Author Topic: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech  (Read 1884 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2019
  • Thanked: 1429 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2022, 10:53:43 AM »
I always imagined that vehicles had both combat staff (e.g. drivers, gunners) and non-combat staff (e.g. mechanics, the-guy-who-polishes-all-the-statues-on-the-Baneblade) included in their tonnage. Similar to how modern fighter jets have 1 or 2 flight crew and potentially dozens of ground crew.

Actually, for modern tanks the crew is usually responsible for the daily maintenance of the vehicle - this is one reason why the M1 Abrams uses four crewmen with a dedicated loader as opposed to the three-man crew with an autoloader that some other countries (Russia...) uses - the fourth man makes maintenance a lot easier especially for such a complex design as the Abrams. You do of course have prodigious support personnel including workshop elements but these are held at a higher level, battalion or higher.

Yes... this is how I calculate the numbers in my units... allot of people in military units is not even combat personnel. Every soldier and vehicle need support as well, so the numbers I calculate for "personnel" is not just the number of soldiers. Vehicle obviously include mechanics, crew and support of that crew. Support units sort of also represent crew, so they are part of the military organisation. In general I include some supplies in all units as then count that as the support staff of the units.

A light vehicle would probably be at least five people including the crew, heavier vehicle a few more... after this I can get the true personnel in my formations including the combat personnel.

I usually achieve fairly accurate troop counts when using INF logistics units by considering them to have some number of soldiers (usually 4 works well for the 10-ton units). This works for the first few levels of command, but higher commands which in real life would just be very expansive command and specialized elements (e.g., SIGINT, EWAR) are not modeled in Aurora.

When playing multi-faction games really heavy vehicles is quite tricky to use... they generally pay WAY too much for survivability for the firepower they put out. When they are up against light units that have some heavy anti-tank weapons sprinkled about they will struggle, they must be supported by lighter forces as well, most of the time. Just a bunch of cheap Static Heavy Anti-vehicle units will wreak havoc on any super heavy vehicles in the opposing side, especially of they have a small advantage in weapon tech over your armour tech. Plasma weapons also seem common in my games for the cheap ground weapon tech advantage, so heavy vehicle can be of dubious use if too numerous.

I think HVH are fine if you don't over-armor them, the extra 18 tons comes with a 50% HP boost and with just medium armor they are not too expensive...if you put the heaviest weapons in your army on them (each tank is 100+ tons) the lost tonnage efficiency is not critical at all. That being said, I think the main use of HVH in a multi-faction game is to force the opponent to deploy a counter, as with real life the arms race is as much or more about perception of threat than actual threat.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2632
  • Thanked: 574 times
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2022, 01:31:33 PM »
I always imagined that vehicles had both combat staff (e.g. drivers, gunners) and non-combat staff (e.g. mechanics, the-guy-who-polishes-all-the-statues-on-the-Baneblade) included in their tonnage. Similar to how modern fighter jets have 1 or 2 flight crew and potentially dozens of ground crew.

Actually, for modern tanks the crew is usually responsible for the daily maintenance of the vehicle - this is one reason why the M1 Abrams uses four crewmen with a dedicated loader as opposed to the three-man crew with an autoloader that some other countries (Russia...) uses - the fourth man makes maintenance a lot easier especially for such a complex design as the Abrams. You do of course have prodigious support personnel including workshop elements but these are held at a higher level, battalion or higher.

Yes... this is how I calculate the numbers in my units... allot of people in military units is not even combat personnel. Every soldier and vehicle need support as well, so the numbers I calculate for "personnel" is not just the number of soldiers. Vehicle obviously include mechanics, crew and support of that crew. Support units sort of also represent crew, so they are part of the military organisation. In general I include some supplies in all units as then count that as the support staff of the units.

A light vehicle would probably be at least five people including the crew, heavier vehicle a few more... after this I can get the true personnel in my formations including the combat personnel.

I usually achieve fairly accurate troop counts when using INF logistics units by considering them to have some number of soldiers (usually 4 works well for the 10-ton units). This works for the first few levels of command, but higher commands which in real life would just be very expansive command and specialized elements (e.g., SIGINT, EWAR) are not modeled in Aurora.

