Author Topic: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue  (Read 1163 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nakorkren (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • n
  • Posts: 172
  • Thanked: 160 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Would it be possible when designing Ground Formation Templates to pre-select whether that template is used for reinforcements? And likewise pre-select the replacement template used (in this case for a different formation)?

If so, you could produce smaller "feeder" formations that train in a reasonable timeframe and contain the latest units in a given series, which are pre-designated to serve as a source of reinforcement units for other formations. These would then be sucked via the reinforcement mechanism into quick-to-train tiny formations that you build as just an HQ unit but is pre-designated a full-size replacement template, letting you automatically flesh out full sized large formations without waiting 5 years to build each one, or having to manually mash units together.

Right now you can do this manually, but you have to set each instance of the formation template that you build to be a source of reinforcements.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2022, 04:09:24 PM by nakorkren »
 
The following users thanked this post: Sebmono

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2212
  • Thanked: 1672 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2022, 04:41:58 PM »
I'd rather just solve the problem outright and have GFTFs work like every other factory in game. The only balance reason not to is to make STOs take a long time to build, and that's circumventible anyways at the cost of micromanagement.
 
The following users thanked this post: Black, El Pip, Barkhorn, Sebmono

Offline nakorkren (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • n
  • Posts: 172
  • Thanked: 160 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2022, 05:22:04 PM »
That would be the better solution, I agree, but so far Steve hasn't implemented it despite it being suggested a while ago. Conflicting priorities with other, sexier changes I assume. I'm hoping that my suggestion requires less effort to implement and hence more likely to happen/happen sooner. I could be wrong about the implementation difficulty though.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2212
  • Thanked: 1672 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2022, 05:54:44 PM »
I think Steve will probably get to it whenever he gets to a general ground forces revamp. I think he's said as much and given that there are several issues it makes sense to handle them all in one go anyways.
 

Offline ranger044

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • r
  • Posts: 70
  • Thanked: 61 times
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2022, 11:03:07 PM »
I like both suggestions here.

The idea of pre-selecting formations to be replacements would be fantastic, especially since they would be easier to cart around than my large reserve/reinforcement brigades.

I also really like the idea of changing the function of GFTFs functioning like other industry, particularly if it could be like ordnance factories. I would love to see a "pool" of units that you can continually build that will fill in your designs when called for. Example: Continuous production of MBT-1s and Rifleman into a "stockpile". Upgrade to MBT-2s and they also get added to said "stockpile". Decide I need an armoured battalion, design it using "MBT Series" units, get auto filled from stockpile. If I'm short units, the formation could be marked something similar to a ship in overhaul - "Cannot give orders to mobilizing formation".

Edit: Also the designs would pull the most modern units in a series just like replacements currently do. This would also fit nicely into a refit/remodel mechanic where you can upgrade units in stockpile for something like cost difference + 50%. Kinda like manned to auto mine upgrade being slightly more expensive than building straight to auto mines.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2022, 11:07:14 PM by ranger044 »
 
The following users thanked this post: Marski, papent

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1226
  • Thanked: 146 times
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2022, 12:57:43 AM »
I'd rather just solve the problem outright and have GFTFs work like every other factory in game. The only balance reason not to is to make STOs take a long time to build, and that's circumventible anyways at the cost of micromanagement.

Other complex games ( like HoI4 ) solved the same issue by separating training of soldiers and production of equipment into two separate steps ( which can progress in parallell ).

If a similar approach was implemented for Aurora this could for example mean that GFTF would gradually increase experience levels of x tons of forces in the queue at a flat rate ( unless Steve want elite/specialists/marines to progress slower), but the production cost is paid by allocating X% of your regular construction factory capacity for the tasks instead.

Or you could change fighter factories to instead more generic ”military factories” and have them produce fighters, ground equipment and military ship components.
 
The following users thanked this post: papent, ranger044

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1110
  • Thanked: 296 times
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2022, 05:09:29 AM »
Other complex games ( like HoI4 ) solved the same issue by separating training of soldiers and production of equipment into two separate steps ( which can progress in parallell ).
On first thought my mind went to: no, don't make Aurora more micro as it already is. On a second thought I like the idea of switching "Fighter Factories" to "Military Factories" and being able to manage weapon equipment for my troops in more detail.  :D
 

Offline YABG

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • Y
  • Posts: 44
  • Thanked: 21 times
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2022, 02:52:30 PM »
In a perfect world I'd like to see a system like that in Gary Grigsby's war in the Pacific uses - ground units exist "on paper" as a formation with a set TOE, which draws squads, vehicles, guns, ect., from a global pool consuming supply.

Adapted to Aurora, the player would design equipment and formations like we do now. Military factories would produce equipment and supply (maybe like maintenance facilities produce maintenance supplies) while training facilities would create trained manpower. Both would go into a empire wide pool and ground units would consume all three to fill out their TOE.
 
The following users thanked this post: Black, papent

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1226
  • Thanked: 146 times
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2022, 04:31:14 PM »
On first thought my mind went to: no, don't make Aurora more micro as it already is.

I totally agree, every change adding complexity needs to have a very thorough motivation and design to make sure it doesn't add more micro than it adds depth or value.

When it comes to ground unit equipment I think there might be a fairly big opportunity to reduce micromanagement however. There is some pretty annoying micro present to handle reinforcing damaged ground units currently ( even if it went from totally impossible micro to somewhat manageable but just painful micro with the auto reinforcing from unit series introduction ). For me it's not fun micro to keep track of how many of all different types of equipment I'm lacking and then designing, building and shipping appropriate reinforcement units.



