Author Topic: Replacing PDCs  (Read 83875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11658
  • Thanked: 20379 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #525 on: December 19, 2017, 02:31:36 PM »
after having read about the new "Forced Labour Camps" I am wondering if I have missed something about "Construction Brigades" in C#?

Will they still be there as atm or how will they be integrated in the new system?

Guess with some kind of "construction equipment"? and if so, will it be in different tech levels or will it be modified by as in VB7 with the "normal" production speed tech?

Was wondering as in VB7 the Construction Brigade is much larger and costly than the normal "basic fighting unit/Battalion" and how it will work in the C# system :)

You will be able to build an equivalent of the construction brigade using the new ground forces system. There is a 'construction' component, so you build a ground unit class with that component and then a formation that includes a number of those units. The size of the formation will determine its construction capability.
 

Offline King-Salomon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 38 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #526 on: December 19, 2017, 03:27:51 PM »
Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=9679. msg105685#msg105685 date=1513715496
You will be able to build an equivalent of the construction brigade using the new ground forces system.  There is a 'construction' component, so you build a ground unit class with that component and then a formation that includes a number of those units.  The size of the formation will determine its construction capability.

ah ok, thanks :)

guess it will be the same with the recovery of Alien Installations? or could/would that be a component/tech for it's own?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11658
  • Thanked: 20379 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #527 on: December 19, 2017, 06:27:05 PM »
ah ok, thanks :)

guess it will be the same with the recovery of Alien Installations? or could/would that be a component/tech for it's own?

I was planning to use the same construction component, but perhaps specialised units designed for recovery would be more interesting.
 

Offline DIT_grue

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 197
  • Thanked: 33 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #528 on: December 19, 2017, 11:10:18 PM »
I was planning to use the same construction component, but perhaps specialised units designed for recovery would be more interesting.

My first reaction was that general construction units should still be able to contribute at a significant penalty, but a few minutes more thought suggests that when you have specialised units in the model, construction workers would just make a mess even if they proceed painstakingly slowly. Messing around with a separate rewards table with more failure results seems like too much work for both programmer and player.

TLDR: Specialists would be good; failing that, the status quo isn't bad.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11658
  • Thanked: 20379 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #529 on: December 20, 2017, 03:10:42 AM »
BTW in the new model, formations can be composite, so you can give a combat formation some integral construction capability, or provide integral security within construction formations. Even at the unit level you can multi-task, having a vehicle with both armament and construction capability.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #530 on: December 20, 2017, 04:35:29 AM »
BTW in the new model, formations can be composite, so you can give a combat formation some integral construction capability, or provide integral security within construction formations. Even at the unit level you can multi-task, having a vehicle with both armament and construction capability.

Generally speaking, from a sheer efficiency point of view you want to stick with combat formations and non-combat formations. Because that means that your guns aren't idling in the backline with the construction vehicles, or your very expensive construction vehicles aren't getting shot at while the guns do their work.

About the only exception to this is ruin recovery formations. And even then it's probably a good idea to just park a separate security detail along with the construction formation. It means it's easier to rotate depleted security units, or to save your construction formation while the security unit provides a defense line at the loading zone.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #531 on: December 20, 2017, 08:22:41 AM »
Generally speaking, from a sheer efficiency point of view you want to stick with combat formations and non-combat formations. Because that means that your guns aren't idling in the backline with the construction vehicles, or your very expensive construction vehicles aren't getting shot at while the guns do their work.

About the only exception to this is ruin recovery formations. And even then it's probably a good idea to just park a separate security detail along with the construction formation. It means it's easier to rotate depleted security units, or to save your construction formation while the security unit provides a defense line at the loading zone.
While that is all true, there is a certain attraction at making transportation logistics easier for garrisons. I rather like the idea of adding a few construction engineers to my standard planetary garrison battalion so that they can slowly fortify themselves. Yes, I could achieve the same more efficiently by moving around a dedicated construction brigade, but that would be pretty tedious.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #532 on: December 20, 2017, 12:26:22 PM »
I'd favor one unit for both entrenchment and ruin recovery. Splitting them up really adds nothing and is just complexity for the sake of complexity.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #533 on: December 20, 2017, 01:58:59 PM »
While that is all true, there is a certain attraction at making transportation logistics easier for garrisons. I rather like the idea of adding a few construction engineers to my standard planetary garrison battalion so that they can slowly fortify themselves. Yes, I could achieve the same more efficiently by moving around a dedicated construction brigade, but that would be pretty tedious.

Agreed totally. Hell I'm tempted to make all my ground units 10% construction if it let's me build stuff wherever my army goes without micro management, even with PDCs removed!
 

Offline swarm_sadist

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 21 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #534 on: December 22, 2017, 10:21:06 PM »
Agreed totally. Hell I'm tempted to make all my ground units 10% construction if it let's me build stuff wherever my army goes without micro management, even with PDCs removed!

Wouldn't it be easier to make a single large HQ for each planet you want garrisoned and simply attach an appropriately sized construction unit to it?
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #535 on: December 23, 2017, 07:56:15 AM »
Wouldn't it be easier to make a single large HQ for each planet you want garrisoned and simply attach an appropriately sized construction unit to it?

