Author Topic: Replacing PDCs  (Read 17768 times)

kks and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Father Tim

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #345 on: November 21, 2017, 06:23:21 AM »
I belive the much-questioned "SF" is Surface Fortification - i.e. the maximum benefit the unit can gain from hiding in terrain.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 163
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #346 on: November 21, 2017, 10:57:10 AM »
I like the look of it.  I'm glad there's a FC range bonus for STO units. Hopefully that will be enough to stave off people sitting 10,000km outside the STO range for however long it takes to kill the STO,
I'm not sure that holds true, as effective range is so technology and size dependent, although this will certainly help. I guess this will help protect your planet against attack from fighters, FACs, smaller warships etc and force you to bring in the battleships if you want to try and outfight planetary defenses. That seems a pretty good end result, imho.

The option for cheap planet wide CIWS is also very interesting, that could make glassing a heavily defended planet much more expensive. Especially <not so subtle hint> if Steve take up my suggestion for planet wide ECM and ECCM facilities!
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 397
  • Thanked: 49 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #347 on: November 21, 2017, 11:04:55 AM »
How could planetwide ECM work?  I don't see that there's any way you could make them miss a planet.
 

Offline TCD

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 163
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #348 on: November 21, 2017, 11:15:22 AM »
How could planetwide ECM work?  I don't see that there's any way you could make them miss a planet.
You could make them miss their specific target on the planet though.

And its not spelled out how ECM works full stop. If its about tricking missiles into exploding prematurely then that works for a planet as much as for a battleship.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6542
  • Thanked: 884 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #349 on: November 21, 2017, 12:15:14 PM »
It kindof looks like a no at the moment, but would it be possible to have a super heavy armored vehicle that is just a surface to orbit weapons platform?

The primary defence of STO units will be their fortification level (as they are 100% to hit when targeted by ships). As static units can be fortified a lot higher than vehicles, it would not be a good idea to place the STO on a vehicle.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6542
  • Thanked: 884 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #350 on: November 21, 2017, 12:16:59 PM »
I belive the much-questioned "SF" is Surface Fortification - i.e. the maximum benefit the unit can gain from hiding in terrain.

Max Fort is maximum fortification level. Max SF is maximum self-fortification level. To achieve the max fort you will need assistance from a construction unit.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 169
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #351 on: November 21, 2017, 12:23:33 PM »
Basically I like the idea of a gigantic super robot that can bring spacecraft to their knees.  Regardless of practicality, would it be reasonable to give them the ability to do that?  To be clear its not something hugely important either way, but if its as simple as adding a line somewhere then I am totally going to request that.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 137
  • Thanked: 16 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #352 on: November 21, 2017, 01:15:20 PM »
Max Fort is maximum fortification level. Max SF is maximum self-fortification level. To achieve the max fort you will need assistance from a construction unit.

Max fortification level is changed by terrain. Does meeting the max fortification on a mountain or jungle world require assistance for units that have a max fort and max SF values that are equal?
 

Offline TCD

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 163
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #353 on: November 21, 2017, 02:13:32 PM »
Basically I like the idea of a gigantic super robot that can bring spacecraft to their knees.  Regardless of practicality, would it be reasonable to give them the ability to do that?  To be clear its not something hugely important either way, but if its as simple as adding a line somewhere then I am totally going to request that.
Isn't that an ultra-heavy vehicle with a 25cm laser called a "Death Mech"?
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 397
  • Thanked: 49 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #354 on: November 21, 2017, 05:06:38 PM »
Will we have StO missile launchers?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6542
  • Thanked: 884 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #355 on: November 22, 2017, 03:11:19 AM »
Max fortification level is changed by terrain. Does meeting the max fortification on a mountain or jungle world require assistance for units that have a max fort and max SF values that are equal?

Max fortification level remains the same but a unit's fortification level is multiplied by the terrain modifier.
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 153
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #356 on: November 24, 2017, 05:43:41 PM »
Can't we keep PDCs? Frankly, I don't think anything but a truly long range missile capability is going to discourage glassing ground troops instead of trying to dig them out.
Beam armed ground troops seem improbable to me like titans. A several hundred ton heavy weapon is not easily moved around on roads, and is very conspicuous and vulnerable unless it is deployed in prepared, hidden and preferably armored positions, which is pretty much the description of a PDC
 

Offline Person012345

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 388
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #357 on: November 24, 2017, 06:24:23 PM »
Can't we keep PDCs? Frankly, I don't think anything but a truly long range missile capability is going to discourage glassing ground troops instead of trying to dig them out.
Beam armed ground troops seem improbable to me like titans. A several hundred ton heavy weapon is not easily moved around on roads, and is very conspicuous and vulnerable unless it is deployed in prepared, hidden and preferably armored positions, which is pretty much the description of a PDC
I don't see how a heavy missile platform would discourage glassing troops. It'd just mean they'd have to glass the PDC first.
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 169
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #358 on: November 25, 2017, 12:01:07 AM »
Well I mean, you'd expect the long range missile base to kill the attackers before the attackers can kill it.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 388
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #359 on: November 25, 2017, 03:53:06 AM »
Well I mean, you'd expect the long range missile base to kill the attackers before the attackers can kill it.
This has nothing to do with dissuading glassing tactics. A fleet, which is still in the game, serves the same purpose. This isn't the point of anything. A long range missile base does nothing to encourage ground invasions, which is implied to be the point by the part of his post that says "instead of trying to dig them out". The conversation is only relevant to gameplay once the attacker is in a position to invade, and PDCs don't encourage invasion over glassing. So I fail to see his point. If the objective is, quote, "to discourage glassing ground troops instead of trying to dig them out" then the entrenchment system will do it better than a "long range missile base".
 

 

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