When playing multi-faction games really heavy vehicles is quite tricky to use... they generally pay WAY too much for survivability for the firepower they put out. When they are up against light units that have some heavy anti-tank weapons sprinkled about they will struggle, they must be supported by lighter forces as well, most of the time. Just a bunch of cheap Static Heavy Anti-vehicle units will wreak havoc on any super heavy vehicles in the opposing side, especially of they have a small advantage in weapon tech over your armour tech. Plasma weapons also seem common in my games for the cheap ground weapon tech advantage, so heavy vehicle can be of dubious use if too numerous.

I think HVH are fine if you don't over-armor them, the extra 18 tons comes with a 50% HP boost and with just medium armor they are not too expensive...if you put the heaviest weapons in your army on them (each tank is 100+ tons) the lost tonnage efficiency is not critical at all. That being said, I think the main use of HVH in a multi-faction game is to force the opponent to deploy a counter, as with real life the arms race is as much or more about perception of threat than actual threat.

Yes... I agree... I usually count about three personnel for a light vehicle, four for a medium and five for a heavy for example. I count two for a crew served AP weapon team and three for a heavy one for example. I also have about five people for an Infantry with a 10ton logistics module. HQ units varies depending on the level, so from 10 people for a company to several hundred for a division. Most of the special troop types I just consider part of the HQ structure. I always have at least two HQ units in every formation. Logistics units I always have enough to supply all the units in its formation once, that seems to give realistic numbers of personnel to my formations.

The smallest units normally are battalions, some special units can come in companies... but those are specialist units such as Anti-tank, artillery, special forces units or the like... units that usually belong to higher echelon HQ.
 

Offline hostergaard (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • h
  • Posts: 73
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2022, 08:35:16 AM »
Alright, I mostly upscaled all my formations to 12500 base size.

Code: [Select]
Command Brigade
Transport Size: 12,496 tons
Build Cost: 426.2 BP
2x HQ Emplacment Brigade
8x Construction Vehicles
100x Supply Infantery
3x Space Marine Recon
59x Artillery Emplacement Warden Class


The command Brigade. Since we got space to spare, why not two HQ (Size 50000)? Construction, lots of supply, 3 FFD and 56 HB to shell whatever.


Code: [Select]
Artillery Battalion
Transport Size: 12,475 tons
Build Cost: 679.7 BP
1x HQ Emplacment Battalion
40x Supply Infantery
200x Artillery Emplacement Defender Class

The support artillery formation. Lots of MB and bucketloads of supply. Wasn't sure how much supply to add, so this is what I ended up with.



Code: [Select]
Space Marine Battalion
Transport Size: 12,495 tons
Build Cost: 1,217.8 BP
1x Space Marine Battalion Leader
737x Space Marine
200x Space Marine Destroyer
200x Space Marine Terminator
9x Supply Infantery
6x Anti Vehicle Emplacement Fortress Class

Front line defense and most notable difference is the inclusion of just a few HAV statics to deal with anythin too heavy for the the destroyer space marines.

Code: [Select]
Titan Battle Battalion Paladin
Transport Size: 12,455 tons
Build Cost: 506.9 BP
35x Titan Paladin Class
4x Supply Infantery
1x HQ Emplacment Battalion

The Paladin Titans are the workhorse class of titans, they are meant to do the majority of battle and can fight toe to toe with pretty much anything, except other titans and exceedingly heavily armored enemies. They sport 3xHCAP and a autocannon and strike fear into any enemy.

I also kept a collection of smaller 3125 titan formations, the old emperor titan meant for specialist roles should we run into other titans, they can be called upon to deal with them. There is also the Samurai Titan, who sports 4 CAP that can be send to deal with lightly armored enemies easily and finaly the sovereign class that sports 4 HAV and is meant to deal with enemies that are exceedingly heavily armored.

Catalans coming up later! What do guys think?
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2019
  • Thanked: 1429 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2022, 09:36:50 AM »
The command Brigade. Since we got space to spare, why not two HQ (Size 50000)?

Because multiple HQs are worse that single HQs. In addition to the small decrease in commander survivability, HQs are more expensive than any other component so you are driving up the build cost of the formation - a non-trivial problem for larger HQs.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2439
  • Thanked: 799 times
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2022, 06:50:55 PM »
Was that actually proven?
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2019
  • Thanked: 1429 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2022, 10:52:18 PM »
Was that actually proven?

It follows directly from the mechanics. See Steve post here as well as empirical testing done here. This documentation is actually hard to find, since the feature was added much later than the main ground combat mechanics, but it is there.

