Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Droll
« on: August 08, 2020, 09:07:39 AM »

Quote from: froggiest1982 on August 08, 2020, 01:23:35 AM
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on August 07, 2020, 08:44:48 PM
Quote from: Kristover on August 07, 2020, 07:59:25 PM
I mean planets are big places so right now there is no option to 'land on the other side of the planet' and go on defense for a month or two while I build combat power.  If the defenders want to break entrenchment and push me off planet before I build enough force to overwelm them, than go for it.

Obviously the easiest thing is to never allow defensive lines to hit each other at all. In addition there also should be a maximum capacity in how many attacking size can attack any combined (attacking and defending) size as well. This could then be modified be general traits and stuff... but it would make things more dynamic and realistic. In addition the larger two armies get the less of the forces would engage all the time... so to show that a combat against a small garrison at an military outpost might take a few days given the right attacking force but invading an enemy home system could take years to resolve. One way to solve it would be to make combat rounds shorter if the forces are smaller and longer if the forces are greater to simulate that large conflicts are way more drawn out and can't be as intense in general. really small conflicts might have a combat round every two hours while epic wars have a combat round every 5-10 days. Having 8 hour combat reports for two years might be a bummer.... there even could be a sepparate combat event log so as not to clutter up the regular event log... I actually think they game could do well with a separate combat event log in general.

Looking at what has been done with Stellaris and with Terraforming in Aurora you could tie the front size considering:

Dimension of Planet
Water extension
Terrain

All the above in a formula should result in a max amount of tons involved in a battle to match Aurora ground units mechanic.

Now I think a 50/50 split would be fair and that is personal but assuming Steve would really retouch the orbital mechanics I think a 50/50 could lead to some interesting combats where bombardment or STO will be essential to win.

Of course only in case both armies fill the max ton allowed.

So maybe on Earth you could have a front of 500,000 tons while on Luna only 150,000 tons. Anyway the formula and the best way would be up to Steve of course.

All formations set as attack on front will contribute to the max tons allowed when the others are back either bombardment, echelon or support.

I just guess the above might be very hard to code.

This would also provide a way to make frontline defence a sensible formation position to use when attacking. You could have it so that defensive formations do not or only contribute a % combat width to the max active combat tonnage in the front. Effectively creating a realistic defensive and offensive line for the attacker through gameplay mechanics.
Posted by: Froggiest1982
« on: August 08, 2020, 01:23:35 AM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on August 07, 2020, 08:44:48 PM
Quote from: Kristover on August 07, 2020, 07:59:25 PM
I mean planets are big places so right now there is no option to 'land on the other side of the planet' and go on defense for a month or two while I build combat power.  If the defenders want to break entrenchment and push me off planet before I build enough force to overwelm them, than go for it.

Obviously the easiest thing is to never allow defensive lines to hit each other at all. In addition there also should be a maximum capacity in how many attacking size can attack any combined (attacking and defending) size as well. This could then be modified be general traits and stuff... but it would make things more dynamic and realistic. In addition the larger two armies get the less of the forces would engage all the time... so to show that a combat against a small garrison at an military outpost might take a few days given the right attacking force but invading an enemy home system could take years to resolve. One way to solve it would be to make combat rounds shorter if the forces are smaller and longer if the forces are greater to simulate that large conflicts are way more drawn out and can't be as intense in general. really small conflicts might have a combat round every two hours while epic wars have a combat round every 5-10 days. Having 8 hour combat reports for two years might be a bummer.... there even could be a sepparate combat event log so as not to clutter up the regular event log... I actually think they game could do well with a separate combat event log in general.

Looking at what has been done with Stellaris and with Terraforming in Aurora you could tie the front size considering:

Dimension of Planet
Water extension
Terrain

All the above in a formula should result in a max amount of tons involved in a battle to match Aurora ground units mechanic.

Now I think a 50/50 split would be fair and that is personal but assuming Steve would really retouch the orbital mechanics I think a 50/50 could lead to some interesting combats where bombardment or STO will be essential to win.

