Author Topic: C# Ground Combat  (Read 15666 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tobijon

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • t
  • Posts: 45
  • 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

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 52
  • 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

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1006
  • Thanked: 43 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

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 52
  • 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
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7658
  • Thanked: 3570 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

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1190
  • Thanked: 120 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

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1006
  • Thanked: 43 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: 22
  • Thanked: 1 times
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

  • Captain
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 34 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
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 316
  • Thanked: 29 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

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 52
  • 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.
 

Offline MultiVitamin

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • M
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #86 on: March 31, 2019, 05:20:53 AM »
Was there any consideration for "weird" ground unit components?

A few examples of what I mean by "weird":

A component that, when an enemy unit is defeated by a unit possessing it, has a chance to convert it into a friendly, pre-built unit.  (Similar to Reapers from Mass Effect)

A component that, when an enemy unit is defeated by a unit possessing it, has a chance to heal a friendly unit or give supply points (again, Reapers)

A component that has a chance to resurrect friendly units when they're destroyed/defeated (Necrons from Warhammer).

A component that does damage over time to infantry units, using less supply but has lower damage each tick of combat.  (Flamers from Warhammer and other fiction)

A component that turns a unit into a suicide bomber (Suicide Grunts from Halo).

A component that gives a morale/health/damage/defense boost depending on how many units have that same component.  (Any sci-fi hivemind, machine empire or otherwise psionic empire)

Just a few examples.  I like to play as mages that discovered TN resources and turned towards the stars a lot, so being able to play as a "necromantic" version of those mages could potentially be really fun.  Or even just playing as a race similar to the Reapers of Mass Effect.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1190
  • Thanked: 120 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #87 on: March 31, 2019, 02:59:35 PM »
Not yet. Sounds like stuff that could be added to C# later once the "baseline" is fully working.
 

Offline MultiVitamin

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • M
  • Posts: 35
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #88 on: April 01, 2019, 04:15:57 AM »
Makes sense, i'm really excited for the C# version of aurora mainly because of the changes to Ground Units/Combat and better database usage.  I've always felt that the Ground Units/Combat could've been more refined and unique like how ship design and weapon design were.  All the same, i'll be keeping an eye out for any C# updates (and for more Aurora Fiction from Steve)
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1190
  • Thanked: 120 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #89 on: April 01, 2019, 11:52:12 AM »
Agreed, the ground combat overhaul/revamp is a pretty massive thing and it is possible that during playtesting, especially after we all get C# in our grubby mitts, bunch of weird things are discovered and need to be fixed. Steve has promised us some surprises from the spoilers on the ground combat front too, for which I am very excited.
 

 

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