Aurora 4x
New Players => The Academy => Topic started by: Theoatmeal2 on May 03, 2021, 04:35:39 AM
-
So I`m able to create let`s say a batallion. Now if I make five different ones how do I combine them into a single cohesive unit like a division.
I want to be able to transport and use them as a single unit but with enough flexibility that I can change the composition on the fly.
If there is an obvious answer then apologies in advance.
Thank you.
-
You need to create formation, that will have enough HQ capacity to command itself and 5 battalions. For example, battalion is 6000 and HQ formation as well 6000, so HQ formation needs HQ capacity of 36000. Then when you construct them all, you drag the battalions to HQ formation and they became subordinate units.
Video by Garfunkel: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10680.0
Videos by SpaceMarine, there will most likely be some dealing with ground forces: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11003.0
List of topics that deal with various things, including ground forces: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10666.0
-
When you load a parent HQ into a transport, look for a checkbox called load subordinates.
This will load any units which are subordinate to the parent HQ and save you a bunch of clicking.
-
When you load a parent HQ into a transport, look for a checkbox called load subordinates.
This will load any units which are subordinate to the parent HQ and save you a bunch of clicking.
Until you don't have enough troop space...
-
Can I have the supply units in the unit that is higher in the hierarchy, will the subordinates still get supplied?
-
Can I have the supply units in the unit that is higher in the hierarchy, will the subordinates still get supplied?
If the supply elements are Light Vehicles, yes. Infantry supply elements can only supply their own formation.
-
So, wait:
Even the lowest formation in the hierarchy requires a HQ unit?
Like, the folks commanded by the lowest ranking officer, size 500 tons, still need a HQ with 500 command points, to get all the bonuses?
-
So, wait:
Even the lowest formation in the hierarchy requires a HQ unit?
Like, the folks commanded by the lowest ranking officer, size 500 tons, still need a HQ with 500 command points, to get all the bonuses?
Yes. Although at that size, a HQ unit may represent little more than the platoon/company commander and his XO, depending on your personal RP.
-
Yes. Although at that size, a HQ unit may represent little more than the platoon/company commander and his XO, depending on your personal RP.
Darn it!
This means that several hundred of formations created are inefficient! Great. Remind me, how much resources we get back from deleting a formation, version 1.13.0?
Well, at least I got yet another addition to suggestions collection - change color in the formations screen, if troops do not receive superior commander's bonuses.
-
Remind me, how much resources we get back from deleting a formation, version 1.13.0?
1.13, none. 1.14 it will be I think 30% from scrapping the formation.
-
1.13, none. 1.14 it will be I think 30% from scrapping the formation.
Darn it times two...
Guess it is time to find where you can spawn in minerals on planets in space master...
-
Darn it!
This means that several hundred of formations created are inefficient! Great. Remind me, how much resources we get back from deleting a formation, version 1.13.0?
Well, at least I got yet another addition to suggestions collection - change color in the formations screen, if troops do not receive superior commander's bonuses.
You are correcting a mistake made by a misunderstanding of the rules so just design the new formations, delete the old ones and use SM to replace them with the new units .
Or design new slightly larger formations with the added command element, build new formations with just the command element and use the existing troops to reinforce these new units. I'd use SM its easier
-
1.13, none. 1.14 it will be I think 30% from scrapping the formation.
Also, I forgot to ask 1 last thing - do these tiny formations at least get bonuses from officer assigned directly to them?
-
1.13, none. 1.14 it will be I think 30% from scrapping the formation.
Also, I forgot to ask 1 last thing - do these tiny formations at least get bonuses from officer assigned directly to them?
- Yes. However, when you say "tiny" do you mean formations that are less than 1,000 Tons? If so, they're going suffer a terribly high number of breakthroughs...
-
Also, I forgot to ask 1 last thing - do these tiny formations at least get bonuses from officer assigned directly to them?
From wiki (http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=C-Ground_Units#Components), emphasis mine:
7) HQ: The headquarters capacity of the component in tons. This is the total size of the formation (or formation hierarchy) that can be effectively controlled by a commander based in a unit with this component. To assign a commander to a formation, one of the units within that formation requires a headquarters component.