I have no idea! But it sounds like it would result in more units to manage if you also want amount of construction capacity to scale with amount of units deployed ( Which I'm thinking might be a good idea ).
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #536 on: December 23, 2017, 08:15:08 AM »
I have no idea! But it sounds like it would result in more units to manage if you also want amount of construction capacity to scale with amount of units deployed ( Which I'm thinking might be a good idea ).

Generally that's not needed for a garrison; garrisons remain in place for so long that even a tiny construction unit will be able to fortify all of them eventually, and unless you are expecting them to start receiving attacks immediately that's good enough. You can just squeeze in a small construction unit for that purpose.

Construction capacity starts to become important the greater the fortification modifier of a planet. This mostly because the smaller the fortification modifier the easier it gets to assault the place. I mean, don't try to attack a desert planet with anything other than an overwhelming vehicle assault; it's prime territory for such units because while their fortification stat is crap, so is the fortification modifier. There is little difference in planet based defense for such units between the kings of fortification (infantry and static units) and vehicles. And vehicles get high armour stats and hit point pools along with multiple heavy weapon systems.

On jungle planets though?

On a jungle planet you can drop all the vehicles you want but with those modifiers in play against a properly fortified infantry or static formation your vehicles will take heavy damage on the assault against comparatively little damage for the defenders. What you need here is two things; a massive numbers advantage and the ability to fort up fast. Because that trick works both ways. You can drop a small formation of infantry and static units and fort it up to the point the defender might decide an assault is unfeasible.

You are never going to assault yourself with such a small presence because seriously, are you stupid, but it gets you a small presence in the system you don't necessarily need to maintain, effectively occupies the planet and forces the enemy to concentrate forces to get you off of it, and buys you time for whatever other plan you have. Which may be an ambush on the reinforcing fleet, an assault on a different sector now the enemy is distracted or just buying time to get more, fresh formations into the fight on planet while your fleet maintains an orbital presence.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #537 on: December 23, 2017, 09:26:41 AM »
Generally that's not needed for a garrison; garrisons remain in place for so long that even a tiny construction unit will be able to fortify all of them eventually,

I'm not talking about only fortification, but everything else neat you can do with construction in terms of getting logistics started. The more important planet the more forces and the more construction you want to kickstart it.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2017, 09:36:45 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline swarm_sadist

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 21 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #538 on: December 23, 2017, 10:04:59 AM »

On a jungle planet you can drop all the vehicles you want but with those modifiers in play against a properly fortified infantry or static formation your vehicles will take heavy damage on the assault against comparatively little damage for the defenders. What you need here is two things; a massive numbers advantage and the ability to fort up fast. Because that trick works both ways. You can drop a small formation of infantry and static units and fort it up to the point the defender might decide an assault is unfeasible.

You are never going to assault yourself with such a small presence because seriously, are you stupid, but it gets you a small presence in the system you don't necessarily need to maintain, effectively occupies the planet and forces the enemy to concentrate forces to get you off of it, and buys you time for whatever other plan you have. Which may be an ambush on the reinforcing fleet, an assault on a different sector now the enemy is distracted or just buying time to get more, fresh formations into the fight on planet while your fleet maintains an orbital presence.

You just described trench warfare...
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11658
  • Thanked: 20379 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #539 on: December 26, 2017, 07:27:42 PM »
First screenshot of the Order of Battle tab on the Ground Forces window. This tab helps you view and organise your ground forces. It isn't complete, but has enough functionality to demonstrate the level of detail available. While this screenshot represents a fairly standard OOB, there is a lot more flexibility than VB6 Aurora. You can add more levels in the hierarchy and attach formations directly to Division or higher command levels without having to go through lower levels. I'll show that in a later post.

This is the most basic view, where a single, lowest level formation has been selected. The top line on the right shows a summary of the entire formation, while the formation unit list shows how that summary breaks down in the constituent elements. Each element has a number of specific unit class. Morale functions at the element, rather than formation, level.

Formations, or groups of formations, can be dragged and dropped within the hierarchy, so it is very easy to rearrange the order of battle.



When you click on a higher level formation, with attachments, much more information becomes available. The formation selected is shown as above, but also the the high level summary of any directly attached formations. The total organisation is the total for the current formation, plus all formations below it in the hierarchy.

As before, there is a breakdown of the elements of the current formation. That is now accompanied by a summary of all units within the hierarchy headed by the selected formation.



Now we move up another level. A summary of the formation selected is shown as below, plus the high level summary of the directly attached formations. However, those directly attached formations also have attached formations so each summary contains the complete hierarchy for each directly attached formation. The total organisation is the total for the current formation, plus all formations at any point below it in the hierarchy.



When Location Hierarchy is selected, the tree view expands to include systems, populations and ships. Units remain in their organisation structure but are now split between different locations. In this view, the summary and organisational lists only include formations within the same location. For example, the selected Third Imperial Guard Brigade has only two of its subordinate formation on Avalon and two on Barnard's Star-III. The summary and organisation list show just those two subordinate formations. Switching between the two views will allow the player to manage his organisational structure while being able to easily see where his formations are located.



Selecting a population shows a summary of all the forces at that location.



More to follow...
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel, JacenHan, mtm84, Shiwanabe, serger