Author Topic: C# Ground Combat  (Read 21344 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1122
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #120 on: November 18, 2019, 04:38:31 PM »
Currently by the rules posted by Steve:

* Light AA will only fire if it is directly attacked, in other words is part of the formation attacked by enemy fighters.
* Medium AA will only fire if a sub-ordinate formation, in a direct line, is attacked by enemy fighters or in above situation.
* Heavy AA will fire in both above situations, but also will take potshots freely at any enemy fighters (ground support, bombardment, CAP).

This means that creating special AA-only formations only works with Heavy AA. If we want to shield our ground units from enemy fighters, Light AA needs to be in each formation and Medium AA will need to be directly attached to a superior formation.

So, creating an AA battalion for a division is counter-productive if it consists of Light or Medium AA. Instead, players should create AA units out of Heavy AA, put Medium AA together with division/battalion HQs (or whatever equivalent they are using) and put Light AA into front line units where it can both improve ground combat as well as help bleed out enemy fighters.

Alternately put heavy AA in frontline units so they pull double duty, since the heavy AA will fire at fighters from wherever but only AA in front line units will contribute to ground combat, medium AA in command units, and light AA in units you feel are particularly vulnerable to air attack (such as supporting artillery or possibly fragile STO weapon batteries).

Would you in general want to risk expensive pieces of equipment in the front line?!?

To be honest I would probably not place heavy equipment that is not armoured and designed for front line duty in the front line. If you place them further back the chances of them being hit is reduces significantly.

The only time I would place them there is if I'm loosing and I need all the firepower I can get or it might be the only good anti armour guns I have like the German 88mm gun in WW2, although that would probably be a medium type gun in Aurora terms.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #121 on: November 18, 2019, 05:11:43 PM »
Would you in general want to risk expensive pieces of equipment in the front line?!?

To be honest I would probably not place heavy equipment that is not armoured and designed for front line duty in the front line. If you place them further back the chances of them being hit is reduces significantly.

The only time I would place them there is if I'm loosing and I need all the firepower I can get or it might be the only good anti armour guns I have like the German 88mm gun in WW2, although that would probably be a medium type gun in Aurora terms.

Yes. I mean, if the front line dies the support equipment is going to die too. And while you risk losing them instead of infantry/tanks if they're on the front line, "instead" is an important word here, since any shots that hit them would otherwise be hitting other units. So a unit which has its AA in the front line will have both more HP and more firepower, and thus almost certainly win against a similar force which keeps them in reserve. It's more expensive to replace the losses, sure, but it's less expensive than to replace the entire force if it loses.

I suppose it might make a good argument for dedicated heavy AA formations - then you can have it on support for easy mop up operations where you want to take losses on the expensive equipment, but change it to front line if it's a fight you're worried about actually losing and need to maximize your effectiveness (especially if there's no enemy aircraft and they are otherwise useless). But I'll probably just mix them in, especially on planetary garrisons where any fight is very likely to be a desperate one where every advantage counts.

Meanwhile, putting light AA in front line positions is only better than non-AA options if enemy air attacks your front line units - and generally air is going to prefer to target literally anything else than the units designed to take a pounding.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2019, 05:24:36 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1122
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #122 on: November 18, 2019, 05:26:49 PM »
Would you in general want to risk expensive pieces of equipment in the front line?!?

To be honest I would probably not place heavy equipment that is not armoured and designed for front line duty in the front line. If you place them further back the chances of them being hit is reduces significantly.

The only time I would place them there is if I'm loosing and I need all the firepower I can get or it might be the only good anti armour guns I have like the German 88mm gun in WW2, although that would probably be a medium type gun in Aurora terms.

Yes. I mean, if the front line dies the support equipment is going to die too. And while you risk losing them instead of infantry/tanks if they're on the front line, "instead" is an important word here, since any shots that hit them would otherwise be hitting other units. So a unit which has its AA in the front line will have both more HP and more firepower, and thus almost certainly win against a similar force which keeps them in reserve. It's more expensive to replace the losses, sure, but it's less expensive than to replace the entire force if it loses.