Of course only in case both armies fill the max ton allowed.

So maybe on Earth you could have a front of 500,000 tons while on Luna only 150,000 tons. Anyway the formula and the best way would be up to Steve of course.

All formations set as attack on front will contribute to the max tons allowed when the others are back either bombardment, echelon or support.

I just guess the above might be very hard to code.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: August 07, 2020, 08:44:48 PM »

Quote from: Kristover on August 07, 2020, 07:59:25 PM
I mean planets are big places so right now there is no option to 'land on the other side of the planet' and go on defense for a month or two while I build combat power.  If the defenders want to break entrenchment and push me off planet before I build enough force to overwelm them, than go for it.

Obviously the easiest thing is to never allow defensive lines to hit each other at all. In addition there also should be a maximum capacity in how many attacking size can attack any combined (attacking and defending) size as well. This could then be modified be general traits and stuff... but it would make things more dynamic and realistic. In addition the larger two armies get the less of the forces would engage all the time... so to show that a combat against a small garrison at an military outpost might take a few days given the right attacking force but invading an enemy home system could take years to resolve. One way to solve it would be to make combat rounds shorter if the forces are smaller and longer if the forces are greater to simulate that large conflicts are way more drawn out and can't be as intense in general. really small conflicts might have a combat round every two hours while epic wars have a combat round every 5-10 days. Having 8 hour combat reports for two years might be a bummer.... there even could be a sepparate combat event log so as not to clutter up the regular event log... I actually think they game could do well with a separate combat event log in general.
Posted by: Kristover
« on: August 07, 2020, 07:59:25 PM »

I mean planets are big places so right now there is no option to 'land on the other side of the planet' and go on defense for a month or two while I build combat power.  If the defenders want to break entrenchment and push me off planet before I build enough force to overwelm them, than go for it. 
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: August 07, 2020, 07:42:19 PM »

Quote from: Kristover on August 07, 2020, 06:29:58 PM
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on July 19, 2020, 11:06:37 AM
Quote from: liveware on July 19, 2020, 10:08:05 AM
I think a good way to implement something like this would be to make it very modular. For example, if the player wants to engage a planet at the tactical level, that could be tick box or button somewhere to toggle tactical mode on/off. If TM isoff, the game works as it does now. If TM is on (selectable on a per planet basis) a new window becomes available with a tactical map of the planet, with options for troop disposition. This type of setup would allow the tactical aspects to be separated out from the existing strategic aspects of the game, and gives some control over how many simultaneous tactical engagements a player or the game engine can handle.

To be honest I think a tactical portion of ground combat is a terrible idea. I think that a much better simulation model would be way more interesting from a game play perspective. Tactical ground combat in any way would be a huge time sink for Steve in terms of coding that I don't think would be worth while at all. On the other hand a better more deeper simulation model could be expanded on with relatively little efforts.

I think adding a tactical portion wouldn't be worth it but I would like to see two things (besides Aerospace forces and Rebuild to Template) and that is a stance setting that allows you to 'be out of contact' and a concealment tech line.  The first is to simulate a unit that is declining combat and gives you the ability to create a circumstance where you have a 'battle pause' for resupply and refit.  I think this could be simulated with making if two opposing units who have front line defense set won't engage each other.  The other change is concealment so that it is possible that a small unit could conceivably be on planet 'hiding' out and choosing to not engage or conducting 'hit and run' attacks.  This would simulate special operations/partisan activity.   You might have a separate tech line for ground detection to simulate dedicated counterinsurgent/police forces that hunt down these guys.

I absolutely agree that there need to be some more simulation effect of the sort that you describe.

In addition to this there should be some sort of front mechanic so you can't overwhelm an enemy using ten times the weight numbers as it is not realistic to do that. In the real world it is difficult at best to get a 3 or 4 to one strength ratio at any point in a battle line due to presenting too many target will work against you and hinder your own both tactical and strategic movement. Force concentration should instead be air-force, artillery and orbital bombardments job in general. From a math perspective then artillery is rather expensive for what it does as there is no mechanic to reduce the effectiveness of the front line in relation to overwhelming the enemy front line.

