Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Suggestions => Topic started by: serger on August 09, 2021, 07:35:24 AM
-
Well, that's partly a suggestion, partly a testing request.
There were numerous frustration points across the forum with current ground combat mechanics, so I tried to tinker it with narrow DB edits (DIM_GroundComponentType only, yet no bug reports with it of course) to have more meaningful choices with less disbelieve at the same time.
That's the result I feel the less frustrating I can do with Aurora C# 1.13 executable:
Shots Pen. Damage SupUse ComponentName
1 1->0.5 1 1->0.5 Light Personal Weapons
1->2 1 1->0.75 1->2 [Standard] Personal Weapons
1 1.25 1->1.25 1.25->1 [Marksman] Personal Weapons
6->12 1->0.75 1->0.67 6->25 Crew-Served Anti-Personnel
6->9 1.5 1 9->50 Heavy Crew-Served Anti-Personnel
1 2->3 3 6 Light Anti-Vehicle
1 4->6 4 16 Medium Anti-Vehicle
1 6->12 6 36 Heavy Anti-Vehicle
1 9->18 9 81 Super-Heavy Anti-Vehicle
3->12 1 2->1.5 6->150 Light Bombardment
3->12 1.5 4->2 18->250 Medium Bombardment
3->12 1.5 4->2 18->300 Long Range Bombardment
3->12 2 6->3 36->800 Heavy Bombardment
3->12 3 9->4 81->1600 Super-Heavy Bombardment
3->5 1.25->1.5 2 7.5->30 Light Autocannon
2->4 3->2 2->3 18->60 Medium Autocannon
3 5->3 2->4 30->120 Heavy Autocannon
1 1->2 2 2->5 Light Anti-Aircraft
1 2->3 4 8->50 Medium Anti-Aircraft
1 2->4 6 18->100 Heavy Anti-Aircraft
So, what I have done with this.
First of all, currently what is named in Aurora mechanics as Shots - it's shots per ideal average combat turn, not per minute. So, any weapon with more effective range might have much more shots, even if it's technically much less quick-firing. Therefore I have increased Shots parameter for all mostly-anti-infantry heavy weapons to represent that such a weapon will have much more opportunities to shoot during combat length, comparing to any personal or anti-armour weapon. I have decreased Damage parameter for such weapons in the same time, just to contain Collateral Damage per Effective Damage, that is currently making artillery nearly useless strategically (I have largerly sacrificed arty's ability to knock out armoured vehicles yet). I have as well increased Supply Use for the same heavy types of weapons, to adjust their ammo voracity and generally horrible "shots at target per shot fired" ratio, so 10 to 25 times disparity of Shots*Pen*Damage and a Supply Use is now representing that most of such shots are falling on unoccupied locations, doing no effective damage nor collateral one.
With this change Crew Served Weapons and Arty might become tactically very effective... at the cost of terrifying Supply Use and the risk of premature
supply exhaustion correspondingly.
I know that it's the change most players might perceive as too much, yet I think 1/10 of tonnage share (that is now nearly optimal) is too, too low for a supply really, especially when you can produce a supply before even designing combat units, and keep it with no storage cost. So, if I'll have to deliver more supply units comparing to combat ones to maintain major assault effectively - I'll be just content and satisfied. I have to consider now if I want my different formations to try to break / thin out enemy forces within first days of battle - or I want them to hold out making less shots, yet being more consistent and capable of waiting for reinforcements.
Other (much lesser) changes are:
# Slight tinkering of personal weapons - more like aligning flavour and meaninfullness
# An increase of Anti-Armour Weapons penetration - it's quite important for me to make AI forces non-helpless against armour-only avalanches
# More or less flavouring alteration of Autocannons
# Minimal Anti-Aircraft Penetration adjustment - just to make early Light Anti-Aircraft non-futile
(I think it's more for the future, because now Air Support is too much micro for nearly any player, while AI just doesn't use it at all)
Again, I think it's nearly the best I can do as I feel it while looking at numbers, yet it needs massive testing to make sure it really works as intended while causing no bugs, and I just cannot do it now properly, I have tried several cases only. If any of you will feel interested in more broad testing - please write what you get.
-
I will say at the outset, in the interest of full disclosure, that I am not one of the people who thinks ground weapons in Aurora are frustrating or out of balance for the most part. Nevertheless I think this is an interesting experiment worth looking at.
I know that it's the change most players might perceive as too much, yet I think 1/10 of tonnage share (that is now nearly optimal) is too, too low for a supply really, especially when you can produce a supply before even designing combat units, and keep it with no storage cost. So, if I'll have to deliver more supply units comparing to combat ones to maintain major assault effectively - I'll be just content and satisfied. I have to consider now if I want my different formations to try to break / thin out enemy forces within first days of battle - or I want them to hold out making less shots, yet being more consistent and capable of waiting for reinforcements.
Here I have agreement about the principle but disagreement about the approach. It is certainly true that supply requirements are too low compared to IRL formations, however there is one catch with raising these requirements (or more accurately the tonnage of those requirements) which is that making such a large part of the formation of LOG elements tends to get a lot of them shot at while reducing the combat effectiveness of the formation. This is not unrealistic, rather a bit of a limitation in Aurora that we are limited in how well we can simulate the echelon placement of different elements while maintaining useful formation sizes (given that 20,000 tons is really around the necessary formation size for large planetary invasion combat, any veteran player will know this, but this is also regiment or brigade size and thus a lot of granularity is abstracted into a monolithic formation).
Since 1.12 we now have the option to split out a large part of the LOG elements into rear echelon formations which can be set as replenishment formations, and only put ~5 days of LOG in the forward formations. This has two implications for ground unit design. The major implication is that GSP usage can probably be increased by a factor of 5x to 8x, such that 10% to 15% of a front line formation should be integrated LOG elements and this is enough to remain in supply for a five-day construction cycle (when reinforcements are triggered). The minor implication is that LVH+LOG are now almost completely useless aside from flavor; this could be fixed by doubling the GSP capacity of the large LOG element and marking it as LVH only, which I would recommend including in your own changes for testing. In previous discussions this turns out to give both infantry and vehicle logistics their own pros and cons which is a good balance space to be in.
I think this also implies that either GSP requirements need to be raised across the board, or LOG capacity decreased, the effect is the same either way as long as the component tonnage remains the same so I won't argue one way or the other.
Turning to this work I think there is some imbalance mainly in that the AV weapons are now too cheap in terms of supply. While this might be necessary for balance I do not think it is "believable" personally, large AV guns should be firing fairly expensive shots even if the rate of fire is not high, mainly in comparison to the CAP components. A typical early game MBT is VEH+CAP/MAV and I do not think the major supply consumption should be from the CAP component. I am open to being shown wrong by well-sourced figures but intuitively this seems incorrect to me. However the greater expense of artillery I think is a good change.
I would suggest to start a reform of the supply system by staying close to the formula used by Steve, which works fairly well IMO aside from the overall GSP demand being too low, and handling the increase in artillery supply consumption by increasing the number of shots as you have done but staying within the formula - or perhaps multiplying by a small factor of perhaps 2x at most if this seems too low, since you also want to lower damage (though I have a comment about that later). This would push MB from 18 GSP to 72 which is less than you have here but is still markedly more than (current) MAV or HCAP by a large margin and would still make artillery relatively much more supply hungry, but the magnitude of change is not too extreme. Then, tune actual supply tonnage by global adjustments (e.g. reduce the GSP per LOG ton). I would maintain this point for all of the changes made here, so I will not repeat it alongside other comments but I do think that generally sticking to Steve's approach for the most part is the preferable option.
# Slight tinkering of personal weapons - more like aligning flavour and meaninfullness
This one I personally dislike how it has been done as it imposes a bit of restriction on flavor where I prefer open interpretation by the player. Mainly, the shift of PWI to be "marksman" weapons I think it limiting - what if I prefer to use PWI to indicate the SAW or grenade launcher in an infantry rifle squad? The way PWI works now better supports a range of RP potentials, including marksman weapons if desired (and I've also used this convention in some settings).
I also prefer the standard PW to be one shot with 1/1 base stats, this I think is useful flavor wise and for players to conceive of the ground combat mechanics as it sets a baseline which is easy to understand. The change here, other than doubling the GSP (which I think is entirely arbitrary and unnecessary), at least has no real change on the unit performance and I understand why it was done, but I think in this case having an easily understood 1/1/1 baseline is for gameplay benefit worth the perhaps slight quibble in terms of flavor.
# An increase of Anti-Armour Weapons penetration - it's quite important for me to make AI forces non-helpless against armour-only avalanches
It is reasonable, though with the boost in effectiveness I think the GSP of AV weapons is too cheap compared to others. Invincible armor on UHVs is too much for the game, at least against NPRs, but armor should still be useful and making AV weapons more expensive can accomplish this balance-wise.
# More or less flavouring alteration of Autocannons
Probably my favorite change here. I always treat AC as siege guns or bunker busters as their stats really fit this role well, so the change makes them a bit more effective in this role while making HAC more viable.
I have decreased Damage parameter for such weapons in the same time, just to contain Collateral Damage per Effective Damage, that is currently making artillery nearly useless strategically (I have largerly sacrificed arty's ability to knock out armoured vehicles yet)
This was earlier in the OP but I address it last as my comment is fairly minor: I think it is worth not thinking about collateral damage right now until we have 1.14 (2.0?) in our hands, as there is an 80% reduction of collateral damage as one of the changes. This could make artillery worth using strategically but we will need to actually playtest to know for sure. However the lower damage and higher shots are reasonable so I don't think any change is invalidated - other than the a bit extraneous supply consumption as discussed above.
I doubt I can find time to do any playtesting unfortunately but I will be interested to see what results if any come from this. I have plans eventually to do a heavily modded campaign and would not be opposed to adding a ground combat rework into those changes if the results are encouraging.
-
The minor implication is that LVH+LOG are now almost completely useless aside from flavor; this could be fixed by doubling the GSP capacity of the large LOG element and marking it as LVH only, which I would recommend including in your own changes for testing.
Agree, thnx for the reminder.
Turning to this work I think there is some imbalance mainly in that the AV weapons are now too cheap in terms of supply. While this might be necessary for balance I do not think it is "believable" personally, large AV guns should be firing fairly expensive shots even if the rate of fire is not high, mainly in comparison to the CAP components.
AV shots are more expensive, yet they are still quite compact, so not a load on transport volume, and we have no separate cost of prodaction, so I prefer to lean on transport volume realism.
I have checked through wartime stats - anti-tank munitions is really minor transport&storage problem during those wars I have checked; howitzers and mortars - that's really voracious abyss nearly always, machine guns and auto-cannons less so.
A typical early game MBT is VEH+CAP/MAV and I do not think the major supply consumption should be from the CAP component.
Here is the problem we cannot solve: the real MBT will use AV shells against vehicles, while firing at infantry with MGs and HE-FRAGs (that is able to knock out the whole squad with one hit). The Aurora MBT will stupidly fire with a main gun mostly at infantry units with 1 kill max. So I tend to lower AV shot SupplyUse as the only way to compensate this at least partly.
I would suggest to start a reform of the supply system by staying close to the formula used by Steve, which works fairly well IMO aside from the overall GSP demand being too low, and handling the increase in artillery supply consumption by increasing the number of shots as you have done but staying within the formula - or perhaps multiplying by a small factor of perhaps 2x at most if this seems too low, since you also want to lower damage
That will completely left aside an effect I mentioned above: rear-echelon and quick-firing weapons are way less consistent with hitting targets, comparing to one-shot direct-fire cannons, so the latter have usually at least 5-10 times (up to several orders of magnitude really) better Shots Hit / Shots Fired rate. That's why I set it this way.
In addition, it's sharpening the meaningful choice, and I'm not sure now even my numbers are large enough for me to be satisfied completely in this aspect.
-
Turning to this work I think there is some imbalance mainly in that the AV weapons are now too cheap in terms of supply. While this might be necessary for balance I do not think it is "believable" personally, large AV guns should be firing fairly expensive shots even if the rate of fire is not high, mainly in comparison to the CAP components.
AV shots are more expensive, yet they are still quite compact, so not a load on transport volume, and we have no separate cost of prodaction, so I prefer to lean on transport volume realism.
I have checked through wartime stats - anti-tank munitions is really minor transport&storage problem during those wars I have checked; howitzers and mortars - that's really voracious abyss nearly always, machine guns and auto-cannons less so.
Good to know, thanks.
A typical early game MBT is VEH+CAP/MAV and I do not think the major supply consumption should be from the CAP component.
Here is the problem we cannot solve: the real MBT will use AV shells against vehicles, while firing at infantry with MGs and HE-FRAGs (that is able to knock out the whole squad with one hit). The Aurora MBT will stupidly fire with a main gun mostly at infantry units with 1 kill max. So I tend to lower AV shot SupplyUse as the only way to compensate this at least partly.
Entirely reasonable. I will note however that the Aurora MBT will also stupidly fire its CAP at the enemy armor, likely making no kills by doing so due to something like 0.4% odds per hit. I do agree AV supply should be rebalanced due to its wastefulness, but I think more in line with CAP/HCAP rather than significantly less. Actually if I think about it, setting MAV and CAP or HCAP to have equal GSP consumption makes some sense since a real-life MBT should be loaded out to get the most use out of its ammo, and not for example running out of MG ammo while having many AT rounds left on a regular basis or vice versa. This suggests that roughly doubling the AV supply use in your paradigm would give a reasonable result.
I would suggest to start a reform of the supply system by staying close to the formula used by Steve, which works fairly well IMO aside from the overall GSP demand being too low, and handling the increase in artillery supply consumption by increasing the number of shots as you have done but staying within the formula - or perhaps multiplying by a small factor of perhaps 2x at most if this seems too low, since you also want to lower damage
That will completely left aside an effect I mentioned above: rear-echelon and quick-firing weapons are way less consistent with hitting targets, comparing to one-shot direct-fire cannons, so the latter have usually at least 5-10 times (up to several orders of magnitude really) better Shots Hit / Shots Fired rate. That's why I set it this way.
In addition, it's sharpening the meaningful choice, and I'm not sure now even my numbers are large enough for me to be satisfied completely in this aspect.
With such high numbers I would worry that artillery becomes a very niche selection which, in case of realism, it probably should not be. There is a reason why every modern well-equipped army includes artillery elements in every large formation (brigade or division usually), so I would not want to see the case in Aurora shift to "should I include artillery or not?" Rather, how much artillery is a better question.
So I like numbers... pulling out my notes on the US Army BCTs (which are a bit out of date right now, but still fairly modern and representative I think) an artillery battalion in an armored BCT fields 18x Paladin SPGs, which in Aurora would be probably best modeled as LVH+MB, under the current statistics these are 52 tons and 18 GSP apiece for a total of 936 tons and 324 GSP required per ten rounds. A good rule of thumb for logistics would be enough supplies to operate for 30 days (~100 combat rounds) without resupply from higher formations (in Aurora, at least, this is a reasonable expected campaign length if one plans ahead correctly, or at least it is in the right ballpark), so about 3,240 GSP which requires 324 tons of infantry logistics units and a total battalion size of 1,260 tons which is very small. In practice I find that if I try to make 5,000-ton battalions I have around 50-80 guns in the battalion which obviously is too many. We could stick some MAA in there to beef it up but that's not enough.
Under your proposed numbers, MB supply need goes up to 250 per unit, so for this US-modeled battalion a total of 45,000 GSP requirement or 4,500 tons of logistics units and a total formation size of over 5,400 tons - this is before adding any HQ, AA, or other extra elements. I imagine this sounds realistic to those intimately familiar with such things, but for gameplay I think this is a bit much. Particularly, with supply demand so out of line with most other components it reaches a point where the artillery element should likely be left at home in almost any case because the cost of building so many LOG units per combat unit is prohibitive - especially, artillery fire can dominate consumption of LVH+LOG from higher HQs leaving not much for the front line units. So, I think for gameplay purposes something in the middle will work better.
Finally going back to the idea of simply changing the number of shots from 3 to 12 (either preserving the attack stat, or cutting it but also implementing a ~2x multiplier) brings the GSP up to a midrange 72 per gun, requiring 1,300 tons of infantry logistics per 18 guns. Once we add in a battalion HQ and perhaps some defensive AA guns this will give a battalion size of 2,500 to 3,000 tons - or we can bump up the number of guns a little bit more (plenty of reasonable organizations exist after all) and reach 4,000 to 5,000 tons. In more practical experience, I usually place my artillery in a superior HQ (e.g. brigade HQ controlling ~3x front line battalions) so there is a larger HQ and other elements alongside the artillery. Of course in the more useful case of e.g. 20,000-ton front line regiments and divisional troop formations everything scales accordingly. Overall, while it might not be perfectly realistic I think that is a good balance for gameplay within the abstracted system Aurora uses.
-
Historically, artillery have been the exception to the 30 days rule. Even relatively light field guns, such as the 25-pounder, would go into the field with enough ammunition to last 1-2 engagements and would expect to be resupplied daily. Later, after the battle of Long Tan - a battle that lasted a single day, 1 ATF's ammunition stock for its 105mm and 155mm guns had to be almost completely restocked. by the 90's a British mortar team on foot would expect to carry no more than 8 rounds.
-
Historically, artillery have been the exception to the 30 days rule. Even relatively light field guns, such as the 25-pounder, would go into the field with enough ammunition to last 1-2 engagements and would expect to be resupplied daily. Later, after the battle of Long Tan - a battle that lasted a single day, 1 ATF's ammunition stock for its 105mm and 155mm guns had to be almost completely restocked. by the 90's a British mortar team on foot would expect to carry no more than 8 rounds.
While true, this doesn't work out very well in Aurora since every formation fires (if possible) every 8 hours - so I think some concession to the game mechanics has to be made. If the LOG units are not in the artillery battalion, they must be higher in the hierarchy (on LVH) or delivered via the replenishment mechanic, so either way the same very large supply demand is applied and needs to be balanced out against all of the other combat units in Aurora ground formations.
-
Entirely reasonable. I will note however that the Aurora MBT will also stupidly fire its CAP at the enemy armor, likely making no kills by doing so due to something like 0.4% odds per hit.
Yep. It's rather realistic yet: while you likely will not shoot a lone ordinary infantryman with a main gun, you'll still readily fire on enemy armoured vehicle with your MG to have a chance of knocking out optics or, however unlikely, lay some golden bullet (IDK if there were such cases with MBTs, yet with APCs there were multiple cases of killed driver with a loss of rolled over or stuck vehicle in consequence of). In addition, you likely will not shoot some unclear movement in the bushes with a main gun, yet you'll readily fire on such a movement with an MG, resulting sometimes in MG bullets at armoured vehicle unintended, that's completely ordinary case too. That's why I set more SupplyUse for CSAPs and Autocannons comparing to AV guns. Those AV guns can have more wearable ammo volume, still having much less used ammo. And in Aurora SupplyUse/GSP in used ammo, not wearable (in-hull).
a real-life MBT should be loaded out to get the most use out of its ammo, and not for example running out of MG ammo while having many AT rounds left on a regular basis or vice versa.
There were such cases, multiple and ordinary, when earlier tanks (British ones during early WWII, as a common example) have no HE-FRAG shells. They sometimes used MG cartridge loadings in sequence every day, while their armour-piercing shells were intact for weeks, until they meet some enemy tanks.
This suggests that roughly doubling the AV supply use in your paradigm would give a reasonable result.
Well, I think it's quite reasonable to make it so even if the only reason is to put away an instant disbelieve of average player.
With such high numbers I would worry that artillery becomes a very niche selection which, in case of realism, it probably should not be.
With a x4 firepower boost (nearly without a nerf as an anti-infantry weapon) my main concern now is that it's, on the contrary, may became absolute weapon. Yep, you have to bring much more LOGs to use this firepower consistently, yet it looks like effective per ton of arty+LOG comparing to what it is in vanilla, presuming less then month-long decisive part of battle. Yet it's mostly intended: I want arty as a main damage dealer, as it is in real wartime stats. The problem is to not make it the most efficient for the frontline too. I hope it is not now (with my stats set), because of high volume and so high vulnerability if unarmoured, yet it needs massive testing of different playing styles. CSAPs are still more efficient at a short run with my x2 firepower boost, yet CSAPs are more vulnerable if unarmoured because of obligate frontline, and more expensive if armoured (versus unarmoured rear arty). So I hope we still need a shield of Personal Weapons Meat or frontline vehicles with direct-fire weapons to defend rear arty from counteroffensive breakthroughs.
-
So, currently I see those problems:
1. Really my set is unable to represent smth like SAW or rifle-with-UBGL weapon systems or just heavier-caliber rifles. There are only 3 slots there for PW(x)s and I'm inclined to not add any slots nor tinker slot sizes to not break any possible AI presets or algorithms. The only case I can suggest for those who want lighter and heavier standard PWs - it's to lore PWL as simple carbines like M4 (both army and colonial police versions), while PW(S) - as full-set brutal assault rifles of larger caliber, longer barrel, better optics and UBGL, or SAWs. The downside is no more pistol-like weapons, yet it's ok for me, because we have no ordinary cops anyway, and it's ok for me if any crew will have smth like M4, not a pistol.
2. It looks like CSAPs are now absolute weapons for boarding actions. It is not as intended. Now I'm thinking about setting their tac stats back at 6-1-1 or close, with PWs at 3-0.x-0.x, because we have to represent Shots as bursts really, so more stable heavy crew-served weapon really may have more chances to hit and penetrate some vulnerable point of personal armour for every target it will fire a burst at. It will however sacrifice CSAP's effectiveness as heavy-armoured vehicle's main anti-meat weapon, so no more nearly-effective classical MBT again, and it's a pain for me. The possible - yet questionable - solution is to set HCSAPs Shots higher, Damage slightly lower.
3. Has anyone tested Light Bombardment Infantry at boarding combat? I feel such a disgust of an idea, so just cannot force myself to do it! If it's really usable during boarding action - I have to lower their Shots, maybe, just to not corrupt other players with this rotten unholy heresy, if abruptly Steve will find this tinkering attractive and take it to vanilla.
4. The question of average player's instant disbelieve and LOG-flooding anxiety about arty. I'm now inclined to slightly lower it's Shots (12 -> 9 or 8) and SupplyUse (x20 -> ~x10), maybe increase Damage slightly back too, to make arty more dangerous for LV LOGs and unarmored mobile HQs.
5. Looks like lighter Autocannons are now too much efficient in my set. I'm inclined to level all Autocannon Shots at 4.
6. Not a burning question bearing in mind Air Support helplessness, still it looks for me that Anti-Air Weapons have to use even more Supply if they have an ability to shoot at surface targets (and so they are more like flac cannons and not MPADs/AAMLs, especially with starting size at 20 - the same as HCSAP and LB).
-
With a x4 firepower boost (nearly without a nerf as an anti-infantry weapon) my main concern now is that it's, on the contrary, may became absolute weapon.
It's worth noting that in nearly all cases right now between artillery and autocannons (vanilla states) the artillery tends to be superior, so it is in some sense already close to being an absolute weapon - lighter and with less GSP demand than AC. It is not a strict superiority but nearly so.
I think the stats as you have them right now are probably close to realistic, damage could be tuned a bit more but AP is where I would have it also. The trouble is that the number of shots and GSP requirements are confusing as they aren't lined up with the usual player expectation of Aurora, which you noted in the following post.
1. Really my set is unable to represent smth like SAW or rifle-with-UBGL weapon systems or just heavier-caliber rifles.
For a general-public release I would probably use the names of Light, Standard, and Heavy PW (PWL/PW/PWH) to fit into a range of roleplay scenarios. Personally I usually consider PWL as light carbines rather than pistols, but PWH I may have as sniper rifles, heavy rifles, or grenadier/SAW/LMG types of weapons in different cases. Of course for testing and personal use the flavor can be however you like.
3. Has anyone tested Light Bombardment Infantry at boarding combat? I feel such a disgust of an idea, so just cannot force myself to do it! If it's really usable during boarding action - I have to lower their Shots, maybe, just to not corrupt other players with this rotten unholy heresy, if abruptly Steve will find this tinkering attractive and take it to vanilla.
With vanilla stats it is nearly always strictly inferior to CAP which has lower tonnage and 2x as many shots. In nearly all cases, one hit (10% chance per shot, IIRC) is one kill so LB is useless. Only CAP, PWL, and PW in very niche cases are actually optimal.
With your stats, and since GSP do not matter for boarding combat, LB has the potential to become more useful than CAP but only against an enemy with a large enough tech advantage that the low damage/AP of your CAP actually hinders kill rate. At any tech level this requires a 2-level difference so it is an unusual case except against certain spoilers, and even then the 67% greater size of LB means that CAP is probably still optimal.
The bigger issue as you've found is that increasing the shots makes PWL clearly inferior to CAP.
----
Thinking about it more, I wonder if a simple solution that would accomplish most of the desired accuracy would involve scaling GSP by the square of #shots instead of directly proportional. This makes AV and PW cheap, CAP somewhat expensive, and AC/artillery quite expensive. Couple this with an increase in tonnage and GSP for artillery only due to indirect fire ability which right now is not quantified and I think the resulting logistics demands become quite interesting. On the low end of the scale there would be infantry garrisons with MG + anti-tank but little support so the difference in supplying light infantry or garrison versus heavy combined arms forces is more pronounced. I won't litter this thread with further analysis of this approach but given its simplicity (i.e. much less rebalancing work needed) while addressing the main weakness of the current GU mechanics I may try this in a modded campaign in the future.
-
It's worth noting that in nearly all cases right now between artillery and autocannons (vanilla states) the artillery tends to be superior, so it is in some sense already close to being an absolute weapon - lighter and with less GSP demand than AC. It is not a strict superiority but nearly so.
It's a superiority above ACs, yet that's why nearly nobody uses ACs - and therefore arty is only a second from the bottom. That's not what called absolute weapon.
My concern that with my current set, we can just land arty-only force and it will be so much firepower, that we can use no LOG at all - 10 rounds of devastating fire and then you'll already have enough advantage to finish defenders with LOG-depleted 1/4 firepower.
That's not what I want as a mechanical optimum. So p.4 from my previous post is the most likely update I'll do for my next test.
For a general-public release I would probably use the names of Light, Standard, and Heavy PW (PWL/PW/PWH) to fit into a range of roleplay scenarios.
I have considered this naming too (with a corresponding stats), yet marksmen rifle (with lowered SupplyUse) is a thing I just cannot sacrifice easily.
Though it's really hard to model without independent cost multipliers, and I have no desire to see whole armies of AI marksmen, so likely I will concede at this point even with my strictly personal modding.
With your stats, and since GSP do not matter for boarding combat, LB has the potential to become more useful than CAP but only against an enemy with a large enough tech advantage that the low damage/AP of your CAP actually hinders kill rate. At any tech level this requires a 2-level difference so it is an unusual case except against certain spoilers, and even then the 67% greater size of LB means that CAP is probably still optimal.
Which is not good too, so if I'll nerf CSAP - it will bring unholy LBs at front. So even more weight to p.4.
The bigger issue as you've found is that increasing the shots makes PWL clearly inferior to CAP.
Yep.
And we just cannot increase Shots for all PWs, because it will shorten average battle so 10-rounds of LOG-free combat will become even more decisive.
So the only way I see is to drop pen and dam stats considerably.
Thinking about it more, I wonder if a simple solution that would accomplish most of the desired accuracy would involve scaling GSP by the square of #shots instead of directly proportional.
I think you're right, that's quite good rule of thumb at least.
-
It's a superiority above ACs, yet that's why nearly nobody uses ACs - and therefore arty is only a second from the bottom. That's not what called absolute weapon.
I actually don't believe that ACs are bad, which I understand most disagree with. They are I admit too expensive as an anti-personnel weapon and not as reliable as an anti-armor weapon as AV, but they are serviceable in both roles while being very effective against light vehicles and static units. Of course there is the issue of high GSP consumption and tonnage but they are not ineffective IMO.
This is however I admit a digression of the main point and in any case the changes you have made to AC I think emphasize this role very well.
-
It's a superiority above ACs, yet that's why nearly nobody uses ACs - and therefore arty is only a second from the bottom. That's not what called absolute weapon.
I actually don't believe that ACs are bad, which I understand most disagree with. They are I admit too expensive as an anti-personnel weapon and not as reliable as an anti-armor weapon as AV, but they are serviceable in both roles while being very effective against light vehicles and static units. Of course there is the issue of high GSP consumption and tonnage but they are not ineffective IMO.
This is however I admit a digression of the main point and in any case the changes you have made to AC I think emphasize this role very well.
To me AC is a "win more" weapon that is very powerful when your weapon tech outpaces enemy armor tech, at which point you have a multi-role weapon that can handle both infantry and armor decently/amazingly.
-
I assume You didn't bother with Vendarite resource calculations, these should be the deciding factor in Aurora.
Now, if there WERE weapons that cost only wealth, but are extremely weak, space-inefficient, and generally not worth bothering with, except when defending and times of desperation - this kind of tinkering I'd agree with...
I guess creating more types of weapons would be a good idea - Having at least 5 Personal weapon types would be more role-play friendly experience, but may be balance-issue source.
Still, I suppose I'll give my thoughts on this as well, even without space and resource requirement calculations:
PWC - Conventional Personal Weapons: these should represent militia and below weapon types, remnants of old wars, which are unsuitable in Trans-Newtonian conflicts, except as a desperate measure.
Shots; Pen; Dam; GSPU; (I consider PWC weapons' penetration and damage capabilities to be debatable)
1; 0.2-0.5; 0.2-0.5; 0.
I'm not certain if we need a Conventional Ground Supply components, that can't be transported...
Perhaps these conventional weapons can't be transported on a TN vessel, and can only be built and used on a planet?
Now, I guess Improved PWs could be renamed to heavy - like handheld anti-vehicle weapons, with improved penetration. The PWL and PW remain the same.
And, I think there should also be a Light machine-gun type weapon:
PWA - Personal Automatic Weapons.
Shots; Pen; Dam; GSPU;
3; 0.5; 1; 1.5.
Basically, a very anti-soft (infantry) target weapon. It could have the same cost as 3 PWLs, while taking a bit less space.
But, eh, maybe tripling the PWL amount is just the typical stuff...
And, we already have CAP and HCAP, so at this point it's... excessive, perhaps.
I think that anything better than conventional weapons should be locked behind TN technology.
Conventional Ground Construction components should also be a thing, less effective, but - doesn't it feel odd, that suddenly civilization just forgot that it had engineer battalions and other formations in the past? I hope advancing to TN does not mean that You'll forget your past memories/experiences...
-
As I sayd above, my self-restrictions in this tinkering were "this table only", "these columns only" and "no record adding", because I'm not a developer and so have to do all that I can to avoid creating new bugs.
-
I assume You didn't bother with Vendarite resource calculations, these should be the deciding factor in Aurora.
more words
I really don't get what the purpose of any of this is... I'm frankly not sure vendarite has ever in the history of Aurora been a limiting resource, save the rare cases when someone places a GFTC on a world without mines or vendarite and then mineral shipments are interrupted. Maybe someone in the late game has experienced such a shortage but certainly for the early and mid game it is an afterthought at most.
Serger has it right that the key balancing factor should be logistics. GU cost in Aurora is already coded to be related to the tonnage, armor, and HQ capacity for HQ units, this is unlikely to change and generally works well. Presently it is logistics that unbalance the ground combat in a few ways, that is what is addressed.
Also...as far as "conventional troops", these are already in the game. All you have to do is design ground units without TN techs, which is easiest to do in a conventional start but you can also do this with SM mode in a TN start by temporarily un-researching the TN armor and weapons techs, then design all the ground units you want before re-enabling the techs. The only thing this doesn't do is make the units cost wealth only, which as already stated is really unimportant.
Conventional Ground Construction components should also be a thing, less effective, but - doesn't it feel odd, that suddenly civilization just forgot that it had engineer battalions and other formations in the past? I hope advancing to TN does not mean that You'll forget your past memories/experiences...
In my view it is erroneous to think of the CON component as combat engineering units, it is specialized as TN heavy construction equipment and really does not work in the way that battlefield engineers do, this much is apparent from their actual game mechanics (fortification, ruins recovery, and factory production - all very much heavy construction tasks, not battlefield engineering). Much like recon or signals assets (aside from FFD) engineers are not really modeled in Aurora which is an unfortunate limitation of the GC system.
It is worth noting though that the CON elements, and in fact I believe all of the ground unit techs except for troop transports (why?!) and power armor can be developed without researching TN tech. I think of it therefore as developing the tech for developing TNE-enabled construction units (even in conventional starts, a race still uses TNEs for its conventional industry after all) which are able to carry out spaceborne operations. It's not like the race has forgotten how to build bulldozers and dump trucks, but in the new interstellar era some new technology is required nevertheless.
-
Yeah, it's the same thing as when people complain that there aren't mobility options when they wouldn't make any sense on the scale that Aurora GC is currently modelled. Whether your LVH flies or hovers or swims or walks is meaningless and is abstracted away, just like all C4I units and regular combat engineers - since units are able to self-fortify to a certain level, which is well beyond the spade level, we can safely assume that formations inherently have some pioneer/sapper/engineering capability even without CON units, just like they have cooks and clerks handling wages and dentists and cobblers and everything else.
And I agree serger that thinking of PWI as the squad automatic weapon or an assault rifle with underslung grenade launcher or a sniper rifle is very tempting but the stats don't necessarily support that. Perhaps it's better not to think of any weapon module as an individual, specific weapon, but instead a level of gear. PWI infantry carries more and/or heavier weapons than PW infantry, end of story - rest is up to imagination.
I'm not sure I agree with the artillery changes, though you clearly have put some thought into it. I'll have to wage more ground war to get a better grip on how it actually plays out.
-
A bit of warstats, just to explain my arty SupplyUse ratio.
1942-44
The most numerous anti-tank shells:
German 5cm: ~10 mln shots, ~3kg per shot, so ~30 mln kg LOG
Soviet 45mm: ~30 mln shots, ~2kg per shot, so ~60 mln kg LOG
(German 7,5cm and Soviet 76m shells were more common during 1944, yet I have no nearly-full data for Soviet 76mm ATGs to compare. Maybe smth near 50 to 100 mln kg LOG including tank, SPAT and AA guns.)
The most broadly used mortar shells:
German 8cm: ~45 mln shots, ~3.5kg per shot, so ~150 mln kg LOG
Soviet 82mm: ~100 mln shots, ~3.5kg per shot, so ~350 mln kg LOG
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
So, up to 2 orders of magnitude overall difference, despite the fact, that for example Soviet 45mm (model 32/34, nearly all of those 30 mln 45mm shells are for) was not just AT gun, yet more like multi-purpose gun, used mostly as mobile infantry assault support weapon (in terms of Aurora it was like LAV + LAC + LAA).
-
Another bits from 1942-44.
The most broadly used rifle-calibers
German 7.92mm: ~10 bln shots, overall ~120 mln kg LOG
Soviet 7.62mm: ~8 bln shot, overall ~100 mln kg LOG
That's rifles and MGs both, I have no separate data, yet I'm sure over 9/10 of those where MG shots.
As for AA - I have now 37mm Soviet 61-K QF AA gun stats only for this period, and it's ~16 mln shots (~25 mln kg LOG) despite the fact, that Red Army's lack of flaks was notoriously terrible and they very rarely used these guns against surface targets. I'm absolutely sure German and British overall QF flack LOGs were much bigger.
-
A bit of warstats, just to explain my arty SupplyUse ratio.
1942-44
The most numerous anti-tank shells:
German 5cm: ~10 mln shots, ~3kg per shot, so ~30 mln kg LOG
Soviet 45mm: ~30 mln shots, ~2kg per shot, so ~60 mln kg LOG
(German 7,5cm and Soviet 76m shells were more common during 1944, yet I have no nearly-full data for Soviet 76mm ATGs to compare. Maybe smth near 50 to 100 mln kg LOG including tank, SPAT and AA guns.)
The most broadly used mortar shells:
German 8cm: ~45 mln shots, ~3.5kg per shot, so ~150 mln kg LOG
Soviet 82mm: ~100 mln shots, ~3.5kg per shot, so ~350 mln kg LOG
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
So, up to 2 orders of magnitude overall difference, despite the fact, that for example Soviet 45mm (model 32/34, nearly all of those 30 mln 45mm shells are for) was not just AT gun, yet more like multi-purpose gun, used mostly as mobile infantry assault support weapon (in terms of Aurora it was like LAV + LAC + LAA).
How do these numbers look on a per-weapon basis? It's readily apparent that more artillery shells were fired than AT, but weren't there also more artillery guns than AT guns in the field?
Another bits from 1942-44.
The most broadly used rifle-calibers
German 7.92mm: ~10 bln shots, overall ~120 mln kg LOG
Soviet 7.62mm: ~8 bln shot, overall ~100 mln kg LOG
That's rifles and MGs both, I have no separate data, yet I'm sure over 9/10 of those where MG shots.
As for AA - I have now 37mm Soviet 61-K QF AA gun stats only for this period, and it's ~16 mln shots (~25 mln kg LOG) despite the fact, that Red Army's lack of flaks was notoriously terrible and they very rarely used these guns against surface targets. I'm absolutely sure German and British overall QF flack LOGs were much bigger.
Not sure how to find them but I'm sure MG-specific data would be very interesting. I've been messing around a bit with alternative GSP weighting and CAP tends to have a very high consumption compared to vanilla stats due to the number of shots. Sounds reasonable but I'm curious how the data looks.
I'm also curious how these numbers may have changed in the post-WWII era, since Aurora is intended to have flexibility to model many different RP settings. Or for that matter WWI era, even. However I would guess such data is much harder to find.
-
How do these numbers look on a per-weapon basis? It's readily apparent that more artillery shells were fired than AT, but weren't there also more artillery guns than AT guns in the field?
AT:Hz about 1:2 - 1:3 for both sides most of the time (counting short inf.guns and Soviet 76mm divisional guns as Howitzer Arty).
At the same time, AP to HE shells use ratio for AT guns was nearly the same, so they were working as Aurora anti-infantry bombardment weapons most of the time.
I'm also curious how these numbers may have changed in the post-WWII era, since Aurora is intended to have flexibility to model many different RP settings. Or for that matter WWI era, even. However I would guess such data is much harder to find.
There was no AT gun class during nearly all length of WWI, so no comparable data, and in Vietnam there were very specific terrain and foes, so questionable numbers too.
-
Rifle vs MG usage per weapon
Pre-WWII Soviet manuals: rifleman rounds / MG crew rounds ratio 100:1500 to 150:2000
Real usage is way more tricky question, I doubt there are really good stats.
-
Nearly modern (late Soviet - post-Soviet) norms of ammo use
To kill immobile unarmoured uncovered point target, up to 10km bombardment range:
300 x 120-152mm
800 x 85mm
500 x 82mm mortar
350 x 120mm mortar
(covered target - x3 modifier)
To kill immobile entrenched armoured point target, 1km direct fire range:
4-8 x 120-152mm
-
I really don't get what the purpose of any of this is... I'm frankly not sure vendarite has ever in the history of Aurora been a limiting resource, save the rare cases when someone places a GFTC on a world without mines or vendarite and then mineral shipments are interrupted. Maybe someone in the late game has experienced such a shortage but certainly for the early and mid game it is an afterthought at most.
Serger has it right that the key balancing factor should be logistics. GU cost in Aurora is already coded to be related to the tonnage, armor, and HQ capacity for HQ units, this is unlikely to change and generally works well. Presently it is logistics that unbalance the ground combat in a few ways, that is what is addressed.
Also...as far as "conventional troops", these are already in the game. All you have to do is design ground units without TN techs, which is easiest to do in a conventional start but you can also do this with SM mode in a TN start by temporarily un-researching the TN armor and weapons techs, then design all the ground units you want before re-enabling the techs. The only thing this doesn't do is make the units cost wealth only, which as already stated is really unimportant.
What I mean is - resources are a 'hard' limit in the game, wealth is a 'soft' limit. What I mean by 'hard' and 'soft':
You can do something about the soft limit: colonizing new worlds and otherwise creating workplaces that generate wealth.
Hard limit on the other hand... forces you to explore beyond the home solar system. If it were a scenario of staying in the same system for the whole game, resource shortage should eventually get to you...
I wouldn't really call these conventional troops if they require resources that cannot be acquired in conventional ways...
I can call them pre-Trans Newtonian troops though.
In my view it is erroneous to think of the CON component as combat engineering units, it is specialized as TN heavy construction equipment and really does not work in the way that battlefield engineers do, this much is apparent from their actual game mechanics (fortification, ruins recovery, and factory production - all very much heavy construction tasks, not battlefield engineering). Much like recon or signals assets (aside from FFD) engineers are not really modeled in Aurora which is an unfortunate limitation of the GC system.
It is worth noting though that the CON elements, and in fact I believe all of the ground unit techs except for troop transports (why?!) and power armor can be developed without researching TN tech. I think of it therefore as developing the tech for developing TNE-enabled construction units (even in conventional starts, a race still uses TNEs for its conventional industry after all) which are able to carry out spaceborne operations. It's not like the race has forgotten how to build bulldozers and dump trucks, but in the new interstellar era some new technology is required nevertheless.
Okay. So that means CON units are basically mobile heavy construction factories.
Why do these units require some TN developments, in order to become a thing - we already have conventional factories, which are more versatile than the later specialized variants (ironically) - what, they can't design a fatboy (from supreme commander game) mobile factory? They MUST have TN technology?
The same goes for troop transports...
It feels odd that once you get access to the TN materials, suddenly, your whole population is incapable of defending itself.
In my mind and in my car,
We can't rewind we've gone too far,
pictures came and broke your heart,
Put all blame on VCR Trans-Newton!
Paraphrase from the "buggles", "Video killed the radio star" song.
-
Played a couple of short test campaigns these weekends with a 2nd version of modified DB (those modifications I posted at the start + those points nuclearslurpee mentioned + my editions from 6-points post above).
Well, it looks quite good, aside of the fact, that you can really throw the LOG off the bus, because, well, 10 combat rounds of this devastating arty + CSAP fire is enough to convince those greenish swines that it was a big mistake to mess with terrans.
So, I'm starting the 3rd iteration by dropping all Pen. and Dam. values down considerably for every GC weapon at all, so that ground combat must became several times longer. It's obviously not the absolutely best option, I think nearly anyone wants the opposite, yet I really, really want CSAPs and arty to be the best damage dealers in the case of massive LOG support ONLY. There might be some border issue with conventional zero-rounded Pen., yet it's bearable for me personally, because I use conventional techs only for making a "pre-game" set of weapons to give my troops some sort of historical roots.
And yep, I have encountered all-Marksmen AI rifle squads again, and it is not what I want to see, so no more Marksman PW even for my personal use. Light - Medium - Heavy Personal Weapons will be good enough.
-
In my view it is erroneous to think of the CON component as combat engineering units, it is specialized as TN heavy construction equipment and really does not work in the way that battlefield engineers do, this much is apparent from their actual game mechanics (fortification, ruins recovery, and factory production - all very much heavy construction tasks, not battlefield engineering). Much like recon or signals assets (aside from FFD) engineers are not really modeled in Aurora which is an unfortunate limitation of the GC system.
It is worth noting though that the CON elements, and in fact I believe all of the ground unit techs except for troop transports (why?!) and power armor can be developed without researching TN tech. I think of it therefore as developing the tech for developing TNE-enabled construction units (even in conventional starts, a race still uses TNEs for its conventional industry after all) which are able to carry out spaceborne operations. It's not like the race has forgotten how to build bulldozers and dump trucks, but in the new interstellar era some new technology is required nevertheless.
Okay. So that means CON units are basically mobile heavy construction factories.
Why do these units require some TN developments, in order to become a thing - we already have conventional factories, which are more versatile than the later specialized variants (ironically) - what, they can't design a fatboy (from supreme commander game) mobile factory? They MUST have TN technology?
The same goes for troop transports...
As I said in my previous post, CON can be researched and developed without any TN tech...it is a "conventional" (or pre-TN, you use whatever words you like) technology but it still has to be developed. If I am developing a conventional setting I have no problem SMing in the tech for RP reasons, same with things like heavy armor or HCAP, there is no reason a pre-TN society could not develop those toys but it still takes some research to do it unless you RP that the technology is already known. Given that even in the 21st century we do not exactly have 300-ton construction vehicles which are space-capable and can operate not just on Earth but on the surfaces of the Moon, Mars, asteroids... I don't think it is unreasonable to have to develop the tech at least in some settings. Aurora is at its best when we can RP however we want and I think the current setup makes this very possible IMO.
Defining things as "conventional" versus "pre-TN" is up to the player IMO. Yes the conventional/pre-TN units do cost TNEs but this is a limit of the game and one I am perfectly happy to fluff away if my setting calls for it.
Troop transports will have a conventional/pre-TN variant in v2.0, and I for one look forward to this eagerly.
So, I'm starting the 3rd iteration by dropping all Pen. and Dam. values down considerably for every GC weapon at all, so that ground combat must became several times longer. It's obviously not the absolutely best option, I think nearly anyone wants the opposite, yet I really, really want CSAPs and arty to be the best damage dealers in the case of massive LOG support ONLY. There might be some border issue with conventional zero-rounded Pen., yet it's bearable for me personally, because I use conventional techs only for making a "pre-game" set of weapons to give my troops some sort of historical roots.
I have been working on my own somewhat less dramatic set of ground combat adjustments... I think I will soon be writing them up into a "mini" AAR so I won't get into extreme detail here.
For scaling of GSP requirements I have introduced two rules. One is to increase scaling with the #shots to the 3/2 power (roughly, I do adjust numbers to look neater in the final version) instead of linear scaling as currently. This makes CAP/HCAP, bombardment, and autocannons all cost more to supply, particularly CAP and MAV have similar GSP demands which makes medium tanks not as sub-optimal anymore. Second rule is adding a multiplier based on bombardment statistic (BBT) for both GSP and tonnage/size stats. GSP is multiplied by (1.0 + 0.5 * BBT) and size very approximately by (1.0 + 0.25 * BBT). This makes artillery units both cost more (GSP and BP costs) and require more transport space as an added cost to the long-range bombardment ability (BBT = 1 for LB, 2 for MB, 3 for MBL/HB) which is not really accounted for at all in the vanilla modeling.
In general my changes are not as "extreme", but bring CAP and artillery into better balance with AV and AC weapons and I've been fairly happy with the results in theorycrafting exercises. Generally my line formations require ~10-15% tonnage in LOG modules to fight for 10-14 days, and my artillery requires about ~25-33% for the same, with higher echelon LVH+LOG vehicles requirement being quite demanding beyond ~1 month of sustainment (this is even with the large LOG modules providing 1,000 GPS instead of 500!). It feels a very good balance but playtesting will reveal how it really is.
I mention this to suggest that compared to the changes listed in the thread, reducing the lethality of CAP and artillery (mainly in terms of #shots, which is after all an abstraction) while keeping the heavy supply demands may be the way to go to achieve the style of game you desire.
I am also glad not to be the only one who insists on a large pre-TN force for the sake of realism. :) That said I do not think there is a "border" issue with penetration as the ground combat mechanics seem to be set up to permit non-integer values.
-
As I said in my previous post, CON can be researched and developed without any TN tech...it is a "conventional" (or pre-TN, you use whatever words you like) technology but it still has to be developed. If I am developing a conventional setting I have no problem SMing in the tech for RP reasons, same with things like heavy armor or HCAP, there is no reason a pre-TN society could not develop those toys but it still takes some research to do it unless you RP that the technology is already known. Given that even in the 21st century we do not exactly have 300-ton construction vehicles which are space-capable and can operate not just on Earth but on the surfaces of the Moon, Mars, asteroids... I don't think it is unreasonable to have to develop the tech at least in some settings. Aurora is at its best when we can RP however we want and I think the current setup makes this very possible IMO.
Defining things as "conventional" versus "pre-TN" is up to the player IMO. Yes the conventional/pre-TN units do cost TNEs but this is a limit of the game and one I am perfectly happy to fluff away if my setting calls for it.
Troop transports will have a conventional/pre-TN variant in v2.0, and I for one look forward to this eagerly.
Conventional - does not require TN materials,
pre-TN - require TN materials, but fine, let's leave these tiny details out...
So, yes, indeed the construction capability technology can be researched without the TN...
Fine - I guess I can buy that normally most troops can dig in to level 3.
Say, what other capabilities should there be in ground units? TN mineral extraction perhaps?
I find it a bit odd, that you have to research a technology, in order to allow military forces to assist/take part in constructing buildings on the ground.
And yeah, these additions in 2.0 are a good thing.
-
Reading this i was thinking, why not an light CAP unit (L.CAP) which would be a blend on PWL and CAP? Problem is anything i come up with is just superior to PWL and would completely replace it as Boarding units.
rough idea would be:
3-4 shots, .5-.75 Dmg & Pen, 3 GSP, 9 Tons
-
Reading this i was thinking, why not an light CAP unit (L.CAP) which would be a blend on PWL and CAP? Problem is anything i come up with is just superior to PWL and would completely replace it as Boarding units.
rough idea would be:
3-4 shots, .5-.75 Dmg & Pen, 3 GSP, 9 Tons
In addition to the balance problems you've already worked out, there's not really a lot of real-world analogues to make such a unit meaningful. Right now CAP and HCAP are usually considered to represent crew-served machine guns and heavy MGs or chain guns (~30mm) depending on how the player wants to think of these (and the related LAC component) There's not really a lot of crew-served LMGs, as far as I can tell LMGs or SAWs are usually incorporated at the basic rifle squad level and are carried by a single soldier with additional ammunition often carried by one of the riflemen - these are squad weapons but not crew-served in the traditional sense. I usually use PWI for these if I want to represent my infantry in such detail.
I do not want to imply that "there is no IRL equivalent" is a reason to prohibit a new component type from being added, but as such a weapon also presents balance issues and doesn't really offer anything new on the battlefield (anyone would just continue to use regular CAP) so I don't know that there's a motivation for such a component.
If regular CAP were to see a large GSP requirement increase, as in serger or my changes, then a light CAP might be viable which is the same size as CAP but only 0.5 AP/damage with the lower GSP requirement for armies which cannot afford the larger supply requirements.
-
I have found some stats in addition to our previous discussion about ammo expenditure during WW2.
Germans, 1942-43 (without 1944 comparing to my previous stats)
Bombs >250kg: 530 mln kg, so it's about a half of their Hz ammo LOG of the same time
Heavy AA: partial stats only, looks like 2/5 of Hz ammo LOG
Heavy anti-tank: looks like at least 10 times less then Heavy AA, yet most of the data is about 1941
It's close to what as I expected to see about pre-missile era.
-
It probably didn't change for heavy weapons, but as automatic weapons became the standard, infantry ammunition consumption shot through the roof. Infantry platoon in 2020 uses massively more bullets in combat than their grandfathers did back in 1942.
-
You are discussing ammunition allot but logistics is far more than just ammunition. For example from WWII on the German side there are good numbers on the number of tons of logistical supplies a division would need from being at rest or in offensive operations. The fun fact here is that the number of men in a division pretty much correlates with the amount of logistical support a division would need if either at rest or in offensive operations.
The numbers I have come across from different German sources clearly show for example that infantry divisions required more tons of supplies and ammunition at all times than for example an armored formation on the pure fact that infantry divisions had more soldiers in them. Also, horse drawn logistical trains was heavily used with infantry divisions which increased the logistical burden on those divisions even more, trucks were so much more efficient although fuel dependable which was a different matter and the fact the Germans simply did not have enough trucks.
-
I am discussing ammunition only because there is no life support supply consumption for GF in Aurora at all.
I'd like to have it, but...
-
It probably didn't change for heavy weapons, but as automatic weapons became the standard, infantry ammunition consumption shot through the roof. Infantry platoon in 2020 uses massively more bullets in combat than their grandfathers did back in 1942.
I have no stats at hand, yet I doubt it's more then 5 or maybe 10 times more, not 50 to 100 times needed to equalize it with arty.
-
It probably didn't change for heavy weapons, but as automatic weapons became the standard, infantry ammunition consumption shot through the roof. Infantry platoon in 2020 uses massively more bullets in combat than their grandfathers did back in 1942.
What makes you think that heavy weapons consumption didn't increase as well at the same pace they got faster and more automatic reloading and firing?
In 1942 each artillery barrel could shoot one or maybe two rounds before surprise was lost. In 2020 we have technology like the MLRS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System)or MRSI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery#Multiple_Rounds_Simultaneous_Impact_(MRSI))artillery that can throw 10 times more munitions before surprise is lost and to top it off each of those GPS guided rounds or rockets probably is at least 10 times as expensive as a WW2 style "dumb" round as well!
-
I am discussing ammunition only because there is no life support supply consumption for GF in Aurora at all.
I'd like to have it, but...
Well, the supplies is all the equipment and support a unit need, ammunition is just a small part of it. Wealth take care of running cost for units that is not fighting and is an abstraction for replacing equipment over long times with no action. Remember that say 5t is the equivalent of 70 cubic meters of stuff for a single soldier, that is not just ammunition and the soldier itself, it is basically the size of a small apartment of stuff.
I know that Steve at one point said that he calculated the size of units and their supply needs based on that stuff, so supplies is basically everything a soldier or vehicle need to function and ammunition is just one part of that equation. So basing supply use around just guns and rate of fire seems odd to me, there are so many other things a unit consumes during combat. It is an abstraction.
You can't even assume that all units is actually firing any weapons in every eight hour increment, that is just an abstraction and a game mechanic. Conflicts does not really work like that. Supplies is everything from spare parts, fuel, food, power sources, transportation, field equipment, ammunition and more.
-
It probably didn't change for heavy weapons, but as automatic weapons became the standard, infantry ammunition consumption shot through the roof. Infantry platoon in 2020 uses massively more bullets in combat than their grandfathers did back in 1942.
What makes you think that heavy weapons consumption didn't increase as well at the same pace they got faster and more automatic reloading and firing?
In 1942 each artillery barrel could shoot one or maybe two rounds before surprise was lost. In 2020 we have technology like the MLRS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System)or MRSI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery#Multiple_Rounds_Simultaneous_Impact_(MRSI))artillery that can throw 10 times more munitions before surprise is lost and to top it off each of those GPS guided rounds or rockets probably is at least 10 times as expensive as a WW2 style "dumb" round as well!
In fact, all indirect weapons and especially artillery have always used up the vast bulk of weight in ammunition for combat units. For a combat unit to sustain effective combat operation then ammunition's for artillery are quite often the limiting factor of efficiency. That was true in WW2 in particular and I bet it is probably true today as well... Aurora does not really model the importance of indirect weapons or air superiority and it's devastating effect in conventional warfare. These system only loose effect if the opponent fight more of a unconventional or asymmetric warfare.
-
It probably didn't change for heavy weapons, but as automatic weapons became the standard, infantry ammunition consumption shot through the roof. Infantry platoon in 2020 uses massively more bullets in combat than their grandfathers did back in 1942.
What makes you think that heavy weapons consumption didn't increase as well at the same pace they got faster and more automatic reloading and firing?
In 1942 each artillery barrel could shoot one or maybe two rounds before surprise was lost. In 2020 we have technology like the MLRS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System)or MRSI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery#Multiple_Rounds_Simultaneous_Impact_(MRSI))artillery that can throw 10 times more munitions before surprise is lost and to top it off each of those GPS guided rounds or rockets probably is at least 10 times as expensive as a WW2 style "dumb" round as well!
