Replacing PDCs

[alex_brunius]

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. I am going away for a week on holiday so I won't be posting (or working on Aurora). I'll start work on ground units when I get back.

Enjoy your vacation and thanks for keeping us updated on the progress!

[GodEmperor]

I think its a bad idea to remove PDC's. 

I always liked the idea of a giant planetary defence center being build, replacing that with building ground forces will make games less detailed and with less options

[Felixg]

I also dislike the idea of removing PDCs, I liked building large multi base complexes on airless asteroids to make the battle stations that are incredibly smegty using the current rule set where they require maintenance and everything.

I think it would be best to leave PDCs in and those who don't like them don't have to use them, add Anti-space ground units in addition to the PDCs.

No reason those of us that enjoy the things should be deprived of them because some people dislike them. Its a single player only game after all. Alternatively give us a SM option to turn off maintenance for this or that so we can have our large self contained battle-stations, or a hangar on a comet hiding a cryo ship with emergency populations.

[Bremen]

I also dislike the idea of removing PDCs, I liked building large multi base complexes on airless asteroids to make the battle stations that are incredibly smegty using the current rule set where they require maintenance and everything.

I think it would be best to leave PDCs in and those who don't like them don't have to use them, add Anti-space ground units in addition to the PDCs.

No reason those of us that enjoy the things should be deprived of them because some people dislike them. Its a single player only game after all. Alternatively give us a SM option to turn off maintenance for this or that so we can have our large self contained battle-stations, or a hangar on a comet hiding a cryo ship with emergency populations.

I believe the new maintenance rules should allow for large deep space battle stations even with maintenance on.

[83athom]

Was away for quite a while so it seems I missed my chance to say my piece. I don't think they should be removed. However, I think their mechanics need an adjustment and an expansion. A PDC is really meant to fulfill some key functions that are a bit odd to simulate with other options (units/titans).

At its core, a PDC is a fortified location to counterattack/defend an area against enemy starships. While it is entierly feasible for units and titans to also do this (The dragoons of the Ember Wars comes to mind with their shoulder mounted rail-cannons that can swat lighter starships out of the sky), they key words are fortified location. Units and Titans are more meant to be a mobile force to eliminate enemy mobile forces and strategic positions. PDCs are like that to protect key facilities, like planetary data centers, emergency power plants, and planetary shield generators (more on this in a minute).

Reworking PDCs so they better fit their role of protecting key facilities/areas would be to add something more that only PDCs could use. One of those things could be a planetary shield. Far larger and more powerful than regular shields, these shields are meant to hold back a lot of firepower. Maybe weighing in around 5,000 tons, 500 times the weight of standard shields yet gives around 750 to 1000 times the strength. The shield also can take damage from enemy Titans' artillery rolls. The shields wouldn't block enemy troop combat however, so there is a stronger point to invasion over outright planetary bombardment. Possibly to simulate the fact its ground based and can only "cover" a certain "area" around it, there could be a coverage percentage based on the number of different installations and the habitable area of the planet (with small enough bodies allowing a single installation to cover its entirety so small moons/asteroids aren't requiring too much).

Another thing would be anti-titan artillery. I actually have no idea how this would be figured, but it may be its own technology that does its damage based on ground combat strength tech. This weapon could also be used against enemy troops on the planet that aren't already in combat with that PDC or inside another one.

[bean]

Also, I suggest that brigade and division command units shouldn't have research costs attached to them (or at least not nearly as much as they currently do). It's not like the equipment and organizations don't exist in every modern military, they simply need to be updated to use TN technology. This shouldn't be on the order of researching a new form of nuclear energy.

I'm going to push back on this.  I'd say that instead those kind of units should be made more useful, and the price kept up.  Military networking and Command and Control (C2) is really hard, but also very powerful.  And we certainly haven't perfected it today, either.  (I work on the edges of the field these days.)  And particularly in the vague and wonderful world of TN technology, it's quite possible that they've managed to come up with another leap forward in the broad C2 field with dictates a lot of money being spent on perfecting it.  Look at the history of NTDS if you think this stuff is cheap.

[Garfunkel]

I'm a bit divided on that - they are both very expensive to research as well as build. Lowering one or the other would be useful.

