Ground Combat "lite"

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Konstantine, Jul 29, 2017.

  1. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Greetings crewmates,

    Today I want to share some thoughts on ground combat for ISG.

    Before I offer my suggestion I need to explain the three things that influenced me as I write this.

    The first was a discussion and poll begun here when there was no pre-alpha available

    The second was an excellent follow up thread by @aReclusiveMind which is here

    But the most important is ISG itself.

    Currently, I would be quite happy if ground combat were never introduced to ISG (I am shocked I feel this way) but I think that could cause an out of proportion negative reaction from players. Therefore I want to toss an idea for your comments.

    Specifically, I advocate massive abstraction of ground combat as follows.

    A new planetary building or complex, the name could be barracks, garrison, or anything appropriate.

    It should be expensive to construct and expensive to maintain, It should also consume 1 population unit upon completion.

    A planet without this structure would be invaded as currently in the pre-alpha, meaning that if you win the space battle you can automatically invade and capture the planet.

    A planet with this structure could only be captured with a planetary assault ship. This would be a new independent ship type (like building a survey ship or outpost rather than designing a ship with a module). This ship needs to also be expensive to build and maintain and would also consume a population unit upon completion.

    The assault ship would always defeat a planetary garrison but would be consumed in the process.

    I think the implications are obvious. This mechanic would be highly abstracted with built-in anti spamming. You’re not going to have a few of these babies sitting around and neither will every planet have a garrison.

    So what do you all think, could it satisfy, perhaps even as a long term place-holder until something more sophisticated can be introduced?
     
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  2. Ashbery76

    Ashbery76 Ensign

    Posts:
    48
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  3. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    A piece of trivia
    During the height of the cold war the total standing armed forces of planet earth was well over 10,000,000, Reserves that could be mobilized in anywhere between 72 hours to three weeks brought that figure up to over 25,000,000. This doesn't include Reserves that were deemed not rapidly deployable.
    Today the number of humans in uniform is less but well over 5,000,000 standing.
    http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp
    This then makes the idea that a planet can be taken by a regiment or division laughable, an entire Army group would not suffice.
    Even an ISD in the star wars universe with its accompanying legion is not adequate, you would need hundreds of said legions.
    That is my thinking behind both garrisons and assault ships consuming a unit of population.
    If you add the support required to field a force of millions it does make for an adequate abstraction.
     
  4. Ashbery76

    Ashbery76 Ensign

    Posts:
    48
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    This is not the cold war.Drones will dominate the future.Just imagine a million wasp size drones that could piece your skull.Those cold war armies numbers would not last long.
     
  5. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    and you imagine 20 million wasp size drones defending, what's your point? Or do you believe a theoretical spaceship can house more forces (regardless if they have spears or drones) than a planet?
    Or imagine an EMP knocking those same drones down like the proverbial flies, jamming tech as well can do the trick and you're right back to men and machines that aren't remotely controlled.
    Better yet you get nuked from orbit, if you want to be realistic.
    And actually It is the cold war 2.0 (well on its way anyway)
    Now if your referring about the game not being the cold war, I don't need you to tell me that, I can figure it out on my own.
    The point is, if you're talking about ISG, whatever the forces are, drones, terminators or little green elves, you need a lot of them. The example and data I provided is to give an understanding of scale.
    Come on Ashbery76, I've read your posts, I'm not telling you anything you don't know already. The only way your example makes sense is if there is a great disparity in tech between the two contesting sides in a conflict.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2017
  6. Edward the Hun

    Edward the Hun Moderator Lieutenant

    Posts:
    206
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    What an attacker can bring to bear, so can a defender. Never mind defenders have the advantage of not needing to be mobile. You got drones, they got drone interceptors, so do you as well. A normal ship won't have the equipment to take a well defended world. I see these assault ships that are suggested as not just the manpower, but whatever tech or weapons of warfare you need to take a defended world. I think the idea here is that a defended system needs to be overcome while an undefended system is easier to take.

    So back to the original topic.

    I don't like an undefended planet can be taken automatically. A single frigate shouldn't be able to flip a planet. It can blockade it, blow up the odd city, but it's not enough to get the world to surrender right off the bat.