A way to get most of the gameplay value from producing equipment for both new troops and reinforcements with minimal micro might be modelling it on a very high level with much abstraction:

1.) A new type of currency for ground units ( similar to "Maintenance Supply Point" ) which is a large abstraction modelling the industrial efforts to build all the equipment, vehicles, weaponry and supplies needed for ground units ( because supplies for ground units are already equipment anyways in the current model and all except STO only use Vendarite minerals anyways ). Let's call it say Ground Equipment and Supply (GES), pending better name suggestions.
2.) This GES can be transported in Troop Transport bays.
3.) It's built from 100% Vendarite.
4.) Training of all ground forces consume the appropriate cost worth of this resources, and for STOs either it's simplified so their construction/reinforcements don't require other minerals, or you need to build the weapons separately as components and STO training/reinforcement tasks also consume the appropriate number of weapon components.
5.) The function of Logistics Modules/Ground Supply Points value change to instead function as a limit on how quickly a units can "use up" GES for both supply and reinforcement purposes, but they are no longer consumed in the process ( so if you skimp out on them damaged or low supply units might require months to reach full strength/supply and become combat effective again after seeing heavy action ).

Optional:
6.) It would probably be fairly easy after such a system is in place to add another function/flag "Upgrade unit" which simply consume the same GES currency to just replace the equipment in a unit with the most modern models in the template, greatly simplifying micro in that area as well.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2022, 04:37:45 PM by alex_brunius »
 
The following users thanked this post: Sebmono

Offline Snoman314

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • S
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2022, 07:21:18 PM »
On first thought my mind went to: no, don't make Aurora more micro as it already is.
5.) The function of Logistics Modules/Ground Supply Points value change to instead function as a limit on how quickly a units can "use up" GES for both supply and reinforcement purposes, but they are no longer consumed in the process ( so if you skimp out on them damaged or low supply units might require months to reach full strength/supply and become combat effective again after seeing heavy action ).

Overall, I quite like your idea, but I'd suggest something else for this point. Leave the current supply/GSP mechanics as they are, and let GES replace consumed supply elements. Removes the throttling effect on resupply of your idea, and keeps everything a lot simpler.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1226
  • Thanked: 146 times
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2022, 07:30:03 PM »
Overall, I quite like your idea, but I'd suggest something else for this point. Leave the current supply/GSP mechanics as they are, and let GES replace consumed supply elements. Removes the throttling effect on resupply of your idea, and keeps everything a lot simpler.

Yeah it's a design tradeoff towards further abstraction that has alot of merit.

I guess I was trying to also address another issue I have with the ground combat system which is that it tends to be too much all or nothing with no need for pauses or breaks in offensives, you can just keep going. That issue might be possible to address in other easier ways as well such as tweaking already existing mechanics surrounding morale ( such that units in offensives lose morale at much great speed forcing them to take breaks or suffer increasing casualties in sustained offensive combat )
 

Offline Snoman314

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • S
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2022, 08:34:53 PM »
Yeah it's a design tradeoff towards further abstraction that has alot of merit.

I guess I was trying to also address another issue I have with the ground combat system which is that it tends to be too much all or nothing with no need for pauses or breaks in offensives, you can just keep going. That issue might be possible to address in other easier ways as well such as tweaking already existing mechanics surrounding morale ( such that units in offensives lose morale at much great speed forcing them to take breaks or suffer increasing casualties in sustained offensive combat )

I agree with the concern/issue you raise. Personally I think it runs deeper and would need to be addressed by a ground combat overhaul, rather than as part of a reinforcements QOL feature.
 

Offline Pedroig

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • P
  • Posts: 200
  • Thanked: 51 times
Re: Easy fix to ground unit construction time vs formation size issue
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2022, 08:22:15 AM »
It would seem that a fairly simple solution would be to stop building formations form units, and instead, building formations from Unit Series as the designators.  After that, using the GES system above or a version of it, like setting the setting of Training Level for the Academy effect the cycle time of the upgrades (unit types would still need to be designed and put into each series).

So it would work something like this:

Training Level 1 (lowest):  This would outfit/replace all equipment the quickest/cheapest with a 20% savings on "training cost", however base stats are also reduced by XX% (20 if there is no real difference, 50 if a wide range of training is desired conscript -> special forces).  This would also set the standard "turnover rate" at 1 year, so each individual unit is replaced every year, which is where the "cost savings" is actually coming from as most platforms are going to be second hand, which offsets the cost in the long run.

Training Level 3 (default):  This is standard values which all other values are derived.  Turnover rate would be 5 years.

Training Level 5 (highest):  This would outfit/replace all equipment the slowest/most expensive with 50% increase in time and cost, base stats are also increased by XX% (50 if no relative difference, 20 if a wide range is desired).  Turnover rate would be 9 years.

Realistically there is no difference in equipping cost for the same system, the amount of training has the most influence on the actual cost of any given unit.  However, the actual difference between unit/individual performance is still limited to a fairly limited range based upon racial constraints.  (Unmodified human can only be so smart/fast/quick/accurate)

By changing the formation to be series dependent instead of unit dependent it would ease quite a bit of micro and making "up-teching" easier, with a "USER BEWARE" that putting a different tonnage unit within a series could well bust HQ limits.

Making the Academy setting Colony dependent would mean being able to set up different colonies for different "roles", Earth could be the Conscript/Police Force world to put out Mass Doctring, Mars could be Special Forces to have some elite forces, New Rodina could be the main army training grounds, etc.
si vis pacem, para bellum