C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions

[Adseria]

Well, if you are going to redo the Morale system, I've a few suggestions.


I'd say that ground forces have 3 non-physical stats. These stats are Morale, Cohesion and Training.


Morale would have a linear connection with casualties; although more severe losses will cause more severe morale loss, the real threat to morale is slow attrition. Likewise, although inflicting losses on enemy forces raises morale, it does not raise it as much as taking the same losses does in damage. Units in Support and Rear Echelon positions take worse morale hits when engaged and recover less when inflicting losses. Units that have been engaged in combat during a construction increment do not recover morale. This would encourage players to cycle forces, but the time spent should be something reasonable. Morale normally doesn't exceed the Formation's maximum value, but a properly skilled CO can increase the cap and/or recovery as currently in the rules.

It should be noted that, during WW2, the Americans reckoned a soldier could remain on station for nearly 3 months at a time, while the British cycled their troops every 12 to 14 days, giving them 4 days of leave.


Cohesion would have an exponential connection with casualties; constantly bleeding a few troops every combat round will slowly decrease Cohesion, taking a large number of casualties for the formation all at once drastically impacts its Cohesion and ability to provide a united front. Likewise is the loss of an HQ unit in the formation or the CO due to a combat injury something that can cause potentially heavy hits to Cohesion, but if they've got non-generic COs under them the hit is less (on the presumption that the chain of command keeps going), while the loss of an HQ has limited effect as long as it's not the last HQ. Having more than 1 HQ in the formation is a boost for Cohesion, if one with strongly diminishing returns, as is a commander with the right skills.

Generally speaking a military unit can cope quite well with the slow loss of troops; it's something they train and prepare for because losses are inevitable in war. Losing command and coordination, as would happen if the HQ of the unit is lost or a large chunk of its personnel is killed in a short amount of time is far more devastating.Putting down Cohesion as an explicit value does mean that you can get an idea how likely it is a given unit is going to falter and enable an enemy Breakthrough. High Cohesion also translates into having a high chance of performing a Breakthrough though.


Training would take the place of the current Morale value. I would say it's much more stratified than the current system, with the levels of Conscript, Green, Trained, Regular, Veteran and Elite. GFTF's on a planet can be instructed to train formations to a certain standard, which impacts the time and wealth it takes to train. Minerals is independent and only cares for the end equipment. Conscript troops train quickly and cheaply but take severe maluses to Morale and Cohesion, Trained troops have standard Morale and Cohesion, and Elites have high Morale and Cohesion but take a long time and are expensive to train and maintain. A CO with the proper skills can get even the worst Conscript unit up to Elite eventually, but that will take a lot of time of money in comparison to just selecting Elite training in the GFTF.

Training is something that's accumulated not unlike the way crew skill levels are. And like with crew skill levels, it's something that's averaged between all members of the unit. You can absolutely shove Green troops into an Elite formation, it just means the unit becomes on the average less skilled and may lose a level of Training depending on how much the unit is expanded from current size, but likewise can you shove some Elite or Veteran troops into a much less skilled unit as a cadre to stiffen them up a bit.

I deliberately picked some tresholds so as to let you pick a few values for each level instead of having to insert a calculation system that can get... odd as skill point values become more extreme.


I've got more ideas for the ground combat system, although I'll admit I'd basically shamelessly plunder Paradox grand strategy games for ideas.

I definitely like the idea of separating off training. The way it works at the moment, where training just increases morale, is kinda stupid (though not completely; I suppose troops with lots of training might be more confident in their abilities).

[Father Tim]

Well, if you are going to redo the Morale system, I've a few suggestions.

<SNIP>

Training would take the place of the current Morale value. I would say it's much more stratified than the current system, with the levels of Conscript, Green, Trained, Regular, Veteran and Elite.

<snip>

I deliberately picked some thresholds so as to let you pick a few values for each level instead of having to insert a calculation system that can get... odd as skill point values become more extreme.

I really HATE a stratified level system.  I hate that a force that is 1 XP short of Veteran counts the same as a force 1 XP above Green.  I would much rather have a scale of 50 to 150 -- probably with a significant bell curve -- than fixed 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, 150% categories.

My computer can handle nine decimal places easily.  Please give us a morale system that (theoretically) accounts for when my troops get double dessert rations versus when they don't.

[space dwarf]

Combat would only increase Quality (for the survivors) while Cohesion would fall based on a base rate for being in combat, modified by losses.  Quality would decrease as a result of replacements being added (as morale does now), but would still move up to 100 relatively quickly (about 100 per year) and above 100 more slowly, again per the current morale rules.  Rather than cohesion being higher for a 'hive mind', maybe it would just fall much more slowly.

If a goal of the 'hive mind' is to have a different feel of play when encountered, you could do something more out-there and differentiated by making their Cohesion directly based off of unit strength/hp/survivors (maybe not a 1:1, but it just seems like a cool concept)

[Hazard]

I really HATE a stratified level system.  I hate that a force that is 1 XP short of Veteran counts the same as a force 1 XP above Green.  I would much rather have a scale of 50 to 150 -- probably with a significant bell curve -- than fixed 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, 150% categories.

