C# Suggestions

[ArcWolf]

So, i was thinking about the idea of adding GSFs as a ground element and how that might get set up  and this is what i got. 3 different weight classes of fighters.

1) Light fighter: Weighs roughly 20 tons, can only mount light armour (like a light vehicle) and can only mount 1 weapon, either light Auto-Cannon or Light Bombard. Low HP pool.

2) Medium Fighter: Like medium vehicles, can mount light/medium armour. Has 1 or 2 weapon mounts (up for discussion) and can mount light/medium versions of Auto-cannons or Bombard. Weighs about 40 Tons. Medium HP Pool.

3) Heavy fighters (think more along the lines of a B-52 stratofortress): Can mount light-heavy armour, can mount any weight of weapon system. Has 2 weapon mounts. weights about 100 tons. large HP pool.


In addition, a rework of Fire directors would be needed. I was thinking, if the amount of FFD on the front line (and only front line) were equal or greater then a set ratio, lets say 6:1 (fighters:FFD) then the fighters would either get an accuracy bonus during their combat phase OR get a second "Free" attack run during their phase. This phase could take place before or after ground combat (preferably before) but after artillery bombardment phase.

[nuclearslurpee]

So, i was thinking about the idea of adding GSFs as a ground element and how that might get set up  and this is what i got. 3 different weight classes of fighters.

1) Light fighter: Weighs roughly 20 tons, can only mount light armour (like a light vehicle) and can only mount 1 weapon, either light Auto-Cannon or Light Bombard. Low HP pool.

2) Medium Fighter: Like medium vehicles, can mount light/medium armour. Has 1 or 2 weapon mounts (up for discussion) and can mount light/medium versions of Auto-cannons or Bombard. Weighs about 40 Tons. Medium HP Pool.

3) Heavy fighters (think more along the lines of a B-52 stratofortress): Can mount light-heavy armour, can mount any weight of weapon system. Has 2 weapon mounts. weights about 100 tons. large HP pool.


In addition, a rework of Fire directors would be needed. I was thinking, if the amount of FFD on the front line (and only front line) were equal or greater then a set ratio, lets say 6:1 (fighters:FFD) then the fighters would either get an accuracy bonus during their combat phase OR get a second "Free" attack run during their phase. This phase could take place before or after ground combat (preferably before) but after artillery bombardment phase.

I would probably want the system to be simpler than this. I don't think there is a big need for three different kinds of air unit base type, particularly since I would not want to see so much complexity in the "air game" added to what is already a complex system of ground units. I think a single unit type is fine, and the differentiation in size between, say, a light fighter and a B-52 can be made by the type of weapon mounted.

My suggestion would be a 12-ton base class, either with 2/3 armor/HP matching the current LVH or 3 HP and 1/2/3 armor matching the current STA options. The size is admittedly arbitrary but I think staying in line with the existing LVH and STA base classes makes sense. Mechanically I think a very low hit modifier (as low as 1% even) makes sense, and then AA weapons negate this so they retain a useful niche. Fighters should still be very vulnerable to AA weapons, otherwise they are just blatantly superior to artillery. Of course, air fighters cannot fortify appreciably. One challenge with this is that the current Support/Rear echelons force the use of fortification rather than evasion, so another stance may be needed.

For weapons we have two options: one would be to use the existing fighter pods as weapons, which I think could be interesting. It seems a little silly to have a while set of researchable components for a single class of ground units but I do like the idea of customizing the size and power of the weapons. Probably a simpler approach which is still very robust would be to use the same weapon set that LVH, VEH, etc. have, minus the non-combat components (FFD, LOG, HQ, etc.) and including up through the heavy variants.

Mechanically, I think we can have similar mechanics to artillery. If a fighter formation is assigned to support a front-line formation they will conduct ground attack missions. Otherwise, similarly to the artillery counterbattery mechanic an "unassigned" fighter formation will default to either CAP or AA suppression missions - I would be fine if only CAP/air intercept was a mission type as AA weapons should be dangerous enough to fighters that trying to suppress them would be challenging at best.

As far as FFD I think it should remain as it is, but only useful for requesting orbital fire support. Fighter formations should be able to support any front-line formation in their hierarchy by simple click-and-drag just as artillery does currently. Maybe we change the name of the FFD component to something more descriptive?

[xenoscepter]

So, i was thinking about the idea of adding GSFs as a ground element and how that might get set up  and this is what i got. 3 different weight classes of fighters.

1) Light fighter: Weighs roughly 20 tons, can only mount light armour (like a light vehicle) and can only mount 1 weapon, either light Auto-Cannon or Light Bombard. Low HP pool.

2) Medium Fighter: Like medium vehicles, can mount light/medium armour. Has 1 or 2 weapon mounts (up for discussion) and can mount light/medium versions of Auto-cannons or Bombard. Weighs about 40 Tons. Medium HP Pool.

