Author Topic: Replacing PDCs  (Read 33806 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Andrew

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 364
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #315 on: November 13, 2017, 04:28:34 AM »
The thing I like about PDC's is recreating locations similar to the Rock of Gibraltar , Singapore or the other heavily fortified anchorages of navel history , I don't use them as Hangers just as bases for heavy artillery in massively fortified locations. This also recreates several sci fi novels and to me heavily built armoured fortresses seem more 'realistic' for serious planetary defense rather than relying on mobile launchers to defend against bombardment from orbit .
At the moment it looks to me that those options will be gone with the new system which is a pity. I don't have any strict ties to any of the mechanics of the PDC I just think that building a massive missile base into a mountain range to defend a planet is a cool thing to do
 
The following users thanked this post: Felixg, iceball3

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 845
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #316 on: November 13, 2017, 02:30:19 PM »
I just think that building a massive missile base into a mountain range to defend a planet is a cool thing to do

AMEN!
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 
The following users thanked this post: iceball3

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • o
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #317 on: November 13, 2017, 04:43:43 PM »
They're kept at combat ready. And I mean 'immediately go right now' levels of combat ready. That would mean a lot of preventative maintenance just in case, which is where the maintenance fees come from.

Something could be said about keeping ships at a lower ready state with wealth replacing some of the TN material cost, but in that case I'd want a requirement that putting those ships back in action takes shipyard time and TN resources. Because then you actually need to weigh 'do I want to replace my ships fully, or do I keep them mothballed at a cost?' Of course, refitting a ship out of mothballs should also cost at least as much as refitting the originating ship class to whatever new gear you want to put into it, quite possibly costing somewhat more in TN materials and time compared to a combat ready ship.

And no PPV for ships in mothballs either.

Others suggested mothballing ... I just want maintenance-free docking, which is why I sink enormous capital into building 200,000-ton (so far) hangars for my naval bases. I love the maintenance rules when my ships are deployed. I even love the fact the game "makes" me build naval docks to avoid TN material evaporation. I just don't want to be forced to watch TN evaporation for ships that are just sitting at base. The maintenance-rules option at startup is all-or-nothing; I want breakdowns and supply concerns, but not when my ships are in stardock (where I'd still have to pay, billet, and feed crew, which is why I'm willing to pay in "wealth").

If there was an actual mothballing feature, instead of what I'm talking about, I'd like what you recommend. (Although both would only reasonably coexist if mothballing freed up/ crew or saved on their expense---if there was a wealth cost for the military payroll.)
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 895
  • Thanked: 46 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #318 on: November 13, 2017, 05:31:10 PM »
The thing I like about PDC's is recreating locations similar to the Rock of Gibraltar , Singapore or the other heavily fortified anchorages of navel history , I don't use them as Hangers just as bases for heavy artillery in massively fortified locations. This also recreates several sci fi novels and to me heavily built armoured fortresses seem more 'realistic' for serious planetary defense rather than relying on mobile launchers to defend against bombardment from orbit .
At the moment it looks to me that those options will be gone with the new system which is a pity. I don't have any strict ties to any of the mechanics of the PDC I just think that building a massive missile base into a mountain range to defend a planet is a cool thing to do

So would you be happy if there was an Installation the size and cost* of a Construction Factory called 'Defence Centre' that functioned as CIWS for a planet?  It should probably give PPV as well, and its effectiveness be tied to planetary diameter or mass, so Earth would need (say) six times as many Defence Centres as Luna to get the same effective protection (perhaps expressed as a percent chance to shoot down incoming missiles, using the ol' armoured-missile-destruction-chance formula (1/(1+DCs)) all divided by some figure representing planetary mass or diameter).

Now Planet Gibraltar con dedicate 35% of its facilities to Defence Centres and be a really tough nut to nuke, without every planet becoming nigh-immune to bombardment.


*The cost would probably be half Duranium to represent the structure and armour, and half Neutronium for the advanced armour & kinetic weapons.  Maybe Corbomite for stealth systems and shields to protect it from direct assualt, or just because not very much seems to use Corbomite.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 971
  • Thanked: 32 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #319 on: November 14, 2017, 01:59:57 AM »
So would you be happy if there was an Installation the size and cost* of a Construction Factory called 'Defence Centre' that functioned as CIWS for a planet?  It should probably give PPV as well, and its effectiveness be tied to planetary diameter or mass, so Earth would need (say) six times as many Defence Centres as Luna to get the same effective protection (perhaps expressed as a percent chance to shoot down incoming missiles, using the ol' armoured-missile-destruction-chance formula (1/(1+DCs)) all divided by some figure representing planetary mass or diameter).

To be honest I don't see what the point of a CIWS base at ground would be since your basically restricting the field of fire to at best half of the sky, and (at least in using Earth as an example) get issues with atmosphere and targeting.

Put it at 20000km orbit instead and you have almost free field of fire in all directions instead...


