C# Ground Combat

[Hazard]

Using AA weapons in with an artillery formation makes perfect sense to bolster them as those weapons actually can be useful. In WW2 most of the machine guns assigned to them was mainly meant for AA duty even though they often had to serve both in ground and air roles.

It also means that when (not if) you lose aerospace superiority your support forces don't get flattened by waves of fighter bombardment. The whole point of AA isn't really to destroy enemy fighters (although it's nice if you can pull it off), the point is to force the enemy fighters to stop interfering. Although the flak suppression missions are something you'll need to keep in mind; a large number of fairly light AA might be more valuable than a small number of heavy AA, if only from a redundancy point of view.

Yup. I figure something like the M7 "Priest"; a big gun, a bit o' armor and a HMG to deter infantry.

 - AA escort is more of a nice to have than a need in my opinion, as Aerospace superiority is, well... superior. Although I do like the idea of an unarmoured Medium Vehicle with a Light Bombardment module and a Logistics module as a cheap, self-contained, and (mostly) self-sufficient SPG.

Given how Aurora works, it's better to have 3 doubled up Medium Bombardment component medium vehicles and a dedicated ground defense vehicle. On the M7, that HMG and its munition is basically of no real consequence to the vehicle's primary function, taking up maybe 100 kilograms total if you really overload on the bullets, on a vehicle that weighs nearly 23 tons. But in Aurora? What you use your weapon slots for greatly impacts its ability to fight.

And that Medium vehicle with a Logistics module can't exist IIRC. The only things that can mount logistics modules are infantry (small modules only) and light vehicles. Which is helpful, because units with logistics modules get deleted when the module is depleted.

[Jorgen_CAB]

The MG in the Priest was primarily for self defence against air threats as was common for most artillery formation in WW2. From that perspective they made allot of sense. Even if the allied rarely had to use them as such because they had such huge air-superiority to the enemy. These weapons were probably more often used in their secondary ground role rather than their intended role, and even that were probably quite rare for the allies.

[kks]

Regarding the infantry assigned to artillery formations in the examples of WWII, I think it is important to remember that in that era quite a lot of artillery was in direct fire missions.

The medium and heavy bombardment weapons in C# represent heavier, indirect firing artillery pieces imho. As such they can be located quite some distance behind the front lines (e.g. >20km range of the british AS-90 SPG). I do not think that it makes sense to assign these units larger infantry for protection. AA and MGs in primary AA role is something else.

On the other hand light and direct firing weapons will naturally deploy much closer to the frontline, so that it makes sense to prepare them for "close" combat by giving them LMGs, for example.
The cited japanese artillery battalion was often directly supporting Infantry units quite close to the front, if I read it correctly, so it only feels natural to have such weapons.
But I don't think that the crew of such artillery guards would go on the offensive and fire against enemy units. They will only shoot on units attacking their formation, which are enemies which have penetrate the defenses of the frontline units. So I don't think any "guard" mechanism, which allows guards in rear/support role to fire at other units, is needed.
Summa summarum: Guards guard their guns, they don't leave them to go into "close" combat.

However, I think we could argue about a mechanism which allows non-bombardment units in rear/support to shoot back at units attacking their formation.
I don't think that would be "gamist", as having fallback lines and reserve units was a tactic widely used in WWII. I am sadly not up to date on modern combat doctrines, but probably defense in depth is not an outdated concept (at least concerning symetrical warfare).
I have an superb book on the sowjet tactical doctrine used and developed in WWII (based on the info Gehlen collected for the Fremde Heere Ost intelligence service) and if I recall correctly, the sowjets used these even down to the tactial level.

[Garfunkel]

Jorgen, unfortunately your source is wrong. That's not a surprise as it is from "MARCH, 1941", meaning that it is based on American espionage & intelligence data from before the Pacific War started. Historians need to be very careful with OOBs as even today, many are based on faulty sources. Doctor Niehorster's website uses research done after the war and shows that Japanese Artillery regiments did not have such massive numbers of LMGs - in fact, only the headquarters and the supply column had a grand total of 3 LMGs assigned to them for self-defence.

As for the rest of, I wholly disagree with your claim that it was common to assign units to specifically guard artillery in WW2 and I think your belief stems from misunderstanding source material. This is important because this debate started with your claim that it would be more realistic to have to assign infantry formations in the Rear or Support echelons to "guard" artillery formations.