3) Heavy fighters (think more along the lines of a B-52 stratofortress): Can mount light-heavy armour, can mount any weight of weapon system. Has 2 weapon mounts. weights about 100 tons. large HP pool.


In addition, a rework of Fire directors would be needed. I was thinking, if the amount of FFD on the front line (and only front line) were equal or greater then a set ratio, lets say 6:1 (fighters:FFD) then the fighters would either get an accuracy bonus during their combat phase OR get a second "Free" attack run during their phase. This phase could take place before or after ground combat (preferably before) but after artillery bombardment phase.

 --- Can we just, ya know... not? I personally like GSF creation, but just hate the micromanagement. A re-work of how AA and GSF interact might be needed for balance, but still. I hate the idea of GSFs being ground units. Instead of all of this, let's just have a window like VB6 for squadrons, alongside an organizational tool to build to them.

 --- I'll elaborate, yeah? The window would allow you to create a "Squadron" comprising of whatever mix of ships you'd want. A textbox would let you specify how many, while a dropdown would let you specify what kind. A button would allow you to add another field for squadrons of mixed types. So if I wanted a "Squadron" of 15 ships, with 12 Bombers, 2 Sensor Spotters and 1 Command Fighter, I'd put 12 in the textbox, use the dropdown to select my Bomber class, then hit the button to add a field. Then I'd put 2 in the new textbox, followed by selecting the Sensor Spotter from the dropdown, then hit the button to add a field one more time. Now I'd put a 1 in that textbox and select the Command Fighter from the dropdown. Then I'd use another textbox to name it, and when I was done naming it I'd hit the button to save it.

 --- Additionally, this window would allow me to hit a checkbox that would allow a certain "Squadron" to be automatically deployed as a fleet when built. The Industry Window would get a checkbox or button saying "Toggle Squadrons" for Fighter production somewhere, so the fighter production would list squadrons as a build option under the "Fighters" field instead of the fighter classes themselves. The Squadron window would allow for naming conventions like the Ship Design Window and would furnish a field to manage Fighter-Only Fleets, Fighter-Only Sub-Fleets and further filter to exclude fighters other than Ground Support Fighters, namely those with fighter pod bays versus those without.

 --- FFDs could be told to auto-assign fighters or ships, while "Squadrons" of GSFs could have mission types whitelisted or blacklisted with checkbox fields like "No CAP" and such from the Squadron Window. GSFs that are auto-assigned to FFDs will try to distribute themselves evenly and carry out missions that are whitelisted or not blacklisted. Space fighters could have a separate set of conditional orders from the main fleet, allowing them to have priorities for missiles, fighters or just ships within a Minimum / Maximum tonnage range. These priorities would depend on sensor data available. Likewise, for scouts, a conditional order of "Flee from enemy contacts" or for a beam fighter, "Engage at Range" with a field to specify what range in km.

 --- I'll flesh this out more later, my baby boy is crying for food and my keyboard is half busted with my wife having borrowed the good one for work. Needless to say, I heartily disagree with GSFs becoming a ground unit and think this solution would be far better for GSFs and regular fighters alike.

[Jorgen_CAB]

So, i was thinking about the idea of adding GSFs as a ground element and how that might get set up  and this is what i got. 3 different weight classes of fighters.

1) Light fighter: Weighs roughly 20 tons, can only mount light armour (like a light vehicle) and can only mount 1 weapon, either light Auto-Cannon or Light Bombard. Low HP pool.

2) Medium Fighter: Like medium vehicles, can mount light/medium armour. Has 1 or 2 weapon mounts (up for discussion) and can mount light/medium versions of Auto-cannons or Bombard. Weighs about 40 Tons. Medium HP Pool.

3) Heavy fighters (think more along the lines of a B-52 stratofortress): Can mount light-heavy armour, can mount any weight of weapon system. Has 2 weapon mounts. weights about 100 tons. large HP pool.


In addition, a rework of Fire directors would be needed. I was thinking, if the amount of FFD on the front line (and only front line) were equal or greater then a set ratio, lets say 6:1 (fighters:FFD) then the fighters would either get an accuracy bonus during their combat phase OR get a second "Free" attack run during their phase. This phase could take place before or after ground combat (preferably before) but after artillery bombardment phase.

 --- Can we just, ya know... not? I personally like GSF creation, but just hate the micromanagement. A re-work of how AA and GSF interact might be needed for balance, but still. I hate the idea of GSFs being ground units. Instead of all of this, let's just have a window like VB6 for squadrons, alongside an organizational tool to build to them.

