Posted by: Jarhead0331
« on: July 11, 2025, 05:56:07 AM »Stay safe, bro.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: July 11, 2025, 05:12:47 AM »That's probably the best description of the impact of drones I've read. Thanks for the thought that has gone into it. I'm not going to update ground combat for this version, because I would like to get it out in the next 2-3 months, but your experience in the last three years shows that it is time for a major update.
Posted by: serger
« on: July 11, 2025, 04:51:04 AM »A bit of disclaimer: I'm a Ukrainian army officer and I've spend this year planning and coordinating artillery fires. No kind of crack specialist - just a mobilized signals reservist actually - yet I saw here a lot of stats and cases and it changed significantly what I see as plausible future ground combat. I'll put it here in case somebody find it interesting and, if I'll survive, it may be a starting point to tinker with Aurora further.
The main thing - this year was a warfare revolution in full swing, drones became major (not auxiliary) combat tool. Before, I wasn't completely sure it's coming the way it seems, now it's a fait accomply. There may be another and less predictable revolution in a near or more distant future, yet returning to the past is, well, very unlikely.
Artillery was a major damage dealer throughout nearly all the industrial era. Now it's over. The guidance electronics became so capable, compact and cheap, that it's just no more need neither to saturate the field of battle with indirect fires just in hope that some shell will find some valuable target in the area nor to spend time and shells with adjustment fires to catch a regular target there. You spot a target and it's not covered - you just send drones to kill. You spot a target and it's covered - you send a heavier drone to either blast the cover or mine the exit. It's faster, more reliable and cost less comparing to spending 5 to 50 shells. It's also less risky - howitzer fires are very easy to spot, while drone starting points and their crew dugouts are not.
There were concerns that strike drones are vulnerable to EW. Well, they are. Still more effective then any other spotting and kinetic tool in most cases, even in EW-saturated area, because since your signals in this area are suppressed - it's usually not only drones, you also cannot shout to your infantry, and so you have nobody to spot for your fire support at all. The only solution is more EW-resistant drones - with proper FHSS modules, directed repeaters, towed optic cables, etc. Modern brigade-level recon drones - both Ukrainian domestic and European ones - are resistant enough, the opponent usually cannot suppress them even when they are 15-25 km deep over the opponent's lines, and it's just proper FHSS modules, nothing more. I know less about the russian drones, the general impression is those are mostly less capable, yet while our EW units are severely underequipped and vulnerable to enemy missiles - it's not enough of the tech gap to give us significant advantage. The US-designed drones are... strange, mostly useless and overpriced as hell, yet I think it's just like it was with their tanks at the start of WWII: it's not that it's very hard do it proper, it's just no perceived need to do it until Pearl Harbour, so, well, they'll fight having outdated drones will they fight somebody serious at all.
Another and more serious limitation is weather. Here are two factors. Bad visibility is actually just irrelevant - you cannot spot through heavy fog or rainfall/snowfall, drones or no drones, and without spotting neither strike drones nor arty cannot hit their targets without enormous ammo expenditure. The relevant weather factor is wind - infantry and armoured and traditional Air Force are shrugging it out, while Mavic-like drones cannot. Yet it's like muddy weather for tanks: the early models were extremely vulnerable, the makeshift ones still are, yet since you start producing proper tanks - they are mud-able enough and definitely more able to run through mud then any other advancing elements. The same with drones: start producing properly designed military-grade ones and it has to be a tornado to deny their operations, and their strike cost is still 5 to 25 times less then a needed barrel ammo to hit nearly any target.
The most serious limitation is currently actually dense vegetation and buildings. The thing is, the cause of drone efficiency is their "leanness" - no heavy shell, no redundancy, not much durability, small cheap motors. That's why they are cheap enough to spend literally in millions, sweeping out infantry like hell. Though, bump a branch or a wall with it - and it's down. There are some obvious ways to fix it - ring-covered props, better materials, etc. - yet I'll expect 15 to 30 years of R&D before you can send a drone through thickets like it's a forest hawk and hunt down somebody hiding there. Buildings are actually simpler - the Boston Dynamics androids are already capable enough to open doors, and climb stairs, move through the rubble, etc., while holding weapons, yet androids are just a new type of infantry. Flying strike drones are definitely not.
The major advantage of infantry was always it's low cost. It's no more. Light strike drones became much cheaper then infantrymen. Try to field an effective stormtrooper - and their harsh long training and weapons and equipment cost is around the same cost as a pair of drones and their operator with their kit, still capable of killing this trooper quite quickly and reliably anywhere except thick bushes and a dugout he'll be hiding uselessly, and dugout and bushes are no guarantee too. Without costly training and equipment troopers are a mob, you cannot make a breakthrough with them, nor use them as an occupational force, garrisons or something alike. So, it's forever, it's not a temporary doctrinal failure you can overcome just by procuring some R&D and making new regulations. Actually, I'll bet further R&D will just deepen the gap, making strike drones relatively more effective in any habitable terrain. Infantry are for garrisons only - to sit in bunkers and dugouts and basements under ruins, and never ever advance without overwhelming tech and fire superiority, end even then prefer to send drones.
