Proposal: Move production to the Ground forces interface, Order of Battle tab.
I propose that...an [overruning] formation with remaining shots attacks other formations, repeating the same selection randomization as previously, until its shots are used up.
Ground forces do not automatically upgrade. Once built, they slowly become obsolescent. Given the time required to set up elements, research elements, and set up formations, I agree with other players in proposing that this is the single biggest issue with ground forces at present.
Proposal: Ground forces should automatically upgrade over time.
Relatedly, non-STO ground force maintenance is very low compared to fighters or STO units. Proposal: Maintenance for non-STO ground forces should be multiplied by between three and five.
1. Infantry genetic enhancement is more costly compared to its benefits than are most other options (fielding more men, up-armouring, using a different unit type). Space marines, however, might well consider getting cuddly with the geneticists.
4. Researching all of the desired unit elements for a full-fleshed army can get tedious, even the first time this has to be done. Consider the balance of gameplay value versus player time: How about we drop the unit element research requirement and make up the difference by raising the cost of high-end unit and weapon types and of capabilities?
What I do in my own armies is a) include infantry-type supplies in every combat formation, b) add additional infantry-type supplies in independent rear-echelon formations, and c) transfer from these to thr fighting formations as they run short. This saves expense, saves on command span, and - most importantly - makes sure I keep tabs on supply availability.
I would prefer it if the game:
a) at least made mobile supplies less costly compared to infantry supplies and ideally removed the distinction altogether,
b) had units use their own supplies by preference, auto-replenishing from other sources if available,
c) allowed this to happen from any mobile supply on the battlefield, with hierarchy acting only as a preference, and most importantly,
d) showed rounds (or days) of supply remaining in the Order of Battle view.
We jump to fighter design here in order to discuss them in comparison to ground units. Briefly, I don't think fighters are good enough for the price.
1. A formation with remaining shots attacks other formations, repeating the same selection randomization as previously, until its shots are used up. Any formation may be attacked by any number of formations in this way, but both large and small formations get to use all of their eligible shots exactly once, and therefore have equal effectiveness.
<A whole bunch more stuff>
Some thoughts, assume general agreeance with OP except as noted/clarified below:Good point re. apples and oranges.
1. STO upkeep should be more expensive than other ground unit upkeep. They are afterall on the ship formula, not the ground unit formula, they don't interact with ground forces in any way except HQ capacity. Making ground units more expensive is not a solution, mainly because the problem doesn't exist really, apples versus oranges.
2. Commander required rank and HQ size is directly related and thus far uneditable. This should be pointed out more clearly. This ties in with Commander Bonuses, they should apply 100% up to the rank HQ rating including all sub-formations, dropping off to 25% for sub-formations if the sub-unit HQ is destroyed or ALL units if HQ capacity is exceeded. (This allows one to have an Armour Division commander containing Mechanized Infantry Brigades/Battalions/Companies.I could roll with this. Consider, however, a deeply-nested force: Are you certain we want to allow leaders to provide their whole bonuses to all subordinate formations? If we set up, say, corps commanding divisions, commanding brigades, commanding battalions, bonuses would add up substantially! A game with this ruleset would effectively require deep hierarchical nesting, and should be clear that this is the design intent.
4. Light Bombardment does not require to be supporting an unit, it merely requires being in a Support position on the field.Sadly, I discovered that, in battle, my light bombardment formation in a Support position did not fire unless I explicitly assigned a formation for it to support. Note that this was in v1.8 (I think), so I'm not posting a bug report until I see this happen in the then-current version.
5. Ground units upgrading over time should be a checkbox if implemented. Upkeep should be reduced for non-upgraded units (upkeep modifier=built tech level/current tech level)Options are good. I'll argue for upgrading being the default option because, so I propose, we don't want to play a game where our garrisons and armies wither unless we take special actions. We should explicitly state that we accept that this will happen, in exchange for saving the upgrading expense.