 --- I'll elaborate, yeah? The window would allow you to create a "Squadron" comprising of whatever mix of ships you'd want. A textbox would let you specify how many, while a dropdown would let you specify what kind. A button would allow you to add another field for squadrons of mixed types. So if I wanted a "Squadron" of 15 ships, with 12 Bombers, 2 Sensor Spotters and 1 Command Fighter, I'd put 12 in the textbox, use the dropdown to select my Bomber class, then hit the button to add a field. Then I'd put 2 in the new textbox, followed by selecting the Sensor Spotter from the dropdown, then hit the button to add a field one more time. Now I'd put a 1 in that textbox and select the Command Fighter from the dropdown. Then I'd use another textbox to name it, and when I was done naming it I'd hit the button to save it.

 --- Additionally, this window would allow me to hit a checkbox that would allow a certain "Squadron" to be automatically deployed as a fleet when built. The Industry Window would get a checkbox or button saying "Toggle Squadrons" for Fighter production somewhere, so the fighter production would list squadrons as a build option under the "Fighters" field instead of the fighter classes themselves. The Squadron window would allow for naming conventions like the Ship Design Window and would furnish a field to manage Fighter-Only Fleets, Fighter-Only Sub-Fleets and further filter to exclude fighters other than Ground Support Fighters, namely those with fighter pod bays versus those without.

 --- FFDs could be told to auto-assign fighters or ships, while "Squadrons" of GSFs could have mission types whitelisted or blacklisted with checkbox fields like "No CAP" and such from the Squadron Window. GSFs that are auto-assigned to FFDs will try to distribute themselves evenly and carry out missions that are whitelisted or not blacklisted. Space fighters could have a separate set of conditional orders from the main fleet, allowing them to have priorities for missiles, fighters or just ships within a Minimum / Maximum tonnage range. These priorities would depend on sensor data available. Likewise, for scouts, a conditional order of "Flee from enemy contacts" or for a beam fighter, "Engage at Range" with a field to specify what range in km.

 --- I'll flesh this out more later, my baby boy is crying for food and my keyboard is half busted with my wife having borrowed the good one for work. Needless to say, I heartily disagree with GSFs becoming a ground unit and think this solution would be far better for GSFs and regular fighters alike.

While I don't think the idea of aircraft as ground units is a bad idea, they are basically ground units and they are useless in space anyway... I do agree that the current mechanic of micromanagement of support weapons as a whole could be improved. I also think this includes artillery as well.

In my opinion artillery should for example automatically support front line units in their hierarchy automtically, no actions needed by the player at all, I find this need to assigning them to be unnecessary. They can just support randomly those front line formations, that would probably make almost zero difference from how they work now.

The same with aircraft (or orbital support)... you simply would assign them to what role you want them to perform and if assigned to close air support mission they randomly support wherever you have FFD units in place.

If someone really wants to deal with it just leave the option of assigning them manually, but if you don't they just randomly support as needed. I also believe this would make nearly zero difference from how it works now.

Please also make the other missions more useful, especially the AA suppression mission which are more or less pointless if AA is not spread out in most formations. If you have AA units in separate formations the AA suppression mission are more or less pointless if I understand the mechanics of how it works. Fighters on a AA suppression mission pick a random unit and then fire on the AA in that unit. If that unit have no AA if will not fire, but any AA eligible to fire IF that unit was attacked get to fire back regardless, this make AA suppression missions pretty worthless if that is how it works. We need the AA suppression mission to be meaningful to perform. Currently it only work if we build the unit hierarchy in a certain way and even then not that great.

[nuclearslurpee]

--- Can we just, ya know... not? I personally like GSF creation, but just hate the micromanagement. A re-work of how AA and GSF interact might be needed for balance, but still. I hate the idea of GSFs being ground units. Instead of all of this, let's just have a window like VB6 for squadrons, alongside an organizational tool to build to them.

The problem is really one of scale, not only micromanagement. To be of any real use GSFs need to be fielded by the hundreds if not thousands, otherwise the impact is too little and the fighters are destroyed in only a few rounds by AA - the NPRs at least field frankly excessive amounts of AA, but even a modest allocation of ~10 AA units per formation means that easily several hundred to thousands of AA guns are present at any significant planetary battle. To effectively counter this requires much more than just several squadrons of GSFs, we really need to start thinking in terms of WWII-esque air wings of ~100 planes each.

So...we have a need for hundreds, even thousands of specialized ships which are only usable for ground combat. At that scale it is completely impractical to populate them with commanders for each ship, so we either just don't do this or we introduce a new mechanic just for GSFs to have commanders on a squadron basis instead. As far as ship design, AFAIK the speed of GSFs has no bearing on combat, so the only things that matter are the weapon and armor (and the latter is very much arguable as others have shown).

So we have a "ship" type which is only usable in ground combat, needs to be built by the hundreds, is too small and numerous for individual commanders, and has no relevant design parameters aside from the weapon and armor. At that point, this perfectly describes a ground unit class. Why not just take the logic to its conclusion, in the process using mechanics which are 90% preexisting to simplify the implementation for Steve?