There also could be stances for how much devastation you will do to the enemy infrastructure and civilians and it will have en effect on how offensive you can be and reduce your fire power in order to avoid hitting civilian targets.

There are many small things you could add the the ground combat model to increase the simulation perspective without too much coding effort or changing how things work.

The current model are a bit too deterministic and gives too many one sided results. Using the mechanics as is will never really have two sides ending up in a stalemate and I think that is a problem. It should be possible for an attacker to assault a planet just to find out they can't beat the enemy and they withdraw to a defensive stance. The defender also can't attack as that would leave them vulnerable. It would then be a classic stalemate. Sadly this will never really happen as now one side will always win as there are no real defensive stance in the game.
Posted by: Malorn
« on: August 07, 2020, 07:00:16 PM »

Quote from: Kristover on August 07, 2020, 06:29:58 PM
I think adding a tactical portion wouldn't be worth it but I would like to see two things (besides Aerospace forces and Rebuild to Template) and that is a stance setting that allows you to 'be out of contact' and a concealment tech line.  The first is to simulate a unit that is declining combat and gives you the ability to create a circumstance where you have a 'battle pause' for resupply and refit.  I think this could be simulated with making if two opposing units who have front line defense set won't engage each other.  The other change is concealment so that it is possible that a small unit could conceivably be on planet 'hiding' out and choosing to not engage or conducting 'hit and run' attacks.  This would simulate special operations/partisan activity.   You might have a separate tech line for ground detection to simulate dedicated counterinsurgent/police forces that hunt down these guys.

I agree, some sort of way to 'avoid engagement' for forces on a planet would be a useful thing.

Posted by: Kristover
« on: August 07, 2020, 06:29:58 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on July 19, 2020, 11:06:37 AM
Quote from: liveware on July 19, 2020, 10:08:05 AM
I think a good way to implement something like this would be to make it very modular. For example, if the player wants to engage a planet at the tactical level, that could be tick box or button somewhere to toggle tactical mode on/off. If TM isoff, the game works as it does now. If TM is on (selectable on a per planet basis) a new window becomes available with a tactical map of the planet, with options for troop disposition. This type of setup would allow the tactical aspects to be separated out from the existing strategic aspects of the game, and gives some control over how many simultaneous tactical engagements a player or the game engine can handle.

To be honest I think a tactical portion of ground combat is a terrible idea. I think that a much better simulation model would be way more interesting from a game play perspective. Tactical ground combat in any way would be a huge time sink for Steve in terms of coding that I don't think would be worth while at all. On the other hand a better more deeper simulation model could be expanded on with relatively little efforts.

I think adding a tactical portion wouldn't be worth it but I would like to see two things (besides Aerospace forces and Rebuild to Template) and that is a stance setting that allows you to 'be out of contact' and a concealment tech line.  The first is to simulate a unit that is declining combat and gives you the ability to create a circumstance where you have a 'battle pause' for resupply and refit.  I think this could be simulated with making if two opposing units who have front line defense set won't engage each other.  The other change is concealment so that it is possible that a small unit could conceivably be on planet 'hiding' out and choosing to not engage or conducting 'hit and run' attacks.  This would simulate special operations/partisan activity.   You might have a separate tech line for ground detection to simulate dedicated counterinsurgent/police forces that hunt down these guys.
Posted by: Norm49
« on: August 07, 2020, 03:52:33 PM »

I like this idea but sadly it is probably a lot of work for Steve and rely complicated so I am not expecting this to become a thing, even if i would love to see this.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: July 19, 2020, 11:06:37 AM »

Quote from: liveware on July 19, 2020, 10:08:05 AM
I think a good way to implement something like this would be to make it very modular. For example, if the player wants to engage a planet at the tactical level, that could be tick box or button somewhere to toggle tactical mode on/off. If TM isoff, the game works as it does now. If TM is on (selectable on a per planet basis) a new window becomes available with a tactical map of the planet, with options for troop disposition. This type of setup would allow the tactical aspects to be separated out from the existing strategic aspects of the game, and gives some control over how many simultaneous tactical engagements a player or the game engine can handle.

