Suggestions for 5.7 and beyond

[schroeam]

Duck?

ROFL!

[bean (OP)]

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

What do you mean?  If I have a missile on a trailer designed to look like a Coke truck, eliminating it from long range is a bit more difficult.  And once I fire, it's just a truck.  Admittedly, I generally deal with PDCs from orbit, so I'm assuming that they're gone, and you don't want the enemy bombarding you unhindered.  Also, it would kill a certain percentage of landing troops unless suppressed.

Light infantry is generally used that way today.  The problem is that in Aurora it doesn't work that way.  At the moment, any sort of special mission is best undertaken by heavy assault troops, as they have the same transport requirements and more firepower.  An alternative is to impose some sort of unloading time penalty on units that aren't infantry (light infantry and marines).  However, unloading transports can't be shot at if they're at a friendly colony with sufficient troops.  I'm not sure how it would work, but it's the only way I see to allow light infantry to do the job described.  If we get some sort of map (which would be cool, but I'm not going to hold my breath) then Market Garden-type operations become more plausible.
What I see them doing under my outline (discounting the above suggestion) is working as either fleet troops (Marines, but without the boarding training) or as garrison units.  Mobility is no longer a factor, and lack of armor can be dealt with by digging in.
Under the combined arms plan,  it might make sense to only allow infantry units to board, and hindering combat by any other units caught aboard transports.  Clearing PDCs would be another nice role for them.

[backstab]

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

Is 1st Gen Mobile Infantry really in Power Armour ?
I picture it more like light Motorized Infantry where Assault Infantry may (depending on your background/preferences) be the Power Armour Troops.

[TallTroll]

backstab, you never read Starship Troopers? 

[bean (OP)]

The fact that it's called "mobile infantry" does not mean that it is the MI from Starship Troopers.  It could be motorized infantry, called mobile infantry because it sounds cooler.

[Garfunkel]

The extreme jump in attack and defence capability from Low Tech Armour and Low Tech Infantry to even 1st Gen Mobile and Assault Infantry definitely warrants powered armour of some sort for each trooper and more. Even then it's iffy - a modern armoured/mechanized division has incredible amounts of firepower available to it even just organically as it includes main battle tanks, infantry mounted in IFVs, ATGMs, self-propelled mortars and artillery and both scout and attack helicopters. The fact that a single Garrison Battalion can effectively stop the attack of a Low Tech Armour division means that there must be a significant leap of personal capability from pre-TN troops to post-TN troops. Hence why they should definitely be imagined as to having Powered Armour of sorts, built out of Duranium which cannot be penetrated with small arms or classic high explosives.

When you consider the far smaller upgrades to post-TN troops through Ground Unit Strength XX, it's fairly clear to me that your scientists are only tinkering the Powered Armours and TN-weaponry to be bit better.

I really don't see the need for additional units unless Ground Warfare is overhauled significantly. Currently it's abstracted fairly well and simple. Adding any further layers of detail runs the risk of actually making the combat worse - the less abstract it is, the harder it becomes for players to suspend their disbelief when something that is routine in actual military simulations and war games cannot be reproduced in Aurora.

In a utopia, Aurora would be combined with something like The Operational Art of War 3, to fully cover complex planet-side operations and campaigns.

[backstab]

The extreme jump in attack and defence capability from Low Tech Armour and Low Tech Infantry to even 1st Gen Mobile and Assault Infantry definitely warrants powered armour of some sort for each trooper and more. Even then it's iffy - a modern armoured/mechanized division has incredible amounts of firepower available to it even just organically as it includes main battle tanks, infantry mounted in IFVs, ATGMs, self-propelled mortars and artillery and both scout and attack helicopters. The fact that a single Garrison Battalion can effectively stop the attack of a Low Tech Armour division means that there must be a significant leap of personal capability from pre-TN troops to post-TN troops. Hence why they should definitely be imagined as to having Powered Armour of sorts, built out of Duranium which cannot be penetrated with small arms or classic high explosives.

