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: serger
« on: November 08, 2021, 06:19:36 AM »

It is "cleaner" because supporting ground units means the fleet fires fewer shots to do the same damage compared to general orbital bombardment.

Aw, you mean cleaner compared to orbital bombardment, not compared to artillery fire.
Well, that's all too dirty for me to use widely, because the cause to mess with ground warfare instead of "glass and forget" option is to keep loot and civilian's lives, not to spoil it.

That's why my overall structure of ground forces is a bit lighter compared to what most players seems to use:
1. I don't use major ground forces defensively. If my Navy and Orbital defences so screwed up to let enemy land enough forces to beat planetary garrison - it means that this planet is already nearly operationally useless even if I'll hold there, so I'll likely surrender it and take my chances to reconquer it later, not trying to prolongate an agony. So my ground garrisons are just security forces, they have no bombardment units at all.
2. My major ground forces are also relatively light-armed. That is - no heavy artillery, minimal numbers of lighter artillery, and in addition - even heavy anti-armour units will move to the front later (not because of supply issue in the first place, but to not deal more collateral damage than it's necessary). They are, howewer, usually heavily armoured: I'm ready to pay more just to save more. So, my main GF usually is more like most players' Marines.
3. What is usually called Marine Corps or smth like this - it's in my games usually more like Special Operations squads: the best in terms of equipment and training, yet lightly armed and exclusively infantry, they are intended to capture ships and stations, not to assault any garrisoned planet.

That's probably not the best strategy mechanically (especially since I use FFD, AA and higher HQs just to make it look more complex and realistically - because that's what is to play), yet it's what I still can play, when I'm sick with news.
Posted by: smoelf
« on: November 06, 2021, 07:25:38 AM »

This is a really excellent thread with lots of good suggestions.

One thing I might add is to remain adaptable and flexible once you start encountering hostile forces. All of this is good to get your army going, but you will probably need to alter it along the way for the concrete situations. I have experienced this in two ways.

The first was when I tried my first planetary assault. I got my ass kicked, but that was probably mostly due to using too few troops, so I started rebuilding the army to prepare for the second attempt. However, another thing I noticed was that the planet actually had a terrain other than barren. It was an ice desert. Now, ice deserts to not provide a targeting malus to your own troops, so all I had to deal with was the targeting penalty from forticiation, but that is still a lot. So I decided to design and build a selection of troops with desert and extreme temperatures specialization to increase their hit chance. This took up, perhaps, a quarter of the new army, and had increased CAP after I had gathered some actual intel during the first assault. These then became my 'Arctic Regiment'. I still use them for other assault, since I have them, but they were designed for a particular situation.

The second was after a successful assault, but one which lasted far longer than I wanted. Going through the intel, I could see that their troops had better weapons tech than me, so even if I hit a lot of troops, the kill rate was crazy low. For several reasons I have gotten behind on weapons tech and do not see myself catching up any time soon, so instead I have designed a new formation for the next planetary assault. These consist mostly of LAC and MAC, which have greater damage and penetration than CAP/HCAP and more shots than MAV, so hopefully they can get a few more kills against a technologically superior enemy. Still, this is only a supplement, so a single formation of 5.000 tons per 125.000 tons division.

Finally, I would add some of my own designs, which are rather different. Mechanically they fit into the templates others have said, so this is just to give yet another example of how a thematic approach to your empire can show itself in ground unit design.

My current empire is based out of a jungle mountain planet and they have taken their close connection to nature with them into outer space. In addition to the basic infantry unit (Hunters; PW) most formations are also accompanied by a species of canines native to Aldor. These Plasma Hounds (INF; PWL) are ferocious and a formidable force. Fortunately, they also breed fast, which makes them ideal for filling up the ranks. I mostly use these as cannon fodder. They don't really kill anything, but PWL take very little space so they can soak up A LOT of shots - even if they also die quickly to them.

