C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Bremen]

Hum, front line attack alters the math of the combat a bit, though not really in a specifically unbalanced way.

It makes fortification less important; unless fortification would be reducing the hits you take by a factor of 3 or more, there's a certain advantage in it, since in the grand picture doing 3x as much damage and taking 3x as much damage results in the same losses, just quicker. If a fight were one formation vs one formation, you could think of front line attack as giving the unit a temporary fortification 3*(1/hit mod) and making the battle go quicker; a formation of static units on attack (hit modifier of 1) vs a formation of static units with fortification 3 would be inflicting the same number of hits on each other.

However, this is only true if all or most of your army is on front line attack, because those targets are weighted more heavily. If you have one formation on front line attack and the rest remaining fortified, then more attacks are going to hit the more vulnerable attacking formation and fewer the fortified positions, which is heavily disadvantageous. So with a few specific exceptions you're either going to want most of your units on front line attack or none of them.

Speaking of exceptions, there's the light vehicles. Light vehicles have a to hit modified of .4, which means on front line attack they'd be on equal footing with a formation on fortification 7.5. This means they'd make excellent candidates for front line attack, and should almost always be used this way (even if none of the rest of the army is). Normal vehicles will also benefit from being on front line attack unless well fortified on a world with a fortification bonus (equivalent of Fortification 5).

So, takeaways:
Setting your entire frontline on attack is basically always a benefit unless you have a quite high fortification level (3+ for Static, 5+ for infantry or tanks, 7.5 for light vehicles), assuming you have the supplies
Light vehicles will benefit immensely from being set on attack
It's overall a major nerf to the defensive side; they're basically robbed of most or all of the their fortification bonus if the enemy can set their army on front line attack, but can't use it themselves without losing the bonus entirely

In all honesty, if it were me designing the game I'd probably drop it; defenders need an advantage since they're going to frequently be outnumbered/outgunned. Actually, I'd probably just limit the field positions to front line and rear echelon; I feel a game as complex as Aurora doesn't need a lot of ground combat complexity as well. However, that's just my opinion, and it's not one I have strong feelings about; I don't feel anywhere near as strongly about it as I did about the preferential targeting, for instance.

[King-Salomon]

Can't say a lot about this as I can't guess how it will result in the game for real..

my biggest concern would be something almost all games of this kind have - that ground combat is only about "attrition".. that the strongest side will always win and nearly never have any looses at all... if this system would result in looses for the attacker even if he has a 3-4x advantage it would be OK for me...


about encirclements... what about this: only a random % of all units are attacking instead of 100% and random % defending units are defending.. (would be realistic too as nearly never a whole front is attacking at the same time but spearheads are build to try to break through...) a higher random % would be a big offensive, a small % a small spearhead trying to break through or test the defences...   (maybe a commander skill to get a small bonus could be integrated - or a bad commander a malus... a big breakthrough could get a bonus for the next round, a defeat a malus, weather could give unit types a bonus/malus... etcpp) 

fex:   random # before a fight attacker = 71, defender = 38  --> every unit on both sides rolls W100 ... attacking side units with 72-100 roll will participate (including these support units which are linked with them etc), commander skill might add +X to the roll, special abilities might add +X to the roll - defending side units with roll 39-100 participate... + boni ... all vehicles get -X because of strong rain...)

this would allow the side with bad luck and low % of its forces standing again a high % of the opposite forces a "encirclement" like situation were it could be easily annihilated even if it is part of the bigger army... so even the winner might having looses every planet he wants to conquer - even if he has overwhelming numbers...

in the example above the attacker - even with a great adventage in numbers in general might face a much stronger opponent in the battleround and got bloodied in the assault, next assault he might break through a thin line of defence units, annihilating the small part of the defending units completely


about MSP - would the invader be able to resupply his forces from space (if he has the orbit secured)? this would leed the defender more or less the only party who would have a MSP shortage as the invader might get resupply very easily if  his logistic is good...
would  the defender be able to use his facilities on the defending planet to create MSP and resupply his units?

[sublight]

I'm thinking the attacker shot multiplier shouldn't exceed the median maximum self fortification bonus [2x] unless some other drawback is introduced.

[alex_brunius]

The reason why mixed units are superior IRL is due to combined arms. The whole becomes greater then the sum of it's parts since they can fight together and provide mutual support.

