Replacing PDCs

[Hazard]

There is only 1 thing that encourages invasion over glassing; the cost vs benefit analysis of occupation versus obliteration.

If it's deemed more profitable to invade for any reason, economic, moral or otherwise, an invasion force will be provided. For anything else the planet will either be cut from the enemy supply lines to leave enemy troops and colonies to wither on the vine, or be shot until nothing is left.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

There is only 1 thing that encourages invasion over glassing; the cost vs benefit analysis of occupation versus obliteration.

That is true for VB6 Aurora. It probably won't be in C# Aurora. When you can churn out CIWS ground units to protect a planet for less than 50 BP each, it is going to be hard to get missile strikes on a well defended planet. Taking on the CIWS units with beam-armed ships is going to be hard if there are numerous, well-fortified energy weapons on the planet (plus the CIWS will be fortified too).

In this scenario, the best way to take the planet could be a single, large wave of drop ships to deliver an invasion force. Those invading ground forces can't be harmed by the CIWS and STO units, so the planet's defending ground forces will have to be sufficient to defend the CIWS and STO units.

As these are ground units and not PDCs, you can also quickly deliver a substantial defending force to a new colony, which is much harder in VB6 Aurora.

[Zincat]

I'm really looking forward to being able to play those scenarios Steve XD

[Hazard]

That is true for VB6 Aurora. It probably won't be in C# Aurora. When you can churn out CIWS ground units to protect a planet for less than 50 BP each, it is going to be hard to get missile strikes on a well defended planet. Taking on the CIWS units with beam-armed ships is going to be hard if there are numerous, well-fortified energy weapons on the planet (plus the CIWS will be fortified too).

In this scenario, the best way to take the planet could be a single, large wave of drop ships to deliver an invasion force. Those invading ground forces can't be harmed by the CIWS and STO units, so the planet's defending ground forces will have to be sufficient to defend the CIWS and STO units.

As these are ground units and not PDCs, you can also quickly deliver a substantial defending force to a new colony, which is much harder in VB6 Aurora.

Depending on defense vs offense that could be a large wave of small dropships with little armour or a small number of large dropships with lots of armour.

Knowing Aurora it'd be a lot of ships with no armour though. Energy weapons especially in this game make thick armour schemes prohibitively expensive at peer technology levels.

That said, box launched missile bombardment might be another answer to massive stacks of CIWS, if one with horrible reload times, so long as you use dedicated bombardment ships. All you need to do is establish a resupply point as close in system as possible.

[Whitecold]

That is true for VB6 Aurora. It probably won't be in C# Aurora. When you can churn out CIWS ground units to protect a planet for less than 50 BP each, it is going to be hard to get missile strikes on a well defended planet. Taking on the CIWS units with beam-armed ships is going to be hard if there are numerous, well-fortified energy weapons on the planet (plus the CIWS will be fortified too).

In this scenario, the best way to take the planet could be a single, large wave of drop ships to deliver an invasion force. Those invading ground forces can't be harmed by the CIWS and STO units, so the planet's defending ground forces will have to be sufficient to defend the CIWS and STO units.

As these are ground units and not PDCs, you can also quickly deliver a substantial defending force to a new colony, which is much harder in VB6 Aurora.

Fortified just screams PDC to me, and not ground troops. If ground troops open fire, their locations are identified, and no amount of cover is going to help against the bombardment. Unless you build bunkers, which should cost resources. And if you build bunkers, and put missile launchers into them, you have yourself a PDC. And overall for the PDCs, I don't see any reason why you should not be able to build them in some form or shape. In while free maintenance can be exploited, I also would like to somehow retain fighter bases on planets, so it is rather maintenance that should be fixed.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I understand that some people still want PDCs in C# Aurora. However, that won't happen. They don't exist anywhere in the code and have been replaced by the new ground combat system (which will be more integrated into the game than PDCs). VB6 Aurora will still be around if the lack of PDCs is a game-breaker.

In regard to fortifications, when assisted by construction units these will be seriously dug-in units, especially in rough terrain. Just firing won't be enough to render the fortifications ineffective. For STO combat, the model I had in mind for this was the surface-to-orbit combat in the Human Reach series. The two books are mentioned in this thread.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=3907.0

For ground combat, consider how much resistance the Japanese put up on fortified islands in WW2 when completely outgunned and with a total lack of air cover.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

That said, box launched missile bombardment might be another answer to massive stacks of CIWS, if one with horrible reload times, so long as you use dedicated bombardment ships. All you need to do is establish a resupply point as close in system as possible.

Yes, I was thinking about mass box launchers. An integrated defence probably needs AMM bases in orbit. These are protected against energy-range combat by ground-based energy weapons and they provide long-range missile defence. CIWS ground units provide the primary defence against small missile waves and backup defence for the bases vs a large wave. We could even see planetary sieges where everything else in the system is lost but the planetary defences are too strong to crack.

