Suggestions for 5.7 and beyond

[bean (OP)]

I learned of 5.7 earlier today, and did some thinking about other stuff I'd like to see.  Most notably, improved EW and ground combat.  Both of these systems are primitive in the extreme right now, so here are my ideas:
EW:
Systems now generate EW points equal to their tech rating.  There are two types of points (ECM and ECCM).  Both systems come in three types (Point, Fleet, and Attack.)  Point systems only add to your EW score, while Fleet add to all of those in the fleet, probably with only the two best systems counting.  Attack affects a single target only, or possibly one fleet.  To figure out the score, square the individual scores, add them, and take the square root.  Subtract ECCM from ECM, and the result is what you multiply the Ph by.
I'm not sure how difficult this would be to implement, but the current system is really rudimentary.

Ground Combat:
This is more a set of ideas, which can be decoupled.
Quantized ground combat:
Right now, you either have the colony or you don't.  This would split the colony into a number of segments, each of which is contested separately.  Initially, this would probably be 10 identical segments.  The attacker could push the defender back, gaining territory, but also the problems of occupation.  PDCs would be allocated to each segment, and would have to be cleared to take that segment.
Later on, there would be some tactical element to this.  Land a long ways away from your target, and work your way in.  Still not that many section, maybe a couple dozen.  Segments are non-homogenous, and terrain modifiers might exist.

Different structure:
Right now, all ground units have attack and defense scores.  Add in some form of combined arms bonuses.  Each battalion has varying numbers of different unit types, like Infantry, Armor, APCs, Recon, Artillery, Marines, Combat Engineers, etc.  Some have direct combat strength, while other have special types of strength, which give you a bonus, particularly if your opponent lacks them.  Artillery would be a good example of this.  These units would each have a tech level, and you would upgrade your tanks separately from your infantry and so on.  This allows you to specialize your forces based on role and play style.  Also, the upgrades wouldn't be instant, and you might be able to have reserves or units with second-line equipment (the garrison troops get the castoffs when you upgrade the assault units).  Also, units like armor take up transport bay space as well as troop space.  Also, some amount of support troops are required for any significant deployment, or the unit begins to take readiness and morale losses.

Supplies:
Whenever a unit is engaged in ground fighting, it requires supplies.  These supplies are separate from starship maintainence supplies, and are used by the unit in question.  Support troops might generate these slowly, but they normally have to be shipped in.

That's the bulk of my suggestions, though I might flesh them out in more detail later.

Also, how are missiles being affected by 5.7?

[TallTroll]

>> EW:

Given that a fleet can be spread over an arbitrarily large volume of space, I don't think a "Fleet" system would work. For the other two, modelling after SFBs EW system might work better. In SFB, ECM systems give a 1 point die roll shift based on the square root of the points difference between Ship A and Ship B.

Ship A has 1 ECM point, Ship B has no ECCM, 1 - 0 = 1 => 1 point shift on all fire by Ship B
Ship A has 5 ECM point, Ship B has 1 ECCM, 4 = 1 = 4 => 2 point shift on all fire by Ship B

All ships are limited to 6 self generated points, but can accept points from natural sources (asteroid fields, nebulas, other energetic space terrain, etc) and Scouts. Scouts are specialised ships, with Scout Channels replacing heavy weapons. Scout Channels cost power to activate, and once active can be used to "lend EW" (paid for with more power) to other ships within 15 hexes (1 hex = 10k km, conveniently enough), including enemy ships as "offensive EW", which counts towards the ECM values of any ship *targetted* by the affected vessel.

Obviously, the concept doesn't translate directly, because Aurora doesn't use die rolls, but you could convert the concept to fit :-

Make ECM systems a variable size system, which draw reactor power from the same power pool as weapons. Larger systems can draw more power in total (5 points per HS, or whatever), and the actual number of ECM points produced is multiplied by an efficiency rating derived from a separate tech line. Each tech level produces 10% more ECM per power point

A 1HS, efficiency 1 ECM component can produce up to 5 ( (5*1)*1) ECM points
A 2HS, efficiency 3 ECM component can produce up to 12 ( (5*2)*1.2) ECM points, etc

ECCM systems are similar, but smaller (maybe 0.1 HS size increments) because a ship may need many of them.

When fire is calculated, the EW calculation is (sqrt((targets total ECM)-(FCs total ECCM))*10% = fire adjustment value (deducted from beam hit %ages, or missile lock ranges, negative values treated as 0). Lending ranges are a function of component size and tech. Larger ships (which can support larger EW and power installations) and higher tech ships therefore get an advantage, but not a crushing one. Fleet EW ships, with extensive facilities, can radically affect combat outcomes. A fleet with extensive Scout support can beat a larger / better weapons tech opponent by rendering their weapons ineffective.

