any chance you can increase the amount of static defenses (machine-gun bunkers?) the ai builds?
Agreed, any more variety for AI ground force builds would be good.
if you ever do plan on taking another go at ground-forces balance, I have idea for an entire new feature. The problem I'm thinking to solve, is that machine-guns are too much better than personal weapons.
I disagree. They are more lethal, for sure, but there is a cost to be paid for that in increased tonnage and increased GSP use. That cost is IMHO about right currently.
I'm trying to think how to change the balance, such that personal weapons become the primary infantry weapon, with machine-guns performing a supporting role.
You sound like French generals in WW1 and the interwar period. In reality, the machine gun in its various iterations has arguably been the primary infantry weapon since late-WW1 and most certainly so from WW2. The Germans built their infantry squads around the MG-34/42 and the riflemen were there just to support it. Eventually everyone else copied them to some extent. Yes, the introduction of assault rifles, ie automatic rifles shooting an intermediate cartridge that were affordable enough to equip every infantry soldier, seemed to change things but I would not go so far as to claim that the rifle is the primary weapon and the MG is the supporting weapon. This is an illusion conjured by the recent Anglo-American experiences. In other words, Afghanistan and Iraq massively distorted the understanding of war in both the US and in Britain. Yes, MGs were largely support weapons when 99% of combat is patrol and search missions in counter-insurgency operations among civilian populations. If you look at Ukraine, you'll see that the MG is the king of the battlefield, with artillery and drones coming up close seconds. There the assault rifle is just a support weapon, used only if other, more effective, weapons are not available.
And while I don't that Aurora should be a 100% realism-based game - far from it with our space mechanics and TN-minerals and all that jazz - I also do not want it to become one of those strategy games where the misguided search for 'balance' leads to yet another boring rock-scissors-paper game that is completely divorced from reality.
The second problem I wanted to solve, is artillery. Basically, front line being the shield, and backline being the cannon is the most fun dynamic way for things to be,
I disagree. Obviously the most fun and dynamic way for things to be is to have Godzilla and King Kong fight each other, with the 50-foot-tall woman as a surprise entrant to make it a 3-way fight.
I'm exaggerating for comedic effect but you really shouldn't make such blanket claims. They are just silly.
And also, artillery is lethal but it isn't THAT lethal. The vast majority of casualties from artillery happen in the first 10 seconds of bombardment. No matter how much you shell someplace, most of the time doing it is wasted because the target takes cover. Even without trenches and bunkers, just lying down cuts down casualties by 80% and digging fox holes pumps that up to 90%. Air-burst shells change the situation a little bit but not massively so. Once proper fortifications are present, the number of shells required to kill even a single soldier jump by an order of magnitude. Or two. This topic has been researched massively by literally every first world army in the world, which is why everyone is moving from lot of dumb artillery to few pieces of smart artillery. And drones, of course. It's the same for air power as well. One smart bomb that can reliably hit its target is worth more than fifty dumb bombs, all of which are far more likely to just rearrange local farmlands than hit the enemy command post you were targeting.
So no, I don't think that the current ground combat mechanics need to be changed to solve a problem that does not really exist, especially by promoting ideas that are unrealistic and promote rock-scissors-paper gameplay where you have to have X and Y and Z, while running the risk of distilling all the flavour out of it.