My computer can handle nine decimal places easily.  Please give us a morale system that (theoretically) accounts for when my troops get double dessert rations versus when they don't.

I'm not in disagreement, but it's something that's easy to read and interpret.

[Bremen]

Do we really need both hp and cohesion? I know they're different things, but it seems like the actual strategic impact would be minimal outside increasing micromanagement.

In the end, this is ground combat in Aurora, not a new game entirely, so I'm kind of wary of over-complicating an addition that will already be much more complicated then what it's replacing.

[Steve Walmsley]

Do we really need both hp and cohesion? I know they're different things, but it seems like the actual strategic impact would be minimal outside increasing micromanagement.

In the end, this is ground combat in Aurora, not a new game entirely, so I'm kind of wary of over-complicating an addition that will already be much more complicated then what it's replacing.

This is a valid view too. If I change Morale to Quality and add Cohesion, the actual game-play change would be moving formations in and out of the front-line to manage cohesion. While more realistic, that might get tedious fast. It could be better to have less 'realism', but smoother game play. Although Aurora should have a lot of variety and choice, it should not have micromanagement where that detracts from game play.

[Garfunkel]

Well, currently ground combat is fire & forget, unlike space combat which is very micro heavy.

Even in C#, it is largely fire & forget, because while you will spend more time designing your units and formations, the only real concern you have to worry about is ensuring supplies & replacement are delivered to the planet. You select front and rear formations, ground-support fighters (if any) and then let the game proceed. With the proposed change, a player would have to monitor ground combat, making it more like space combat in the amount of player attention it requires.

Having said that, I can totally understand that for some players, the ground combat is a tasteless side salad whereas the space combat is the fat t-bone slathered in gravy and spraying thousand islands sauce over the salad will not improve the dining experience for them. 

[Person012345]

Well, currently ground combat is fire & forget, unlike space combat which is very micro heavy.

Even in C#, it is largely fire & forget, because while you will spend more time designing your units and formations, the only real concern you have to worry about is ensuring supplies & replacement are delivered to the planet. You select front and rear formations, ground-support fighters (if any) and then let the game proceed. With the proposed change, a player would have to monitor ground combat, making it more like space combat in the amount of player attention it requires.

Having said that, I can totally understand that for some players, the ground combat is a tasteless side salad whereas the space combat is the fat t-bone slathered in gravy and spraying thousand islands sauce over the salad will not improve the dining experience for them. 

It's more that simply moving formation in and out of the front line when they get low cohesion is tedious and pointless, without much in the way of actual decision-making in the vast majority of cases, rather than people not wanting deeper ground play. Just busy work. Unlike most aspects of space combat where actual decisions need to be made. And whilst it could be automated, that begs the question of why even implement the mechanic in the first place if you're just going to automate it.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Do we really need both hp and cohesion? I know they're different things, but it seems like the actual strategic impact would be minimal outside increasing micromanagement.

In the end, this is ground combat in Aurora, not a new game entirely, so I'm kind of wary of over-complicating an addition that will already be much more complicated then what it's replacing.

This is a valid view too. If I change Morale to Quality and add Cohesion, the actual game-play change would be moving formations in and out of the front-line to manage cohesion. While more realistic, that might get tedious fast. It could be better to have less 'realism', but smoother game play. Although Aurora should have a lot of variety and choice, it should not have micromanagement where that detracts from game play.

That depends on how you do it I believe... If you set a formation to defensive front line duty it would fall back to support when cohesion fall too much and automatically back in front formation when it regained a certain amount of cohesion. Say it will fall back to support when cohesion get below 50 but can not get on the front line if cohesion is less than 75... once cohesion is 75 it will automatically go to the front lines again.

The same could go for support and attacking units.

Say you need 100 cohesion to begin attacking and fall back to defensive front lines at 75 cohesion. You need 75 cohesion to go to the defensive front line and fall back to support at 50. You need 50 cohesion to move to support lines and fall back to rear echelon at 25 cohesion... etc...

You only set what place you prefer that formation to be at and the game handle the rest for you... this way you get a dynamic combat model that is both realistic and relatively micro free. I think this will make combat last much longer... I feel that combat in general seem to conclude way too fast, especially if one side is more powerful than the other since there are no mechanic to mitigate numbers.

You could micro this if you want to but you would not need to and there would be rules for when a unit is able to take up possition in Attack, Defense, Support & Rear.

Perhaps also add something such as allowing a max of certain number of formation to engage another formation too so uneven combats will take some time and produce at least some losses to the aggressor.

[King-Salomon]

Well, currently ground combat is fire & forget, unlike space combat which is very micro heavy.