So you should not be able to assign an officer to such a formation, and if you can it is probably a bug(?) and at any rate should not confer any bonuses. That said, the ground units systems are known to have a fair amount of bugs remaining so it is not impossible for that to be the case.
-
1.13, none. 1.14 it will be I think 30% from scrapping the formation.
Also, I forgot to ask 1 last thing - do these tiny formations at least get bonuses from officer assigned directly to them?
I believe it works like this:
Any formation gets 100% of the bonus of its immediate CO
If there's a formation above them, they also get 50% of the bonus of their superior formation's CO
If their superior formation has a superior formation, they get 25% of the bonus of that CO
And so on
So in theory, and assuming unlimited available officers, having a thousand tiny formations with a chain of command all the way up to one high ranked commander at the very top is slightly more efficient than having just a few big formations. Though the diminishing returns and increased micromanagement mean you probably don't want to go too crazy to the point of individual squads.
-
- Yes. However, when you say "tiny" do you mean formations that are less than 1,000 Tons? If so, they're going suffer a terribly high number of breakthroughs...
The smallest one is below 100 - 99, with 33 PWL infantry.
Most others are 250, and 500 as of late...
636 was the one with 2 construction vehicles...
From wiki (http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=C-Ground_Units#Components), emphasis mine:
7) HQ: The headquarters capacity of the component in tons. This is the total size of the formation (or formation hierarchy) that can be effectively controlled by a commander based in a unit with this component. To assign a commander to a formation, one of the units within that formation requires a headquarters component.
So you should not be able to assign an officer to such a formation, and if you can it is probably a bug(?) and at any rate should not confer any bonuses. That said, the ground units systems are known to have a fair amount of bugs remaining so it is not impossible for that to be the case.
So, a bug..?
You are correcting a mistake made by a misunderstanding of the rules so just design the new formations, delete the old ones and use SM to replace them with the new units .
Or design new slightly larger formations with the added command element, build new formations with just the command element and use the existing troops to reinforce these new units. I'd use SM its easier
Designing a slightly larger formation is not ideal, since they are tied to a troop transport component size...
I'll have to delete them and recreate them with Space Master...
Or, perhaps, keep them and throw them away in some combat.
-
- Yes. However, when you say "tiny" do you mean formations that are less than 1,000 Tons? If so, they're going suffer a terribly high number of breakthroughs...
The smallest one is below 100 - 99, with 33 PWL infantry.
Most others are 250, and 500 as of late...
636 was the one with 2 construction vehicles...
--- These will likely be slaughtered via repeated breakthroughs. Heavy casualties to be expected at minimum. Breakthrough mechanics don't take into account your overall numbers, only the size of the formations themselves.
-
--- These will likely be slaughtered via repeated breakthroughs. Heavy casualties to be expected at minimum. Breakthrough mechanics don't take into account your overall numbers, only the size of the formations themselves.
These tiny formations breaking through, or being the victims of an enemy breakthrough?
Also I've found a way to fix my problem in an easier way:
In the Ground Forces window, on the (default) Order of Battle tab, click the "Show Elements" box. You can then expand the formations in the oob tree to show elements. These can be click-dragged to other formations. If you don't want to move an entire stack (for whatever reason), you can click the "Amount Popup" box and when moving elements it will prompt you for the amount moved.
-
--- Your tiny formations will be broken though and your Support / Tear line attacked often as a result. You will likewise almost never breakthrough the enemy's Frontline.
-
--- These will likely be slaughtered via repeated breakthroughs. Heavy casualties to be expected at minimum. Breakthrough mechanics don't take into account your overall numbers, only the size of the formations themselves.
I did not know this, that seems incredibly wrong as it penalizes people for having in-depth OOBs, which often have small combat formations.
-
--- These will likely be slaughtered via repeated breakthroughs. Heavy casualties to be expected at minimum. Breakthrough mechanics don't take into account your overall numbers, only the size of the formations themselves.
I did not know this, that seems incredibly wrong as it penalizes people for having in-depth OOBs, which often have small combat formations.
