Author Topic: C# Ground Combat  (Read 10545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tobijon

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • t
  • Posts: 36
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #75 on: November 26, 2018, 03:46:04 AM »
Steve, any chance we get a long range light bombardment component?  There are a lot of armies with large infantry mortars that don't really fit with what I would consider Medium bombardment.  Or maybe I'm just spoiled for choices now lol.
aren't mortars short range bombardment?
 

Offline mtm84

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • m
  • Posts: 45
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #76 on: November 26, 2018, 05:01:48 AM »
Yes but there is a decent difference in range between a 60mm mortar and a 81mm or 120mm mortar.  Likewise you couldn't really compare those mortars to, say, a 75mm pack howitzer.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 984
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #77 on: November 26, 2018, 05:19:46 AM »
Yes but there is a decent difference in range between a 60mm mortar and a 81mm or 120mm mortar.  Likewise you couldn't really compare those mortars to, say, a 75mm pack howitzer.

None of them can reach a strategic depth though. AFAIK all real infantry carried mortars ( up to 120mm ) have ranges below 10km ( which can be considered short range ). Heavy Howitzers and vehicle guns have ranges of 40km+ Rocket Artillery even longer.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2018, 05:21:49 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline mtm84

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • m
  • Posts: 45
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #78 on: November 26, 2018, 10:30:35 AM »
Yeah that's totally fair.  Maybe what I'm really asking for is a slightly more damaging short range bombardment weapon.  I only brought it up because there is a distinction in historical and modern armies between light and heavy mortars.  I figure now is the time to ask.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7234
  • Thanked: 2390 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #79 on: November 26, 2018, 10:54:49 AM »
Yeah that's totally fair.  Maybe what I'm really asking for is a slightly more damaging short range bombardment weapon.  I only brought it up because there is a distinction in historical and modern armies between light and heavy mortars.  I figure now is the time to ask.

One lesson I learned from VB6 was making sure I plan for future expansion. For ground-based weapon components, I can just add new ones to the database and the program will pick it up. So I don't need to cover every option at the moment. I'll add more as I (we) learn from experience.

It's more complex for components that do other things (such as construction, survey, etc.) and anything on those lines will require some coding.

One thing I am considering adding is some form of flamethrower equivalent. Low penetration, high damage, treats fortifications as half normal value, can only be used by formations on Front-Line Attack and is destroyed if damaged.
 
The following users thanked this post: mtm84, DIT_grue, jonw

Offline Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 994
  • Thanked: 72 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #80 on: November 26, 2018, 12:39:35 PM »
In the OOBs that I'm planning now, I treat light mortars as heavy crew-served anti-personnel. Heavy mortars are light bombardment same as old-style infantry guns, and actual field artillery pieces are medium, heavy and long-range bombardment. I think it's important that we do not get too bogged in technical detail for each weapon/system, as long as there is sufficient variety, so that players are free to describe and RP their units and their weaponry in a way that fits their game. Many weapons are technically different and look very different, but perform the same task/job on the battlefield. Good example would be anti-tank weaponry, where a heavy AT mine, any sort of AT gun, an HEAT RPG and a ATGM look all very different and are radically different to build and operate, but in essence perform the same task - of defeating tanks.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 984
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #81 on: November 26, 2018, 05:43:39 PM »
Yeah that's totally fair.  Maybe what I'm really asking for is a slightly more damaging short range bombardment weapon.  I only brought it up because there is a distinction in historical and modern armies between light and heavy mortars.  I figure now is the time to ask.

Well on the scale Aurora models ground combat ( planetary )  the practical difference between one large heavy mortar and say 3 small should be almost nonexistant. So I bet you could just make a formation named "12×120mm Heavy Mortars" made up of 36 Light bombardment and call it a day.
 
The following users thanked this post: Agoelia

Offline space dwarf

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • s
  • Posts: 17
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #82 on: November 26, 2018, 05:55:15 PM »
One thing I am considering adding is some form of flamethrower equivalent. Low penetration, high damage, treats fortifications as half normal value, can only be used by formations on Front-Line Attack and is destroyed if damaged.

You could genericise it to some form of "Close Assault Equipment" I guess
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 350
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #83 on: November 27, 2018, 04:38:50 AM »
One thing I am considering adding is some form of flamethrower equivalent. Low penetration, high damage, treats fortifications as half normal value, can only be used by formations on Front-Line Attack and is destroyed if damaged.
You could genericise it to some form of "Close Assault Equipment" I guess

Easier I think as a unit modifier like hostile environment capability. Although quite frankly, urban/boarding combat capability should already cover most of these problems. The problem with engaging a fortification is usually not getting close enough to engage, thick smoke, jammers and heavy bombardment would suppress any defenders well enough to get close. The problem is engaging effectively when the defender has extensively stacked the deck in his favour. It's just that the circumstances involved in engaging such fortifications are basically the same as those faced in boarding and urban combat, with extremely short sight and engagement ranges with little to no options for artillery support.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 280
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #84 on: November 27, 2018, 05:14:14 PM »
I'm not saying this is definitely athing that should be added, but it would be hilarious if boarding teams could ask for fire support to shoot parts of the ship that have enemies they need help getting past.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, Barkhorn

Offline mtm84

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • m
  • Posts: 45
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #85 on: November 28, 2018, 02:32:19 AM »
Honestly targeting enemy ship systems is a good idea regardless, but I have no idea how much time and effort it would take Steve to code it.
 

 

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