C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Profugo Barbatus]

Hrmm, replacing PDC's with some sort of ground unit that acts as a surface to space weapons battery might be interesting.

Without PDC's, combat engineers lose their purpose.  Replacing them with a large unit (Battalion sized maybe) that instead has a fairly low damage weapon that can engage hostile ships in a radius around the planet (Could probably upgrade both damage and radius through a seperate line of weapons tech) could prove interesting though.  Individual ground units can't be targeted by ships, meaning an attacking fleets only option is to start nuking the smeg out of the world if they want to silence the guns without a heavy ground assault.  If you want to capture more than an irradiated wasteland, you'll have to commit to a planetary invasion.  Otherwise, you'll be sitting back away from the planet, less you start to get chewed up by the ground based guns.

If you do stage an invasion, the same ground guns would likely prove to be an effective way to take out any assault ships landing on the planet, weakening the attacking forces.  I can't think of a time I put more than one layer of armor on any of my combat drop boats, so a few guns could help the defender balance the odds in their favor.  As a whole, this kind of unit would prove incredibly valuable for defensive operations, and considering the C# version is already bringing us one big game changer to ground combat, a second could be included as well.

You could probably tweak exactly how they work by changing what they're shooting for different effects on gameplay.  Letting them shoot smaller missiles from the planetary stockpile would significantly buff their striking power (Let each ground unit fire X MSP per Y increments, tweaking X and Y for desired results), give fleets the opportunity to defend with PD, and put an upper cap on how long they can fend a force off by making them dependent on a consumable, but would add some more complexity to ground forces by requiring you to keep them supplied with this ordinance.

There's probably other ways to go around it, but really, I do like the idea of replacing PDC's.  Although I will miss multifaction earth starts going full WW3 with nuclear missile bases.

[MJOne]

Please don't remove the PDC's.  Aurora is not the game it is because of simplicity, but complexity.
If you cater to that line of thought of making it easy for new players, then you should remove the ship designer as well.  But you will end up with a simple aged game.  The fact that the graphics are simple but clear is great when complexity saves the game from being a simple map simulation. 

Do not let new, lower spectrum, players ruin your greatness.  What if Beethoven used the same logic when he wrote his masterpieces, would he been a household names if he made his music simple?

Name a famous basket or clay pot manufacturer.  I bet you can't.
Name a famius tech or space company.  I bet you know a few.

Complexity is the beauty and the reflection of your greatness, do not self-censor to cater to the simple people.  Please.  :-)

[alex_brunius]

With regard to the PDC, I am seriously considering removing PDCs from the game. They create exceptions for a number of rules, confuse new players, add complexity to ground combat without necessarily adding a commensurate improvement in game play, and their maintenance-free status can be an exploit. I may replace them with some additional types of ground forces to improve defences planetary defences and keep all 'ships' in space. One of their major advantages is to allow maintenance-free bases on new colonies, but even that is no longer as great an advantage given the new maintenance system (you can build orbital bases that can provide their own maintenance facilities and just ship in supplies).

I think the main reason they confuse new players is that their name doesn't clarify if they are orbital or ground based. At least I remember that being the main thing confusing me when starting off ( and the bugs with starting PDCs that plagued the game for quite some time ).

While I don't see much use of their ground combat or "boarding" properties, I do think there is alot of value in still having some way to respond with missiles ( and for no atmosphere also guns/lasers ) from the planet surface and force the enemy to strike the planet if they want to return fire.

That doesn't necessarily have to be through PDCs in their current form though...



It would be terribly boring IMO if fleets could just move in and sweep away all defenses around a planet with zero collateral damage to the surface, and for RP I do love the idea of surface based defense centers & missile silos as well.

[Steve Walmsley]

My intention wouldn't be to remove ground defences entirely, just replace PDCs with ground units that have non-ground capabilities and move to more detailed ground combat. For example, some form of air defence unit that functions as a CIWS for the planet. Perhaps a 'ground to orbit meson battery' unit, etc..

In this case, ground units should probably be more directly affected by racial tech. it may mean I have to move to some form of simple ground unit design where you create your own unit types. This would include CIWS techs, ground to orbit techs based on ship-weapons, ground-based attack/defence split into armour and infantry-based techs (based on weapon & armour techs), maybe the bombardment ability of Titans so as an alternative to Titans you could develop different forms of artillery. Concealment tech to make units harder to strike from orbit. 'Movement' tech could be personal armour, tracked vehicles, combat walkers, etc.

Troop transport bays and combat drop modules would be for infantry (personal armour) types - a different module would be needed for heavy armour or ground to orbit capable units.

Perhaps the type of planet could affect which units are most effective - specialist units for extreme temperature, or mountainous terrain, or mostly water planets, etc. Terrain would also determine the effectiveness of different movement types.

Another option to be considered is removing the restriction on energy weapons in atmosphere. Ground units armed with ship-type weapons would become a serious deterrent, especially given they are more dispersed than ships and harder to eliminate. I would need to add rules on destroying installations from orbit, but not sure how much of a problem that is given that most powers want to capture installations rather than destroy them.

