Ground Weapons tinkering

[Jorgen_CAB]

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.

[serger (OP)]

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...

[serger (OP)]

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.

[alex_brunius]

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 or 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!

[Jorgen_CAB]

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.

[Jorgen_CAB]

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 or 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.

[Garfunkel]

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 or 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.

[serger (OP)]

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).

[Steve Walmsley]

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.

[Jorgen_CAB]

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.

[serger (OP)]

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.

[Jorgen_CAB]

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...

[serger (OP)]

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.

[Jorgen_CAB]

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.

[Droll]

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.