From the deepest mountains in the dark caves, the Spiked Worm resides (VEH; CAP/MAV). These have been tamed and trained to form the backbone of the main raid parties, flanked by plasma hounds to distract incoming fire. In the far northern reaches, their cousin lives in the arboreal. The Frost Wyrm (HVH; HAV/HAV) is a major destructive force, but also rather slow. Infantry units can easily evade them, so their taskmasters train them to destroy tanks and other mechanized forces.

From the sky, the mighty Roc rains down upon the hostiles in swooping attacks. These are modelled using ground support fighters with auto-cannon and bombardment pods, but thematically they are large, winged creatures.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: November 05, 2021, 08:12:51 PM »

There are allot of different tactics and considerations depending if you are going up against the NPR or a another human controlled faction (as in multi-faction games).

I usually always build my armies as if I was fighting against a human opponent as it is too easy to game the system otherwise, but that is up to you to decide.

First of I like to build my line units in sizes of 15-20k generally as there is a limit to the amount of officers I will have at any given moment, I then have support forces as 5-10k in size or elite formation sometimes allot smaller, depending on what they are meant to perform. My 15-20k formations are lead by level 2 commanders and my supporting forces are led by level 1 commanders, this is the general rule.

Each 15-20k formation basically is roughly a battalion sized elements and can be considered the smallest formation that can operate on a semi strategic level on its own in Aurora. I usually imagine forces in this time-frame to have considerable fire-power in comparison with even the most effective modern forces. So they can cover relatively large areas and be quickly transported on a planetary surface from place to place. Each such formation uses its own strategic transport system of some kind.

Anyway... I usually have about three tiers of army which are garrison, regular army and the marines.

The garrison are mainly infantry and static formations but may also have a mobile reserve on more important planets or colonies with primarily light and some cheaper medium vehicles.

The regular army is a truly mechanised force with a balanced force and will be the vastly largest portion of the army in terms of cost. They are not going to have the most expensive units money can buy as they are expected to be used both as defensive and offensive forces but will have a considerably large portion of tanks for potential breakthrough and be useful both on offence and defence.

Marine forces are going to be deployed using the best possible armour, bonuses and weapons that is available. They also will be deployed with the best and most heavily armoured assault ships the state can afford. Cost here is not the issue but having as much firepower and staying power for the amount of tons you can cram into a ship is paramount.

Some typical units I use are...

IFV: Medium Vehicle, light armour with LAC, CAP
APC: Light Vehicle with CAP or LAC
MBT: Medium Vehicle, medium armour with MAC, HCAP or CAP
HBT: Heavy Vehicle, medium armour with MAC, HCAP

Medium and Light Bombardment units on Vehicle chassis usually go into front line formations while static units almost always are reserved for support/rear echelon with respective bombardment capabilities. Only Marine forces will get heavy armoured artillery pieces in heavy vehicle chassis for bombardment in support/rear echelon.

As I usually tend to favour Plasma Carronade for energy weapons these days I generally have my weapon tech for ground troops a few tech levels higher than armour, this is why I tend to favour the Auto-Cannon in favour of Anti-vehicle weapons and usually can employ lighter Anti-Vehicle weapons which still are quite effective at heavier vehicles, at least up to heavy vehicle chassis. I do employ specialised anti-tank vehicles too, but they usually go into specialised companies that often is held in reserve until they are needed.

One thing to note is that cheaper forces in terms of armour is more cost effective in Aurora, yet not space efficient. But if you mainly are invading planets after you suppressed their STO then you could usually build enough cheap troops transport which are more economically cheap in the long run than extremely expensive forces. So I tend to have a small number of very expensive marine forces for special operations and then a regular army for the major large scale planetary operation that don't operate from drop capable ships like the marines can.

A typical marine assault carrier has a full battalion of 20k troops and about 5k of support troops. They also have a large civilian hangar and enough maintenance to hold a decent amount of air-to ground assault crafts, enough to support the formation and do some air defence suppression. The 20k of marine troops and their carriers often are as expensive as almost a full division of regular troops. You can imagine they are not useful for large scale operation on their own but can obviously be part of them. A normal mechanised battalion is about 700 grunts and around 200 light to medium vehicles with a build cost around 1000 and the troops carrier to hold it (20k tons carry capacity) is about 650-750 BP depending on technology used, although once such a ship is built it is practically free in terms of maintenance cost.
Posted by: Lord Solar
« on: November 05, 2021, 07:18:00 PM »

Here is my design tactic which has worked time and time again against NPR forces for attacking fortified NPR planets.