[Gyrfalcon]

I'm going to push back on this.  I'd say that instead those kind of units should be made more useful, and the price kept up.  Military networking and Command and Control (C2) is really hard, but also very powerful.  And we certainly haven't perfected it today, either.  (I work on the edges of the field these days.)  And particularly in the vague and wonderful world of TN technology, it's quite possible that they've managed to come up with another leap forward in the broad C2 field with dictates a lot of money being spent on perfecting it.  Look at the history of NTDS if you think this stuff is cheap.

I'm not saying that it's cheap, but the technology already exists, and would need to be iterated from a conventional state to making use of TN materials. But I don't think that's on the same order of difficulty as developing a new type of fusion energy to a workable level. As Garfunkel says, once you can build the units, they cost a lot of time/materials to deploy anyway.

Overall, it was only a suggestion. I automatically gift any TN faction in my games with brigade/division command units anyway because I find it silly that you have full divisions of conventional troops running around, but for some reason you can't figure out how to organize your TN units at the brigade level even.

[Zincat]

I think its a bad idea to remove PDC's. 

I always liked the idea of a giant planetary defence center being build, replacing that with building ground forces will make games less detailed and with less options

I also dislike the idea of removing PDCs, I liked building large multi base complexes on airless asteroids to make the battle stations that are incredibly smegty using the current rule set where they require maintenance and everything.

I think it would be best to leave PDCs in and those who don't like them don't have to use them, add Anti-space ground units in addition to the PDCs.

No reason those of us that enjoy the things should be deprived of them because some people dislike them. Its a single player only game after all. Alternatively give us a SM option to turn off maintenance for this or that so we can have our large self contained battle-stations, or a hangar on a comet hiding a cryo ship with emergency populations.

If Steve goes on and removes the PDC, you can still obtain the same by building orbital space stations. With the new rules, they can also stay in space indefinitely if they have the correct facilities. The difference is that they ARE going to require MSP to function. And of course that you'll need shipyards to build them.

Snipped for legibility. Post was getting too long

I do like the idea of having some sorts of "planetary shield" installation. They could be installations maybe. But I do not think they should stay as the PDCs like now. Once again, TN ships of any kind in the game require maintenance in the form of MSP and have to be constructed in space.

PDCs do not require TN minerals to operate and can be exploited for free maintenance and free hangars. Which can in turn be used to create long range planetary defenses for little cost. How about building 100000 missile launching PDCs? After building, they don't cost a single unit of TN minerals, just the missiles IF and WHEN a fight ensues. NOT balanced at all, you can defend an entire system (or the relevant part of it) just with PDCs which cost nothing.

I think Steve simply wants to separate the ground combat from the space combat, make a clear cut between them.
Everything that has long range capabilities goes in space, in the form of ships or orbital bases. Or deep space bases.
Anything that pertains to planetary defense instead belongs to the realm of ground unit, which also include ground-to-space batteries for beam carnage of anything that comes close.

[Felixg]

If Steve goes on and removes the PDC, you can still obtain the same by building orbital space stations. With the new rules, they can also stay in space indefinitely if they have the correct facilities. The difference is that they ARE going to require MSP to function. And of course that you'll need shipyards to build them.

It wouldn't cost anything to add a SM option to turn it off though, it adds enjoyment for some of us and those who don't want to use it don't have to use it.

PDCs do not require TN minerals to operate and can be exploited for free maintenance and free hangars. Which can in turn be used to create long range planetary defenses for little cost. How about building 100000 missile launching PDCs? After building, they don't cost a single unit of TN minerals, just the missiles IF and WHEN a fight ensues. NOT balanced at all, you can defend an entire system (or the relevant part of it) just with PDCs which cost nothing.

There are lots of exploitative things you can do in the game, but so what if someone wants to do that? Its a single player game that doesn't effect anyone else. No one is gonna be impressed when they tell a story about doing it, if they have fun doing it though why not let them have fun with it?

Why does this idea have to ruin fun for people when the two could exist side by side. As mentioned if you don't like something don't use it. And if Steve doesn't want the AIs to futz around with it then just program them to make battle stations instead.

Its the same argument for people who have been complaining about the inclusion of titans: If they don't like them they don't have to use them, but the game should have more options for more people to have fun with, not less.

[sloanjh]

Which can in turn be used to create long range planetary defenses for little cost. How about building 100000 missile launching PDCs? After building, they don't cost a single unit of TN minerals, just the missiles IF and WHEN a fight ensues. NOT balanced at all, you can defend an entire system (or the relevant part of it) just with PDCs which cost nothing.