I suppose it might make a good argument for dedicated heavy AA formations - then you can have it on support for easy mop up operations where you want to take losses on the expensive equipment, but change it to front line if it's a fight you're worried about actually losing and need to maximize your effectiveness (especially if there's no enemy aircraft and they are otherwise useless).

Meanwhile, putting light AA in front line positions is only better than non-AA options if enemy air attacks your front line units - and generally air is going to prefer to target literally anything else than the units designed to take a pounding.

If it is a hard fight and it is close or you are otherwise loosing. Otherwise I don't think a few AA shot does much if what most you shoot at are enemy infantry anyway. In case you are in a good lead then having them lost to enemy infantry is a bit like wasting minerals to be honest when a few more infantry losses overall will matter very little in the big picture.

The AA guns has much wider front than regular infantry so they are quite easily hit in comparison to regular infantry and dies almost as easily while providing rather little firepower against infantry in comparison. That is probably why you stick to light AA in the front line in general.

I would say the same thing with anti-armour assets as well, might as well withdraw them as long as the opponent have mostly infantry on the front line and throw them on the line when their armour take up a wider area of the battle space. That way you save their effective fire-power to matter. An expensive anti-armour cannon hitting mostly infantry is not terribly efficient and only risk their destruction for nothing.

Again, if the combat is hard fought then you obviously throw everything on the front line, but if you want to conserve your resources for the next fight you might try and sacrifice mostly light units that is more easily replaced.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 58 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #123 on: November 18, 2019, 05:39:14 PM »
Would you in general want to risk expensive pieces of equipment in the front line?!?

To be honest I would probably not place heavy equipment that is not armoured and designed for front line duty in the front line. If you place them further back the chances of them being hit is reduces significantly.

The only time I would place them there is if I'm loosing and I need all the firepower I can get or it might be the only good anti armour guns I have like the German 88mm gun in WW2, although that would probably be a medium type gun in Aurora terms.

Yes. I mean, if the front line dies the support equipment is going to die too. And while you risk losing them instead of infantry/tanks if they're on the front line, "instead" is an important word here, since any shots that hit them would otherwise be hitting other units. So a unit which has its AA in the front line will have both more HP and more firepower, and thus almost certainly win against a similar force which keeps them in reserve. It's more expensive to replace the losses, sure, but it's less expensive than to replace the entire force if it loses.

I suppose it might make a good argument for dedicated heavy AA formations - then you can have it on support for easy mop up operations where you want to take losses on the expensive equipment, but change it to front line if it's a fight you're worried about actually losing and need to maximize your effectiveness (especially if there's no enemy aircraft and they are otherwise useless).

Meanwhile, putting light AA in front line positions is only better than non-AA options if enemy air attacks your front line units - and generally air is going to prefer to target literally anything else than the units designed to take a pounding.

If it is a hard fight and it is close or you are otherwise loosing. Otherwise I don't think a few AA shot does much if what most you shoot at are enemy infantry anyway. In case you are in a good lead then having them lost to enemy infantry is a bit like wasting minerals to be honest when a few more infantry losses overall will matter very little in the big picture.

The AA guns has much wider front than regular infantry so they are quite easily hit in comparison to regular infantry and dies almost as easily while providing rather little firepower against infantry in comparison. That is probably why you stick to light AA in the front line in general.

I would say the same thing with anti-armour assets as well, might as well withdraw them as long as the opponent have mostly infantry on the front line and throw them on the line when their armour take up a wider area of the battle space. That way you save their effective fire-power to matter. An expensive anti-armour cannon hitting mostly infantry is not terribly efficient and only risk their destruction for nothing.

Again, if the combat is hard fought then you obviously throw everything on the front line, but if you want to conserve your resources for the next fight you might try and sacrifice mostly light units that is more easily replaced.

I think we're just approaching things from fundamentally different directions, then. Your ideas make sense if you're confident you're going to win and want to minimize losses - for example, dropping a large assault force on a small garrison. Whereas I'm viewing things from the expectation that the entire force might lose and thus being a few percent stronger is worth having to pay a few percent more for reinforcements (if they survive at all) - important for, say, a planetary garrison where who knows what you might face, and even if you lose you'll want to inflict as many losses as possible. This is doubly true for things like withdrawing frontline anti-vehicle units if there aren't any enemy vehicles.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 532
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #124 on: November 18, 2019, 06:52:09 PM »
Keep in mind that while it's certainly wise to withdraw frontline anti vehicle units when enemy vehicles are non-existent, there's also something to be said for leaving the tanks on the front anyway, even with the heavy and expensive anti vehicle guns.

