Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Questions  (Read 183925 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #120 on: September 20, 2018, 02:13:50 AM »
So I take it that unlike VB6 there will be no inbuilt recovery of a units strength once they have ceased fighting? I wonder if military academies will need a bit of a boost in output rate to help manage the extra requirements.
 

Offline davidr

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • d
  • Posts: 258
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • 2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #121 on: September 27, 2018, 05:27:16 PM »
Re survivors rescued - will there be any means to repatriate friendly / non hostile race survivors to their own Homeworld or other owned planet instead of treating every survivor as a POW? Repatriating friendly race survivors should instead earn some "kudosh" from the receiving race.

DavidR
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #122 on: September 28, 2018, 04:39:57 AM »
Re survivors rescued - will there be any means to repatriate friendly / non hostile race survivors to their own Homeworld or other owned planet instead of treating every survivor as a POW? Repatriating friendly race survivors should instead earn some "kudosh" from the receiving race.

DavidR

Not at the moment, but that could be added.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #123 on: September 28, 2018, 04:41:04 AM »
So I take it that unlike VB6 there will be no inbuilt recovery of a units strength once they have ceased fighting? I wonder if military academies will need a bit of a boost in output rate to help manage the extra requirements.

There will be morale recovery, which will increase effective strength, but no automatic replacement of lost soldiers or vehicles.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 544
  • Thanked: 39 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #124 on: September 28, 2018, 07:29:23 AM »
Steve

Have you had a chance to run any test ground combat scenarios as yet? Just wondering if you had a feel for how long ground combat may take to resolve v VB6. Just looking at the logistics info, if it takes say 30 days of fighting or (6 construction cycle phases in old money, which off the top of my head is about the time needed to get a victory with a decent numerical advantage), then for 2 of your divisions (as per the rules example) to defeat 1 equiv opposing division you would need to bring in an extra 180 combat phases worth of provisions which is roughly three times the starting provisions available. That equates to about 5500 supply trucks or about 340,000 tons worth of supplies to bring in. That's a lot of logistics! Am I way off or are we looking at a far more significant logistical effort to invade?

Also just thinking about the management of logistics will you be adding interrupts to give the play low supply warnings?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #125 on: September 28, 2018, 09:57:58 AM »
Steve

Have you had a chance to run any test ground combat scenarios as yet? Just wondering if you had a feel for how long ground combat may take to resolve v VB6. Just looking at the logistics info, if it takes say 30 days of fighting or (6 construction cycle phases in old money, which off the top of my head is about the time needed to get a victory with a decent numerical advantage), then for 2 of your divisions (as per the rules example) to defeat 1 equiv opposing division you would need to bring in an extra 180 combat phases worth of provisions which is roughly three times the starting provisions available. That equates to about 5500 supply trucks or about 340,000 tons worth of supplies to bring in. That's a lot of logistics! Am I way off or are we looking at a far more significant logistical effort to invade?

Also just thinking about the management of logistics will you be adding interrupts to give the play low supply warnings?

I've run simulations but not a full test yet. I do want managing logistics to be a major consideration for ground combat, but I may adjust based on testing. This could either be through altering the supply requirement or changing the frequency of combat rounds.

For the 'division' in the screenshots, the GSP is about 40,000, which is about 4000 GSP per combat round. One month would be about 240 combat rounds, or 960,000 GSP. That is 1920 supply trucks, or 119,000 tons of lift. However, the 'division' includes almost 400 100-ton heavy tanks, 144 42-ton medium tanks, 120 98-ton flak tanks, 144 heavy artillery pieces (1/4 of which are self-propelled), 6600 infantry and close to 600 other infantry elements with light artillery, anti-tank, machine guns, etc.

As a comparison, a WW2 US Heavy Armoured Division had 232 Medium tanks while a light armoured division had 168 tanks. These are WW2 era tanks, so are about 40 tons. Including tank crews and support, they had 16,000 and 12,000 personnel respectively. So the above 'division' is more likely a Corps and has much larger vehicles as well.

According to a book I am reading on logistics (see link below), each US division in 1944 consumed (on average) about 20,000 tons of supplies each month. That doesn't take into account all the supply chain organisation, the actual movement of supplies, rear area protection, etc., which Aurora doesn't simulate but which would require its own supplies to function. Based on all of the above, 119,000 tons of supplies doesn't seem too bad. However, I will see how that works out in practice.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Supplying-War-Logistics-Wallenstein-Patton/dp/0521546575
 
The following users thanked this post: serger, dag0net

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #126 on: September 28, 2018, 03:03:03 PM »
I've run simulations but not a full test yet. I do want managing logistics to be a major consideration for ground combat, but I may adjust based on testing. This could either be through altering the supply requirement or changing the frequency of combat rounds.

For the 'division' in the screenshots, the GSP is about 40,000, which is about 4000 GSP per combat round. One month would be about 240 combat rounds, or 960,000 GSP. That is 1920 supply trucks, or 119,000 tons of lift. However, the 'division' includes almost 400 100-ton heavy tanks, 144 42-ton medium tanks, 120 98-ton flak tanks, 144 heavy artillery pieces (1/4 of which are self-propelled), 6600 infantry and close to 600 other infantry elements with light artillery, anti-tank, machine guns, etc.

