Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: April 28, 2023, 10:06:21 AM »This comes up a lot, and usually the key point that is missed is that the current system offers neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to using combined arms formations. This is extremely important from a roleplay perspective - it is important to remember that Aurora's ground combat model needs to be capable of modeling not only "realistic" formations based on real-world militaries but also decidedly unrealistic formations such as WH40K Guard Regiments (a universe where combined arms are doctrinally forbidden, if rather less so in practice).
To wit:
This is correct, and allows the above goal to be met.
The what?
I am unaware of any "targeting disadvantage" in the mechanics. Targeting in Aurora ground combat is completely random, weighted only by the size of formation elements. It has been discussed many times that any other mechanism to give a preferential targeting effect forcibly pushes the equilibrium towards mono-type formations, e.g. all-infantry or all-tanks, rather than towards combined arms, unless further base mechanical changes are added (which in turn resets the entire balance, requiring massive playtesting burden on Steve who probably wishes to do other things).
The current system does have some important flaws which remain to be worked out, but mechanically I do not think we need to find ways to force combined-arms formations as the meta when this will come at the expense of roleplay. I think it is sufficient that, at present, combined-arms formations are viable (there is no downside to using them, mechanically) and that combined arms are arguably optimal at the level of a full force - i.e., it is best to have a mix of tanks and infantry (for example), but it is not important that they are organized in one way versus another.
---
As far as the actual suggestion, I don't mind it although I think it is rather over-complicated and may not realistically represent actual tactical use of IFVs, etc. which seems to defeat the point a bit. However, I think it is an interesting idea from a roleplay perspective and doesn't appear to break anything. I might suggest to simplify the calculation to avoid the summation over average vehicle armor, either by using a flat multiplier (e.g., x2) or probably better would be to apply a flat modifier to evasion - representing that the infantry are harder to target when transported, rather than "armored" even when dismounted.
To wit:
There is no mechanistic advantage to mixing infantry and vehicle units right now,
This is correct, and allows the above goal to be met.
Quote
and the targetting disadvantage actually makes such formations useless.
The what?
I am unaware of any "targeting disadvantage" in the mechanics. Targeting in Aurora ground combat is completely random, weighted only by the size of formation elements. It has been discussed many times that any other mechanism to give a preferential targeting effect forcibly pushes the equilibrium towards mono-type formations, e.g. all-infantry or all-tanks, rather than towards combined arms, unless further base mechanical changes are added (which in turn resets the entire balance, requiring massive playtesting burden on Steve who probably wishes to do other things).
The current system does have some important flaws which remain to be worked out, but mechanically I do not think we need to find ways to force combined-arms formations as the meta when this will come at the expense of roleplay. I think it is sufficient that, at present, combined-arms formations are viable (there is no downside to using them, mechanically) and that combined arms are arguably optimal at the level of a full force - i.e., it is best to have a mix of tanks and infantry (for example), but it is not important that they are organized in one way versus another.
---
As far as the actual suggestion, I don't mind it although I think it is rather over-complicated and may not realistically represent actual tactical use of IFVs, etc. which seems to defeat the point a bit. However, I think it is an interesting idea from a roleplay perspective and doesn't appear to break anything. I might suggest to simplify the calculation to avoid the summation over average vehicle armor, either by using a flat multiplier (e.g., x2) or probably better would be to apply a flat modifier to evasion - representing that the infantry are harder to target when transported, rather than "armored" even when dismounted.