It's not that barrel artillery is dead. Unguided MLRS are - not enough precision even to plow large positions, too much propellant expenditure, extremely easy to spot during fire, too much volume to armour and so easy to destroy with nearly anything. Traditional mortars are doomed too - aiming too slowly to hit mobile targets any kind of reliably, mine flight time too long, still too easy to spot from drones during fire. Automation may help with reaction time, yet flight time is still bad. Heavy mortars may find some niche with a mix of guided mines and cheap bombardment irons, yet it's troubled, range and flight time are still bad and the heavier mortar the harder it to dug in and hide. Yet long-barrel artillery has their stable niche, because it's kinetic strike has a capacity to be really fast. Strike drones are cheaper, yet much slower in delivering the warhead - they are mostly deep subsonic, cannot be supersonic without just becoming shells or missiles. Artillery shell is deeply supersonic from the start, fly time 2 times less then mortar mine, 10 times less then strike drone. So, you spot an important moving target and cannot hit it - you call artillery. Yet not the traditional one - this one needs preps (with the crew sprinting out of their dugout) and adjustment fire (at least 3 shot-correct-shot iterations), so no less then a minute to hit the target with low chances to surprise it. Strike drones are not much slower comparing to this, even the slow makeshift ones. Yet if it's a properly automated arty fire with guided shells - it'll reliably hit the spotted target from the first shot, and it's just 15 to 60 seconds ToT and a good chance for lethal surprise. Yet it's not a bombardment anymore, it's more like superheavy sniping. Bombardments are to destroy large fortified and urban areas only, and that's where long-barrel arty is also capable, even the traditional towed one with full crews - good propellant efficiency, long range, shots are too fast and chip and durable to stop them with any kind of AA fires. You need to cover your arty with robust EW and AA, and dug them all in before starting bombardment, because bombardment needs time, and artillery is easy to spot during fire, and EW and most of AA are easy to locate while they are active too, so the opponent'll try to massacre them with strike drones. That's why you'd hate to have short-barreled arty to bombard anything close to peer opponent: less range, more flash, so much harder to weather counterbattery fires and strike drones.
Tanks are not dead, howsoever troubled. You still need something to move through fire and wire and mines, and since it's not infantry, then it's tanks. They are to spot inside the battlefield smoke and dust, kill anything on the surface and move further, break the defense line, and do it under unending drone and missile strikes. You cannot do it with unarmored vehicles - they'll be massacred with strike drones even easier than your infantry. You cannot do it with weeled armored vehicles - they are still too easy to stop with light strike drones or mines and finish off while immobile. So what you do need is tracked, all-around-spaced-armoured tracked vehicles with mine plows. No other vehicle type will survive advancing through the modern battlefield long enough to be effective. It's very tempting to keep or even enlarge the main tank gun, yet this temptation is dangerous. Long-barreled heavy gun with it's shells and propellant charges are not only too heavy, but also hinder armoring and survivability. I'm sure it's worth rearming tanks with autocannons only - much smaller turrets, fast enough to track and shot down inbounds, still able to blind enemy tanks instead of trying to kill them all alone.
Traditional APCs are troubled alot, because traditional mobile infantry is dying. Heavy armoured or lean and fast - APCs for deploying heavy assault drones, powerful receivers and so on - well, yea, we need it, yet it's a question if it's more effective to do with APCs or heavy copter drones like our Vampires (aka Baba Yaga) or even something heavier, yet still flying and unmanned. And carrying your infantry to storm enemy positions - the further the more it looks like sacrificing your men and combat vehicles for nearly nothing. To advance is actually to move your receivers towards enemy positions, then to kill all the surface opposing elements, and then to clear the dugouts and thickets, while your forward elements are moving your receivers and clearing the surface further. Of these tasks we (currently, in Ukraine, as an observable fact) still need infantry only to clear dugouts and thickets (and so secure logistics for further advance), and it's only because we have not enough shells to destroy dugouts and clean thickets, and I hope in 15 to 20 years nobody (except religious fanatics) will need troopers for the latter too. People are too slow, weak and fragile for the modern battlefield, and no training can change it.
Attack helicopters are dead. It's an expensive tool of giving direct fire weapons longer fire line by just lifting them up. It's obsolete as a concept, because indirect fire guided ammo became plenty and capable, so no more need to just lift a platform up - you use either cheaper and stealthier surface or unmanned platform or faster and longer ranged winged one. Drones capable of running down helicopters dosens of kms over the frontline became usual, which means even medevac copters are also troubled - they need either more speed or defensive turrets and still be troubled just because you cannot make helicopter stealthy for thermals, and drones with thermals became ubiquitous.
Traditional combat aircraft definitely is more then just alive. It gives you kinetic start - you can toss relatively cheap guided bombs and longer ranged fast missiles instead of burning a lot of hard propellants to build the same kinetics by launching missiles from surface. It gives enormous operational flexibility - you can concentrate or disperse your strikes, choosing which exact sector of the frontline you'd like to penetrate, and it's in hours, not days or weeks, it's very hard to predict where the opponent's Air Force going to strike next hours and so where exactly to deploy your defenses and what to hide urgently. Cheap drones cannot intercept jets and missiles - you need to arm them with proper missiles to do it, and it's not cheap anymore. You need to defend the air bases, yet it's more then possible - we do it for years even having no effective interceptors and no strategic depth (all our territory is under strikes every day), and our airforce is still operating, and we have now more Soviet-designed bombers then there were at the start of full-scale war, which looks like miracle and is not - it's hard and costly, yet possible and worth doing, Air Force kicks like hell if you know how to do it properly.
