Ground Weapons tinkering

[xenoscepter]

There are two problems with this approach:

First, any approach which only provides a positive preferential targeting effect, even if it is small, renders a combined-arms formation almost strictly inferior mechanically to a single-class formation (all-INF, all-VEH, etc.). While the random targeting we have now does have its flaws, it succeeds at keeping combined-arms and single-class formations equally viable which supports player roleplay...this is I would argue a very important function of the current ground combat mechanics and should be at the forefront of any mechanical changes.

Second, the way to counteract the above would be to make Concealment cause a negative targeting malus, i.e., if your Recon is not enough to overcome enemy Concealment your forces are more likely to shoot at the "wrong" target. I think such a counter-mechanic would be frustrating to players (ground units are already very complicated, why add yet another confusing mechanic to think about?) and doesn't really solve any balance problems.

The problem is that if your opponent has, for sake of example, an even mix of CAP and MAV, and you send a mixed force of 50% INF and 50% VEH for example, then:

• With purely random targeting every enemy weapon has a proportionally even chance of hitting either type of unit. The CAP and MAV are about equally effective (aside from GSP usage).
• With even a small targeting bonus, say +10%, suddenly the CAP is hitting your INF 55% of the time and the MAV is hitting your VEH 55% of the time, so the enemy killing efficiency is 110% compared to the random case.

Now consider if you send a force of 100% VEH (similar arguments will apply for INF):

• With purely random targeting, the CAP has nearly zero efficiency and the MAV has about 100% efficiency, which is roughly the same on balance as the mixed formation case.
• However, with preferential targeting...nothing changes. The enemy remains at the same efficiency - which means they are not getting +10% kill rates because of your mixed formation.

I am simplifying considerably, but the essence of the argument holds, and the choice of whether to use all-INF or all-VEH formations depends on the ratio of weapons the enemy is using and the relative kill rates against the units you are deploying - for example, MAV kills one tank per shot which is 62 tons, while CAP kills 6 infantry per shot which may be 30 tons (6x PW) or 72+ tons (6x CAP, LAV, etc.). However, with even a small preferential targeting choice effect, combined formations become strictly sub-optimal, which is not really in the spirit of Aurora and blemished what is honestly a 98% well-balanced ground forces system even if there are some flaws (MAV/HAV supply consumption) and some players wish it were different (e.g., more/more-accurate logistics modeling).

 --- Firstly, quick fire off; RECON is what gives you Preferential Targeting. CONCEALMENT reduces RECON, but not below 0. No RECON means no preferential targeting at all, and no malus from CONCEALMENT since it has nothing to conceal from. The idea of RECON being used is that in order to have a preferred target the units must know what is coming before it gets there. Otherwise, the current model is sufficiently granular to assume that the randomness we have now is units picking targets at the point of engagement versus being prepared ahead of time for said engagement.

 --- Next, my argument on the effects of preferential targeting:

  -  Enemy is Combined Arms: 7/1 ratio of INF and Medium Vehicle with MED Armor, MAV and CAP

  -  Your Forces are Combined Arms: Same as Enemy.

 --- Results: With 100% preferential targeting it's a wash, assuming tech parity and a few other things for simplicity.

  -  Enemy is same Combined Arms, your forces are pure Med Vehicles instead.

 --- Results: With 100% Preferential Targeting you wipe the enemy but take 50% casualties.

  -  Enemy is same Combined arms, but your pure INF.

 --- Results: With 100% preferential targeting you lose everything, but the enemy takes 50% casualties.

If AA is too powerful so be it; I haven't that much experience with GSFs so I'll defer here.

[nuclearslurpee]

--- Firstly, quick fire off; RECON is what gives you Preferential Targeting. CONCEALMENT reduces RECON, but not below 0. No RECON means no preferential targeting at all, and no malus from CONCEALMENT since it has nothing to conceal from. The idea of RECON being used is that in order to have a preferred target the units must know what is coming before it gets there. Otherwise, the current model is sufficiently granular to assume that the randomness we have now is units picking targets at the point of engagement versus being prepared ahead of time for said engagement.