Frankly the only reason I can see to preserve the current GSFs is roleplay as some people are very attached to the "aerospace fighter" concept. However, as much as I value supporting RP in Aurora, it cannot support every possible RP setting equally and mechanically the current system just doesn't work - for many more reasons than just micromanagement hell.

If someone really wants to deal with it just leave the option of assigning them manually, but if you don't they just randomly support as needed. I also believe this would make nearly zero difference from how it works now.

Actually, leaving the artillery un-assigned is currently what causes them to execute counter-battery fire, IIRC. Some players do deliberately leave artillery unassigned for this reason. I'm not opposed to this proposal but there would need to be some way to preserve that functionality, ideally something that fits with the current UI and does not involve cramming an extra dialog into the UI.

[xenoscepter]

--- Can we just, ya know... not? I personally like GSF creation, but just hate the micromanagement. A re-work of how AA and GSF interact might be needed for balance, but still. I hate the idea of GSFs being ground units. Instead of all of this, let's just have a window like VB6 for squadrons, alongside an organizational tool to build to them.

The problem is really one of scale, not only micromanagement. To be of any real use GSFs need to be fielded by the hundreds if not thousands, otherwise the impact is too little and the fighters are destroyed in only a few rounds by AA - the NPRs at least field frankly excessive amounts of AA, but even a modest allocation of ~10 AA units per formation means that easily several hundred to thousands of AA guns are present at any significant planetary battle. To effectively counter this requires much more than just several squadrons of GSFs, we really need to start thinking in terms of WWII-esque air wings of ~100 planes each.

So...we have a need for hundreds, even thousands of specialized ships which are only usable for ground combat. At that scale it is completely impractical to populate them with commanders for each ship, so we either just don't do this or we introduce a new mechanic just for GSFs to have commanders on a squadron basis instead. As far as ship design, AFAIK the speed of GSFs has no bearing on combat, so the only things that matter are the weapon and armor (and the latter is very much arguable as others have shown).

So we have a "ship" type which is only usable in ground combat, needs to be built by the hundreds, is too small and numerous or individual commanders, and has no relevant design parameters aside from the weapon and armor. At that point, this perfectly describes a ground unit class. Why not just take the logic to its conclusion, in the process using mechanics which are 90% preexisting to simplify the implementation for Steve?

Frankly the only reason I can see to preserve the current GSFs is roleplay as some people are very attached to the "aerospace fighter" concept. However, as much as I value supporting RP in Aurora, it cannot support every possible RP setting equally and mechanically the current system just doesn't work - for many more reasons than just micromanagement hell.

 --- I don't see the problem here, or rather, why the problem is one of scale rather than balance. Either AA needs to be nerfed, GSFs needed to be buffed, or both. I just see turning them into ground units as throwing the baby out with bath water, so to speak. NOW, being able to DESIGN them as ships, but BUILD them as Ground Units, with stats reflective of their class... not too dissimilar to how STOs currently work... THAT I could (begrudgingly) get behind. But I really, really, really detest anything that takes a nuanced, characterful mechanic and turns it into "Build more of X to Y". As long as we avoid that... I'll be at least content.

[nuclearslurpee]

--- I don't see the problem here, or rather, why the problem is one of scale rather than balance.

Considering that ground combat happens at the scale of multi-million ton armies (100,000s to millions of soldiers, depending how you fluff your units), basically world war scales, I don't think its unreasonable to think that fighters should be able to operate on the ~1,000s scale. Beyond that I think I will let others who have used GSFs more than me address the practical reasons in more detail.

That being said...

NOW, being able to DESIGN them as ships, but BUILD them as Ground Units, with stats reflective of their class... not too dissimilar to how STOs currently work... THAT I could (begrudgingly) get behind.

I think this is also fine and my original suggestion was basically this. The problem with GSFs really boils down to needing them to operate in line with ground combat mechanics, not naval combat mechanics (which they currently do) - if we can accomplish this while preserving the flavor of GSFs and allowing unique class designs to flourish that is only a good thing IMO.

[ArcWolf]

Frankly the only reason I can see to preserve the current GSFs is roleplay as some people are very attached to the "aerospace fighter" concept. However, as much as I value supporting RP in Aurora, it cannot support every possible RP setting equally and mechanically the current system just doesn't work - for many more reasons than just micromanagement hell.

Frankly, they can't even do that now in the current system. My favorite anime growing up was Macross/Robotech. There is no way to recreate that currently. "Fighters" are 2x the size and 4x the crew of the Rocinante from The Expanse.

The most efficient fighter, and only one really worth using is a set of box launchers with an engine.

I would love to have a legit Macross or Battlestar galactica inspired campaign, but the extent i would have to "suspend belief" would just ruin the whole mood of the campaign to the point i'd probably quit it before i've played for an hr.