6. COPY/PASTE or Text Import is direly needed. Both for formation creation, but even more so for OOB. So tedious to make identical/modular multi-tiered formations every single time.I like this. Setting up formations and hierarchies can indeed get tedious and aids along these lines would be much appreciated.
Tremendous analysis and critique.I can roll with this. Anything that reduces the informational split-up is good.
As a player who has been happily playing in space, more than a little afraid to wade into the intricacies of GU design and use, thank you very, very much for taking the time to write your ideas so clearly.
I have just a couple minor observations.QuoteProposal: Move production to the Ground forces interface, Order of Battle tab.
I'm not keen on moving GU production out of the economics window, because then it would be the only production effort not available in the econ window.
However, maybe it would be useful to add some information in the GF interface about current production and available production capacity at each colony.
Then you wouldn't have to switch windows to see what you had queued up, which I suspect is mainly what you are after.
The text you quote was not entirely clear that it referred to formations BEFORE the overrun phase is calculated. The next section (just below the quoted text covers formations during the overrun phase. To repeat: In the quote here, remove "[overruning]".QuoteI propose that...an [overruning] formation with remaining shots attacks other formations, repeating the same selection randomization as previously, until its shots are used up.
Would smaller formations then have any relative advantage over larger formations? Wouldn't this greatly incentivize us to always make the largest feasible formations?
What if we restate is like this: each time a formation overruns another in a round, some portion of its remaining shots are "wasted", and it gets to use the rest against a new target.
The precise size of the "wasted" portion is a question of balance.
At present, the size is effectively 100% of remaining shots. You are proposing it be changed to 0%.
Perhaps there is a satisfying answer somewhere between the two?
Maybe it should vary by the size imbalance between attacker and defender; an enormous attacker overrunning a tiny defender probably wastes more shots than an attacker overrunning a slightly smaller defender.
On several of the points under discussion here, it may happen that the two of us may simply have to "agree to disagree".Ground forces do not automatically upgrade. Once built, they slowly become obsolescent. Given the time required to set up elements, research elements, and set up formations, I agree with other players in proposing that this is the single biggest issue with ground forces at present.
Proposal: Ground forces should automatically upgrade over time.
No they shouldn't. While I am all in agreement that a button to 'copy this unit / formation template but with the newest, best tech' would be a wonderful thing to have, I am strongly opposed to ground troops magically getting better equipment. New gear should cost time & money & minerals. A 'rebuild this unit with the latest tech while keeping its experience' option for GFTFs would be great, but it still needs to cost.
Permit me to condense a few of the points made in the initial post and apply them directly to the cost-effectiveness of genetic enhancement versus other options.1. Infantry genetic enhancement is more costly compared to its benefits than are most other options (fielding more men, up-armouring, using a different unit type). Space marines, however, might well consider getting cuddly with the geneticists.
Yes, because only infantry can carry out boarding comabt, and the vast majority of ships are not going to have their own troops for repelling boarders. Genetic Enhancement is priced based on its effectiveness for such situations.
There is a misunderstanding working here. The request being made here is for the size of said hypothetical tank formation to neither add nor deduct effective shots. If the tank unit has a small size and you have several of them, or whether you've combined the same number of units into one formation, needs to matter a lot less than it does now. That's the problem under discussion here.1. A formation with remaining shots attacks other formations, repeating the same selection randomization as previously, until its shots are used up. Any formation may be attacked by any number of formations in this way, but both large and small formations get to use all of their eligible shots exactly once, and therefore have equal effectiveness.
So if my indigenous guerilla infantry are spread around the world in penny-packets and tiny garrisons one giant tank formation can somehow machine-gun them all in an afternoon? No.
I haven't seen the breakthrough mechanic in action enough yet to know how I feel about it, but it certainly sounds like you're suggesting we punish the empire that makes the smaller formations.
1. During the main battle phase, a formation with remaining shots attacks other formations, repeating the same selection randomization as previously, until its shots are used up. Any formation may be attacked by any number of formations in this way, but both large and small formations get to use all of their eligible shots exactly once, and therefore have equal effectiveness.
