Replacing PDCs

[Garfunkel]

I also would like to promote using company as the smallest stack and working up from there through battalion - brigade - division. We can change the ground unit default ranks to Captain - Major - Colonel - General and thus each has a specific level of command to take on. And it means that a battalion can already be a combined arms unit as well as makes the possibility of specialized small units for boarding and asteroid clearing and other similar tasks where you don't want to lug around big forces.

[Gyrfalcon]

Given how much ground combat is being expanded, I would like that change as well. That said, Ground Forces Training Centers should then allow training 5 companies per Center.

[backstab]

Leg infantry isn't really a thing in modern military thinking. Hasn't been a thing, really, since the Second World War. Motorised and mechanised infantry are simply that much better an option when fighting a war, with very few exceptions. And those exceptions are these days handled with helicopters

Mmmm, ... no , light infantry still plays a big part in modern armies.  Light infantry are able to deploy faster and take up less space than motorised / mech formations ... light infantry costumes less supplies and take less time to train and equip.


On a separate note , how are pre TN formations going to be represented?

[83athom]

I also would like to promote using company as the smallest stack and working up from there through battalion - brigade - division. We can change the ground unit default ranks to Captain - Major - Colonel - General and thus each has a specific level of command to take on. And it means that a battalion can already be a combined arms unit as well as makes the possibility of specialized small units for boarding and asteroid clearing and other similar tasks where you don't want to lug around big forces.

Well, a 'Company' may not always be equal to a "Company" especially when compared through different races.

[bean]

Well, a 'Company' may not always be equal to a "Company" especially when compared through different races.

We could say the same of a battalion.  I'm with Garfunkel on this one.  Companies seem like the right unit for this, and give a lot more flexibility.

[Hazard]

Mmmm, ... no , light infantry still plays a big part in modern armies.  Light infantry are able to deploy faster and take up less space than motorised / mech formations ... light infantry costumes less supplies and take less time to train and equip.

You are mistaken; leg infantry isn't light infantry, leg infantry is infantry that has no attached motorpool for moving the troops. And unless we're talking irregular/militia formations formed by conscripting experienced woodsmen or similar light infantry tends to be better trained than line troops. This is because aside from all the soldierly skills a recruit needs to learn to join the army most of them will also need to learn bushcraft.

This is because with the invention of the rifle what was light infantry changed dramatically because their role as skirmisher changed. With the increased range, precision and lethality a rifle offered over a musket it became worth it to invest in a relatively elite group of experts who knew how to move quietly, spy on a target unobserved, were skilled marksmen and could travel quickly through otherwise difficult terrain. This is why French and German both have use the term 'hunters' for their light infantry formations, as that's where most of the recruits came from.

Modern day light infantry still shows this heritage; these are troops deployed with less equipment than line troops, expected to act with more limited supplies, in more difficult situations and to succeed. And to compensate for those limitations they are provided better training, to eke out more advantage out of every bit of cover, camouflage and bullet they've got.

Modern day light infantry deploy faster because many of them are airborne or airmobile troops, mounted as either parachute infantry or helicopter infantry, unlike mechanised and motorised troops which are often ground bound. But because they require air deployment they have a much higher logistical and space footprint than you'd think.

[QuakeIV]

As I understand it, infantry are only really useful in that they can sortof cover old fashioned tank charges and can occupy urban areas relatively effeciently.  As far as an all out war is concerned at this point though, infantry would in most cases be obliterated by artillery, aircraft, or missiles.

[Hazard]

As I understand it, infantry are only really useful in that they can sortof cover old fashioned tank charges and can occupy urban areas relatively effeciently.  As far as an all out war is concerned at this point though, infantry would in most cases be obliterated by artillery, aircraft, or missiles.

A very short and mistaken summary of the matter, but understandably so. The purpose of infantry in modern warfare is to be freaking everywhere and to travel through and secure hard to navigate and easy to hide in areas like cities, towns, forests and mountains. Infantry caught in the open field will be obliterated by artillery or aircraft of some variety, that's true, but outside an open field man portable weaponry easily has the range and firepower to ruin any AFV's day, while most aircraft cannot effectively engage infantry hidden in such broken up areas without getting unhealthily close to stinger missiles and similarly potent man portable air defense weapons.