Infantry can use some of the tanks as cover when advancing and at the same time the Tanks use the Infantry to not get ambushed.


Having some basic level of this might be a good idea as a future improvement later on ( Infantry + Direct fire Vehicles + Support/Indirect fire ).

[Hazard]

Defending forces on the frontline should probably get a boost from Fortification when it comes to determining Size for targeting calculations. It is harder to break through a well constructed defensive line after all.

This could lead to another specialty, 'Infiltration Troops' that would be a an Infantry only specialty that lets them ignore the boost fortification gives.

The result of this is that fortifying your troops on the defense helps with keeping your support units intact, but attackers do have a way around the problem.


I do like the randomised targeting mechanics though; it can even become useful to put a few heavy units on the Support or Front Line Defense roles. I mean 'Ah ha, we broke through the front line and are now engaging... crap. That's a formation of superheavies.'


I do share my worries about what the attack multiplier would mean with Frontline-Attack formations. I'd rather put Frontline orders on three options instead.

1)Defense, which lets a unit benefit from Fortification bonuses and if not attacked lets them fire a much decreased number of shots at an enemy Frontline target. This would be the typical low level skirmishing you see on stalemated frontlines without a major operation in play. When both sides are on Frontline Defense battles are slow due to Fortification and low number of shots. Formations on Defense get a boost to their Size when determining which unit gets attacked depending on Fortification; represents how hard it can get to avoid engaging a prepared position the better sited and prepared it is.
2) Attack, drops Fortification bonuses but can engage enemy formations normally. Formations are neither larger nor smaller when it comes to targeting Formations.
3) Assault, drops Fortification and Mobility defense bonuses for a small boost in number of shots fired even if it also increases supply consumption. Mobility defense bonus is waved on account of it  being rather hard to hide and dodge incoming fire when you are pressing the attack and moving straight into enemy lines of fire. Formations on assault are considered much larger than normal for targeting calculations. Heavier units care less about being on an Assault footing due to their lower Mobility defense bonus, this is deliberate.

[jonw]

The MSP use for the attacking stance is interesting here - how is the MSP resupply managed? The attacking forces drop with a certain amount of MSP, and need to be replenished via ship?  What determines how much MSP they drop with? Can the MSP resupply be intercepted by STO/AA? Is there a role for a military logistic element, necessary for receiving supply from orbit? How long are these battles intended to take, and how fast will the MSP consumption be?

Additionally - if we assume the player is invading an NPR, what will be known about the defending forces before the invasion? Will you be able to tell via scouting/diplomacy/espionage that there are X STO weapons and Y forations, comprising at least #Z heavy tanks?

This all sounds really cool - like designing new ship classes bt one concern might be, how will the simulation be reported to the player? My invasion force was destroyed, but why? Will the formation/damage/targetting calculations be visible to the player?

[Coleslaw]

So, I will go with both random formation matching and random element targeting and I remove the preferred targeting option.   It will be the overall strategic mix of forces that will matter, plus how the formations hierarchies are setup.   I probably should also split ground forces bonuses for commanders into different types (armour, infantry, artillery, etc.  ). 

Woops, forgot to login to ask this so this might've gone to the moderators as a guest post. 

Will we be able to assign formations to have a preferred commander type or will the game automatically assign those commanders to the formations with the highest proportions of that type of unit?

[Steve Walmsley]

The MSP use for the attacking stance is interesting here - how is the MSP resupply managed? The attacking forces drop with a certain amount of MSP, and need to be replenished via ship?  What determines how much MSP they drop with? Can the MSP resupply be intercepted by STO/AA? Is there a role for a military logistic element, necessary for receiving supply from orbit? How long are these battles intended to take, and how fast will the MSP consumption be?

Additionally - if we assume the player is invading an NPR, what will be known about the defending forces before the invasion? Will you be able to tell via scouting/diplomacy/espionage that there are X STO weapons and Y forations, comprising at least #Z heavy tanks?

This all sounds really cool - like designing new ship classes bt one concern might be, how will the simulation be reported to the player? My invasion force was destroyed, but why? Will the formation/damage/targetting calculations be visible to the player?