Even in C#, it is largely fire & forget, because while you will spend more time designing your units and formations, the only real concern you have to worry about is ensuring supplies & replacement are delivered to the planet. You select front and rear formations, ground-support fighters (if any) and then let the game proceed. With the proposed change, a player would have to monitor ground combat, making it more like space combat in the amount of player attention it requires.

Having said that, I can totally understand that for some players, the ground combat is a tasteless side salad whereas the space combat is the fat t-bone slathered in gravy and spraying thousand islands sauce over the salad will not improve the dining experience for them. 

I am with you...

the main point I see, the new Ground Combat chances are really big and a lot of work to do.. so all the work would be wasted if the Ground Combat itself would stay as it is atm - with "click and forget"...

all the good ideas and work that went into the new system should result in a new way to PLAY the Ground Combat - make it more complex (and so micro heavier than atm) like the Space Combat...

It could be better to have less 'realism', but smoother game play. Although Aurora should have a lot of variety and choice, it should not have micromanagement where that detracts from game play.

Well, Space Combat has 5sec turns .. ground combat 6h turns even in C# if I am not wrong.. so I see no problem.. Aurora is played by players who are getting "distracted" from the game every time a tiny conflict in space occurs with sometimes 100s of 5s turns... shouldn't be so much a problem to get a few 6h turns in between... it COULD be a problem when your testgames shows that you need 3-6 month of 6h turns to conquer a planet and the player has to micro 500x per planet but as long as it is not too much I am in favor...

also ground combat is something that is much more rare (even with the new systems than space combat - and can be avoided by the player in let's say nearly every time if he wants (just bombard an alien planet to kingdom come/don't defend/ignore attacks at your own planets at all
only the defending spoilers are a "fight you have to do" maybe but even than the player can ignore ruins etc... so...

---

With all the time, work and thinking which went into the new ground combat it is much more "fleshed out" as in VB6 - which results in the point that it also deserves much more "love" from the player... it shouldn't be too micro right but should be more micro than atm...

also as I said, ground combat is something the player can avoid nearly completely if he wishes... space combat he can not...

[Jorgen_CAB]

I also forgot to mention army capitulation could be automatic when there are no more units able to hold the defensive line, or a chance for capitulation.

You could also add in the chance of an army dispersing and starting to conduct asymmetric warfare. We all know how important this has been in history from disrupting a conqueror from gaining control of an area and can enable a garrison force to hold on for a good while until reinforcement arrive against overwhelming odds.

[Whitecold]

With all the time, work and thinking which went into the new ground combat it is much more "fleshed out" as in VB6 - which results in the point that it also deserves much more "love" from the player... it shouldn't be too micro right but should be more micro than atm...

also as I said, ground combat is something the player can avoid nearly completely if he wishes... space combat he can not...

I would point out that not all player interaction is micromanagement. It becomes micro heavy if you have to do tasks that are not meaningful decisions. Do you attack, do you retreat are important questions, which should matter.
Firing 100 missiles from box launchers in 20 5 missile salvos at 20 swarmers is currently a micro heavy task. If you need to select each ground unit individually and change it to attack, that is micro heavy, but changing a stance every few hours, that is just paying attention to what you are actually doing.

[sloanjh (OP)]

I would point out that not all player interaction is micromanagement. It becomes micro heavy if you have to do tasks that are not meaningful decisions. Do you attack, do you retreat are important questions, which should matter.
Firing 100 missiles from box launchers in 20 5 missile salvos at 20 swarmers is currently a micro heavy task. If you need to select each ground unit individually and change it to attack, that is micro heavy, but changing a stance every few hours, that is just paying attention to what you are actually doing.

Just to plant the agent seed again:  It would be REALLY nice if the same agent that the AI uses to run the micro (or even macro) level of a particular ground combat were available for the player to use.  That way those who don't want to consume their attention (whether through disinterest or wanting to roleplay working at a higher level of command) could just pick a "let the AI run the combat" option and let it go on auto-pilot.  Ditto for picking fire distribution for naval weapons.

John

[chrislocke2000]

I'd agree that having the ground combat a bit more interactive and having options to both initiate and react to different developments would be great. As said previously its just balancing this with the micro management piece.

More broadly I think all the extra logistics and costs of invading a planet needs to be appropriately rewarded to make sure it does not become simple better sense to put all that effort into growing your own industrial base and resources and just glass the opposition rather than trying to take it from them. Not sure if that means lowering the relative costs to launch such an invasion or give some method to increase the speed by which you can get a hostile planet fully contributing again or something else.

[Father Tim]

I *love* all the new formation and ground unit options.  I can finally have the style(s) of army that I want, in all the different historically-inspired ways I desire.  The front-defense-support-rear setup seems like it will fulfill my desire to tinker with fighting doctrine.  I don't need a 'Field Marshal Simulator' with which to run 3h ground combat chunks -- if it's not too onerous, I don't mind having one.  I'll probably start looking for the AI assist after two or three battles.