Frankly, the entire ground unit system punishes people for having in-depth OOBs - it simply is not designed for modeling down to the platoon or squad level for anything other than boarding forces - not only in the breakthrough/morale mechanics but also things like the micromanagement of such OOBs or the difficulty to generate enough officers to place a commander at every level for every formation. Which honestly makes sense, Aurora is primarily a game on the planetary/galactic scale, and for planetary invasions we really should be talking about armies on the millions of tons scale, not companies on the 1000-ton scale.
Personally I choose to accept the game for what it is and satisfy my inner OOB nerd by making snazzy TO&E graphics that show the platoon or squad levels that only matter in my headcanon. :)
-
--- These will likely be slaughtered via repeated breakthroughs. Heavy casualties to be expected at minimum. Breakthrough mechanics don't take into account your overall numbers, only the size of the formations themselves.
I did not know this, that seems incredibly wrong as it penalizes people for having in-depth OOBs, which often have small combat formations.
Frankly, the entire ground unit system punishes people for having in-depth OOBs - it simply is not designed for modeling down to the platoon or squad level for anything other than boarding forces - not only in the breakthrough/morale mechanics but also things like the micromanagement of such OOBs or the difficulty to generate enough officers to place a commander at every level for every formation. Which honestly makes sense, Aurora is primarily a game on the planetary/galactic scale, and for planetary invasions we really should be talking about armies on the millions of tons scale, not companies on the 1000-ton scale.
Personally I choose to accept the game for what it is and satisfy my inner OOB nerd by making snazzy TO&E graphics that show the platoon or squad levels that only matter in my headcanon. :)
Then why is the lowest rank major? That's why I started doing detailed OOBs, I assumed that's the sort of granularity the system was made to support.
-
Then why is the lowest rank major? That's why I started doing detailed OOBs, I assumed that's the sort of granularity the system was made to support.
This really needs to be changed. It didn't even make sense in VB6 when the ground formations were battalions and we had to like it or Steve would shoot us.
-
Then why is the lowest rank major? That's why I started doing detailed OOBs, I assumed that's the sort of granularity the system was made to support.
This really needs to be changed. It didn't even make sense in VB6 when the ground formations were battalions and we had to like it or Steve would shoot us.
You can rename the lowest ground combat rank whatever you want. It also depends on naming theme; in my current game the lowest rank was Captain by default.
Until the latest version, commanders had Ground Force Command Rating that limited how much tonnage they could command optimally (and generally scaled up with rank). This set up a sort of optimal formation size for each rank, though of course how many soldiers per unit was never really specified. However, as of the latest update this has been removed and it's entirely up to you if the lowest rank of ground force commander commands a 100 ton unit or a 25000 ton one (Though obviously you would need more officers per ton depending on the size).
-
You can rename the lowest ground combat rank whatever you want. It also depends on naming theme; in my current game the lowest rank was Captain by default.
I think the question is more about why the in-game rank name systems usually suggest by having lowest ranks like "Major" that the company is a good formation size to build, when it really isn't. More of an internal consistency thing as well as a way to mislead new players I suppose.
-
You can rename the lowest ground combat rank whatever you want. It also depends on naming theme; in my current game the lowest rank was Captain by default.
I think the question is more about why the in-game rank name systems usually suggest by having lowest ranks like "Major" that the company is a good formation size to build, when it really isn't. More of an internal consistency thing as well as a way to mislead new players I suppose.
I think the issue is more that there is always going to be a default, and if the idea of the ground forces system is that your units can be of any size there's no way to establish what that default should be, so it's probably fine to just go with whatever.
Also, it was probably what fit best given the number of ranks in descending order.
-
Out of curiosity, does the "very detailed OOB = bad due to morale/breakthrough" apply in, say, situations where it's too very-detailed OOBs fighting each other and not something like NPRs and whatnot?
-
Out of curiosity, does the "very detailed OOB = bad due to morale/breakthrough" apply in, say, situations where it's too very-detailed OOBs fighting each other and not something like NPRs and whatnot?
-- No, well kind of no... If both sides are roughly equal, then the penalty is moot as both sides are "bad". If you want to do multi-faction player led stuff, than this issue has little to no bearing overall...
-
Out of curiosity, does the "very detailed OOB = bad due to morale/breakthrough" apply in, say, situations where it's too very-detailed OOBs fighting each other and not something like NPRs and whatnot?
