Ground Weapons tinkering

[Garfunkel]

Yeah, it's the same thing as when people complain that there aren't mobility options when they wouldn't make any sense on the scale that Aurora GC is currently modelled. Whether your LVH flies or hovers or swims or walks is meaningless and is abstracted away, just like all C4I units and regular combat engineers - since units are able to self-fortify to a certain level, which is well beyond the spade level, we can safely assume that formations inherently have some pioneer/sapper/engineering capability even without CON units, just like they have cooks and clerks handling wages and dentists and cobblers and everything else.

And I agree serger that thinking of PWI as the squad automatic weapon or an assault rifle with underslung grenade launcher or a sniper rifle is very tempting but the stats don't necessarily support that. Perhaps it's better not to think of any weapon module as an individual, specific weapon, but instead a level of gear. PWI infantry carries more and/or heavier weapons than PW infantry, end of story - rest is up to imagination.

I'm not sure I agree with the artillery changes, though you clearly have put some thought into it. I'll have to wage more ground war to get a better grip on how it actually plays out.

[serger (OP)]

A bit of warstats, just to explain my arty SupplyUse ratio.

1942-44

The most numerous anti-tank shells:
German 5cm: ~10 mln shots, ~3kg per shot, so ~30 mln kg LOG
Soviet 45mm: ~30 mln shots, ~2kg per shot, so ~60 mln kg LOG

(German 7,5cm and Soviet 76m shells were more common during 1944, yet I have no nearly-full data for Soviet 76mm ATGs to compare. Maybe smth near 50 to 100 mln kg LOG including tank, SPAT and AA guns.)

The most broadly used mortar shells:
German 8cm: ~45 mln shots, ~3.5kg per shot, so ~150 mln kg LOG
Soviet 82mm: ~100 mln shots, ~3.5kg per shot, so ~350 mln kg LOG

The most broadly used inf.guns and howitzer shells:
German 10cm: ~80 mln shots, ~15kg per shot, so ~1 200 mln kg LOG
German 15cm: ~25 mln shots, ~45kg per shot, so ~1 100 mln kg LOG
Soviet 76mm: ~75 mln shots, ~8kg per shot, so ~600 mln kg LOG
Soviet 122mm: ~20 mln shots, ~25kg per shot, so ~500 mln kg LOG
Soviet 152mm: ~9 mln shots, ~45kg per shot, so ~400 mln kg LOG

So, up to 2 orders of magnitude overall difference, despite the fact, that for example Soviet 45mm (model 32/34, nearly all of those 30 mln 45mm shells are for) was not just AT gun, yet more like multi-purpose gun, used mostly as mobile infantry assault support weapon (in terms of Aurora it was like LAV + LAC + LAA).

[serger (OP)]

Another bits from 1942-44.

The most broadly used rifle-calibers
German 7.92mm: ~10 bln shots, overall ~120 mln kg LOG
Soviet 7.62mm: ~8 bln shot, overall ~100 mln kg LOG

That's rifles and MGs both, I have no separate data, yet I'm sure over 9/10 of those where MG shots.

As for AA - I have now 37mm Soviet 61-K QF AA gun stats only for this period, and it's ~16 mln shots (~25 mln kg LOG) despite the fact, that Red Army's lack of flaks was notoriously terrible and they very rarely used these guns against surface targets. I'm absolutely sure German and British overall QF flack LOGs were much bigger.

[nuclearslurpee]

A bit of warstats, just to explain my arty SupplyUse ratio.

1942-44

The most numerous anti-tank shells:
German 5cm: ~10 mln shots, ~3kg per shot, so ~30 mln kg LOG
Soviet 45mm: ~30 mln shots, ~2kg per shot, so ~60 mln kg LOG

(German 7,5cm and Soviet 76m shells were more common during 1944, yet I have no nearly-full data for Soviet 76mm ATGs to compare. Maybe smth near 50 to 100 mln kg LOG including tank, SPAT and AA guns.)