[Barkhorn]

I was pretty against removing PDC's, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea.

Consider this: No two fortifications in real life are identical.  So why, in VB6 Aurora, do we build PDC's following standardized designs?  Why is a PDC on Earth, which presumably could be 10km under Mount Everest, equally armored as that same PDC on some Oort Cloud dustball that's barely 1km across?

The only solution to this I can see, is to abstract away the design of the fortification and make terrain and geology factor into its stats.

But this does raise a question.  Will StO units be able to fire on targets on other bodies?  I'm thinking of a laser battery on Mars frying targets on Phobos, or visa versa.

[Zincat]

I was pretty against removing PDC's, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea.

Consider this: No two fortifications in real life are identical.  So why, in VB6 Aurora, do we build PDC's following standardized designs?  Why is a PDC on Earth, which presumably could be 10km under Mount Everest, equally armored as that same PDC on some Oort Cloud dustball that's barely 1km across?

The only solution to this I can see, is to abstract away the design of the fortification and make terrain and geology factor into its stats.

Consider that PDC  could be broken in pieces and transported elsewhere. It makes even LESS sense. So... say you build a prefab missile complex. How do you actually move it to another planet, and THEN dig under a mountain and.. put it there? How?
Defensive installations have always been tailored to the place they are deployed to. Making a prefab thing that can then be equally tailored to everywhere makes no sense.

The fortification level due to terrain does indeed make a lot more sense.

But this does raise a question.  Will StO units be able to fire on targets on other bodies?  I'm thinking of a laser battery on Mars frying targets on Phobos, or visa versa.

That's an interesting question! Awaiting Steve's answer.

[Hazard]

I'm not sure about AMM orbital stations; it'd depend on CIWS ground unit cost effectiveness compared to building and maintaining a station.

A worthy concern; how do we upgrade ground units?

For ground units that don't interact with the space combat part of Aurora it's implied that this automatically upgrades as new technology is developed. But for units with CIWS and StO components that's going to be really odd.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

But this does raise a question.  Will StO units be able to fire on targets on other bodies?  I'm thinking of a laser battery on Mars frying targets on Phobos, or visa versa.

Good question. It would have no problem firing on ships or bases in orbit of another body, but I assume you mean ground units on the surface of the other body. I don't see any reason why an STO unit on a separate body could not be treated the same as a ship for purposes of either engaging STO units or providing bombardment support. Will make for some interesting coding but should be possible.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I'm not sure about AMM orbital stations; it'd depend on CIWS ground unit cost effectiveness compared to building and maintaining a station.

A worthy concern; how do we upgrade ground units?

For ground units that don't interact with the space combat part of Aurora it's implied that this automatically upgrades as new technology is developed. But for units with CIWS and StO components that's going to be really odd.

Ground units don't automatically upgrade. They will stay with the technology at the level they were created. If you want improved ground units, you will have to replace them. I'll create some form of cadre system though so you can retain high morale units.

[Hazard]

Ground units don't automatically upgrade. They will stay with the technology at the level they were created. If you want improved ground units, you will have to replace them. I'll create some form of cadre system though so you can retain high morale units.

Ah, good.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

More ground design screenshots. This tab is for the design of Formation Templates, which are the equivalent of Ground Unit Types from VB6 Aurora. Each template can have an unlimited number of Template Elements. Each Template Element has a specific number of specific Ground Unit Class (design of which is shown in the earlier screenshots). You can create Formation Templates using the New Button, then select and add Unit Classes to the Formation Template using the Add Units button.

As shown here, you can create a infantry regiment with inherent light anti-tank, or light bombardment elements to create a more rounded formation. Once a template is created, you will be able to build Formations based on that Template. A Formation is the equivalent of a Ground Unit from VB6 Aurora and will be moved and controlled as a single entity, although in combat each element can attack separately if desired. Individual units within a template element will fire on hostile targets and can be destroyed individually. I'll go into more detail on combat once I create the tabs for ground force organisation and ground combat.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

In regard to fortifications, when assisted by construction units these will be seriously dug-in units, especially in rough terrain. Just firing won't be enough to render the fortifications ineffective. For STO combat, the model I had in mind for this was the surface-to-orbit combat in the Human Reach series. The two books are mentioned in this thread.

lol. I kept wanting to use the lasers in that as examples of how fortified STO might work.  No wonder it fits.

For those who havent read those books, one of the characters is a gunner manning a planetary defense laser system on a colony world.  The systems consist of widely spread out and dug in underground lasers that individually have a number of hidden and camouflaged emitters they can bounce their beam to, giving them a massive amount of redundancy.