Replacing PDCs

[chrislocke2000]

For the likes of marines and other more elite units, rather than have yet more sub units to deal with what about having variable training times for each unit. I.e. If your basic light infantry unit takes six months to try have an option to extend that to 8 months and then give them plus 10% stats. You then have a trade off on build time and quality without more unit types and it's up to the player to name them as they want.

[alex_brunius]

There has been a definite trend towards making one-stop auxiliaries.  They do this the same way I make AOEs in Aurora, by fitting the ships with spaces for MSPs, missiles, and fuel.  If you look at the capacity breakdowns on those ships, they have specific spaces for each type of item.  A T-AKE isn't a ship you can use as an AE one day and an AK the next.  It's half of one and half of the other.

Maybe just make units use MSP instead of a logistics unit for supply? Seems like it would simplify things nicely while also making MSP more important.

This brings up another point actually.

With as much detail added to logistics to support space combat in C# Aurora, what about the logistics to support ground/planetary combat?

- Do large amounts of airplanes and vehicles need to have fuel shipped in to support them?
- Do large amounts of airplanes and vehicles need to have ammunition shipped in to support them?
- Do large amounts of airplanes and vehicles need to have other supplies ( repair & maintenance ) shipped in to support them?
- Do vehicles with anti space weapons ( like missiles ) need to have supply of missiles to support continued fighting?
- Do they carry amounts of the above with them ( like ships do ) which needs to be replaced when consumed?


I'm not saying that must necessarily be the case for all of the above, but it would be a shame to have nothing but a sacrificial single logistics unit represented when there is such a good framework for space logistics ( and also inconsistent to add yet another form of logistics/supply without taking advantage of synergies in place ). We shouldn't forget that in the end the real Navy's main role is to support the boots on the ground that are needed to complete the objective and end the war. ( Escort them to their target, support + supply them and prevent the enemy from reinforcing their defenses ).

[FrederickAlexander]

I have concerns about the apparent level of complexity for the user in the new ground combat scheme. If I could be certain that all this detail stayed under the hood, I'd feel more enthusiastic.

Going on this I agree that to someone new this would be a bit much so having pre-made units would be helpful to have along with the ability to make your own. Perhaps these get added after researching the components that go with them along with a standard "Trans-Newtonian Ground Combat" tech that unlocks some basic pre-made ground units, ground unit types, and light/essential components.

Maybe just make units use MSP instead of a logistics unit for supply? Seems like it would simplify things nicely while also making MSP more important.

This also would be a an excellent replacement but it wouldn't be too hard to have a pre-made unarmored vehicles with two logistic components.

[FrederickAlexander]

As for using ground weapons tech based on ship weapons, I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, having certain ground compents use the tech of certain weapon components would make it easier to deal with when making new units, while on the other hand, having the abillity to choose what tech to use in ground combat would allow a player to have a better expirence when role-playing. Why not simplify it and make ground weapons be a separate research item?
Example:

[Anti-Personal Tech rank 1]
[Anti Vehicle Tech rank 1]
[Anti-Air Tech rank 1]
[Ground based CWIS rank 1]
[GtO Weapon Systems rank 1]
[TN Artillery rank 1]
[Anti-Personal Tech rank 2]
...

Not only would that allow a limit on how strong your force's components are as well as add tech to the new Ground Combat Research tab. You can also have each tech have prerequisites for each ground weapon to require the player to have certain basic weapon tech in other tabs before being able to upgrade ground weapons. Since you need to make a new Ship component blueprint to use new weapon tech, requiring ground based weapons to have a certain tech level in other fields isn't to much of a stretch. You can also require Races to have "Medium Anti-Personal Weapons" and "Heavy Anti-Personal Weapons" to unlock the different type of weapons while the overall Race Ground Weapon Level can be a separate entity like missile agility and warhead strength.

[Hazard]

Problem with requiring a Logistics unit is that such a unit would need constant attention as it's drained dry and can get you mostly drained units you need to ship around like they're still full in troop transport bays, while with MSP you can just drop a supply cache on planet for all your troops to use. Either MSP or a separate Ground Supply Point produced in the same manner would be less annoying. Not least of which because you can set MSP production up for basically forever.

[FrederickAlexander]

Problem with requiring a Logistics unit is that such a unit would need constant attention as it's drained dry and can get you mostly drained units you need to ship around like they're still full in troop transport bays, while with MSP you can just drop a supply cache on planet for all your troops to use. Either MSP or a separate Ground Supply Point produced in the same manner would be less annoying. Not least of which because you can set MSP production up for basically forever.