[xenoscepter]

--- I don't see the problem here, or rather, why the problem is one of scale rather than balance.

Considering that ground combat happens at the scale of multi-million ton armies (100,000s to millions of soldiers, depending how you fluff your units), basically world war scales, I don't think its unreasonable to think that fighters should be able to operate on the ~1,000s scale. Beyond that I think I will let others who have used GSFs more than me address the practical reasons in more detail.

That being said...

NOW, being able to DESIGN them as ships, but BUILD them as Ground Units, with stats reflective of their class... not too dissimilar to how STOs currently work... THAT I could (begrudgingly) get behind.

I think this is also fine and my original suggestion was basically this. The problem with GSFs really boils down to needing them to operate in line with ground combat mechanics, not naval combat mechanics (which they currently do) - if we can accomplish this while preserving the flavor of GSFs and allowing unique class designs to flourish that is only a good thing IMO.

 --- Ya know, having Ground Support Fighters be their own type of unit, like Fighters and Stations, might solve this problem neatly AND simply.

Consider the following:

 -

Code: [Select]

This design is classed as a Ground Support Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction -

Code: [Select]

This design is classed as a Ground Support Fighter for auto-assignment purposes
 --- Imagine this in the Class Design Window for a moment. GSFs are already flagged as such for the purposes of combat and planetary interaction, so why not production and auto-assignment as well? Having a GSF specific bonus for Ground Officers to use with FFDs would help alleviate the officer issue at the ~1,000s scale if implemented alongside some changes to how FFDs work. Having as GSF specific bonus for Naval Officers, and perhaps a Command & Control component for GSFs specifically would further alleviate this. As for production... why not have them flagged as a separate class, but built at Fighter Factories anyway? A separate designation means that a special Hangar type can be used for them, perhaps one that uses Number of GSFs rather than the total Tonnage of GSFs to alleviate the issue of actually fielding them.

 --- Likewise, GSFs having a separate designation from regular fighters means they don't need to drain fuel from the carrier. But that would make sensor equipped GSFs the ultimate scout, since they would need no fuel support. However, since they don't need sensors to do their job, nor does having sensors actually do anything anyway for Ground Combat we can safely prohibit them from having the special GSF designation if they equip any kind of sensor. Since they also don't suffer firing failures, nor contribute to naval combat, we may as well go whole hog and say that they also don't drain any MSP to restock themselves. They SHOULD however, still consume fuel as well as MSP, since Ground Combat is an 8-Hour affair, and time on station should be an important consideration.

 --- What about combat though? GSFs are, again, already flagged differently from regular fighters. That's how they avoid provoking STO fire on Ground Missions after all... at least I assume as much to be the case. So why not give them more HtK and Armor? Say double the Armor and HtK? And while we're at it why not reduce or outright remove their vulnerability to shock damage as well? AA guns do no shock damage to Ground Forces, so this would if nothing else help make that aspect of Ground Combat more consistent rather than less. To let the player know, add a little line in the Class Design Window that let's them know that not only yes, this design qualifies as a Ground Support Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction, but also it gets special boni to Armor, HtK, Shock Damage or whatever.

 --- To my knowledge, these changes would accomplish several things at once. They would let the player know that the Class they have designed is considered a GSF. Currently, it takes some diving into the forum or Wiki to know, so this would be an improvement even if it was the only change made and merely cosmetic to boot. Next, by not requiring the player to spend Fuel an MSP to support their GSFs, the burden of fielding large quantities of them is greatly eased. However, by requiring the GSFs to spend fuel and MSP like normal ships do, and further by prohibiting them from benefiting from this if they mount sensors... or indeed any non-GSF components, you effectively remove the ability to exploit this. Of course, it would be prudent to allow things like Bridges, Engineering Spaces, etc... Kill the exploits, but preserve the flavor ya' know? Furthermore, by allowing GSFs to have a special class of their own, the addition of a special Hangar that tracks GSFs and ONLY GSFs, and tracks them by number of craft, rather than total tonnage of craft, would go even further towards facilitating such massive scales. Finally, allowing the GSF boni to HtK, Armor, Shock Damage or perhaps other things; WHILE telling the player of this via the Class Design Window would allow AA to be nerfed enough to make GSFs more useful.

