world fortifications take.


I think to help you with the space fighter craft situation, you should make it easy on yourself and the players. If you want fighter involved in land based air combat, you must have a spaceport or landing facility. You must assign fighters to that facility and you must assign them to attack or defence. If you do all this, you can make it tick just like all the other ground forces. then when you finished they get assigned to space again.

As far as weapons, I think you a ground combat pod, which is not very big, (10-50t) that uses MSP resources for attack and defence. Fighter on defence only go into attack if opposing fighter attack and not subject to ground fire, else they go into a repair stage. Attack fighters are subject to ground fire and opposing fighters.

[Garfunkel]

Barkhorn, There is a difference between putting two 250kg iron bombs that are released by pulling a switch with no targeting, and a guided missile that the onboard computer aims for the pilot and that has a CEP of 3 meters. I think my favourite option would be that the ground attack module starts as fairly big one and then gets smaller with tech - improved miniaturization and more destructive warheads and so on. This would encourage specialized fighters in early game while allowing efficient multi-role fighters later on. That already kinda happens with ships - at TL0-3 it is very difficult to design effective multipurpose ships but from TL4 onwards it becomes quite possible.

The reasons for high quality and expensive aircraft are that in peace production runs are limited and because, quite frankly, you need high quality aircraft to compete or an utterly uneconomic investment in low quality aircraft.

No seriously, in a war those extremely expensive aircraft will drop in price because the R&D costs and the prices of the factories and machines to build those planes and their parts can be spread over many times their peace time sales number.

While you are correct, there is more the issue. WW2 era planes hit that sweet spot where planes were just efficient enough to be valuable in great numbers while still being simple enough to be mass-produced in gigantic numbers. No matter what, USA will never build 295,959 modern jet planes in 5 years, like they did from 1940 to 1945. John Buckley discusses this topic in great detail in his fine "Air Power in the Age of Total War" book.

[alex_brunius]

No matter what, USA will never build 295,959 modern jet planes in 5 years, like they did from 1940 to 1945. John Buckley discusses this topic in great detail in his fine "Air Power in the Age of Total War" book.

If USA devoted 10% of GDP to the task, properly adapted the airplanes for mass production and had a few years time to convert factories ( as during WW2 ) then I have no doubt at all it could be done. Some technical solutions dependent on very rare or expensive materials (stealth for example) might need to be redesigned or use replacement material to cope, but other then that there are no problems at all what so ever.

I'm going to argue that Automobiles have seen a similar development in terms of technical complexity that military airplanes have the last 80 years.


So let's correlate Automobile production of the 1930s and today and compare the increase.
From about 4 million cars per year peak before WW2 to about 40 million cars per year today, that is roughly x10 increase in output, despite the fact that a car today is a technological and electronic marvel of twice the weight and using some cutting edge consumer electronics.

Another way to look at those numbers is how much money all those cars production is worth.

At a production of 40 million cars per year today if we assume the average car costs $35k that's $1400 billion worth of production capacity per year. Let's as an experiment say all that was invested into producing F-35s instead and we assume that due to economies of scale cost per plane would drop to 20% of current ( which is a conservative estimation based on what mathematical production models suggests would happen when you increase investments by that amount). This means each F-35 would cost $17 million fly-away cost and that $1400000 million can then buy you 82'000 airplanes PER YEAR.

USA could if they wanted produce even more airplanes per year using modern technology then what was done during WW2, if there was a need to do such a thing.

If there is a need for such a thing however, and how the American public would react if you told them the money they paid for a new car is going into a fighter plane instead... that is a totally separate discussion!

[Steve Walmsley]

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.

The issue with the MSP stockpile concept is getting the MSP to the planet. For cargo, colonists and troops, you need time to unload. I haven't decided whether to extend this to maintenance yet. Even so, it doesn't seem realistic to instantly dump a large stockpile of maintenance during an invasion, which is then impervious to hostile attack. The logistics units represent the challenge of establishing the required logistical support and the requirement to defend that logistic support, plus they create a significant decision regarding the division of transport lift between combat and logistical formations.