Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: December 04, 2021, 05:07:06 PM »

Yeah combined arms is pretty huge IRL, has been so since at least Alexander the great started using cavalry + archers + phalanx forces in support of each other, and will very likely continue to be so forever in any sci fi future.

Armor + Infantry combination is another aspect of this, not just fighters/artillery/bombardment. Armor can break through strongpoints and offer protection to advancing infantry, while infantry can protect armor from asymmetrical threats, ambushes and so on.

To simplify it alot it works something like 1+1 = 3 and 1+1+1 = 6. You also need a balanced amount of each type of force to enable them to take optimal advantage of the support.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 04, 2021, 02:38:35 PM »

The biggest drawback with fighters, artillery and bombardment is that they simply act as front line units but fire from another position. These weapons should have a different effect in the battle in order to be important. As it stand neither of these things are important like they should. If you had complete air superiority, artillery and bombardment dominance it should multiply the effect of your other ground forces allot.

In the real world having superiority in artillery and air support is huge in a conventional conflict.

I also think that air units should just have been another ground unit that you could possibly have been operated from hangars directly from space as well as from the ground.

In general I think that ground combat would need a few more variables to become less one dimensional in nature. The current simple hit mechanic does not really encourage realistic army configurations, different types of units need to have different effect on combat as a whole as should the combination of units also have. In real life the sum of the part often are allot greater than the individual parts. In simple terms a tank is allot more powerful when supported with infantry and vice versa... Static and infantry units alone are pretty bad in a defensive role, you still need mo bile units, artillery and air superiority to do any type of effective defence, the same goes for offence as well of course.

I hope that Steve at some point make a second pass over the ground combat mechanics and make it a bit more dynamic and army design more enjoyable outside role-play.
Posted by: Blogaugis
« on: December 04, 2021, 12:31:07 PM »

At least VB6 had Planetary Defence Centers, that were half-ships, half... ground facilities.
Good times, when you could have missiles on the ground. But, well, had to think on the armament, when atmosphere exists...
And now... It's just STOs...
I suppose the last bit would be to make space-borne facilities, that can produce ground units... But, it a construction rework territory.
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: December 04, 2021, 10:43:01 AM »

that's enemy artillery bombarding the landing facilities.
Posted by: Droll
« on: December 04, 2021, 10:41:35 AM »

Quote from: TheTalkingMeowth on December 04, 2021, 10:40:27 AM
if you want something closer to air-breathing fighters, just use long range bombardment and RP them as ground attack fighters.

That works until enemy artillery becomes the new AA.

Also frustrating as enemy AA wont actually shoot at them ever. I definitely wouldn't be able to suspend my disbelief.
Posted by: TheTalkingMeowth
« on: December 04, 2021, 10:40:27 AM »

if you want something closer to air-breathing fighters, just use long range bombardment and RP them as ground attack fighters.
Posted by: Bluebreaker
« on: December 03, 2021, 09:57:14 PM »

Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on December 03, 2021, 05:49:26 PM
If you land on a planet with a million or more troops then you can't expect a few thousand fighters to do anything at all, you probably need a few hundred thousands of fighters to really have an impact. You could then hunt for AA as well which is less micro and suppress it before you start focusing on ground troops... you could even do suppression before you land your troops so you can focus on support bombardment of enemy troops directly.

The biggest drawback of the fighters are the horrible micro surrounding them.. I also wish that AA suppression mechanic was better as well.
In essence the problem is that ground fighters are implemented as a ship/fighter rather than a ground unit with special rules.
If they were a ground unit there would be little issue with deploying/using them in the thousands.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: December 03, 2021, 05:49:26 PM »

Quote from: Droll on December 03, 2021, 02:16:17 PM
Quote from: Bluebreaker on December 03, 2021, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: Tavik Toth on December 03, 2021, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: Bluebreaker on December 03, 2021, 01:12:45 PM
Quote from: nuclearslurpee on December 03, 2021, 10:25:43 AM
If we are going to add new ground units types, I would rather see something that is actually new and not just an existing unit type with a new coat of bulletproof paint. Something like a flight-capable base type to replace/reimagine the air-to-ground support fighter niche, for example, would be a worthwhile addition.
This, and then implement some planetary fighter hangar for ships and completely remove the current (and painful and worthless) ground fighters.
Yeah, the reason I've never used the current ground support support fighters is just due to how many you need to be effective making them impractical and annoying to use.
And after you assign your 100 fighters ONE BY ONE, they get swathed in a couple of ground combat cycles, leaving lots of wrecks and lifepods.

