Crusade - Part II

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I actually favor that over that over having to ferry supply units in on the same transports hauling infantry. It'd make sense to have an invasion force with a few freighters of supplies attached.

I would say that when garrisoning friendly territory that there should be no supply usage - saving the player from having to constantly manufacture and distribute supplies to colonies and outposts.

I agree about supply usage only in combat.

The reason for supply units compared to using supply points (or even just maintenance supplies) is that a significant portion of an army is actually logistical units rather than combat units, so I wanted to simulate the tail as well as the teeth. If I did this, I would drop the cost of ground force training facilites and troop transport bays to compensate.

Steve

[backstab]

I agree about supply usage only in combat.

The reason for supply units compared to using supply points (or even just maintenance supplies) is that a significant portion of an army is actually logistical units rather than combat units, so I wanted to simulate the tail as well as the teeth. If I did this, I would drop the cost of ground force training facilites and troop transport bays to compensate.

Steve

Some excellent ideas floating around !  Looking forward to any "logistical" elements added to the game.   Something else to consider, if you do not have enough ground formations to counter unrest, the ones you do have there should lose a small amount of moral each 5 day turn

[TheDeadlyShoe]

A really simply, no-frills implementation would be that units conducting attacks steadily lose readiness and morale - unless you have a REP battalion, in which case it soaks all the readiness damage and there is no morale damage.   Even something as low as 1%/battalion/5days would cause a division to deplete a REP in 20 days of fighting.  Numbers would be easy to adjust.  I imagine this has the advantage of being relatively easy to code while accomplishing the goal of encouraging a logistics tail.

Complicate it slightly: REPs no longer heals friendly ground forces, but natural replenishment rates are much higher on worlds with (idle?)training facilities.  Rename REP to LOG.

There's a lot of places you could go from there. For example, attacks could be of varying intensity, scaling casualties and supply consumption. Cautious/Aggressive/Intense, with 1x/1.25x/1.5x intensity and 1x/2x/3x supply consumption.

Units actively suppressing dissent/occupying non-imperial pops could have low-grade degredation;  Imperial populations with low dissent (<5%?) and GFTFs eliminate this attrition.   This would encourage the establishment of 'military base' colonies on conquered worlds, especially if you plan to never imperialize the populace.  That seems like an interesting path in the Crusade campaign actually. I don't know about you guys but I virtually never loot or 'Imperialize' conquered worlds.

Different unit types could also have differing supply consumption, and maybe even different bonuses for intensities.   New systems also open up new unit roles: Commando infantry who suffer less from lack of supplies, and Artillery could be a reasonably strong unit that consumes enormous amounts of supplies.

My personal 'Gamer Gone Wild!' implementation would be to basically lift the system from Hearts of Iron III/Victoria II.  Units line up on a pseudo-battlefield, dealing damage to the unit across from them (or diagonal to them) until they are too damaged and fall out of the fight.  Artillery has the advantage of being able to attack from the back line.  The pseudo battlefield only has a limited width, so artillery is an advantage in large scale conflicts.

Planets could be divided into a number of regions, depending on the size of the world.  Colonies would be located in one or more regions.   And, and, and... okay i'll stop now. 

Actually no wait. I'm reminded of Master of Orion 3. For all its faults, it had a decent model for abstracted-yet-sorta-fun ground combats.  No logistics, but combats could rage back and forth across the surface of a planet. As I recall, units had # of attacks, attack strength, armor, hp etc. values that varied with unit type, plus a number of minor stats.  Regions had different terrain types ranging from plains to caverns and different units/races had differing advantages in each.   Hmm-mmm....

P.S. Ground forces could really use higher upkeep costs. Heh.
P.P.S.  I'm not really a fan of artillery, it doesn't make sense to me in a TN context.  And to the extent it does how does it differ from orbital bombardment? (Which you can do from PDCs, anyway!)

[chrislocke2000]

Wow at this rate we will have a full list of v7 features before Steve has even made it through half of a V6 test campaign!

Having said that I do like the idea of logistics units with a rate of how many supplies they can deliver each five day tick (and a tech line to improve this!) and each normal unit having a consumption rate which varies based on low - high intensity warfare. You could then give each unit a set number of starting supplies and then assign them a state based on what percentage of those supplies have been used with negative impacts on effectiveness and morale as that percentage drops. 

[Bgreman]

I agree about supply usage only in combat.

The reason for supply units compared to using supply points (or even just maintenance supplies) is that a significant portion of an army is actually logistical units rather than combat units, so I wanted to simulate the tail as well as the teeth. If I did this, I would drop the cost of ground force training facilites and troop transport bays to compensate.

Steve

I always just assumed the support units were rolled into the battalions themselves.  A mobile infantry battalion to me has 500 power-armored combat troops and maybe 2000 support personnel.

[xeryon]

I always just assumed the support units were rolled into the battalions themselves.  A mobile infantry battalion to me has 500 power-armored combat troops and maybe 2000 support personnel.