 --- In conclusion, with regards to the HtK, Armor and other such boni; I think that best place to start would be either the reduction of, or an outright immunity to Shock Damage specifically from AA would not only help GSFs, but also give more consistency to Ground Combat. I could see a newbie thinking "Hey~ AA does Shock Damage... Time to exploit this against enemy Ground Units!" and being a bit miffed when they find out it only works against GSFs. Other buffs should only be placed as needed, if needed. As a further note, GSFs should also be eligible to be Fighters too; with any boni only applying to pure GSFs. This would allow players to RP multi-role fighters without being mechanically pigeonholed into having them be one or the other. As well, GSF / Fighter hybrids should drain Fuel and MSP from their carrier. In a similar vein, even pure GSFs should remain eligible for the regular Hangars that we already have, counting total tonnage of craft according to the existing rules when doing so. This affords the player some tactical flexibility and doesn't needlessly or arbitrarily reduce functionality. A player can RP that GSFs need "special" equipment that only GSF Hangars have if they wish. The Class Design Window should classify GSF / Fighter hybrids as Fighters, and instead of the line showing GSF exemptions and boni (if any) it will instead inform the player that this Fighter can perform Ground Missions.

 --- That's my full suggestion. I personally think it'd be a rather minimum effort solution overall, since GSFs already have some sort of code marking them as special and as you mentioned before they already function completely differently to Naval Ships. Adding one or a few components, while granting them some logistical exemptions I feel is the important change while resistance / immunity to Shock Damage from AA is important more for the sake of consistency than for the sake of buffing or nerfing. As always, feedback is welcome.

[xenoscepter]

Frankly the only reason I can see to preserve the current GSFs is roleplay as some people are very attached to the "aerospace fighter" concept. However, as much as I value supporting RP in Aurora, it cannot support every possible RP setting equally and mechanically the current system just doesn't work - for many more reasons than just micromanagement hell.

Frankly, they can't even do that now in the current system. My favorite anime growing up was Macross/Robotech. There is no way to recreate that currently. "Fighters" are 2x the size and 4x the crew of the Rocinante from The Expanse.

The most efficient fighter, and only one really worth using is a set of box launchers with an engine.

I would love to have a legit Macross or Battlestar galactica inspired campaign, but the extent i would have to "suspend belief" would just ruin the whole mood of the campaign to the point i'd probably quit it before i've played for an hr.

 --- Yeah, though to be fair, Aurora tends to be unfriendly towards Science Fantasy anyway. Star Wars, BSG, Superdimensional Fortress Macross, Gundam... just about anything with sufficiently large quantities of Handwavium tends to not mix well with Aurora. 40K and Battletech do though, almost as if the creator has some kind of bias towards one of them or something. Hmmmm...

[Migi]

--- Imagine this in the Class Design Window for a moment. GSFs are already flagged as such for the purposes of combat and planetary interaction, so why not production and auto-assignment as well?
(snip)
GSFs are, again, already flagged differently from regular fighters. That's how they avoid provoking STO fire on Ground Missions

I've never seen a ship classed as a GSF before, only as a Fighter. Or are you extrapolating?

Mechanically the fact that fighters are not targeted by STOs when participating in combat is probably a flag applied to a fleet, or specific ships inside a fleet.
If you apply it to a ship class then you would have an untouchable ground unit killing machine, park it 15k from the planet and just plink away forever (or until it dies from breakdowns).

Personally I don't think ship design and ground unit design mesh very well together, so I think it would be better if things which operate in  ground combat should be designed via the ground combat design screen. Trying to interpret a ship design into a ground unit is essentially 'compressing' the information into a very small number of mechanics and I just don't see how you do it both automatically and well.

[xenoscepter]

--- Imagine this in the Class Design Window for a moment. GSFs are already flagged as such for the purposes of combat and planetary interaction, so why not production and auto-assignment as well?
(snip)
GSFs are, again, already flagged differently from regular fighters. That's how they avoid provoking STO fire on Ground Missions

I've never seen a ship classed as a GSF before, only as a Fighter. Or are you extrapolating?

Mechanically the fact that fighters are not targeted by STOs when participating in combat is probably a flag applied to a fleet, or specific ships inside a fleet.
If you apply it to a ship class then you would have an untouchable ground unit killing machine, park it 15k from the planet and just plink away forever (or until it dies from breakdowns).

Personally I don't think ship design and ground unit design mesh very well together, so I think it would be better if things which operate in ground combat should be designed via the ground combat design screen. Trying to interpret a ship design into a ground unit is essentially 'compressing' the information into a very small number of mechanics and I just don't see how you do it both automatically and well.

 --- I said "Imagine this in the Class Design Window for a moment." How could I have expressed any clearer that there is no such class and that I'm asking you to imagine that there is for a moment? Now, mechanically speaking, I have no idea, nor any care at all, how or to what that flag is applied to. Nor does it matter all that much. In practice, there exists flags separating GSFs from regular ships. That is to say, all GSFs are ships, but not all ships are GSFs and the game has code to make that happen. This only matters insomuch as that code might provide a convenient way to make the proposed changes. Thats it. Nothing more.