For sake of example, consider a formation of 5,000 tons, with one or two INF+HQ5 command units (25 tons each) and the rest INF+PW (5 tons each). The HQ5 units are built as non-combat, which confers a 80% reduction in size for targeting purposes (i.e., enemy units are 20% as likely to target an element of this unit type) as well as an 80% penalty to firing accuracy. This means that the HQ is treated as a 5-ton unit for targeting purposes, rather than a 25-ton unit.

So for a formation with 1 HQ and 995 PW infantry, the probability for the HQ to be targeted if this formation is targeted is: (1*5) / (1*5 + 995*5) = 0.1004%.

For a formation with 2 HQ and 990 PW infantry, the probability for the HQ to be targeted if this formation is targeted is: (2*5) / (2*5 + 990*5) = 0.2016%. Since there are two HQs, there is a relative 50% chance for the formation commander to be killed if a HQ unit is destroyed, relative to the single-HQ formation, so the odds of the commander being killed are 0.1008% - as I said, slightly higher.

I have noted that commanders of ground formations do not always die when their HQs are destroyed, but if there is some fixed multiplier it should not change the math at all.

Now, there may possibly be some effect for preserving the overall HQ chain of command even if the commander dies. As far as I can tell, this is difficult and quite likely impossible to show theoretically for a general case because the overall loss rate of the formation(s) involved is necessary to include in a calculation, but it might be a present effect. However, the fact that HQ elements are so expensive (4x as much as any other component except STOs) means that it is not really worth it, IMO, as you usually need to squeeze every BP of ground units you can out of your training centers to build a large enough army to assault a NPR home world.
 
The following users thanked this post: lumporr

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2632
  • Thanked: 574 times
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2022, 04:53:28 AM »
Was that actually proven?

It follows directly from the mechanics. See Steve post here as well as empirical testing done here. This documentation is actually hard to find, since the feature was added much later than the main ground combat mechanics, but it is there.

For sake of example, consider a formation of 5,000 tons, with one or two INF+HQ5 command units (25 tons each) and the rest INF+PW (5 tons each). The HQ5 units are built as non-combat, which confers a 80% reduction in size for targeting purposes (i.e., enemy units are 20% as likely to target an element of this unit type) as well as an 80% penalty to firing accuracy. This means that the HQ is treated as a 5-ton unit for targeting purposes, rather than a 25-ton unit.

So for a formation with 1 HQ and 995 PW infantry, the probability for the HQ to be targeted if this formation is targeted is: (1*5) / (1*5 + 995*5) = 0.1004%.

For a formation with 2 HQ and 990 PW infantry, the probability for the HQ to be targeted if this formation is targeted is: (2*5) / (2*5 + 990*5) = 0.2016%. Since there are two HQs, there is a relative 50% chance for the formation commander to be killed if a HQ unit is destroyed, relative to the single-HQ formation, so the odds of the commander being killed are 0.1008% - as I said, slightly higher.

I have noted that commanders of ground formations do not always die when their HQs are destroyed, but if there is some fixed multiplier it should not change the math at all.

Now, there may possibly be some effect for preserving the overall HQ chain of command even if the commander dies. As far as I can tell, this is difficult and quite likely impossible to show theoretically for a general case because the overall loss rate of the formation(s) involved is necessary to include in a calculation, but it might be a present effect. However, the fact that HQ elements are so expensive (4x as much as any other component except STOs) means that it is not really worth it, IMO, as you usually need to squeeze every BP of ground units you can out of your training centers to build a large enough army to assault a NPR home world.

It depends, generals might be in short supply, often are in my games anyway. Perhaps not early on but later on they are. You also want the best ones too if you have more of them, especially good higher ranked ones. It is even often worth the effort of protecting them with PWL infantry in the rear in the same formation. IF that formation is targeted in a breakthrough the infantry will over time actually protect them from being destroyed too. Yes... the infantry will make the formation more likely to be hit, but if all HW formation and other rear formations have garrisons in them it does matter as they chance they are targeted then is as great as otherwise but they now have protection too.

