Ground combat in v2.7.1

Player Questions
1

I am ready to try building my first heavy ground combat deployment after many years of playing.

The situation is Earth will be destroyed in just over ten years, there is a good very near planet in Luytens with short transit times though I will need about 1m tons of army to take it, so I better not mess up the build. Don’t ask how I happen to know a spoiler ground force of 250kt plus STOs are hidden there which emerge if you try to terraform it! There has already been one hideous massacre in Beta Telescopii and I think one is enough, lets just say due to information received from the post mortem report of the massacre, a survey team’s seismic sensors were able to detect a subterranean vault comprising a threat to colonists.

It has a colonisation temperature penalty of 0.007 so I believe I have to use Extreme Temperature Capability modification on attack units.

  1. Is it helpful to use this modification on supply and command units, already set to avoid combat, as well?
  2. Can supply units be placed in rear echelon divisional HQ?
  3. Do I need HQ units in frontline brigades if they are nested in a division HQ set as rear echelon (with robust supervehicle armoured supervehicles for HQs)?
  4. Is it correct arty must be in separate support elements to function, not RE? Do these still need an HQ to support a frontline brigade with its own same value HQ?
  5. Is there any disadvantage in having 20x 50kt divisions as opposed to say 2x 500kt?
2
  1. Not really, basically removes the malus that the environment imposes on ATTACKS, it does not effect “defensive” abilities. And besides with Avoid Combat it’s already a blue moon to hit anyway, so halving that is still a blue moon chance.
  2. If they are LV-LOG they can be placed at the top level of the formation and will supply all children and siblings. If they are INF-LOG they only supply their own unit.
  3. For an unit to get COMMANDER BONUSES they must have a COMMANDER, this includes all “trickle down” bonuses.
  4. Artillery can be in SUPPORT or REAR ECHELON, however only LRB and HB units can “reach” the lines from RE, MB can be in SUPPORT or further and LB needs to be FL. They must also be in the formation “above” the supported unit, this includes “aunts and uncles” as well as parents/grandparents/greatgrandparents, etc.
  5. Not sure what is being asked exactly, but if asking doing 20 50k formations in a “line” versus 2 500k formations in a “line” then yes there is a disadvantage because mass is a major factor on breakthrough. However if we are looking at the following two things, the first organization is superior to the second arguably:

1 Army consisting of 1 Artillery Battery along with 2 Corps consisting of 4 Divisions consisting of 3 Battalions each (for a total of 20 units and each unit being 50k )

2 Divisions of 500k each.

The first gets commander bonuses (and jobs) all the way down the line, so will be more “efficient” in theory. They also will spread the damage out more. The two big bois will hit real hard and soak a bunch of damage. The first is more “flexible” on who attacks, who supports, and who gets attacked, Mobility versus Mass.

3

The difference between small and large formations exists but I proved through extensive testing that the difference is small enough that commander bonuses can override it, not to mention tech level disparity. So do not worry about because you are unlikely to go to extremes. Unfortunately the evidence is lost with the old forum, I should probably redo the tests and post here - also to prove that it hasn’t changed in later versions of the game.

Just to make it clear regarding bombardment units, since there are 4 types:

  1. LB can only reach the enemy from FA or FD positions.
  2. MB can reach the enemy from FA, FD and SP positions.
  3. MBL can reach the enemy from any position.
  4. HB can reach the enemy from any position.

Do note that HB causes a lot of collateral damage even after Steve changed the formula so I only use HB for counter-battery fire - this happens automatically as long as you do not assign a HB formation in support of any other formation.

1 Like
4

Ditto to Pedroig and Garfunkel’s responses. I will add a couple things:

1.) I am in favor of the Rule of Cool over strict efficiency or min/maxing. If it sounds cool to have certain enhancements, do it. If it roleplays’s your race/species/empire, do it.

2.) #1 ties into this one a bit too - with the division (or whether nomenclature you want to use) size - Rule of Cool first, then logistics second. A big thing to remember about 2x 500kt units vs 20x 50kt units (or whatever other scaling you want) is the logistics of the units. Those units are worthless in combat if the can’t GET there. Do you want 1 super massive transport to carry that massive unit, and risk losing all that with one bad landing, or break it up into dozens of smaller ships.

When loading your units you can select load all sub-units and they’ll be spread out across the transport fleet, and maintain their OOB structure on landing - even if it needs multiple trips. Rule of Cool first, but then make it make sense for your logistics.