In theory there shouldn't be much noticeable effect, and as xenoscepter said it should work equally badly for both sides. However in practice I'd expect to see a higher variance leading to more breakthrough events per deployed ton.
-
Ah, so it should play smoothly enough then, assuming I don't make it so nuanced that I can't produce enough officers. I was thinking only company-level anyway (gotta have those HHCs), so that should be fine.
-
assuming I don't make it so nuanced that I can't produce enough officers.
If you are playing with player races only, this is entirely manageable. However, some food for thought:
A ground unit training facility (GFTF) without any tech upgrades produces, IIRC, 240 BP of ground units per year. With the exception of HQ units, ground units cost 0.02*size*armor*capabilities (if any). I tend to find that on average, at least in the early game my ground units probably average about 2 armor across the various base unit types (later on with heavier units and advanced capabilities this can increase), so roughly we can estimate that 1000 tons of ground units, or roughly one company, costs about 40 BP, so with no additional tech investments a ground forces facility can train about six companies per year.
By contrast, the rate at which a single military academy produces new generals is 1.25 generals per year normally (25% chance per new leader), which can be pushed up to 2.75 generals per year (55% chance) with a ground forces commandant for that academy.
For a typical TN start, at 500m pop a race receives 4 GFTFs and one academy. On 2b pop this increases to 10 GFTFs and 2 academies. Either way your rate of ground unit production (24 or 60 companies per annum) greatly outpaces your rate of general production (max 2.75 or 5.5 per annum).
So the moral of the story here is something like: if you are going to have a multi-player-race campaign to enjoy company-size formations, you probably want to underbuild GFTFs so as not to overwhelm your leadership structure. Something like 1 GFTF per colony which is large enough to support one is probably a suitable balance. Alternatively you could use the additional starting GFTFs to churn out STOs which could be fun, as STOs build pretty slowly especially if built with heavy armor. On a conventional start I believe you only get one starting GFTF so this is even easier to work around.
The other consideration which follows from this is how you apply your GU structures to your roleplay setting. Say you start with ~50 ground commanders plus 2.5 a year (I like round numbers, sue me), after ten years your low-rank officers start retiring and you have a rough equilbrium of ~100 ground commanders (assuming just the one academy for the moment). With 3:1 rank ratios and auto-promotions you're looking at around 70 Majors, 25 Colonels, 10 Brigadiers, and a couple of modern major generals to run the joint, which comes out to about three divisions (one corps, if you have a Lt. General sitting around to command it) of troops more or less. For a multi-system star empire ruling over hundreds of millions of civilians, three divisions is not a lot. This doesn't have to be a problem per se, but it is something you want to think about as you RP your interstellar empire.
-
So in short, lots of academies?
-
Well, yes, that too.
-
I actually tested the small vs big formations with Gyrfalcon and while what xenoscepter wrote is true, the effect is small and can be overcome with just leader bonuses or more units or better tech. You can read it here: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11328.0
The conclusion was:
again, none of the simulations presented has demonstrated an edge to be gained that would suffice against an opponent even 10% stronger than you.
So don't worry about making lot of small formations - if you have superior tech or numbers, you'll still win even against NPRs.
-
In principle, going off of the rank names is a great way for a new player to approach the game. In practice, the rank themes were all created long ago, for versions of the game no new player should ever play; there’s no guarantee that any of them are really appropriate.
Also, the meanings of rank names have changed wildly over the centuries; you can stretch them to mean anything you want. 2500 years ago, a Greek army had about 100 fighting men in it, and it was commanded by a general. What they called a war was really just a single battle, after which everyone went home. Strategy and tactics were literally the same thing.
-
Indeed; I wouldn't be surprised if GUs scale doesn't end up the same way as ship scale, with things just getting bigger and bigger and bigger as campaigns go on. Though that won't help with the lack of officers, just the breakthrough problem.
-
Also, the meanings of rank names have changed wildly over the centuries; you can stretch them to mean anything you want.
While this is true...
2500 years ago, a Greek army had about 100 fighting men in it, and it was commanded by a general. What they called a war was really just a single battle, after which everyone went home. Strategy and tactics were literally the same thing.