You would start needing to get into power management for ships though. If the reactors suffered damage, and available power reduced, how would it be distributed between weapons and EW systems?

SFB also has rules for crew quality and EW. For Aurora, crew grade could also be a consideration. A ship full of green consripts on their first cruise aren't as proficient with EW systems as a combat-hardened veteran crew. Spoilers can have advanced versions that produce more base points per power applied, salvageable and researchable in the same way as their other unique techs.

>> Ground Combat:

I definitely think a more detailed ground unit model would be nice, but I'm not sure about adding ground combat locations. I shouldn't need 10 PDCs to properly defend an asteroid. Since even quite large non-homeworld colonies are going to be pretty small places, I don't have a problem with modelling them as point targets, simply controlled by one side or another.

Now, a more detailed ground unit composition system, so you can build tank heavy / infantry heavy / etc formations would be interesting. The existing unit types do a fair job of approximating different unit roles, and as you can build BTN => BGD => DIV, you can customise a force quite a bit now. Increasing granularity to company level would let you custom build BTNs too

>> Supplies

Starship maint supplies are for starships really. The mineral costs are duranium, uridium and gallicite, so it's essentially structural spars, spare scanner and engine pieces. Do you really want to have to manage another category of "supplies", just to do something you can already do? Even a size 1 AMM is 2.5 tons, massively larger than any ordanance ground troops could realistically use. Even a heavy modern ATGM is only 20 - 25 kg, not including launcher / mounting gear

[Elouda]

Starship maint supplies are for starships really. The mineral costs are duranium, uridium and gallicite, so it's essentially structural spars, spare scanner and engine pieces. Do you really want to have to manage another category of "supplies", just to do something you can already do? Even a size 1 AMM is 2.5 tons, massively larger than any ordanance ground troops could realistically use. Even a heavy modern ATGM is only 20 - 25 kg, not including launcher / mounting gear

I think that some different kind of supplies for ground forces would make sense however. This would mean that interdiction of these supply routes would be a valid tactic (mostly applicable to multi-faction starts, but could also lead to fun with some of our spoiler friends...).

Failing to provide enough supplies would lead to rapidly decreasing combat effectiveness. Attacking forces should probably use up more of them than defending forces.

[chrislocke2000]

I'm also a fan of having combat supplies on top of just moving the troops around. Could be a balance with shipping different types of troop as well - Ie Heavy Assaults use up a lot more per five day compared to garrison troops.

You could also then add a further option on from attack and defend to siege which could limit offensive options but effectively starve the hostiles of being able to resupply.

It would also be nice to see badly damaged hostile units surrender rather than fight to the bitter end based on their morale.

Finally would be nice to see some air units included although could get very complicated when thinking about what environments they could actually deploy in and whether you would want units that could deploy from orbit. Unlike current fighters these would be groups of fighters for each unit and not individually designed.

[bean (OP)]

EW:
Fleet was meant to be read as task group.  I'm less concerned about the exact mechanics then the overall concept, so the SFB approach works too.

Ground:
Good point about asteroids.  Maybe the sections are semi population based.  Anything under 100 million is one section, up to 300 million is 2 and so on.

[bean (OP)]

I'm going to expand some on how the combined arms thing would work.  The scenario is that you've found an enemy infantry battalion dug in around an installation you'd like to have.  It's a leg formation, and it has no vehicles.  You land the 1st Expeditionary Brigade, which is designed for this job.  The brigade is a mix of tanks, powered armor, and IFV-mounted infantry.  It also incorporates recon elements, artillery, and combat engineers.  All PDCs have been neutralized, so a bombardment frigate is in support.
The battle works something like this.  All of the major combat strength is added up, and the defender's is modified by the fact that they're dug in, but that bonus is reduced some because of the combat engineers.  The attackers armor bonus comes from the tanks, IFVs and powered armor, but is reduced because the defenders have anti-tank weapons.  However, they have no armor of their own, so the attackers still get a bonus.  The fact that the defenders are dug in also reduces the attacker's mobility bonus, which comes from the fact that all of the units are mounted.  The attackers also get bonuses due to the defender's lack of recon and artillery units, and the presence of the bombardment frigate.  It's sort of like a very complicated rock, paper, scissors, but with random elements added as well.
Oh, and aircraft would be another type of unit.  Air defense would suppress them.
I'd also add surface defense troops, which primarily attack spacecraft in low orbit.  See http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2009/06/space-warfare-i-gravity-well.html for an overview of what those would be.  They would neutralize bombardment vessels, and generally make landings less healthy, but they're difficult to attack from space.