1 Like
5

Thank you all Pedroig, Garfunkel and Ranger044.

btw I agree with the importance of storytelling and even consistent themes in a game of Aurora. Currently all my ships are named after ancient Greek and other pantheons for example, emulating a slightly rigid continuation of elite astroscience naming methods under global martial law as the desperate exodus proceeds.

Though one of the benefits of a game engine like Aurora’s is it provides a sense of reality and rules which impinge externally to shape the story and both enhance each other.

You would expect a modern army/ground force to be aware of the realities around their own effectiveness, though perhaps a little slow to catch on to innovations. Like myself!

The landing - on Luytens will probably be unopposed as the spoiler emergence will be triggered after the landing and hopefully fortification. Even so I will prepare drop pods enough to transport the entire formation in one go and later armoured dropships to retake Beta Telescopii in the face of STO fire. It feels tactically unsound to drop half a division at a time!

I thought it was worth discussing further and asking for advice from practiced players both for myself and for the community because of the problems with accessing rules resources at the main website.

What I have gathered is the element HQs provide stacking command boni which implies the entire army is best gathered under a leadership structure which adds boni to front line units and improves cohesion… theoretically! In the real world it depends on the origin and motivation of the fighting force. I think the Earth facing destruction is pretty motivating in this scenario so they would do their best to cohere.

The distinctions between different artillery are helpful.

I was confused by the breakthrough reference, but google AI assures me larger companies are less likely to attract a breakthrough. Through the hallucinations of our digital Baudolino, which I try to correct in programming its “search”, it also states a fortification bonus is not given to units without environmental adaptation.

Is it true … Y/N will do.

  1. Front line defence HQs would be more vulnerable without environmental adaptation due to lost fortification?
  2. Front line attack HQ vehicles set to avoid combat do not attack or have evasion or fortification, they are simply targeted last, so don’t need adaptation? (I thought they had evasion boni and attack malus but AI says not.)
  3. Infantry evasion requires adaptation, so infantry HQ commanders even set to avoid combat, would suffer greater losses without it?
  4. Rear echelon have no fortification or evasion anyway so do not benefit defensively from adaptation at all?
6
  1. Nah, environmental adaption - that you ‘buy’ at unit creation - only affects to-hit chance of said unit. HQ’s can easily be universal as they should always be set to ‘avoid combat’ and with heaviest possible armour so that in the slight chance that they do get targeted, they might survive a hit or three. So no, you don’t need to create desert HQ, mountain HQ, rift valley HQ and so on, just an infantry HQ, static HQ and vehicle HQ.
  2. Any unit set to ‘avoid combat’ will not attack by itself and is unlikely to be targeted by enemy, though they are not invulnerable or immune.
  3. Infantry relies on fortification much more than evasion.
  4. Rear echelon can have fortification and evasion but the only formations in RE should be heavy artillery, high level HQs, and non-combatants like xenoarchaelogy and construction formations.

About breakthroughs, they can happen with infantry formations but generally your best bet is to use vehicle-only formations. They can be very powerful as the formation that achieves a breakthrough gets to attack a second time.

7

I’d say that giving HQs the heaviest armour, especially on higher tier HQs, isn’t always worth it. That heavier armour can be a good portion of an entire division’s cost, wrapped up in offsetting an already rare event (the HQ being targeted). At 500kt, you’re seeing a difference of ~400 vendarite and wealth between light and heavy static armour, which may be significant compared to the cost of your formation.

8

I might armor small, front-line HQs in vehicles, but larger HQs are always Static type with minimal armor to keep the cost down. They are already too expensive as it is.

1 Like
9

Garfunkel, why would you not include logistics LVs in the rear echelon formation?

10

I respect your deep knowledge of Aurora but I found static HQs in the early game to be very fragile, I lost xenoarcheology and engineering formations due to static HQ destruction at an emergence massacre and also static STOs to a very early game spoiler space attack, one shot to hit and gone. Not sure what the point of hit points is TBH, if penetration is enough to get through armour the damage will always be complete it seems to me.

Racial armour has improved now (15) in this game, HV-90 SHV-135 but static-30 and heavy static-45 at best. I appreciate ground unit cohesion can defend against ground attacks but the thought of losing a command formation to a few lucky shots is unsettling and does not seem worth cutting corners for a few credits and tons of vendarite.

11

My observation has been that in general, if a HQ would be destroyed by overmatch to HP, it would usually also be destroyed by overmatch to armor anyways.

That said, for the frontline HQs that will take heavier fire armor makes more sense. It’s the big HQs like corps or army HQs that sit in the back that are too expensive for armor to make sense, IMO. They are more vulnerable but the cost of armornis not worth it for large HQs above 100,000 tons in capacity.