I was going to get into a further debate about the maths of target selection but I realized that it's bit pointless. Because your whole premise is flawed. Yes, in that narrowly defined example that you created, it makes no difference whether you have that infantry regiment in the Front echelon or you split it up inside the two Support echelon artillery formations - but that is a situation that is unlikely to ever happen. Because the odds of one of the two Support formations being picked is measly 2.381% (1 in 42). This whole argument is pointless because that sort of situation is unlikely to ever happen. Even the cheapest artillery is 1.4 BP per cannon whereas cheap infantry is 0.2 BP per grunt.

If your Front line formations are few and small, your Support formations are going to get hit all the time. If your Front line formations are many and large, your Support formations are hardly ever going to get hit.

Going back to your initial statement:

If I would anything to be added to the game eventually would be formations of mixed types having certain ability or impact which make the whole stronger then the individual part becasue that is how things work in real life. A tank formation are usually way more powerful when you mix them with a functional infantry, artillery and air-force... as a lone formation they are not all that useful.

But we can have mixed formations and in fact, the mechanics already encourage mixed formations. Because you cannot select which enemy formations your formations target, nor can you select which of your own formations gets targeted by the enemy. So a pure Anti-Vehicle formation might target Infantry and not do much damage, while a pure Anti-Personnel formation might target Vehicles and do equally poorly. The power of mixed formations is that they can deal decent damage regardless of their opponent. Which is pretty much why we have combined arms formations in reality.

I don't think that would be "gamist", as having fallback lines and reserve units was a tactic widely used in WWII. I am sadly not up to date on modern combat doctrines, but probably defense in depth is not an outdated concept (at least concerning symetrical warfare).

Defence in depth is certainly a still valid concept and I'm not arguing that it wasn't used in WW2, nor that fallback lines or reserve units didn't exist. I'm saying that having infantry units held back solely to defend artillery was not a thing in WW2. Before and during WW1 it was a thing because, as you also said, artillery mostly fired directly at the enemy, not indirectly, and ranges were much shorter.

What I find "gamist" is putting in special abilities that are outside the normal framework of combat mechanics.

[Garfunkel]

I've been considering a Self-Propelled Gun formation w/ Medium and Light Vehicles.

The basic element of the formation would consist of:

 - 4x Medium SPG (Crew-Served Anti-Personnel / Medium Bombardment)

 - 3x Light Vehicle (Logistics)

 - 2x Light Vehicle (AA)

The formation would consist of three elements for a total of:

 - 12x Medium SPG

 - 9x Light Logisitcs

 - 6x Light AA

I think that would be a defensible artillery formation.

First of all, flavour- and RP-wise, do whatever makes you happy and/or fits into your story.

Mechanically, you shouldn't create such units for three reasons:

1) Vehicle based supply can work with any formation in its chain of command and putting it into Front echelon is just wasting it - the supply trucks might get shot up before being consumed.

2) MB can work from Support echelon but CAP only works from Front echelon. Regardless of which stance you use with them, 50% of their capability is wasted.

3) The Light vehicle with AA is going to get hit fairly often so you might as well make it a Medium vehicle to give it more armour. At Front echelon, it can pull double-duty, but at Support echelon it can only defend this formation, nothing else, making it likely to remain passive.

Now, it's perfectly valid to make SPG formation that is armoured and still stays in Support echelon, because the armour protects its from enemy counter-battery fire, orbital bombardment and ground support fighters. Similarly, you can make a perfectly valid Front echelon SPG formation.

Here are my proposals:

Front Echelon Bombardment Formation:
12x Medium vehicle (max armour) with Light Bombardment + Crew-Served Anti-Personnel modules
6x Medium vehicle (max armour) with Light Anti-Aircraft + Crew-Served Anti-Personnel modules

This formation can use all of its weapons at every combat round with the LAA pulling double duty in attacking ground support fighters in addition to firing ground-to-ground mode. It will use double supplies though! With medium armour, the vehicles have some survivability without becoming too expensive.