To be honest I think a tactical portion of ground combat is a terrible idea. I think that a much better simulation model would be way more interesting from a game play perspective. Tactical ground combat in any way would be a huge time sink for Steve in terms of coding that I don't think would be worth while at all. On the other hand a better more deeper simulation model could be expanded on with relatively little efforts.
Posted by: liveware
« on: July 19, 2020, 10:08:05 AM »

I think a good way to implement something like this would be to make it very modular. For example, if the player wants to engage a planet at the tactical level, that could be tick box or button somewhere to toggle tactical mode on/off. If TM isoff, the game works as it does now. If TM is on (selectable on a per planet basis) a new window becomes available with a tactical map of the planet, with options for troop disposition. This type of setup would allow the tactical aspects to be separated out from the existing strategic aspects of the game, and gives some control over how many simultaneous tactical engagements a player or the game engine can handle.
Posted by: esavier
« on: July 18, 2020, 10:16:35 PM »

This is not really bad idea, i think that this should be polished and straightened up, but it has a potential...
I most of invasions are mostly slapping more troops on the ground, its kind of repetitive after while. On the other side adding planetary grid means that there are a lot of stuff to take into consideration, and i mean a lot, what if planet is tidal-locked? where is rear echelon/support when you are surrounded, are there terrain considerations? are there special structures like to take for example factories or fuel refineries? How hard would it be to manage such conquest? Combat width, orbital bombardment (tactican not strategic). How AI would handle it? How hard it would be to the game (strain on pc) Some of those features i do not see point in without the others, some i would imagine that are incredibly hard to code on database engine.

Can it be chunked up into smaller feature-pieces that works together (i.e. something that can be done and tested in finite amount of time, i.e. around 3months)? Also i think that Steven should take a look at this from technical side. I believe that we can argue about anything, and there is good point on both sides on the barricade, but in the end if Steven says "no, it wont work or will take 3 years to do i am done with this goodbye" then its more on the pointless side?
Posted by: plasticpanzers
« on: July 14, 2020, 10:59:14 PM »

Why do you say I am taking this personally?  I keep saying I am not trying to change the game myself nor
any of its systems.  This was a  post a suggestion in a place for a suggestion.   Simply that.  Besides,
all maps are 2-D in all space games but Sword of the Stars and a few others.... but playing 3-D Sword of
the Stars can make you psychotic after awhile.. (lol)

 
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: July 14, 2020, 06:19:33 PM »

I don't think anyone is saying that Aurora should be feature-frozen now. Steve certainly has never implied that and as we can tell from the 1.12 changes list, there are already new features coming in. So don't take it personally, plasticpanzers.

What you are requesting is not easy nor is it simple. Planetary terrain and some pseudo-3D orbitals have been suggested and asked many times in the past. The problem is that it's not just one thing, it's several things that interact with more things.

For example: why can't I have submersible ion cannons floating deep in the oceans of a water world, ready to surprise the enemy? What if there is a giant mountain (like Olympus Mons on Mars) atop from which I can cover 75% of the planet? A small asteroid might actually be super tricky because it rotates so often - do I get fire every once every 20 minutes or is it a 50% chance every time I want to shoot whether the asteroid is facing the "right" direction? And that's just things with STOs off the top of my head.

What about the orbitals? Currently, all bodies are just a dot on a flat 2D board. With proper orbitals, all bodies need to actually be circles. Those we can get from System Generation easily enough but it does lead to other things. How is body surface handled - is it a smooth billiard ball or does surface fluctuate? That affects the line of fire for a lot of weapons, plus planetary fighters could hide behind geographical formations. How do you calculate those on a 2D map? Will planetary fighters, space fighters, and space ships be able to freely pick what altitude they fly on? Will they automatically explode if they hit the surface or is it only non-fighter sized vessels that get torn apart (as per Steve's current technobabble)? Are there any limits on how "high" orbitals ships can pick? Orbiting 100 km from the surface is quite different from orbit at 1000 km not to mention orbit at 10,000 km. At what level are commercial ships unloaded and loaded? Can you select multiple altitudes, like 100 km for extra wear & tear on your ship but quicker loading&unloading? How does this affect combat dropping troops, if at all? If it doesn't, should it?