The basic unit I use is Super-Heavy Vehicles with Super-Heavy Vehicle armor, and triple CAP. You can use HCAP if you are out-teched a bit or want better performance against enemy vehicles, but this is to grind through infantry so I find CAP better. I usually start producing this around Ion tech.
I organize these units in formations of 5k-25k tons and generally set them to front line attack with the best Ground Combat Offensive commander I have.
These units will kill x10 their tonnage in enemy infantry in an invasion easy and will grind through enemy armor eventually. They will suffer few losses at most unless you are really outteched.

For more specialized units, consider maybe 10% of assault forces mounting MAV, HAV (if outteched), or HAC (if you outtech them) to more effectively deal with enemy vehicles. You will want this on enemy worlds with a lot of forces but don't need it all the time.

I also use Infantry in defense to protect logi armed with PW in defense, maybe some statics with anti-tank in there somewhere, and for logi I used Light Vehicles in rear formations. I often assign frontline units as subordinate to these formations to ensure resupply.

This sort of setup will allow you to completely destroy massively larger and more expensive NPR formations with few losses.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: November 05, 2021, 05:40:09 PM »

~snip~
I feel obliged to point out that this misunderstands how breakthroughs work, as a breakthrough does not give the defenders an extra round of fire - only the attackers. As such, any frontline component in a support-echelon element is completely useless as they will not even fire in self-defense against a breakthrough.
~snip~

 --- Yeah, no it seems that's totally how it works. Huh, that's kinda crap as it means there is literally no reason to defend anything in the Support / Rear Echelon positions. At least not organically that is. That's a bit dumb in my opinion, although not terribly unlike real life I suppose. Then again... rear Fire Bases, HQs and the lot do tend to be rather well defended on the whole.

Yeah it is definitely a sad limitation of the ground combat mechanics as they exist. It would be nice if it ever got fixed but I don't expect this as it would mean a serious rework in what I'm sure are messy bits of the code.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: November 05, 2021, 04:34:20 PM »

~snip~
I feel obliged to point out that this misunderstands how breakthroughs work, as a breakthrough does not give the defenders an extra round of fire - only the attackers. As such, any frontline component in a support-echelon element is completely useless as they will not even fire in self-defense against a breakthrough.
~snip~

 --- Yeah, no it seems that's totally how it works. Huh, that's kinda crap as it means there is literally no reason to defend anything in the Support / Rear Echelon positions. At least not organically that is. That's a bit dumb in my opinion, although not terribly unlike real life I suppose. Then again... rear Fire Bases, HQs and the lot do tend to be rather well defended on the whole.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: November 05, 2021, 04:03:01 PM »

Love this post as I always appreciate seeing how people inject personal flair and flavor into their ground units. However, on one point...

Mah Mighty Howitzer:
snip snip
I like it for several reasons, not the least of which is that due to how breakthrough mechanics in Aurora work, it's very likely that the forces breaking through will be some flavor of vehicle, thusly the MAV tends to be nasty surprise for them.
snip snip

I feel obliged to point out that this misunderstands how breakthroughs work, as a breakthrough does not give the defenders an extra round of fire - only the attackers. As such, any frontline component in a support-echelon element is completely useless as they will not even fire in self-defense against a breakthrough.

See the description of breakthroughs on the wiki or from Steve's dev post here.

