Suggestion for introducing Asymmetrical warfare in Aurora

[iceball3]

I would imagine you would want some sort of unit that deals high collateral damage and is highly evasive to combat. Perhaps it can only be engaged by a limited force, or otherwise is relatively difficult to kill, but does very little unit to unit damage. So it'd be fairly ineffective as a planetary invasion unit when you want to capture a planet, unless you don't care at all about collateral. It wouldn't be able to fight other units an its high collateral makes it ineffective as a defensive unit as well, so its niche is specifically infantry that damage planets, anything from specialist commando strikes to terrorists and rebels causing chaos.

Most of these units would probably be around for only one combat round, if you had commando's show up on your world, your gonna start hunting for a stealth ship that can't stay stealthed for much longer, and it'll either have to leave the commando's or die with them if your not willing to evacuate them. Thats assuming evasion and luck keeps them alive past their first round.

Sounds like you just described a missile in it's entirety, in every respect.
So much so that it would only even work as a missile, not a ground unit. There is no envelop or "blindspot" for a stealth transport to get close enough to launch units, whereas a missile ship can run engines low and use stealth modules to get deeper into any active sensors or DSTS based at a planet, and fires missiles which do significant damage to ground units and industry alike.

[Graham]

The basis is adding a variety to the "Size" of JPs. If we think of what jump points are in terms of wet navies, they are straits. But not all straits are the same width. Some are narrower than others. Additionally, while you can exit a JP at a distance from it, you have to be directly on top of it in order to enter. This means that even if you can sneak through one JP, it's very unlikely you will make it through the second. I would reform JPs such that each would have a "size" or maximum distance from the point where a military JD can be used to enter / exit. The techline which allows ships to appear further from the point would then instead simply act as a multiplier to this JP size, rationalising that the more powerful drives can break through further from the weakpoint.. This wouldn't have that much of an effect if you're trying to bring through a battleship, but it should make it so that small and or stealthed ships can more easily break out into the enemy trade lanes. However, they don't simply ignore the terrain, it's still very important.

Given how active and passive sensor work these "zones" would have to be very big.

To be honest I like the cloaking idea better from a role-play perspective and it would achieve roughly the same thing.

Most ships are probably going to be detected at one time or another and they will also run out of supplies or whatever restrictions set on the cloaking device eventually anyway.

Yes, they would need to be quite large, but where's the problem with that? You can add your submarines, but they are never going to be able to penetrate more than a single system deep, because they still have to transit to the second system via a single point. So a single size 1 sensor buoy will detect them. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Some of the jump corridors would be very large, some would be tiny. That adds another layer of depth to the strategic terrain.

[Tikigod]

Touching on the initial proposition, I quite like the idea though think the components needed for such movement should be size prohibitive so as to only really be viable for larger military (And some extreme exception case commercial) ship usage.

I'd probably introduce some additional conditions to the functionality alongside extended sensor dead time, for example the ship arrival point being semi-randomised more toward the fringes of the system and on arrival a kind of spacial disruption area being established for a couple of days that prohibits the use of hyperdrives within that area both for leaving and entering the system, so if you send multiple independent ships to the same system in a short period of time their arrival point would be spread apart by a minimum of the size of the spacial disruption caused.

So large independent ships could use this movement option to cover vast distances but they would very much be alone for a period of time and would need time to regroup even if multiple ships are dispatched at the same time. And if they are intercepted before they can distance themselves from the disruption field their arrival created then they have no immediate means to retreat.

In the case of larger systems with multiple stars where distances in the system can be huge, the viability of jumping in and arriving on the fringes of the system would require the hyperspace capable ship targeting that system to be specially designed with a means of carrying or resupplying its own fuel for such situations as well which would discourage the idea of singular large Hyperspace capable designs that would work in all situations.

[Zincat]

I am fundamentally against any transit method that ignores the limited connections, because it nullifies the strategic terrain of the galaxy. There is a reason stellaris was changed in order to limit transit to hyper-lanes. When your enemy can ignore terrain, it removes strategy, rather than increasing it.

