Author Topic: Replacing PDCs  (Read 82048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #555 on: January 02, 2018, 01:15:04 PM »
Looks great!

UI Feedback nitpicks on Part 1:

- Calling it Heavy, Medium and Light for all three of Base Unit Types, Component Types and Armor Types looks a bit confusing. Especially things like having a Heavy Vehicles with Light vehicle armor isn't perfectly clear what it does or how it would compare to a Light Vehicle with Heavy vehicle armor. Maybe Armour Types could be renamed to something like "Thin, Normal/Standard and Thick" instead?

- It's pretty unintuitive to have the "Additional Components" in the opposite corner of the UI compared to where you select the main component, and I can't find an overview in the UI for how many component slots the various vehicles/unit types support ( might be helpful to see somewhere in text or tooltip in case it can't already be seen )

- Maybe STO Weapon Types should not be shown when a unit type that can't use them is picked ( or even when you don't have any such components picked ). It looks a bit strange to see that the Example tank have a STO Weapon type selected (10cm C3 Ultraviolet Laser).
 

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #556 on: January 02, 2018, 01:27:37 PM »
maybe I have missed something but I was reading he whole chances again the last days and was thinking. . .

how will the new Ground-Force mechanic influence the addition of Titans?

It sould be logical if the whole Titan-concept would be outdated with the new system - but I think I have not read if and how it would be added with the new system. . . .

will there still be "Titans" in the new ground-force system or are these ideas obsolete now (which I would prefer)?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #557 on: January 02, 2018, 02:03:10 PM »
maybe I have missed something but I was reading he whole chances again the last days and was thinking. . .

how will the new Ground-Force mechanic influence the addition of Titans?

It sould be logical if the whole Titan-concept would be outdated with the new system - but I think I have not read if and how it would be added with the new system. . . .

will there still be "Titans" in the new ground-force system or are these ideas obsolete now (which I would prefer)?

Titans no longer exist as a separate mechanic and I need to remove the rule post. However, you can create a Titan-equivalent using the new rules.
 

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #558 on: January 02, 2018, 02:03:58 PM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=9679. msg105833#msg105833 date=1514923390
Titans no longer exist as a separate mechanic and I need to remove the rule post.  However, you can create a Titan-equivalent using the new rules.

That's what I thought, thank you for clarification :)
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #559 on: January 02, 2018, 02:08:28 PM »
Looks great!

UI Feedback nitpicks on Part 1:

- Calling it Heavy, Medium and Light for all three of Base Unit Types, Component Types and Armor Types looks a bit confusing. Especially things like having a Heavy Vehicles with Light vehicle armor isn't perfectly clear what it does or how it would compare to a Light Vehicle with Heavy vehicle armor. Maybe Armour Types could be renamed to something like "Thin, Normal/Standard and Thick" instead?

Light Vehicle Armour or Heavy Vehicle Armour is the same no matter which type of vehicle it is on. However, a vehicle can only use armour equal to its own classification or less. So a Heavy Vehicle cannot use Super-Heavy Vehicle Armour. Infantry and Static have their own armour progressions but each is specified as Infantry or Static armour.

Quote
- It's pretty unintuitive to have the "Additional Components" in the opposite corner of the UI compared to where you select the main component, and I can't find an overview in the UI for how many component slots the various vehicles/unit types support ( might be helpful to see somewhere in text or tooltip in case it can't already be seen )

- Maybe STO Weapon Types should not be shown when a unit type that can't use them is picked ( or even when you don't have any such components picked ). It looks a bit strange to see that the Example tank have a STO Weapon type selected (10cm C3 Ultraviolet Laser).

Agree on the STO Weapons (and CIWS). I should probably just hide that section unless STO is selected. Also agree on the Additional Components. I'll probably move them underneath the main component list.

EDIT: Made the STO and Additional Component changes and updated the rules post and screenshots.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2018, 07:19:06 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1047 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #560 on: January 02, 2018, 07:52:48 PM »
Nice nice nice, starting to really shape up well!
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 539
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #561 on: January 02, 2018, 09:45:15 PM »
Looks great!

UI Feedback nitpicks on Part 1:

- Calling it Heavy, Medium and Light for all three of Base Unit Types, Component Types and Armor Types looks a bit confusing. Especially things like having a Heavy Vehicles with Light vehicle armor isn't perfectly clear what it does or how it would compare to a Light Vehicle with Heavy vehicle armor. Maybe Armour Types could be renamed to something like "Thin, Normal/Standard and Thick" instead?

The way I understand it, "light" vs "heavy" for the vehicle means weight, size and construction sturdiness. General things, kept vague so that one can RP it how you want. The armour is heavy armour or light armour or whatever. So a superheavy vehicle with no/light armour, think something like the space shuttle crawler. Whereas a superheavy vehicle with superheavy armour would be a super-tank or heavily armoured walker or whatever. But you can't put superheavy armour on something that isn't large and powerful enough to support it.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #562 on: January 03, 2018, 05:35:01 AM »
The way I understand it, "light" vs "heavy" for the vehicle means weight, size and construction sturdiness. General things, kept vague so that one can RP it how you want. The armour is heavy armour or light armour or whatever. So a superheavy vehicle with no/light armour, think something like the space shuttle crawler. Whereas a superheavy vehicle with superheavy armour would be a super-tank or heavily armoured walker or whatever. But you can't put superheavy armour on something that isn't large and powerful enough to support it.

I sure understand what it meant, and maybe most others do as well. It's just from a usability and interface standpoint you generally want to avoid re-using the same words for alot of different things. Using "Heavy" to describe 3 different things ( vehicle weight class, armor thickness and weapon/component size ), "works" but it's not super clear.