The main thing - this year was a warfare revolution in full swing, drones became major (not auxiliary) combat tool. Before, I wasn't completely sure it's coming the way it seems, now it's a fait accomply. There may be another and less predictable revolution in a near or more distant future, yet returning to the past is, well, very unlikely.
Artillery was a major damage dealer throughout nearly all the industrial era. Now it's over. The guidance electronics became so capable, compact and cheap, that it's just no more need neither to saturate the field of battle with indirect fires just in hope that some shell will find some valuable target in the area nor to spend time and shells with adjustment fires to catch a regular target there. You spot a target and it's not covered - you just send drones to kill. You spot a target and it's covered - you send a heavier drone to either blast the cover or mine the exit. It's faster, more reliable and cost less comparing to spending 5 to 50 shells. It's also less risky - howitzer fires are very easy to spot, while drone starting points and their crew dugouts are not.
There were concerns that strike drones are vulnerable to EW. Well, they are. Still more effective then any other spotting and kinetic tool in most cases, even in EW-saturated area, because since your signals in this area are suppressed - it's usually not only drones, you also cannot shout to your infantry, and so you have nobody to spot for your fire support at all. The only solution is more EW-resistant drones - with proper FHSS modules, directed repeaters, towed optic cables, etc. Modern brigade-level recon drones - both Ukrainian domestic and European ones - are resistant enough, the opponent usually cannot suppress them even when they are 15-25 km deep over the opponent's lines, and it's just proper FHSS modules, nothing more. I know less about the russian drones, the general impression is those are mostly less capable, yet while our EW units are severely underequipped and vulnerable to enemy missiles - it's not enough of the tech gap to give us significant advantage. The US-designed drones are... strange, mostly useless and overpriced as hell, yet I think it's just like it was with their tanks at the start of WWII: it's not that it's very hard do it proper, it's just no perceived need to do it until Pearl Harbour, so, well, they'll fight having outdated drones will they fight somebody serious at all.
Another and more serious limitation is weather. Here are two factors. Bad visibility is actually just irrelevant - you cannot spot through heavy fog or rainfall/snowfall, drones or no drones, and without spotting neither strike drones nor arty cannot hit their targets without enormous ammo expenditure. The relevant weather factor is wind - infantry and armoured and traditional Air Force are shrugging it out, while Mavic-like drones cannot. Yet it's like muddy weather for tanks: the early models were extremely vulnerable, the makeshift ones still are, yet since you start producing proper tanks - they are mud-able enough and definitely more able to run through mud then any other advancing elements. The same with drones: start producing properly designed military-grade ones and it has to be a tornado to deny their operations, and their strike cost is still 5 to 25 times less then a needed barrel ammo to hit nearly any target.
The most serious limitation is currently actually dense vegetation and buildings. The thing is, the cause of drone efficiency is their "leanness" - no heavy shell, no redundancy, not much durability, small cheap motors. That's why they are cheap enough to spend literally in millions, sweeping out infantry like hell. Though, bump a branch or a wall with it - and it's down. There are some obvious ways to fix it - ring-covered props, better materials, etc. - yet I'll expect 15 to 30 years of R&D before you can send a drone through thickets like it's a forest hawk and hunt down somebody hiding there. Buildings are actually simpler - the Boston Dynamics androids are already capable enough to open doors, and climb stairs, move through the rubble, etc., while holding weapons, yet androids are just a new type of infantry. Flying strike drones are definitely not.
The major advantage of infantry was always it's low cost. It's no more. Light strike drones became much cheaper then infantrymen. Try to field an effective stormtrooper - and their harsh long training and weapons and equipment cost is around the same cost as a pair of drones and their operator with their kit, still capable of killing this trooper quite quickly and reliably anywhere except thick bushes and a dugout he'll be hiding uselessly, and dugout and bushes are no guarantee too. Without costly training and equipment troopers are a mob, you cannot make a breakthrough with them, nor use them as an occupational force, garrisons or something alike. So, it's forever, it's not a temporary doctrinal failure you can overcome just by procuring some R&D and making new regulations. Actually, I'll bet further R&D will just deepen the gap, making strike drones relatively more effective in any habitable terrain. Infantry are for garrisons only - to sit in bunkers and dugouts and basements under ruins, and never ever advance without overwhelming tech and fire superiority, end even then prefer to send drones.