The most broadly used mortar shells:
German 8cm: ~45 mln shots, ~3.5kg per shot, so ~150 mln kg LOG
Soviet 82mm: ~100 mln shots, ~3.5kg per shot, so ~350 mln kg LOG

The most broadly used inf.guns and howitzer shells:
German 10cm: ~80 mln shots, ~15kg per shot, so ~1 200 mln kg LOG
German 15cm: ~25 mln shots, ~45kg per shot, so ~1 100 mln kg LOG
Soviet 76mm: ~75 mln shots, ~8kg per shot, so ~600 mln kg LOG
Soviet 122mm: ~20 mln shots, ~25kg per shot, so ~500 mln kg LOG
Soviet 152mm: ~9 mln shots, ~45kg per shot, so ~400 mln kg LOG

So, up to 2 orders of magnitude overall difference, despite the fact, that for example Soviet 45mm (model 32/34, nearly all of those 30 mln 45mm shells are for) was not just AT gun, yet more like multi-purpose gun, used mostly as mobile infantry assault support weapon (in terms of Aurora it was like LAV + LAC + LAA).

How do these numbers look on a per-weapon basis? It's readily apparent that more artillery shells were fired than AT, but weren't there also more artillery guns than AT guns in the field?

Another bits from 1942-44.

The most broadly used rifle-calibers
German 7.92mm: ~10 bln shots, overall ~120 mln kg LOG
Soviet 7.62mm: ~8 bln shot, overall ~100 mln kg LOG

That's rifles and MGs both, I have no separate data, yet I'm sure over 9/10 of those where MG shots.

As for AA - I have now 37mm Soviet 61-K QF AA gun stats only for this period, and it's ~16 mln shots (~25 mln kg LOG) despite the fact, that Red Army's lack of flaks was notoriously terrible and they very rarely used these guns against surface targets. I'm absolutely sure German and British overall QF flack LOGs were much bigger.

Not sure how to find them but I'm sure MG-specific data would be very interesting. I've been messing around a bit with alternative GSP weighting and CAP tends to have a very high consumption compared to vanilla stats due to the number of shots. Sounds reasonable but I'm curious how the data looks.

I'm also curious how these numbers may have changed in the post-WWII era, since Aurora is intended to have flexibility to model many different RP settings. Or for that matter WWI era, even. However I would guess such data is much harder to find.

[serger (OP)]

How do these numbers look on a per-weapon basis? It's readily apparent that more artillery shells were fired than AT, but weren't there also more artillery guns than AT guns in the field?

AT:Hz about 1:2 - 1:3 for both sides most of the time (counting short inf.guns and Soviet 76mm divisional guns as Howitzer Arty).
At the same time, AP to HE shells use ratio for AT guns was nearly the same, so they were working as Aurora anti-infantry bombardment weapons most of the time.

I'm also curious how these numbers may have changed in the post-WWII era, since Aurora is intended to have flexibility to model many different RP settings. Or for that matter WWI era, even. However I would guess such data is much harder to find.

There was no AT gun class during nearly all length of WWI, so no comparable data, and in Vietnam there were very specific terrain and foes, so questionable numbers too.

[serger (OP)]

Rifle vs MG usage per weapon

Pre-WWII Soviet manuals: rifleman rounds / MG crew rounds ratio 100:1500 to 150:2000
Real usage is way more tricky question, I doubt there are really good stats.

[serger (OP)]

Nearly modern (late Soviet - post-Soviet) norms of ammo use

To kill immobile unarmoured uncovered point target, up to 10km bombardment range:
300 x 120-152mm
800 x 85mm
500 x 82mm mortar
350 x 120mm mortar

(covered target - x3 modifier)

To kill immobile entrenched armoured point target, 1km direct fire range:
4-8 x 120-152mm

[Blogaugis]

I really don't get what the purpose of any of this is... I'm frankly not sure vendarite has ever in the history of Aurora been a limiting resource, save the rare cases when someone places a GFTC on a world without mines or vendarite and then mineral shipments are interrupted. Maybe someone in the late game has experienced such a shortage but certainly for the early and mid game it is an afterthought at most.