There are two options for logistics (which will only be needed for combat). The first is a stockpile of supply points, but my current favourite is having logistics units which are built primarily with supply points and are used up during combat. However, in the latter case, the tricky part is the mechanics for exactly how they logistic units are consumed. They could be tracked exactly, or perhaps a more interesting option is for each element that fires to have a small chance of using up a logistic unit (depending on size of element and size of logistic unit). Having variable rates of consumption in the short term (although steady in the long term) would be another layer of interest to an invasion. Might also need a ship to run in supplies past the planetary defences for longer sieges, plus there is the chance of hostile fire damaging the logistic units.

I haven't yet calculated the rate of consumption.

You will learn about defending forces as the battle progresses. Unit class capability and names, formation names, etc. Some idea of total forces engaged. In fact, maybe I should include intelligence unit components to speed up that process.

[Steve Walmsley]

So, takeaways:
Setting your entire frontline on attack is basically always a benefit unless you have a quite high fortification level (3+ for Static, 5+ for infantry or tanks, 7.5 for light vehicles), assuming you have the supplies
Light vehicles will benefit immensely from being set on attack
It's overall a major nerf to the defensive side; they're basically robbed of most or all of the their fortification bonus if the enemy can set their army on front line attack, but can't use it themselves without losing the bonus entirely

In all honesty, if it were me designing the game I'd probably drop it; defenders need an advantage since they're going to frequently be outnumbered/outgunned. Actually, I'd probably just limit the field positions to front line and rear echelon; I feel a game as complex as Aurora doesn't need a lot of ground combat complexity as well. However, that's just my opinion, and it's not one I have strong feelings about; I don't feel anywhere near as strongly about it as I did about the preferential targeting, for instance.

It is a good point about equating front line attack with fortification. While I looked upon the mechanic as a way of overcoming hostile fortification, I hadn't considered that was it effectively defensive as well, by creating more shots before being destroyed. I also agree that is actually makes sense to put everything on attack, which was my main concern. I guess the usefulness would be very dependent on just how critical supplies were. Probably too many unknown factors to commit to this path.

You are probably correct that I am adding more complexity than is really necessary . Perhaps I should change the concept of front-line attack (more attacks to try to beat back fortifications) to a more unit-specific capability. Some form of combat engineers perhaps that can reduce hostile fortification, although they will consume more supplies and attract fire while doing so.

Another simplification would be to combine Support and Support-Counter-battery to a single Support option. When a supporting formation selects the random hostile enemy element to bombard, it will select from the enemy formation on the front-line plus any enemy support formations supporting that enemy formation.

[Steve Walmsley]

Woops, forgot to login to ask this so this might've gone to the moderators as a guest post. 

Will we be able to assign formations to have a preferred commander type or will the game automatically assign those commanders to the formations with the highest proportions of that type of unit?

I haven't coded the bonuses or the assignment yet

Would make sense to assign to formations with the appropriate unit types.

[Hazard]

There are two options for logistics (which will only be needed for combat). The first is a stockpile of supply points, but my current favourite is having logistics units which are built primarily with supply points and are used up during combat. However, in the latter case, the tricky part is the mechanics for exactly how they logistic units are consumed. They could be tracked exactly, or perhaps a more interesting option is for each element that fires to have a small chance of using up a logistic unit (depending on size of element and size of logistic unit). Having variable rates of consumption in the short term (although steady in the long term) would be another layer of interest to an invasion. Might also need a ship to run in supplies past the planetary defences for longer sieges, plus there is the chance of hostile fire damaging the logistic units.

I'd go instead for establishing a supply point consumption per shot for every weapon (heavier/higher tech weapons consume more) and that every Formation maintains a stockpile of several rounds of combat. Formations draw a (tiny) amount of MSP every round to convert to supply points and replenish their stores but this is not enough to maintain continuous operations; it'd need a week or more to replenish completely emptied stores to full without logistical unit support. Logistical units increase the conversion rate, speeding up resupply, but even an all infantry unit should need a major logistical component to support indefinite combat. Logistical units directly attached to an HQ can offer logistical support for subordinate units but favour their own formation and the formations with the most depleted stocks, in that order. Frontline units that are completely dry of supply points are rotated to Support positions if able.

Please don't use consumable supply units unless supply units can be constructed by units without construction equipment out of MSP available on planet.