-

As for the other unit types, I use most of these in some variations. I like to vary my MBT design especially in multiple-faction setups for a bit of flavor: HVH+MAV/CAP with 4 armor is not more expensive per ton and gives fewer units with better durability (HP); VEH+HAV/CAP or VEH+MAV/HCAP are other fun designs. TDs I rarely actually use but they are a standard design I think. IFVs and APCs are also pretty standard, I use LVH for both with IFVs mounting LAC instead of CAP. I have considered using VEH+LAC/LAV or similar for these but usually I don't like having so much vehicle tonnage in my infantry platoons, but it might be worth trying in a future campaign setup. Typically for assault guns I consider LVH+MAC as the AC line of weapons is very good against static units specifically so the mechanics and flavor fit well, similar principle goes for assault or siege tanks with 2xMAC. Your "Maneater" is my "Infantry Support Tank", probably overpowered at least against standard NPRs and honestly not something I use a lot of due to a lack of real world equivalents since 1940 or so.

One vehicle I use quite a lot but have yet to see anyone introduce is the Multiple Rocket Launcher (MRL)/Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), which is a VEH+2xLB and light armor. With the LB component it is serviceable in a frontline formation but equally usable as a battery in a support-line artillery brigade to augment firepower for low cost. There are not a lot of things more fun to imagine in ground combat than rocket launchers.

Generally I avoid the heavy weapons of all types as their high tonnage and GSP requirements make them challenging to use effectively.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: November 05, 2021, 03:34:37 PM »

 --- So in no particular order, here are some ground units and tips on how they work, how to use them etc. More an inane, aimless ramble than anything else, but I'll try to be concise, yeah? I won't go too in-depth on more "common" units like say, a Static unit with Heavy Bombardment, because that's fairly straightforward and others have done a better job at that than me anyway. In this thread even to boot. :D

The Main Battle Tank:

   - Eponymous in the modern military lexicon, the Main Battle Tank (or MBT for short) is the workhorse attacker of any major conventional army. This is true in Aurora as well, where this unit is most commonly represented by a Medium Vehicle, itself clad in Medium Vehicle Armor and armed with both a Medium Anti-Vehicle weapon (MAV) and a Crew-Served Anti-Personnel weapon (CAP). This unit functions well versus both Medium Vehicles and Infantry, while being overkill against Light Vehicles in most cases. In some games I have made modifications to this type of unit, one of which involves swapping the Crew-Served Anti-Personnel weapon for a Heavy Crew-Served Anti-Personnel (HCAP) weapon to make the tonnage a nice, round 70 Tons versus the 62 Tons of a typical MAV/CAP. Another modification I've made is to swap the Medium Anti-Vehicle weapon for a Medium Autocannon (MAC), a modification that I'm quite fond of, mainly due to how well it combines with the next unit.

The Tank Destroyer:
    - The ubiquitous Tank Destroyer of WW2 fame is often represented in Aurora by a Light Vehicle armed with a Medium Anti-Vehicle weapon. Light Vehicles are restricted to Light Vehicle Armor and only sport one slot for a module, versus the Medium Vehicle's two, but make up for it by being smaller, cheaper and by being harder to hit... and therefore harder to damage. This last advantage, however, can only be used when on the attack making the Light Vehicle an excellent choice for a Tank Destroyer. I like to pair these with MAC/CAP Main Battle Tanks to deal with enemy tanks more effectively. Their bonus evasion I find quite helpful when paired with the bigger, beefier tank to soak enemy fire for it.

The Infantry Fighting Vehicle:
    - Perhaps others have a recipe for an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) that differs from my own, but this is mine and it's loosely based off of the real life Bradley IFV. A Medium Vehicle with Light Armor, my IFV is armed with a Light Autocannon (LAC) and a Light Anti-Vehicle weapon (LAV). I typically use it to "hide" about 15~20 tons worth of Infantry, as the way Aurora's target selection rules work, the bigger units take priority over the smaller ones via a weighted random selection process. I very often pair this vehicle with the Tank Destroyers mentioned above, which I call a "Light Attack Vehicle" (LAV), as well as the MAC/CAP Main Battle Tanks and the aforementioned 15~20 Tons of Infantry to form a cohesive and versatile Armored Vehicle formation for the purposes of attacking. This IFV does quite well against enemy Light Vehicles while still retaining some effectiveness against Infantry. It's rather survivable against said targets as well, thanks to it's Medium Vehicle Hit Points. A simple upgrade would be to use Medium Vehicle Armor instead of Light Vehicle Armor, but I prefer the latter for flavor... and cost.