It's not that barrel artillery is dead. Unguided MLRS are - not enough precision even to plow large positions, too much propellant expenditure, extremely easy to spot during fire, too much volume to armour and so easy to destroy with nearly anything. Traditional mortars are doomed too - aiming too slowly to hit mobile targets any kind of reliably, mine flight time too long, still too easy to spot from drones during fire. Automation may help with reaction time, yet flight time is still bad. Heavy mortars may find some niche with a mix of guided mines and cheap bombardment irons, yet it's troubled, range and flight time are still bad and the heavier mortar the harder it to dug in and hide. Yet long-barrel artillery has their stable niche, because it's kinetic strike has a capacity to be really fast. Strike drones are cheaper, yet much slower in delivering the warhead - they are mostly deep subsonic, cannot be supersonic without just becoming shells or missiles. Artillery shell is deeply supersonic from the start, fly time 2 times less then mortar mine, 10 times less then strike drone. So, you spot an important moving target and cannot hit it - you call artillery. Yet not the traditional one - this one needs preps (with the crew sprinting out of their dugout) and adjustment fire (at least 3 shot-correct-shot iterations), so no less then a minute to hit the target with low chances to surprise it. Strike drones are not much slower comparing to this, even the slow makeshift ones. Yet if it's a properly automated arty fire with guided shells - it'll reliably hit the spotted target from the first shot, and it's just 15 to 60 seconds ToT and a good chance for lethal surprise. Yet it's not a bombardment anymore, it's more like superheavy sniping. Bombardments are to destroy large fortified and urban areas only, and that's where long-barrel arty is also capable, even the traditional towed one with full crews - good propellant efficiency, long range, shots are too fast and chip and durable to stop them with any kind of AA fires. You need to cover your arty with robust EW and AA, and dug them all in before starting bombardment, because bombardment needs time, and artillery is easy to spot during fire, and EW and most of AA are easy to locate while they are active too, so the opponent'll try to massacre them with strike drones. That's why you'd hate to have short-barreled arty to bombard anything close to peer opponent: less range, more flash, so much harder to weather counterbattery fires and strike drones.
Tanks are not dead, howsoever troubled. You still need something to move through fire and wire and mines, and since it's not infantry, then it's tanks. They are to spot inside the battlefield smoke and dust, kill anything on the surface and move further, break the defense line, and do it under unending drone and missile strikes. You cannot do it with unarmored vehicles - they'll be massacred with strike drones even easier than your infantry. You cannot do it with weeled armored vehicles - they are still too easy to stop with light strike drones or mines and finish off while immobile. So what you do need is tracked, all-around-spaced-armoured tracked vehicles with mine plows. No other vehicle type will survive advancing through the modern battlefield long enough to be effective. It's very tempting to keep or even enlarge the main tank gun, yet this temptation is dangerous. Long-barreled heavy gun with it's shells and propellant charges are not only too heavy, but also hinder armoring and survivability. I'm sure it's worth rearming tanks with autocannons only - much smaller turrets, fast enough to track and shot down inbounds, still able to blind enemy tanks instead of trying to kill them all alone.
Traditional APCs are troubled alot, because traditional mobile infantry is dying. Heavy armoured or lean and fast - APCs for deploying heavy assault drones, powerful receivers and so on - well, yea, we need it, yet it's a question if it's more effective to do with APCs or heavy copter drones like our Vampires (aka Baba Yaga) or even something heavier, yet still flying and unmanned. And carrying your infantry to storm enemy positions - the further the more it looks like sacrificing your men and combat vehicles for nearly nothing. To advance is actually to move your receivers towards enemy positions, then to kill all the surface opposing elements, and then to clear the dugouts and thickets, while your forward elements are moving your receivers and clearing the surface further. Of these tasks we (currently, in Ukraine, as an observable fact) still need infantry only to clear dugouts and thickets (and so secure logistics for further advance), and it's only because we have not enough shells to destroy dugouts and clean thickets, and I hope in 15 to 20 years nobody (except religious fanatics) will need troopers for the latter too. People are too slow, weak and fragile for the modern battlefield, and no training can change it.
Attack helicopters are dead. It's an expensive tool of giving direct fire weapons longer fire line by just lifting them up. It's obsolete as a concept, because indirect fire guided ammo became plenty and capable, so no more need to just lift a platform up - you use either cheaper and stealthier surface or unmanned platform or faster and longer ranged winged one. Drones capable of running down helicopters dosens of kms over the frontline became usual, which means even medevac copters are also troubled - they need either more speed or defensive turrets and still be troubled just because you cannot make helicopter stealthy for thermals, and drones with thermals became ubiquitous.
Traditional combat aircraft definitely is more then just alive. It gives you kinetic start - you can toss relatively cheap guided bombs and longer ranged fast missiles instead of burning a lot of hard propellants to build the same kinetics by launching missiles from surface. It gives enormous operational flexibility - you can concentrate or disperse your strikes, choosing which exact sector of the frontline you'd like to penetrate, and it's in hours, not days or weeks, it's very hard to predict where the opponent's Air Force going to strike next hours and so where exactly to deploy your defenses and what to hide urgently. Cheap drones cannot intercept jets and missiles - you need to arm them with proper missiles to do it, and it's not cheap anymore. You need to defend the air bases, yet it's more then possible - we do it for years even having no effective interceptors and no strategic depth (all our territory is under strikes every day), and our airforce is still operating, and we have now more Soviet-designed bombers then there were at the start of full-scale war, which looks like miracle and is not - it's hard and costly, yet possible and worth doing, Air Force kicks like hell if you know how to do it properly.
Posted by: serger
« on: July 02, 2024, 05:09:22 AM »An update to this my older post:
During the same 2-year period of time (2022-2023) the Russians used about 20 mln of howitzer rounds, the absolute majorioty of wich were 152mm ones.
It is approximately 150% of the artillery logistics load of the Soviets during the decisive 2 years of WWII.
A bit of warstats, just to explain my arty SupplyUse ratio.
1942-44
[...]
