Ground Weapons tinkering

[Jorgen_CAB]

I feel like the lack of target prioritization for different types of elements/formations takes away a lot of the gameplay potential of the C# combat rework. CAS fighters not being able to focus on larger entities like vehicles is a big one for example as I think they'd be great for taking out key targets that maybe the ground force can't immediately attack.

In many ways it feels like what we have right now is VB6 combat with extra flair, which I imagine works for some people but for others just makes it feel like more micro burden. I think it'd be great to have the ability to tell a formation or hierarchy to focus it's attacks on specific enemy formations when on formation attack. It would add some actual tactical layer to ground combat beyond outmassing the enemy or optimizing army builds.

I think that Steve have made some statement on why he don't like target prioritization in the current model before. If we at least allowed weapons to not fire against certain targets or targets with certain armour or HP levels we could at least make it viable to include certain weapon system at the beginning of a fight without hurting one self in the process. There could also be a simple switch that turn this ignore target off when you want everything to shoot et everything as well.

The system could be as simple as, for every equipment, never fire at anything if you have X amount of chance to destroy something or you are at Y amount of overkill something. You could also require the enemy units to be fully identified with their capacity in order for this "ignore target" to kick in. So you might overkill at the beginning but as an engagement progress your forces learn more about the enemy and start to ignore some enemies as not to waste the logistical strain for little gain.

[smoelf]

I think some kind of prioritization would be great. Perhaps it could be indicated on a formation basis that they would have a preferred target, which could be chosen among the known enemy formations and give an increased likelihood (but not certainty) of firing against that type of formation.

Then we would also give a bit more thought to the distribution of grund support fighters. Right now they just need to be distributed broadly, but if we knew that a particular formation had a (slightly) higher chance of hitting a formation with medium vehicles, it would make a lot of sense to assign fighters with auto-cannons to those and bombardment fighters to other formations.

[serger (OP)]

Allot of the supplies used by tanks is stuff other than ammunition, the game simply abstract this to offensive power as that is currently the only metric units are measured in terms of how effective they are gameplay wise.

So I still think that basing the current model of ammunition usage is a highly flawed logic.

Maybe I just missed smth, but I cannot understand what you mean.

I see how to tinker weapons supply consumption in the DB, yet I see no way to tinker unit type supply consumption.
Again - that's why I discuss ammo consumption only. That's because I just cannot tinker other types of supply in the DB, cannot locate/transport them ingame, so just cannot do anything sensible with them aside of keeping in mind some RP, that'll have no influence ingame if I'll forget to do it manually with SM or straightforvard DB edit.

[Garfunkel]

You cannot have target prioritization without a map and strategic/operational movement.

Because if your fancy Heavy Anti-Vehicle formation is being attacked by a swarm of light armoured infantry formation, they're not going to stop shooting just because it's overkill - they're trying to save their lives. If we don't have a map and operational movement, then every formation randomly attacks every other formation and that's that. If we can have priority targets or firing orders, it means that formations need to start moving around each other and that requires a map.

Otherwise it's just a "I WIN"-button.

[nuclearslurpee]

Allot of the supplies used by tanks is stuff other than ammunition, the game simply abstract this to offensive power as that is currently the only metric units are measured in terms of how effective they are gameplay wise.

So I still think that basing the current model of ammunition usage is a highly flawed logic.

Maybe I just missed smth, but I cannot understand what you mean.

I see how to tinker weapons supply consumption in the DB, yet I see no way to tinker unit type supply consumption.
Again - that's why I discuss ammo consumption only. That's because I just cannot tinker other types of supply in the DB, cannot locate/transport them ingame, so just cannot do anything sensible with them aside of keeping in mind some RP, that'll have no influence ingame if I'll forget to do it manually with SM or straightforvard DB edit.

I think what is missed is that there are two different approaches to RP here which are not in agreement.

Jorgen's case seems to be arguing that GSP represents not just ammunition but also other supplies which are used in combat at an elevated rate (e.g., fuel, medical supplies, spare parts, etc.) and that the scaling of GSP requirement by weapon statistics is an approximate representation but does not necessarily have to be limited to what is explicitly represented in-game.

Your approach by contrast is that since GSP requirement is only determined by weapons, then logically it can only represent ammunition, which is a fair point as there is for example no GSP requirement tied to different base vehicle types or to "non-combat" components like FFD which would certainly still require more supplies to perform combat operations.