The Armored Personnel Carrier:
    - Infantry are quite a poor choice for an offensive force, however they do have one merit in this regard and that's density of firepower. This same virtue also makes them much more resilient in the face of losses, requiring the enemy to kill more of them to reduce their firepower than other units. However, this resilience is effectively nullified by the squishy-ness of Infantry, they have the lowest Hit Points and worst armor of pretty much any unit. Enter the Armored Personnel Carrier (APC), a Light Vehicle armed with a single CAP that can be used to effectively shield 5~20 tons of Infantry from the ire of enemy Infantry. Yep, turns out that the best counter to Infantry is usually Infantry of your own, armed with Personal Weapons (PW). Using Aurora's target selection to our advantage however, we can leverage the APC's superior Hit Modifier, Armor AND Hit Points to soak damage for our Infantry if we so choose to use them on the attack.
Pro Tip: Do NOT use Infantry for offense.
Pro Pro Tip: If you DO use Infantry for offense, make sure to use a lot of them. Shouting URRRAAGGGHHH! is mandatory optional. :)


The Assault Gun:
   - An unorthodox design that I'm nevertheless fond of and field with abhorrent frequency is what I consider to be my take on the Assault Gun of WW2 fame. Partly for function, but mostly because I'm all about that StuG Lyfe, this unit serves in my "Flex" Infantry... itself an abomination. This unholy thing is a Medium Vehicle, usually clad in Medium Vehicle Armor and armed with a Medium Autocannon and a Medium Bombardment weapon (MB). "Flex" Infantry is something i use from time to time in Planetary Defense Forces (PDF) and as part of "Second Rate" units... units that are smaller and less powerful which I use on smaller transports escorted by smaller fleets to attack less important / more poorly guarded enemy targets parallel to my main thrust. This unit serves to allow these units to serve a, albeit inefficient, support role to my main forces in lieu of juicier / more worthy targets as "Second Rate" units, while as PDFs they can help the cheaper, squishy-er Infantry to hold the line alongside larger, purpose built defensive formations until the main force arrives to reinforce them or the enemy starts to falter... at which time they can be "flexed" into the attack role to press their advantage. In larger PDFs such as those on more important worlds or those reinforced ahead of an expected attack, these serve in said "Flex" Infantry by providing Medium Bombardment to proper formations, shoring up defensive formations if they get chewed up, and/or helping to press the attack if the enemy begins to falter / retreat. The combination of Medium Vehicle Hit Points, Medium Vehicle Armor, and it's MAC/MB armament make it a really big target to help it soak while also letting be effective against Static and Infantry elements. A very cursed vehicle indeed. :)

The Maneater:
   - This unfortunately named unit is something I very rarely use due to how... gamey it feels. Little more than a pair of CAP modules mounted on a Medium Vehicle clad in Medium Vehicle Armor, this thing not only chews up enemy Infantry, but it does so while being more or less impervious to the kinds of weapons they can field in retaliation. A far more expensive version uses a Heavy Vehicle instead, replete with Heavy Vehicle Armor and a pair of HCAP modules in lieu of the CAP modules. This one isn't just better protected, nor even just more effective against even Light Vehicles, but it's also far more future proof. For as time marches on so to does your tech, and by extension what was once able to be eaten up by CAP eventually gains the armor to resist it. Likewise, what Medium Armor once stopped with relative eventually begins to chew through it like a tweaker through a Crave Case. As I mentioned... I don't use these because they feel gamey, but they DO work quite well as the final word in Anti-Infantry. Expensive though... especially for their role.