The more I think about this suggestion, the more I feel like this. I just don't think that being able to ignore "terrain" is a good idea, no matter how it is implemented.

It is different in ground-based strategy games, because there terrain type has a meaning. So maybe you can avoid a fortress or choke point by going around, but you need to traverse mountains and so you take more time, or have attrition etc. But space... is space. The ability to ignore a jump point chokepoint just removes choices and forces me to defend everywhere. I can't think how this would be a good idea.

I will say it again. If I can ignore "borders", then creating mass cheap kamikaze stuff to destroy the opponent's weak economy points is always a sound tactic. The game allows to easily build cheap, fac-like attack craft whose only purpose is to die destroying the economy. If I cannot stop these before they get into my core systems, well... A random, scatter-like mechanic would make things even worse. I just... don't like this idea.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

Yes, they would need to be quite large, but where's the problem with that? You can add your submarines, but they are never going to be able to penetrate more than a single system deep, because they still have to transit to the second system via a single point. So a single size 1 sensor buoy will detect them. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Some of the jump corridors would be very large, some would be tiny. That adds another layer of depth to the strategic terrain.

The major problem is that is will scale really bad with increases in sensor technology unless the corridor size change with it. You also don't solved the issue with returning to where you come from?!?
I don't think it is a good mechanic if missions are suicide missions...

I still like cloaking better as it will have other benefit that is more interesting from a role-play perspective.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

I am fundamentally against any transit method that ignores the limited connections, because it nullifies the strategic terrain of the galaxy. There is a reason stellaris was changed in order to limit transit to hyper-lanes. When your enemy can ignore terrain, it removes strategy, rather than increasing it.

The more I think about this suggestion, the more I feel like this. I just don't think that being able to ignore "terrain" is a good idea, no matter how it is implemented.

It is different in ground-based strategy games, because there terrain type has a meaning. So maybe you can avoid a fortress or choke point by going around, but you need to traverse mountains and so you take more time, or have attrition etc. But space... is space. The ability to ignore a jump point chokepoint just removes choices and forces me to defend everywhere. I can't think how this would be a good idea.

I will say it again. If I can ignore "borders", then creating mass cheap kamikaze stuff to destroy the opponent's weak economy points is always a sound tactic. The game allows to easily build cheap, fac-like attack craft whose only purpose is to die destroying the economy. If I cannot stop these before they get into my core systems, well... A random, scatter-like mechanic would make things even worse. I just... don't like this idea.

I simply disagree that terrain is that important that raiders can't get through them... this is just an issue of I don't like it... does not mean it have the potential of a good mechanic.

I take huge issue with missions being one way street suicide missions... it is NOT suitable for allot of RP reasons.

[Graham]

Yes, they would need to be quite large, but where's the problem with that? You can add your submarines, but they are never going to be able to penetrate more than a single system deep, because they still have to transit to the second system via a single point. So a single size 1 sensor buoy will detect them. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Some of the jump corridors would be very large, some would be tiny. That adds another layer of depth to the strategic terrain.

The major problem is that is will scale really bad with increases in sensor technology unless the corridor size change with it. You also don't solved the issue with returning to where you come from?!?
I don't think it is a good mechanic if missions are suicide missions...

I still like cloaking better as it will have other benefit that is more interesting from a role-play perspective.

I've already said that the current techline that increases the distance you can exit a jump point in a squadron jump would be re-formatted to increase the effective size of the corridor, so as you increase tech size does scale with sensor range. As for the issue of returning, I have fixed it? Traversing into enemy space is the exact same as leaving it. it's the same level of danger. No offense but I have to ask if you really read my posts?

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

Yes, they would need to be quite large, but where's the problem with that? You can add your submarines, but they are never going to be able to penetrate more than a single system deep, because they still have to transit to the second system via a single point. So a single size 1 sensor buoy will detect them. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Some of the jump corridors would be very large, some would be tiny. That adds another layer of depth to the strategic terrain.

The major problem is that is will scale really bad with increases in sensor technology unless the corridor size change with it. You also don't solved the issue with returning to where you come from?!?
I don't think it is a good mechanic if missions are suicide missions...