12

Piggybacking the thread to ask a question about support real quick.

So support doesn’t trickle down through the hierarchy right? So if I have three infantry companies in a battalion set to Front Line Attack and an artillery battalion (monolithic) set to support the battalion HQ formation (in RE), the FLA companies don’t get any benefit right?

13

Correct. Supporting fire must be a direct support relationship.

14

In that case then, company sized artillery batteries (or smaller) shouldn’t have an umbrella HQ but should instead be directly under regimental command? Since support has to come from a higher echelon in the OOB?

Support doesn’t work here?

Reg
|--> Battalion
|     |--> Inf Company
|     |--> Inf Company
|     |--> Inf Company
|--> Battalion
|     |--> Art Company
|     |--> Art Company
|     |--> Art Company

Support does work here?

Reg
|--> Battalion
|     |--> Inf Company
|     |--> Inf Company
|     |--> Inf Company
|--> Art Company
|--> Art Company
|--> Art Company

Or is there something I am missing that makes the first example work?

15

Your question isn’t clear because it does not show where Arty is.

Support Will Work in the following:

Division HQ-(with Arty) (75k) RE supports FLD

  • Arty Battery (10k) S supports FLA
  • Arty Battery (10k) S supports FLA
    -Brigade HQ (40k) S
    – FLD (10k)
    – FLA (10k)
    – FLA (10k)

It will not work if we make one of the Arty Batteries 5k, or if we put the Arty Battery under the Brigade HQ. If we leave any Arty unassigned (like for example there could be Arty in the Brigade HQ, it will look to counter-battery fire against enemy arty which targets the children in the formation. Note: The Arty supporting the individual units can also counter-battery fire instead of attacking the unit which is attacking (or being attacked) by its supported unit.

16

Bearing in mind all you have said and trying to read around, I am planning a 50kt Brigade HQ formation (RE) to build x20 while the temperature research is done and also SHV HQ 1m. I dont have LMB or HB yet. Spares will be reserves.

I am assuming in rear echelon none of the units need temperature adaptation, please correct me if I am wrong. (AI advice is ‘unreliable’, Butlerian jihad may be required.)

3x SHV 2xCAP HQ50k arm130
1x Engineer CN-0.1 arm30
57x LV LOG GSP57k arm30

Total size 4998t

All are set to avoid combat. I figure 3 HQs is a failsafe against unexpected lucky shots. I have only had experience with boarding parties of 1kt and these regularly lose infantry commanders, not sure if I can extrapolate, but better safe than sorry.

A 10kt practice formation I built, scaled down, required 3700 GSP so I am expecting approx 40-50% of tonnage on 50kt and then doubled that and added a bit for luck.

Does that look like a viable rear echelon for a hot planet? It should contain 3 formations, FLD, FLA, medium arty support. I am thinking they will each need 3xHQ25k commanders which I have yet to research, while that totals 75kt, HQ25k is for flexibility and support compatibility as the arty apparently need the same HQ as the FLA even though they do not need the same size formation, discovered by luck.

Next question is what is a good ratio for FLA/FLD. To prevent breakthroughs should FLD be 100% heavy armour (90)? So it is hard to lose a significant % of the formation?

17

Wouldn’t bother putting guns on the HQ except for RP. Likewise, having the “Extra” HQ’s in Reserve/Replenshiment/Reinforcements is technically better. (Having three triples the chances of losing one, and using boarding action is not a good indicator, as in don’t even need to have officers in boarding actions really)

Otherwise, would tone down LV-LOG and increase CON-CON up a bit, they take their time.

Any/All “capabilities” only effects “to-hit” chances, as in if in an environment which qualifies, it ignores the penalties the environment inflicts on the units to hit chances. It does not change, fortification level, evasion level, or anything else other than the “to-hit” formula.

Thus, having it on Bombardment units and ANY units in ANY Front Line position is pretty important. (not vital, can get the same results by just doubling the number of troops) Anywhere else, especially “Avoid Combat” flagged troops is pretty much worthless.

18

This is technically not true for a reserve/rear-echelon formation, with the qualification that “triples the chances” should be applied to the potential death of the formation commander, rather than the loss of a HQ unit itself.

For front-line formations, the odds of losing the commander increase slightly if you have multiple HQ units in the formation. However, the mechanical reason for this is because the HQ unit is (or should be) classed as a non-combat unit with a reduced chance to be hit by an attack, and having multiple HQ units of this sort decreases the tonnage of combat-classed units acting as distractions for enemy fire.

For rear-line formations, where all units in the formation are non-combat, this mechanic is not present and adding multiple HQs does not increase nor decrease the odds of the commander getting splatted by high explosives.

