Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
General Discussion / Re: Pure random targeting in ground combat?
« Last post by Garfunkel on April 09, 2024, 06:25:01 PM »
The combat model would have to be remade almost completely to accommodate such gameplay. Basically, for tactical gameplay elements to be relevant, the game absolutely needs a map and formation movement(s). And since Aurora ground combat ranges from few individuals fighting aboard small space ships to millions of troops battling it out across giant planets, having a random map generator that makes maps with suitable scale and that are sufficiently accurate for our needs is no simple task. And then Steve has to create movement rules and now we would need to include all possible propulsion types - how much is an infantryman marching slowed down by 1.2 G gravity or how much faster they are in a 0.5 G gravity? Wheeled light vehicle should be faster than wheeled heavy vehicle, a jet engine cannot work without a sufficiently thick atmosphere, and so on. Steam engine, internal combustion engine, all futuristic engine types - what about ships? Do we need to model sail power? It is making a comeback now, after all, in a high-tech version. Then we need to think about how to add actual tactics and how to model them in the game - after all, Napoleonic marching columns of riflemen are not the same as modern fire-and-movement infantry squads advancing in a staggered, spread-out formation, even though both have their place - just on very different battlefields. There needs to be some rules about command and control - how many NCOs and officers are needed at each formation level to maintain unit cohesion, how many radios/phones/etc are needed to maintain basic or improved level of communications. Should there be additional communication techs? Because again, a modern networked military formation operates on a decision-making cycle that is an order of magnitude faster than their WW2 counterparts. And all of this is just modelling humans fighting other humans in space - what about aliens?

Now, it is easy to scoff that this is all unnecessary detail but if we want a proper tactical level combat model, it isn't. Just adding preferential targeting, as nuclearslurpee said, is not going to solve this problem, it will only add further problems. I would love to have all of this but it would be a huge task for Steve. The current model works 'well enough' for our purposes.
C# Bug Reports / Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Last post by AlStar on April 09, 2024, 04:43:35 PM »
Stabilizing an LP point on a planet with an elliptical orbit appears to place the LP where it would go if the orbit was circular (or I'm assuming that's what it's doing - it's certainly not placing them on the orbital line.)

General Discussion / Re: Pure random targeting in ground combat?
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on April 09, 2024, 09:21:23 AM »
This is a common inquiry which has been raised many times in the past. Each time, two common factors come up:

On one hand, Aurora is not a tactical simulator where ground combat is concerned, it only models the operational and strategic scale really. Of course, if an anti-tank gun has the choice between shooting at a tank or an infantryman, it will choose the tank nearly all of the time. However, that is a tactical consideration which Aurora does not attempt to model. In operational terms, if an anti-tank gun is faced against an infantry platoon, it will have to fire at the targets available. On the large scale, having more anti-tank guns in your army will mean you kill tanks more effectively, which is sufficient for what Aurora seeks to represent.

On the other hand, it has been shown that the mechanics do not support any kind of targeting but random without leading to a collapse-to-optimum in the ground combat mechanics. If an anti-tank gun is mechanically inclined to target armored units over infantry, for example, then a combined-arms formation becomes strictly inferior to monotype infantry or armor formations (assuming random targeting of formations). This is because preferential targeting of units within a formation leads to higher loss rates compared to random targeting, so the only way to counteract that is to make every formation of the same unit type so that only random targeting on the formation level applies. Since one of Aurora's key principles for ground combat is that almost any roleplay setting can lead to reasonably effective ground forces (if your roleplay setting calls for exclusive use of AA guns, not so much, hence almost any), this would be a serious problem. You can devise additional mechanics to try and balance this out, but then you're just adding a bunch of extra mechanical complexity that doesn't translate to decision-making depth - since, again, Aurora does not attempt to model the tactical layer for gameplay.

