Author Topic: C# Ground Combat  (Read 39590 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Marski

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 318
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #180 on: January 11, 2020, 10:05:40 PM »
Thats actually pretty disappointing, the idea of giant rolling surface to orbit tanks greatly amuses me.
always imagined they were one of these bad boys, except with massive railgun on the back instead of a missile
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 627
  • Thanked: 62 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #181 on: January 11, 2020, 10:25:11 PM »
Actually, for mobile STO railgun units you want an absolutely massive vehicle (think more railway gun than tractor with trailer), because nothing else is going to absorb the recoil well enough without digging the vehicle into the ground or sending it skipping across the surface. That's part of why STOs are Static only; that's an entire structure build around the gun so it can fire repeatedly without the whole thing tipping over.

Beam weapons would have lower recoil, but still require very large supplies of power, so it'd be less one tractor with trailer and more like a bunch of trailers holding the sensor arrays, firing computers, power supply and 1 trailer holding the gun itself. If only because having to align multiple lasers into a beam bundling trailer would be fiddly and inconvenient.

If we actually could do STO missile systems you'd get something you can haul around in a trailer though.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 535
  • Thanked: 98 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #182 on: January 12, 2020, 01:08:28 AM »
Well, consider this.  We are supposed to have classes of units that are meant to act as imperial titans from warhammer 40k.  Those things actually canonically can shoot down starships if said ships get close enough.  Also mobility would presumably help a lot with survivability against orbital bombardment, though I think that might not actually be factored into the current ground combat mechanics.  In general though, the idea of a giant tank or mech shooting down giant starships in space is very amusing to me.
 

Offline Marski

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 318
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #183 on: January 12, 2020, 06:36:19 AM »
that's an entire structure build around the gun so it can fire repeatedly without the whole thing tipping over.
Wrong, unless firing at horizon, orbital targets would require almost vertical elevation of the barrel, the recoil would be directed downwards and on to the soil.
 

Offline Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #184 on: January 12, 2020, 08:56:26 AM »
That's... rather much. It can work out that such a level of supply is necessary though, when a planet is very defensible. 130 rounds of combat works out to about a month of fighting (IIRC 1 round is 6 hours, if it's 3 hours is about 2.5 weeks of fighting), and I can see very well defended planets take that long to get the defenders ground down unless you go in with absolutely overwhelming force, and at that point you are basically committing a vast chunk of your GFTF production for an extended period of time.

Oh, it's insane. I thought I needed that to get 13 rounds of resupply, which felt reasonable. But 130 is bonkers. I'd probably cut about 80-90% of that supply force in favour of either construction vehicles/STO forces (if I expect the units to stay as garrison after conquering a planet), or just reducing the total size of the force. Supply was over 20% of the all-in cost of that division, so it's a meaningful difference.

True, but at the same time the relative cheapness of stationing and keeping troops in secured space is not to be neglected.
(snip)
...you don't have to provide any supply until soldiers are in combat.

Remember that ground forces require upkeep. The Wealth cost to keep forces even when they're not fighting represents these costs. It's not a BP cost, but it'll still be meaningful.

While true, it's relevant to note that bombardment and counterbattery fire are just as random as normal ground unit fire, only fighters flying Flak Suppression missions directly target a specific type of enemy formation. Because of this, having PWL infantry in the formation is just as effective at soaking bombardment fire and keeping valuable formations safe as they are at soaking fire from enemy breakthrough units.

Tagging relevant forces as combat avoidant just makes the PWL 500% as effective as they would normally be, because you wouldn't define them as combat avoidant, you want them to get shot at in such circumstances.

Remember that avoiding combat also reduces their offensive firepower 80%. So it'll work fine for supply, HQ, and FFD units, but you wouldn't want to use it for artillery, AA, or STO.

Iterative testing would be required here, yes. I would expect that the compounding effect of losing about 1/3rd less units is helpful, because that also means you lose 1/3rd less firepower over time. It's definitely something that will require a bit of thought though, because it also means that you are effectively bringing 1/2 the infantry to the fight on the same production budget. It's one of those 'we could equip everyone with 5 million credits worth of equipment and see them swarmed and torn apart, or we could equip everyone with 500 000 thousand credits worth of equipment and lose half of them and win anyway' cases.

It wouldn't be the first time where the numerically superior side wins on count of being numerically superior and having more guns to shoot, despite the enemy being better protected.

Yup. The more I dig into this system, the more I like it. It's clean, it creates realistic fighting where I want combined arms instead of spamming one god unit, and the tradeoffs are designed really well. Big props to Steve.

Those AT emplacements do amazing work - each one costs 1.2 BP, and kills 6.75 BP per round. The sum total for the unit is that it'd take 22.85 BP per round of damage, and inflict 95.41 BP worth.

That's a pretty damn good trade.



More like such a formation would be the ground security complement for the STO emplacements. Those HAA units are rather expensive in supplies for an AT weapon, but the question of 'do I deploy them forward and risk them getting shot apart by ground forces early but deter enemy tanks' or 'do I keep them in the back so they can bully enemy airpower but get flattened in an instant in a breakthrough' is an entirely valid one that I expect will depend at least in part on what sort of enemy forces you are facing. I'd move them forward sooner with an enemy assault force with a large armour component.

Not that expensive - they're comparable to MAV in anti-tank work(3 AP/6 damage/18 supply for HAA, 4 AP/4 damage/16 supply for MAV). They do fire twice a round because of the extra AA phase, and thus use double the supplies, but you'll need to fire the AA from somewhere regardless. The big costs are that it's about twice the size (60 tons vs 32), so you won't want to use AA unless you actually expect enemy air power, and that if you lose the unit you lose both the AV and AA weapons instead of them being broken up.

If you are losing logistics to enemy fire from non-breakthrough units it might be worth reconsidering forward deploying logistics units. Due to how logistics work they are always at risk, and the highest logistics unit in the planetary OOB gets drained first anyway. It might work out better to have a small(ish) vehicular logistics unit attached to the force but separate and kept in the rear, where it's not as likely to get flattened during the fighting unless the battle is lost anyway.

Because in any fight where that garrison force is part of a higher command with vehicle supply units on hand, supply integrated in any formation that is likely to take fire is going to be lost supply. So you wouldn't want to put infantry supply forces forward anyway except when your forces have drained their supply pool and need a top up, which is just a micromanagement hell issue, and you want to keep your logistics vehicles as far back as possible because they are going to supply everything down the chain of command from the HQ they are attached to anyway.

The most efficient use of infantry supply units in a way that doesn't create a micromanagement problem would be to use them to supply to MAA and HAA units away from the frontlines who are likely to be targeted by fighters on Flak Suppression missions, which don't target non-AA unit elements, and nowhere else as no other units would not be fired upon while having a draw on supply.

Yeah, infantry supply for the AA/arty formation behind the front lines sounds like a solid plan to me.

Wrong, unless firing at horizon, orbital targets would require almost vertical elevation of the barrel, the recoil would be directed downwards and on to the soil.

That's far too strong a claim to simply say "wrong". A STO weapon can presumably fire at an entire hemisphere over the horizon. Most of that isn't straight up.

That said, you don't need to be static to open fire at an angle with heavy ordinance. Artillery exists. A 10cm railgun is 150 tons - that's well within the realm where real-world mobile artillery has been built. The biggest gun ever built was 1350 tons = 27 HS, and that was (barely) mobile. It could also fire at any angle from flat to 48 degrees up, which is to say all the angles where recoil mostly isn't straight down.

I think "STO can only be static" is a reasonable game rule, not least because it means that the installations can't be too insanely fortified. If you could put them on UHVs, the natural way to defend would probably just be to spam all-in-one Ogres, and that would be both boring and stupid. But the better argument here is gameplay, not realism, IMO.

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 627
  • Thanked: 62 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #185 on: January 12, 2020, 10:44:00 AM »
Oh, it's insane. I thought I needed that to get 13 rounds of resupply, which felt reasonable. But 130 is bonkers. I'd probably cut about 80-90% of that supply force in favour of either construction vehicles/STO forces (if I expect the units to stay as garrison after conquering a planet), or just reducing the total size of the force. Supply was over 20% of the all-in cost of that division, so it's a meaningful difference.

Unless you expect to lose naval control of the system or engage in defensive combat during the assault I'd advise against shipping in ConVecs or STO forces in the first wave. You rarely know for certain what the enemy has down there, and those forces are generally useless in a direct manner in a ground battle. I'd send in the assault forces first and let them take the hits until you are certain you can maintain the integrity of your defenses.

This does presume that you have effectively suppressed enemy STO forces, because a wave of high value units that's not protected by a shell of low value units to distract enemy fire is a disaster waiting to happen, and that HAA cannot engage landing fighter craft. I wouldn't count on that, so Flak Suppression would also be necessary. Otherwise you might as well drop them at the same time and hope for the best.

Remember that ground forces require upkeep. The Wealth cost to keep forces even when they're not fighting represents these costs. It's not a BP cost, but it'll still be meaningful.

Compared to the cost of running the rest of your economy the wealth upkeep for ground units is rather trivial.

Remember that avoiding combat also reduces their offensive firepower 80%. So it'll work fine for supply, HQ, and FFD units, but you wouldn't want to use it for artillery, AA, or STO.

You would want it for STO, because STO AFAICT work on naval combat rules, not ground combat rules. A fair point about AA and artillery though, which likely would be affected, but I'm not certain about that. At least, not when the AA is acting in the air defense role and the artillery is acting in the bombardment role.