I know it is marginal, but from a RP stand point it might make sense, especially to have two HQ units... so, your commanding officers are more safe. These officers are trained and skilled and it takes time to train new officers so you don't want them killed, even if the chance is small. You also increase the chance of an HQ being hit as units degrade in combat, so the chance really is not that small, only at the start.
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 687
  • Thanked: 130 times
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2022, 02:07:37 PM »
I didn't read much in depth cuz reading is for nerds, but what immediately stood out to me and compelled me to comment was how your units do not correspond with the size of troop bays (100, 1000, and 5000 if memory serves).

This is a mistake IMO. You should tailor the size of your forces so you can maximize the efficiency of each bay by making them as close to the limit as possible. I think Steve even had this in mind when making them; 5000 tons of troops can be made to have roughly the same composition as an IRL battalion while 1000 tons can make an IRL company.

Which leads me to my next issue which is modeling down to the company level. You really don't want to do that. Its micro Hell and insures you'll basically never have enough ground force commanders. It also makes units far too fragile, meaning you'll have to replace them a lot only exacerbating the micro tedium.

Only go for units smaller than 5000 tons when making non-combat units such as survey, command, construction, or boarding units.

I'm not going to say that you are SUPPOSED to play with battalions as your base unit, but it sure seems Steve was trying to nudge the player that way.





« Last Edit: August 03, 2022, 02:09:10 PM by Borealis4x »
 

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 687
  • Thanked: 130 times
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2022, 02:33:01 PM »

Either approach is fine. As long as the overall balance of firepower is a suitable match for your opponent you can divide weapons among units however you like. One advantage of separate unit types is that you can drop 4xHCAP Titans in the initial wave of landings, gain intelligence on the enemy, and then choose what following waves look like based on that intelligence.


Hey, this is a good idea. I'd love to have a way to scout out enemy ground compositions before properly committing. Tho I'd rather not have to rely on a super-heavy unit to do it and instead have a team of stealthy commando to 'infiltrate' tho I doubt that is possible with the current mechanics. The enemy is aware of you as soon as you make planetfall, even if its just one guy from what I recall.

I really want a use for my Improved Personal Weapon/Heavy Power Armor Ranger units trained in all terrain combat that isn't just flavor.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2022, 02:39:05 PM by Borealis4x »
 

Offline TallTroll

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • T
  • Posts: 151
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2022, 03:48:19 PM »
>> drop 4xHCAP Titans in the initial wave of landings, gain intelligence on the enemy

Reactor : Online
Sensors : Online
Weapons : Online
All systems : Nominal

The Lyran Commonwealth 1st Scout Lance has made planetfall, beginning patrol
 
The following users thanked this post: hostergaard, doodle_sm

Offline misanthropope

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • m
  • Posts: 260
  • Thanked: 67 times
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2022, 03:03:06 PM »
and in true steiner fashion, the method of reconnaissance is absorbing the fire of literally the entire defending force.
 
The following users thanked this post: TallTroll

Offline hostergaard (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • h
  • Posts: 73
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2022, 03:34:11 AM »
So the titans worked excellently against the centurions and other such rif raf taking no damage whatsoever but then I found a planet full of rhakshakas or however they are called and got absolutely slaughtered as they apparently field some very heavy anti vehicle guns.

Might be wiser to go with a horde of cheap unarmored infantry for these guys as they seem to be able to blast right trough even my most heavy armor anyway?

Does anyone know if its possible to specifically target STOs? These guys got some heavy STO presence so I can't bomb them from orbit either.   

Or maybe I can land extremely heavy force to scare them away from attacking and then just shell them into oblivion? How large a force difference do I need to make sure they don't attack? My plan of having infantery as Front Line Defence when assaulting planets have the weakness of not getting enough time to properly dig in to get the defensive bonuses, so maybe front line defense is pointless when attacking planets and just go all 2x front line attack 1x artillery support and 1x HQ Artillery Rear echelon for assaulting planets? Maybe split the artillery into two halves to support each front line attack? How does that support stuff actually work? Would splitting be pointless?

Right now I am just going 1x front line attack, 1x front line defense, 1x Support 1x Rear echelon. But maybe I should change up my front line (both attack and defence) paradigm and have groups based on whatever anti-X I want them to do, like anti infantery. Anti-Vehicle and so on?   


Starting a new game for 2.0.2 so I wont have all the tech anymore tough.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2439
  • Thanked: 799 times
Re: Simple Ground Unit Design with all ground unit tech
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2022, 08:00:07 AM »
You can use ships to target STO's but not ground forces. You'll just have to hope to get lucky.