As a comparison, a WW2 US Heavy Armoured Division had 232 Medium tanks while a light armoured division had 168 tanks. These are WW2 era tanks, so are about 40 tons. Including tank crews and support, they had 16,000 and 12,000 personnel respectively. So the above 'division' is more likely a Corps and has much larger vehicles as well.

According to a book I am reading on logistics (see link below), each US division in 1944 consumed (on average) about 20,000 tons of supplies each month. That doesn't take into account all the supply chain organisation, the actual movement of supplies, rear area protection, etc., which Aurora doesn't simulate but which would require its own supplies to function. Based on all of the above, 119,000 tons of supplies doesn't seem too bad. However, I will see how that works out in practice.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Supplying-War-Logistics-Wallenstein-Patton/dp/0521546575

Sounds Awesome!

I'm very exited that your putting alot of effort into logistics!

Will there be any consumption for idle divisions / ground units as well? ( besides wealth for maintenance ) Historical figures seems to be about 5-15% of combat consumption levels for idle ground forces.

Something else I thought about is that I've always felt that the logistical challenge of moving TN minerals around have always felt very underwhelming compared to moving anything else. A single freighter in VB6 Aurora can supply the minerals for an entire planets industrial output for a quite significant time, and if in the same system the Mass Drivers deliver it for free once set up.

Id like a stretched out empire feeling the strain of getting minerals home to the capital from the fringe systems as heavily as getting the ammunition, fuel and supplies back to the combat zone in the fringe.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #127 on: September 28, 2018, 05:48:05 PM »
Sounds Awesome!

I'm very exited that your putting alot of effort into logistics!

Will there be any consumption for idle divisions / ground units as well? ( besides wealth for maintenance ) Historical figures seems to be about 5-15% of combat consumption levels for idle ground forces.

Something else I thought about is that I've always felt that the logistical challenge of moving TN minerals around have always felt very underwhelming compared to moving anything else. A single freighter in VB6 Aurora can supply the minerals for an entire planets industrial output for a quite significant time, and if in the same system the Mass Drivers deliver it for free once set up.

Id like a stretched out empire feeling the strain of getting minerals home to the capital from the fringe systems as heavily as getting the ammunition, fuel and supplies back to the combat zone in the fringe.

I decided to limit the use of supply to combat operations to reduce micromanagement and have wealth-based maintenance instead for the rest of the time. There should be more ground combat in C# Aurora than VB6 and a correspondingly greater role for naval forces in supporting those ground operations, so the supply will be used fairly often.

For example, I am currently coding up Precursors and I will be adding a ground-based element to some of the ruin defender forces. Rather than robots popping out of the ground in VB6, the C# Precursor ground forces will be already entrenched around the ruins. Also, just to make it more interesting, the installations in ruins that are yet to be recovered will take damage from orbital bombardment and may suffer collateral damage from ground combat. So accessing ruins will now be more of a combined arms operation.
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel, Kytuzian, DIT_grue, serger, Rye123, Jovus

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #128 on: September 29, 2018, 03:00:44 AM »
Will there be different chances of installation damage depending on weapons?

Because that would give us the option of sending in the much lighter armed infantry to engage the defense unsupported (despite the massive casualties likely to result) instead of heavy tanks so as to lower the odds of flattening the entire ruins complex.
 

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #129 on: September 29, 2018, 03:40:43 AM »
Rather than robots popping out of the ground in VB6, the C# Precursor ground forces will be already entrenched around the ruins. Also, just to make it more interesting, the installations in ruins that are yet to be recovered will take damage from orbital bombardment and may suffer collateral damage from ground combat. So accessing ruins will now be more of a combined arms operation.

Sounds like "microwave" weapons could be a nice touch on ground-units specialised as "robot killers" ... such weapons could/would leave the ruins nearly complete intact...
... but they are not part of the weapon arsenal of ground troops atm or am I wrong?  ???
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #130 on: September 29, 2018, 05:12:26 AM »
Will there be different chances of installation damage depending on weapons?

Because that would give us the option of sending in the much lighter armed infantry to engage the defense unsupported (despite the massive casualties likely to result) instead of heavy tanks so as to lower the odds of flattening the entire ruins complex.

I hadn't considered that but it is a really good idea. When I write the collateral damage code, I will handle it on those lines.
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #131 on: September 29, 2018, 12:15:23 PM »
This may have been asked before, in which case I apologize.

How much will we be able to automate resupply?  I worry it may end up somewhat like automating mineral shipments works in VB6 which is not very good.  I don't mind setting up the routes, but I should only have to do it once.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2822
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #132 on: October 01, 2018, 05:20:50 PM »
In the new ground combat rules and logistics... when would I want to use one size 62 ton vehicle for 500GSP over 12 infantry with 1200GSP for roughly the same cost and slightly less than double the size?

Infantry seem in pretty much in all respect to be better at bringing supplies, size and cost. 12 infantry will also be harder to kill than 1 vehicle in pretty much all scenarios.

I might be missing some important key aspect of how supplies work.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #133 on: October 01, 2018, 05:51:36 PM »
You are.

Infantry supply units can only function within the formation they are part of. Vehicle supply can be drawn from by units further down the HQ chain.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Questions
« Reply #134 on: October 01, 2018, 06:09:17 PM »
You are.

Infantry supply units can only function within the formation they are part of. Vehicle supply can be drawn from by units further down the HQ chain.
It might be nice to eventually also give a special purpose to airborne supply units.