Infantry and their weapons are also very very cheap compared to a similarly sized formation equipped with aircraft, tanks and missiles.

This all combined means that infantry is a very cost effective way to engage enemy forces so long as you can ensure the engagement range is short for the modern battlefield.

You would, of course, ideally have your own aircraft, tanks and missiles on the battlefield as well because sometimes you have to cross open ground, but in all cases do you want infantry close at hand on the battlefield anyway. The sheer utility of having half a dozen extra pairs of eyes unrestricted fields of vision is indisputable when it comes to preventing ambushes.

[alex_brunius]

Look at modern merchant shipping.  I can name half a dozen different types of cargo ships offhand, and that's not even looking at military ships.  Special roles are a fact of life.  If anything, Aurora is probably overly generous in this regard.

Sure let's look at modern merchant shipping! 90% of all global shipping tonnage (excluding fuel which is also a separate thing in aurora and should/will stay so) is done in standardized containers which can contain almost everything of value and be carried by almost all cargo ships and unloaded in all larger ports. Most specialized ships are small coastal ships and not between main hubs ( meaning their equivalent ships would be below the scale of Aurora 4x ).

Similar with military cargo ships, there are 3 main types in use in the US Navy. Vehicles Cargo Ships (AKR), Dry Cargo (AK) and Ammo (AE), but in practice the last ship have been obsoleted and replaced by AKE which can handle both Dry Cargo + Ammo and are "equipped to transfer cargo such as ammunition, food, limited quantities of fuel, repair parts, ship store items, and expandable supplies.". Over half of the military Dry Cargo (AK) ships both have RO/RO (roll on/roll of) capability and container capability so they can take some vehicles, containers and custom sized cargo unloaded by own cranes.

( source: https://www.navysite.de/ake/index.html )


And there is little reason to not believe the development towards more standardization ( both in the military and civilian sectors ) would continue to develop further in a future sci-fi civilization.

Sticking troops on airlifters only works because they aren't there for that long.  Keeping them happy over days/weeks takes a lot more specialized infrastructure.

 

Agreed with troops needing quarters for longer transits, but all their gear and equipment still can go in pretty much any cargo hold. A cargo ship with enough spare births should be capable of taking them just fine or you could ship the men separately from the equipment using any civilian transport ( as is/was often done IRL ).

Not saying Aurora necessarily must go to this level of detail/micro, but it's a good point about flexibility of cargo.

As for vehicles, yes, it is possible to stack them in a bulk cargo hold, but that's only a good idea when you're shipping them to a friendly port.  If you want to unload them quickly, you need specialized equipment.

I never said that contested drops should be possible with bulk cargo. My entire argument was about cargo/vehicles unloading in friendly ports not needing 10 different types of specialized cargo holds.

[bean]

Sure let's look at modern merchant shipping! 90% of all global shipping tonnage (excluding fuel which is also a separate thing in aurora and should/will stay so) is done in standardized containers which can contain almost everything of value and be carried by almost all cargo ships and unloaded in all larger ports. Most specialized ships are small coastal ships and not between main hubs ( meaning their equivalent ships would be below the scale of Aurora 4x ).

90%?  Not even close.  In 2010, container ships made up only 9.7% of the world's merchant fleets.  Obviously, that's not by tonnage, but I doubt that the typical container ship is 20x the size of the typical bulk carrier, which it would have to be to make this work.  Not to mention vehicle carriers, the occasional heavy-lift ship, reefers and so on.

Similar with military cargo ships, there are 3 main types in use in the US Navy. Vehicles Cargo Ships (AKR), Dry Cargo (AK) and Ammo (AE), but in practice the last ship have been obsoleted and replaced by AKE which can handle both Dry Cargo + Ammo and are "equipped to transfer cargo such as ammunition, food, limited quantities of fuel, repair parts, ship store items, and expandable supplies.". Over half of the military Dry Cargo (AK) ships both have RO/RO (roll on/roll of) capability and container capability so they can take some vehicles, containers and custom sized cargo unloaded by own cranes.