Serger has it right that the key balancing factor should be logistics. GU cost in Aurora is already coded to be related to the tonnage, armor, and HQ capacity for HQ units, this is unlikely to change and generally works well. Presently it is logistics that unbalance the ground combat in a few ways, that is what is addressed.

Also...as far as "conventional troops", these are already in the game. All you have to do is design ground units without TN techs, which is easiest to do in a conventional start but you can also do this with SM mode in a TN start by temporarily un-researching the TN armor and weapons techs, then design all the ground units you want before re-enabling the techs. The only thing this doesn't do is make the units cost wealth only, which as already stated is really unimportant.

What I mean is - resources are a 'hard' limit in the game, wealth is a 'soft' limit. What I mean by 'hard' and 'soft':
You can do something about the soft limit: colonizing new worlds and otherwise creating workplaces that generate wealth.
Hard limit on the other hand... forces you to explore beyond the home solar system. If it were a scenario of staying in the same system for the whole game, resource shortage should eventually get to you...

I wouldn't really call these conventional troops if they require resources that cannot be acquired in conventional ways...
I can call them pre-Trans Newtonian troops though.

In my view it is erroneous to think of the CON component as combat engineering units, it is specialized as TN heavy construction equipment and really does not work in the way that battlefield engineers do, this much is apparent from their actual game mechanics (fortification, ruins recovery, and factory production - all very much heavy construction tasks, not battlefield engineering). Much like recon or signals assets (aside from FFD) engineers are not really modeled in Aurora which is an unfortunate limitation of the GC system.

It is worth noting though that the CON elements, and in fact I believe all of the ground unit techs except for troop transports (why?!) and power armor can be developed without researching TN tech. I think of it therefore as developing the tech for developing TNE-enabled construction units (even in conventional starts, a race still uses TNEs for its conventional industry after all) which are able to carry out spaceborne operations. It's not like the race has forgotten how to build bulldozers and dump trucks, but in the new interstellar era some new technology is required nevertheless.

Okay. So that means CON units are basically mobile heavy construction factories.
Why do these units require some TN developments, in order to become a thing - we already have conventional factories, which are more versatile than the later specialized variants (ironically) - what, they can't design a fatboy (from supreme commander game) mobile factory? They MUST have TN technology?
The same goes for troop transports...

It feels odd that once you get access to the TN materials, suddenly, your whole population is incapable of defending itself.
In my mind and in my car,
We can't rewind we've gone too far,
pictures came and broke your heart,
Put all blame on VCR Trans-Newton!
Paraphrase from the "buggles", "Video killed the radio star" song.

[serger (OP)]

Played a couple of short test campaigns these weekends with a 2nd version of modified DB (those modifications I posted at the start + those points nuclearslurpee mentioned + my editions from 6-points post above).

Well, it looks quite good, aside of the fact, that you can really throw the LOG off the bus, because, well, 10 combat rounds of this devastating arty + CSAP fire is enough to convince those greenish swines that it was a big mistake to mess with terrans.

So, I'm starting the 3rd iteration by dropping all Pen. and Dam. values down considerably for every GC weapon at all, so that ground combat must became several times longer. It's obviously not the absolutely best option, I think nearly anyone wants the opposite, yet I really, really want CSAPs and arty to be the best damage dealers in the case of massive LOG support ONLY. There might be some border issue with conventional zero-rounded Pen., yet it's bearable for me personally, because I use conventional techs only for making a "pre-game" set of weapons to give my troops some sort of historical roots.

And yep, I have encountered all-Marksmen AI rifle squads again, and it is not what I want to see, so no more Marksman PW even for my personal use. Light - Medium - Heavy Personal Weapons will be good enough.

[nuclearslurpee]

In my view it is erroneous to think of the CON component as combat engineering units, it is specialized as TN heavy construction equipment and really does not work in the way that battlefield engineers do, this much is apparent from their actual game mechanics (fortification, ruins recovery, and factory production - all very much heavy construction tasks, not battlefield engineering). Much like recon or signals assets (aside from FFD) engineers are not really modeled in Aurora which is an unfortunate limitation of the GC system.

