Replacing PDCs

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I really, really don't like this.  It seems intuitively obvious that the roles of 'move troops long distances' and 'land troops on hostile planets' will be separated, particularly in a setting where the last line of ground defenses is much stronger than it is in 7.1.  I understand the micromanagement aspect, but this just seems bizarre.  We can only land with LSTs and LCIs?  There's literally no way to build a ship where we cram them into seats for a few hours before landing them, keeping the big ships out of range of the last-ditch point-defense fire?  The life-support facilities are big and expensive.  Why am I hauling them into the teeth of enemy fire?

i think the idea is that the drop enabled modules represent shuttles or drop pods or Roks or what have you, whatever's necessary to go the last bit from the ship to the surface.

i'm a little sad at losing dropships, but i can make it work for me RP wise, personally. 

[obsidian_green]

Given the current aversion to combat losses if you are playing a democracy and do not provide adequate protection for all your troops you should suffer a public unrest penalty. (Should there be a measure of how much public support there is for a war?)

The logistics personnel need power armor? Concept of underfunded troops would be interesting, but I don't think that's what I'm suggesting. My concern is with the possibility of redundant micromanagement---a civ with the tech and money to have something like power armor will equip appropriate units with the appropriate amount.

Current army battalions do not disband when they get a new piece of kit. Allowing  weapons series (as for missiles) and upgrading being automatic (costing wealth) within a series would remove a lot of the micromanagement.

Yep, can't be said enough. I also like the weapons series, automatic upgrade idea.

[serger]

In space there's no attrition, so there's zero reasons to have an aerodynamic space fighter .

Errmmm.
Transnewtonian space is a liquid space. Transnewtonian fighter have to be... not aerodynamic, but hydrodynamic. Ultrahypersonic hydrodynamic, well.
Stings, not cubes or even x-wings.

[serger]

Well, surely, liquid is not a liquid at some relativistic velocity. If you have a velocities of 10 or 20 kkms relative to medium, than any oncoming liquid medium will be hyperdense hard radiation for you, not liquid at all. But that's transnewtonian physics we have in Aurora. You cannot understand it, you just have to memorize it as it is.

[alex_brunius]

In space there's no attrition, so there's zero reasons to have an aerodynamic space fighter . No matter what all the various sci-fi sagas showed you, a cube is a perfectly valid form for a space fighter. Because, with no attrition, there's no compelling reason to choose any form over any other. In fact a cube could be optimal, because it is compact and arguably more robust than a streamlined, long and slim shape.

If we want to use physics though you do have one major advantage of an elongated shape, which smaller surface area facing the enemy. In Space your likely to be facing a threat only from one very specific direction at a time, and your also likely to know exactly what that direction is well before coming under attack. If you make your object 8 times longer you can reduce the surface area facing the enemy by 4 times (retaining the same volume), thus using an all or nothing approach giving it 4 times as thick armor, and giving any projectiles that penetrate the armor 8 times as much stuff to penetrate before they reach the vulnerable components in the rear of the ship.

More importantly you present a 4 times smaller surface area for the enemy to hit by making an elongated shape instead of a cube.

To optimize an even armor distribution covering all directions it's true you want a cube ( or really a sphere ), but that might not always the best defense in practice since you also present a much bigger target.

[Bughunter]

Elongated shape doesn't work with the missile model of hits actually being near misses as the damage could be from any direction.

[IanD]

The logistics personnel need power armor? Concept of underfunded troops would be interesting, but I don't think that's what I'm suggesting. My concern is with the possibility of redundant micromanagement---a civ with the tech and money to have something like power armor will equip appropriate units with the appropriate amount.

Yep, can't be said enough. I also like the weapons series, automatic upgrade idea.

A friend of mine was in the REME in Iraq, not a frontline posting. They had the webbing for the ceramic plates, just no ceramic plates till half way through their deployment when they got one, so they could cover their front or back, just not both! Cheapskate MOD.

[Gyrfalcon]

Going to throw this out there for debate and to see how much is agreeable or workable.

There are two things I would ideally like in the new system:

1 - The ability to reinforce damaged units using wealth (and time) when they are located in a non-hostile location. Perhaps limited by being located on a colony with a GFTC present. This is to avoid the peacetime micromanagement of having to create, produce and deploy reinforcement units simply to repair a regiment that had gotten mauled while on deployment.
2 - The ability to designate an improved version of a unit in a series (so from basic guardsmen with Mk I personal weapons to Mk II personal weapons). Like with the above option, all regiments making use of guardsmen would start to 'repair' themselves to the new standard using wealth and time. The whole cadre system to me only makes sense if you're making a major change in unit type, say from unarmored infantry to powered armored infantry that would require extensive retraining.