You will learn about defending forces as the battle progresses. Unit class capability and names, formation names, etc. Some idea of total forces engaged. In fact, maybe I should include intelligence unit components to speed up that process.

Please don't let players attack a planet entirely devoid of information on enemy formations on planet. A rough estimate that's potentially completely off is fine, but it kind of sucks if you dump several thousand BP of troops on a planet and have it wiped out by an endless stack of doom you could not know was there.

[jonw]

Please don't let players attack a planet entirely devoid of information on enemy formations on planet. A rough estimate that's potentially completely off is fine, but it kind of sucks if you dump several thousand BP of troops on a planet and have it wiped out by an endless stack of doom you could not know was there.

Yeah, thats what worries me. No sane commander would commit an invasion force without knowing at least what approximate strength of resistance there was. Of course this may not be exact - maybe something like officer intelligence determines the size of uncertainty about a number, so you're always inexact, and high levels should give more specific info? Or some ship component like orbital imaging suite?

[Bremen]

It is a good point about equating front line attack with fortification. While I looked upon the mechanic as a way of overcoming hostile fortification, I hadn't considered that was it effectively defensive as well, by creating more shots before being destroyed. I also agree that is actually makes sense to put everything on attack, which was my main concern. I guess the usefulness would be very dependent on just how critical supplies were. Probably too many unknown factors to commit to this path.

You are probably correct that I am adding more complexity than is really necessary . Perhaps I should change the concept of front-line attack (more attacks to try to beat back fortifications) to a more unit-specific capability. Some form of combat engineers perhaps that can reduce hostile fortification, although they will consume more supplies and attract fire while doing so.

Another simplification would be to combine Support and Support-Counter-battery to a single Support option. When a supporting formation selects the random hostile enemy element to bombard, it will select from the enemy formation on the front-line plus any enemy support formations supporting that enemy formation.

I like the idea of a combat engineer unit that can reduce fortification levels, but the balancing would be tricky. I assume fortification is tracked by element instead of individual unit? So a combat engineer attack would need to be balanced around reducing a 10 infantry element's fortification more than a 50 static element's.

[ardem]

Steve can I make a suggestion that defender fires first. This would lead more into the idea that an attack tends to take more losses and needs a higher ratio of troops to take the ground.

Also will you give the option to go guerrilla, this basically take away all heavy equipment and the attacker has a much harder time, completely destroying these units. The opposing force captures the planet. But what it allows is time for reinforcements to come back and these units reconstituted with experience if they survive.

Also steve, how long do you expect to say a 10 Division v 5 Division fight to last. 1 year or like it is now like 3 months, I would like to see longer fights, to give reinforcement and supply issues, a chance to influence the battle. And can there be a small trickle to the defenders from local population for reinforcements.

------------------------------------------

There is a way you can get around the stack of doom issues with combat frontage. What I mean by that is while attacking a smaller enemy you can only put in a number of unit that the frontage allows by about 3-4 sides, which only gives you a maximum of 3 to 4 unit more then the defending unit on defence. However a smart defender tries to reduce these odds with terrain, holding a mountain pass etc etc. You can keep it simple and say no more the 3 to 1 odds on the front line, or you can make it a little more complex such as below

- give all units a frontage value, Heavier units and mobile units tend to have a broader frontage, then leg infantry.
- Give the defending general a Random roll based on skill and terrain of the planet to set a maximum force multiplier x defenders highest combined frontage number based on stance
- Add the frontage for the defending units add the Force multiplier and are given a maximum frontage number for front line troops.
- Support get the same multiplier but added up separately.


To get around the player or AI that decides to make only one front line unit and 20 support, the frontage could be based on the highest frontage of any of the stances, rather then front line troops.

This would be more complex for the you steve then the player, all they need to do is check frontage and assign appropriately, if there is more then the frontage allows you random assign units to the front until the frontage can fill no more.

[Steve Walmsley]

Please don't let players attack a planet entirely devoid of information on enemy formations on planet. A rough estimate that's potentially completely off is fine, but it kind of sucks if you dump several thousand BP of troops on a planet and have it wiped out by an endless stack of doom you could not know was there.

You will still have normal sensor readings (as in VB6) to know the approximate size of the enemy force. Just not any detail on individual unit capability.