Author Topic: Replacing PDCs  (Read 82140 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MagusXIX

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #60 on: September 26, 2017, 07:38:07 PM »
Removing the ability to put troops in a bunker and instead just making them tougher is a terrible idea. If you have to get rid of PDCs, then when you're making new types of ground units you should consider adding some kind of new unit that serves the same function as barracks in PDCs.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 539
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #61 on: September 26, 2017, 09:55:04 PM »
I think if PDCs are to be removed, customizable ground units in some form are a must. Even if they're not designed the same way as ships. I also wouldn't want it to mean the end of ground based missiles or anything like that (both to orbit and surface to surface). I'm not sure how much I like the concept of removing them overall but it's something I'd have to try.

Perhaps ground units could have a predetermined number of slots or a weight rating that you could fit in things like weapons, armour, stealth techs and things to modify their overall abilities. This could only apply to Titan-type units where your lighter ones could only carry weapons and armour that would be useful against ground units and heavier ones could be outfitted with big guns, lasers or even maybe missiles and could carry out their big-guns role against ground or space targets. Alternatively they could be armoured out and fitted with a large number of smaller weapons to be specialised for wiping out ground forces. Thinking about it, this could really get as granular as you liked, if applied to regular ground units you could even decide whether to outfit them with small arms that would be effective against lighter forces, anti-armour weapons that would be more effective against heavier units or maybe even allocating artillery pieces and tanks. Heavier ground unit types would have larger weight ratings.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2017, 10:12:20 PM by Person012345 »
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #62 on: September 27, 2017, 08:18:49 AM »
I disagree, they don't really go obsolete. You just update the missiles with newer, better missiles, and they still remain usable as long as you have decent sensor / fire control systems. That's the only thing you really need. Even obsolete PDCs can launch good missiles, and in quantity they can still overpower point defense. Or make enemies consume AMM ammo.
And when they simply don't have the fire-control range to be able to fight the enemy ships?  Those ranges increase pretty fast throughout the game.  Updating missiles helps, but I don't think it's enough, particularly if the enemy comes prepared to fight PDCs.

Quote
PDCs are sturdier, can be built by factories, don't require MSPs. They're just plain better for static defense.
No argument.  They are strictly better for static defense.  I actually tend to think that's a good thing.  But they aren't free.  Ships take at least 10 years (IIRC) to use up minerals equal to their build cost.  Building PDCs takes a substantial amount of time, resources, and factory capacity (which can be a blessing or a curse, depending on shipyard utilization).  If I just need to defend a planet, it's the best way to spend them, but I haven't found it to be an obvious winning strategy.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #63 on: September 27, 2017, 09:42:50 AM »
And when they simply don't have the fire-control range to be able to fight the enemy ships?  Those ranges increase pretty fast throughout the game.  Updating missiles helps, but I don't think it's enough, particularly if the enemy comes prepared to fight PDCs.

When defending a "stationary" target which most of the time either is known or can be detected from half a system away ( pop emissions ) the PDC is already in a situation where it can never hope to outrange an attacking/sieging enemy anyways so range hardly matters compared to mobile ships. The ASMs a PDC will fire are going to hit an attacker that is closing in to use beam or short range weapons anyways in which case range doesn't matter.

For AMMs range can matter a bit more but the main challange will be detecting the missiles, not targeting them, which can be solved by just replacing a sensor PDC or leaving a modern AMM sensor ship in orbit.
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • o
  • Posts: 164
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #64 on: September 28, 2017, 02:52:39 AM »
Perhaps ground units could have a predetermined number of slots or a weight rating that you could fit in things like weapons, armour, stealth techs and things to modify their overall abilities. This could only apply to Titan-type units where your lighter ones could only carry weapons and armour that would be useful against ground units and heavier ones could be outfitted with big guns, lasers or even maybe missiles and could carry out their big-guns role against ground or space targets. Alternatively they could be armoured out and fitted with a large number of smaller weapons to be specialised for wiping out ground forces. Thinking about it, this could really get as granular as you liked, if applied to regular ground units you could even decide whether to outfit them with small arms that would be effective against lighter forces, anti-armour weapons that would be more effective against heavier units or maybe even allocating artillery pieces and tanks. Heavier ground unit types would have larger weight ratings.