Thing about ground support fighters is, they can do decent damage for their weight if you destroy the enemy AA before launching the fighters, but by that time the ground battle is probably won already.

Because of the ridiculous micro around fighters you can't really field them on masse. So you'll end up like me with 120 fighters flying against 20k+ AA tanks and 60k+ AA infantry.

Add to this the fact that ECM doesn't affect enemy AA. Further add that shock damage mechanics make fighter armor largely irrelevant by the mid game and CAS becomes impossible effectively field to any capacity.

If you land on a planet with a million or more troops then you can't expect a few thousand fighters to do anything at all, you probably need a few hundred thousands of fighters to really have an impact. You could then hunt for AA as well which is less micro and suppress it before you start focusing on ground troops... you could even do suppression before you land your troops so you can focus on support bombardment of enemy troops directly.

The biggest drawback of the fighters are the horrible micro surrounding them.. I also wish that AA suppression mechanic was better as well.
Posted by: Droll
« on: December 03, 2021, 02:16:17 PM »

Quote from: Bluebreaker on December 03, 2021, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: Tavik Toth on December 03, 2021, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: Bluebreaker on December 03, 2021, 01:12:45 PM
Quote from: nuclearslurpee on December 03, 2021, 10:25:43 AM
If we are going to add new ground units types, I would rather see something that is actually new and not just an existing unit type with a new coat of bulletproof paint. Something like a flight-capable base type to replace/reimagine the air-to-ground support fighter niche, for example, would be a worthwhile addition.
This, and then implement some planetary fighter hangar for ships and completely remove the current (and painful and worthless) ground fighters.
Yeah, the reason I've never used the current ground support support fighters is just due to how many you need to be effective making them impractical and annoying to use.
And after you assign your 100 fighters ONE BY ONE, they get swathed in a couple of ground combat cycles, leaving lots of wrecks and lifepods.

Thing about ground support fighters is, they can do decent damage for their weight if you destroy the enemy AA before launching the fighters, but by that time the ground battle is probably won already.

Because of the ridiculous micro around fighters you can't really field them on masse. So you'll end up like me with 120 fighters flying against 20k+ AA tanks and 60k+ AA infantry.

Add to this the fact that ECM doesn't affect enemy AA. Further add that shock damage mechanics make fighter armor largely irrelevant by the mid game and CAS becomes impossible effectively field to any capacity.
Posted by: Bluebreaker
« on: December 03, 2021, 01:53:42 PM »

Quote from: Tavik Toth on December 03, 2021, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: Bluebreaker on December 03, 2021, 01:12:45 PM
Quote from: nuclearslurpee on December 03, 2021, 10:25:43 AM
If we are going to add new ground units types, I would rather see something that is actually new and not just an existing unit type with a new coat of bulletproof paint. Something like a flight-capable base type to replace/reimagine the air-to-ground support fighter niche, for example, would be a worthwhile addition.
This, and then implement some planetary fighter hangar for ships and completely remove the current (and painful and worthless) ground fighters.
Yeah, the reason I've never used the current ground support support fighters is just due to how many you need to be effective making them impractical and annoying to use.
And after you assign your 100 fighters ONE BY ONE, they get swathed in a couple of ground combat cycles, leaving lots of wrecks and lifepods.
Posted by: Tavik Toth
« on: December 03, 2021, 01:36:36 PM »