If I say I designed a "heavy unit" for example, what did I mean then? Was it a heavy vehicle, a unit with heavy armor or a unit with a heavy weapon?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #563 on: January 03, 2018, 07:33:53 AM »
I have almost completed the process of how a single shot works.

To Hit Check: Starting with base chance to hit (which I need to decide in conjunction with frequency of ground combat phases)
1)   If fortification level is 1, multiply by Hit Mod of Target Base Type
2)   If fortification level > 1, divide by (Fortification Level of Unit * Fortification Modifier of Terrain)
3)   Multiply by Dominant Terrain To-Hit Modifier for Firing
4)   Divide by 2 for each applicable case: Extreme Temperature, Extreme Pressure, Extreme Gravity (outside of species tolerance).
5)   Multiply by Morale / 100.
6)   Multiply by 2 for each applicable capability

Armour Penetration Check: (Weapon AP / Armour)^2

Damage Check: Weapon Damage / Target HP

If all three checks are passed, the target is destroyed.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2018, 05:10:12 PM by Steve Walmsley »
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #564 on: January 03, 2018, 01:50:01 PM »
1)   If fortification level is 1, multiply by Hit Mod of Target Base Type
3)   If fortification level > 1, divide by (Fortification Level of Unit * Fortification Modifier of Terrain)

Hum, maybe this should be to just use the lower (that is to say, lower chance to hit) value of the two? That way light vehicles don't instantly become more vulnerable when slightly fortified. (Also you appear to have switched up numbers 2 and 3)
« Last Edit: January 03, 2018, 02:06:17 PM by Bremen »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #565 on: January 03, 2018, 07:03:11 PM »
Quick screenshot showing a formation template for an Engineer Regiment. I've settled on 150 tons for a Construction component, with a build capacity equal to 1/20th of a construction factory. A vehicle base type can hold two construction components for a cost of 12.72 BP for a vehicle with 0.1 Construction Factory Equivalents (CFE). Ten such vehicles would cost 127.2 BP and be the equivalent of one factory.

In this case, the formation has the equivalent of 2.5 construction factories, plus a small security detachment. Alternatively, small numbers of construction vehicles could be included with headquarters formations or even combat units to provide a small inherent construction capacity.

I've also updated this tab to combine components into a single column and add a preferred target type column. I'll update the rules post at some point with the new screen.

 
The following users thanked this post: MagusXIX

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #566 on: January 03, 2018, 10:27:27 PM »
I've settled on 150 tons for a Construction component, with a build capacity equal to 1/20th of a construction factory. A vehicle base type can hold two construction components for a cost of 12.72 BP for a vehicle with 0.1 Construction Factory Equivalents (CFE). Ten such vehicles would cost 127.2 BP and be the equivalent of one factory.

really cool screenshot  ;D

maybe I have my math wrong but what got me irritated:

a construction factory costs 150 BP - the quivalent in Construction Vehicle 127 BP

1 factory has a cargo space of 25.000t - 2,5 factories in Construction Vehicles without security have a cargo space of 8.000t = 3200/factory

1 factory needs 50k population - Construction Vehicle needs 0 population...

I guess if these numbers would stay that nobody would ever again build factories after he got TN-industries running, only ground unit facilities and construction Units (cheaper after you have the facilities running, 7,8x more mobile, no population need)...

"I've settled on 150t for a Construction component" does not sound like a "dummie number" - so maybe I have an error in my thinking  ??? ???
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #567 on: January 03, 2018, 10:37:55 PM »
I think ground units have maintenance and construction factories don't, which would be pretty big if you tried to run your entire economy on them.

I take it engineers produce BP in addition to helping fortify units? I actually couldn't mind if they were purely combat engineers/ruin excavators; without PDCs there's not a lot of need for ground troops to build stuff, and still less if you start garrisoning worlds without populations.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #568 on: January 04, 2018, 05:53:34 AM »
really cool screenshot  ;D

maybe I have my math wrong but what got me irritated:

a construction factory costs 150 BP - the quivalent in Construction Vehicle 127 BP

1 factory has a cargo space of 25.000t - 2,5 factories in Construction Vehicles without security have a cargo space of 8.000t = 3200/factory

1 factory needs 50k population - Construction Vehicle needs 0 population...

I guess if these numbers would stay that nobody would ever again build factories after he got TN-industries running, only ground unit facilities and construction Units (cheaper after you have the facilities running, 7,8x more mobile, no population need)...

"I've settled on 150t for a Construction component" does not sound like a "dummie number" - so maybe I have an error in my thinking  ??? ???

A construction factory is 120 BP, not 150 BP.

Yes, it is less space to transport construction vehicles than installations, but you need troop transport bays rather than cargo bays. A 100 HS cargo bay is 12 BP, compared to 80 BP for the same size troop transport bay. Also, you pay 12.5% maintenance per annum on ground forces so after 10 years the equivalent construction vehicles will cost double the construction factories. Finally, it is a lot easier to build construction factories than construction vehicles because they can build themselves.

The main advantage of construction vehicles is they are immediately available without the need for supporting population, so despite their higher cost they are more convenient.

 
The following users thanked this post: King-Salomon

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #569 on: January 04, 2018, 05:55:46 AM »
I think ground units have maintenance and construction factories don't, which would be pretty big if you tried to run your entire economy on them.

I take it engineers produce BP in addition to helping fortify units? I actually couldn't mind if they were purely combat engineers/ruin excavators; without PDCs there's not a lot of need for ground troops to build stuff, and still less if you start garrisoning worlds without populations.

Yes, they will produce BPs as well if they are not fortifying units.