Why not have Logistics units play a similar function as spaceports? Other than that I agree that there is no real point to include them, even if it would be simple to have a standard Logistic unit.

[83athom]

Again going back to PDCs; another use of them would be logistics supply bases for ground forces. A place to repair/refuel vehicles, rest up and heal the injured, and coordinate the networks of combat (information, logistics, tactics, etc). Adding in a logistics supply for ground forces reinforces the need for PDCs to stay.

[FrederickAlexander]

Again going back to PDCs; another use of them would be logistics supply bases for ground forces. A place to repair/refuel vehicles, rest up and heal the injured, and coordinate the networks of combat (information, logistics, tactics, etc). Adding in a logistics supply for ground forces reinforces the need for PDCs to stay.

So if we are going to be remove PDC's, then logistics should be simpler and if we aren't then the PDC's will need a another layer of complexity to them? It would be difficult to keep them as they are now given the new combat mechanics that relies on mobile combat. Replacing them with a Unit Type with 4 components that is unable to be transported from planet to planet 'might' be a good idea. However, since Logistics units will be drained away, it might not be wise to have them in anyways. There is also the problem of how to simulate what happens when a PDC/Base gets surrounded and they are cut of both from the population that maintains them and their outside ordnance supplies. Taking one would be basically trying to take another, smaller, planet.

[bean]

A quick google tells you in 2 seconds that 60% of all cargo tonnage ( fuel/oil make up the vast majority of the remaining 40%, meaning it can be mostly excluded ), are container shipping:

https://www.statista.com/topics/1367/container-shipping/

If your going to go around and claim stuff at least do basic research first.

If you're going to criticize my handling of the numbers, at least make sure the numbers you quote actually say what you think they say.  Which, in this case, they don't.  That's 60% by value, not 60% by tonnage.  These are very, very different numbers, and I have no problem at all believing that things carried in containers are more valuable than things carried in bulk.
Also, I explicitly didn't just leave 9.7% standing there by itself.  You snipped the point where I followed up by pointing out that excluding everything except container ships and bulk carriers, the average container ship would have to be 20x as big as the average bulker for the numbers to work.

In cargo shipping there is literally nothing preventing you from using a vehicle carrier to move containers or bulk cargo either, you just roll on a truck with the container/bulk on it.

Yes.  It's called ro-ro.  It's a lot less efficient.

Or vice versa you can use cranes to load vehicles in bulk cargo holds or even container ships if there is unused space. Might take a bit more time to load/unload and secure the cargo but it's done all the time. I work next to one of the largest shipping ports in the country and pass by it every day.

And I drove right through the two largest container ports in the US at least once a week on average until a month ago.  Your point is?
Also, you don't seem to understand what bulk cargo is in a modern context.  Grain carriers do not have hatches sized for vehicles.  Break-bulk is a different matter, but there are precious few of those in service these days.

[83athom]

So if we are going to be remove PDC's, then logistics should be simpler and if we aren't then the PDC's will need a another layer of complexity to them? It would be difficult to keep them as they are now given the new combat mechanics that relies on mobile combat.

The point I was making is to overhaul their systems alongside the new ground-forces change, not separately. Yes, you could make the new logistics system easier if PDCs were outright removed, yet then you lose some depth in that system. I was suggesting they would make decent/good staging areas much like FOBs would IRL.

Replacing them with a Unit Type with 4 components that is unable to be transported from planet to planet 'might' be a good idea. However, since Logistics units will be drained away, it might not be wise to have them in anyways.

No, having a "Unit" simulate them nor making them immobile are both poor choices. Going to how they are build/designed currently, they are very much like prefab buildings that can be hotdroped at a location then built up quickly by a construction brigade. Under the new mechanics, it could work like this; You droppod in your shock/assault troops to form a beachhead, you then land at said beachhead to drop off your support units and PDC components, and as you are building up your FOB you land the rest of the invasion force which then is supported by your PDC FOBs for when they receive damage and injuries. That FOB could also have artillery and/or anti-vehicle/titan weaponry to secure the area to allow the bulk of your combat forces to then push out and secure the area and invade while you retain a landing site to bring in more troops and supplies.

There is also the problem of how to simulate what happens when a PDC/Base gets surrounded and they are cut of both from the population that maintains them and their outside ordnance supplies.