And if we're going to have planetary terrain be an impact, then we are really going to need a separate planetary combat interface with maps for movement on strategic - operational - tactical level because the combat system supports both massive armies and individual soldiers. I don't mean X-Com/Jagged Alliance level of unit control but we need more tiles than just 100km x 100km squares since unit sizes fluctuate massively. It can be done, The Operational Art of War series did it. That means we're going to have dozens of different terrains just of Earth because fighting across a field of grass with a river in the middle is very different from fighting on a coral atoll with an active volcano in the middle, not to mention fighting on alien planets and dead moons and so on.

Finally, Steve has to program the AI to understand and utilize all this. And that's no easy feat. The more complex a game system becomes, the more difficult it is for an AI to be "good" at it, as demonstrated by the fact that only in Chess do we have computers routinely beat humans whereas anyone who has played any strategy game ever knows that unless the AI cheats, it can be easily beaten.
Posted by: liveware
« on: July 14, 2020, 12:05:50 AM »

So...

I have not played OP's referenced game, however I am interested in seeing more detailed development of Aurora ground combat. In terms of a compelling-yet-relatively-simple-to-program format for ground combat, I suggest a hybrid of the existing system and that which is implemented in Distant Worlds. Most importantly, DW generates a (presumably) procedurally generated 2D terrain map of each world. Said map could serve as the basis for a somewhat more intricate ground combat system in Aurora, which could possibly involve multiple battle fronts as well as more diverse ground unit types, such as naval ships and aircraft.

As Aurora ground combat still appears to be in the R&D phase, I wanted to leave my $0.02.
Posted by: plasticpanzers
« on: July 08, 2020, 10:02:33 PM »

When I said you land 100% of your forces they will land on 100% of the defender.  There is no other way around that.   You may not land
all your troops you want or can at that time but its a 'Starship Trooper' system thats drops you right in the middle of it...didn't turn out to
well in the movie (or book) either.  Everybody is in the fight at the same place.

I never said Steve has to change his game at all.   I never suggested an assault of the holy of holy either.  Thy game be done....

You have a better idea where is it?  Or are you happy with the current ground system?  Is it really superb and needs no change and you
can do whatever you want (but have a realistic ground combat).   I recommended players to look at Krellan Commander as a place to get
ideas.  If you looked at the video at all during ground attacks you will see the planet and ship in 2D but the ship is actually orbiting the
planet.  When you look at the 2D surface map you can see all the terrain and cities and places of fortification from orbit as your ship(s) orbit
around the planet.  You choose where you want to land with how much.  That was a freaking brilliant piece of work in that game.

STO vs incoming ships can be whatever you want it to be.   Orbital mechanics once your in orbit are shown to work just fine and if you leave
orbit your back on the system 2D view just like Aurora.  Perhaps you can stage %s of STO and forts and troops in say 3 zones (orange slices)
of the planet and have to rush reinforcements to one that was assaulted.  Or you can do nothing at all and just say don't tamper with the
game..... but it has been.... this is not Aurora, its Aurora C#, so things do change.

Like I said that game was a gold mine of ideas for processes that work and can enhance Aurora C# and it is.  Nobody said at a Smorgasbord
you have to eat everything there.   Look at the mechanics of the flow and decide if you want more or less.  This game has done nothing but add
to itself and improve and change.... or maybe we should be happy with Aurora 4X version I.

I did not say whatsoever that you have to jump into a volcano but just for funs sake watch some of those videos on the link (yeah they drag like
watching grass grow sometimes) but skip along and you will find some freaking great ideas.   Suggestions are ideas.  This is my idea.  I see you
don't like it...good for you.  I have no power to change the game just suggest an idea.

Aurora C# is changing constantly.... why not make it even more fun?