Basically it is a difference of opinion, specifically how much one is willing to ignore the exact details of the mechanics for the sake of imagining things however one wants. Both approaches are valid for Aurora, but it is important to be clear about what assumptions are being made from the outset when having these mechanical discussions.

You cannot have target prioritization without a map and strategic/operational movement.

Because if your fancy Heavy Anti-Vehicle formation is being attacked by a swarm of light armoured infantry formation, they're not going to stop shooting just because it's overkill - they're trying to save their lives. If we don't have a map and operational movement, then every formation randomly attacks every other formation and that's that. If we can have priority targets or firing orders, it means that formations need to start moving around each other and that requires a map.

Otherwise it's just a "I WIN"-button.

It is actually much worse than this, because having target prioritization (without a map or other tactical mechanism) makes combined arms tactics completely obsolete. If you know that the enemy CAP will always fire at infantry and the enemy MAV will always fire at tanks, the optimal strategy is to use only one type of unit to render half (or more) of your enemy's weapons nearly useless. This remains the case even if the target prioritization chance is fairly small.

In my very heavily-modded 1.13 offshoot DB I have tried to address the problem somewhat by adding additional GSP demands for multiple-shot units and bombardment units, in a mostly systematic way. In practice this puts CAP and MAV for example at very similar levels of supply usage, which does not fix every problem but makes use of MAV less logistically punishing compared to the highly efficient multi-shot weapons. I do think GSP adjustments are probably a better balancing route as otherwise the ground combat is honestly quite well-balanced, it is the logistical demands which remain an issue.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes... the game is basically basing supply cost for units in combat with the armour penetration and damage of the weapons... but that is the ONLY metric by which we can base the supply cost as there are no other values to base them off in the game mechanic. There are only hit and damage mechanics to go on so not much else you can do.

I think that is where the confusion is.

I also mentioned that comparing rate of fire and weight of ammunition is rather inaccurate as you don't take opportunity into effect if you do this with vastly different weapon systems and platforms. A mobile platform would be more likely to fire their weapons than a static unit for example even if they mount the same weapon systems. Aurora don't model this in any way. You then have fire control and sensor system that vastly may increase or decrease the use of ammunition. The more accurate the system or the faster you locate the enemy the less ammunition you will need to use in any engagement as well. It is not all about the gun.

This is why I will defend the position that supplies is just what it says it is... supplies... and not ammunition, it is an abstraction. Otherwise we should just come out and call it ammunition and not supplies.

[Ektor]

I think weapon prioritisation should be a weighted random roll that's set automatically per weapon type, rather than something you set or something either player or AI can choose, as to level the field because players will always pick better.

Say CAP, it doesn't have to be staggering, just a 1.1 or 1.2 modifier to weight to chose an infantry type, 1.05 for light type, and say 0.95 for heavy and so. These weights need to be small as not to unbalance the combat as in to inutilise combined arms, but it's VERY frustrating to have AV weapons wasting their shots on infantry, and although on combat you will often have very non-optimal situations, there should be a general tendency of, at least "anti-" type weapons to focus on their counter.

[nuclearslurpee]

I think weapon prioritisation should be a weighted random roll that's set automatically per weapon type, rather than something you set or something either player or AI can choose, as to level the field because players will always pick better.

Say CAP, it doesn't have to be staggering, just a 1.1 or 1.2 modifier to weight to chose an infantry type, 1.05 for light type, and say 0.95 for heavy and so. These weights need to be small as not to unbalance the combat as in to inutilise combined arms, but it's VERY frustrating to have AV weapons wasting their shots on infantry, and although on combat you will often have very non-optimal situations, there should be a general tendency of, at least "anti-" type weapons to focus on their counter.

This sounds good on the surface, but if you do the analysis it comes out that even a small targeting modifier makes a combined arms strategy strictly inferior, as a single-type strategy becomes optimal to waste the most possible enemy shots on a poor target.

Somewhere else I had proposed allowing a heavier weapon to hold its fire against a lighter target, which would prevent the issues of preferential targeting but reduce the supply consumption of MAV/HAV/etc. targeting infantry without unbalancing combat.

[Ektor]

This sounds good on the surface, but if you do the analysis it comes out that even a small targeting modifier makes a combined arms strategy strictly inferior, as a single-type strategy becomes optimal to waste the most possible enemy shots on a poor target.

I'm not seeing this. If you go, say, full infantry, you can counter it with full CAP heavy vehicles, so you'd add some anti-vehicle capacities to your army, perhaps in the sense of vehicles or static armed with HAV, so then you need a counter for that, and so on. Could you mathematically show the effects of this? I'm not good at this sort of thing.