Given this, having multiple HQs in a formation is actually bad for a far worse reason: it costs more. HQ units are ton-for-ton more expensive than any other type of ground unit (given the same armor, capability, etc.) except for STOs. Especially for high-level HQs, where the HQ unit may be the vast majority of the cost even for a large (25,000+ tons) formation, having multiple HQs in the same formation quickly becomes a horrible boondoggle.

19

OK, I am doing everything wrong again, nothing new there!

I was thinking about the pointlessness of guns on an HQ with avoid combat while I designed it and considered engineering modules. Minmaxerly it works but I felt HQ as a bulldozer was a bit too radical even for me and also there is the size consideration for reserves so I opted for the smallest weapon available and that was RP really. Though what you said Pedroig is consistent with the way I was looking at it which is probably a good thing.

I do not understand how boarding rules would allow a formation to operate with no HQ/commander, when I believe I have seen xenoarcheology and engineering formations destroyed by loss of HQ… colour me boggled. What is going on? Is it a subordinate formation of another command loaded/boarded separately?

With the multiple HQ, regarding what you said nuclearslurpee, the way I was looking at it was based on annihilation of the commander which I believe is the proper analysis as you said. I was under the impression the destruction of one HQ will cause sudden total formation destruction in the absence of higher ups. What I assumed was as long as there is one HQ in the formation the commander will reside in that HQ, transferring the flag if you like, the moment there are no HQs they are toast. Would transfer of a spare HQ from reserves occur before commander annihilation?

I was thinking the chances of losing one HQ might increase with 3, the chances of losing all the HQs is much lower, some fraction cubed and the chances of losing the commander also therefore lower. Maybe I have been playing too much SupCom (FA)!

Is that not how the HQ mechanic works? I wish I knew the rules for this game :face_with_spiral_eyes:

20

First there is rarely a “right” and “wrong” way of doing things in Aurora 4x. There are RP and non-RP ways, there are “optimal” and “sub-optimal”, but not really right/wrong.

re: Size considerations for reserves. Not sure what is meant here, but since there is a cap on HQ size (bot not cost as nuclear points out) making the top level HQ 33% bigger or so, and then having a reserve force set as replacements/reinforcements will keep the other formations “topped off” fairly consistently.

Boarding works JUST like ground combat, with no vehicles, and really no “positions”. A unit without an officer gets no commander bonuses to itself, that’s it. And since USUALLY one is facing crewman/militia with PWL load out, well it doesn’t take much for some armoured “space marines” with CAP to mow them down. (note, this is one of the proposed changes to 3.0 for NPR’s to have on-board marine units iirc) Boarding actions don’t last more than 1-2 ground combat rounds/turns in general, that’s why no LOG is needed either.

For me, since “Major” or O-4 is my lowest officer, well not sure how big a ship would need to be to have a Battalion of Marines on-board as a billet. So I just don’t use officers and simply load out 1-2 differently to “designate” them as officers.

Keeping officers alive is a numbers game, having 1 HQ unit being targeted in a 10 unit group is going to result in dead officers as a norm, having 1 HQ unit in a 10,000 unit group is going to be a rare occurrence. And when it does happen, it will most likely either be the “wipe” of that unit if FL or due to breakthrough hitting S/RE units in which case one is already in trouble.

HQ mechanics:

Ground Formation Commanders will now apply 25% of their bonuses to any formations that are:

  1. Within the hierarchy that exists beneath the commander’s formation (unlimited levels).

  2. At the same population.

  3. Have their own commander.

This functions in a similar way to Naval Admin Commands. For example, if a formation had its own commander with a 20% bonus, a parent formation with a 25% bonus and a further level upwards with a 30% bonus, the total bonus would be 1.2 * 1.0625 * 1.075 = 37%.

The bonus for any ground commander will be reduced if the entire hierarchy under their command exceeds the HQ Rating of their formation (by HQ Capacity / Formation Size).

They apply 100% to the formation they are IN. However, for a unit to receive ANY commander bonus, there must be a HQ unit in that formation with a present officer.

With multiple HQ’s in the same formation, only the HIGHEST bonuses are used. So losing one may or may not change the bonuses being received.

For ME, well, I don’t see any military structure on Earth that uses more than 1 HQ per organizational level. I also RP that the HQ unit is not JUST the officer either, so I put additional HQ’s in reinforcement, and the delay it takes to replace the HQ unit is the “confusion of loss of command”. If Ground Forces had the same Org layout as Naval I’d create the same type of “staff positions” that I do there as well.