Because they'll soak a good chunk of the enemy that would otherwise be hitting the infantry, and tanks are a lot more sturdy. You just need to be careful of enemy anti vehicle formations.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1122
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #125 on: November 19, 2019, 01:16:47 AM »
I think we're just approaching things from fundamentally different directions, then. Your ideas make sense if you're confident you're going to win and want to minimize losses - for example, dropping a large assault force on a small garrison. Whereas I'm viewing things from the expectation that the entire force might lose and thus being a few percent stronger is worth having to pay a few percent more for reinforcements (if they survive at all) - important for, say, a planetary garrison where who knows what you might face, and even if you lose you'll want to inflict as many losses as possible. This is doubly true for things like withdrawing frontline anti-vehicle units if there aren't any enemy vehicles.

I think we basically agree, I just think that the situation where combat are indecisive probably are more rare than the opposite situation most of the time.



Keep in mind that while it's certainly wise to withdraw frontline anti vehicle units when enemy vehicles are non-existent, there's also something to be said for leaving the tanks on the front anyway, even with the heavy and expensive anti vehicle guns.

Because they'll soak a good chunk of the enemy that would otherwise be hitting the infantry, and tanks are a lot more sturdy. You just need to be careful of enemy anti vehicle formations.

I think there might be some situations where you want to withhold even tanks, but probably not very often because they are basically designed to be very good against infantry for their cost.

You could however find yourself in a situation where the enemy have an unusual amount of static anti-armour and anti-armour vehicles in their front line and it might be wise to keep them back until you whittled them down a bit first, or you get reinforced with more  infantry to dilute the front line a bit more.

But the same can even hold true for infantry to some extent. If the enemy have next to no anti-armour capacity you might withdraw some infantry to increase  the enemy hitting your tanks instead and then though deploy the really good anti-personnel tanks.

If you are assaulting a planet you might even consider bringing some forces up into space if you control space around the planet completely instead of withdrawing them to the support or rear lines.

But this again is only if you are otherwise more powerful than the opponent and simply want to save resources. It will drag out the combat for a few more days or weeks but you will loose less resources overall.

Sometimes time is more important and loosing the resources more acceptable, I guess it all depends on external factors.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 532
  • Thanked: 45 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #126 on: November 19, 2019, 06:40:14 AM »
Tanks become less cost effective as effective fortification rises, because tanks cannot be as fortified as infantry, and as enemy anti vehicle weapons improve and/or become more numerous because those can effectively engage tanks.

So basically, on anything you can effectively maneuver with a tank, you want a tank as a mobile pillbox and moving cover, if nothing else. When the tank can't move freely enough and/or is just ambush bait that can't defend itself effectively you want to withdraw the tanks.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1348
  • Thanked: 159 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #127 on: November 19, 2019, 01:25:48 PM »
Which means that it will probably make sense to create tank heavy and tank light formations, or in other words, "good" terrain armies and "bad" terrain armies. Former would be used on planets that allow only few levels of fortifications, the latter on planets that allow many levels of fortification.

I posted my earlier thing about AA mainly as a reminder to myself but to everyone else who is like me and wants to make "realistic" combined arms units that follow modern OOB and TO&E.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1122
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #128 on: November 19, 2019, 05:28:16 PM »
Which means that it will probably make sense to create tank heavy and tank light formations, or in other words, "good" terrain armies and "bad" terrain armies. Former would be used on planets that allow only few levels of fortifications, the latter on planets that allow many levels of fortification.

I posted my earlier thing about AA mainly as a reminder to myself but to everyone else who is like me and wants to make "realistic" combined arms units that follow modern OOB and TO&E.

Yeah... I basically made this one at work today because I was bored and in a long dreary meeting...