 --- I do not understand how you came to the idea that GSFs would become unstoppable ground unit killing machines. I'm left wondering if you actually bothered to read through the proposal or just skimmed through and jumped to conclusions? If these changes were implemented, GSFs would still be able to be shot at by AA. They could not and would not plink away forever at anything. GSFs are only immune to STOs when they are on Ground Missions like CAS or CAP... this is already a thing. While they plink away at STOs they're still getting rammed by AA like always. At what point during my suggestion did you assume I meant that the EXACT flag which gave GSFs immunity to STOs specifically when they fly Ground Support Missions should be applied to a class of ship to provide full immunity to... well everything I guess since you said unstoppable. At what point did I mention a 15,000 kilometer range? I mentioned that the HYPOTHETICAL design class of GSF be prohibited from ship weapons and even sensors if it wants to benefit from the changes.

*Edited for tone.

[nuclearslurpee]

Personally I don't think ship design and ground unit design mesh very well together, so I think it would be better if things which operate in  ground combat should be designed via the ground combat design screen. Trying to interpret a ship design into a ground unit is essentially 'compressing' the information into a very small number of mechanics and I just don't see how you do it both automatically and well.

I tend to agree. While I do agree with xenoscepter that it would be best to preserve as much of the unique flavor of GSFs as possible, I have a very hard time seeing what in terms of mechanics a unique GSF class accomplishes that merits separating GSFs from ground units and ground combat mechanics. If we are going to create a unique ship class which cannot participate in naval combat or naval operations, while having distinctive HTK, armor, and other mechanical bonuses that make it behave unlike any other class of ship (and would preclude it being usable for anything other ships can do, except for ground combat, for obvious balance reasons)... at that point we have a ground unit that goes in a special hangar. Why not just call it what it is? If we need a special mechanic to allow ground formations composed entirely of GSFs to ride in hangars instead of transport bays that's fine, but there's no reason to call these "ships" if they don't walk like a ship, talk like a ship, quack like a ship...

Look at it from the opposite angle: let's say we have a GSF ground unit type which we can design in a ship-like manner, similar to STOs but a bit more involved so we can really customize our GSFs. Set it up to work with the ground combat mechanics but with special rules for fighters so they are vulnerable to AA but resistant to other ground units. For the full nine yards, add a new troop transport - hangar bay which can only transport GSF units and can deploy them from orbit. Sprinkle some automation on top and voila!

Now, looking at this, what do we gain from making this GSF ground unit a special type of "ship" - which cannot do anything another type of "ship" can except for being stuffed into hangars and siphoning off LCDRs? I can't see any reason why GSFs being a "ship" is beneficial - so why keep it that way just because that's how it already is? Sometimes a change is good.

The only benefit I can think of is that these could be built with fighter factories instead of GFTCs, which is admittedly a fair point. An exception could be made, but ultimately I would prefer that GFTCs be reworked to function like any other planetary industry instead of the silly 1 GFTC = 1 formation at a time restriction.

[Droll]

--- Can we just, ya know... not? I personally like GSF creation, but just hate the micromanagement. A re-work of how AA and GSF interact might be needed for balance, but still. I hate the idea of GSFs being ground units. Instead of all of this, let's just have a window like VB6 for squadrons, alongside an organizational tool to build to them.

The problem is really one of scale, not only micromanagement. To be of any real use GSFs need to be fielded by the hundreds if not thousands, otherwise the impact is too little and the fighters are destroyed in only a few rounds by AA - the NPRs at least field frankly excessive amounts of AA, but even a modest allocation of ~10 AA units per formation means that easily several hundred to thousands of AA guns are present at any significant planetary battle. To effectively counter this requires much more than just several squadrons of GSFs, we really need to start thinking in terms of WWII-esque air wings of ~100 planes each.

So...we have a need for hundreds, even thousands of specialized ships which are only usable for ground combat. At that scale it is completely impractical to populate them with commanders for each ship, so we either just don't do this or we introduce a new mechanic just for GSFs to have commanders on a squadron basis instead. As far as ship design, AFAIK the speed of GSFs has no bearing on combat, so the only things that matter are the weapon and armor (and the latter is very much arguable as others have shown).

So we have a "ship" type which is only usable in ground combat, needs to be built by the hundreds, is too small and numerous or individual commanders, and has no relevant design parameters aside from the weapon and armor. At that point, this perfectly describes a ground unit class. Why not just take the logic to its conclusion, in the process using mechanics which are 90% preexisting to simplify the implementation for Steve?

Frankly the only reason I can see to preserve the current GSFs is roleplay as some people are very attached to the "aerospace fighter" concept. However, as much as I value supporting RP in Aurora, it cannot support every possible RP setting equally and mechanically the current system just doesn't work - for many more reasons than just micromanagement hell.

 --- I don't see the problem here, or rather, why the problem is one of scale rather than balance. Either AA needs to be nerfed, GSFs needed to be buffed, or both.