2. Overrun occurrence is calculated entirely based on defending formation integrity and cohesion. The choice of formation to conduct the overrun is made based on the number of kills it made on the beaten defender. If this formation is less than two-thirds the size of the defender (possible in the event of greatly mis-matched formation sizes), then pick additional attacking formations, in descending order of the kills they made, until the defender's size is matched. If the formation is larger than the defender, then it may only overrun if it passes a check against defender size / attacker size. Why? You can't squeeze a Soviet Tank Army through a space of a single battalion - you need to clear a bigger gap than that.
Ground forces do not automatically upgrade.
On the first point:
It is nowhere suggested in this thread, by any person posting thus far, that unit upgrades ought to happen either for free or instantaneously. The opening post, indeed, explicitly requests an increase in cost.
3. Formations cannot be retrained and reequipped for new challenges.
4. Losses in battle have to be manually replaced, a very time-consuming process. If you, like me, have an interest in Tables of Equipment and Organization, or just want to keep our forces effective, we either have to spend a lot of time click-dragging elements and typing in numbers. Or replace from stratch.
Permit me to condense a few of the points made in the initial post and apply them directly to the cost-effectiveness of genetic enhancement versus other options.
. . .
Hence the comments in the OP: If we pay more, we should not be getting less.
There is a misunderstanding working here. The request being made here is for the size of said hypothetical tank formation to neither add nor deduct effective shots. . .
There are two requests being made here:
Firstly, that all units get to use all (or the same proportion of) eligible shots, regardless of size relative to the enemy's formations.
Secondly, that the overrun rules not favor formations that are particuarly large or small compared to the enemy.
Ground forces do not automatically upgrade.
Ships do not automatically upgrade.On the first point:
It is nowhere suggested in this thread, by any person posting thus far, that unit upgrades ought to happen either for free or instantaneously. The opening post, indeed, explicitly requests an increase in cost.
Your use of the word "automatically" suggested to me that they should be free, instantaneous, or both.
Now, consider a fight on board a ship. We and the enemy only have infantry. We have the option to add genetic mods. They, however, have the option to mix in light bombardment infantry (more Dam than Pen).
I am still novice and have played with ground units only little. I still would like to throw this out here: Is "Ground Combat Command" stat necessary as a mechanic?I am certainly open to that simplification. I wasn't too keen on my proposal (above), anyway.
With ships the idea is that low rank commanders command ships while higher ranked ones provide bonuses to many ships through naval admins. There is no stat for how many ships a naval admin commander (or fleet commander) can give bonus to and I feel it is good as such. It simplifies the game as you can rely on the idea that two commanders of same rank can do exactly same things (with different bonuses ofc).
It would be nice if there was something for ground units like the 'use components' and refit options for ships.I agree with most of this. I had to think a little, and get over an initial worry about micromanaging all those units shuttling between battlefields and refit sites, but I'm cool with the big-picture idea.
I propose a new status for ground units - retraining and reconstitution. Ground units could only be placed in this state when at a colony with a ground force construction complex and could not be moved afterwards. New formations trained at that complex would then use up the R&R units but reducing the cost and carrying over some percentage of hard earned experience.
This would retain the flavor of ad-hoc and underweight field formations during wartime but give some needed relief from the tedium of reconstituting units as well as allowing a form of unit upgrading.
Hope this helps
Yeah, might be a good call there. I was working off Steve's "infantry only" statement. But I haven't gotten around to testing this. First one of us who gets the chance, please share the results!Now, consider a fight on board a ship. We and the enemy only have infantry. We have the option to add genetic mods. They, however, have the option to mix in light bombardment infantry (more Dam than Pen).
Are bombardment elements can be used during board combat?
Steve Walmsley:
"This is very similar in principle to ground combat, albeit without support artillery, aircraft, etc. and with no concept of front-live vs rear."
Once all direct combat, bombardment support and ground support fire has been resolved, but before damage is allocated, all AA units will be checked to see if they can fire on hostile aircraft, using the following rules:
1) All AA units in a formation that was directly attacked by aircraft will each select a random aircraft from those that attacked that formation.