The most broadly used inf.guns and howitzer shells:
German 10cm: ~80 mln shots, ~15kg per shot, so ~1 200 mln kg LOG
German 15cm: ~25 mln shots, ~45kg per shot, so ~1 100 mln kg LOG
Soviet 76mm: ~75 mln shots, ~8kg per shot, so ~600 mln kg LOG
Soviet 122mm: ~20 mln shots, ~25kg per shot, so ~500 mln kg LOG
Soviet 152mm: ~9 mln shots, ~45kg per shot, so ~400 mln kg LOG
During the same 2-year period of time (2022-2023) the Russians used about 20 mln of howitzer rounds, the absolute majorioty of wich were 152mm ones.
It is approximately 150% of the artillery logistics load of the Soviets during the decisive 2 years of WWII.
Posted by: serger
« on: August 16, 2022, 10:03:16 AM »Can anyone clarify if DIM_GroundComponentType:Vehicle is still functional or if it's just a version artifact?
The strange detail is that "Super-Heavy Anti-Vehicle" and "Super-Heavy Bombardment" weapons have this field set at 0.
UPD. Understood. It's "Medium Vehicle" really, not just general vehicle.
The strange detail is that "Super-Heavy Anti-Vehicle" and "Super-Heavy Bombardment" weapons have this field set at 0.
UPD. Understood. It's "Medium Vehicle" really, not just general vehicle.
Posted by: misanthropope
« on: November 04, 2021, 01:40:23 PM »to the extent there is a known-in-advance recipe for defending forces, a hard optimum already exists and players can and will optimize their force exactly as much as their conscience and knowledge of the game permit.
almost everywhere you look in aurora there are options available that are suboptimal but players will take them anyway because they're fun or whatever. i feel that's kind of the ethos of aurora game design, and it seems sort of unfair to judge a ground combat mechanic by the infinitely more stringent metric of its effect on optimal gameplay.
that said, an aurora as she stands preferential targeting is IMHO a non-starter because of the hideous lethality of anti-tank guns against tanks. it isn't that preferential targeting pushes in the wrong direction- though it does- it's that it pushes way, way too hard.
if, for instance, infantry and armor required different resources to produce, then you have a situation where a tactical inferiority of a mixed force at a given force total is offset by the ability to deploy more total force through combined arms. in my non-professional opinion this has much more relevance to the so-called real world than any wishful nonsense about the effectiveness of combined arms.
almost everywhere you look in aurora there are options available that are suboptimal but players will take them anyway because they're fun or whatever. i feel that's kind of the ethos of aurora game design, and it seems sort of unfair to judge a ground combat mechanic by the infinitely more stringent metric of its effect on optimal gameplay.
that said, an aurora as she stands preferential targeting is IMHO a non-starter because of the hideous lethality of anti-tank guns against tanks. it isn't that preferential targeting pushes in the wrong direction- though it does- it's that it pushes way, way too hard.
if, for instance, infantry and armor required different resources to produce, then you have a situation where a tactical inferiority of a mixed force at a given force total is offset by the ability to deploy more total force through combined arms. in my non-professional opinion this has much more relevance to the so-called real world than any wishful nonsense about the effectiveness of combined arms.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: November 04, 2021, 01:22:26 PM »Personally I maintain that the best solution is to rebalance GSP requirement for multi-shot weapons, particularly CAP/HCAP and artillery. The problem right now is that if a CAP fires ineffectually at a tank, only 0.6 GSP are consumed, while if a MAV fires at an infantry 1.6 GSP are consumed, so anti-vehicle weapons are sub-optimal in terms of supply usage and are optimally used as a second-wave once CAP has been used to mow down most enemy infantry. If the GSP consumption is rebalanced to be more similar this should solve or at least mitigate much of the issue in practice.
Yes... this is the main issue with the current rules... that is why I think that instead if preferential targeting we could get a system where units don't waste shots if they are total overkill or there are very little chance to do damage. This would make the GSP consumption more in line with what it should be and we would not feel forced to game the system if we want to be more optimal by holding back forces or build units with only specialized weapon system. Vehicles with different weapon systems does not really make much sense outside role play with the current mechanics.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: November 03, 2021, 04:35:39 PM »--- Firstly, quick fire off; RECON is what gives you Preferential Targeting. CONCEALMENT reduces RECON, but not below 0. No RECON means no preferential targeting at all, and no malus from CONCEALMENT since it has nothing to conceal from. The idea of RECON being used is that in order to have a preferred target the units must know what is coming before it gets there. Otherwise, the current model is sufficiently granular to assume that the randomness we have now is units picking targets at the point of engagement versus being prepared ahead of time for said engagement.
This is what I argue is a problem, yes. With no corresponding malus, a Recon stat causes the same problem as any degree of preferential targeting, which is that a specific type of force composition (single-base class) becomes strictly optimal and any other force composition (combined arms) becomes strictly sub-optimal. For its flaws, random targeting allows any type of force composition to be viable - both uniform infantry/armor brigades and combined arms brigades are equivalent which is best for roleplay.
Quote
--- Next, my argument on the effects of preferential targeting:
- Enemy is Combined Arms: 7/1 ratio of INF and Medium Vehicle with MED Armor, MAV and CAP
- Your Forces are Combined Arms: Same as Enemy.
