Author Topic: Collateral Damage  (Read 2922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7842
  • Thanked: 4044 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2018, 05:04:23 PM »
I've always thought that collateral damage was too high in VB6 Aurora and would happily see it generally become slightly less in C# Aurora. One round of ground combat on Earth (5-days) can easily produce a million dead civilians if the armies are large enough, even without using weapons of mass destruction. That is just crazy. No human conflict has ever produced civilian casualties at such rates. Nuking big cities is of course an entirely different matter. I dunno about the math, but any change that reduces collateral damage from what it used to be gets my vote.

Note that I'm not advocating getting rid of collateral damage, or reducing it to something meaningless.

Also, Infrastructure as padding against collateral damage sounds interesting.

As the new rules currently stand, it would take 500 points of collateral damage to kill 1m civilians. That is one round of 500,000 infantry or 2250 heavy tanks (100 tons). While that is still higher than historical, it is lower than VB6 and populations in Aurora tend to be larger than those of historical combatants and therefore more likely to be densely populated. Also, for game play purposes the collateral damage losses need to be meaningful. BTW I'm not saying the current level is definitely right - that will depend on playtesting.
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 480
  • Thanked: 41 times
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #16 on: October 15, 2018, 05:36:55 PM »
Collateral damage from ground combat can be meaningful even without heavy civilian casualties.

Civilians are useless without facilities after all, even if facilities are useless without civilians.

Because of this, it's completely alright if the threat of loss of workforce is much less direct and much more the result of the loss of habitable environment conditions. Populations tend to bounce back much faster in real life compared to the damage done to the economy and environment in wars after all.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1019
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2018, 02:00:18 AM »
As the new rules currently stand, it would take 500 points of collateral damage to kill 1m civilians. That is one round of 500,000 infantry or 2250 heavy tanks (100 tons). While that is still higher than historical, it is lower than VB6 and populations in Aurora tend to be larger than those of historical combatants and therefore more likely to be densely populated. Also, for game play purposes the collateral damage losses need to be meaningful. BTW I'm not saying the current level is definitely right - that will depend on playtesting.

I can imagine that Collateral damage is tricky to balance, because it needs to be balanced in both ways. Too much collateral damage and the entire point of offensive ground forces goes away, which is the ability to take over planets mostly intact instead of nuking from orbit.

I totally agree with your approach that a successful balance should promote and reward using specialist and highly trained + well led lighter units, supported by precision weapons ( which would minimize collateral damage ) over using brute force of the heaviest bombardment guns and mechs/tanks in the arsenal. Basically the German concept of Bewegungskrieg from WW2 using lighter mobile small tanks, fast moving formations and precision CAS to quickly breakthrough and go around most of the enemy forces so that they could force surrender without much fighting.

The heavy weapons need to have their own role still when it comes to breaking enemy fortress worlds, or escalating a drawn out war/stalemate where both sides are well dug in, but such heavy fighting should maybe lead to a 50% destroyed world on average IMO ( Still better than nuking, but giving you a bit of a feeling of was it worth it afterwards ).


I've suggested before using some sort of diminishing returns for planetary damage and population casualties, but that would require keeping track of what the maximum population / facilities was before combat started ( so that it becomes harder and harder to knock out the last bits of it ).
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 02:02:33 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 480
  • Thanked: 41 times
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2018, 04:30:39 AM »
Bewegungskrieg is still practiced in modern warfare doctrines. Maneuver and denying the enemy the same are critical components of any conflict currently pursued, and is likely to remain so unless and until static defenses start being more potent again than fast moving vehicles with big guns/bombs.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7842
  • Thanked: 4044 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #19 on: October 16, 2018, 05:28:58 AM »
I've suggested before using some sort of diminishing returns for planetary damage and population casualties, but that would require keeping track of what the maximum population / facilities was before combat started ( so that it becomes harder and harder to knock out the last bits of it ).

Maybe I add a new 'destroyed installation' type that can be the result of future collateral damage (making the rubble bounce). One for factory-size, one for research facility size, etc. So when an installation is destroyed, it is replaced by a 'destroyed' equivalent that can potentially absorb future collateral damage hits.

Or maybe just have a flag for destroyed, so you can would have separate lines for intact and destroyed construction factories, intact and destroyed research facilities, etc.

In the latter case, the destroyed installations could be salvaged for a portion of their materials.
 
The following users thanked this post: serger

Offline space dwarf

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 24
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #20 on: October 16, 2018, 05:34:37 AM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=10188. msg110438#msg110438 date=1539641063
Quote from: Garfunkel link=topic=10188. msg110432#msg110432 date=1539624472
I've always thought that collateral damage was too high in VB6 Aurora and would happily see it generally become slightly less in C# Aurora.  One round of ground combat on Earth (5-days) can easily produce a million dead civilians if the armies are large enough, even without using weapons of mass destruction.  That is just crazy.  No human conflict has ever produced civilian casualties at such rates.  Nuking big cities is of course an entirely different matter.  I dunno about the math, but any change that reduces collateral damage from what it used to be gets my vote.

Note that I'm not advocating getting rid of collateral damage, or reducing it to something meaningless.

Also, Infrastructure as padding against collateral damage sounds interesting.