One more (unrelated) thing.  It would be nice to be able to convince other civilizations to join you peacefully, particularly if you have overwhelming firepower in their system.  They know you can take them over by force, and decide to make it easier for everyone.

[Erik L]

This probably won't be available until 6+, but...

It'd be nice to set a value on a civilian contract and the civilian AI goes for the contract with the highest return. So if you have two mineral contracts on a world, you can set a destination contract to have a higher value, thus the civs will try to fulfill it first.

It'd also be nice if the contracts were by consignment, i.e. I put a contract for 5 Mass Drivers (supply) on planet A at a value of 100 wealth each. When a civ picks those up, I get a payment of 500 wealth. When the MD are delivered for 150 wealth each at planet B, I pay out 750 wealth.

This could also lead to bidding wars where civilian lines bid on the rights to carry the goods. Of course, they shouldn't go over what they can sell them for at a later date, and should maintain some profit margin.

[backstab]

I'd like to see ...

Light Infantry and Super Heavy Armour units.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I'd also add surface defense troops, which primarily attack spacecraft in low orbit.  See http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2009/06/space-warfare-i-gravity-well.html for an overview of what those would be.  They would neutralize bombardment vessels, and generally make landings less healthy, but they're difficult to attack from space.

What would differentiate them from PDCs?  Other than I guess you could offload them onto an enemy planet.  But that would be sorta lame anyway. Right now, you can even bring small prefab PDCs with an assault group for that sort of thing.  Or tug some orbital forts along with your assault force. xD

I'd like to see ...

Light Infantry and Super Heavy Armour units.

well what would light infantry do? Theres really not much left in terms of unit roles, unless ground combat is radically revised.  If super heavy armor was just like current HVA but better... it would kind of obsolete HVA.  I mean, I'd love for a Bolo-style 'mobile pdc' kind of thing, but I think that's going back to radical ground revision.

[backstab]

well what would light infantry do? Theres really not much left in terms of unit roles, unless ground combat is radically revised.  If super heavy armor was just like current HVA but better... it would kind of obsolete HVA.  I mean, I'd love for a Bolo-style 'mobile pdc' kind of thing, but I think that's going back to radical ground revision.

Light Infantry would be cheaper to produce and obviously lighter to transport.  Good for quick deployments. 
As for Super Heavy Armour (OGRES) , I did a test game several versions ago where I introduced them into the Database.  Made them nearly impossible to transport but extremely powerful.  Good for Planetary Defence

[Elouda]

Light Infantry would be cheaper to produce and obviously lighter to transport.  Good for quick deployments. 
As for Super Heavy Armour (OGRES) , I did a test game several versions ago where I introduced them into the Database.  Made them nearly impossible to transport but extremely powerful.  Good for Planetary Defence

These would both make more sense if the additional dimension of supply was added to grount combat. That was SHA would not obsolete HVA, as the latter would still be more supply efficient or something. Likewise 'Light' units would be less supply dependant, and more suited for operations in distant areas.

[bean (OP)]

What would differentiate them from PDCs?  Other than I guess you could offload them onto an enemy planet.  But that would be sorta lame anyway. Right now, you can even bring small prefab PDCs with an assault group for that sort of thing.  Or tug some orbital forts along with your assault force. xD

They're immune to long-range bombardment, and, being abstracted, can attacked orbital bombardment forces over a few days.

I see light infantry as primarily defensive.  While you get the most firepower per wealth and supply, there are no combined arms bonuses.  And I see artillery in the SHA role.  It's got a lot of firepower, but it eats supplies.

[TallTroll]

Definitions have changed as warfare has evolved, but currently, Light Role troops are largely defined by lack of tactical mobility (footsloggers), high strategic mobility (air or sea delivered, light TOE, hence no huge logistics train to transport) and low anti tank capability.

The classic Light Role mission is probably Operation Market Garden. Drop large numbers of troops on a fixed strategic position(s) behind enemy lines, and task them to hold until friendly heavies (ie the armour columns) can relieve them. Air and artillery units are tasked to keep enemy armour and large troop concentrations away, and the troops in place rely on superior training and morale and often their specialised lightened heavy equipment to defeat local counterattacks.

In the context of Aurora, things might be a bit different, since there is the additional aspect of space control to consider, and once you get personal power armour, the distinction between infantry and tanks get a bit blurred

[TheDeadlyShoe]

They're immune to long-range bombardment,

That would be nonsensical. There's nothing a mobile unit could do that a PDC can't.

[xeryon]

That would be nonsensical. There's nothing a mobile unit could do that a PDC can't.

Duck?