On a historical note: my recollection is that this is exactly Steve's original vision from a decade ago about how Aurora would play:  isolated fortified systems that were very tough nuts to crack with large unoccupied stretches between them, as opposed to the way StarFire campaigns end up having front lines and hard borders.

Not advocating one way or the other in the above, just an observation.  That being said, I think the only way an interested individual might save them (given Steve's recent posts that seem to indicate that he's already made the decision) would be to figure out a way to cut WAY down on the number of places the code requires "if(!PDC){// do normal stuff}else{do PDC stuff}".  My understanding is he's tired of the code complexity and just wants it gone.

John

[bean]

PDCs do not require TN minerals to operate and can be exploited for free maintenance and free hangars. Which can in turn be used to create long range planetary defenses for little cost. How about building 100000 missile launching PDCs? After building, they don't cost a single unit of TN minerals, just the missiles IF and WHEN a fight ensues. NOT balanced at all, you can defend an entire system (or the relevant part of it) just with PDCs which cost nothing.

They don't cost nothing.  Seriously, if your games advance so slowly you can amortize the cost of the PDCs enough that they don't hurt, but the old ones aren't rendered totally obsolete by advances in technology, you need to buy more research facilities.  And they have the massive disadvantage of not being mobile, which means that all of the ones you build to protect your capitol can't be used to protect other planets.  Ships can.

[Zincat]

On a historical note: my recollection is that this is exactly Steve's original vision from a decade ago about how Aurora would play:  isolated fortified systems that were very tough nuts to crack with large unoccupied stretches between them, as opposed to the way StarFire campaigns end up having front lines and hard borders.

Really? I had no idea, I think I joined to forum in 2013 or something similar. It's quite interesting to know, never played starfire.

Not advocating one way or the other in the above, just an observation.  That being said, I think the only way an interested individual might save them (given Steve's recent posts that seem to indicate that he's already made the decision) would be to figure out a way to cut WAY down on the number of places the code requires "if(!PDC){// do normal stuff}else{do PDC stuff}".  My understanding is he's tired of the code complexity and just wants it gone.

John

That is certainly a factor. As someone who codes I can relate to that. But I get the gut feeling that he also wants ground combat to be a lot more than what it is now. And I approve, I would really, really like a more fleshed out ground combat. (Not to mention he's obviously a warhammer fan to some degree )


Just to make it clear. I don't dislike PDCs per se. I can see their value for RP purposes as well. I just dislike that they don't respect rules, and so end up as being a much cheaper and viable alternative than orbital bases or moving ships. Because yes, I can make an house rule not to use them. Just build orbital bases instead, they cost a lot more but it's fine. But still, the situation here is that one choice is strictly, always better than the alternative.
PDCs are always superior on stationary defense to any other possibility.

That is what I don't like, that I feel "strongly encouraged" to use missile PDCs for static defense because any other choice is just not nearly as good.

[Zincat]

They don't cost nothing.  Seriously, if your games advance so slowly you can amortize the cost of the PDCs enough that they don't hurt, but the old ones aren't rendered totally obsolete by advances in technology, you need to buy more research facilities.  And they have the massive disadvantage of not being mobile, which means that all of the ones you build to protect your capitol can't be used to protect other planets.  Ships can.

I disagree, they don't really go obsolete. You just update the missiles with newer, better missiles, and they still remain usable as long as you have decent sensor / fire control systems. That's the only thing you really need. Even obsolete PDCs can launch good missiles, and in quantity they can still overpower point defense. Or make enemies consume AMM ammo.

Not saying they stay as efficient as when you started, but they are still usable. For static defense, they're simply the best option. And ship/orbital bases maintenance costs are quite significant, you need to take care of the logistics for that. Building those require shipyards, which are always on demand for pressing needs of various kind.
PDCs are sturdier, can be built by factories, don't require MSPs. They're just plain better for static defense.

[MJOne]

I do not understand why some think that PDC and ground combat are related and just because you make ground combat better PDC's has to go? That argument doesn't make any sense.  Just remove barracks from PDC and everything is fine.  PDC can be planetary space weapons, end of story.  Take them out of the equation of ground combat and I see no problem for both to co-exist.