Mechanized Brigade

1x Brigade HQ section
1x Heavy Support Company
5x Mechanized Companies


                                   Cost          Size
Mechanized Company                  274      4234
181x Combat Personnel
84x Noncombat Personnel (abstracted)
10x Heavy Vehicles
27x Medium Vehicles
15x Light Vehicles


1x Company HQ Section                  26.23   473
1x HQ Vehicle (M.Vehicle, LAA, HQ 5000)         12.23   163
2x HQ Support Vehicles (L.Vehicle, LAA)         3.2      64
3x Supply Vehicle (L.Vehicle, Supply)            9.3      186
12x Infantry (PW)                     1.5      60

1x Heavy Weapons Section               39.92   822
1x Section HQ Vehicle (M.Vehicle, LAA, CAP)      3.75      50
1x FOB Vehicle (L.Vehicle, FFD)               3.6      72
3x Mortar Vehicle (M.Vehicle, 2xLBB)            13.05   174      
3x Anti-Tank Vehicle (L.Vehicle, MAV)            6.6      132
3x Anti-Personnel Vehicle (M.Vehicle, 2xHCAP)      13.05   174      
44x Infantry (Power Armor, PW)               5.5      220

1x Scout Platoon                     18.125   390
1x Section HQ Vehicle (M.Vehicle, LAA, CAP)      3.75      50      
1x FOB Vehicle (L.Vehicle, FFD)               3.6      72      
4x Scout Vehicle (L.Vehicle, HCAP)            6.4      128
28x Infantry (Power Armor, PW)               4.375   140

1x Support Platoon                  48.45   730      
1x HQ Support Vehicles (L.Vehicle, LAA)         1.6      32
3x Artillery Vehicle (M.Vehicle, 2xMBB)         22.05   294
3x Anti-Air Vehicle (2xMAA)               22.05   294
22x Infantry (PW)                     2.75      110

3x Infantry Platoons                  3x18.01   3x313
1x Section HQ Vehicle (M.Vehicle, LAA, CAP)      3.75      50      
3x IFV (M.Vehicle, LAV, CAP)               10.35   138
4x Infantry (Power Armor, PW)               0.625   20   
12x Infantry (Power Armor, CAP)               1.875   60
6x Infantry (Power Armor, LAV)               0.9375   30
3x Infantry (Power Armour, HCAP)            0.469   15

2x Tank Platoons                     2x44      2x440
5x Tanks (H.Vehicle, MAV, HCAP)               44      440


Heavy Support Company

1x Company HQ Section
1x HQ Vehicle (M.Vehicle, LAA, CAP)
2x FOBV (M.Vehicle, LAA, CAP)
3x Supply Vehicles (M.Vehicle, 2xSupply)
12x Infantry (PW)

1x Company Artillery Section
1x HQ Vehicle (L.Vehicle, LAA)
6x Medium Artillery (M.Vehicle, 2xLR-MBB)
3x Heavy Artillery (M.Vehicle, 2xHBB)
40x Infantry (PW)

1x Company Anti-Air Section
1x HQ Vehicle (L.Vehicle, LAA)
6x Heavy Anti-Air
28x Infantry (PW)
   
2x Security Platoons
1x HQ Vehicle (L.Vehicle, LAA)
3x APC (L.Vehicle, CAP)
40x Infantry (PW)





General combat equipment                  Stats

Eagle model A (Company HQ section communication tank)      M. Vehicle (HQ 5000, LAA)
Eagle model B (Brigade HQ section communication tank)      M. Vehicle (HQ 20000, LAA)
Eagle model C (Division HQ section communication tank)

Prianha model A (Armoured Personnel Carrier), 12 Crew & Passangers   L. Vehicle (CAP)
Piranha model B (Command Support Vehicle), 4 Crew         L. Vehicle (LAA)
Piranha model C (Forward Observer command vehicle), 4 Crew       L. Vehicle (FFD)

Avenger model A (Infantry Fighting Vehicle), 9 Crew & Passengers   M. Vehicle (LAV, CAP)
Avenger model B (Command Tank), 4 Crew            M. Vehicle (LAA, CAP)

Ranger model A (Armored Scout Vehicle), 7 Crew & Passengers      L. Vehicle (HCAP)