The Support Tank:
    - Another cursed unit courtesy of my demented mind, and again another unit I tend to field quite regularly despite it's... affronting lack of sensibility. A Medium Vehicle with Medium Vehicle Armor that's armed with a combination of LAC/MAC. Yes, two autocannons. Of different calibers. On the same tank. However, I find them to be quite effective against everything as big as or smaller than a Medium Vehicle. Despite sub-par penetration against Medium Vehicle Armor the sheer volume of S H E T these things throw tends to chew them up regardless. Against Light Vehicles it is all the more pronounced and against Infantry... well, it's a really inefficient CAP with enough armor to shrug off most Infantry weapons. I have never made a "Heavy" version, as it seemed to me that the Heavy Autocannon (HAC) paired with the Medium Autocannon wasn't nearly as useful as the former. These I typically pair up with Tank Destroyers since their size let's the zippy, nippy little bastards do their job while their peculiar armament complements their weaknesses while enhancing their strengths.

The Heavy Battle Tank:
   - Essentially a Heavy Vehicle version of the Main Battle Tank I mentioned earlier, this unit not only uses a Heavy Vehicle as the base, but also uses Heavy Vehicle Armor AND swaps out both the MAV and the CAP for a Heavy Anti-Vehicle weapon (HAV) and Heavy Crew-Served Anti-Personnel weapon. I find this version tends to age more gracefully than it's predecessor, with both the HAV and HCAP losing effectiveness more slowly as time marches on, while the Heavy Vehicle Armor likewise retains it's potency for longer against MAV and even HAC to a lesser extent. The Heavy Vehicle's higher Hit Points also help quite a bit as time goes on. Unlike the MBTs, I typically don't build a HAC/HCAP variant since unlike the MAC/CAP this unit doesn't really benefit as much from the Tank Destroyer or even the IFV really. Often enough I'll pair these up with the Support Tanks I listed above, as their LAC/MAC combo does wonders to complement the HAV/HCAP of this unit, while the bigness of these HBTs, or perhaps H-MBTs, allows them to soak damage that would otherwise slaughter the squishy-er Medium Vehicles.

The Blursed Artillery:
   - A Medium Vehicle, with either Light or Medium Vehicle Armor to taste... I go with Light myself, and armed with both a Light Anti-Aircraft (LAA) weapon and a Light Bombardment (LB) weapon. I place these in artillery formations to both defend them from Ground Support Fighters (GSFs) and provide some Light Bombardment to the units they're supporting. Currently however, it is worth nothing that Non-Player Races (NPRs) do not use GSFs, so the LAA is wasted. A blursed unit indeed.

The Blursed-er Artillery:
   - Nothing fancy, just a Medium Vehicle with Light Vehicle Armor armed with both a Medium Anti-Air (MAA) weapon and Medium Bombardment weapon. As stated before, NPRs don't really use GSFs, so the MAA is wasted, but it's worth noting that MAA functions when assigned to support a formation directly, thus increasing the utility of this particular configuration. MAA also defends it's own formation against GSFs, so this unit can be thought of as the big brother of the Blursed Artillery, definitely Blursed-er and quite possibly the Blursed-est of all.

Mah Mighty Howitzer:
   - Last, but certainly not least is my favorite Self-Propelled Gun (SPG) recipe. It's worth noting that SPGs, when used in the Support Position like Artillery should, do not really have any impact on the gameplay more than any other vehicular mounted anything. Neither Tactical nor Strategic mobility is modeled. That all said, Mah Mighty Howitzer is a Medium Vehicle with Light Vehicle Armor armed with both a MAV and a Long-Range Medium Bombardment (MBL) weapon. I like it for several reasons, not the least of which is that due to how breakthrough mechanics in Aurora work, it's very likely that the forces breaking through will be some flavor of vehicle, thusly the MAV tends to be nasty surprise for them. As well, these units can be shifted to an Attack position to provide additional Anti-Vehicle against faltering enemy forces, although this tends to do terrible things to squishy-er units that share a formation with them and as such tends to work better when they are in a formation all their own. The MBL allows the unit to fire on enemy MB, MBL and Heavy Bombardment (HB) armed units when fielded in the Support position. A more expensive, but likewise more dangerous version can be had by merely up-armoring this unit to Medium Vehicle Armor. However, I do eventually like to produce a Heavy Vehicle version complete with the Heavy Vehicle Armor, HAV and HB, which is able to effectively soak counter-battery fire and deal grievous damage to enemy Light and Medium Vehicles that manage to achieve a breakthrough.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: November 05, 2021, 01:14:04 PM »

The major benefit of (vanilla) artillery units is that they are good damage dealers that are unlikely to suffer heavy losses due to living in the support or rear echelon

We have to take stock of average expected breakthrough effects to calc damage dealing correctly, and you have to deploy as much frontline attack units to keep breakthroughs, as possible, so the more artillery support - the less breakthroughs you do and more breakthroughs you suffer during the early combat phases.