I still like cloaking better as it will have other benefit that is more interesting from a role-play perspective.

I've already said that the current techline that increases the distance you can exit a jump point in a squadron jump would be re-formatted to increase the effective size of the corridor, so as you increase tech size does scale with sensor range. As for the issue of returning, I have fixed it? Traversing into enemy space is the exact same as leaving it. it's the same level of danger. No offense but I have to ask if you really read my posts?

Yes... I actually realised that after writing that post... so I apologise for that... although it does not change the fact that you can't return as you still need to get to that point on the return trip... this is a no go mechanic for me... not very usable at all.

I also completely disagree that it would be no fun for cloaked ships to get deep into enemy territory... I say that is exactly the point with asymmetric warfare to begin with... not just playing around on the outskirts... that is too easy to deal with and would make the whole mechanic kind of pointless. It is too easy to just keep a few buffer system between you and a potential enemy.

So I simply disagree with that entire philosophy.

As it would NEVER mean that you slip past en entire fleet (unless you are mad and build only cloaked ship, which could be fun though from an RP perspective) as it would be cost prohibitive.

I can imagine many role-play stories where cloaked ships suddenly appear above a core colony that is not well defended and start terror bombing it. From a story perspective this would be FUN.

Or...

A small squadron of missile destroyers approaches a JP in the core systems to jump when a couple of cloaked beam cruisers de-cloak at knife range in front of them... what is not to like about that scenario from a story perspective.

Or...

three cloaked destroyers engages a weakly escorted support task-force with short range torpedoes.

[Graham]

Yes... I actually realised that after writing that post... so I apologise for that... although it does not change the fact that you can't return as you still need to get to that point on the return trip... this is a no go mechanic for me... not very usable at all.

I still don't understand what you mean? yes you still have to transit a jump zone on the return trip, but if you could make it in you have a decent chance of making it out no? There's risk both ways, just like with submarines IRL.

look at it in terms of WW2, German submarines had to traverse either the Channel or the North sea in order to get to the British commerce, this offered them a choice, to go the short but more dangerous way, or the long way round and have much decreased range. meanwhile the British could patrol the north sea to try and intercept the subs, and cause some losses to the Germans, but it would they didn't have the resources to cover the whole place at once so subs could still get through. Then when France fell, submarines could operate out of Brittany, completely changing things as the terrain had changed, affecting the war massively. My system is designed to try to replicate this.

Now take your system of being able to teleport around. The German subs leave port and appear in the Mid atlantic gap. There are no choices to make, no advantages to be gained, and no real options for the british in terms of defence. Instead of choosing between assigning more escort ships to... escorting, or sending them to patrol the submarine lanes (Which turned out to be the wrong choice but still), or deploying minefields and barrages, they have no choice at all, except which convoys to escort more than others.

Your system also suffers massively from scale. As empires get bigger, the number of systems and assets to be secured grows, so the amount of defences at any one place can't really increase, whereas the number of stealth ships able to be fielded, and concentrated in one place, grows too. So at a certain point you can't really defend effectively.

[Jovus]

There's risk both ways, just like with submarines IRL.

Look at it in terms of WW2, German submarines ...

It's worth pointing out that with this real-world example, hideous losses among submarines were deemed acceptable by the Kriegsmarine. Which says to me that the prospect of 'suicide misisons' is not a good reason to change a tactical game system in itself.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

Yes... I actually realised that after writing that post... so I apologise for that... although it does not change the fact that you can't return as you still need to get to that point on the return trip... this is a no go mechanic for me... not very usable at all.

I still don't understand what you mean? yes you still have to transit a jump zone on the return trip, but if you could make it in you have a decent chance of making it out no? There's risk both ways, just like with submarines IRL.

look at it in terms of WW2, German submarines had to traverse either the Channel or the North sea in order to get to the British commerce, this offered them a choice, to go the short but more dangerous way, or the long way round and have much decreased range. meanwhile the British could patrol the north sea to try and intercept the subs, and cause some losses to the Germans, but it would they didn't have the resources to cover the whole place at once so subs could still get through. Then when France fell, submarines could operate out of Brittany, completely changing things as the terrain had changed, affecting the war massively. My system is designed to try to replicate this.

