C# Ground Combat

[Steve Walmsley]

Agreed, the ground combat overhaul/revamp is a pretty massive thing and it is possible that during playtesting, especially after we all get C# in our grubby mitts, bunch of weird things are discovered and need to be fixed. Steve has promised us some surprises from the spoilers on the ground combat front too, for which I am very excited.

There will definitely be bugs and unintended consequences

I am fixing a lot of minor bugs at the moment as I am playing the latest campaign, most recently in the Swarm code

[MultiVitamin]

Agreed, the ground combat overhaul/revamp is a pretty massive thing and it is possible that during playtesting, especially after we all get C# in our grubby mitts, bunch of weird things are discovered and need to be fixed.  Steve has promised us some surprises from the spoilers on the ground combat front too, for which I am very excited.

There will definitely be bugs and unintended consequences

I am fixing a lot of minor bugs at the moment as I am playing the latest campaign, most recently in the Swarm code

Hearing about Star Swarm in a ground units thread has me both immensely worried and vastly intrigued.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Regarding ground combat.

Have you thought about any mechanic where factions might not want to engage in ground combat in one location but do so in another.

Imagine a multi-faction Earth start and two faction starting a limited war over some remote colony. They don't want to start a mutually destructive war at Earth at the same time, that might not be a strategically sound strategy and would weaken them both against other potential enemies or they just don't want to fight each other that badly.

From how the mechanic works there does not seem to be an option of not engaging the enemy once you are at war.

It would be great if you had an engage flag for each planet and if both sides set that flag to not engage then there will not be any fighting there at all. But it would require both sides to agree on none engagement.

[Steve Walmsley]

It would be great if you had an engage flag for each planet and if both sides set that flag to not engage then there will not be any fighting there at all. But it would require both sides to agree on none engagement.

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

[Garfunkel]

AFAIK, in VB6 Aurora if both sides refrain from attacking, their ground forces sit still. Attack order must be give at each colony, there is no universal "attack on every colony across the galaxy"-button. I don't think that was changed, or was it? It's been a while since I had ground war on Earth between multiple factions but I recall it went like that.

[Jorgen_CAB]

AFAIK, in VB6 Aurora if both sides refrain from attacking, their ground forces sit still. Attack order must be give at each colony, there is no universal "attack on every colony across the galaxy"-button. I don't think that was changed, or was it? It's been a while since I had ground war on Earth between multiple factions but I recall it went like that.

Yes... that was why I suggested a similar solution in C#. As far as I understand this is not how the new combat mechanic work. I'm pretty sure as long as you have troops in the front line they will automatically engage each other (if you are at war), you don't select units individually to attack or not. The alternative in the new mechanic would be to have all the troops in the fourth and last line, but that would be a bit awkward and fiddly way to handle it.

[Garfunkel]

I forgot about that change:

"Combat potentially takes place on any system body where populations exist from two or more hostile powers."

It does make it seem that unless all the units are placed in Rear Support position, direct combat or at least bombardment would automatically take place.

[Shuul]

Just a question, is the idea of combat-walker unit type scratched? Or its just covered by Vehicle type? maybe there can be some sub-category or special module to turn vehicle into a walker with some sort of bonuses?

[Steve Walmsley]

Just a question, is the idea of combat-walker unit type scratched? Or its just covered by Vehicle type? maybe there can be some sub-category or special module to turn vehicle into a walker with some sort of bonuses?

There is no specific walker type, although you could name a vehicle as a 'walker'.

[Garfunkel]

Just a question, is the idea of combat-walker unit type scratched? Or its just covered by Vehicle type? maybe there can be some sub-category or special module to turn vehicle into a walker with some sort of bonuses?

There's also no wheeled - tracked - hover - flying - swimming - diving - or any other locomotive types. That's all up to the player in how to specify and describe their units. Steve has used WH40k and WW2 flavour in many of his examples but the sky is the limit here. If a sub-category for walking vehicles is added, then there must be sub-categories for every other type as well, and since every body just has one generic terrain type, they wouldn't really have any meaningful game mechanics change, meaning that it's a lot of work for Steve to add them for very little gain. As with the details of most things in Aurora, it is probably best to leave it up to the imagination of the players. That way everyone can RP their units in the way they want and fits best with the themes of their game. If I want flying steam tanks, I'll have flying steam tanks! 

[alamoes]

This is similar to how I did my combat system.    Different theme of game though.    Mine is meant to be terrestrial.   

Can't wait to invade the Federation though.   Siege Zeon. 

[professorpicke]

just wanted to mention that irl cruise missiles fly low to the ground because the curvature of the earth blocks them from being seen, giving them less time to be reacted to compared to the faster high altitude missiles that can be detected from far away.  I have no idea if this is relevant to c# ground combat, but it might be worth noting so i'm mentioning it.

[Marski]

Mechs are overrated anyway and anything a mech can do, you can do the same and better for cheaper by improving a tank.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Mechs are overrated anyway and anything a mech can do, you can do the same and better for cheaper by improving a tank.

From a physical perspective then waling on legs and having a weight above a few tons are a complete waste of energy and you would only be able to use this at any reasonable pace and manoeuvre on very hard grounds. Another bad problem is that walking on legs rather than wheels or track require way more energy for the weight supported and speed used.

Mechs walking on two legs are pure fantasy sci fi without some form of anti-gravity field to make the object very light.

In real life even soldiers today need to watch they weight while operating in areas with very soft ground, imagine adding even more weight without your feet being several feets worth. They have experimented with say exoskeletons so soldiers can carry more weight, the problem is that more weight is already a problem on a soldier today in some environments. It probably would generate more problem than it solves.

Another problem is spotting, a mech will by its very nature be quite tall in comparison with its weight, that is NOT a good thing in a modern battlefield.

I have no problem imagining super large vehicles, the problem is being able to spot before being spotted... given the destructive power of weapons this will not be smart in the future and I have a hard time imagining a future where this will not be true unless defences are way more powerful the weapons which does not seem likely anytime soon.

[xenoscepter]

For 'Mechs to be useful in combat, there are two requirements that need to be fulfilled:

 A) To be at least as economical, if not MORE economical than another vehicle of comparable role.

 B) To be at least as capable, if not MORE capable in it's role than another type of vehicle of comparable role.

Unless it's the BattleTech Universe, in which case F Yeah! Giant Robots!

...or Megas XLR, because Megas XLR.

Hey, at least they aren't Hobokoen amirite?