Author Topic: Replacing PDCs  (Read 82160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline obsidian_green

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • o
  • Posts: 164
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #405 on: November 26, 2017, 05:21:22 PM »
I had one thought, and it's kind of a biggy. As long as we're treating the troops and dropships as basically launching from hangars... would it be worth considering making space fighters and aerospace fighters the same craft? So that, say, carriers could use their fighters as part of the ground landing, and a planetary garrison could launch their fighters into space to help in the defense?

... If I understand correctly, right now there's a divide between aircraft and space based fighters, which makes sense from a technical perspective. But fighters being able to enter the atmosphere is kind of a sci-fi staple, and it gives beam fighters an interesting role as hybrid space/ground units.

I'm not a fan of conflating atmospheric fighters with space fighters. In my role-playing there are no manned atmospheric fighters at all (just drones integral to the current 7.1 battalions) and my space "fighters" are more analogous to the "riders" found in C.J. Cherryh's Alliance-Union material than they are to, say, Star Wars X-Wings. My current strikecraft weigh 222 tons and have a range of a billion km. Those craft are not going to be conducting atmospheric operations; I suspect the tiniest fuel tanks get even the lowest tech engines a lot more mileage than would be needed to fly over the ridge and drop some bombs. If the craft are capable of orbit, why would they ever attack at ranges analogous to airplanes?

Yes, the micromanagement of moving from transport bay to drop module is something I am trying to avoid.

One option is just to ignore the concept of 'ground unit aircraft' and just have normal ship-borne fighters interacting with ground combat using some form of close-range air-to-ground munitions (essentially in the same location as the planet). The anti-air units on the ground would have a capability against those fighters while they are attacking but not if they are simply in orbit. That avoids any complexities around having aircraft as ground units.

Seems like aircraft as ground units would be a simplification rather than a complication; it's just another type of weapons system where abstraction can give the appearance/effect we expect to see. I don't see SF ground units going into combat without aerial drones being integral to their units already, but a "ground unit" squadron of airplanes certainly seems like it would cover---in a way consistent with how Aurora (7.1, at any rate) seems to work---the airplane action others seem to want.

Tangential to airplanes specifically, I dread the idea of having to personally design every single weapons system from the personal plasma rifle to the aerial combat drone---a civ would just use the tech it has available when the unit is constituted ... the very thing we'll be doing we design all this stuff at the micro-level.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #406 on: November 26, 2017, 05:40:28 PM »
Tangential to airplanes specifically, I dread the idea of having to personally design every single weapons system from the personal plasma rifle to the aerial combat drone---a civ would just use the tech it has available when the unit is constituted ... the very thing we'll be doing we design all this stuff at the micro-level.

That's only a problem at the starting tech level, when you design your units for the first time. After that all you need to do after reaching a new tech threshold is update your previous designs.

Or not, if you see no need for it. You don't have to after all, NPR ground assaults are probably not going to be a thing.
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • o
  • Posts: 164
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #407 on: November 26, 2017, 08:45:40 PM »
That's only a problem at the starting tech level, when you design your units for the first time. After that all you need to do after reaching a new tech threshold is update your previous designs.

Or not, if you see no need for it. You don't have to after all, NPR ground assaults are probably not going to be a thing.

Well, I guess I could be optimistic, but when I update the previous designs of my ships that's not exactly the simplest of tasks. The difference is that my ships are major assets that deserve design attention. The composition of the minutest elements of the ambiguous constituent parts of ambiguously defined units that combine to form what used to be straightforward battalions for roles of marginal importance within the game that the A.I. will never be able to implement if NPRs ever do engage in ground combat ... I've lost my train of thought somewhere, which is sort of analogous to what I think an overly complex (and probably permanently buggy) ground combat scheme might do.

I just hope this isn't a missing the forest for the trees situation---seems like there'll be more effort in design (including redundant research) than in making tactical choices about what units to commit and less flexibility when we must commit resources and planning (important/pleasurable to me) along separate research and building tracks. For example, if there was an actual interplanetary infantry formation, it wouldn't be so specialized that it couldn't re-equip and re-train itself for different environments. Since that's the inherent nature of having such a formation, is it beneficial to go through the trouble of micromanaging its design to the level of deciding whether troops have "power armor"? (Answer: if they have the technology and the money, the troops absolutely WILL have power armor, but probably not every trooper, just the ones that constitute a heavy weapons squad/platoon/company whose capabilities would already be reflected in the effectiveness of the higher-level organization.)

Hopefully, my concerns are just overblown, but I might as well put them out there.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #408 on: November 26, 2017, 10:57:19 PM »
That's only a problem at the starting tech level, when you design your units for the first time. After that all you need to do after reaching a new tech threshold is update your previous designs.

Or not, if you see no need for it. You don't have to after all, NPR ground assaults are probably not going to be a thing.
NPR ground assaults had better be a thing.  If ground combat doesn't actually happen, what is the point of all this?
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #409 on: November 27, 2017, 01:43:47 AM »
Yes, the micromanagement of moving from transport bay to drop module is something I am trying to avoid.