Support Echelon Bombardment Formation:
12x Medium vehicle (max armour) with Medium Bombardment
6x Heavy vehicle (max armour) with Heavy Anti-Aircraft

This formation can remain in the Support Echelon and still bombard most enemy formations as well as support Front echelon formations. It's AAA element can hit any enemy fighters regardless of their mission or target, so it'll fire each round as well. With armour and their location, they have a good chance of surviving combat. As a cost- and size-cutting measure, both vehicles only have 1 module on them.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Jorgen, unfortunately your source is wrong. That's not a surprise as it is from "MARCH, 1941", meaning that it is based on American espionage & intelligence data from before the Pacific War started. Historians need to be very careful with OOBs as even today, many are based on faulty sources. Doctor Niehorster's website uses research done after the war and shows that Japanese Artillery regiments did not have such massive numbers of LMGs - in fact, only the headquarters and the supply column had a grand total of 3 LMGs assigned to them for self-defence.

As for the rest of, I wholly disagree with your claim that it was common to assign units to specifically guard artillery in WW2 and I think your belief stems from misunderstanding source material. This is important because this debate started with your claim that it would be more realistic to have to assign infantry formations in the Rear or Support echelons to "guard" artillery formations.

I was going to get into a further debate about the maths of target selection but I realized that it's bit pointless. Because your whole premise is flawed. Yes, in that narrowly defined example that you created, it makes no difference whether you have that infantry regiment in the Front echelon or you split it up inside the two Support echelon artillery formations - but that is a situation that is unlikely to ever happen. Because the odds of one of the two Support formations being picked is measly 2.381% (1 in 42). This whole argument is pointless because that sort of situation is unlikely to ever happen. Even the cheapest artillery is 1.4 BP per cannon whereas cheap infantry is 0.2 BP per grunt.

If your Front line formations are few and small, your Support formations are going to get hit all the time. If your Front line formations are many and large, your Support formations are hardly ever going to get hit.

Going back to your initial statement:

If I would anything to be added to the game eventually would be formations of mixed types having certain ability or impact which make the whole stronger then the individual part becasue that is how things work in real life. A tank formation are usually way more powerful when you mix them with a functional infantry, artillery and air-force... as a lone formation they are not all that useful.

But we can have mixed formations and in fact, the mechanics already encourage mixed formations. Because you cannot select which enemy formations your formations target, nor can you select which of your own formations gets targeted by the enemy. So a pure Anti-Vehicle formation might target Infantry and not do much damage, while a pure Anti-Personnel formation might target Vehicles and do equally poorly. The power of mixed formations is that they can deal decent damage regardless of their opponent. Which is pretty much why we have combined arms formations in reality.

I don't think that would be "gamist", as having fallback lines and reserve units was a tactic widely used in WWII. I am sadly not up to date on modern combat doctrines, but probably defense in depth is not an outdated concept (at least concerning symetrical warfare).

Defence in depth is certainly a still valid concept and I'm not arguing that it wasn't used in WW2, nor that fallback lines or reserve units didn't exist. I'm saying that having infantry units held back solely to defend artillery was not a thing in WW2. Before and during WW1 it was a thing because, as you also said, artillery mostly fired directly at the enemy, not indirectly, and ranges were much shorter.

What I find "gamist" is putting in special abilities that are outside the normal framework of combat mechanics.

There are many other sources that clearly state that artillery regiments had lots of MGs or other AA guns... the problem is that most sources don't mention small arms in artillery regiments just the big guns. I could dig up a few more "modern" sources if you wish... but the Japanese artillery had lots of MGs... mainly because they lacked allot of heavier good AA guns. There are many records of battles that show elaborate defences round artillery positions... literature is also full of mentioning how they early on learned about the chock of armoured formation overrunning artillery positions, something the Russians learned the hard way during Barbarossa and started to use good anti-tank perimeter defences around artillery in particular as the artillery often was a high valued target by the Germans. The new chock tactics of the panzer formation meant that artillery was no longer safe even at the great distances they were used.
You can read MANY battle after action reports that state this. Obviously most forces was not intrinsic to the artillery regiment but a divisions MG, AT or AA battalions are sort of a support unit that for the most part acted as a defence in depth or supported at long range during attacks.

You might also look at the Vietnam war which was a very elastic war... the US often did have to fortify their artillery regiments as the enemy often managed to infiltrate behind the front line and support elements.


