Author Topic: C# Aurora Changes Discussion  (Read 135711 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Hazard

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • H
  • Posts: 262
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1770 on: September 18, 2018, 02:00:43 PM »
Hmmm.

I'd need to check the numbers, but I think that in that case choosing between Light Vehicle Light Bombardment and Infantry Light Bombardment is a question of if you want your LB units to have some armour against counter battery fire or if you will accept the greater losses for something like 30% more guns on target. Until you get armoured and power armoured infantry, in which case you want them. They're IIRC the same size as Infantry but as well armoured as Light Vehicles, so at that point? Unless they're ruinously more expensive it's worth the trade off.

Heavy Bombardment sees something similar between Heavy Vehicles and Static. Static units are notably smaller per component and can massively stack their Fortification, but Heavy Vehicles just have better armour. I expect this will come down to whether or not the local terrain supports fortification bonuses or not.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 7011
  • Thanked: 1838 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1771 on: September 18, 2018, 02:12:08 PM »
Would that be an option where to add APC, IFVs and other transports, by allowing infantry to have the same breakthrough attack chance as vehicles?
Also, destruction of formations seems like an infrequent occurrence, especially if one wants to keep their numbers manageable. Maybe mobility should already affect the effective target size to attack backline units, or is this already considered a breakthrough?

I should probably make breakthrough above a certain percentage of the opposing formation, with different percentages required for vehicles and infantry base types.

Transports would be complicated. Perhaps something for a future update.
 
The following users thanked this post: DIT_grue

Offline Bremen

  • Commander
  • *********
  • B
  • Posts: 369
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1772 on: September 18, 2018, 05:31:28 PM »
I honestly don't think special modifiers for breakthrough are necessary. The penalty for leaving fortification for infantry or (especially) static units are already pretty huge.

And it doesn't really obviously follow to me that, say, a super heavy tank would be worse at breakthroughs than a light tank. Sure, the light tank is faster, but the super heavy is better able to just roll over enemy lines. Or infantry for that matter - we're talking about breakthroughs on a strategic scale rather than a tactical one.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2018, 05:33:06 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • W
  • Posts: 228
  • Thanked: 51 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1773 on: Yesterday at 12:24:47 AM »
I honestly don't think special modifiers for breakthrough are necessary. The penalty for leaving fortification for infantry or (especially) static units are already pretty huge.

And it doesn't really obviously follow to me that, say, a super heavy tank would be worse at breakthroughs than a light tank. Sure, the light tank is faster, but the super heavy is better able to just roll over enemy lines. Or infantry for that matter - we're talking about breakthroughs on a strategic scale rather than a tactical one.
What I mean is that even taking the offensive should be worth it. Light vehicles are likely better at exploiting a breakthrough as they tend to be faster. Also I would consider infantry invaluable in any scenario. No modern tank so far can fight without infantry support, otherwise they get just chewed up.
I would very much like to see mixed formations, Infantry supported Tank formations on the attack, and not just a split Tanks are offense, static/infantry is defense.
 

Online Hazard

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • H
  • Posts: 262
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1774 on: Yesterday at 05:27:06 AM »
Tanks can fight without infantry support.

If they're fighting on a large, flat plain.

Anywhere else, or anywhere where infantry can fire a few shots of AT weapons and then run and fade?

Tanks need infantry support, because otherwise they're going to get torn apart.
 

Offline hubgbf

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • h
  • Posts: 48
Re: C# Aurora Changes Discussion
« Reply #1775 on: Today at 03:02:31 AM »
It seems that the land combat is becoming more complex than the spatial one.

Building and assigning units to formation will be a headache. Could we have some sort of template builder ?
You create a template, then put X ground facility to build or complete all the necessary units ?

That is how it currently works in C# Aurora.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg105832#msg105832

Thanks Steve for your answer.

If I understand the complete mecanism, there will be template for low level formation, i.e. equivalent to current battalion, but we will still have to attach them to form brigades and division, build them separately, then combine them, and if a battalion is lost, we have to build another one and assign it to its brigade.

Did I understand well?

Having a template system on the division level will help for those midly interested in such low level management.
Your future AAR will be fascinating.
 

 

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