This is what I argue is a problem, yes. With no corresponding malus, a Recon stat causes the same problem as any degree of preferential targeting, which is that a specific type of force composition (single-base class) becomes strictly optimal and any other force composition (combined arms) becomes strictly sub-optimal. For its flaws, random targeting allows any type of force composition to be viable - both uniform infantry/armor brigades and combined arms brigades are equivalent which is best for roleplay.

--- Next, my argument on the effects of preferential targeting:

  -  Enemy is Combined Arms: 7/1 ratio of INF and Medium Vehicle with MED Armor, MAV and CAP

  -  Your Forces are Combined Arms: Same as Enemy.

 --- Results: With 100% preferential targeting it's a wash, assuming tech parity and a few other things for simplicity.

  -  Enemy is same Combined Arms, your forces are pure Med Vehicles instead.

 --- Results: With 100% Preferential Targeting you wipe the enemy but take 50% casualties.

  -  Enemy is same Combined arms, but your pure INF.

 --- Results: With 100% preferential targeting you lose everything, but the enemy takes 50% casualties.

This doesn't make any sense as an argument. If you compare cases with and without preferential targeting you will find that in every case, there is an optimal force composition which consists of a single base class of units - whether INF, VEH, or otherwise, the optimal composition may vary but it is never going to be a combined arms formation. This is true whether the preferential targeting effect is 1% or 100%, and making it conditional on a recon stat will not change this either. Only in the case of purely random targeting are combined arms equally as viable as single-base type formations.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Personally I maintain that the best solution is to rebalance GSP requirement for multi-shot weapons, particularly CAP/HCAP and artillery. The problem right now is that if a CAP fires ineffectually at a tank, only 0.6 GSP are consumed, while if a MAV fires at an infantry 1.6 GSP are consumed, so anti-vehicle weapons are sub-optimal in terms of supply usage and are optimally used as a second-wave once CAP has been used to mow down most enemy infantry. If the GSP consumption is rebalanced to be more similar this should solve or at least mitigate much of the issue in practice.

Yes... this is the main issue with the current rules... that is why I think that instead if preferential targeting we could get a system where units don't waste shots if they are total overkill or there are very little chance to do damage. This would make the GSP consumption more in line with what it should be and we would not feel forced to game the system if we want to be more optimal by holding back forces or build units with only specialized weapon system. Vehicles with different weapon systems does not really make much sense outside role play with the current mechanics.

[misanthropope]

to the extent there is a known-in-advance recipe for defending forces, a hard optimum already exists and players can and will optimize their force exactly as much as their conscience and knowledge of the game permit.

almost everywhere you look in aurora there are options available that are suboptimal but players will take them anyway because they're fun or whatever.  i feel that's kind of the ethos of aurora game design, and it seems sort of unfair to judge a ground combat mechanic by the infinitely more stringent metric of its effect on optimal gameplay.

that said, an aurora as she stands preferential targeting is IMHO a non-starter because of the hideous lethality of anti-tank guns against tanks.  it isn't that preferential targeting pushes in the wrong direction- though it does- it's that it pushes way, way too hard.

if, for instance, infantry and armor required different resources to produce, then you have a situation where a tactical inferiority of a mixed force at a given force total is offset by the ability to deploy more total force through combined arms.  in my non-professional opinion this has much more relevance to the so-called real world than any wishful nonsense about the effectiveness of combined arms.

[serger (OP)]

Can anyone clarify if DIM_GroundComponentType:Vehicle is still functional or if it's just a version artifact?
The strange detail is that "Super-Heavy Anti-Vehicle" and "Super-Heavy Bombardment" weapons have this field set at 0.

UPD. Understood. It's "Medium Vehicle" really, not just general vehicle.