From a math perspective it matter not at all if you mix the formations. The chance they they hit each other are exactly the same no matter what as the chance are purely based on the width of the formation. First you match formations based on width then you base each unit based on width within the formation (exactly as I showed above). So unless there are some other function of the math that I missed then please show how it works so I can be informed of the correct way.

In my opinion based on my knowledge on how it works it don't matter how you mix formations, the chance that one unit hit anyone specific unit in the game is exactly the same no matter what. The only thing it does by spreading them out is that you distribute the hits more and reduce the spread on the randomness. So if you put 10 units if anti-vehicle in every infantry regiment you are more likely that some of them hit an actual vehicle every combat round but over time they will hit the same number of vehicles as putting them all in one formation. You rely less on the luck of the draw by doing so.

If this is not how it work then pleas give me a simple example on how it does work?

[Garfunkel]

the problem is that most sources don't mention small arms in artillery regiments just the big guns.

My source includes all weapons. For the Japanese artillery regiment, that means 3 LMG. For a German artillery regiment, that means 30 LMG (if part of a Panzer division) or 6 (if part of a Infanterie division). For a British artillery regiment, that means 6 LMG and 9 HMG. All meant for anti-aircraft work. Now, it's entirely possible that some artillery unit somewhere at sometime had loads of automated weapons assigned to it. But it certainly was not normal or standard.

There are many records of battles that show elaborate defences round artillery positions... literature is also full of mentioning how they early on learned about the chock of armoured formation overrunning artillery positions, something the Russians learned the hard way during Barbarossa and started to use good anti-tank perimeter defences around artillery in particular as the artillery often was a high valued target by the Germans. The new chock tactics of the panzer formation meant that artillery was no longer safe even at the great distances they were used.

Okay you're mixing up things here. Artillery did not receive any special treatment - German mechanized offensive emphasized the importance of disrupting the enemy's ability to command troops, so headquarters, supply, and artillery units in the rear were all valuable targets but the objective was usually to either encircle the enemy or force their dislocation by making their present position useless and untenable. And again, reserve units were not placed solely to defend artillery units but to respond to breakthroughs - these are two different things.

You can read MANY battle after action reports that state this. Obviously most forces was not intrinsic to the artillery regiment but a divisions MG, AT or AA battalions are sort of a support unit that for the most part acted as a defence in depth or supported at long range during attacks.

You're mixing things up here too. The pre-war and early-war MG battalion that most countries had, was almost always broken up into MG companies that were dispersed into the rifle battalions. The AT battalion evolved the most during the war as situations changed but naturally its placement was where the risk of enemy armoured attack was the highest - not in the rear. And AA battalion, if it existed, usually protected the divisional supply depot but I agree that it was the one battalion that most often was used in a fire support role.

You might also look at the Vietnam war which was a very elastic war... the US often did have to fortify their artillery regiments as the enemy often managed to infiltrate behind the front line and support elements.

Asymmetrical war like Vietnam cannot be modeled by Aurora as it is. In Vietnam, the whole front / rear dichotomy lost all meaning for the most part.

Now, if you want the combat model to include an operational level (currently it jumps from strategic straight into tactical) then I'm all for it. We could then have planetary maps where units move and all the other good stuff - which is why I mentioned The Operational Art of War 3 in one of my earlier posts. It would also mean that creating multi-layered, defense-in-depth operations would be important and practical. But as it is, including a special ability to mimic unit acting as a reserve and stopping an enemy Front echelon unit from attacking a Support/Rear echelon unit, is kinda half-assed.

From a math perspective it matter not at all if you mix the formations... more likely that some of them hit an actual vehicle every combat round but over time they will hit the same number of vehicles as putting them all in one formation

Again, your math is correct but irrelevant. Because actual ground campaigns are not going to be rolls of equal values reaching singularity. When combat lasts less than twenty rounds - and some of that is pure mopping up - a combined arms formations that "rely less on the luck of the draw" will win over singular type formations.

Also, my apologies if I'm coming across as rude. I think we're hitting some sort of language/comprehension barrier here, using same terms but with different meaning, or something akin to that.

[Jorgen_CAB]

The amount of MG and other lighter weapons in artillery regiments (as was mainly for AA) will of course vary from regiment to regiment and country to country and when in the war you look at it. But they were there in different forms. I think that at some point German artillery regiment could even have some 88mm AA in them if I'm not totally mistaken.