This is what I was thinking all along.  When directing a battalion I always assumed the prerequisite support personnel and equipment were part of the deployment.  I favor the usage of combat supplies.  Units stationed in a location with a supply facility and/or gftf consume no supplies but units stationed as a garrison, occupation or active combat consume supplies at various rates consistent with the units combat role.  Consumption would be scaled from garrison troops attached to an off-world PDC at minimal up to an assault battalion in active combat consuming 10x or 20x the supplies as their garrisoned counterpart.  Have the distribution of supplies be something commercial lines can distribute to secure locations that need supplies.  This would take the tedium out of supplying backwater mining colonies as civilians can cover that but forward areas would need to be supplied by government directed craft.

[Mel Vixen]

Steve: Could you Provide the system and galaxy maps? In theyr own Thread thought if possible to keep thede story readable :3

[Marski]

I don't think the Ground Combat units need any more changes, what I have understood is that the units are what they are giving the assumption that they have artillery, airforces and whatnot integrated into the regiments along with supplies, but aren't coded in because having to micromanage planetary forces along with star navies would be quite a bother to manage. Only suggestion I can think for the ground armies would be to add Army HQ and Armygroup HQ units into the game.

[ardem]

I think the opposite ground forces need more depth.

Compared to Space fight ground force combat is not harder then putting a tack on a hex v another stack, guys with the biggest stack wins. We know this is not true in combat. I think at the very least the style of planet should influence factors on the ground units.

Ice based planets, should reduce heavy armour and increase defence
Little water planets that are hot should increase heavy armour and reduce light forces
Low gravity should affect heavy forces and increase light forces ability
High gravity the opposite.

I am sure others can come up with more numbers, these details do not increase micro management but atleast increases the thinking other than lets just produce Marines or Heavy Armour only.

Also I do think a home defender or a defender that is fighting on his atmospehere level should have an increase in defence or get a percentage of population that make up on the spot conscription and insurgents.

[UnLimiTeD]

Ground Combat definitely needs more depth, and I doubt Adding a few unit types is going to do much about that. But adding a few unit types is maybe what is possible for 6.1.

I always just assumed the support units were rolled into the battalions themselves.  A mobile infantry battalion to me has 500 power-armored combat troops and maybe 2000 support personnel.

So, if you initialize boarding with a marine company, they storm the ship with some 500 support personnel holding their ammo? 
Ultimately, having additional logistics forces makes sense because I really don't want to fit yet more people into the troop transports and drop pods.

But that (with stuff like a hex map simulating the battlefield) is far ahead; someday it might happen. Waresky will be pleased.

P.P.S.  I'm not really a fan of artillery, it doesn't make sense to me in a TN context.  And to the extent it does how does it differ from orbital bombardment? (Which you can do from PDCs, anyway!)

Yet another interesting point, we sort of need conventional bombardment options.^^

located 400,000 km/s from the moon

Wait, what?

[chuckles73]

Yet another interesting point, we sort of need conventional bombardment options.

I'm pretty sure we only have nuclear bombardment because Steve wanted it to be a choice between bombarding and losing the planet (through radiation), or conducting a ground combat.

If you had conventional bombardments, there wouldn't be a point in using nukes. At that point there is no cost to just wiping out a planet.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I'm pretty sure we only have nuclear bombardment because Steve wanted it to be a choice between bombarding and losing the planet (through radiation), or conducting a ground combat.

If you had conventional bombardments, there wouldn't be a point in using nukes. At that point there is no cost to just wiping out a planet.

Yes, that's exactly why. One option though might be some form of orbital fire support system that can only be used to aid ground forces (boosting attack or defence strength). Each Brigade HQ could provide fire direction for one ship, or something along those lines.

Steve

[HaliRyan]

Yes, that's exactly why. One option though might be some form of orbital fire support system that can only be used to aid ground forces (boosting attack or defence strength). Each Brigade HQ could provide fire direction for one ship, or something along those lines.

Steve

Rods from God would be a nice support addition. I think it would be kind of interesting to have ship modules dedicated to supporting the troops from orbit.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It would just make invasions easier, unless you also made invasions harder to begin with. Ie: A fortification bonus that is reduced or nullified. 

[UnLimiTeD]

That argument to prevent GFFP is way outdated.
I always thought that the limit on beam weapons was completely artificial, just abruptly cutting off at 1 apm, for the sole reason that happens to be earths level.
I made suggestions in the past how to make it an actual function of atmosphere density that would make different weapons behave differently on different planets; in the process actually making bombardments harder.
This is NOT a discussion about all of that; People apparently like artificial limits, and I can get to terms with that.Conventional bombardment options would obviously be dedicated at taking out ground troops without wrecking the planet, that alone excludes nukes in any form and shape.
A vessel getting close in to provide accurate "short" ranged firesupport would obviously also be vulnerable to hostile "AA" Installations, so using that frigate to deliver firesupport might turn the battle in your favour, but also cost you the frigate.