Basically, I enjoy the micromanagement of designing and deploying my military forces, even down to the unit scale as it is now. However I don't enjoy having to play Army Corp of Logistics and then also have to micromanage down to the rifle and bullet their supplies and equipment. As much as possible when it doesn't add anything important to the experience, I think that should be abstracted and handled by the game, not forced on the player. Where reinforcement units make perfect sense is in an active warzone/invasion. Outside that, I don't want to have to deal with them  for every last little thing.

[bean]

i think the idea is that the drop enabled modules represent shuttles or drop pods or Roks or what have you, whatever's necessary to go the last bit from the ship to the surface.

i'm a little sad at losing dropships, but i can make it work for me RP wise, personally.

I get that we aren't literally putting the ship on the ground.  But I still really don't like the idea that the only size of troop transport we get is the one that is set up to carry them indefinitely.  So if I want to land on a planet's moon, subdue it, then shuttle troops to the planet?  Sorry, takes the same size of shuttle that it took to get them there in the first place. 

[Whitecold]

In fact, you could design smaller fighters intended for this type of combat. They would need smaller launchers (probably size 1) because they would be dropping 'bombs' (missiles without fuel or engines), rather than launching normal missiles. Assuming they are linked with a forward air controller on the ground, they wouldn't need a fire control. They also would need very little fuel. Engines would be smaller as well, so you are probably getting down to 100 tons or less. Probably hard to hit by any remaining planetary defences on the way in and out due to high speed. Given they are essentially dropping nukes at close-range against specific targets identified by a controller on the ground, that would probably be quite effective. Or they could be equipped with less effective non-nuclear munitions to avoid environmental damage.

In terms of aircraft based on planets, that in fine in C# Aurora as they can be maintained normally by maintenance facilities.

Just thinking out loud, but it would be fun to have carriers standing off out of energy range and sending in strikes to aid the ground war.

Should not any weapon system be able to be used as ground support? What you really need is some tactical link from your forward observers to your fleet, but then also far away missile ships and beam ships could be used. Especially railguns which don't suffer from dispersion should be able to be used at extreme ranges, far longer than against ships since their target cannot dodge at anything near the speed another ship is capable of.

[Hazard]

Should not any weapon system be able to be used as ground support? What you really need is some tactical link from your forward observers to your fleet, but then also far away missile ships and beam ships could be used. Especially railguns which don't suffer from dispersion should be able to be used at extreme ranges, far longer than against ships since their target cannot dodge at anything near the speed another ship is capable of.

Sorry, I have to dispute that railguns don't suffer dispersion.

They do.

However, because railguns use solid slugs instead of a stream of particles or light you don't notice it in the same way. You'd need to fire a lot of shots but you would notice a definite tendency for slugs to hit not on target, but slightly off.

And depending on the range, 'slightly' off in arc seconds would be quite a lot more in kilometers.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I've been giving the 'ground unit aircraft' vs 'space fighters providing close air support' some more thought.

If we use an amphibious invasion as an analogy, any air support in the early stages would be provided by carrier-based aircraft (or from land bases nearby) due to the lack of basing facilities where the invasion is taking place. Once engineers get ashore they can build an airbase and aircraft can operate from there.

My current line of thinking is to have aircraft operating from carriers but with equipment specifically designed for non-nuclear ground combat (if nukes are needed, they can be fired at ground units as part of normal combat, as in VB6, by any type of ship). This equipment would be on the lines of 'Heavy Bombardment Module' or Medium Anti-Tank Module', etc. and would have a limited ammunition supply (set during module design) that can be replenished at a carrier using maintenance supplies (instead of tracking actual bombs, missiles). The fighter would also need a special sensor for precision targeting of ground units. In general, the fighter modules would be more powerful than normal ground unit weapons, but with limited ammo supply (think 1000 lb bomb vs 155mm shell). You could design fighters specifically for ground combat, or hybrids that can fight against ships and ground units.

The fighters could be given an order of 'close air support' for the population location. They would fly to that location, taking fire from any planetary defences on the way in, but on arrival would be assumed to be operating at low altitude and therefore could not be targeted by planetary defences. Once their ammunition is exhausted they leave the planet, potentially taking fire on their return journey to the carrier for re-arming. Any fighters in 'close air support' mode could be linked to fire direction units and would act during ground combat phases. As they attack, they would be vulnerable to anti-air units.

Because this is dependent on being at low altitude, the modules would have to be restricted to fighters only. Larger ships could still use their main armament to provide support from orbit, where they would be vulnerable to fire from STO units but safe from anti-air.

[Bremen]

I've been giving the 'ground unit aircraft' vs 'space fighters providing close air support' some more thought.

If we use an amphibious invasion as an analogy, any air support in the early stages would be provided by carrier-based aircraft (or from land bases nearby) due to the lack of basing facilities where the invasion is taking place. Once engineers get ashore they can build an airbase and aircraft can operate from there.