[nuclearslurpee]

This sounds good on the surface, but if you do the analysis it comes out that even a small targeting modifier makes a combined arms strategy strictly inferior, as a single-type strategy becomes optimal to waste the most possible enemy shots on a poor target.

I'm not seeing this. If you go, say, full infantry, you can counter it with full CAP heavy vehicles, so you'd add some anti-vehicle capacities to your army, perhaps in the sense of vehicles or static armed with HAV, so then you need a counter for that, and so on. Could you mathematically show the effects of this? I'm not good at this sort of thing.

The problem is that if your opponent has, for sake of example, an even mix of CAP and MAV, and you send a mixed force of 50% INF and 50% VEH for example, then:

• With purely random targeting every enemy weapon has a proportionally even chance of hitting either type of unit. The CAP and MAV are about equally effective (aside from GSP usage).
• With even a small targeting bonus, say +10%, suddenly the CAP is hitting your INF 55% of the time and the MAV is hitting your VEH 55% of the time, so the enemy killing efficiency is 110% compared to the random case.

Now consider if you send a force of 100% VEH (similar arguments will apply for INF):

• With purely random targeting, the CAP has nearly zero efficiency and the MAV has about 100% efficiency, which is roughly the same on balance as the mixed formation case.
• However, with preferential targeting...nothing changes. The enemy remains at the same efficiency - which means they are not getting +10% kill rates because of your mixed formation.

I am simplifying considerably, but the essence of the argument holds, and the choice of whether to use all-INF or all-VEH formations depends on the ratio of weapons the enemy is using and the relative kill rates against the units you are deploying - for example, MAV kills one tank per shot which is 62 tons, while CAP kills 6 infantry per shot which may be 30 tons (6x PW) or 72+ tons (6x CAP, LAV, etc.). However, with even a small preferential targeting choice effect, combined formations become strictly sub-optimal, which is not really in the spirit of Aurora and blemished what is honestly a 98% well-balanced ground forces system even if there are some flaws (MAV/HAV supply consumption) and some players wish it were different (e.g., more/more-accurate logistics modeling).

[Blogaugis]

If there will be a target preference mechanic, then I propose to give a counter-mechanic to this: Combined Arms Bonus. If you have a formation made up of, say, 10-90 % infantry and 90-10% vehicles/static, the units in formation get a +1-10 % to hit bonus. Maybe more, or less.
Of course it is a bit redundant, as it is a mechanic to counter another mechanic, but here is the basic idea. Inspiration taken from Hearts of Iron 3 army division composition mechanics.
If we take purely HOI3 approach, then CAB should be influenced by the equipment that your formation has: if it is pure infantry, with personal weapons - no bonus. AA/AT weapons added to the mix? +5%. Artillery as well? +5 -> +10%. You have light vehicles/ligth static? +5 -> +15%. Medium vehicles/medium static(or static with heavier armor) as well? +5 -> +20%. You even include Air support? Good boy/girl/TN-era-lifeform, here's a +25% to hit bonus for all your units!
Combat engineers are kinda not in game yet, so their bonus will not apply... Though they probably should.

The remaining nuance is - should it be based on the formation, or all units present in the combat?
If it is on formation - Air support falls out of the equation (unless we play with those fire directors, or make air support as a separate +5 bonus, or other means), giving the player emphasis on building healthy composition of formations.
If it is on all units in combat - then it is less micromanagement intensive, meaning that formations can be made up of pure-infantry; pure-vehicles and so on.

Thoughts?

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think that target preference would work if combined arms formation at the same time would diminish its effect or even could reverse the effect and make them shoot at the wrong stuff instead.

This would encourage more realistic formations instead of that being just for role-play.

But in and of itself then target prioritization would not work as a single mechanic.

[IanD]

Late to the party again! I get the very strong impression the supply requirements are all based on present day or historical scenarios.

Theory is all very well. But how does it play out in Aurora? I find currently that one unit of supply for infantry lasts a very long time for a brigade of 4 infantry battalions plus an HQ unit of some 10,000 tons each. One unit of vehicle supply runs out after about 5-7 days for a similar sized vehicle formation.

Aurora is a Science Fiction game and all the models you are talking about are all based on, at best today's resupply problems. Are these really appropriate as even now the US is toying with vehicle lasers. We cannot tell how they will develop.