    So modifications to your idea I'd like to propose. I'd think there needs a CP threshold (dependent on the world's development) to claim or raze a world without a garrison, or have a sort of siege mechanic. Simpler the better, just something so the lone frigate can't just flip it or raze it (unless it's a new colony). Once you cross the threshold you can can capture or raze the planet, she's yours. I imagine Titans on their own will be able to do this to any planet without a garrison.

    The assault ships would bypass this for undefended planets and not be used up either. If they can take a defended world, undefended ones are just run over without an effort for them.

    Defended worlds work as you suggest.

    I do have one concern, tech advantage. It will be rubbish if a single assault ship of a race a few tech levels behind can capture your well developed and defended world. Honestly, I can see a lot of players finding it cheap, myself included. I'd allow these to have ratings that can come from better techs, and for the assault to work the assault ships need to equal or overcome the value of the garrison.

    So you may need to use two ships to capture a well developed and garrisoned core planet of a tech advantaged race, unless you're also sprouting end game invasion techs too. I'd keep these ratings small, so it is never more than two assault ships needed. Three if you have an unrealistic match-up. However, most of the time one would be enough.
     
  7. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    I can see your point Edward, there is room to tweak this as what I proposed is a bare bones minimum that keeps things simple. Maybe as you say it would be better to require a certain level of SSPs (CP) before an undefended planet can be taken. It may even be tied into planet size and scale accordingly.

    Hmm, I don't think you need too worry to much about that. A race that is a few techs behind will rarely be in the position you describe. Also keep in mind that population unit cost of these ships, that's a lot of manpower (drone power or whatever). You can introduce levels of assault ships and garrisons easily however to eliminate the potential event you describe. I think that could be done fairly easily and still retain a lot of simplicity.


    Yeah, that could be cool too. For more heavily defended (or technologically advanced) planets you can make the requirement two ships with only one being consumed in the invasion, other wise things may get too bogged down
     
  8. Edward the Hun

    Edward the Hun Moderator Lieutenant

    Posts:
    206
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Good catch, I was actually thinking if this system was used then only one Assualt Ship would be consumed even if you needed a second one to successfully invade a more fortified planet.

    It never got past my cognitive centres and my hands were already typing out the rest, while my eyes started on proofing. But I'm glad you thought of it as well, fully agree on it.

    I got my eyes on you telepath... ;)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Mezmorki

    Mezmorki Ensign

    Posts:
    124
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Interesting discussion!

    For me, the less important and critical part of capturing a world is not the mechanics of winning the invasion, but rather how you actually manage to pacify the population. That's the bigger issue in my mind and plays into bigger questions about strategic conquest and balance.

    One advantage that the attacker has, assuming that they have control over the orbital space, is they can blockade the system and also bombard the planet, while having gravity work to their advantage. Blasting fixed surface targets (capital buildings, infrastructure, ship yards, etc.) is going to have a big effect on the defensive efforts of a planet, all without landing a single drone, troop, tank, or whatever on the surface.

    Imagine if aliens show up and hung out in orbit, blowing apart all our satellites and saying "comply or we're going to start bombarding every city and metro-region on the planet." Basically, in these sci-fi futures having space and low orbit superiority is going to be a massive advantage for pressuring and threatening planet-bound population.

    The question then becomes how do you get the population to obey you. This is basically what the Empire in Star Wars was all about... use SD's and the Death Star to force compliance.
     
    • Helpful Helpful x 2
  10. Ashbery76

    Ashbery76 Ensign

    Posts:
    48
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    Easy.Soap opera's,reality TV and football.Works a treat here..
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    I laughed when I read this... the sad part of course is that you are entirely correct. Maybe we could introduce some sort of Psychological control device or building?
     
  12. Edward the Hun

    Edward the Hun Moderator Lieutenant

    Posts:
    206
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    That reminds me of the Allied ending for RA3. Watching the game, during dinner on their newly purchased wide screen TV.
     
  13. CrazyElf

    CrazyElf Lieutenant

    Posts:
    199
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    One option may be purely bombardment - ex: in games like SOTS, there never was a lengthy ground war, just bombard the planet.

    There have been games with decent combat on the ground - Star Wars: Empire at War, Forces of Corruption comes to mind right away.
     
    • Helpful Helpful x 1

Share This Page