Author Topic: Replacing PDCs  (Read 35103 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline iceball3

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 387
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #300 on: November 06, 2017, 10:23:11 AM »
With PDCs on their way out (I'll miss them  :'( ), what will be of planetary missile bases? This will also mean that ground forces will always be exposed to planetary bombardment, with nowhere to retreat to.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Z
  • Posts: 285
  • Thanked: 27 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #301 on: November 06, 2017, 10:29:15 AM »
With PDCs on their way out (I'll miss them  :'( ), what will be of planetary missile bases? This will also mean that ground forces will always be exposed to planetary bombardment, with nowhere to retreat to.

You can build orbital missile bases, I guess?

As for bombardment, read here.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg104912#msg104912
 

Offline Lossmar

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 238
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • Semper Humanis motherfrakkers !!
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #302 on: November 08, 2017, 10:42:06 AM »
With PDCs on their way out

My excitement for C# Aurora suddenly dropped like a stone ... ;(  :'( :'(
We are the beacon of hope, light in the darkness, shepherds of the lost souls. - motto of the Terran Search and Rescue Corps.
 

Offline boggo2300

  • Registered
  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 849
  • Thanked: 15 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #303 on: November 08, 2017, 02:53:44 PM »
My excitement for C# Aurora suddenly dropped like a stone ... ;(  :'( :'(

I sort of agree,  hell North Korea has multiple PDC's now
The boggosity of the universe tends towards maximum.
 

Offline Felixg

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • F
  • Posts: 46
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #304 on: November 08, 2017, 06:41:58 PM »
My excitement for C# Aurora suddenly dropped like a stone ... ;(  :'( :'(

Same here. PDCs were some of my favorite toys, particularly with how junk stations are.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2017, 11:32:29 PM by Felixg »
 

Offline DuraniumCowboy

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #305 on: November 08, 2017, 07:17:48 PM »
I myself have no issue getting rid of PDC's.  I always seem to have problems with them and as long as something else provides the basic functionality, then that works for me.

One idea, getting back to troop types.  I see Steve is looking at introducing predominant terrain, which introduces new potential units:

airmobile units, heavier lift requirement, higher firepower, lower defense, ignore terrain (basically like air car air assault infantry)
light infantry, large bonus in light terrain, low firepower, low defense, low lift
normal infantry, normal bonuses
armor, heavy lift, high offense and defense, bonus in open terrain, penalty in rough terrain, x2 reinforcement cost to heal
field artillery, no direct attack, just get a moderate Titan style bombardment attack
air defense artillery - CIWS feature

I would do missile batteries and/or energy batteries as installations

Also consider a Special Forces unit, which would be expensive to train.  They would not engage in standard combat but can be used as follows:
*  Advanced force operations/pathfinder - increase off load and drop times for conventional forces if already present
*  Infrastructure attacks, random chance to bombard enemy infrastructure/installations
*  Ability to bombard air defenses and batteries if possible along with deep space sensors
*  Psyops, randomly attack morale of enemy units on planet
*  Sabotage construction on planet
*  In cases of reconquest, train local light infantry to rise up
*  Recon, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RSTA) - increased bombardment percentage from space ships when SF present
*  Provide a substantial bonus to help pacify occupied planets, basically targeting insurgent cells (love the F3EAD!)

I think they would be autonomous, in that the above effects would just be random every cycle or automatic in some cases (like RSTA or Pathfinder).

Add some kind of long range insertion technology to drop the SF teams.

Add mechanic so that enemy forces get a chance to find and engage the SF teams each turn unless conventional forces are present, which should have a curve that makes it dangerous to stay too long without conventional forces present

Have a counter insurgancy


 

Offline Father Tim

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 925
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #306 on: November 09, 2017, 02:28:31 PM »
Many of DuraniumCowboy's 'Special Forces' suggestions are (close to) things Espionage teams do now.  I'd love it if the Ground Combat rewrite changed the system from Espionage teams (requiring 5 officers and no troops) to Espionage Units (requiring 1 officer and some sort specialized GFTF building or unit type).  I think most estimates today put the logistics train for spies at 50 to 100 or more analysts, trainers, armourers, & other support personnel per agent in the field.  (I think Special Forces is more like 25 to one.)
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 281
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #307 on: November 10, 2017, 05:14:59 AM »
I still think an adequately flexible replacement system should work fine to take the place of PDCs.
 

Offline Lossmar

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 238
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • Semper Humanis motherfrakkers !!
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #308 on: November 10, 2017, 09:24:43 AM »
Nope it wont.
I want PDC's to stay - period.
We are the beacon of hope, light in the darkness, shepherds of the lost souls. - motto of the Terran Search and Rescue Corps.
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 925
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #309 on: November 10, 2017, 06:50:44 PM »
Nope it wont.
I want PDC's to stay - period.