2) Medium or Heavy AA units in a formation that was not directly attacked by aircraft but is the direct parent of a formation that was attacked will each select a random aircraft from those that are attacking the subordinate formations. *
3) Heavy AA units that are not included in the two categories above will fire on a random hostile aircraft, including those on CAP that are not directly engaged in attacking ground units.
I would prefer it if the game:
a) at least made mobile supplies less costly compared to infantry supplies and ideally removed the distinction altogether,
b) had units use their own supplies by preference, auto-replenishing from other sources if available,
c) allowed this to happen from any mobile supply on the battlefield, with hierarchy acting only as a preference, and most importantly,
d) showed rounds (or days) of supply remaining in the Order of Battle view.
That's fine. Plasma Carronades are a waste of resources too -- it is not necessary (or even desirable) that everything in the game is perfectly balanced against everything else.
This sort of argument makes for bad game design, and it's unrealistic, too. No one uses bolt-action rifles as infantry small-arms anymore. Why? Because they are a waste compared to automatics. And no one builds BBs anymore either - because they are useless in an age of carriers and ASMs.
Things should be roughly balanced against each other, not having some things as traps to catch people who don't know they're useless. Plasma Carronades should have some place that they are very good, other than in generating lots of PPV for civvies who don't know they suck.
Perhaps a change to make them good against shields, given that shields are much better in C# would give them a role?
I do have difficulty with same tier support units supporting but could be me failing with the UI
SO
HQ
INF
INf
INf
Artillery
and have the Artillery support the infantry
Are bombardment elements can be used during board combat?
Yeah, might be a good call there. I was working off Steve's "infantry only" statement. But I haven't gotten around to testing this. First one of us who gets the chance, please share the results!
I don't think this is how things in this "game" should be designed. The very nature of Aurora imho is not to give an balanced, well rounded gameplay for the player to jump in (like many usual computer games; e. g. Civ) but to give the opportunity to create an empire/story/game according to ones preference and ideas. As such it does not need to be well balanced or have an usage for each weapons, in my opinion.
Concerning your ideas for bombardment weapons, I don't understand what the difference to the current system would be. If you have them supporting a formation it does exactly what you describe, I think.
The only thing you seem to want to change is that you don't have to say a MB/HB battery which subordinate to support?
Or do you want to have the units in the same formation?
On fighters: There are 2 efficient pod sizes at present: Size 14 autocannons, and size 96 AA.Good points, but bear in mind that heavy AA from anywhere (and medium if correctly placed in a hierarchy) can always fire back. No need for units, or even entire formations, to have any native AA at all.
The autocannons have a great (2ap, 2dam, 3 shot) spread, and while they're more expensive than mounting equivalent damage on a ground unit, they're also mostly untargetable. Great at killing infantry and light vehicles, especially since those unit types can't mount heavy AA.
The size 96 AA pod kills Ultra-Heavies at a rate of 1/round at equal tech. This is far better than any other option, making them one of the best defensive units at present. Mix them with entrenched Heavy Static HCAP/HAV and lots of infantry, and you have a really tough nut to crack.I'm still concerned about the enemy bringing in even just a few heavy AA. That huge pod is indeed just as powerful as you point out, but it only gets one shot/round, and has semi-random targeting. Most attacks will target some hapless cannon fodder somewhere for massive overkill. Heavy AA, on the other hand, labours under no such difficulty.
This makes fighters really, really specialised. Either they strafe the hell out of light units, or blow up the heaviest units in the game. They have absolutely no place fighting Static/Medium/Heavy/Super-Heavy vehicles because you can't make an efficient damage spread. On that note, the bombardment pod is almost useless. The pen is too bad to be usable against medium and up, and the autocannon wipes the floor with it in light ground attack.Agreed. But this agreement is subject to the worry of "how many shots is even the best optimized fighter likely to survive to make, given anything like equal resources?"