In fact, this could lead to a paradigm where it is very hard to bombard a well-defended planet from orbit so you (still) have to nuke from a distance and risk environmental and industrial damage, or develop very fast drop pods to get troops to the surface (through defensive fire) to take out the ground-based defences (Hoth).

Anyway, just thinking out loud at the moment.

[backstab]

My intention wouldn't be to remove ground defences entirely, just replace PDCs with ground units that have non-ground capabilities and move to more detailed ground combat. For example, some form of air defence unit that functions as a CIWS for the planet. Perhaps a 'ground to orbit meson battery' unit, etc..

In this case, ground units should probably be more directly affected by racial tech. it may mean I have to move to some form of simple ground unit design where you create your own unit types. This would include CIWS techs, ground to orbit techs based on ship-weapons, ground-based attack/defence split into armour and infantry-based techs (based on weapon & armour techs), maybe the bombardment ability of Titans so as an alternative to Titans you could develop different forms of artillery. Concealment tech to make units harder to strike from orbit. 'Movement' tech could be personal armour, tracked vehicles, combat walkers, etc.

Troop transport bays and combat drop modules would be for infantry (personal armour) types - a different module would be needed for heavy armour or ground to orbit capable units.

Perhaps the type of planet could affect which units are most effective - specialist units for extreme temperature, or mountainous terrain, or mostly water planets, etc. Terrain would also determine the effectiveness of different movement types.

Another option to be considered is removing the restriction on energy weapons in atmosphere. Ground units armed with ship-type weapons would become a serious deterrent, especially given they are more dispersed than ships and harder to eliminate. I would need to add rules on destroying installations from orbit, but not sure how much of a problem that is given that most powers want to capture installations rather than destroy them.

In fact, this could lead to a paradigm where it is very hard to bombard a well-defended planet from orbit so you (still) have to nuke from a distance and risk environmental and industrial damage, or develop very fast drop pods to get troops to the surface (through defensive fire) to take out the ground-based defences (Hoth).

Anyway, just thinking out loud at the moment.

Maybe add a mobile mssile battery with a limited ammo payload and short range missile fire control
Special forces company ... for when you really need to destroy that spaceport ... or se as expensive light infantry when your about to be overrun

[alex_brunius]

My intention wouldn't be to remove ground defences entirely, just replace PDCs with ground units that have non-ground capabilities and move to more detailed ground combat. For example, some form of air defence unit that functions as a CIWS for the planet. Perhaps a 'ground to orbit meson battery' unit, etc..

In this case, ground units should probably be more directly affected by racial tech. it may mean I have to move to some form of simple ground unit design where you create your own unit types. This would include CIWS techs, ground to orbit techs based on ship-weapons, ground-based attack/defence split into armour and infantry-based techs (based on weapon & armour techs), maybe the bombardment ability of Titans so as an alternative to Titans you could develop different forms of artillery. Concealment tech to make units harder to strike from orbit. 'Movement' tech could be personal armour, tracked vehicles, combat walkers, etc.

Troop transport bays and combat drop modules would be for infantry (personal armour) types - a different module would be needed for heavy armour or ground to orbit capable units.

Perhaps the type of planet could affect which units are most effective - specialist units for extreme temperature, or mountainous terrain, or mostly water planets, etc. Terrain would also determine the effectiveness of different movement types.

Another option to be considered is removing the restriction on energy weapons in atmosphere. Ground units armed with ship-type weapons would become a serious deterrent, especially given they are more dispersed than ships and harder to eliminate. I would need to add rules on destroying installations from orbit, but not sure how much of a problem that is given that most powers want to capture installations rather than destroy them.

In fact, this could lead to a paradigm where it is very hard to bombard a well-defended planet from orbit so you (still) have to nuke from a distance and risk environmental and industrial damage, or develop very fast drop pods to get troops to the surface (through defensive fire) to take out the ground-based defences (Hoth).

Anyway, just thinking out loud at the moment.

I fully support making ground combat more involved with more depth and techs!

Would you consider adding water ships which combat efficiency / coverage depending on surface water coverage and atmospheric fighters as well at some point, giving some progression to conventional starts?

Water ships could work like "early tech" titans ( big AoE guns/missiles ), and it would be really cool to have another layer of defense if atmospheric fighters could intercept dropships, requiring atmospheric capable space fighters to escort them ( X-com scenario ).

Another brainstorming idea is to require logistics and supplies to be delivered to be able to sustain ground offensives/combat.

[infernobirdkrpt]

i dunno if this has been asked.  What engine is this being made on

[Steve Walmsley]

i dunno if this has been asked.  What engine is this being made on

C# and Windows Forms - not that popular as a gaming platform

[Bremen]

I personally like the idea of shifting PDCs to use the ground forces system. Would make troop transports and invasions more meaningful if they could set up some sort of beachhead in a few weeks instead of taking months or years to build even a small PDC. And, like Steve said, PDCs currently are a bit confusing since they're sort of a hybrid with their own rules. You can always build orbital weapons platforms if you want something similar.