Now take your system of being able to teleport around. The German subs leave port and appear in the Mid atlantic gap. There are no choices to make, no advantages to be gained, and no real options for the british in terms of defence. Instead of choosing between assigning more escort ships to... escorting, or sending them to patrol the submarine lanes (Which turned out to be the wrong choice but still), or deploying minefields and barrages, they have no choice at all, except which convoys to escort more than others.

Your system also suffers massively from scale. As empires get bigger, the number of systems and assets to be secured grows, so the amount of defences at any one place can't really increase, whereas the number of stealth ships able to be fielded, and concentrated in one place, grows too. So at a certain point you can't really defend effectively.

I might be misunderstanding how you like it to work... if you mean that you can jump from a certain distance from both direction then I would be OK with it.

But then you could do that on every JP further down as well, or I might just misunderstand that as well.

There also is a difference between acceptable risk to certain doom that it would be if you need to jump from the JP itself as it would for a lone or couple of ship. Perhaps not against the AI but certainly in a multi-faction game where all sides is played by a human.

I still prefer the cloaking device no matter what as I think it has better storytelling opportunities. You also don't have to make it entirely non detectable... I did give an option of using some sort of depth charge device to disrupt the cloak... You might also attach an active special "sonar" module to ships which might have a chance to detect the cloaked ship as well. But the cloaked ships need to have a rather decent chance to remain undetected.

The cloaking mechanic also give other benefits as the examples given above which certainly add to the storyteller element of the game.

So... no the cloak would not mean it can teleport around... there would be negatives to using the cloak as it would have some sort of cost and you would be able to detect it, especially if you have a decent idea where it is.

Having some sort of cloaking mechanic would simply be more fun as it have more and interesting effect other than slipping past JP.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

There's risk both ways, just like with submarines IRL.

Look at it in terms of WW2, German submarines ...

It's worth pointing out that with this real-world example, hideous losses among submarines were deemed acceptable by the Kriegsmarine. Which says to me that the prospect of 'suicide misisons' is not a good reason to change a tactical game system in itself.

The problem is not that you would accept the losses... it is that they did not expect the losses but received them anyway. There is a very big difference...

[Paul M]

I'm sorry to say I have to come down on the "negatory pig-pen" side of this.  Stealth ships and being able to insert said into the enemy territory are two things which pretty much destroy a game.  While it is a neat story thing when 3 DDs drop their cloak and attack the hapless convoy...why is it 3 and not 30 or 300?  If the answer to that is "it is expensive" my reply is so what?  Is there a worth to it?  Lets say the answer is "Yes" then it will be done and it will not be done in limited numbers and restricted to small ships.  Why not insert an unclassified titan scale warship this way?

Also if I know what is on the other side of a jump point exactly, which is what you would be able to determine....then I won't loose a regular assault.  The fortune cookies of war isn't my favorite military text but "a general who knows himself and his enemy need not fear defeat" is for the most part true.   The ability to scout jump points is a huge advantage.   The ability to sow massive disruption behind enemy lines is potentially a huge advantage...but mainly is just annoying to the person it happens to.

So given the munchkin response to 0.1% improvement I'd imagine they would go whole hog for this technology.   And I've learned in Starfire that money is not a barrier it just pushes things outwards...galactic starfire attempts to get rid of the 3rdR snowball by increasing maintenance costs and reducing incomes and all it does is push the turn when it happens beyond what most games that the creator liked ended at.  If a technology was good what it cost was rarely a determining factor in if it was used.

Cloaking devices need very very hard rules on them to stop them from just becoming dominant in games...look at Eve online for example.  Stealth and its use was critical to sec 0 fights...but they dialed waaaaay back the effectiveness of stealth ships as strike platforms.  And still I think their biggest value was in recon.  Knowledge is power. 