Same as "mobile" units, they get overrun. The difference between them and PDCs is that the PDCs can pack ordinance, supplies, and food to last months or years while the mobile units will run out pretty quickly. Again, that is why PDCs could be made to fulfill the FOB support route to be able to supply those mobile units with what they need.

Taking one would be basically trying to take another, smaller, planet.

And that is the entire point behind PDCs.

[alex_brunius]

That's 60% by value, not 60% by tonnage.  These are very, very different numbers, and I have no problem at all believing that things carried in containers are more valuable than things carried in bulk.

I'm not so sure it says value at all. The way they put it is "approximately 60 percent of all world seaborne trade, which was valued at ...". The value is just a piece of trivia information, not something that automatically is used to categorize the trade % specified. Default way to categorize amount of trade would be by amount of it.

If I say I'm going to trade you 60% of my fruits, and I mention that my fruits are valued at a total of x $, your still going to assume you will get 3 out of my 5 fruits ( the amount ) not 60% of them based on their dollar value...

Also, I explicitly didn't just leave 9.7% standing there by itself.  You snipped the point where I followed up by pointing out that excluding everything except container ships and bulk carriers, the average container ship would have to be 20x as big as the average bulker for the numbers to work.

Your still ignoring fuel/oil shipping ( for the 3:ed time ), and that I am talking about major trade between main international ports. Not the thousands upon thousands of smaller ~1000 ton ships doing coastal trade which make up most of the other 90% of total ships ( and which is below the scale to care about).

Take those factors into account and it's perfectly reasonable most of all tonnage traded (internationally) is standardized container shipping today.


Even so I would be perfectly fine if the type of Cargo holds in Aurora was split up after a similar amount as cargo is split in reality (3 types or so), and could accept a bit further too as long as it's easy and cheap to refit ships to swap between them.

[TheRowan]

I'm not so sure it says value at all. The way they put it is "approximately 60 percent of all world seaborne trade, which was valued at ...". The value is just a piece of trivia information, not something that automatically is used to categorize the trade % specified. Default way to categorize amount of trade would be by amount of it.

As someone who works in the maritime industry (Merchant Navy Deck Officer), 60% by value transported by container sounds about right.... Probably 30% or so in the tanker trade and the remaining 10% or so by bulk carriers and general cargo ships. And that is between hub ports... It would be very rare to unload a container and then re-ship its contents on a bulkie or general cargo ship, the containers will tend to get to their final destination either by smaller "feeder" container ships, trucks, or freight rail.

However, 10% by mass also sounds about right. Bear in mind the massive difference in the values of the cargo per ton... A large container ship like a Triple-E class will carry around 120,000 tons fully loaded while a large bulk carrier will carry about 400,000 tons. When you think about the difference in cost of a ton of iron ore compared to a ton of iPhones, you see where the discrepancy comes from.

[bean]

I'm not so sure it says value at all. The way they put it is "approximately 60 percent of all world seaborne trade, which was valued at ...". The value is just a piece of trivia information, not something that automatically is used to categorize the trade % specified. Default way to categorize amount of trade would be by amount of it.

Exact quote:

In terms of value, global seaborne container trade is believed to account for approximately 60 percent of all world seaborne trade,

I was polite earlier, but then you doubled down after I pointed out the error.  You're arguing in bad faith (or incapable of reading), so I'm done talking to you.  Do I think a majority (>50%) of international big-ship tonnage (excluding petroleum) is in containers?  Yes.  Is it >90%?  No.  These two positions are not incompatible, and imply very different things about the structure of the modern cargo market as relevant to Aurora.

However, 10% by mass also sounds about right. Bear in mind the massive difference in the values of the cargo per ton... A large container ship like a Triple-E class will carry around 120,000 tons fully loaded while a large bulk carrier will carry about 400,000 tons. When you think about the difference in cost of a ton of iron ore compared to a ton of iPhones, you see where the discrepancy comes from.

That wasn't by mass, that was by hull count.  I'd expect you're looking at something like 20-30% by mass, given that your average container ship is a good deal bigger than a general cargo ship or a non-oceangoing bulkie.

[83athom]

Can we get back to the topic of PDCs and separate this discussion on shipping to another thread?

[FrederickAlexander]

If you want depth you should just make every unit it's own ship like entity so that it can range from the size of a company to the size of a brigade, have each unit require it's own weapon design such as a guass rifle, and use a new resource called supply so that PDC's can supply them as well as Logistic units.