My current line of thinking is to have aircraft operating from carriers but with equipment specifically designed for non-nuclear ground combat (if nukes are needed, they can be fired at ground units as part of normal combat, as in VB6, by any type of ship). This equipment would be on the lines of 'Heavy Bombardment Module' or Medium Anti-Tank Module', etc. and would have a limited ammunition supply (set during module design) that can be replenished at a carrier using maintenance supplies (instead of tracking actual bombs, missiles). The fighter would also need a special sensor for precision targeting of ground units. In general, the fighter modules would be more powerful than normal ground unit weapons, but with limited ammo supply (think 1000 lb bomb vs 155mm shell). You could design fighters specifically for ground combat, or hybrids that can fight against ships and ground units.

The fighters could be given an order of 'close air support' for the population location. They would fly to that location, taking fire from any planetary defences on the way in, but on arrival would be assumed to be operating at low altitude and therefore could not be targeted by planetary defences. Once their ammunition is exhausted they leave the planet, potentially taking fire on their return journey to the carrier for re-arming. Any fighters in 'close air support' mode could be linked to fire direction units and would act during ground combat phases. As they attack, they would be vulnerable to anti-air units.

Because this is dependent on being at low altitude, the modules would have to be restricted to fighters only. Larger ships could still use their main armament to provide support from orbit, where they would be vulnerable to fire from STO units but safe from anti-air.

I like this idea (but I was always pressing for a uniform air and space fighter), though I have some thoughts on the implementation. For one, I worry from how you phrase things that you have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to fighters armed with beam weapons instead of missiles.

Ideally I think I'd kind of prefer it if the same (non-missile) weapons worked in space and on the ground. Orbital bombardment already means there has to be some conversion for space based beam weapons damaging ground units, so making it so fighters could use their gauss cannons (or similar) while carrying out Close Air Support missions make sense, even if it's basically just orbital bombardment with an accuracy bonus. If weapons have a chance to break on firing and/or an MSP cost, then they'd still have ammo concerns. For missiles, what about using the same launchers but entirely different missions (so it would be like WW2 carrier strikes, and loading aircraft with either bombs or torpedoes)? I'd be okay with requiring a special fire control for close air support (even if I'd probably prefer otherwise since any weight would be a big penalty on fighters when not performing air support and I like the idea of them serving a dual purpose). If you need designs with completely different weapons, though, there's really no point in hybrid space and air fighters.

The fighters flying to the planet and then being too close for PtS weapons makes sense, though you'd probably want to have them switch over after the weapon firing phase (so PtS weapons always get one shot at point blank range before the fighters land), since otherwise fast fighters might be able to close and land before the PtS weapons can shoot. This also makes the landing a vulnerable time and incentivizes fighter designs with enough ammo to stay in the fight instead of having to constantly return to their carrier.

[Hazard]

Another option to limit the usefulness of naval grade weapons in a ground combat role outside of very careful FFC coordinated strikes would be by imposing a strict weight limit, but going by weight is a bit complicated as an option. The Airbus 380 has a maximum takeoff weight of 575 tons without the use of TN minerals, which is equal to 11.5 HS is Aurora. It might move through the air like a whale and as such not really viable as a weapons platform, but TN minerals and enough thrust would solve that problem right quick.

Then again, there are optimisation questions involved; in space a flying brick is a perfectly viable design because there's no, well, anything resistance really unless you engage in a spot of most likely undesired lithobraking followed immediately with a rapid unplanned disassembly event of the entire craft and crew. Trying a flying brick design can work in atmosphere, but it's got two problems. The first is that it requires a lot of thrust, which is solvable, the second is that it will have the flight profile of a flying brick, which is rather harder to resolve without inducing an unexpected lithobraking event followed by the rapid unplanned disassembly of the craft and crew even with a flight computer handling most of the load.

Building something a little more aerodynamically stable would require trade offs between the space viability of the craft and the atmospheric viability of the craft. Worse, there are distinctly different design requirements for how deep and fast you want to go (you really, really, don't want to go Aurora standard speeds even at the lowest engine levels in an Earthlike atmosphere). This could manifest as a mass penalty because of the fact that while air designs generally work perfectly well in space, the opposite is not necessarily true and as such designs will generally look to be stable in atmosphere first and let the computers handle space stability while the now unnecessary wings and steering surfaces occupy mass and volume that could've gone more efficiently in space to other components.


Still, Steve, if you are coding for 'ship on planet', that's perfectly transferable to ships loading/unloading any kind of cargo, including troop carriers. Huge landing ships just became a lot more viable, especially if you can get the loading times low enough.

[Whitecold]

Unless the ground combat module is weightless, I don't see any way to build an effective hybrid fighter. The mass budget for weapons of a fighter is extremely tight. Would it not be better to add dedicated bombardment ammunition? That could be used by box-launcher fighters, beam fighters have an useful weapon already, and it could also be used as the upper stage of a bombardment drone/missile fired from far off warships.
As for guidance, I'd imagine the most important source of target information comes from units on the ground requesting strikes. For these kinds of strikes, only a datalink is needed.