( source: https://www.navysite.de/ake/index.html )

There has been a definite trend towards making one-stop auxiliaries.  They do this the same way I make AOEs in Aurora, by fitting the ships with spaces for MSPs, missiles, and fuel.  If you look at the capacity breakdowns on those ships, they have specific spaces for each type of item.  A T-AKE isn't a ship you can use as an AE one day and an AK the next.  It's half of one and half of the other.
Also, you were talking about carrying troops, so you need to add the Amphibs to that.  That's another three (well, 2.5) types of ships.

I never said that contested drops should be possible with bulk cargo. My entire argument was about cargo/vehicles unloading in friendly ports not needing 10 different types of specialized cargo holds.

The problem with this is implementation.  I'd love to be able to do that, too, and also to stick fighters in cargo holds for shipment, but there are definitely things I'd rather Steve spend his time on.

[alex_brunius]

90%?  Not even close.  In 2010, container ships made up only 9.7% of the world's merchant fleets.

A quick google tells you in 2 seconds that 60% of all cargo tonnage ( fuel/oil make up the vast majority of the remaining 40%, meaning it can be mostly excluded ), are container shipping:

https://www.statista.com/topics/1367/container-shipping/

If your going to go around and claim stuff at least do basic research first.


In cargo shipping there is literally nothing preventing you from using a vehicle carrier to move containers or bulk cargo either, you just roll on a truck with the container/bulk on it. Or vice versa you can use cranes to load vehicles in bulk cargo holds or even container ships if there is unused space. Might take a bit more time to load/unload and secure the cargo but it's done all the time. I work next to one of the largest shipping ports in the country and pass by it every day.

[Bremen]

Logistics will be a ground unit that is slowly consumed over time by other friendly units, acting as a form of ground unit supply.

Maybe just make units use MSP instead of a logistics unit for supply? Seems like it would simplify things nicely while also making MSP more important.

Other than that... I think I'd probably prefer a simpler combat system (with maybe front line and support instead of 4; then bombardment weapons could hit one zone ahead (support -> enemy frontline, or frontline -> enemy support, and air could hit from your support to their support), but I can live with this one as outlined.

[plasticpanzers]

I think land combat was and is the wrong way to go.  But I am just a player and not of the inner circle so my
input really does not matter.  shame tho.

[obsidian_green]

I have concerns about the apparent level of complexity for the user in the new ground combat scheme. If I could be certain that all this detail stayed under the hood, I'd feel more enthusiastic.

The way all this reads, it feels more like combat material might now be better trained/built in a manner similar to items under the industry tab and allocated to units in the way fighters and ordnance are allocated to ships. I also think any prerequisite techs should be organizational in nature. Ground weapons tech is going to match the overall tech level of the faction---no country building steam or oil powered battleships sent soldiers into battle with muzzle-loading muskets.

[Iranon]

One thing I care greatly about is a good ratio of depth : complexity.

Current ground combat doesn't have  much of either compared to other aspects of the game... maybe worth expanding if Steve is interested, but it'd make just as much sense to say "does all it needs to do, not the main focus of the game".
I'd consider it much more important to make the AI use whatever limited system there is competently, rather than adding new features and complexities that aren't open-ended enough to create much additional depth.

Likewise, PDCs are something fairly open-ended that elegantly joins different aspects of the game (ground combat, ship-related technology and combat), with interesting options that are only partially explored (control/destruction of fortifications vs. control of population).
I also think it's good to have some defensive options free from the logistics concerns of ships, this rather nicely matches wet navy history and coastal fortifications.
Things that could be trimmed are fiddly player-facing things that don't add much... e.g., I see no need for more capable PDC-specific fire controls. If we want to give PDCs an advantage in addition to not requiring naval infrastructure, we could give them straight bonuses.