--- Results: With 100% preferential targeting it's a wash, assuming tech parity and a few other things for simplicity.
- Enemy is same Combined Arms, your forces are pure Med Vehicles instead.
--- Results: With 100% Preferential Targeting you wipe the enemy but take 50% casualties.
- Enemy is same Combined arms, but your pure INF.
--- Results: With 100% preferential targeting you lose everything, but the enemy takes 50% casualties.
This doesn't make any sense as an argument. If you compare cases with and without preferential targeting you will find that in every case, there is an optimal force composition which consists of a single base class of units - whether INF, VEH, or otherwise, the optimal composition may vary but it is never going to be a combined arms formation. This is true whether the preferential targeting effect is 1% or 100%, and making it conditional on a recon stat will not change this either. Only in the case of purely random targeting are combined arms equally as viable as single-base type formations.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: November 03, 2021, 04:10:17 PM »There are two problems with this approach:
First, any approach which only provides a positive preferential targeting effect, even if it is small, renders a combined-arms formation almost strictly inferior mechanically to a single-class formation (all-INF, all-VEH, etc.). While the random targeting we have now does have its flaws, it succeeds at keeping combined-arms and single-class formations equally viable which supports player roleplay...this is I would argue a very important function of the current ground combat mechanics and should be at the forefront of any mechanical changes.
Second, the way to counteract the above would be to make Concealment cause a negative targeting malus, i.e., if your Recon is not enough to overcome enemy Concealment your forces are more likely to shoot at the "wrong" target. I think such a counter-mechanic would be frustrating to players (ground units are already very complicated, why add yet another confusing mechanic to think about?) and doesn't really solve any balance problems.
The problem is that if your opponent has, for sake of example, an even mix of CAP and MAV, and you send a mixed force of 50% INF and 50% VEH for example, then:Now consider if you send a force of 100% VEH (similar arguments will apply for INF):
- With purely random targeting every enemy weapon has a proportionally even chance of hitting either type of unit. The CAP and MAV are about equally effective (aside from GSP usage).
- With even a small targeting bonus, say +10%, suddenly the CAP is hitting your INF 55% of the time and the MAV is hitting your VEH 55% of the time, so the enemy killing efficiency is 110% compared to the random case.
I am simplifying considerably, but the essence of the argument holds, and the choice of whether to use all-INF or all-VEH formations depends on the ratio of weapons the enemy is using and the relative kill rates against the units you are deploying - for example, MAV kills one tank per shot which is 62 tons, while CAP kills 6 infantry per shot which may be 30 tons (6x PW) or 72+ tons (6x CAP, LAV, etc.). However, with even a small preferential targeting choice effect, combined formations become strictly sub-optimal, which is not really in the spirit of Aurora and blemished what is honestly a 98% well-balanced ground forces system even if there are some flaws (MAV/HAV supply consumption) and some players wish it were different (e.g., more/more-accurate logistics modeling).
- With purely random targeting, the CAP has nearly zero efficiency and the MAV has about 100% efficiency, which is roughly the same on balance as the mixed formation case.
- However, with preferential targeting...nothing changes. The enemy remains at the same efficiency - which means they are not getting +10% kill rates because of your mixed formation.
--- Firstly, quick fire off; RECON is what gives you Preferential Targeting. CONCEALMENT reduces RECON, but not below 0. No RECON means no preferential targeting at all, and no malus from CONCEALMENT since it has nothing to conceal from. The idea of RECON being used is that in order to have a preferred target the units must know what is coming before it gets there. Otherwise, the current model is sufficiently granular to assume that the randomness we have now is units picking targets at the point of engagement versus being prepared ahead of time for said engagement.
--- Next, my argument on the effects of preferential targeting:
- Enemy is Combined Arms: 7/1 ratio of INF and Medium Vehicle with MED Armor, MAV and CAP
- Your Forces are Combined Arms: Same as Enemy.
--- Results: With 100% preferential targeting it's a wash, assuming tech parity and a few other things for simplicity.
- Enemy is same Combined Arms, your forces are pure Med Vehicles instead.
--- Results: With 100% Preferential Targeting you wipe the enemy but take 50% casualties.
- Enemy is same Combined arms, but your pure INF.
--- Results: With 100% preferential targeting you lose everything, but the enemy takes 50% casualties.
If AA is too powerful so be it; I haven't that much experience with GSFs so I'll defer here.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: November 03, 2021, 12:54:24 PM »--- Having preferential targeting based on a RECON value would be interesting. Terrain modifiers and Unit Terrain Modifiers could be used to provide a CONCEALMENT, which would also be affected by Fortification level, so Engineering Units could affect it as well. Thus a new ground unit would provide RECON to counter the enemy CONCEALMENT and therefore provide more or less Preferential Targeting. Thus the chance is not only dynamic, but reliant on your formations AND your enemies formations AS WELL AS the Terrain AND Unit Terrain Training.
There are two problems with this approach:
First, any approach which only provides a positive preferential targeting effect, even if it is small, renders a combined-arms formation almost strictly inferior mechanically to a single-class formation (all-INF, all-VEH, etc.). While the random targeting we have now does have its flaws, it succeeds at keeping combined-arms and single-class formations equally viable which supports player roleplay...this is I would argue a very important function of the current ground combat mechanics and should be at the forefront of any mechanical changes.