I'm pretty sure that a Tank Battalion equipped with M1A1's would be able to hold the line against a WW2 Armoured Division and there is no magic leap in technology ... a Tank is a Tank

[Bgreman]

I'm pretty sure that a Tank Battalion equipped with M1A1's would be able to hold the line against a WW2 Armoured Division and there is no magic leap in technology ... a Tank is a Tank

I would argue that there was a magic leap in technology: the first practical transistor (enabling most of modern electronics) was produced in 1947.

[backstab]

I would argue that there was a magic leap in technology: the first practical transistor (enabling most of modern electronics) was produced in 1947.

The jump from multi crewed AFV to Single Man Power Armour is a greater gap than what you described.  I suppose everyone has there own interpretation on what equipment each unit uses.  But I do think there is room to add a few more units without disrupting the game.  As I have said before, I have introduced a number of new formations to the database before without any problems.

[Zed 6]

I would argue that there was a magic leap in technology: the first practical transistor (enabling most of modern electronics) was produced in 1947.

I would say it was not magic but good scientific research. Yes transistors enabled modern electronics. but by definition, if there is a "modern" electronics then there should be an "archaic electronics" (for lack of a better term).  This was vacuum tubes. The first tubes were around 1907. The first patents for a solid state device were in the 1920's. This device was intended as a replacement for tubes. They knew back then how tubes worked. In today's terms they were looking for smaller packaging, higher reliability, and lower production costs. Which is what the transistor provided. Yes it revolutionized electronics but not thru magic.  And tubes are still being used in various applications. Hi voltage, over the airwaves TV broadcasts, and the ever debatable music listening; many musicians prefer tube amplifiers. You could still have your tube ipod if you're willing to drive it around in a tractor-trailer.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I don't get it, i keep posting things to this thread and they get eaten.   Since three times of typing the same post is a little excessive, suffice it to say theres nothing an  space artillery unit could do that a (underground, disguised) or (far more discrete and otherwise flexible) current ground unit could not do.  So an arbitary bombrdment immunity seems totally arbitrary to me, and you can already build PDCs to attrition or destroy incoming dropships.

[Garfunkel]

I'm pretty sure that a Tank Battalion equipped with M1A1's would be able to hold the line against a WW2 Armoured Division and there is no magic leap in technology ... a Tank is a Tank

I used Garrison Bn as an example because its the weakest actual unit, thus your example should be "Would a modern infantry battalion stop a WW2 Armoured Division?" And the answer is: nope.

And that's with 50-60 years of technological development.

[bean (OP)]

I used Garrison Bn as an example because its the weakest actual unit, thus your example should be "Would a modern infantry battalion stop a WW2 Armoured Division?" And the answer is: nope.

And that's with 50-60 years of technological development.

That's a lot more of an open question then you make it out to be.  For example, what kind of infantry battalion?  Mechanized?  Light Infantry?  Also, what's the situation?  Is the battalion trying to hold a narrow pass?  Then quite likely they could.  Also, how much ammo do they have?  Modern units are vastly more lethal then their World War 2 counterparts.  I would expect a modern armored battalion to be able to defeat a WWII armored division if they had sufficient ammo.  An infantry battalion is a bit less likely, but if they were on a narrow enough front, it's entirely possible.  ATGMs are wonderful things, and we have far better light anti-tank weapons then they did back then.

Edit:
For anyone who wants more data on this (WWII vs. Modern units) I'd find TRADOC Bulletin No 8, Modern Weapons on the Modern Battlefield.

[MehMuffin]

I'd like to see some direct beam to ground assault weapon, to allow the leveling of a planet without irradiating the landscape. Perhaps a super short ranged, relatively weak but rapid fire weapon?

[Steve Walmsley]

I'd like to see some direct beam to ground assault weapon, to allow the leveling of a planet without irradiating the landscape. Perhaps a super short ranged, relatively weak but rapid fire weapon?

The current mechanics are designed to prevent this

I didn't want to make it easy to wipe out an entire alien race and then move in your own settlers the next day. In a game called Starfire, the above used to be a tactic known as "Genocide for Fun and Profit" (GFFP). I wanted to have some significant decisions as part of planetary conquest. Either wipe out aliens but destroy the environment or mount an invasion to conquer the planet without massive environment damage.

Steve