I'd be happy withYes, being able to treat hierarchies of formations, as described here, as trainable units, as formations currently are, would be dandy.
1) Being able to have Train entire formations [ed: hierarchies of formations]
One thing I've noticed after reading and rereading Steve's Ground Unit posts is that using medium AA batteries is, well, a bit wonky.Yeah, heavy AA isn't just more cost-effective, it's also flat-out more convenient. You never have to wonder whether it will fire [but check this].
I want my Space Marines to have guns big enough to take a bath in, and it looks like Christmas has come early.[Can infantry-type bombardment elements be used in boarding combat]Yes, can confirm ANY Infantry can be used in Boarding Combat.
Ehndras,
May I suggest that your post will get better visibility as a separate thread in the "C# Bureau of Design" forum?
Re. the "small vs. big" discussion:
In the context of Aurora game design, I cannot agree with any arguments based on many guerrilla forces tying down a single large formation, for two reasons:
1. Aurora does not simulate the additional training or personal ability required to coordinate the actions of many separate units. There is no concept of a "span of control" (how many formations can be directly commanded by any HQ) or of unit coordination between formations. The first is infinite. The second is either perfect or non-existent.
2. Aurora imposes no costs or limits on making many small formations. I can, for example, quite innocently set up squads - with no thought of abusing any game mechanic - only to get bonuses I never asked for because unified formations are supposed to have only one leader and can only take one (sometimes two) action(s)/round!
Aurora is all about game flexibility. The current system governing formation size does indeed give players flexibility in unit design,, but at the cost of some important gotchas and "you win" (or "you lose") buttons that pop up only in battle. This reduces effective flexibility, and works against Aurora's own genius.
Any game design must know its own limitations - and either a) strive to alleviate them, or else b) guide player game choices to accommodate them. A game doesn't have to do the first. No game can always accomplish the first. But an organized game design, one that knows its own self well, will at least deliver on the second.
It is the purpose of this review and critique to be of some assistance towards either of these two goals.
Oh... I forgot to comment on the big vs small formations...
To be honest I don't like how this work... the game should force us to build formations around certain limits... even if those size limits can be set as a game option.
I don't like the META gaming of big vs small as in I have many very tiny and you have large formations so I win as you waste you large formations shots at my tiny formation... or I use formations twice to three times yours and win as I get much more breakthroughs and don't waste fire-power.
That kind of strategy and game mechanic "abuse" is not fun as it makes no reals sense from a RP or real life perspective. All military organisations are broken down into a hierarchy that are very similar for a reason from fire-teams to cores and armies.
I think that it would be good if the game somehow penalised complicated formations but also forced us to use them if we want large formations to fight effectively at all.
Oh... I forgot to comment on the big vs small formations...
To be honest I don't like how this work... the game should force us to build formations around certain limits... even if those size limits can be set as a game option.
No it shouldn't. Such limits are clearly an empire- (or possibly species-) based decision, and whether or not I use "big battalions" should not effect whether the Swarm does.I don't like the META gaming of big vs small as in I have many very tiny and you have large formations so I win as you waste you large formations shots at my tiny formation... or I use formations twice to three times yours and win as I get much more breakthroughs and don't waste fire-power.
That kind of strategy and game mechanic "abuse" is not fun as it makes no reals sense from a RP or real life perspective. All military organisations are broken down into a hierarchy that are very similar for a reason from fire-teams to cores and armies.
Then don't abuse it. We already have the breakthrough mechanic, it's perfectly reasonable to expect it to be extended to 'repeat until no breakthrough is achieved.' We also have the '0 HTK systems are destroyed and roll again on the DAC' mechanic; it would be self-consistent for ground combat to do a similar thing.
Though I once again reject your definition of realism. The English at Agincort didn't have fire teams and corps and armies. Planetary BOLOs don't have squads. Berserkers don't have junior officers and NCOs. Heinlein's bugs don't form regiments. What sort of heirarchy -- if any -- used by an empire is entirely a roleplaying decision.I think that it would be good if the game somehow penalised complicated formations but also forced us to use them if we want large formations to fight effectively at all.