Second, the way to counteract the above would be to make Concealment cause a negative targeting malus, i.e., if your Recon is not enough to overcome enemy Concealment your forces are more likely to shoot at the "wrong" target. I think such a counter-mechanic would be frustrating to players (ground units are already very complicated, why add yet another confusing mechanic to think about?) and doesn't really solve any balance problems.
Quote
--- Overall this would avoid some of the issues with preferential targeting. Likewise, having RECON based Fighter Pods would be useful to allow FFD Units to provide additional passive RECON. Allowing Ground Support Fighters attached to an FFD to provide RECON passively when on CAS would be helpful in this regard, alongside a dedicated RECON mission. This would likewise make CAP missions more useful against enemy RECON. The RECON mission could specifically lower the CONCEALMENT bonus derived from Fortification, making AA Units that much more useful to prevent degradation of this bonus.
It cannot be stressed enough that AA units really, really, really do not need to be made even more useful than they already are. Right now even a realistically small quantity of AA units absolutely dominates ground support fighters, let alone the masses of MAA that NPRs like to field.
It is also worth noting that since the NPRs cannot even use regular fighters right now, let alone ground support fighters, this is effectively giving the player yet another advantage as the NPR has no recourse to fighters to overcome player Concealment, while players could easily do so if AA was not so overtuned. While I'm not opposed to adding mechanics for the benefit of players even if NPRs cannot handle them, such mechanics need to provide considerably more benefit for gameplay/roleplay and I do not think adding more complication to ground units accomplishes this.
-
Personally I maintain that the best solution is to rebalance GSP requirement for multi-shot weapons, particularly CAP/HCAP and artillery. The problem right now is that if a CAP fires ineffectually at a tank, only 0.6 GSP are consumed, while if a MAV fires at an infantry 1.6 GSP are consumed, so anti-vehicle weapons are sub-optimal in terms of supply usage and are optimally used as a second-wave once CAP has been used to mow down most enemy infantry. If the GSP consumption is rebalanced to be more similar this should solve or at least mitigate much of the issue in practice.
Posted by: xenoscepter
« on: November 03, 2021, 12:24:30 PM » --- Having preferential targeting based on a RECON value would be interesting. Terrain modifiers and Unit Terrain Modifiers could be used to provide a CONCEALMENT, which would also be affected by Fortification level, so Engineering Units could affect it as well. Thus a new ground unit would provide RECON to counter the enemy CONCEALMENT and therefore provide more or less Preferential Targeting. Thus the chance is not only dynamic, but reliant on your formations AND your enemies formations AS WELL AS the Terrain AND Unit Terrain Training.
--- Overall this would avoid some of the issues with preferential targeting. Likewise, having RECON based Fighter Pods would be useful to allow FFD Units to provide additional passive RECON. Allowing Ground Support Fighters attached to an FFD to provide RECON passively when on CAS would be helpful in this regard, alongside a dedicated RECON mission. This would likewise make CAP missions more useful against enemy RECON. The RECON mission could specifically lower the CONCEALMENT bonus derived from Fortification, making AA Units that much more useful to prevent degradation of this bonus.
--- Overall this would avoid some of the issues with preferential targeting. Likewise, having RECON based Fighter Pods would be useful to allow FFD Units to provide additional passive RECON. Allowing Ground Support Fighters attached to an FFD to provide RECON passively when on CAS would be helpful in this regard, alongside a dedicated RECON mission. This would likewise make CAP missions more useful against enemy RECON. The RECON mission could specifically lower the CONCEALMENT bonus derived from Fortification, making AA Units that much more useful to prevent degradation of this bonus.
Posted by: IanD
« on: November 03, 2021, 08:11:38 AM »Late to the party again! I get the very strong impression the supply requirements are all based on present day or historical scenarios.
Theory is all very well. But how does it play out in Aurora? I find currently that one unit of supply for infantry lasts a very long time for a brigade of 4 infantry battalions plus an HQ unit of some 10,000 tons each. One unit of vehicle supply runs out after about 5-7 days for a similar sized vehicle formation.
Aurora is a Science Fiction game and all the models you are talking about are all based on, at best today's resupply problems. Are these really appropriate as even now the US is toying with vehicle lasers. We cannot tell how they will develop.
I favour Bolo type vehicles (see Keith Laumer books) with nothing lighter than super heavy vehicles for combat, moving to heavier vehicles as I research them. Now, my mental image is of large vehicles powered by a fusion reactor and using energy weapons for offence and both shields and armour for defence and a crew of 1-3, if not AI. Such vehicles would not need fuel or ammunition. Yes, they would need repair but they are very survivable not invulnerable even at the ultra-heavy class but if I lose more than half a dozen its an exception.
However, I cannot chose energy weapons over ballistic weapons. I cannot chose what I would regard as supply light option. I would accept a supply light option using energy weapons perhaps with a new tech for vehicle weapons or an additional line for existing energy weapons which also give a reduction in supply requirements.
Theory is all very well. But how does it play out in Aurora? I find currently that one unit of supply for infantry lasts a very long time for a brigade of 4 infantry battalions plus an HQ unit of some 10,000 tons each. One unit of vehicle supply runs out after about 5-7 days for a similar sized vehicle formation.