Regarding regular ground units, I think much of this is already reflected by the type of battalions we train. That diversity may not now be reflected in the mechanics, but the framework is already there if the combat mechanics are adjusted. An armored battalion (or whatever name gets attached) would have hard/soft capabilities different from a mobile infantry battalion, perhaps preferably with more distinction between police presence, occupation points, etc. to more clearly define separate roles for different ground units---garrison battalions shouldn't be able to defend well against true combat battalions, for instance, but should be able to pacify unruly worlds.

The way I see it, the battalion type already determines the content of anything analogous to weapon slots and the tech level for small arms and battalion-level equipment would match that of the species (upgradable as it is now with logistic/ground combat techs).
 

Offline backstab

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • b
  • Posts: 169
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #65 on: September 28, 2017, 04:13:40 AM »
Regarding regular ground units, I think much of this is already reflected by the type of battalions we train. That diversity may not now be reflected in the mechanics, but the framework is already there if the combat mechanics are adjusted. An armored battalion (or whatever name gets attached) would have hard/soft capabilities different from a mobile infantry battalion, perhaps preferably with more distinction between police presence, occupation points, etc. to more clearly define separate roles for different ground units---garrison battalions shouldn't be able to defend well against true combat battalions, for instance, but should be able to pacify unruly worlds.

The way I see it, the battalion type already determines the content of anything analogous to weapon slots and the tech level for small arms and battalion-level equipment would match that of the species (upgradable as it is now with logistic/ground combat techs).

Very good reasoning obsidian_green ... I think expanding the types of battalions would be a better option than introducing equipment slots.
Move foward and draw fire
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #66 on: September 28, 2017, 02:05:03 PM »
When defending a "stationary" target which most of the time either is known or can be detected from half a system away ( pop emissions ) the PDC is already in a situation where it can never hope to outrange an attacking/sieging enemy anyways so range hardly matters compared to mobile ships. The ASMs a PDC will fire are going to hit an attacker that is closing in to use beam or short range weapons anyways in which case range doesn't matter.
Oh, right.  There are people who use things other than missiles to kill PDCs. 
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline TheTrooperm13

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • T
  • Posts: 4
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #67 on: September 29, 2017, 01:52:09 PM »
I don't think removing pdc's is a good idea.  I mean it could be added a possibility where pdc's actually cost wealth and minerals.  This could prove an efficient way that would prevent people from spamming them.  Also in a more immersive way, in almost every scifi films or series there are ground based bunkers, forts and so on, if i couldn't build pdc's it would probably hurt my immersivity. 
Another point is: i totally agree with new ground combat techs and stuff, but i think this would bring a totally new combat system.  If i can design my own weapons, even for infantry personnel, based on. . .  mmm something like: rate of fire, power, ability to fire from 200mm or 1km, this would probably require a ground combat where distance, fire rates,etcs are taken into account.  For example: there is no planet to conquer, rather zones which are different one from another.  A city would privilege a higher fire rate rather than long range rifles, and an open terrain would require a more long distance approach.  Last but not least, why not be able to create everything from scratch in ground units? Without having predefinities categories? I mean a player could create and entire infantry battalion or an entire mechanized battalion, we would assign it a "class" just like ships classes.  To me it would be a paradise.  While options like garrison are a "collier" like check box. 
Keep on the good work from a fallen in love with aurora man and ground units supporters!
 

Offline Arwyn

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #68 on: September 30, 2017, 05:19:09 AM »
First off, I like the idea. Getting rid of PDC's streamlines a ton of stuff. If you still want silos, there are still stations. Also, changing the energy/ballistic weapons in atmosphere would be a good thing.

Lasers can push a lot of energy through atmospheres even with degradation. In fact, the secondary thermal effects could be interesting. Kinetic weapons actually would work pretty well. At the velocities railguns are pushing, there would still be impacting with enough mass and energy to ruin somethings day. Ablative heat shielding would be pretty easy to add.

So, on vehicles. With what Steve has already said about fixing them at distinct tech levels at the time of manufacturing, this starts suggesting something like the current fighter design process. So, you could take the base line armor and adjust the amounts (increase/decrease mass), slap on a weapons system and have a basic configuration. Additionally, you could arbitrarily set a threshold for design mass to dictate the vehicle class similar to fighter and gunboats. So, less than 50 tons is a light armor vehicle, more than that would be a heavy vehicle. For that matter, you could tie that into the planned Titan system as well. Less than 50 tons, light vehicle, greater than 50 is heavy, and greater than 200 (for example) gets into Titan country. They still use the same design process, like fighters/gunboats/ships, but can be handled differently.