Not that expensive - they're comparable to MAV in anti-tank work(3 AP/6 damage/18 supply for HAA, 4 AP/4 damage/16 supply for MAV). They do fire twice a round because of the extra AA phase, and thus use double the supplies, but you'll need to fire the AA from somewhere regardless. The big costs are that it's about twice the size (60 tons vs 32), so you won't want to use AA unless you actually expect enemy air power, and that if you lose the unit you lose both the AV and AA weapons instead of them being broken up.

Given the poorer AP value for AA units I'd say they are less effective in all stats except for actually making the kill once the armour is breached, but they'd make a decent stopgap measure or dual purpose deployment when a formation is small enough that'd work out.

Yeah, infantry supply for the AA/arty formation behind the front lines sounds like a solid plan to me.

Eh, supply units with the artillery would get hit with counterbattery fire, and units dedicated to counterbattery fire are very likely to be relatively heavy while supply units are not going to be armoured that well so they're going to die when hit. Unless you have a major bombardment advantage it'd probably be more effective to have vehicle based supply units in a different formation that are not as likely to get targeted performing the supply duties.

AA formations cheat because Flak Suppression missions only target the AA units themselves and ignore all others.

That's far too strong a claim to simply say "wrong". A STO weapon can presumably fire at an entire hemisphere over the horizon. Most of that isn't straight up.

That said, you don't need to be static to open fire at an angle with heavy ordinance. Artillery exists. A 10cm railgun is 150 tons - that's well within the realm where real-world mobile artillery has been built. The biggest gun ever built was 1350 tons = 27 HS, and that was (barely) mobile. It could also fire at any angle from flat to 48 degrees up, which is to say all the angles where recoil mostly isn't straight down.

I think "STO can only be static" is a reasonable game rule, not least because it means that the installations can't be too insanely fortified. If you could put them on UHVs, the natural way to defend would probably just be to spam all-in-one Ogres, and that would be both boring and stupid. But the better argument here is gameplay, not realism, IMO.

Actually, Static units are basically 12 ton base size units that can be as well fortified as infantry (so fortification 3/6), and they can equip every weapon system that isn't an autocannon, personal weapon or the Super Heavy Anti Vehicle weapon. Sure, they also get the infantry armour ratings so they'll probably die if you hit them, but you need to hit them first. Static units are great for anchoring defensive units with heavy weapons that otherwise need the much larger and expensive vehicles instead.

UHVs may have some very heavy armour, but they are very large and don't have anywhere near the fortification protections Static units get, so they're also going to get hit a lot more often.


Also, that 150 ton 10cm railgun will be bigger as an STO weapon because things like sensors and a powerplant will be attached to it during ground weapon design. Depending on how much the 150 tons is dedicated to the capacitors it might be haulable with a heavy duty truck for the gun itself and a fleet of trucks for the capacitors and the cables necessary to link everything up though.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 600
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #186 on: January 12, 2020, 12:42:12 PM »
A side effect of the ground unit system is that you generally want a larger chassis for a larger weapon - ie if a weapon weighs 100 tons, it's pretty wasteful to put it on a 12 ton chassis, since a larger chassis like a 36 ton heavy vehicle would give it much more survivability (even without increased armor) for a small increase in total size. Since large STO weapons could easily be 500 tons or more, if you could put them on large vehicles that probably would be the most emergent choice, though you might well choose to give the STO vehicles light vehicle armor (the high hitpoints would still give them decent resistance to anything but the heaviest weapons).

So I agree that for gameplay purposes limiting them to statics makes sense.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alsadius

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 457 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #187 on: January 12, 2020, 03:21:09 PM »
That's... rather much. It can work out that such a level of supply is necessary though, when a planet is very defensible. 130 rounds of combat works out to about a month of fighting (IIRC 1 round is 6 hours, if it's 3 hours is about 2.5 weeks of fighting), and I can see very well defended planets take that long to get the defenders ground down unless you go in with absolutely overwhelming force, and at that point you are basically committing a vast chunk of your GFTF production for an extended period of time.
One round of combat is 8 hours, so you get 3 rounds per day. Every unit inherently has supply for 10 rounds of combat so without extra supply units you can go 80 hours at full steam before switching to half unless supplied.

130 rounds would thus be 43 days and little extra which is most likely overkill unless the enemy is fully fortified on a jungle mountain rift planet AND outnumbers your attacking force significantly.
 
The following users thanked this post: BigBacon

Offline Rabid_Cog

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 306
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #188 on: January 13, 2020, 02:30:31 AM »
I have noticed that combat seems to be quick and brutal, doesn't matter how big the forces involved are. We say 43 days is a ludicrously long time for a ground invasion to last, but we have to ask what the purpose of ground based defences are?

