Twelve Colonies Comments Thread

[alex_brunius]

I've got to admit the gamey-ness of dropping troops on a planet and waiting for them to build up fortification before "attacking" without leaving their fortification kind of annoys me.

Yes, me too    

When both sides are on frontline defence, its effectively trench warfare. When one is on frontline defence and the other is on support, combat doesn't happen

This is something that both confused and annoyed me.

It indeed doesn't make much sense how it's possible for two sides to fight until one dies without anyone losing any entrenchement ( and if we include engineers we are talking some heavy defensive works I supposed ).

On the other hand making it so defence vs defence doesn't fight at all would make it very all or nothing as you couldn't conduct limited offensives where for example 1 of your tank units attacks 1 of theirs, as all 200 of their units would fire back at your one tank.

Some kind of limits on how many times more tonnage that can target a specific unit back would be needed for that to work. ( If you attack with just a 10k ton formation max 50k tons of enemy formations may fire back or something like that ).

Other options to consider might be having combat degrade fortification or making special rules for where frontline defense vs frontline defense result in extremly low intensity combat.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

If the AI is programmed to switch to front line attack against an inferior dropped force, wouldn't it be easy to bait the AI out of their formations by sending in a token wave before the main landing?

That is a good point. I'll adjust so only an appropriate number of units change position.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

It indeed doesn't make much sense how it's possible for two sides to fight until one dies without anyone losing any entrenchement

That is pretty much what happened in WW1 on the Western Front. Both sides made attacks from their fortifications, then fell back into them. Defence vs Defence is allowed so I don't have to add complexity by making fortifications separate from units, which would be difficult on a planetary scale.

Front Line Attack is more WW2 Blitzkrieg style fighting.

[alex_brunius]

That is pretty much what happened in WW1 on the Western Front. Both sides made attacks from their fortifications, then fell back into them. Defence vs Defence is allowed so I don't have to add complexity by making fortifications separate from units, which would be difficult on a planetary scale.

Front Line Attack is more WW2 Blitzkrieg style fighting.

Yeah. The point where the abstraction fails though is when static WW1 Western Front trench warfare can be used to take over an entire planet within a few days or weeks at most ( assuming a longer time without hostility to dig in before that short combat phase ).

The current model works decently as long as you dont abuse it ( and actually put your units on Front Line Attack when you do attack ). But at least in my mind it's hard to accept how you can move the trenches and engineered bunkers with you as you rapidly advance and capture an entire planet in a very short time period.


The only plausible way to win with Front Line Defense is against a hyperaggressive enemy ( say Klingon or Zerg ) that throws all their units against your lines suicidally and allow you to walk in unopposed after they all killed themselves. But the question then becomes, why did they let you dig in in the first place?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

That is pretty much what happened in WW1 on the Western Front. Both sides made attacks from their fortifications, then fell back into them. Defence vs Defence is allowed so I don't have to add complexity by making fortifications separate from units, which would be difficult on a planetary scale.

Front Line Attack is more WW2 Blitzkrieg style fighting.

Yeah. The point where the abstraction fails though is when static WW1 Western Front trench warfare can be used to take over an entire planet within a few days or weeks at most ( assuming a longer time without hostility to dig in before that short combat phase ).

The current model works decently as long as you dont abuse it ( and actually put your units on Front Line Attack when you do attack ). But at least in my mind it's hard to accept how you can move the trenches and engineered bunkers with you as you rapidly advance and capture an entire planet in a very short time period.


The only plausible way to win with Front Line Defense is against a hyperaggressive enemy ( say Klingon or Zerg ) that throws all their units against your lines suicidally and allow you to walk in unopposed after they all killed themselves. But the question then becomes, why did they let you dig in in the first place?

I think you need to look at frontline defence as a cautious strategy where you focus on ensuring your own defence and limiting your own losses as much as thinking about attack. It isn't just a case of sitting in trenches, but rather than using secure positions from which you can attack and then fall back. Frontline attack is about going all and trying to penetrate to the rear areas. Its like Montgomery vs Patton.

I am comfortable with the distinction now I have made a couple of AI changes to ensure it isn't abused.

As for the build-up before attack, there are many historical example where an army on defence let an enemy build up forces without going on the offensive, even when those forces were fairly close together

[unkfester]

As for the build-up before attack, there are many historical example where an army on defence let an enemy build up forces without going on the offensive, even when those forces were fairly close together


Ukraine comes to mind

[Bremen]

As for the build-up before attack, there are many historical example where an army on defence let an enemy build up forces without going on the offensive, even when those forces were fairly close together


Ukraine comes to mind

I would see that as the situation where both sides are on the same planet but at peace, and have units on front line defense. Then they declare war, and if both sides remain on front line defense one could see that as a trench warfare style fight, or perhaps a slow steady advance (i.e. not Ukraine, at least other than a few parts in Donbas that basically haven't moved the whole war).