So, that would give you a basic vehicle class, basic armor value (defense) and a weapons system (offense). In the interest of keeping planetary combat somewhat abstract, you could then modify your new system using initiative to dictate combat order and modify that by vehicle class for example. You could potentially modify that by adding additional systems to improve that initiative value (via command and control systems or sensors), or modules like troop transport bays that add to initiative for infantry in the region, or logistics modules to boost supply. Not to mention modules like ECM and ECCM which would be critical in that kind of high tech battlefields. All those other modules add to mass and help dictate class.

Infantry could be handled the same way. We already have leg infantry, and powered armor infantry, so you could do the same thing with them.
Leg infantry:
Cheap, low init, low armor. This would be your basis for things like Garrison units. Cheap, lightly equipped occupation troops. They could also be planetary militia. They might have some powered suits for a rapid reaction force (SWAT units for Garrison for example) but the bulk is cheap leg infantry.
Assisted Infantry:
Mixed units of leg and suits, or troops with power assisted armor. The suits provide some assist to load bearing (better init) but may not be fully sealed for things like vacuum or hostile environments. Or if they are sealed suits, they may not have the defensive systems on full power suits.
Powered Infantry;
There are the classic Starship Troopers type power armor (the book, not the movie). Heavily armored, high load bearing, high mobility. And expensive as hell.

Now, you can add weapon systems. Like a basic small arms package like;
Gauss: Low damage, high rate of fire (init bonus)
Rail: Medium damage, medium ROF
Lasers: High damage, low ROF (init penalty)

If you wanted to complicate infantry a bit further, you could give them support weapons (as an option) to increase their offensive (damage) potential at the cost of initiative (more heavy stuff to drag around) to give them more staying power or anti-armor potential.

So, for example:
Garrison Infantry Company, Armor 1, Damage 1, Init -10% (Leg Inf -20%, Gauss Rifles +10%) Training Cost 20 Duranium 15
Garrison Infantry Battalion, Armor 4, Damage 1, Init -30 (Leg Inf -20%, Gauss Rifles +10%, Battalion -20%) Training Cost 60 Duranium 60
Heavy Infantry Battalion, Armor 8, Damage 4, Init (Assit Inf 0%, Rail Rifles 0%, Anti-Tank Missiles -20%, Battalion -20%) Training Cost 180 Duranium 300 Neutronium 40
Marine Raider

Finally, you can take all your ship sized weapon systems and slap them on the Titan/Bolo/Ogre/CSU/Helltank platform. They would be big, and baseline init would be low, but you would have your mobile Anti-Orbital battery, or your Warlord Titan build to smash ground vehicles.

Anyway, just my initial thoughts reading this far far to late in the evening. :)
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #69 on: October 02, 2017, 10:11:38 AM »
A high level update on the new ground combat system. This isn't really about the detail, as I am still sorting that out, but more about some of the overall concepts.

My direction at the moment is to have a component system for ground unit design (which will replace all existing units including Titans). There are four base unit types (Infantry, Vehicle, Combat Walker, Aircraft), each of which has several sub-types based on the level of armour. 'Combat Walker' in this context is down to player interpretation. Could be a WH40K Titan or a Star Wars AT-AT, etc.). At the moment, my list comprises:

Unarmoured Infantry - ARM 0
Light Infantry - ARM 1
Powered Infantry - ARM 2
Heavy Powered Infantry - ARM 3
Unarmoured Vehicle - ARM 1
Light Vehicle - ARM 2
Medium Vehicle - ARM 4
Heavy Vehicle - ARM 6
Light Combat Walker - ARM 3
Medium Combat Walker - ARM 6
Heavy Combat Walker - ARM 9
Super-Heavy Combat Walker - ARM 12
Unarmoured Aircraft - ARM 1
Light Aircraft - ARM 2
Medium Aircraft - ARM 3

The armour strength (ARM) is a baseline, which is modified by the best available racial armour tech. So, an advanced civilisation may have 'light' vehicles with better armour than the 'medium' or even 'heavy' vehicles of a lower tech civilisation.