One option is just to ignore the concept of 'ground unit aircraft' and just have normal ship-borne fighters interacting with ground combat using some form of close-range air-to-ground munitions (essentially in the same location as the planet). The anti-air units on the ground would have a capability against those fighters while they are attacking but not if they are simply in orbit. That avoids any complexities around having aircraft as ground units.

In fact, you could design smaller fighters intended for this type of combat. They would need smaller launchers (probably size 1) because they would be dropping 'bombs' (missiles without fuel or engines), rather than launching normal missiles. Assuming they are linked with a forward air controller on the ground, they wouldn't need a fire control. They also would need very little fuel. Engines would be smaller as well, so you are probably getting down to 100 tons or less. Probably hard to hit by any remaining planetary defences on the way in and out due to high speed. Given they are essentially dropping nukes at close-range against specific targets identified by a controller on the ground, that would probably be quite effective. Or they could be equipped with less effective non-nuclear munitions to avoid environmental damage.

In terms of aircraft based on planets, that in fine in C# Aurora as they can be maintained normally by maintenance facilities.

Just thinking out loud, but it would be fun to have carriers standing off out of energy range and sending in strikes to aid the ground war.

I do like the idea of having atmospheric fighters, but I would like to see some trade off here instead of making all space fighters capable of atmospheric flight & combat by default.

On a planet with no Atmosphere space fighters should work just fine though IMHO.

But to fight in an atmosphere above a certain density you should really need to optimize the fighter design either for atmospheric combat, or for space combat.

Why not have something like an "Atmospheric combat modifications" component you can add to fighters (25-50 ton ish), so that the capability is not totally free. Or maybe it should be the other way around, that the default fighters ( pre-TN tech ) are only atmospheric capable, and that you need to add a different researched component to allow them to work in Space?
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #410 on: November 27, 2017, 02:19:56 AM »
I'm not sure having fighters need a special component to work on some planets (but not all) really adds anything to the game besides needless complication. Realistic, sure, but realistic doesn't necessarily mean good gameplay.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #411 on: November 27, 2017, 04:19:59 AM »
I'm not sure having fighters need a special component to work on some planets (but not all) really adds anything to the game besides needless complication. Realistic, sure, but realistic doesn't necessarily mean good gameplay.

The gameplay it adds IMO are the following:
- It makes planets feel more different and unique ( An important theme consistent with many other changes for C# Aurora )
- It limits a bit having a single weapon that can do everything ( Fighter spam works as PD, space strike, planetary support )
- It would be inconsistent and illogical to have all other planetary capable weapons be highly dependent on type of planet, terrain and atmosphere, but fighters be excluded from this.

For similar reasons I do think there should be some sort of damage reduction going on for beams firing through Earth or thicker atmospheres ( in both directions ).
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #412 on: November 27, 2017, 06:12:32 AM »
NPR ground assaults had better be a thing.  If ground combat doesn't actually happen, what is the point of all this?
It's a difficult thing to code the AI to do, since battlefleets needed to be coded to not necessarily glass planets.  Steve seems to mostly prefer playing multiple empires, and its his game :^)
 

Offline IanD

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 725
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #413 on: November 27, 2017, 08:01:32 AM »
Snip
 is it beneficial to go through the trouble of micromanaging its design to the level of deciding whether troops have "power armor"? (Answer: if they have the technology and the money, the troops absolutely WILL have power armor, but probably not every trooper, just the ones that constitute a heavy weapons squad/platoon/company whose capabilities would already be reflected in the effectiveness of the higher-level organization.)

Given the current aversion to combat losses if you are playing a democracy and do not provide adequate protection for all your troops you should suffer a public unrest penalty. (Should there be a measure of how much public support there is for a war?)

As for a "model" I prefer the Ogre system which mixes power armour with all types of vehicles to either Starship Troopers (the book) or Warhammer 40k (where the individual units appear to a non-player to be much weaker).
However my principle worry is that upgrading will be far too complex. Current army battalions do not disband when they get a new piece of kit. Allowing  weapons series (as for missiles) and upgrading being automatic (costing wealth) within a series would remove a lot of the micromanagement.
IanD
 