I mean the idea is sound from a drama/book/show/whatever perspective but for a game it is just something I think is best avoided.   hell Starslayer and I have just hit the point where one of the bug races revealed their use of cloak...having 6 SDs uncloak during a warp point assault I was doing...that was...like..."oh smeg" ....thankfully I had SDs of my own I could toss through the WP and more importantly several hundred missile pods...that had been planned to be used in the follow up battle....but which saved me from having my assault force hammered into scrap metal.  Every one of those SDs I tossed through the WP had to be repaired, plus I lost 6 assault CAs and I'm fairly sure the BCs got hammered on too...   So yeah stealth is a game changing system when you have it in a game it is best to think long and hard on if you want it.

I don't think you need jump points/warp point/hyperlane connections but if you don't have them then you face a very different sort of battlespace one where you have to do disperse your fleet something which gamers in general don't like due to the inevitable micromanagement it costs.   I mean a naval warfare game with strategic level decisions (or a good WW2 simulation) forces you to decide how to disperse your fleet to cover multiple theatres this is the same as what a space game has...where every system is "basilisk station" or "midway" or whatever.  But who wants to have CL/DD groups patrolling your space compared to having a big fleet or two?  I mean there is a reason most real navies had loads of DDs and such ships and why most games focus on battleships...one is sexy the other is...mundane and useful...

It is also worth noting the 8th Squadron in Tau Ceti blundered into 6 wolver FACs while moving through the system and had a point blank range encounter with them so even in the older game such events are possible without adding in new tech.

I also didn't read every reply in super detail so if I misunderstood something that is my fault.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

I'm sorry to say I have to come down on the "negatory pig-pen" side of this.  Stealth ships and being able to insert said into the enemy territory are two things which pretty much destroy a game.  While it is a neat story thing when 3 DDs drop their cloak and attack the hapless convoy...why is it 3 and not 30 or 300?  If the answer to that is "it is expensive" my reply is so what?  Is there a worth to it?  Lets say the answer is "Yes" then it will be done and it will not be done in limited numbers and restricted to small ships.  Why not insert an unclassified titan scale warship this way?

Also if I know what is on the other side of a jump point exactly, which is what you would be able to determine....then I won't loose a regular assault.  The fortune cookies of war isn't my favorite military text but "a general who knows himself and his enemy need not fear defeat" is for the most part true.   The ability to scout jump points is a huge advantage.   The ability to sow massive disruption behind enemy lines is potentially a huge advantage...but mainly is just annoying to the person it happens to.

So given the munchkin response to 0.1% improvement I'd imagine they would go whole hog for this technology.   And I've learned in Starfire that money is not a barrier it just pushes things outwards...galactic starfire attempts to get rid of the 3rdR snowball by increasing maintenance costs and reducing incomes and all it does is push the turn when it happens beyond what most games that the creator liked ended at.  If a technology was good what it cost was rarely a determining factor in if it was used.

Cloaking devices need very very hard rules on them to stop them from just becoming dominant in games...look at Eve online for example.  Stealth and its use was critical to sec 0 fights...but they dialed waaaaay back the effectiveness of stealth ships as strike platforms.  And still I think their biggest value was in recon.  Knowledge is power. 

I mean the idea is sound from a drama/book/show/whatever perspective but for a game it is just something I think is best avoided.   hell Starslayer and I have just hit the point where one of the bug races revealed their use of cloak...having 6 SDs uncloak during a warp point assault I was doing...that was...like..."oh smeg" ....thankfully I had SDs of my own I could toss through the WP and more importantly several hundred missile pods...that had been planned to be used in the follow up battle....but which saved me from having my assault force hammered into scrap metal.  Every one of those SDs I tossed through the WP had to be repaired, plus I lost 6 assault CAs and I'm fairly sure the BCs got hammered on too...   So yeah stealth is a game changing system when you have it in a game it is best to think long and hard on if you want it.

I don't think you need jump points/warp point/hyperlane connections but if you don't have them then you face a very different sort of battlespace one where you have to do disperse your fleet something which gamers in general don't like due to the inevitable micromanagement it costs.   I mean a naval warfare game with strategic level decisions (or a good WW2 simulation) forces you to decide how to disperse your fleet to cover multiple theatres this is the same as what a space game has...where every system is "basilisk station" or "midway" or whatever.  But who wants to have CL/DD groups patrolling your space compared to having a big fleet or two?  I mean there is a reason most real navies had loads of DDs and such ships and why most games focus on battleships...one is sexy the other is...mundane and useful...