Each base type has 1-3 component slots (Infantry 1, Vehicles & Aircraft 2, Walkers 3). This components can be combat-related or support-related. This list (so far) includes:

Light Anti-Personnel
Medium Anti-Personnel
Heavy Anti-Personnel
Light Anti Vehicle
Medium Anti Vehicle
Heavy Anti Vehicle
Super Heavy Anti Vehicle
Light Bombardment
Medium Bombardment
Heavy Bombardment
Light Anti-Air
Medium Anti-Air
CIWS
Surface to Orbit (Variety of weapons)
Brigade HQ
Division HQ
Combat Engineer
Construction
Forced Labour
Repair
Logistics,
Replacement,
Orbital Fire Support Controller

So for example, you could create a 'Medium Tank' using a Medium Vehicle with Medium Anti Vehicle and Medium Anti-Personnel. Or a 'Tank Destroyer' by going heavy armour and double anti-vehicle, etc.. The non-combat related functions will function in a similar way to now. Logistics will be a ground unit that is slowly consumed over time by other friendly units, acting as a form of ground unit supply. Orbital Fire Support Controller will be able to direct the fire of ships in orbit to support ground forces.

The light, medium, heavy concepts for weapons are based on rate of fire and armour penetration. So a light weapon will fire more often and therefore engage more targets, while a heavier weapon will fire more slowly but have a higher chance of destroying the target. Essentially, you will need light weapons against numerous, lightly armoured targets and heavy weapons against armoured opponents. Penetration and rate of fire will also be affected by base racial technology in weapons and capacitor recharge rates. I might combine some of the anti-personnel and anti-vehicle descriptions as (for example) heavy anti-personnel and light anti-vehicle may not be that different.

Ground combat will now take place in the same time frame as ship combat, with each unit firing at specified intervals (except that time won't slow for ground combat - it will instead run multiple cycles depending on turn length). It will still take a while for ground combat though as hit chances will be very low.

Ground unit design will have an individual unit type and a formation type. For example, you might design an 'Armoured Battalion' formation with the unit type as the 'Panther Tank'. There will be a set number of units within a formation and they will fire and take damage individually. So you may start with 50 Panther Tanks in each Armoured Battalion but after combat, some will be damaged and some destroyed. These can be repaired or replaced. Each unit will have a size, so the size of a formation will be number of units x unit size. I haven't decided yet whether to allow units of any size or have a 'battalion size' and have a number of units that will fit within that size. In the case of the former, then Brigade HQs would have a total command size, rather than commanding a set number of units. This would also allow minor units, such as a mortar company (light infantry - light bombardment) held at Brigade level.

Within combat, each formation can be placed in one of four positions. Advance, Front-line, Support or Rear Echelon (names might changes). The default position for any formation is Front-line. Front-line formations will engage in direct combat and can be given orders regarding the type of enemy unit to target (as combat takes place, information will be provided about the base types of enemy units engaged).

A number of formations not exceeding the number of front lines units can be placed in the Support position. This would typically be bombardment or headquarters units, or a resting combat formation. Any ground-based unit (infantry, vehicle, combat walker) in the support position can use its bombardment strength against enemy units in the opposing front-line position or may be allocated to counter-battery fire against enemy units bombarding from a support position.

A number of formations not exceeding the number of support units can be placed in the Rear Echelon position. This would typically be aircraft, ground-to-orbit, logistics, repair or replacement units. Any aircraft in any position can target any enemy position, although it can be engaged by each position which it attacks or passes over. So an aircraft attacking the support units of an enemy can be engaged by anti-air units in the front-line or support positions I will probably make this any anti-air unit in the same hierarchy (divisional or brigade).

A number of Vehicle or Combat Walker formations may be assigned to the Advance position. This cannot exceed the number of front-line units. These formations are attempting to break through the enemy front-line formations. If they can maintain their advance position for a certain amount of time (TBD) without being forced to withdraw (withdrawal will be based on casualties and formation morale), they will be considered to have broken through the enemy lines and will be able to either attack support formations directly, or attack front-line formations with double strength (flanking them). After another specified amount of time (TBD), they can also choose to attack rear echelon units directly, or support units / front-line units at double strength. Any unit in an advance position will be identified by name and type to the enemy and can be attacked specifically (as opposed to just targeting a position).

Infantry formations can be fortified. This can done to a minimal level by the formation itself, given sufficient time, or enhanced further by combat engineer units. This will greatly improve the formation's resistance to damage.

CIWS and Ground to Orbit units will be based on existing naval weapons, along with sufficient costs for reactors, fire control, etc.. They will not be able to attack in ground combat but will defend based on their base unit type.

In addition to the components, units will also have abilities that modify their cost and their combat strength in different circumstances. This will include boarding combat, extreme temperature combat, mountainous terrain, ocean terrain, etc.