It is worth noting though that the CON elements, and in fact I believe all of the ground unit techs except for troop transports (why?!) and power armor can be developed without researching TN tech. I think of it therefore as developing the tech for developing TNE-enabled construction units (even in conventional starts, a race still uses TNEs for its conventional industry after all) which are able to carry out spaceborne operations. It's not like the race has forgotten how to build bulldozers and dump trucks, but in the new interstellar era some new technology is required nevertheless.

Okay. So that means CON units are basically mobile heavy construction factories.
Why do these units require some TN developments, in order to become a thing - we already have conventional factories, which are more versatile than the later specialized variants (ironically) - what, they can't design a fatboy (from supreme commander game) mobile factory? They MUST have TN technology?
The same goes for troop transports...

As I said in my previous post, CON can be researched and developed without any TN tech...it is a "conventional" (or pre-TN, you use whatever words you like) technology but it still has to be developed. If I am developing a conventional setting I have no problem SMing in the tech for RP reasons, same with things like heavy armor or HCAP, there is no reason a pre-TN society could not develop those toys but it still takes some research to do it unless you RP that the technology is already known. Given that even in the 21st century we do not exactly have 300-ton construction vehicles which are space-capable and can operate not just on Earth but on the surfaces of the Moon, Mars, asteroids... I don't think it is unreasonable to have to develop the tech at least in some settings. Aurora is at its best when we can RP however we want and I think the current setup makes this very possible IMO.

Defining things as "conventional" versus "pre-TN" is up to the player IMO. Yes the conventional/pre-TN units do cost TNEs but this is a limit of the game and one I am perfectly happy to fluff away if my setting calls for it.

Troop transports will have a conventional/pre-TN variant in v2.0, and I for one look forward to this eagerly.

So, I'm starting the 3rd iteration by dropping all Pen. and Dam. values down considerably for every GC weapon at all, so that ground combat must became several times longer. It's obviously not the absolutely best option, I think nearly anyone wants the opposite, yet I really, really want CSAPs and arty to be the best damage dealers in the case of massive LOG support ONLY. There might be some border issue with conventional zero-rounded Pen., yet it's bearable for me personally, because I use conventional techs only for making a "pre-game" set of weapons to give my troops some sort of historical roots.

I have been working on my own somewhat less dramatic set of ground combat adjustments... I think I will soon be writing them up into a "mini" AAR so I won't get into extreme detail here.

For scaling of GSP requirements I have introduced two rules. One is to increase scaling with the #shots to the 3/2 power  (roughly, I do adjust numbers to look neater in the final version) instead of linear scaling as currently. This makes CAP/HCAP, bombardment, and autocannons all cost more to supply, particularly CAP and MAV have similar GSP demands which makes medium tanks not as sub-optimal anymore. Second rule is adding a multiplier based on bombardment statistic (BBT) for both GSP and tonnage/size stats. GSP is multiplied by (1.0 + 0.5 * BBT) and size very approximately by (1.0 + 0.25 * BBT). This makes artillery units both cost more (GSP and BP costs) and require more transport space as an added cost to the long-range bombardment ability (BBT = 1 for LB, 2 for MB, 3 for MBL/HB) which is not really accounted for at all in the vanilla modeling.

In general my changes are not as "extreme", but bring CAP and artillery into better balance with AV and AC weapons and I've been fairly happy with the results in theorycrafting exercises. Generally my line formations require ~10-15% tonnage in LOG modules to fight for 10-14 days, and my artillery requires about ~25-33% for the same, with higher echelon LVH+LOG vehicles requirement being quite demanding beyond ~1 month of sustainment (this is even with the large LOG modules providing 1,000 GPS instead of 500!). It feels a very good balance but playtesting will reveal how it really is.

I mention this to suggest that compared to the changes listed in the thread, reducing the lethality of CAP and artillery (mainly in terms of #shots, which is after all an abstraction) while keeping the heavy supply demands may be the way to go to achieve the style of game you desire.