I favour Bolo type vehicles (see Keith Laumer books)  with nothing lighter than super heavy vehicles for combat, moving to heavier vehicles as I research them. Now, my mental image is of large vehicles powered by a fusion reactor and using energy weapons for offence and both shields and armour for defence and a crew of 1-3, if not AI. Such vehicles would not need fuel or ammunition. Yes, they would need repair but they are very survivable not invulnerable even at the ultra-heavy class but if I lose more than half a dozen its an exception.

However, I cannot chose energy weapons over ballistic weapons. I cannot chose what I would regard as supply light option. I would accept a supply light option using energy weapons perhaps with a new tech for vehicle weapons or an additional line for existing energy weapons which also give a reduction in supply requirements.

[xenoscepter]

 --- Having preferential targeting based on a RECON value would be interesting. Terrain modifiers and Unit Terrain Modifiers could be used to provide a CONCEALMENT, which would also be affected by Fortification level, so Engineering Units could affect it as well. Thus a new ground unit would provide RECON to counter the enemy CONCEALMENT and therefore provide more or less Preferential Targeting. Thus the chance is not only dynamic, but reliant on your formations AND your enemies formations AS WELL AS the Terrain AND Unit Terrain Training.

 --- Overall this would avoid some of the issues with preferential targeting. Likewise, having RECON based Fighter Pods would be useful to allow FFD Units to provide additional passive RECON. Allowing Ground Support Fighters attached to an FFD to provide RECON passively when on CAS would be helpful in this regard, alongside a dedicated RECON mission. This would likewise make CAP missions more useful against enemy RECON. The RECON mission could specifically lower the CONCEALMENT bonus derived from Fortification, making AA Units that much more useful to prevent degradation of this bonus.

[nuclearslurpee]

--- Having preferential targeting based on a RECON value would be interesting. Terrain modifiers and Unit Terrain Modifiers could be used to provide a CONCEALMENT, which would also be affected by Fortification level, so Engineering Units could affect it as well. Thus a new ground unit would provide RECON to counter the enemy CONCEALMENT and therefore provide more or less Preferential Targeting. Thus the chance is not only dynamic, but reliant on your formations AND your enemies formations AS WELL AS the Terrain AND Unit Terrain Training.

There are two problems with this approach:

First, any approach which only provides a positive preferential targeting effect, even if it is small, renders a combined-arms formation almost strictly inferior mechanically to a single-class formation (all-INF, all-VEH, etc.). While the random targeting we have now does have its flaws, it succeeds at keeping combined-arms and single-class formations equally viable which supports player roleplay...this is I would argue a very important function of the current ground combat mechanics and should be at the forefront of any mechanical changes.

Second, the way to counteract the above would be to make Concealment cause a negative targeting malus, i.e., if your Recon is not enough to overcome enemy Concealment your forces are more likely to shoot at the "wrong" target. I think such a counter-mechanic would be frustrating to players (ground units are already very complicated, why add yet another confusing mechanic to think about?) and doesn't really solve any balance problems.

--- Overall this would avoid some of the issues with preferential targeting. Likewise, having RECON based Fighter Pods would be useful to allow FFD Units to provide additional passive RECON. Allowing Ground Support Fighters attached to an FFD to provide RECON passively when on CAS would be helpful in this regard, alongside a dedicated RECON mission. This would likewise make CAP missions more useful against enemy RECON. The RECON mission could specifically lower the CONCEALMENT bonus derived from Fortification, making AA Units that much more useful to prevent degradation of this bonus.

It cannot be stressed enough that AA units really, really, really do not need to be made even more useful than they already are. Right now even a realistically small quantity of AA units absolutely dominates ground support fighters, let alone the masses of MAA that NPRs like to field.

It is also worth noting that since the NPRs cannot even use regular fighters right now, let alone ground support fighters, this is effectively giving the player yet another advantage as the NPR has no recourse to fighters to overcome player Concealment, while players could easily do so if AA was not so overtuned. While I'm not opposed to adding mechanics for the benefit of players even if NPRs cannot handle them, such mechanics need to provide considerably more benefit for gameplay/roleplay and I do not think adding more complication to ground units accomplishes this.

-

Personally I maintain that the best solution is to rebalance GSP requirement for multi-shot weapons, particularly CAP/HCAP and artillery. The problem right now is that if a CAP fires ineffectually at a tank, only 0.6 GSP are consumed, while if a MAV fires at an infantry 1.6 GSP are consumed, so anti-vehicle weapons are sub-optimal in terms of supply usage and are optimally used as a second-wave once CAP has been used to mow down most enemy infantry. If the GSP consumption is rebalanced to be more similar this should solve or at least mitigate much of the issue in practice.