I don't. That sounds like the worst of all options.
. . .so you don't abuse the game mechanics by mistake!
If the NPR build ground units in regiment an I build mine in platoons there is a big game mechanic impact and that is not good. . .
What I intend to get across is that it should not impact combat performance in the way it does as it make zero sense to do so.
. . .so you don't abuse the game mechanics by mistake!
If the NPR build ground units in regiment an I build mine in platoons there is a big game mechanic impact and that is not good. . .
Then fix that, don't pollute my game with some arbitrary fixed numbers that don't fit.
I finally have the ability to assign twenty marines to my frigate's crew, and you want to take it away again.Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=11205.msg131192#msg131192What I intend to get across is that it should not impact combat performance in the way it does as it make zero sense to do so.
I have yet to see any evidence that it even does so. No one is posting "I ran a fight of one unit of two thousand infantry against two hundred units of ten infantry each, and here's what happened." Instead they're assuming that somehow unit size is going to wildly unbalance ground combat -- as if missile design didn't already do the same thing for space combat.
Though I once again reject your definition of realism. The English at Agincort didn't have fire teams and corps and armies. Planetary BOLOs don't have squads. Berserkers don't have junior officers and NCOs. Heinlein's bugs don't form regiments. What sort of heirarchy -- if any -- used by an empire is entirely a roleplaying decision.
I don't like the META gaming of big vs small as in I have many very tiny and you have large formations so I win as you waste you large formations shots at my tiny formation... or I use formations twice to three times yours and win as I get much more breakthroughs and don't waste fire-power.
That kind of strategy and game mechanic "abuse" is not fun as it makes no reals sense from a RP or real life perspective. All military organisations are broken down into a hierarchy that are very similar for a reason from fire-teams to cores and armies.
Irregulars
Transport Size (tons) 3 Cost 0.06 Armour 8 Hit Points 8
Annual Maintenance Cost 0.0075 Resupply Cost 0.25
Light Personal Weapons: Shots 1 Penetration 4 Damage 4
Vendarite 0.06
Development Cost 3Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on Today at 04:40:08 AMQuoteI don't like the META gaming of big vs small as in I have many very tiny and you have large formations so I win as you waste you large formations shots at my tiny formation... or I use formations twice to three times yours and win as I get much more breakthroughs and don't waste fire-power.
That kind of strategy and game mechanic "abuse" is not fun as it makes no reals sense from a RP or real life perspective. All military organisations are broken down into a hierarchy that are very similar for a reason from fire-teams to cores and armies.
Inaccurate, mate. Read up on the Battle of Kunlun Pass, the 1940 Hundred Regiments Offensive, and well over a dozen successful Chinese v Japanese battles during the Second Sino-Japanese War. (Mid-to-late WWII). Particularly note the Battle of Wuhan, resulting in 1.2m casualties, that directly let to a Japanese shift in focus and the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Some big, many small, but inferior Chinese forces took one hell of a toll on Japanese forces all around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_engagements_of_the_Second_Sino-Japanese_War
What you described as META is precisely the tactic Chinese forces often used against Japanese invasion, with arguable success. They often used small multi-unit infantry maneuver tactics to encircle, trap, and harass Japanese forces with vastly superior armament and armor accompaniment. While Japanese semiautomatic rifles and mortars outranged the Chinese, and Japanese armor did their thing, they remain susceptible to being tricking into focusing fire on secondary targets while being flanked by grenadier-riflemen fire teams.
Hell, from my dad and uncles' stories from Vietnam, it worked horrific wonders against our forces. To his dying day my dad couldn't smell certain things without going into a fugue state, and one of my uncles offed himself about 2 years ago after decades fighting his PTSD. Iraq-Afghan wars with similar results. One standard-issue ahole in compact sedan sporting a 500 Lb of TNT equivalent can achieve massive collateral damage out to 1.5k Ft or somewhere around 450 meters, while some randos who found Soviet-era support armament, stripped them, and stuck em on the back of a truck could do serious damage to infantry and air elements alike with minimal investment.