And to be totally honest I usually just ignore ground troops and nuke enemies until they surrender anyways. This would make it more interesting :p

Two, maybe three types?

Anti-Air Support Battalion: Attempts to shoot down incoming missiles in a CIWS like way?
Planet to Space Meson Battery Division: Mesons simplify away the need to "design" anti-space weapons, since they just do 1 damage anyways. Give them the PDC range bonus (your max beam fire control range x1.5) and a small active sensor capability, base it on your current tech, and they're an all in one anti-space weapon with no need for custom designs.
Planet to Space Missile Battery Division: Not as sure about this one. Missiles are more complex, you'd need to design around sensor range, etc. Might be possible to just say they can launch 50 msp every x second or whatever.

Alternately, they could be based off ground force strength techs or a new tech line (Planet to Space Weapons?)

[Zincat]

I am in favor of removing PDCs as they are now. They do indeed break a number of rules, and I have always disliked that you can basically use them as ground-based ships that are much cheaper to build and do not require maintenance. Plus they are also more difficult to destroy, despite being immobile, because you can build them with MASSIVE armor.

I also like the idea of removing the atmospheric obstacle to planetary bombardment with beam ships, while at the same time giving ground "military" short anti-ship and anti-missile capabilities. With this idea in mind, invading  or bombarding a strongly garrisoned planet becomes challenging and dangerous. Enemy ships can bombard from afar with missiles, or risk retribution when doing a beam bombardment. Incoming transports will surely take casualties because of defending troops.

At the same time, this solution relegates any serious long-range anti-ship capabilities to Orbital Defense Platforms / Bases, as should be. This is also in my opinion a lot more balanced, because as said PDCs were not really well balanced. If you want to destroy enemy fleets from afar, you'll just have to build orbital bases which cost more, require shipyards, require maintenance and the like.

All in all, I am in favor of all this. Makes ground combat / troops/ garrisoning a lot more interesting, especially compared to how it is now. If you proceed with this idea Steve, maybe a separated thread would be a good thing, to discuss the details of the new system

[Bremen]

Maybe keep the atmosphere bombardment penalty for beam ships, but change it to a flat -atm damage for railguns (so larger railguns could hit through thicker atmospheres?). Would give large railgun ships a use if you wanted a dedicated bombardment ship that wouldn't run out of missiles, but would open it up to Planet to Space fire from surface troops.

(I've been reading the first book in the Human Reach series after it got recommended on this forum, and it does something similar).

[Indefatigable]

Removing PDCs will also remove a chunk of the roleplay/flavour aspect from the "ground game". 

I absolutely want to build those flaktowers and command bunkers as space ####s, or legionary forts as romans or whatever the theme might be.

Instead of totally removing them, why not make them more expensive and/or less combat efficient.

[QuakeIV]

I feel like it would be reasonable to simply replace that with some kind of ambiguously defined 'ground unit'.

[Black]

I have to say that I am a bit disappointed with removal of PDCs. I did not use them much on colony worlds, but I like my asteroid forts and bases. I hope some form of asteroid fortifications like Theban defenses in Crusade will be eventually implemented as partial replacement of PDCs.

[Marski]

I also find the idea of removing PDC's altogether a bit distressing.
My playstyle dictates to fully colonize & fortify the solar system before exploring jump-points due to past experiences involving a very hostile race.

Yes, they have their issues, but they aren't as bad as you make it sound. It's a matter of perspective I suppose.
For me, PDC's being hard to kill due to massive armor simulates the PDC's being well concealed, taking advantage of geography and so on and so forth. They can force players to employ other methods such as opposed planetary invasions rather than simply sit at a distance and lob nukes at them for months.

It gives such a great depth to the game's planetary combat that I haven't seen in any other 4x game except in Aurora. Point defence bases protect missile bases. Point defence bases are taken out by small and low-signature landing shuttles with company-sized combat drop modules. Marine companies take out the point defence bases to pave way for the larger shuttles with battalion-sized combat drop modules which then proceed to take out the missile bases.

The issue of "confusing new players" can be fixed with a tutorial, or notes in the design screen or pop-up icons explaining what PDC is.

Issue regarding "Drydock" PDC designs that bypass the maintenance needs, I have a proposition.
Introduce the concept of crews automatically leaving the starship whenever its in a shuttlebay, boatbay, or hangar. The more crew the ship has, the more it takes them to exit the ship and the same amount of time it takes them to re-enter the ship. Just like in real life, eh?
It couldn't hurt to introduce "rebooting sequence" as the shuttle/ship automatically shuts down all it's modules when in shuttlebay/hangar and needs time for each and every module to start up again. More modules again mean more time.

There, now there's a legitimate risk involving keeping your ships in "drydocks"