Posted by: Father Tim
« on: May 08, 2020, 09:57:08 AM »It's possible that ground units don't re-supply outside of combat, given the number of reports about it not happening. It may also take more time than people are giving it.
After throwing about 200k of troops against a rift valley Prec Fortress, and finally defeating them, I am at pretty much the same Point that has been mentioned up to here several times. Sticking together the remains of the smashed Combat brigades and replacing out of a mishmash of replacement Units.
While I have done that by now and am somehow satisified with the result, and am rebuilding Units, one thing is still amiss for me. I did build a supply truck only unit to replace the used up logistics of the brigades, Regiments and batallions, and have forwarded the time a bit, but all the old units still show their supply Level as a various mixture from 0 to other sub-100% figures and it never changes.
Shouldn't they either consume the supply trucks or Refill from the home planets reserves or am I missing the "resupply Ground troops" button somewhere?
Would you say those mechanics behaving as intended?
I guess from an XCOM-ish "aliens invade, inferior humans with history of warfare excel on home turf" perspective.
...But a one-percent to-hit is just ridiculous.
Would you say those mechanics behaving as intended?
All of the things you posted about asymmetrical warfare are both utterly true, and completely irrelevant.
Formation organization in Aurora has nothing to do with what tactics are actually in use, they are abstractions.
Assume two sides. Both have only one combat element designed:Code: [Select]Irregulars
Transport Size (tons) 3 Cost 0.06 Armour 8 Hit Points 8
Annual Maintenance Cost 0.0075 Resupply Cost 0.25
Light Personal Weapons: Shots 1 Penetration 4 Damage 4
Vendarite 0.06
Development Cost 3
On one side, you have 10,000 irregulars organized into one unit, plus appropriately sized non-combat HQ.
On the other, you have 100 units of 100 irregulars each, again with appropriate non-combat HQ.
In an ideal world, these should be evenly matched forces. Neither of them have access to any force multipliers, so it should come down to a near-even meatgrinder.
The question is, is that the case under the current ground combat model? (It would be really nice if we could get a more detailed look at the under-the-hood formula used, since all we have now are posts from Steve from multiple years ago that may or may not be accurate.) If simply splitting up an equal number of identical elements in more formations gives you an advantage, then ground combat balance will come down to what degree you are willing to spend time organizing ludicrously wide sub-formations, which is inelegant, to say the least.
EDIT: I will say that more detailed organization should be able to provide you with advantages based on use of support/RE forces with appropriate weapons choices, as I detailed in my post about revamping how AA/bombardment works when supporting things, but simply splitting up identical forces and leaving them all front-line should not.
Quote from: Jorgen_CAB on Today at 04:40:08 AMQuoteI don't like the META gaming of big vs small as in I have many very tiny and you have large formations so I win as you waste you large formations shots at my tiny formation... or I use formations twice to three times yours and win as I get much more breakthroughs and don't waste fire-power.
That kind of strategy and game mechanic "abuse" is not fun as it makes no reals sense from a RP or real life perspective. All military organisations are broken down into a hierarchy that are very similar for a reason from fire-teams to cores and armies.
Inaccurate, mate. Read up on the Battle of Kunlun Pass, the 1940 Hundred Regiments Offensive, and well over a dozen successful Chinese v Japanese battles during the Second Sino-Japanese War. (Mid-to-late WWII). Particularly note the Battle of Wuhan, resulting in 1.2m casualties, that directly let to a Japanese shift in focus and the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Some big, many small, but inferior Chinese forces took one hell of a toll on Japanese forces all around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_engagements_of_the_Second_Sino-Japanese_War
What you described as META is precisely the tactic Chinese forces often used against Japanese invasion, with arguable success. They often used small multi-unit infantry maneuver tactics to encircle, trap, and harass Japanese forces with vastly superior armament and armor accompaniment. While Japanese semiautomatic rifles and mortars outranged the Chinese, and Japanese armor did their thing, they remain susceptible to being tricking into focusing fire on secondary targets while being flanked by grenadier-riflemen fire teams.
Hell, from my dad and uncles' stories from Vietnam, it worked horrific wonders against our forces. To his dying day my dad couldn't smell certain things without going into a fugue state, and one of my uncles offed himself about 2 years ago after decades fighting his PTSD. Iraq-Afghan wars with similar results. One standard-issue ahole in compact sedan sporting a 500 Lb of TNT equivalent can achieve massive collateral damage out to 1.5k Ft or somewhere around 450 meters, while some randos who found Soviet-era support armament, stripped them, and stuck em on the back of a truck could do serious damage to infantry and air elements alike with minimal investment.
Remember the wealth and tech disparity. Consider Garfunkel's C# Aurora RP series: see how various nations are running negative on wealth, thus ruining their economy and industry? Imagine the cost of maintaining low-tech forces vs high tech forces while simultaneously fielding a space-capable navy.
It costs a guerrilla squad jack-all to weld a stolen soviet set-up onto a resurrected scrapyard 4x4 and seriously piss off their rivals with that half-assed Technical, while it costs hundreds of thousands, or millions, for our high-tech "solution." Its why its such a pain in the ass to fight in the Middle East, why the Vietnam war was such a mess, why no one wants to invade the continental US or russia, or stage raids on a Brazilian favela like my cousin Wagner, commander of the 4th Battalion of the Policia Militar de Governador Valadares did earlier in his career.
They achieve more against us by draining funds via the costs of deploying overwhelming firepower than any actual damage they can do.
Its said that morale is the most important aspect of any conflict, and its hard to feel victorious when you're launching missiles at pickup trucks and trying to type up a report at the FOB while a bunch of jackoffs mortar-bombard you every. single. god. damn. day. Ineffectively, but that's not the point. One of my cousins couldn't sleep for a year after returning from Kandahar because they'd randomly wake up expecting impacts, and now sleeps like a baby while blasting heavy rock or metal. The psychological and tactical effects of low-tech lightly-armed squad-level harassment are ABSOLUTELY not META, at all. One can easily cite historical precedent at every technological level during every major conflict and era-based doctrine throughout modern history, with plenty of old-world examples as well.
Irregulars
Transport Size (tons) 3 Cost 0.06 Armour 8 Hit Points 8
Annual Maintenance Cost 0.0075 Resupply Cost 0.25
Light Personal Weapons: Shots 1 Penetration 4 Damage 4
Vendarite 0.06
Development Cost 3