Garrison Strength will be heavily based on the number of units in a formation, so a light infantry formation, will be a more effective garrison unit than a heavy armour formation, despite being considerably cheaper.

The above is an outline of where I am heading and will probably change a little once I get into the detailed coding. At the moment, I am starting on a unit / formation design window. After that is complete, I will look at the combat mechanics.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 10:36:17 AM by Steve Walmsley »
 
The following users thanked this post: bean, Person012345, firsal, mtm84, 83athom, DIT_grue

Offline Tree

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 143
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #70 on: October 02, 2017, 10:51:39 AM »
I'm all for more details and fun stuff, but how will NPRs handle all of that? If you have any ideas on this already, that is. Will I be able to spy an NPR world, see they favor heavily infantry with anti-personnel and anti-air weapons, so that I'd know to land in tanks with anti-personnel weapons? What would an NPR do if the roles were reversed, or are they still going to not bother with invasion and just use orbital bombardment to force a surrender?
Will troop transport components be broken up further for all four kinds of units or re-united in a single one?
Will units still retain different kinds of capabilities at basic levels much lower than their specialization? Or would a mortar company finding itself on the front lines become completely useless because it only has bombardment capabilities and absolutely 0 anti-personnel/anti-vehicle?
Also combat walker sound like they could be made generic enough that they're not specifically walkers anymore, just super heavy vehicles or wunderwaffen (such as the Fat Boy from Supreme Commander, or War Wheels from DC). Not sure what else you could call them though, yeah.

And since this is the PDC thread and they're disappearing, well, are we going to be able to build stations with industry directly, like orbital habitats? Or are those components going to remain a special case? It seems like right now from a rapid test I can build an orbital habitat with industry, even if it's loaded with guns and hangars... I don't mind too much being forced to have an orbital habitat module if I want to build a station and bypass the shipyard, but still, would be better (and cheaper) if I didn't need that.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #71 on: October 02, 2017, 11:02:04 AM »
Agree on the re-designation of combat walker. Some type of super-heavy vehicle designation makes sense.

For C# Aurora, NPRs will become more themed in their design of ships, rather than potentially building all types. The same will likely apply for ground units, within the limits of their tech. Determining which units to place in each position should not be tricky for the AI, although a decision on when to advance will be more difficult.

Transport will be either infantry or vehicle (inc aircraft). In this case I am assuming that 'ground-based' aircraft are more like armoured helicopters (Mi-24) than high-flying jets (mainly because in many cases there would be no atmosphere anyway). Infantry transport will be the existing troop transport bays and combat drop modules. I will add vehicle equivalents.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #72 on: October 02, 2017, 11:09:23 AM »
One decision I have to make at the moment is whether different types of space-based weaponry affect different elements of ground combat, or whether I just take the best available.

For example, should anti-personnel and anti-air be based on railguns and/or gauss, while anti-vehicle weapons use the best from lasers, meson or particle beams. Bombardment could be based on missile tech. The problem with that is space-based combat doesn't require a variety of different tech to be effective, so requiring it for ground combat could be an issue.

The alternative is to take the highest tech level from railguns, lasers, mesons or particle beams and use that as a basis for all offensive ground weaponry, with the assumption that any weapon technology can be suitably adapted for ground-combat weapon types as they operate on a much smaller scale than ship-based weaponry.

ROF can be based on capacitor technology, while size is affected by reactor technology (larger lower-tech reactors needed for same capacitor tech).

 

Offline Kristover

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 259
  • Thanked: 135 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #73 on: October 02, 2017, 12:39:31 PM »
I think this sounds like a very cool baseline for ground unit redesign and one that gives extra depth to the ground portion of the game.    I think one of the challenges is going to be in designing the AI to construct proper 'combined arms' armies so to reduce the player ability to exploit the NPRs with something like an 'all-walker' force.    I think another challenge might be in NPRs transporting armies for invasions - which I know doesn't happen right now - with a right force mixture.   

How will experience/training level factor in with the forces?  As a multiplier?  I would like to eventually cultivate elite 'named' units. 

Just a request/consideration, having a Recon and/or Special Forces/Commando like function might be a cool addition.     Perhaps a Commando function might allow the unit to bypass and directly attack the rear lines.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 12:55:50 PM by Kristover »
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #74 on: October 02, 2017, 03:01:36 PM »
Are ground-based fortifications going to be represented in any way?

With PDC's going away it makes me wonder what advantage the defenders will have.