So while it does offend the sensibilities of some folks who would prefer greater tactical fidelity, ultimately purely random targeting works best in Aurora to accomplish the actual goals of the ground combat system. That's not to say that different mechanics would be worse, by any means, only that different mechanics are better-suited to a different game with different overriding objectives.
General Discussion / Re: Newtonian Aurora?
« Last post by StarshipCactus on April 09, 2024, 07:18:31 AM »
You have probably already heard of it, but Children of a dead Earth might be something you're interested in.
General Discussion / Pure random targeting in ground combat?
« Last post by vorpal+5 on April 09, 2024, 03:46:00 AM »
From the manual (circa 2020):
Once a front line formation (or a light bombardment element in the Support position) has been matched
against a hostile formation, each friendly individual unit (a soldier or vehicle) in that formation engages a
random element in the hostile formation, with the randomisation based on the relative size of the hostile
formation elements. The targeting on an individual unit level represents that the different elements in a front
line formation will generally be attacking in conjunction (infantry supporting tanks, etc.).

Is this still how it works? Pure randomness (aside from weight being factored in) when one ground element selects another ground element? I understand the general principle: you can't specifically target the optimal target for your weapon class or the biggest threat to your unit, but pure randomness doesn't accurately reflect real-life scenarios. In reality, elements aim to make tactical choices to the best of their ability, considering various limitations (one being that the enemy doesn't cooperate much), with a degree of tactical savvy. Imagine a Soviet infantry battalion charging with T-34 tanks against a position of German Pak with infantrymen. Clearly, the anti-tank units will prioritize targeting enemy tanks, not just because tanks are larger than men. They would count on the German foot soldiers to shield them, protect them from enemy infantry, while they attempt to take out the enemy armor.
General Discussion / Re: Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition
« Last post by Ulzgoroth on April 08, 2024, 06:18:34 PM »
My survey ships have ~100b range and my warships ~20-30b, what is wrong with you people??  :P
My warships mostly try to be around 30b, but my first-generation geo surveyors have 200b range and my late-gen grav surveyors are approaching double that. On the whole I usually wish they had more range rather than less.

The warships don't have more range because of the tonnage caps they're designed under. The survey ships are small enough (and the fuel fraction modest enough) that I could easily see boosting their range further, though.
C# Bug Reports / Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Last post by AlStar on April 08, 2024, 11:36:16 AM »
This same string of Function numbers came up earlier in this same thread: Here.

According to Steve, it's being caused by "alien races without a class naming theme. If you suffer this bug in v2.5.1, then try setting a theme."
General Discussion / Re: Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition
« Last post by AlStar on April 08, 2024, 11:29:09 AM »
I highly prioritize fuel efficiency. Heck, my newest generation of fighters can go nearly 10 billion km (up from 8 last generation).

Also, due to the quirks of my galaxy layout, it's at least a 10 billion km trip from Sol (where my shipyards are) to anywhere else. I want to move the 'yards somewhere more centrally located, but the crazy manpower requirements have stalled progress on that front until I can build up population in the colonies.

My explorer ships have deployment times of 3 years, and maintenance stores to match - they're as fire-and-forget as I can make them. Admittedly, 810 billion range is probably more than I need (they usually time out or start running low on supplies first); but they're only running with 750,000-size fuel tanks - the efficiency of 5,000 ton engines with 30% fuel efficiency and 50% power stack to a crazy degree.
General Discussion / Re: Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition
« Last post by Andrew on April 08, 2024, 11:16:34 AM »
I am too lazy to give my survey ships commands and they wonder the universe aimlessly until they come home to refuel and their crews see another living being, and get the prize for winning the avoiding  hostile contact lottery
C# Bug Reports / Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Last post by Grimm Spector on April 08, 2024, 10:56:11 AM »
Just minding my own business playing, and suddenly if I advance time beyond 12 hours after this save (attached), I get what seems like an endless set of errors, in order as below.  It does end, if you close enough of them, but then happens again everytime you advance time without end.

When you post, please post as much information as possible, including:
2. 5. 1 Function #1954: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
2. 5. 1 Function #1943: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
2. 5. 1 Function #478: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

it then repeats 1954 and continues on in the same order.  This occurs with no windows other than the main window open when advancing time.

TN start
Random or Real Stars - not sure, default setting?
Is your decimal separator a comma? Yes
Is the bug is easy to reproduce, intermittent or a one-off? Never seen this before
 it's only a few years in, not a long campaign

Game is now unplayable.  In the attached it's "Terran Empire 2"
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk