Re. the "small vs. big" discussion:
In the context of Aurora game design, I cannot agree with any arguments based on many guerrilla forces tying down a single large formation, for two reasons:
1. Aurora does not simulate the additional training or personal ability required to coordinate the actions of many separate units. There is no concept of a "span of control" (how many formations can be directly commanded by any HQ) or of unit coordination between formations. The first is infinite. The second is either perfect or non-existent.
2. Aurora imposes no costs or limits on making many small formations. I can, for example, quite innocently set up squads - with no thought of abusing any game mechanic - only to get bonuses I never asked for because unified formations are supposed to have only one leader and can only take one (sometimes two) action(s)/round!
Aurora is all about game flexibility. The current system governing formation size does indeed give players flexibility in unit design,, but at the cost of some important gotchas and "you win" (or "you lose") buttons that pop up only in battle. This reduces effective flexibility, and works against Aurora's own genius.
Any game design must know its own limitations - and either a) strive to alleviate them, or else b) guide player game choices to accommodate them. A game doesn't have to do the first. No game can always accomplish the first. But an organized game design, one that knows its own self well, will at least deliver on the second.
It is the purpose of this review and critique to be of some assistance towards either of these two goals.
On fighters: There are 2 efficient pod sizes at present: Size 14 autocannons, and size 96 AA.
The autocannons have a great (2ap, 2dam, 3 shot) spread, and while they're more expensive than mounting equivalent damage on a ground unit, they're also mostly untargetable. Great at killing infantry and light vehicles, especially since those unit types can't mount heavy AA.
Good points, but bear in mind that heavy AA from anywhere (and medium if correctly placed in a hierarchy) can always fire back. No need for units, or even entire formations, to have any native AA at all.
The size 96 AA pod kills Ultra-Heavies at a rate of 1/round at equal tech. This is far better than any other option, making them one of the best defensive units at present. Mix them with entrenched Heavy Static HCAP/HAV and lots of infantry, and you have a really tough nut to crack.
I'm still concerned about the enemy bringing in even just a few heavy AA. That huge pod is indeed just as powerful as you point out, but it only gets one shot/round, and has semi-random targeting. Most attacks will target some hapless cannon fodder somewhere for massive overkill. Heavy AA, on the other hand, labours under no such difficulty.
This makes fighters really, really specialised. Either they strafe the hell out of light units, or blow up the heaviest units in the game. They have absolutely no place fighting Static/Medium/Heavy/Super-Heavy vehicles because you can't make an efficient damage spread. On that note, the bombardment pod is almost useless. The pen is too bad to be usable against medium and up, and the autocannon wipes the floor with it in light ground attack.
Agreed. But this agreement is subject to the worry of "how many shots is even the best optimized fighter likely to survive to make, given anything like equal resources?"
I'd be happy with
1) Being able to have Train entire formations [ed: hierarchies of formations]
Yes, being able to treat hierarchies of formations, as described here, as trainable units, as formations currently are, would be dandy.
One thing I've noticed after reading and rereading Steve's Ground Unit posts is that using medium AA batteries is, well, a bit wonky.
Yeah, heavy AA isn't just more cost-effective, it's also flat-out more convenient. You never have to wonder whether it will fire [but check this].
[Can infantry-type bombardment elements be used in boarding combat]
Yes, can confirm ANY Infantry can be used in Boarding Combat.
I want my Space Marines to have guns big enough to take a bath in, and it looks like Christmas has come early.(with apologies to Howard Tayler's Schlock Mercenary)Re. Carronades:
I like carronades. I think carronades are cost-effective.
[Ed: We have confirmation of terminal crazy here.]No, seriously. Carronades are cheaper to research. By a lot. Plus, you don't have to research such expensive, long-range beam fire controls - more savings you can devote elsewhere. Going with a meson, microwave, boarding, and/or missile-heavy force and you want big, shield- and armour-busting bang for cheap? Go carronades. Plus get better ground force weapons for less. I should totally ham it up and advertise carronades on TV.
Carronades are all about alpha strike. Sure, they do just as much damage/turn at close range as do lasers, but for the cost, the tonnage, the crew, and the tech level, they get a bigger boom in on the first shot.
Carronades are, obviously, not the meta. Missiles are the meta. But carronades have their place and I love them like I love Half-Troll Warriors.