Since STO's cannot actually force enemies out of the system, the best that planetary defences can do is to delay and hold on until a mobile force can arrive to retake the space. With that in mind... is even 30 days a reasonable time to hold out for the cavalry to arrive? Isn't it a bit short? Especially since 30 days is very much an optimistic estimate.

I guess all I am asking is if combat should perhaps slow down slightly to allow the greater strategic picture more time to evolve while the fight is ongoing.
I have my own subforum now!
Shameless plug for my own Aurora story game:
5.6 part: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,4988.0.html
6.2 part: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5906.0.html

Feel free to post comments!
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/topic,5452.0.html
 
The following users thanked this post: Graham

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 457 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #189 on: January 13, 2020, 05:31:46 AM »
Well, that's as long as the attacker has a rough idea of how strong the defender is AND that they bring sufficient firepower to deal with the defender.

If that's not the case, then the combat can last a long time. If the attacker gets bollocked during the first few combat rounds, they'll switch to defence to fortify themselves and/or to buy time to bring up reinforcements, which might take a month or three. Which gives the defender plenty of time to do the same.

What we meant is that a month of continuous full intensity combat will probably not last unless the participants are very lopsided when it comes to firepower.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 627
  • Thanked: 62 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #190 on: January 13, 2020, 06:14:33 AM »
Actually, the better forces can be fortified on a planet the longer a battle will last. Likewise, small forces with a major tech advantage will probably outfight substantially larger forces with poorer weapons and armour, but take longer in doing so and as such will need a large supply cache for their size for best effect.

Presuming peer forces on planets with poor fortification and to hit modifiers however, combat is likely to be over in a couple of weeks at most. Aurora doesn't really support the notion of planetary guerilla combat, and presumes a degree of set piece battle plans on all sides to duke it out that would probably be somewhat unrealistic in real life because no way any military wouldn't prepare for losing the orbitals and continuing the battle under such circumstances. It would be far more likely that under such circumstances the defenders fade into bad terrain where they are hard to find to maintain pressure on the attackers and drawn in oversized garrisons in an attempt to limit the enemy the freedom to maneuver and concentrate its forces by ongoing commitments while waiting for reinforcements to relieve the siege.

Can't blame Steve for doing it this way though. It'd be pretty boring.
 

Offline Alsadius

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 176
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #191 on: January 13, 2020, 09:04:09 AM »
I have noticed that combat seems to be quick and brutal, doesn't matter how big the forces involved are. We say 43 days is a ludicrously long time for a ground invasion to last, but we have to ask what the purpose of ground based defences are?

Since STO's cannot actually force enemies out of the system, the best that planetary defences can do is to delay and hold on until a mobile force can arrive to retake the space. With that in mind... is even 30 days a reasonable time to hold out for the cavalry to arrive? Isn't it a bit short? Especially since 30 days is very much an optimistic estimate.

I guess all I am asking is if combat should perhaps slow down slightly to allow the greater strategic picture more time to evolve while the fight is ongoing.

STOs mostly exist to prevent orbital bombardment from totally screwing the defender, I think. Also, to see if they can kill some landing shuttles and improve the odds on the ground.

Offline Deutschbag

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 104
  • Thanked: 17 times
  • Discord Username: Pwnzerfaust
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #192 on: February 23, 2020, 07:36:43 PM »
Brainstorming an idea for a project and was wondering if anyone knew for sure if we will be able to save/import ground formation templates from a file? Like, imagine you create a template you enjoy in one campaign and want to use it in others. I can't recall if there's been any information on that regard.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1805
  • Thanked: 457 times
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #193 on: February 24, 2020, 12:21:36 PM »
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9792.msg108838#msg108838

Is it possible to create templates for real world nations that Aurora uses at game start? Is this something that we as players could help by creating American, British, Russian, Chinese and so on gear and formations using the information you provided? This would help immensely with the multi-faction Earth starts that use real countries.

Definitely possible to have preset templates.

Which is why I created this thread:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10116.0
so that we could make real 21st-century - and maybe later real 20th-century ground unit and ground formation templates.

Steve hasn't given us any updates since though.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 10070
  • Thanked: 10650 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Ground Combat
« Reply #194 on: February 24, 2020, 12:29:24 PM »
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9792.msg108838#msg108838

Is it possible to create templates for real world nations that Aurora uses at game start? Is this something that we as players could help by creating American, British, Russian, Chinese and so on gear and formations using the information you provided? This would help immensely with the multi-faction Earth starts that use real countries.

Definitely possible to have preset templates.

Which is why I created this thread:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10116.0
so that we could make real 21st-century - and maybe later real 20th-century ground unit and ground formation templates.

Steve hasn't given us any updates since though.

Yes, it is possible. I haven't done it yet though.
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel, hubgbf

 

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 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72