...this emphatically is not. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon) Even accounting for the tendency of ancient writers like Herodotus to not let facts get in the way of a rousing narrative.
Non-historicity aside, even if the rank names can be stretched at will they are certainly most likely to be understood in a relatively modern context, and it is reasonable to at least give consideration to what the implications of that are particularly for newer players taking their cues from in-game clues...there are few other game elements which actively mislead the player, in the way that default rank systems which implicitly suggest that ~1,000-ton companies are a good idea do.
-
there are few other game elements which actively mislead the player, in the way that default rank systems which implicitly suggest that ~1,000-ton companies are a good idea do.
Yes, the max tonnage amount to command...like the rank restriction wasn't already enough! sometimes I imagine Steve reading the forum and laugh his guts out while he plays a different version of Aurora that we ignore the existence.
;D ;D ;D
I would personally remove it, I may have at read at some point that it was going to be...the lines between imagination, reality, and hope is getting more blurred by the day.
-
there are few other game elements which actively mislead the player, in the way that default rank systems which implicitly suggest that ~1,000-ton companies are a good idea do.
Yes, the max tonnage amount to command...like the rank restriction wasn't already enough! sometimes I imagine Steve reading the forum and laugh his guts out while he plays a different version of Aurora that we ignore the existence.
;D ;D ;D
I would personally remove it, I may have at read at some point that it was going to be...the lines between imagination, reality, and hope is getting more blurred by the day.
Ground combat command skill, which set the tonnage limit you mention, was removed in 1.13 although it is still visible in the commander sorting window (you can see that it is 0 for all leaders). I actually remember discussing that particular change with Steve.
-
there are few other game elements which actively mislead the player, in the way that default rank systems which implicitly suggest that ~1,000-ton companies are a good idea do.
Yes, the max tonnage amount to command...like the rank restriction wasn't already enough! sometimes I imagine Steve reading the forum and laugh his guts out while he plays a different version of Aurora that we ignore the existence.
;D ;D ;D
I would personally remove it, I may have at read at some point that it was going to be...the lines between imagination, reality, and hope is getting more blurred by the day.
And the required rank to command a formation can be changed.
-
there are few other game elements which actively mislead the player, in the way that default rank systems which implicitly suggest that ~1,000-ton companies are a good idea do.
I would also suggest that Troop Transport Bays have a similar effect and should be adjusted. That 1000 tons is "standard" and 5000 tons is "large" is a bit silly at present when my mainline troopships have 20 of those large bays. I know people really love their fighter-sized boarding craft so I don't want to take away options at the low end but since it's all one research now maybe it would make sense to have Tiny and Fighter Troop Transport Bays and bump all the existing ones up.
Large should be 20-25K at least.
With the removal of the ground command limit, one of my setup tasks is changing the lowest rank to Colonel and just building regiments as my smallest ground unit, but I don't tend to bother with marines at all.
-
2500 years ago, a Greek army had about 100 fighting men in it, and it was commanded by a general. What they called a war was really just a single battle, after which everyone went home. Strategy and tactics were literally the same thing.
...this emphatically is not. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marathon) Even accounting for the tendency of ancient writers like Herodotus to not let facts get in the way of a rousing narrative.
Sorry, I should be more precise in my dates. The Battle of Marathon was indeed 2500 years ago, but it is at the end of the ancient Greek era where the phalanx was used. Pretend I said 2800 years ago instead. The size of a Greek army rose gradually over the three hundred years leading up to this point as the Greek city states grew in wealth and population. It was also a war of Greeks vs Persians, rather than a war between two Greek city states.
Non-historicity aside, even if the rank names can be stretched at will they are certainly most likely to be understood in a relatively modern context, and it is reasonable to at least give consideration to what the implications of that are particularly for newer players taking their cues from in-game clues...there are few other game elements which actively mislead the player, in the way that default rank systems which implicitly suggest that ~1,000-ton companies are a good idea do.
I don’t disagree; in fact I said as much in my previous comment. The rank themes were all put into the database long ago, and even back then there were arguments about whether the names of the military units matched up with the rank names. It is therefore not surprising that they are misleading; they were not designed to guide us towards good army design in the current iteration of Aurora. They were not really designed at all, in fact.