Lynx model A (Light Tank)                  M. Vehicle (MAC,CAP)

Panther model A (Heavy Tank)                  H. Vehicle (MAV, HCAP)


It is not ready yet but it is suppose to be self contained Brigade and suitable for a couple of Assault Carriers, it should have a total weight of about 30-35.000t all in all. It is suppose to be an elite Space Marine Core Brigade. There are going to be some elite special forces marines for capturing and boarding space stations and allot other more specialised troops in this brigade.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2019, 05:47:36 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline TinkerPox

  • MIDN
  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #129 on: November 19, 2019, 05:59:18 PM »
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB link=topic=9792. msg117076#msg117076 date=1574206096
Quote from: Garfunkel link=topic=9792. msg117069#msg117069 date=1574191548
Which means that it will probably make sense to create tank heavy and tank light formations, or in other words, "good" terrain armies and "bad" terrain armies.  Former would be used on planets that allow only few levels of fortifications, the latter on planets that allow many levels of fortification.

I posted my earlier thing about AA mainly as a reminder to myself but to everyone else who is like me and wants to make "realistic" combined arms units that follow modern OOB and TO&E.

Yeah. . .  I basically made this one at work today because I was bored and in a long dreary meeting. . .



Mechanized Brigade

1x Brigade HQ section
1x Heavy Support Company
5x Mechanized Companies




I really like the thought you put in designing this hierarchy.  I would suggest that you make it a Mechanized Battalion as opposed to a Brigade.  Platoons -> Companies -> Battalions -> Regiments (Not always used) -> Brigades
That would also help with rank structure within the force.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1122
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #130 on: November 19, 2019, 07:09:48 PM »
I really like the thought you put in designing this hierarchy.  I would suggest that you make it a Mechanized Battalion as opposed to a Brigade.  Platoons -> Companies -> Battalions -> Regiments (Not always used) -> Brigades
That would also help with rank structure within the force.

Yeah... it is not ready by a longshot and the structure was a bit different from the modern standard as the formation is smaller than a regular Division and the Brigade is sort of like a self contained elite force. It is going to have allot more fire-power than a similar force that is quite a bit larger and with more soldiers.

Each "company" is quite a bit larger than a standard company and is sort of in between that of a company and a battalion, is also carry its own organic support troops. There will also be a few squadron of fighter crafts and boarding pods attached to the Brigade. The company is suppose to be a self contained units and each company can be deployed in even separate bodies within a solar system if need be. So I could call them companies or battalions, both would suffice I think.

The idea is that this "brigade" is an elite force and part of the Space Marine Corps which is a separate military force from either the navy or the PDF (Planetary Defence Forces or plain Ground Army). The Space Marine Corps is suppose to get their own ships, space fighters and ground fighters with the ability to act independently and swiftly when needed.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2019, 07:18:52 PM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline TinkerPox

  • MIDN
  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #131 on: November 19, 2019, 08:39:03 PM »
Understandable, your organization is to suit your RP after all.  I personally like the idea of basing mine off the Marine Air Ground Task Force, just integrating what is needed for that particular mission, whether it be armor, infantry, support, air support etc.  with built in logistical support.  Armies do use Brigade Combat Teams, their own expeditionary version.  However they use the traditional companies within battalions to make it up.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • J
  • Posts: 1122
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #132 on: November 20, 2019, 02:05:50 AM »
Understandable, your organization is to suit your RP after all.  I personally like the idea of basing mine off the Marine Air Ground Task Force, just integrating what is needed for that particular mission, whether it be armor, infantry, support, air support etc.  with built in logistical support.  Armies do use Brigade Combat Teams, their own expeditionary version.  However they use the traditional companies within battalions to make it up.

Yes... I'm perfectly aware of that... my take in this is that each individual part here is more potent and the C3 and command structure are more advanced as combat information can be processed through AI integration. This mean the organisation can be more compressed.

But I understand that organisations in the real world work like the do for a reason.

A company for  example is about 100-150 men because that is the largest body of men one commander can get to know and order personally... there are similar reasons for other step in the hierarchy that are more or less universal in human culture across the globe.
 

 

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