 --- Remember that if you're comparing equal tonnages for effectiveness then your numbers are going to be skewed as well. You have to remember to divide that tonnage up across the attack elements, defense elements, fire support elements and the logistics HQ arm. The only time when an equal tonnage comparison matters is when you have a strict tonnage limit on your forces. Which means you ALSO have to account not only for the size of the forces themselves AND the size of their transports, but you have to factor in how many transports you can make as well. Artillery does damn good damage for something that can be mounted on a 12 Ton Static unit, given 50% more armor than Light Vehicle and costs like... at most 4 1/2~5 BP or something to build.

Yes, this is a big benefit as the cost of artillery is relatively cheap compared to heavily armored units or the cost of replacing your tactical ablative materials infantry after every battle. This is why serger in his rebalance and myself in my own modded DB have bumped up the costs of artillery significantly.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: November 05, 2021, 01:05:30 PM »

The major benefit of (vanilla) artillery units is that they are good damage dealers that are unlikely to suffer heavy losses due to living in the support or rear echelon

We have to take stock of average expected breakthrough effects to calc damage dealing correctly, and you have to deploy as much frontline attack units to keep breakthroughs, as possible, so the more artillery support - the less breakthroughs you do and more breakthroughs you suffer during the early combat phases.

 --- Remember that if you're comparing equal tonnages for effectiveness then your numbers are going to be skewed as well. You have to remember to divide that tonnage up across the attack elements, defense elements, fire support elements and the logistics HQ arm. The only time when an equal tonnage comparison matters is when you have a strict tonnage limit on your forces. Which means you ALSO have to account not only for the size of the forces themselves AND the size of their transports, but you have to factor in how many transports you can make as well. Artillery does damn good damage for something that can be mounted on a 12 Ton Static unit, given 50% more armor than Light Vehicle and costs like... at most 4 1/2~5 BP or something to build.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: November 05, 2021, 01:04:53 PM »

I'm not sure if this is a better approach than having a fleet do orbital bombardment directly, but I know it is at least cleaner (less collateral damage)

I was sure on the opposite and so didn't use orbital bombardment aside of glassing needless planets, yet I haven't calced or tested and just cannot remember the cause of my confidence.

It is "cleaner" because supporting ground units means the fleet fires fewer shots to do the same damage compared to general orbital bombardment. I think the downside is that since your ships only fire once per 8-hr combat increment that regular bombardment will kill things much faster - but messier.

Quote
The major benefit of (vanilla) artillery units is that they are good damage dealers that are unlikely to suffer heavy losses due to living in the support or rear echelon

We have to take stock of average expected breakthrough effects to calc damage dealing correctly, and you have to deploy as much frontline attack units to keep breakthroughs, as possible, so the more artillery support - the less breakthroughs you do and more breakthroughs you suffer during the early combat phases.

This would be difficult to calculate but with a lot of testing we could draw some conclusions. I suspect that probably 3:1 ratio of frontline to artillery formations ends up being close to optimal - as in most modern formations and as "enforced" by the in-game commander rank ratio.
Posted by: serger
« on: November 05, 2021, 12:27:06 PM »

I'm not sure if this is a better approach than having a fleet do orbital bombardment directly, but I know it is at least cleaner (less collateral damage)

I was sure on the opposite and so didn't use orbital bombardment aside of glassing needless planets, yet I haven't calced or tested and just cannot remember the cause of my confidence.