You're right but you're also wrong because you're not looking at the whole picture. Artillery in WW2, while generally avoiding the days-long bombardments of WW1, still very often kept firing for an hour or even few hours despite knowing that the effectiveness degraded massively after the initial rounds. Sure, a battery of MLRS will consume a hundred rockets in two minutes but so did Katyushka's and Nebelwerfers in WW2. Furthermore, a battery of 105 or 155 firing for an hour ends up eating roughly same number of shells, just over a longer period of time. Similarly, heavy machines guns and tank guns have not significantly increased their rate of fire, and then you have ATGM replacing AT-guns, and those use lot less ammunition since you generally only need 1-2 to a kill a tank whereas an AT-gun might use ten times that many. Mortars haven't increased their rate of fire until just very recently with automatic mortars starting to come into service - but this might be another case where they switch from saturation bombardment over a longer period of time to short surprise strikes. So, while I haven't compared ammunition consumption between WW2 and, say Gulf War, I'd speculate that for heavy weapons it's generally and roughly in the same ballpark. For infantry, it's a well-known fact that bullet consumption increased massively once semi-automatic and automatic weapons became standard.
The cost is immaterial here as we're only interested in the tonnage consumed but you're right, modern ammunition is lot more expensive - even "dumb" HE shells are more expensive because they have variable-time fuzes which were not standard until late in WW2.
-
I am discussing ammunition only because there is no life support supply consumption for GF in Aurora at all.
I'd like to have it, but...
Well, the supplies is all the equipment and support a unit need, ammunition is just a small part of it. (...)
I think you missed a point completely.
The problem is not that Aurora supply is abstracted without division to ammo and other types.
The problem is that Aurora GF don't use supply out of combat.
You can think anything about what is supply in Aurora, yet a game give you zero chance to see any life support supply consumption for GF. They can stand forever in any environmental conditions without any supply consumption as far as they are not in combat. More so, they can stand forever without any supply consumption even in combat, as far as their enemy is not capable to shoot them down.
I understand completely the reason to make it so - the level of micro nightmare may become awful otherwise. Yet the fact remains - there is no life support supply consumption for GF in Aurora at all.
So, the only way to discuss GF supply in Aurora - is to discuss the thing that is present in Aurora, and it's ammo (the only supply type that is consuming in the main part during combat, not all the time of formation's existence).
-
I think you missed a point completely.
The problem is not that Aurora supply is abstracted without division to ammo and other types.
The problem is that Aurora GF don't use supply out of combat.
They do use supply, but it is represented by wealth. Ground units require wealth expenditure at all times and use up supply vehicles during combat. This is to simulate much greater supply needs during combat (and the logistics of providing that supply), without adding unnecessary micromanagement out of combat.
-
Another thing I think have been missed in this discussion is how modern weapons are way more accurate and efficient which reduce overall use of ammunition even if rate of fire of certain systems are higher today than what they were yesterday.
Another is the opportunity to actually use them, with more sophisticated sensor and optical systems firefight between conventional forces today are way more lethal and accurate than say during WW2. Today sensors and the ability to shoot first is even more important than what it was in WW2 and it was very important back then too.
There is also a big difference in opportunity as in how often a particular weapons system is used which clearly will effect ammunition use as well. Not all weapons system have the same opportunity to be used in combat, anti-tank weapons versus artillery is a good comparison. You always have way more anti-tank weapon than artillery guns for a reason as the opportunity to use artillery weapons are far greater. The rate of fire between them are completely irrelevant in that context.
-
They do use supply, but it is represented by wealth.
Sorry, I didn't qualified, but I mean a supply, that have to be transported, because it's the main bottleneck nearly always.
Again, it's not a critique of Aurora's level of abstraction, but an answer about why I'm tinkering and discussing ammo consumption only.
-
They do use supply, but it is represented by wealth.
Sorry, I didn't qualified, but I mean a supply, that have to be transported, because it's the main bottleneck nearly always.
Again, it's not a critique of Aurora's level of abstraction, but an answer about why I'm tinkering and discussing ammo consumption only.
It is just an abstraction, the wealth cost include whatever civilian transport you need to transport the supplies to wherever the units are. This is just a game mechanic to reduce overcomplicated logistics. You could have a small draw of logistical trucks even in peace time, but would that make for a better game?
In general Aurora most likely is full of civilian ships moving about that is not modeled in the game. Most commercial and civilian ships and stations certainly indicate this with a normal deployment time of 3 months, the crew need to be replaced over time and they likely are abstracted shuttles and cargo ships that transport more mundane goods and people around as well.
We also don't have replacement of crew at all in the game which in most circumstances are not very realistic, that also is a gameplay compromise we just have to role-play. Crew in Aurora are essentially immortal... ;)
-
And again, that it's a game mechanic to reduce overcomplicated logistics - it's exactly what I have writen, yet the fact remains. At a very strategical level we have to support economy at all to have enough wealth to support all those forces and other means of expansion, yet it's exctremely abstracted (1 variable for all your empire, no partial collapces) and it's very rare to be a bottleneck. It's good, really, because it's boring to play without this level of abstarction. Yet while it IS at this level of abstraction - there is no way to balance (and so discuss) this life support supplies. Because they just abstracted at the only point at strategical (not operational) level, so they don't even exist at the operational and tactical levels we discuss there. We really free to roleplay these life support supplies, because no game mechanics can ruin these roleplays, because no game mechanics are even present at this level. That's why I'm discussing ammo supply only.
-
Sure... discuss that all you want. It does not remove the fact that supplies that is actually modelled in the game is more than just ammunition or based on usage of ammunition alone.
But even if it was you also need to account for the opportunity a particular weapons system have to be used as that is never equal among weapons systems. Tanks are going to spend allot more fuel, spare part and other supplies as part of their operation versus ammunition for example if you compare with an artillery piece or single soldier for example.
This is why rate of fire, calibers and the like between different types of system is almost pointless to compare, you also need to figure out how much of the supplies is actually ammunition and not other stuff as the ratio will differ allot between systems.
The overall combat mechanic in the game is rather simplified and every weapons system is deemed equal for influence other than their stats, that air support and artillery don't have the effect that real life artillery and air support have, it is just a different way to apply damage the same as any other weapon system. Supplies is then calculated on the effectiveness of each weapon system as that is the best way to achieve balance in the game system. It does not mean it is based on ammunition usage ,if that was the case then artillery should cost allot more supplies than tanks would by a great margin as artillery guns have a MUCH higher opportunity to be used than any singe tank gun in any type of operation, there is no correlation to rate of fire in any way. No gun will fire continually for 8 hours in any 8 hour increment. Allot of the supplies used by tanks is stuff other than ammunition, the game simply abstract this to offensive power as that is currently the only metric units are measured in terms of how effective they are gameplay wise.
So I still think that basing the current model of ammunition usage is a highly flawed logic. We just have to accept the current mechanic as is until Steve decide to make it more detailed or there are more things influencing battle than random units shooting at each other with no real limitations.
I usually also modify some weapon system to be a bit different as well so it suits my interpretation of systems.
For example I want Auto-cannon to be the main battle-tank weapon of choice and Anti-vehicle weapons are more like ATGM system... good for busting heavier vehicles and fortifications. Sadly we can't tell these system to ignore wasting ammunition against infantry... I think that some weapons system we should be able to design them to ignore certain types of units and not waste energy on them at all. I rather some weapon system not fire at all in some situations to save on logistics. You also would not fire those weapons systems in favor of using other weapons systems in reality.
I think that vehicles should only fire one or maybe two weapons system each round as well, based on the target they face. Would also make more sense from a realistic point of view in general.
-
Sure... discuss that all you want. It does not remove the fact that supplies that is actually modelled in the game is more than just ammunition or based on usage of ammunition alone.
But even if it was you also need to account for the opportunity a particular weapons system have to be used as that is never equal among weapons systems. Tanks are going to spend allot more fuel, spare part and other supplies as prt of their operation versus ammunition for eample if you compare with an artillry piece or single soldier for example.
This is why rate of fire, calibers and the like between different types of system is almost pointless to compare, you also need to figure out how much of the supplies is actually ammunition and not other stuff as the ratio will differ allot between systems.
The overall combat mechanic in the game is rather simplified and every weapons system is deemed equal for influence other than their stats, that air support and artillery don't have the effect that real life artillery and air support have, it is just a different way to apply damage the same as any other weapon system. Supplies is then calculated on the effectiveness of each weapon system as that is the best way to achieve balance in the game system. It does not mean it is based on ammunition usage ,if that was the case then artillery should cost allot more supplies than tanks would by a great margin as artillery guns have a MUCH higher opportunity to be used than any singe tank gun in any type of operation, there is no correlation to rate of fire in any way. No gun will fire continually for 8 hours in any 8 hour increment. Allot of the supplies used by tanks is stuff other than ammunition, the game simply abstract this to offensive power as that is currently the only metric units are measured in terms of how effective they are gameplay wise.
So I still think that basing the current model of ammunition usage is a highly flawed logic. We just have to accept the current mechanic as is until Steve decide to make it more detailed or there are more things influencing battle than random units shooting at each other with no real limitations.
I usually also modify some weapon system to be a bit different as well so it suits my interpretation of systems.