As the new rules currently stand, it would take 500 points of collateral damage to kill 1m civilians.  That is one round of 500,000 infantry or 2250 heavy tanks (100 tons).  While that is still higher than historical, it is lower than VB6 and populations in Aurora tend to be larger than those of historical combatants and therefore more likely to be densely populated.  Also, for game play purposes the collateral damage losses need to be meaningful.  BTW I'm not saying the current level is definitely right - that will depend on playtesting.

Maybe you could make the collateral-damage effects on population increase as the population of a planet increases? With modifiers for worlds with a colony-cost, where Infrastructure needs will concentrate populations.

So 500 collateral to a 0-cost colony with 1 million civilians might kill a hundred thousand, but the same 500 collateral to a 3-cost colony with 100m citizens kept alive by Infrastructure (A la a Warhammer Hive City) might kill 10 million or more!
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1019
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #21 on: October 16, 2018, 06:00:45 AM »
Maybe I add a new 'destroyed installation' type that can be the result of future collateral damage (making the rubble bounce). One for factory-size, one for research facility size, etc. So when an installation is destroyed, it is replaced by a 'destroyed' equivalent that can potentially absorb future collateral damage hits.

Or maybe just have a flag for destroyed, so you can would have separate lines for intact and destroyed construction factories, intact and destroyed research facilities, etc.

In the latter case, the destroyed installations could be salvaged for a portion of their materials.

Yeah, that sounds like a brilliant way to do it.

It's also pretty realistic because I can totally imagine ground forces fighting among ruins and rubble where no further damage can be inflicted on installations and where all civilians have since long fled the field ( if hit-roll targets destroyed installations then don't apply any direct civilian casualties either ).
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7842
  • Thanked: 4044 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #22 on: October 16, 2018, 06:03:58 AM »
Maybe I add a new 'destroyed installation' type that can be the result of future collateral damage (making the rubble bounce). One for factory-size, one for research facility size, etc. So when an installation is destroyed, it is replaced by a 'destroyed' equivalent that can potentially absorb future collateral damage hits.

Or maybe just have a flag for destroyed, so you can would have separate lines for intact and destroyed construction factories, intact and destroyed research facilities, etc.

In the latter case, the destroyed installations could be salvaged for a portion of their materials.

Yeah, that sounds like a brilliant way to do it.

It's also pretty realistic because I can totally imagine ground forces fighting among ruins and rubble where no further damage can be inflicted on installations and where all civilians have since long fled the field ( if hit-roll targets destroyed installations then don't apply any direct civilian casualties either ).

Yes, the civilians aspect is a good idea.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1019
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2018, 06:07:18 AM »
Yes, the civilians aspect is a good idea.

If you want to make it really detailed you could even scale civilian casualties based on employment factor, or connect the civilian casualties to how much population is needed to run the corresponding installations.

( Hit an installation with alot of workers needed nearby, and they are likely in the field of fire too ).
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 480
  • Thanked: 41 times
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2018, 06:59:19 AM »
Yes, the civilians aspect is a good idea.

With that in mind, are we going to see changes in what installations need civilian personnel?

I mean, it always weirds me out a bit when the Military Academy, Genetic Modification Facility, Sector Command, Space Port or Ground Force Training Facility take no personnel whatsoever to run. Deep Space Tracking Station? Sure, that's probably automated. Mass Drivers and Automated Mines? Well, obviously. But everything else would seem to me to be the sort of thing that requires large numbers of supporting personnel.
 

Offline chrislocke2000

  • Captain
  • **********
  • c
  • Posts: 492
  • Thanked: 23 times
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2018, 07:34:19 AM »
I guess you could also include a new installation similar to infrastructure being civilian shelters. They would have a capacity of civilians, would reduce civilian casualties and in turn greatly reduce the negative impacts on lost productivity, impacts of fallout and chance for civilians to surrender as a result of bombardment.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7842
  • Thanked: 4044 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2018, 07:58:37 AM »
Yes, the civilians aspect is a good idea.

With that in mind, are we going to see changes in what installations need civilian personnel?

I mean, it always weirds me out a bit when the Military Academy, Genetic Modification Facility, Sector Command, Space Port or Ground Force Training Facility take no personnel whatsoever to run. Deep Space Tracking Station? Sure, that's probably automated. Mass Drivers and Automated Mines? Well, obviously. But everything else would seem to me to be the sort of thing that requires large numbers of supporting personnel.

Yes, those are good point. I will review that.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1257
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2018, 11:03:26 AM »
Another vote for more installations requiring workers! I'd go so far as to require DSTS require a crew of 500 or something but I can understand that being too fiddly and micro for most people.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1164
  • Thanked: 134 times
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2018, 11:55:13 AM »
That's pretty much how automines function currently.  They're not 100% automated, but rather the crew is so small (compared to 50,000 people) it's not worth tracking.
 

Offline space dwarf

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 24
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Collateral Damage
« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2018, 04:09:18 PM »
Quote from: chrislocke2000 link=topic=10188. msg110463#msg110463 date=1539693259
I guess you could also include a new installation similar to infrastructure being civilian shelters.  They would have a capacity of civilians, would reduce civilian casualties and in turn greatly reduce the negative impacts on lost productivity, impacts of fallout and chance for civilians to surrender as a result of bombardment.

Of course, if one of these WAS destroyed, it would lead to phenomenal casualties, even if its not the first target
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55