The major benefit of (vanilla) artillery units is that they are good damage dealers that are unlikely to suffer heavy losses due to living in the support or rear echelon

We have to take stock of average expected breakthrough effects to calc damage dealing correctly, and you have to deploy as much frontline attack units to keep breakthroughs, as possible, so the more artillery support - the less breakthroughs you do and more breakthroughs you suffer during the early combat phases.
Posted by: Droll
« on: November 05, 2021, 11:24:04 AM »

It is worth noting by the way, collateral damage is not being reduced until the 2.0 patch, so we have not yet seen if the 80% reduction is going to be enough to make artillery less destructive to planetary installations.

Honestly, I stopped using heavy bombardment and just started to use long range bombardment and light bombardment. Long range are not set to support and will only do counterbattery fire. This has worked quite well for me and leaves me wondering whether or not the 80% reduction is going to completely over-compensate.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: November 05, 2021, 10:40:09 AM »

Mechanically you need no Forward Observers, because they are useful for close air support only, and it's a headache with current interface to stack enough CAS crafts to be usefull at all, and if you have no overwhelming tech advantage, then enemy AA will make your CAS smth like very expensive and ineffective expendables.

FFD are also used to assign support from ships in orbit at a rate of one ship per FFD component, which is an alternative to ground support fighters and somewhat less micro intensive. I'm not sure if this is a better approach than having a fleet do orbital bombardment directly, but I know it is at least cleaner (less collateral damage) and less demanding on beam warship MSP consumption.

Quote
Artillery is rather dirty thing now, because too much collateral damage even after lowering it with last patch, and it's not the best damage dealer, so if you want to minimax - you can go without artillery support at all.
I'm playing with manually modified DB now, so my arty formations are significantly relatively deadlier and less dirty, yet many times more voracious with supply, and it makes them quite effective while their share in overall force composition is not too large. With vanilla DB I'll have them nevertheless, just for fun, yet in lower numbers, because it's not very joyful for me to feel myself bloody stupid.

The major benefit of (vanilla) artillery units is that they are good damage dealers that are unlikely to suffer heavy losses due to living in the support or rear echelon, compared to frontline formations which are either bullet sponges (infantry) or heavily armored and can absorb a lot of fire. They are not the strongest raw damage dealer but they will survive for a long time compared to low-armor frontline units, and can be built much cheaper than heavily armored frontline units. Over the course of a long battle they prove highly efficient.

It is worth noting by the way, collateral damage is not being reduced until the 2.0 patch, so we have not yet seen if the 80% reduction is going to be enough to make artillery less destructive to planetary installations.
Posted by: serger
« on: November 05, 2021, 10:17:11 AM »

+ Forward Observer, HQ+Artillery

How big should they be?

Mechanically you need no Forward Observers, because they are useful for close air support only, and it's a headache with current interface to stack enough CAS crafts to be usefull at all, and if you have no overwhelming tech advantage, then enemy AA will make your CAS smth like very expensive and ineffective expendables.
Though I like to add Forward Observers to my formations. Just because heck you, that's why.

Artillery is rather dirty thing now, because too much collateral damage even after lowering it with last patch, and it's not the best damage dealer, so if you want to minimax - you can go without artillery support at all.
I'm playing with manually modified DB now, so my arty formations are significantly relatively deadlier and less dirty, yet many times more voracious with supply, and it makes them quite effective while their share in overall force composition is not too large. With vanilla DB I'll have them nevertheless, just for fun, yet in lower numbers, because it's not very joyful for me to feel myself bloody stupid.

As for HQ - mechanically you need them in frontline and arty support for sure, to provide commander's bonuses, and your HQ unit have to be large enough to cover at least an average expected size of it's formation (so at least half the full pre-battle size of this formation) to use commander's bonuses effectively. The bigger your formation - the more relatively effective it's HQ will be, because HQ's own relative size will drop with nonlinear scale, yet it's minor effect. You can use spare HQ units too, yet mechanically they are just useless junks of TN minerals. Higher HQs are just for flavour, because hierarchical bonuses stacking is still broken, AFAIK.