For example I want Auto-cannon to be the main battle-tank weapon of choice and Anti-vehicle weapons are more like ATGM system... good for busting heavier vehicles and fortifications. Sadly we can tell these system to ignore wasting ammunition against infantry... I think that some weapons system we should be able to design them to ignore certain types of units and not waste energy on them at all. I rather some weapon system not fire at all in some situations to save on logistics. You also would not fire those weapons systems in favor of using other weapons systems in reality.
I think that vehicles should only fire one or maybe two weapons system each round as well, based on the target they face. Would also make more sense from a realistic point of view in general.
I feel like the lack of target prioritization for different types of elements/formations takes away a lot of the gameplay potential of the C# combat rework. CAS fighters not being able to focus on larger entities like vehicles is a big one for example as I think they'd be great for taking out key targets that maybe the ground force can't immediately attack.
In many ways it feels like what we have right now is VB6 combat with extra flair, which I imagine works for some people but for others just makes it feel like more micro burden. I think it'd be great to have the ability to tell a formation or hierarchy to focus it's attacks on specific enemy formations when on formation attack. It would add some actual tactical layer to ground combat beyond outmassing the enemy or optimizing army builds.
-
I feel like the lack of target prioritization for different types of elements/formations takes away a lot of the gameplay potential of the C# combat rework. CAS fighters not being able to focus on larger entities like vehicles is a big one for example as I think they'd be great for taking out key targets that maybe the ground force can't immediately attack.
In many ways it feels like what we have right now is VB6 combat with extra flair, which I imagine works for some people but for others just makes it feel like more micro burden. I think it'd be great to have the ability to tell a formation or hierarchy to focus it's attacks on specific enemy formations when on formation attack. It would add some actual tactical layer to ground combat beyond outmassing the enemy or optimizing army builds.
I think that Steve have made some statement on why he don't like target prioritization in the current model before. If we at least allowed weapons to not fire against certain targets or targets with certain armour or HP levels we could at least make it viable to include certain weapon system at the beginning of a fight without hurting one self in the process. There could also be a simple switch that turn this ignore target off when you want everything to shoot et everything as well.
The system could be as simple as, for every equipment, never fire at anything if you have X amount of chance to destroy something or you are at Y amount of overkill something. You could also require the enemy units to be fully identified with their capacity in order for this "ignore target" to kick in. So you might overkill at the beginning but as an engagement progress your forces learn more about the enemy and start to ignore some enemies as not to waste the logistical strain for little gain.
-
I think some kind of prioritization would be great. Perhaps it could be indicated on a formation basis that they would have a preferred target, which could be chosen among the known enemy formations and give an increased likelihood (but not certainty) of firing against that type of formation.
Then we would also give a bit more thought to the distribution of grund support fighters. Right now they just need to be distributed broadly, but if we knew that a particular formation had a (slightly) higher chance of hitting a formation with medium vehicles, it would make a lot of sense to assign fighters with auto-cannons to those and bombardment fighters to other formations.
-
Allot of the supplies used by tanks is stuff other than ammunition, the game simply abstract this to offensive power as that is currently the only metric units are measured in terms of how effective they are gameplay wise.
So I still think that basing the current model of ammunition usage is a highly flawed logic.
Maybe I just missed smth, but I cannot understand what you mean.
I see how to tinker weapons supply consumption in the DB, yet I see no way to tinker unit type supply consumption.
Again - that's why I discuss ammo consumption only. That's because I just cannot tinker other types of supply in the DB, cannot locate/transport them ingame, so just cannot do anything sensible with them aside of keeping in mind some RP, that'll have no influence ingame if I'll forget to do it manually with SM or straightforvard DB edit.
-
You cannot have target prioritization without a map and strategic/operational movement.
Because if your fancy Heavy Anti-Vehicle formation is being attacked by a swarm of light armoured infantry formation, they're not going to stop shooting just because it's overkill - they're trying to save their lives. If we don't have a map and operational movement, then every formation randomly attacks every other formation and that's that. If we can have priority targets or firing orders, it means that formations need to start moving around each other and that requires a map.
Otherwise it's just a "I WIN"-button.
-
Allot of the supplies used by tanks is stuff other than ammunition, the game simply abstract this to offensive power as that is currently the only metric units are measured in terms of how effective they are gameplay wise.
So I still think that basing the current model of ammunition usage is a highly flawed logic.
Maybe I just missed smth, but I cannot understand what you mean.
I see how to tinker weapons supply consumption in the DB, yet I see no way to tinker unit type supply consumption.
Again - that's why I discuss ammo consumption only. That's because I just cannot tinker other types of supply in the DB, cannot locate/transport them ingame, so just cannot do anything sensible with them aside of keeping in mind some RP, that'll have no influence ingame if I'll forget to do it manually with SM or straightforvard DB edit.
I think what is missed is that there are two different approaches to RP here which are not in agreement.
Jorgen's case seems to be arguing that GSP represents not just ammunition but also other supplies which are used in combat at an elevated rate (e.g., fuel, medical supplies, spare parts, etc.) and that the scaling of GSP requirement by weapon statistics is an approximate representation but does not necessarily have to be limited to what is explicitly represented in-game.
Your approach by contrast is that since GSP requirement is only determined by weapons, then logically it can only represent ammunition, which is a fair point as there is for example no GSP requirement tied to different base vehicle types or to "non-combat" components like FFD which would certainly still require more supplies to perform combat operations.
Basically it is a difference of opinion, specifically how much one is willing to ignore the exact details of the mechanics for the sake of imagining things however one wants. Both approaches are valid for Aurora, but it is important to be clear about what assumptions are being made from the outset when having these mechanical discussions.
You cannot have target prioritization without a map and strategic/operational movement.
Because if your fancy Heavy Anti-Vehicle formation is being attacked by a swarm of light armoured infantry formation, they're not going to stop shooting just because it's overkill - they're trying to save their lives. If we don't have a map and operational movement, then every formation randomly attacks every other formation and that's that. If we can have priority targets or firing orders, it means that formations need to start moving around each other and that requires a map.
Otherwise it's just a "I WIN"-button.
It is actually much worse than this, because having target prioritization (without a map or other tactical mechanism) makes combined arms tactics completely obsolete. If you know that the enemy CAP will always fire at infantry and the enemy MAV will always fire at tanks, the optimal strategy is to use only one type of unit to render half (or more) of your enemy's weapons nearly useless. This remains the case even if the target prioritization chance is fairly small.
In my very heavily-modded 1.13 offshoot DB I have tried to address the problem somewhat by adding additional GSP demands for multiple-shot units and bombardment units, in a mostly systematic way. In practice this puts CAP and MAV for example at very similar levels of supply usage, which does not fix every problem but makes use of MAV less logistically punishing compared to the highly efficient multi-shot weapons. I do think GSP adjustments are probably a better balancing route as otherwise the ground combat is honestly quite well-balanced, it is the logistical demands which remain an issue.
-
Yes... the game is basically basing supply cost for units in combat with the armour penetration and damage of the weapons... but that is the ONLY metric by which we can base the supply cost as there are no other values to base them off in the game mechanic. There are only hit and damage mechanics to go on so not much else you can do.
I think that is where the confusion is.
I also mentioned that comparing rate of fire and weight of ammunition is rather inaccurate as you don't take opportunity into effect if you do this with vastly different weapon systems and platforms. A mobile platform would be more likely to fire their weapons than a static unit for example even if they mount the same weapon systems. Aurora don't model this in any way. You then have fire control and sensor system that vastly may increase or decrease the use of ammunition. The more accurate the system or the faster you locate the enemy the less ammunition you will need to use in any engagement as well. It is not all about the gun.
This is why I will defend the position that supplies is just what it says it is... supplies... and not ammunition, it is an abstraction. Otherwise we should just come out and call it ammunition and not supplies.
-
I think weapon prioritisation should be a weighted random roll that's set automatically per weapon type, rather than something you set or something either player or AI can choose, as to level the field because players will always pick better.
Say CAP, it doesn't have to be staggering, just a 1.1 or 1.2 modifier to weight to chose an infantry type, 1.05 for light type, and say 0.95 for heavy and so. These weights need to be small as not to unbalance the combat as in to inutilise combined arms, but it's VERY frustrating to have AV weapons wasting their shots on infantry, and although on combat you will often have very non-optimal situations, there should be a general tendency of, at least "anti-" type weapons to focus on their counter.
-
I think weapon prioritisation should be a weighted random roll that's set automatically per weapon type, rather than something you set or something either player or AI can choose, as to level the field because players will always pick better.
Say CAP, it doesn't have to be staggering, just a 1.1 or 1.2 modifier to weight to chose an infantry type, 1.05 for light type, and say 0.95 for heavy and so. These weights need to be small as not to unbalance the combat as in to inutilise combined arms, but it's VERY frustrating to have AV weapons wasting their shots on infantry, and although on combat you will often have very non-optimal situations, there should be a general tendency of, at least "anti-" type weapons to focus on their counter.
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.
Somewhere else I had proposed allowing a heavier weapon to hold its fire against a lighter target, which would prevent the issues of preferential targeting but reduce the supply consumption of MAV/HAV/etc. targeting infantry without unbalancing combat.
-
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.
-
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.
Now consider if you send a force of 100% VEH (similar arguments will apply for INF):
- 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.
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).
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
--- 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.
-
--- 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.
--- 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.
-
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:
- 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.
Now consider if you send a force of 100% VEH (similar arguments will apply for INF):
- 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.
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).
--- 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.
-
--- 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.
--- 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.