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: Iestwyn
« on: November 17, 2020, 08:17:47 PM »

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on November 17, 2020, 07:55:11 PM
Quote from: Iestwyn on November 17, 2020, 06:50:02 PM


Interesting... All of this is good to know. To practice all this, I'm recreating the UNSC marines from the Halo universe. Some of the features aren't the most effective in Aurora, but it's a starting point at least. I'll post in the Bureau of Design when I'm done to get some feedback.
As a general rule, anything that leans into roleplay is almost never going to be optimal. And that's all perfectly fine, since battles are mainly decided based on tech levels more than the details of unit composition (unless you drop 50,000 tons of CAP onto an armored division, then may the RNG have mercy on you because God sure won't). As long as you're happy with the flavor of your unit designs, all is well.  ;D

I have to say, trying to make this work with the units of the actual UNSC marines is creating a bit of a nightmare. Should be posted later today.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: November 17, 2020, 07:55:11 PM »

Quote from: Iestwyn on November 17, 2020, 06:50:02 PM
Interesting... All of this is good to know. To practice all this, I'm recreating the UNSC marines from the Halo universe. Some of the features aren't the most effective in Aurora, but it's a starting point at least. I'll post in the Bureau of Design when I'm done to get some feedback.
As a general rule, anything that leans into roleplay is almost never going to be optimal. And that's all perfectly fine, since battles are mainly decided based on tech levels more than the details of unit composition (unless you drop 50,000 tons of CAP onto an armored division, then may the RNG have mercy on you because God sure won't). As long as you're happy with the flavor of your unit designs, all is well.  ;D
Posted by: Iestwyn
« on: November 17, 2020, 06:50:02 PM »

Interesting... All of this is good to know. To practice all this, I'm recreating the UNSC marines from the Halo universe. Some of the features aren't the most effective in Aurora, but it's a starting point at least. I'll post in the Bureau of Design when I'm done to get some feedback.
Posted by: Bremen
« on: November 17, 2020, 06:48:17 PM »

Infantry and static get the most benefit from fortification. Since fortification is lost when a unit is moved or put on front line attack, this makes them ideal (IMHO) as garrison units. Drop a formation of infantry and static with a few construction vehicles to add fortification on a colony planet, let it sit around building up fortification for years, and if that planet ever gets invaded they're going to be much tougher than they would normally be for their cost.

If you just drop troops on a planet, though, they have no fortification. This is dangerous for infantry (with 60% hit modifier) and suicidal for static (with 100%). Vehicles, on the other hand, have decent hit modifiers but lower maximum fortification, which makes them decent on the offense.
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: November 17, 2020, 06:35:38 PM »

Don't worry; pretty sure I was the one who pointed you to it. And the how to use it stuff is definitely NOT found in that thread.

Not really an expert on C# ground combat. Some people have done a huge amount of testing to figure out what works well.

What you said is accurate, especially the STO thing since only static units can have STO weapons. I think the testing consensus, though, was that statics ALSO have a place in the front-line defense role. Basically, you build a bunch of cheap infantry to surround statics with HCAP and MAV. The HCAPs and MAVs do all the killing, since they are way more effective than the CAP and LAV that you can give your infantry. But the cheap infantry soak shots from the enemy, since targeting is randomized based on tonnage. This keeps your heavier weapons alive longer, scoring more kills at lower cost. But you lose a lot of infantry.
Posted by: Iestwyn
« on: November 17, 2020, 06:22:03 PM »

Thanks again! Sorry I'm asking questions that were answered in the changes thread; I was only made aware of that a little bit ago. I may keep asking questions about how to interpret and use the mechanics.

For example, it's good to know that static is best used in the rear for HQs, bombardment, anti-aircraft, and STO. Is that accurate?
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: November 17, 2020, 05:57:42 PM »

Quote from: Iestwyn on November 17, 2020, 05:45:32 PM
You know, that leads to another question I had. I don't understand the Static base type that well. I understand that in-world it refers to units that can't move on their own, but I'm not sure how that lack of mobility translates in-game, since they're often required to move around with formations anyway.

Why would you use static units? Where on the battlefield would you recommend they be, and what components would be best on static units?

Steve's updates in the changes thread are definitely your friend here for the basic mechanics.

To summarize, static units can self fortify to level 3 and to level 6 with construction vehicles, just like infantry. However, they get heavier armor than infantry and can use bigger weapons (like Medium Anti vehicle). In exchange, they get no "evasion" bonus. When a unit is set to front line attack, it loses all fortification but in exchange gets a fixed to be hit modifier. Infantry and medium vehicles are .6, light vehicles get .4.

So you use static exclusively in the defensive role, to support your infantry with heavy weapons or protect high value stuff like big command posts (since the static unit gets more armor and HP than the infantry version). But they are (even worse) on the attack than infantry are.
Posted by: Iestwyn
« on: November 17, 2020, 05:45:32 PM »

You know, that leads to another question I had. I don't understand the Static base type that well. I understand that in-world it refers to units that can't move on their own, but I'm not sure how that lack of mobility translates in-game, since they're often required to move around with formations anyway.

Why would you use static units? Where on the battlefield would you recommend they be, and what components would be best on static units?
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: November 17, 2020, 05:08:20 PM »

Quote from: BasileusMaximos on November 17, 2020, 05:03:47 PM
Anyone have any advice as to where to put your fire controllers?