Remember the wealth and tech disparity. Consider Garfunkel's C# Aurora RP series: see how various nations are running negative on wealth, thus ruining their economy and industry? Imagine the cost of maintaining low-tech forces vs high tech forces while simultaneously fielding a space-capable navy.
It costs a guerrilla squad jack-all to weld a stolen soviet set-up onto a resurrected scrapyard 4x4 and seriously piss off their rivals with that half-assed Technical, while it costs hundreds of thousands, or millions, for our high-tech "solution." Its why its such a pain in the ass to fight in the Middle East, why the Vietnam war was such a mess, why no one wants to invade the continental US or russia, or stage raids on a Brazilian favela like my cousin Wagner, commander of the 4th Battalion of the Policia Militar de Governador Valadares did earlier in his career.
They achieve more against us by draining funds via the costs of deploying overwhelming firepower than any actual damage they can do.
Its said that morale is the most important aspect of any conflict, and its hard to feel victorious when you're launching missiles at pickup trucks and trying to type up a report at the FOB while a bunch of jackoffs mortar-bombard you every. single. god. damn. day. Ineffectively, but that's not the point. One of my cousins couldn't sleep for a year after returning from Kandahar because they'd randomly wake up expecting impacts, and now sleeps like a baby while blasting heavy rock or metal. The psychological and tactical effects of low-tech lightly-armed squad-level harassment are ABSOLUTELY not META, at all. One can easily cite historical precedent at every technological level during every major conflict and era-based doctrine throughout modern history, with plenty of old-world examples as well.
All of the things you posted about asymmetrical warfare are both utterly true, and completely irrelevant. ;D
Formation organization in Aurora has nothing to do with what tactics are actually in use, they are abstractions.
Assume two sides. Both have only one combat element designed:Code: [Select]Irregulars
Transport Size (tons) 3 Cost 0.06 Armour 8 Hit Points 8
Annual Maintenance Cost 0.0075 Resupply Cost 0.25
Light Personal Weapons: Shots 1 Penetration 4 Damage 4
Vendarite 0.06
Development Cost 3
On one side, you have 10,000 irregulars organized into one unit, plus appropriately sized non-combat HQ.
On the other, you have 100 units of 100 irregulars each, again with appropriate non-combat HQ.
In an ideal world, these should be evenly matched forces. Neither of them have access to any force multipliers, so it should come down to a near-even meatgrinder.
The question is, is that the case under the current ground combat model? (It would be really nice if we could get a more detailed look at the under-the-hood formula used, since all we have now are posts from Steve from multiple years ago that may or may not be accurate.) If simply splitting up an equal number of identical elements in more formations gives you an advantage, then ground combat balance will come down to what degree you are willing to spend time organizing ludicrously wide sub-formations, which is inelegant, to say the least.
EDIT: I will say that more detailed organization should be able to provide you with advantages based on use of support/RE forces with appropriate weapons choices, as I detailed in my post about revamping how AA/bombardment works when supporting things, but simply splitting up identical forces and leaving them all front-line should not.
Would you say those mechanics behaving as intended?
Would you say those mechanics behaving as intended?
I guess from an XCOM-ish "aliens invade, inferior humans with history of warfare excel on home turf" perspective.
...But a one-percent to-hit is just ridiculous.
After throwing about 200k of troops against a rift valley Prec Fortress, and finally defeating them, I am at pretty much the same Point that has been mentioned up to here several times. Sticking together the remains of the smashed Combat brigades and replacing out of a mishmash of replacement Units.
While I have done that by now and am somehow satisified with the result, and am rebuilding Units, one thing is still amiss for me. I did build a supply truck only unit to replace the used up logistics of the brigades, Regiments and batallions, and have forwarded the time a bit, but all the old units still show their supply Level as a various mixture from 0 to other sub-100% figures and it never changes.
Shouldn't they either consume the supply trucks or Refill from the home planets reserves or am I missing the "resupply Ground troops" button somewhere?