Quote from: Bluebreaker on December 03, 2021, 01:12:45 PM
Quote from: nuclearslurpee on December 03, 2021, 10:25:43 AM
If we are going to add new ground units types, I would rather see something that is actually new and not just an existing unit type with a new coat of bulletproof paint. Something like a flight-capable base type to replace/reimagine the air-to-ground support fighter niche, for example, would be a worthwhile addition.
This, and then implement some planetary fighter hangar for ships and completely remove the current (and painful and worthless) ground fighters.
Yeah, the reason I've never used the current ground support support fighters is just due to how many you need to be effective making them impractical and annoying to use.
Posted by: Bluebreaker
« on: December 03, 2021, 01:12:45 PM »

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on December 03, 2021, 10:25:43 AM
If we are going to add new ground units types, I would rather see something that is actually new and not just an existing unit type with a new coat of bulletproof paint. Something like a flight-capable base type to replace/reimagine the air-to-ground support fighter niche, for example, would be a worthwhile addition.
This, and then implement some planetary fighter hangar for ships and completely remove the current (and painful and worthless) ground fighters.
Posted by: Blogaugis
« on: December 03, 2021, 11:23:50 AM »

New unit types for ground forces... Hm...
Aurora pretty much models most of stuff that is at least semi-realistic and believable. Anything more than that, and we're approaching space magic and... wild sci-fi territory...

Anyway, since some asked for something new, here's an idea: cloning vats component. Useful for static... Hm...
Super Static units!  ;D Make bunkers great again! they generate inf+PWL units out of thin air. Well, actually, maybe it does need that vendarite...
Kirov airships from Ra2... I'm wondering, if Super-heavy unit cannot be it, then what can..?

How about underground stuff? Tunnel digging things...

But on the other hand, do we really need more units?
Posted by: cdrtwohy
« on: December 03, 2021, 10:33:49 AM »

Quote
I don't understand why these units cannot be modeled in the current system? "Jeep with a MG" can just be LVH+CAP, and a Medium Tank can be VAH+MAV+CAP with 4 armor - while in the C&C games it may be represented as only having the main 90mm gun, in real life a medium tank always has a secondary armament, usually a MG, but it is very common for this not to be modeled in games so I don't see it as a problem to add the MG even if it is not represented in the source material. 

Isn't that what a LVH is i always considered them a HMMWV equivalent, As For Medium tanks there are many ways to model them like as you said an LVH + MAV+Cap is one way, I also will use MVH+MAV+CAp for my mediums. 

Quote
If we are going to add new ground units types, I would rather see something that is actually new and not just an existing unit type with a new coat of bulletproof paint.  Something like a flight-capable base type to replace/reimagine the air-to-ground support fighter niche, for example, would be a worthwhile addition.

yes please let me also model an airforce please,
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: December 03, 2021, 10:25:43 AM »

I don't understand why these units cannot be modeled in the current system? "Jeep with a MG" can just be LVH+CAP, and a Medium Tank can be VAH+MAV+CAP with 4 armor - while in the C&C games it may be represented as only having the main 90mm gun, in real life a medium tank always has a secondary armament, usually a MG, but it is very common for this not to be modeled in games so I don't see it as a problem to add the MG even if it is not represented in the source material.

Personally, I do not like the idea of adding more stuff to Aurora purely for the sake of adding more stuff, which is what this seems like to me. RP in Aurora is not about trying to match the exact statistics of another setting as closely as possible, the strength of Aurora has always been that you can RP nearly any setting you want but it always requires at least a little bit of hand-waving and suspension of disbelief. Frankly, if it really bothers someone that the armor difference between Medium and Light Vehicles is +100% instead of +30% there is always the option to add this to the DB quite easily, but beyond such specific cases I don't see a need for it. I am not saying that adding something to benefit RP is a bad thing, but it needs to have a clear mechanical purpose in the ground combat system besides just "having more options" - with such a complex system as it is already, more options is not always a desirable thing from a gameplay and mechanics viewpoint.

If we are going to add new ground units types, I would rather see something that is actually new and not just an existing unit type with a new coat of bulletproof paint. Something like a flight-capable base type to replace/reimagine the air-to-ground support fighter niche, for example, would be a worthwhile addition.