I model down to the company and was thinking of putting one fire-controller in every one, but it might be better to put it in the rear-echelon battalion HQ that commands 4 companies.
Rear echelon is best. FFD only affects how many orbital bombardments and/or fighters (6x per FFD) you can involve in the ground combat, there is not targeting effect. Thus it is best to keep them away from the front lines, not only to keep them alive but also to put more combat troops in the front line in their place.
Posted by: Borealis4x
« on: November 17, 2020, 05:03:47 PM »

Anyone have any advice as to where to put your fire controllers? I model down to the company and was thinking of putting one fire-controller in every one, but it might be better to put it in the rear-echelon battalion HQ that commands 4 companies.

Also, I know it isn't working properly but does anyone else think its better to rely on orbital bombardment or orbital fighters to deal with real heavy units instead of dedicated AV ground units? I suppose I see things the same way America did during WW2 in that its better to rely on air power to take out heavily armored vehicles rather than make your own in the hopes of countering it.

I wish that there was a reason to make your artillery mobile. I don't believe that rear-echelon bombardment units benefit from maneuverability on the attack same as front-line units. Using heavy, static guns like its WWI seems wrong so far into the future.

Power armor should add weight to infantry so you have to actually think about who you give it to instead of switching everyone over once you have enough resources.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: November 17, 2020, 01:58:39 PM »

Quote from: xenoscepter on November 17, 2020, 12:58:09 PM
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109786#msg109786
^ A link to word of Steve...
Code: [Select]
Support and Rear Echelon formations that contain formation elements with bombardment weapons can be assigned to support front line formations that are part of the same organization. Formations in a support position with light bombardment weapons will fire with the front line formations (see next paragraph). Formations in a support position with medium/heavy bombardment weapons or formations in a rear echelon position with heavy bombardment weapons will fire in a subsequent phase - see below.

Once a front line formation (or a light bombardment element in the Support position) has been matched against a hostile formation, each friendly individual unit (a soldier or vehicle) in that formation engages a random element in the hostile formation, with the randomization based on the relative size of the hostile formation elements. The targeting on an individual unit level represents that the different elements in a front line formation will generally be attacking in conjunction (infantry supporting tanks, etc.).
 - I kept reading people saying that LB doesn't work from the support position, and i was like, "That's horse manure..." so I went to go see if it was true. Nope, they fire with the Front Line units when assigned to support. :)

LB does work, albeit in a weird and not entirely intuitive way. The question is why would you use it over MB or HB once you have those in the field - sure, LB fires one phase earlier, but that has a fairly minimal impact compared to firing in the usual bombardment phase (does not prevent taking any damage from the front-line combat phase, but may occasionally allow a breakthrough attack). Otherwise, MB is far more effective in terms of actual kill rate against anything except light infantry, for which we have CAP.

That said, usually what I see people doing is sticking LB into a front-line infantry company or battalion to model mortars, which seems like the obvious usage but in practice means spending 20 tons/0.4 BP on a broadly inferior weapon as both CAP and LAV are cheaper and more effective at their particular jobs. It's not completely useless (works well against HP-modded infantry for example) and doing this won't be a major reason why you win or lose a battle, but it's not optimal in any case I can think of.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: November 17, 2020, 12:58:09 PM »

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg109786#msg109786
^ A link to word of Steve...
Code: [Select]
Support and Rear Echelon formations that contain formation elements with bombardment weapons can be assigned to support front line formations that are part of the same organization. Formations in a support position with light bombardment weapons will fire with the front line formations (see next paragraph). Formations in a support position with medium/heavy bombardment weapons or formations in a rear echelon position with heavy bombardment weapons will fire in a subsequent phase - see below.

Once a front line formation (or a light bombardment element in the Support position) has been matched against a hostile formation, each friendly individual unit (a soldier or vehicle) in that formation engages a random element in the hostile formation, with the randomization based on the relative size of the hostile formation elements. The targeting on an individual unit level represents that the different elements in a front line formation will generally be attacking in conjunction (infantry supporting tanks, etc.).
 - I kept reading people saying that LB doesn't work from the support position, and i was like, "That's horse manure..." so I went to go see if it was true. Nope, they fire with the Front Line units when assigned to support. :)
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: November 17, 2020, 10:36:21 AM »

I just posted in the 1.12 bug thread about this, but orbital bombardment accuracy IS bugged. The to hit chances are something like 10x lower than the C# changes thread say they should be (the hit chance is reported in the event log).

This is for shooting generic ground forces, not revealed STO. I agree that shooting revealed STO seems to work ok.
Posted by: Barkhorn
« on: November 16, 2020, 08:21:13 PM »

Quote from: Droll on November 16, 2020, 05:00:24 PM
Quote from: Barkhorn on November 16, 2020, 03:47:19 PM
Quote from: Garfunkel on November 16, 2020, 01:32:26 PM
Super-heavy anti-vehicle is usually overkilling unless your enemy brings Super/Ultra-heavies to the battlefield, in which case you're royally screwed unless you brought your own and/or have plenty of orbital support.
Orbital support is so ineffective it's gotta be bugged.

The problem for me isn't actually lethality, its the amount of dust that OBS kicks up. I have had good success using 30cm railgun bombardment ships especially against STOs.
I have no trouble hitting STO's.  I have found orbital fire support worthless against ground forces.  I don't think I've ever seen anything other than infantry get destroyed by orbital support.  I have seen precursor mechs survive 37.5cm spinal laser hits. 
Posted by: Iestwyn
« on: November 16, 2020, 06:59:31 PM »

Didn't even know beam bombardment kicks up dust. That's interesting...

And Nuclear Slurpee, THANK YOU. That is way more info than I expected. Now all I need is Iceranger to pop up with some of his magic math. ;)