I have no real problems with the combat system as it is now, for what it's worth. Is it a perfectly granular simulation? No, of course not. But Aurora is a space strategy game, it doesn't need to be Hearts of Iron too.

[Garfunkel]

It's easy to forget that there is an operational level between tactical (where individual weapons matter) and strategic (where wars are decided) and that the frontline attack/defence dichotomy is comfortably sitting at that level, not at the tactical one. Especially since a ground combat round is 8 hours long and all movement on the surface of the body are abstracted.

In other words, Aurora does not model tactical combat at all, only operational combat and that is abstracted, not simulated. So, we as players just need to keep that distinction in mind and the problem of conquering a planet while in defensive mode goes away. It's a similar issue with the occasional demand for modelling locomotive types within ground units - the differences don't really matter at the scale of Aurora ground combat - and such details are better left to the imagination of the player as mechanically there's no problem.

[Migi]

If the AI is programmed to switch to front line attack against an inferior dropped force, wouldn't it be easy to bait the AI out of their formations by sending in a token wave before the main landing?

That is a good point. I'll adjust so only an appropriate number of units change position.

Does the AI consider nearby enemy ships?
It would be possible to land a small force, lure some units out of fortification, then begin orbital bombardment.

It also seems like the AI would be better off having more small formations than a few big ones.

[Sebmono]

Is the status of the enemy having units on FA, vs FD, vs Sup vs RE indicated anywhere in the event logs, are are we supposed to be intuiting this somehow? I was just doing some heavy ground combat on 1.13 this weekend and didn't notice anything that would give me clues to understand what the enemy was doing and therefore how I should be adjusting my disposition, but I might've missed it.

[Migi]

Is the status of the enemy having units on FA, vs FD, vs Sup vs RE indicated anywhere in the event logs, are are we supposed to be intuiting this somehow? I was just doing some heavy ground combat on 1.13 this weekend and didn't notice anything that would give me clues to understand what the enemy was doing and therefore how I should be adjusting my disposition, but I might've missed it.

You can't tell the state of enemy units from the event log, the AI only uses frontline attack or frontline defence for normal (direct fire) units.

The issue arises from players using (or abusing) the support position for direct fire units when they invade.




Based on the discussion about ground combat, I've put a suggestion about it in the suggestions thread.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10640.msg159662#msg159662

[nuclearslurpee]

I see there has been a lengthy discussion about ground combat, truly the greatest tradition of these forums. However, there has been an update and this also merits further discussion:

Raptor-D class Drone Scout
...
Missile Box Launcher (     Missile Size: 4    Hangar Reload 100 minutes    MF Reload 16 hours
Graystone GFC-20B Missile Fire Control (1)     Range 19.9m km    Resolution 120
Active Sensor Drone (4)    Speed: 6,250 km/s    End: 6.9d     Range: 3,750m km    WH: 0    Size: 4    TH: 20/12/6
Passive Sensor Drone (4)    Speed: 6,250 km/s    End: 6.9d     Range: 3,750m km    WH: 0    Size: 4    TH: 20/12/6

I always find these designs for scouting a bit curious. Of course the idea of sensor drones is quite solid and efficient, but with the box launcher setup I always feel that tweaking the fire controls before every 'shot' is more annoyance than it is worth. For that reason I usually prefer to use a single 30% launcher and a magazine to handle my buoys or drones.

Out of curiosity I thought to run the numbers on this. The 8x size-4 box launchers should total 240 tons in size, while a single size-4 launcher at 30% size would displace 60 tons, and even a base tech 2 HS magazine would have capacity 30 which is enough for the remaining drones and the combination adds up to only 160 tons, and I doubt any extra crew requirement comes out to another 80 tons when summed up. Maybe if you want two launchers (one active, one passive) it comes out to 220 tons plus any extra crew so then it is about even, but arguably more convenient in terms of fire control work.

The costs of taking Caprica IV continues to mount with the loss of a transport. Those ships even if NPR vintage are expensive and time-consuming to build just due to how much armor is needed, so it is a loss deeply felt on the strategic level. Personally though I am enjoying seeing Steve wrestle with the strategic and operational mechanics of planetary invasion even if not an NPR homeworld yet.