Aurora is a Science Fiction game and all the models you are talking about are all based on, at best today's resupply problems. Are these really appropriate as even now the US is toying with vehicle lasers. We cannot tell how they will develop.
I favour Bolo type vehicles (see Keith Laumer books) with nothing lighter than super heavy vehicles for combat, moving to heavier vehicles as I research them. Now, my mental image is of large vehicles powered by a fusion reactor and using energy weapons for offence and both shields and armour for defence and a crew of 1-3, if not AI. Such vehicles would not need fuel or ammunition. Yes, they would need repair but they are very survivable not invulnerable even at the ultra-heavy class but if I lose more than half a dozen its an exception.
However, I cannot chose energy weapons over ballistic weapons. I cannot chose what I would regard as supply light option. I would accept a supply light option using energy weapons perhaps with a new tech for vehicle weapons or an additional line for existing energy weapons which also give a reduction in supply requirements.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: October 31, 2021, 06:26:42 AM »I think that target preference would work if combined arms formation at the same time would diminish its effect or even could reverse the effect and make them shoot at the wrong stuff instead.
This would encourage more realistic formations instead of that being just for role-play.
But in and of itself then target prioritization would not work as a single mechanic.
This would encourage more realistic formations instead of that being just for role-play.
But in and of itself then target prioritization would not work as a single mechanic.
Posted by: Blogaugis
« on: October 31, 2021, 04:16:15 AM »If there will be a target preference mechanic, then I propose to give a counter-mechanic to this: Combined Arms Bonus. If you have a formation made up of, say, 10-90 % infantry and 90-10% vehicles/static, the units in formation get a +1-10 % to hit bonus. Maybe more, or less.
Of course it is a bit redundant, as it is a mechanic to counter another mechanic, but here is the basic idea. Inspiration taken from Hearts of Iron 3 army division composition mechanics.
If we take purely HOI3 approach, then CAB should be influenced by the equipment that your formation has: if it is pure infantry, with personal weapons - no bonus. AA/AT weapons added to the mix? +5%. Artillery as well? +5 -> +10%. You have light vehicles/ligth static? +5 -> +15%. Medium vehicles/medium static(or static with heavier armor) as well? +5 -> +20%. You even include Air support? Good boy/girl/TN-era-lifeform, here's a +25% to hit bonus for all your units!
Combat engineers are kinda not in game yet, so their bonus will not apply... Though they probably should.
The remaining nuance is - should it be based on the formation, or all units present in the combat?
If it is on formation - Air support falls out of the equation (unless we play with those fire directors, or make air support as a separate +5 bonus, or other means), giving the player emphasis on building healthy composition of formations.
If it is on all units in combat - then it is less micromanagement intensive, meaning that formations can be made up of pure-infantry; pure-vehicles and so on.
Thoughts?
Of course it is a bit redundant, as it is a mechanic to counter another mechanic, but here is the basic idea. Inspiration taken from Hearts of Iron 3 army division composition mechanics.
If we take purely HOI3 approach, then CAB should be influenced by the equipment that your formation has: if it is pure infantry, with personal weapons - no bonus. AA/AT weapons added to the mix? +5%. Artillery as well? +5 -> +10%. You have light vehicles/ligth static? +5 -> +15%. Medium vehicles/medium static(or static with heavier armor) as well? +5 -> +20%. You even include Air support? Good boy/girl/TN-era-lifeform, here's a +25% to hit bonus for all your units!
Combat engineers are kinda not in game yet, so their bonus will not apply... Though they probably should.
The remaining nuance is - should it be based on the formation, or all units present in the combat?
If it is on formation - Air support falls out of the equation (unless we play with those fire directors, or make air support as a separate +5 bonus, or other means), giving the player emphasis on building healthy composition of formations.
If it is on all units in combat - then it is less micromanagement intensive, meaning that formations can be made up of pure-infantry; pure-vehicles and so on.
Thoughts?
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: October 29, 2021, 11:48:09 PM »This sounds good on the surface, but if you do the analysis it comes out that even a small targeting modifier makes a combined arms strategy strictly inferior, as a single-type strategy becomes optimal to waste the most possible enemy shots on a poor target.
I'm not seeing this. If you go, say, full infantry, you can counter it with full CAP heavy vehicles, so you'd add some anti-vehicle capacities to your army, perhaps in the sense of vehicles or static armed with HAV, so then you need a counter for that, and so on. Could you mathematically show the effects of this? I'm not good at this sort of thing.
The problem is that if your opponent has, for sake of example, an even mix of CAP and MAV, and you send a mixed force of 50% INF and 50% VEH for example, then:
- With purely random targeting every enemy weapon has a proportionally even chance of hitting either type of unit. The CAP and MAV are about equally effective (aside from GSP usage).
- With even a small targeting bonus, say +10%, suddenly the CAP is hitting your INF 55% of the time and the MAV is hitting your VEH 55% of the time, so the enemy killing efficiency is 110% compared to the random case.
- With purely random targeting, the CAP has nearly zero efficiency and the MAV has about 100% efficiency, which is roughly the same on balance as the mixed formation case.
- However, with preferential targeting...nothing changes. The enemy remains at the same efficiency - which means they are not getting +10% kill rates because of your mixed formation.