Offline backstab

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • b
  • Posts: 169
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #414 on: November 27, 2017, 11:38:47 AM »
Steve, how is non TN technology equipment going to be represented?
Move foward and draw fire
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #415 on: November 27, 2017, 01:13:30 PM »
My current thinking is to have three types of troop transports bays: standard, orbital insertion and ship-to-ship boarding, all of which have capacities in tons. Standard is similar to the current troop transport bays, where loading and unloading takes several hours or days. Orbital Insertion Bays have abstract drop-ships built into the transport bays (significantly more expensive and a little larger than standard bays). Orbital Insertion Bays can be used as normal troop transport bays, with normal load and unload times, or they can be used to instantly drop troops on to a planetary surface from orbit, in which case the bay is damaged and has to be repaired by a shipyard (replacing the abstract drop-ships). Ship-to-ship boarding bays can also function normally, but have a secondary function for launching infantry units (with boarding capability) against  other ships. This doesn't damage the bay. Standard Bays would be commercial, while the other two would be military systems.
I really, really don't like this.  It seems intuitively obvious that the roles of 'move troops long distances' and 'land troops on hostile planets' will be separated, particularly in a setting where the last line of ground defenses is much stronger than it is in 7.1.  I understand the micromanagement aspect, but this just seems bizarre.  We can only land with LSTs and LCIs?  There's literally no way to build a ship where we cram them into seats for a few hours before landing them, keeping the big ships out of range of the last-ditch point-defense fire?  The life-support facilities are big and expensive.  Why am I hauling them into the teeth of enemy fire?
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 743
  • Thanked: 150 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #416 on: November 27, 2017, 01:38:19 PM »
Yes, the micromanagement of moving from transport bay to drop module is something I am trying to avoid.

One option is just to ignore the concept of 'ground unit aircraft' and just have normal ship-borne fighters interacting with ground combat using some form of close-range air-to-ground munitions (essentially in the same location as the planet). The anti-air units on the ground would have a capability against those fighters while they are attacking but not if they are simply in orbit. That avoids any complexities around having aircraft as ground units.

In fact, you could design smaller fighters intended for this type of combat. They would need smaller launchers (probably size 1) because they would be dropping 'bombs' (missiles without fuel or engines), rather than launching normal missiles. Assuming they are linked with a forward air controller on the ground, they wouldn't need a fire control. They also would need very little fuel. Engines would be smaller as well, so you are probably getting down to 100 tons or less. Probably hard to hit by any remaining planetary defences on the way in and out due to high speed. Given they are essentially dropping nukes at close-range against specific targets identified by a controller on the ground, that would probably be quite effective. Or they could be equipped with less effective non-nuclear munitions to avoid environmental damage.

In terms of aircraft based on planets, that in fine in C# Aurora as they can be maintained normally by maintenance facilities.

Just thinking out loud, but it would be fun to have carriers standing off out of energy range and sending in strikes to aid the ground war.

Instead of specialized non-nuclear bombs for missile fighters, how about letting beam fighters make, I dunno, call it ground support strikes on ground units? Either by having a special order to enter the atmosphere and act as ground troops, or a special sort of orbital bombardment where fighters get an accuracy bonus but can be hit by normal ground weapons (as opposed to dedicated PtS weapons) in exchange? Not all fighters use missiles :p

I suppose that gets back to the problem of having a unit with special rules that was the whole reason for eliminating PDCs, though. Thinking about it I suppose it might not be necessary; beam fighters could still perform orbital bombardment, after all, though I suspect they might end up being less cost efficient for it than large warships that could absorb more PtS fire.
 

Offline Barkhorn

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 719
  • Thanked: 133 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #417 on: November 27, 2017, 02:31:28 PM »
I really, really don't like this.  It seems intuitively obvious that the roles of 'move troops long distances' and 'land troops on hostile planets' will be separated, particularly in a setting where the last line of ground defenses is much stronger than it is in 7.1.  I understand the micromanagement aspect, but this just seems bizarre.  We can only land with LSTs and LCIs?  There's literally no way to build a ship where we cram them into seats for a few hours before landing them, keeping the big ships out of range of the last-ditch point-defense fire?  The life-support facilities are big and expensive.  Why am I hauling them into the teeth of enemy fire?
Ideally I think we'd have two modules.  One to hold troops, one to improve their unloading speed; just like how cargo loading works.  The speed-improving module would be representing drop pods or parachutes or whatever to allow combat drops.  This way you dont have to move units back and forth between modules, one module just speeds up the other.
 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2782
  • Thanked: 1049 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #418 on: November 27, 2017, 04:14:45 PM »
I like the 3 different troop "bays".

I also would prefer that space fighters are kept separate from atmospheric fliers. Having a ground unit that represents helicopters, jets and so on, that are tailored to fly inside an atmosphere.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #419 on: November 27, 2017, 04:23:36 PM »
I would also like to keep space fighters separated from atmospheric fighters. Because it makes sense.

In space there's no attrition, so there's zero reasons to have an aerodynamic space fighter . No matter what all the various sci-fi sagas showed you, a cube is a perfectly valid form for a space fighter. Because, with no attrition, there's no compelling reason to choose any form over any other. In fact a cube could be optimal, because it is compact and arguably more robust than a streamlined, long and slim shape.

Not so in atmosphere, where in fact said cube might be completely unable to fly at all.

So, in the spirit of realism (and yes, for roleplay reasons too!) I'd like to keep the two classes separated. You could say that atmospheric fighters need a "symbolic component" named "aerodynamic profile". And that space fighters, if they don't have such a module, suffer severe penalties if directly interacting with planetary defenses...