Now a missile silo might work better on the ground instead ( seeing how it needs logistics and storage for missiles, and how any hits to magazines could provide a risk meaning more need for protection ).
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 02:13:50 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 845
  • Thanked: 14 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #320 on: November 14, 2017, 03:17:20 PM »
Now a missile silo might work better on the ground instead ( seeing how it needs logistics and storage for missiles, and how any hits to magazines could provide a risk meaning more need for protection ).

Actually I'd be fine with things like that,  Single use facilities that can be built just like other planetary infrastructure,  like a Missile Silo facility, A Hangar Facility, a Bunker Facility (increased protection for ground troops) sort of thing
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline Felixg

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • F
  • Posts: 46
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #321 on: November 16, 2017, 07:13:21 AM »
I also enjoyed being able to build pdcs on asteroids and the like with long range beam weapons and sensor facilities to make it an attractive target,  thus creating an orbital battle station that wasn't terrible like the current stations that we have been forced to use.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1238
  • Thanked: 50 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #322 on: November 16, 2017, 07:41:01 AM »
There's nothing stopping you from doing a dug-in STO beam base using ground units in C#.

 

Offline plasticpanzers

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • p
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #323 on: November 16, 2017, 05:08:45 PM »
There is a world of difference between a Cheyenne Mountain style complex that covers a hundred square miles and a dug-in battery of SCUD missiles with a command vehicle behind a berm.   The thing is PDC's are too inexpensive in the game.   They are a simple multiplication of assets where the actual size and complexity of such a massive investment is not properly gauged.   They need an exponentially growing crew and maintenance and security as they get larger
and larger.   Its a difference between what is basically a grounded space cruiser to a PDC that most of us understand from the Sci-fi universe.   There perhaps should be a limiting size based upon population as a populace would be required to help backup maintenance and provide support services.   To replace PDCs with simple ground units and a bulldozer is not the same.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1238
  • Thanked: 50 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #324 on: November 16, 2017, 06:34:41 PM »
You're limiting yourself.  Aurora isnt even really a game. It's a storytelling engine.  There is nothing stopping you from saying a fortress ship/habitat design is actually a planetary fort, or from saying that a collection of STO beam units+sensors+maintenance facility+fuel/ammo dump is a single military facility.

 
The following users thanked this post: obsidian_green

Offline plasticpanzers

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • p
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #325 on: November 16, 2017, 09:31:27 PM »
True but using my shoe for a hammer does not make it a hammer.   In the game engine if they are the same then why bother
to include ground units?   A hole dug by a bulldozer for your SCUD is just not the same thing as a 'Planetary Defense Center'.
Miles of underground tunnels and armored launchers is not a engineer built product.   Taking the PDC away is the problem.
Giving it to ground units is both not really 'engineering possible' nor plausible.   Somehow nuclear powered shovels and picks
and multi-armored sandbags don't seem realistic...
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 268
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #326 on: November 16, 2017, 10:39:01 PM »
I do agree with the general assessment that it is questionable to arbitrarily declare a unit as a PDC when it isnt, especially if said unit is meant to be able to leave the planet (is mobile), which would in turn influence its cost.  The logistics of properly working this sort of thing into the game is nontrivial.

Forcibly shoe horning something into the game extensively and at great effort isn't really great and usually people want to avoid it so as to allow the game to generate an experience for them rather than them forcing the experience from the game, thereby removing said game as an actor with agency.

e: muh edits (didnt really change the meaning of the post much)
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 10:45:39 PM by QuakeIV »
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1238
  • Thanked: 50 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #327 on: November 17, 2017, 01:03:44 AM »
PDCs are just ships with limitations.  Their only real advantage in combat is 4 layers of armor, which..whatever, who cares. Build a fortress base at your planet, call it The Hill or Cheyenne Mountain. 

you can make static ground units, you can put STO weapons on them, i see no reason you cant parlay this into making them components of your PDC's defense grid. 
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 01:09:32 AM by TheDeadlyShoe »
 

Offline Gyrfalcon

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • G
  • Posts: 137
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #328 on: November 17, 2017, 01:52:27 AM »
I think at this point, it's better to just stop debating this. Everyone is basically just restating their positions over and over again, and there's no ability to either understand or agree with the other party's position.

In the end, Steve has chosen not to include PDCs in the new version of Aurora, and people will have to work with the system that is, not the system that they wish existed.
 
The following users thanked this post: sloanjh

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1238
  • Thanked: 50 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #329 on: November 17, 2017, 01:54:35 AM »
Nah.  it's not just a matter of positions. Aurora's always been klutzy.  You've always had to bludgeon it a bit.  Do the various Space 1889 campaigns make any sense at all in the game system? Not really.  They arn't firing at each other from 100 million km away 'in fiction'.  Is the game balanced? Hell no. You've always had to kludge it.

The new system, even as currently stated (not done!) easily offers you the tools to make bases you can call PDCs, either of the ship variety or of making structures + ground units.  You can even have it cost industry instead of SY by using some SM magic. (Although having to tow a SY to an asteroid, build habitats for the workers, and construct the 'PDC-base' on site would be a fairly epic industrial undertaking.)

Ultimately, I don't think Aurora works if you are unwilling to bend the system in this manner.

« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 01:59:59 AM by TheDeadlyShoe »
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53