I am also glad not to be the only one who insists on a large pre-TN force for the sake of realism.    That said I do not think there is a "border" issue with penetration as the ground combat mechanics seem to be set up to permit non-integer values.

[Blogaugis]

As I said in my previous post, CON can be researched and developed without any TN tech...it is a "conventional" (or pre-TN, you use whatever words you like) technology but it still has to be developed. If I am developing a conventional setting I have no problem SMing in the tech for RP reasons, same with things like heavy armor or HCAP, there is no reason a pre-TN society could not develop those toys but it still takes some research to do it unless you RP that the technology is already known. Given that even in the 21st century we do not exactly have 300-ton construction vehicles which are space-capable and can operate not just on Earth but on the surfaces of the Moon, Mars, asteroids... I don't think it is unreasonable to have to develop the tech at least in some settings. Aurora is at its best when we can RP however we want and I think the current setup makes this very possible IMO.

Defining things as "conventional" versus "pre-TN" is up to the player IMO. Yes the conventional/pre-TN units do cost TNEs but this is a limit of the game and one I am perfectly happy to fluff away if my setting calls for it.

Troop transports will have a conventional/pre-TN variant in v2.0, and I for one look forward to this eagerly.

Conventional - does not require TN materials,
pre-TN - require TN materials, but fine, let's leave these tiny details out...
So, yes, indeed the construction capability technology can be researched without the TN...

Fine - I guess I can buy that normally most troops can dig in to level 3.

Say, what other capabilities should there be in ground units? TN mineral extraction perhaps?
I find it a bit odd, that you have to research a technology, in order to allow military forces to assist/take part in constructing buildings on the ground.

And yeah, these additions in 2.0 are a good thing.

[ArcWolf]

Reading this i was thinking, why not an light CAP unit (L.CAP) which would be a blend on PWL and CAP? Problem is anything i come up with is just superior to PWL and would completely replace it as Boarding units.

rough idea would be:
3-4 shots, .5-.75 Dmg & Pen, 3 GSP, 9 Tons

[nuclearslurpee]

Reading this i was thinking, why not an light CAP unit (L.CAP) which would be a blend on PWL and CAP? Problem is anything i come up with is just superior to PWL and would completely replace it as Boarding units.

rough idea would be:
3-4 shots, .5-.75 Dmg & Pen, 3 GSP, 9 Tons

In addition to the balance problems you've already worked out, there's not really a lot of real-world analogues to make such a unit meaningful. Right now CAP and HCAP are usually considered to represent crew-served machine guns and heavy MGs or chain guns (~30mm) depending on how the player wants to think of these (and the related LAC component) There's not really a lot of crew-served LMGs, as far as I can tell LMGs or SAWs are usually incorporated at the basic rifle squad level and are carried by a single soldier with additional ammunition often carried by one of the riflemen - these are squad weapons but not crew-served in the traditional sense. I usually use PWI for these if I want to represent my infantry in such detail.

I do not want to imply that "there is no IRL equivalent" is a reason to prohibit a new component type from being added, but as such a weapon also presents balance issues and doesn't really offer anything new on the battlefield (anyone would just continue to use regular CAP) so I don't know that there's a motivation for such a component.

If regular CAP were to see a large GSP requirement increase, as in serger or my changes, then a light CAP might be viable which is the same size as CAP but only 0.5 AP/damage with the lower GSP requirement for armies which cannot afford the larger supply requirements.

[serger (OP)]

I have found some stats in addition to our previous discussion about ammo expenditure during WW2.

Germans, 1942-43 (without 1944 comparing to my previous stats)

Bombs >250kg: 530 mln kg, so it's about a half of their Hz ammo LOG of the same time
Heavy AA: partial stats only, looks like 2/5 of Hz ammo LOG
Heavy anti-tank: looks like at least 10 times less then Heavy AA, yet most of the data is about 1941

It's close to what as I expected to see about pre-missile era.

[Garfunkel]

It probably didn't change for heavy weapons, but as automatic weapons became the standard, infantry ammunition consumption shot through the roof. Infantry platoon in 2020 uses massively more bullets in combat than their grandfathers did back in 1942.