The Jungle Mountain terrain is, as Steve has shown, the roughest to fight in - not only because of the low combat hit rates, but even more so because of the slow pace of combat and thus the high logistical cost of doing battle. Hopefully the ruins turn out to be worth the costs.

In the attack on Socrates II, we see the NPRs launching AMMs in offensive mode as the player fleet closes under 500,000 km. I am curious what is the logic behind this decision from the AI? It seems to me that they should fire at maximum range, if they expect any kind of hit, or else not fire if it is a waste of missiles anyways - probably the former, as the latter would mean not putting up a fight in many cases which is lame.

The Captain of Galactica deserves a medal for their excellent performance against ground targets! I suspect he or she has a substantial ground combat skill - nice to see that underappreciated specialty coming in handy.

Colonial Intelligence had only speculation regarding the resurgence in Stave activity.

If I recall correcly, the Stave had some issue with a lack of minerals in their home system, so maybe the situation has become even more dire? Makes as much sense as anything, I think.

And to conclude we have the appearance of the Cylons at long last. Admittedly this is not the spoiler race I would have expected to be named as Cylons, based on my limited knowledge of BSG lore, but this is the race we have on-hand and will do perfectly well. Let's see how this surprising threat to Sol itself plays out - a clash between FAC and fighter swarms is not often seen in Aurora so should be very entertaining!

----

Regarding the ground combat discussion, I do think it is a little bit unclear from the terminology, but the mechanics work clearly enough and I cannot readily think of a better set of terminology that encapsulates both the mechanics and flavor (Migi's suggestions are not bad, but are I think too specific and dictate doctrines more than is desirable). Perhaps "Front Line - Positional" and "Front Line - Maneuver" are general enough, though perhaps too technical for the general player base? I'm unsure.

I would second Garfunkel's comment though, many players tend to think of ground combat in tactical terms (which is in fairness most familiar to many who come from a tabletop background, e.g., WH40K or BattleTech) when it is really implemented in operational and strategic terms only. It is an important distinction to keep in mind.

[Black]

I always find these designs for scouting a bit curious. Of course the idea of sensor drones is quite solid and efficient, but with the box launcher setup I always feel that tweaking the fire controls before every 'shot' is more annoyance than it is worth. For that reason I usually prefer to use a single 30% launcher and a magazine to handle my buoys or drones.

Yeah I also abandoned box launchers for my survey ships and use heavily reduced launchers. My survey missions usually take several years and survey ships are supported by combined tanker/supply ship that also has some commercial magazines with spare sensor drones. So reduced sized launchers give me more flexibility.

Only carrier in Colonial fleet that has magazines is Valkyrie-M and that has no drones in magazines, but there are also no ammunition carriers in the fleet, so the Raptor-D is bound to planetary rearming anyway. So I suppose for current colonial fleet, there would be no advantage in using reduced launchers.

And to conclude we have the appearance of the Cylons at long last. Admittedly this is not the spoiler race I would have expected to be named as Cylons, based on my limited knowledge of BSG lore, but this is the race we have on-hand and will do perfectly well. Let's see how this surprising threat to Sol itself plays out - a clash between FAC and fighter swarms is not often seen in Aurora so should be very entertaining!

I was also expecting that role of Cylons would be for other spoiler race, but this one is the only one that uses small crafts, so that was most likely reason they got the role of Cylons.

[Vandermeer]

I also like the limited number of major warships - each one is building up a history and really means something to the campaign. Lots of ships being damaged and surviving.

That is one big reason(hehe) why I used to play only big ship in VB6. Little management, and lots of personality on the ships.
Last year I have been thinking to start a game where every single big ship isn't even a class but completely unique with its own shipyard each. However, in C# I seem to never get there, because there is so much happening and resources+fuel much more scarce to realize complete RP games. I much enjoy those games for their own merits as well though.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

And to conclude we have the appearance of the Cylons at long last. Admittedly this is not the spoiler race I would have expected to be named as Cylons, based on my limited knowledge of BSG lore, but this is the race we have on-hand and will do perfectly well. Let's see how this surprising threat to Sol itself plays out - a clash between FAC and fighter swarms is not often seen in Aurora so should be very entertaining!

I was also expecting that role of Cylons would be for other spoiler race, but this one is the only one that uses small crafts, so that was most likely reason they got the role of Cylons.

The precursors would be closest in lore terms, but they aren't really an offensive threat. It could also have been the invaders, but they can take a long time to appear. The swarm look like they will be an immediate threat and they have a large number of small craft plus a few major warships, plus they are the most 'alien' of the spoilers, so I decided to use 'Cylon' once they appeared.