It is also worth noting the 8th Squadron in Tau Ceti blundered into 6 wolver FACs while moving through the system and had a point blank range encounter with them so even in the older game such events are possible without adding in new tech.

I also didn't read every reply in super detail so if I misunderstood something that is my fault.

I think you understood thing pretty well so I appreciate your opinion on the matter.

When we talk about JP assaults it is not very hard to scout and get information on their strength even without cloaking devices so I think that is a moot point. You just have to probe it and get the information.

I might also disagree about cost not being a strong factor as it certainly work in general... you would NEVER be able to use large invasion fleets with cloaks for example, those ships just are far to big and making them into military instead of commercial simply is not viable. One of the limitation we spoke about was ship size for example. You also do not have to make the cloaks 100% perfect either.

Aurora already have very little in regard to stopping snowballing the economy other than distance to resources.

I think it is more constructive to discuss what you need to do to make cloaks work rather than discus if you want asymmetrical warfare or not. I clearly simply do not agree with that notion that asymmetrical warfare would not add to the game. The point of the discussion is to make it balanced in terms of making it very uneconomic to use only cloaked ships or simply some severe limitation to them that make it undesirable.

So... why don't navies today use ONLY submarines... well it is prohibitively expensive and they are not very good at transporting stuff in any quantity. They can't operate aircraft or helicopters... but they could potentially operate drones in the future at least.

In the game then range would still be a problem as would the cost of the supplies necessary to operate them on enemy territory... there always are the chance of them being detected as you can only use their cloaks periodically and are more like U-Boats not submarines. In order to make them truly stealth you would need stealth engines, stealth hulls AND they also all need their own jump-drive as squadron jumps don't work while they are using the cloaking system... these are ALL very limiting things and would make them very inefficient for combat purposes unless you have extremely high technology.

They obviously would be good for scouting mostly and for light raid... as combat vessels it would take considerable effort of research... research someone else could use to get ahead in other technologies instead.

So no.. it would take huge investments to be at a stage where you could operate a fleet powerful enough to do any kind of fleet operation of any substantial nature and you would need a huge tech and industrial advantage.

In my opinion you would probably be allot better off to invest all that time and energy into just building a proper fleet as that wold be way more efficient to win actual battles.

The idea is to use them for covert ops, raiding and scouting... there should be ways to find and neutralise them (without too much micromanagement), they would need to be much harder to find than regular ships as it otherwise would make very little sense to use them at all.
You need to view them as U-Boats rather than submarines as their capability to remain cloaked for long periods should be very limited.

[Jorgen_CAB (OP)]

Here is a list of things that could make cloaks on ships balanced in terms of usability versus cost and risk...

1. The cloak will make the ship almost undetectable by passive sensors but there could be a small chance of enemy passive sensor to randomly detect the ship if it otherwise could. This chance would then depend on the difference in technology level of the competing factions knowledge of cloaking devices.

2. The cloak can only be used for a limited set of time every time it is activated, it could be more of a soft cap as it would start to eat more and more supplies the longer it is used. This could also be modified by technology.

3. The size of the cloak would scale inversely with the size of the ship in some fashion so big ships would require proportionally larger cloaking devices, this could also be effected by technology.

4. "sonar" like technology could be used to disrupt enemy cloaking devises and increase the chance of passive sensors detecting them.

5. "sonar"buoys could be deployed that also could disrupt cloaking devices delivered by missile launchers.

6. "depth charge" like missiles could be used against suspected cloaked ships to completely disrupt the cloaking device.

5. A ship can't use any active sensors, fire-controls, launch or recover parasites, drop troops or load/unload any cargo while cloaked.

What more could be added to so they are not too powerful... they should feel vulnerable but still powerful enough to be used. As others have said... knowledge is power. We have to remember that as soon as a ship like this use any form of active sensors they will become hunted and using their cloaking systems is a limited capacity so they are likely to be hunted down and destroyed.