I also fail to see how i mentioned that entire battalions defended artillery formation... I just said they were mainly situated in between the main front line element and support elements such as Artillery, HQ and other maintenance units, I never meant to imply artillery only and I don't think I ever wrote that either.

Suffice to say there are good evidence that troops (such as MG, AT and AA battalions) was used to protect not only the artillery but all support and rear echelon forces which the game don't simulate well at all (unless you count them as defensive front line forces). The whole point I made was that putting infantry in with support formations is generally bad as it does not really protect the support troops at all, rather the reverse is true. The only thing it does is make a breakthrough less likely as the formation is bigger but I don't think it is worth it... better to stick light AA weapons on some units to bolster the formations some or just more artillery.

Once the game is out I guess someone will run simulations and breaking the system and coming up with a few best scenario type formation combinations. 

I have also said before that the combat are too snowballs as a large formation can unrealistically overwhelm a smaller force. As we are talking large scale operation battles then it should be almost impossible to bring huge overwhelming force down on an enemy all at once. I would like for a small force to be able to survive a bit longer than the current mechanical rules suggest. So you should only be able to bring a certain width advantage over the opponent to bear at once and some might simply be in reserve. It could somehow depend on the terrain and general population of the planet in question. But that is a personal preference... I can simulate this to some extent in multi faction campaigns by manipulating the unit stances on both sides.

[Father Tim]

You might also look at the Vietnam war which was a very elastic war... the US often did have to fortify their artillery regiments as the enemy often managed to infiltrate behind the front line and support elements.

Asymmetrical war like Vietnam cannot be modeled by Aurora as it is. In Vietnam, the whole front / rear dichotomy lost all meaning for the most part.

I think it can, and fairly easily.  To do so, I would put all of the U.S. and its allies' units in the Front Line (though still split between FLA and FLD) while allowing the Communists and their allies to use Support and Rear Area formations.

I give this solution bonus points as it's basically a political decision to hamstring the combat capabilities of one's own side.

[misanthropope]

it's even easier than that.  model vietnam as jungle mountain and have the attacker not abuse the exploit which gives them unlimited time to dig in.

[misanthropope]

i was looking for the rules on morale gain during combat (and still haven't found them) and had a small realization:

if this thread is about A# ground combat, maybe there could be a single post with links in it to the posts steve has made regarding the ground combat rules?  those are scattered, mostly through "changes" but some of them here, and finding stuff is pretty much of a headache.  idk if you could retcon it to the top of the thread but that would be pretty sweet.

[Jorgen_CAB]

it's even easier than that.  model vietnam as jungle mountain and have the attacker not abuse the exploit which gives them unlimited time to dig in.

In my multi-faction campaign I will only allow ONE side to put troops in defensive front... so I will move all forces on one side to defensive or attacking and the other to attacking during an offensive.

This will be to simulate that it is way harder to attack then defend in all scenarios. As I control both sides of the conflict I can make it fair for all sides involved and not abuse the quirks in it.. This way it certainly will make sense to put infantry in with your support forces as you might not want to put them in the attack formation because they will loose their entrenched positions if you want to break off the attack.

If for some reason both sides want to go on the offensive I will allow both sides to put troops on both attack and defence line.

Obviously this will not work against any NPR I find in these games but that is OK as I have no intention to abuse the system by exploiting the fact the AI will not go on the offensive if I just sit back and entrench my troops.

In my opinion there should be some rules about offensive versus defensive stance of two armies and how defensive lines can engage in those scenarios. If both sides are in defensive mode then only troops in the offensive line should be able to attack. If one side is on offensive while the other is in defence the offensive sides defensive line should not be able to attack or do so with a very high to hit penalty. If both sides are on offensive stance then it should work as normal... or some such.

[xenoscepter]

Can the Anti-Air Weapons be used on enemy Ground Forces? I would hope so, since a quad 20mm cannon does tend to hurt when you point it at some hapless infantry...

[Jorgen_CAB]

Can the Anti-Air Weapons be used on enemy Ground Forces? I would hope so, since a quad 20mm cannon does tend to hurt when you point it at some hapless infantry...

Yes... it should work as any other weapon. The difference is that it also can fire at air targets as well.

[Father Tim]

But can my STO emplacements bombard the planet they're on?  And can they do so more effectively than heavy bombardment set to 'indiscriminate nuke' mode?