The problem is PDCs (as currently implemented) require about a thousand lines of code to handle all their exceptions, as they are ships (but not really) that don't move, don't get built in shipyards, can't have certain systems, don't need other systems, don't work properly for what they are supposed to do, and sometimes count as ground units (but not really).

Steve has been quite clear that because of the nightmare PDCs are to code, evaluate, and debug, the one thing you can't have in C# Aurora is PDCs the same as they are now.  He's implied that the new "PDCs" must be ground units that follow the ground unit rules, or ships that follow the ship rules, or buildings (installations) that follow the building rules, or orbital habitats/shipyards/complexes that follow the orbital structures rules, or some version of the above that "follows the rules" as they exist, not requires a(nother) thousand exceptions in the code.

So what is it about current PDCs that you want to keep?  Is it surface-based anti-ship weaponry that is invisible until it fires?  Is is an armoured redoubt to shelter your ground forces?  Is it a giant chunk of PPV that you can build and forget?  Is it several milion tons of hangar space in which to pseudo-mothball a fleet?

Any, perhaps all, of those things may end up in C# Aurora, but I'm 99% certain they won't be called "PDCs" if they do.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kelewan, Detros

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 467
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #310 on: November 11, 2017, 02:25:01 AM »
Nope it wont.
I want PDC's to stay - period.
Well this is really the equivalent to the bill nye - ken ham "what would make you change your mind" "nothing".

I'm looking forward to trying the new system and seeing if it does a good job of replacing them. Maybe further down the line steve will find a way to re-add PDC-likethings in a way that makes sense (unlike the current implementation).
 

Offline Felixg

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • F
  • Posts: 46
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #311 on: November 11, 2017, 06:39:12 PM »

So what is it about current PDCs that you want to keep?  Is it surface-based anti-ship weaponry that is invisible until it fires?  Is is an armoured redoubt to shelter your ground forces?  Is it a giant chunk of PPV that you can build and forget?  Is it several milion tons of hangar space in which to pseudo-mothball a fleet?

Any, perhaps all, of those things may end up in C# Aurora, but I'm 99% certain they won't be called "PDCs" if they do.

I like to be able to mothball my fleets because the maintenance rules are such a pain in the ass otherwise.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1238
  • Thanked: 50 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #312 on: November 11, 2017, 07:16:14 PM »
PDC hangars wern't really mothballing though. They were just skipping out on maintenance no matter how you intended to use the ships.  Even mothballed ships & planes require regular maintenance to not become useless. And while there might not be air in space there is definitely lots of radiation and ships filled with lots of chemicals and the like.  Would rather have an actual mothball mechanic,  although given the way tech ramps up in Aurora its hard to estimate how actually useful mothballed ships would be when reactivated.

One way of psuedo-mothballing ships is to remove their expensive components and replacing them with cheap tonnage-hogs. It requires a fair bit of expense to reactivate them once desired, although at least you can equip modern gear on them. Another is to simply refit them with tons of engineering spaces, strip them of most MSP,and leave them to rot orbiting a moon or somesuch.  They will not cost any maintenance, and the engineering spaces will limit the amount of deterioration.

Another way to use old ships is to re-role them. Sometimes i have taken obsolete military vessels and kitted them with modern commercial drives to use as far patrol and long-duration pickets.

« Last Edit: November 11, 2017, 07:21:12 PM by TheDeadlyShoe »
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • o
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #313 on: November 12, 2017, 02:46:57 PM »
I like to be able to mothball my fleets because the maintenance rules are such a pain in the ass otherwise.

Docking is pretty much the only thing for which I've used PDCs. I love the maintenance rules when my ships are actually in use, but don't like the mysterious evaporation of trans-Newt materials it requires to simply park a ship in orbit of worlds with sufficient maintenance facilities ... so I docks 'em ... at tremendous initial capital investment, I might add. I actually like the fact have to pay to pay less and I'll miss it if there's no alternative.

If it were up to me, maintenance for parked ships where facilities are sufficient, would have a wealth, not a TN materials, cost.
 

Online Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 350
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #314 on: November 12, 2017, 06:36:24 PM »
Docking is pretty much the only thing for which I've used PDCs. I love the maintenance rules when my ships are actually in use, but don't like the mysterious evaporation of trans-Newt materials it requires to simply park a ship in orbit of worlds with sufficient maintenance facilities ... so I docks 'em ... at tremendous initial capital investment, I might add. I actually like the fact have to pay to pay less and I'll miss it if there's no alternative.

If it were up to me, maintenance for parked ships where facilities are sufficient, would have a wealth, not a TN materials, cost.

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.
 

 

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 54