The most GSF fighters I've ever used a single planetary invasion was 60 and I had a MASSIVE tech advantage over the enemy. I play a modded DB which means that the advantages were stacked even more in my favor than otherwise. Specifically, my fighters had 27 shields and 9 armor layers.

Aside from mothership assignment at construction, I have to individually assign every single one to a formation to provide support for which takes a good while.

During combat my fighters were actually able to survive getting hit. Most of the time, this resulted in the incapacitation of the fighter. Every time this happens, I have to order the fighter(s) to dock at the carrier, then increment by 5 secs to dock them at the carrier. If the fighter isn't incapacitated, its even worse. Because now I have dock at the carrier again (if I want it to survive) and then check the carrier to see if it's armor has been repair so I can detach, then re-add to the fighter wing. Oh and I also have to reassign its supported formation.

This formation of 60 fighters were able to destroy, give or take 2-3k of the enemy forces using triple S12 autocannons that could penetrate both infantry and light armor. The battle was more than 10m+ tons of ground forces.

This is where the problem of scale arises, the damage I think is fine but there is no feasible way for me to handle any substantial amount of GSFs without dying of old age. Theoretically, there is nothing stopping me from fielding 1000s of GSFs but the micromanagement of having to both assign their supports and then babysit them during combat makes them completely unfeasible. 

I don't think the problem is that of AA being too powerful or GSFs being too weak, we just cannot field an equivalent force of fighters against their AA counterparts. There's no point discussing AA balance if we've got 20k+ AA tanks and even more AA infantry firing on 60 GSFs. Of course the AA is going to have a massive advantage.

[xenoscepter]

Personally I don't think ship design and ground unit design mesh very well together, so I think it would be better if things which operate in  ground combat should be designed via the ground combat design screen. Trying to interpret a ship design into a ground unit is essentially 'compressing' the information into a very small number of mechanics and I just don't see how you do it both automatically and well.

I tend to agree. While I do agree with xenoscepter that it would be best to preserve as much of the unique flavor of GSFs as possible, I have a very hard time seeing what in terms of mechanics a unique GSF class accomplishes that merits separating GSFs from ground units and ground combat mechanics. If we are going to create a unique ship class which cannot participate in naval combat or naval operations, while having distinctive HTK, armor, and other mechanical bonuses that make it behave unlike any other class of ship (and would preclude it being usable for anything other ships can do, except for ground combat, for obvious balance reasons)... at that point we have a ground unit that goes in a special hangar. Why not just call it what it is? If we need a special mechanic to allow ground formations composed entirely of GSFs to ride in hangars instead of transport bays that's fine, but there's no reason to call these "ships" if they don't walk like a ship, talk like a ship, quack like a ship...

Look at it from the opposite angle: let's say we have a GSF ground unit type which we can design in a ship-like manner, similar to STOs but a bit more involved so we can really customize our GSFs. Set it up to work with the ground combat mechanics but with special rules for fighters so they are vulnerable to AA but resistant to other ground units. For the full nine yards, add a new troop transport - hangar bay which can only transport GSF units and can deploy them from orbit. Sprinkle some automation on top and voila!

Now, looking at this, what do we gain from making this GSF ground unit a special type of "ship" - which cannot do anything another type of "ship" can except for being stuffed into hangars and siphoning off LCDRs? I can't see any reason why GSFs being a "ship" is beneficial - so why keep it that way just because that's how it already is? Sometimes a change is good.

The only benefit I can think of is that these could be built with fighter factories instead of GFTCs, which is admittedly a fair point. An exception could be made, but ultimately I would prefer that GFTCs be reworked to function like any other planetary industry instead of the silly 1 GFTC = 1 formation at a time restriction.

 --- Well, for one we already have them in the ship design window. Why are we throwing that out? I can launch GSFs from outside of orbit, so they are space faring ships. When not on Ground Support Missions, they can be fired on by STOs and ships... like ships. They can attack other GSFs when on CAP, like ship to ship combat. They use a form of missile as a weapon, which uses ship mechanics. All this stuff already exists, why are we gutting it? For what? Why not use it instead of throw it away?

 --- What do we lose? Well for one thing, we can't deploy our GSFs from outside of STO range, so now you have to bring the carrier in range or kill of the STOs before you deploy any GSFs. You cannot have a design for an assault ship that can tank and a design, potentially Commerical, which hangs back and deploys fighters. For another, an FFD is only 60 Tons of Ground Unit. You can quite easily stuff several of those into a fighter's Troop Transport Bays AND fit Fighter Pod Bays. They need to be a ship for all of that to work... or perhaps a better way to say it would be, it needs a bigger re-write to NOT need that to work.

 --- I could say more, but frankly at this point I'm one trying to argue. I feel like no one is listening and I'm getting hot under the collar. Whether no is listening or is has become irrelevant, I need to go chill.