What is the Purpose of Aurora Ship Combat?

[nuclearslurpee]

@EchidnaNightmares

I don’t want to be rude, but just reading your question makes me uncomfortable for some reason.

I agree. It seems to me like OP is more interested in controlling the parameters of the discussion to prove their point than in having a real discussion.

To wit:

@Spookyfam

What I am not looking for are answers like “Aurora’s combat gives me satisfaction when succeeding in selecting the correct doctrine and design, therefore it is fun to me” or “Aurora’s combat is immersive because the design process uses components consistent with Aurora’s physics.” Don’t talk about design, doctrinal, or strategic gameplay. By itself, is Aurora’s combat fun or immersive? Think of it like: would it ever make sense to hypothetically create a “fleet scenario” gamemode where pre-made fleets have to fight a battle with objectives?

I vehemently disagree with this premise. Aurora’s combat is intended to complement the strategic, operational, and logistical aspects of the gameplay, and divorcing it from these other layers of the game is not a meaningful assessment.

---

For me at least, Aurora’s combat can often be mechanically tedious (so many fire controls …), but it’s fun because it pits my doctrine and designs (the results of past decisions made for various reasons, including “sub-optimal” decisions made for roleplay reasons) against an opponent who is often to some degree unknown, often revealing weaknesses in those doctrines and designs which force me to find a tactical solution. I believe this personal experience is backed up by the wealth of AARs recounting exciting ship-to-ship battles, although sadly many of those are lost due to the demise of the old forums.

My observation has been that usually the people who find the tactical system boring are the ones who relentlessly optimize everything, and never engage in a battle unless they have 5% more speed, 5% more range, 5% more point defense than the enemy missiles can defeat, and 5% more shields or armor than the enemy can penetrate. Aurora is not a game designed for relentless optimization unless it is player-versus-player. Frankly, I don’t see the point in doing so, winning all the time is boring and knowing you’ll always win before any battle takes place is even more boring.

At the risk of shameful self-promotion, I believe that my Duranium Legion campaign is a good illustration of this. That is despite the fact that a fast, railgun-based fleet doctrine is hardly the most complex and features relatively little in the way of tactical decision-making:

• The first battle fought, due to an underestimate of how much point defense was needed, featured heavy losses and uncertainty about whether my fleet could close through enemy missile fire. Exciting despite a lack of moment-to-moment decisions and poor writing.
• Most battles were against a standard NPR against which I had a significant tech advantage, including a large speed advantage. Despite this, several of the battles were still interesting as ongoing doctrinal development (both ship designs and tactical guidance) led to a “learning how to fight” tactical experience including some losses. Against an NPR with comparable tech I am sure the battles would have been far closer.
• This led to a overwrought and melodramatic thrilling and exciting Naval Conference to address the doctrinal deficiencies of the Navy. The tactical battles therefore fed back into the strategic gameplay and decision-making through the magic of roleplay.

I think ship combat, like everything else in Aurora, is what you make of it. If you are willing to roleplay events and use “sub-optimal” doctrine, then there is a lot of fun to be had and many great stories to be written. If you only care about relentlessly optimizing so your ships are invincible, then that is up to you but I think Aurora has a very limited shelf life for this approach to gameplay.