Haven't read the thread but i'll say my piece. Given how STOs work the only valid argument I can see here is that STOs do not have missiles.
However the missile PDC role can very much be substituted with defence satellites. . .
I hardly think my suggestion carried any weight to begin with. I never said he MUST change back. I would
like to see them set up differently. At the moment I am tinkering with a planetary fort and it actually to me
seems kinda wimpy and unsupported but that is just me.
What I don't understand is the knee jerk response to my simple post. Steve is not under attack nor is the
game. As I repeatedly said it was a SUGGESTION. Why is that so hard to compute?
Feels like Deja Vu all over again...
Look plasticpanzer, we're now on page 4 of what's become a circular argument.
So far, you've been presented the reasons why
- PDCs were an issue in the first place
- That the developer chose to remove them on purpose
- Suggestions for how to replace them in the system as it currently is
- Arguments for why the current system is better.
You can argue all you want on the third and fourth points, but the first two are set in stone. Steve chose not to code PDCs into C# Aurora. It's not a case of flipping a switch and making some bug fixes to get them working - they literally do not exist in the code of this version.
So here's the last thing you can do, assuming you haven't done it so far:
Post your request to add PDCs to the game in the C# Suggestions thread and sit back and wait to see when or if Steve ever does anything with it.
That's it. You can argue endlessly with everyone if it amuses you, but stubbornly repeating that you want PDCs over and over again in response to people isn't going to improve your chances of getting PDCs added to the game.
This is in the suggestion section. The only problem is with people walking into this conversation is they will not understand it is JUST a suggestion. I don't know why folks become so possessive and hostile when they think somebody is attacking somebody's game system. I am not attacking it. The reason I argue is the answers given by folks that counter my SUGGESTION are full of holes and can't hold water. EITHER system of PDC or ground defenses is a work around. You just have more fun building your own units and folks who play this game love micromanagement and so do I. You and other folks seem to be the one creating this circular argument that I respond to only because of a) not so subtle hostile/snarky responses b) giving reasons that make no logical sense or are totally unrealistic c) you don't like my suggestion. If you don't like it don't respond....because it was just a SUGGESTION. The decision was already made.... and I responded with my SUGGESTION.
Look plasticpanzer, we're now on page 4 of what's become a circular argument.
So far, you've been presented the reasons why
- PDCs were an issue in the first place
- That the developer chose to remove them on purpose
- Suggestions for how to replace them in the system as it currently is
- Arguments for why the current system is better.
You can argue all you want on the third and fourth points, but the first two are set in stone. Steve chose not to code PDCs into C# Aurora. It's not a case of flipping a switch and making some bug fixes to get them working - they literally do not exist in the code of this version.
So here's the last thing you can do, assuming you haven't done it so far:
Post your request to add PDCs to the game in the C# Suggestions thread and sit back and wait to see when or if Steve ever does anything with it.
That's it. You can argue endlessly with everyone if it amuses you, but stubbornly repeating that you want PDCs over and over again in response to people isn't going to improve your chances of getting PDCs added to the game.
Quote from: plasticpanzers link=topic=10847. msg127202#msg127202 date=1587638441its part of an infrastructure of radar, command and control, support forces, maintenance.Radar and C&C are assumed to be part of the weapon, support and maintenance (supply) you provide yourself.
Nobody here is afraid of a counter viewpoint, the way you write your posts just makes it seem like you are incapable of understanding the simple concepts we are presenting to you.
The only real valid point so far in this thread is about missiles not being able to fire from the ground anymore... which really have nothing to do with if we have PDC or not.
Steve did not include ground to space missiles for a reason and this has been argued before. The lack of being able to shoot missiles from STO position have nothing to do with the discussion of PDC versus STO, it is a completely different matter entirely.
Not including missiles from STO might actually be as simple as not having time to code it as it would work a bit differently and require a different interface. STO are basically automated and you don't directly control what they shoot at. I don't think Steve have made any exhaustive explanation for why he did not include missiles as a ground to space weapon.
Yeah. I hope it's just either an oversight or a question of coding time that they are not in. If you can have turrets mounted on static units, then you should be able to mount missiles launchers as well - unless that would break the logic of the automatic combat of STO's. Until then we'll have to make orbital fortresses.
The only real valid point so far in this thread is about missiles not being able to fire from the ground anymore... which really have nothing to do with if we have PDC or not.
Steve did not include ground to space missiles for a reason and this has been argued before. The lack of being able to shoot missiles from STO position have nothing to do with the discussion of PDC versus STO, it is a completely different matter entirely.
Not including missiles from STO might actually be as simple as not having time to code it as it would work a bit differently and require a different interface. STO are basically automated and you don't directly control what they shoot at. I don't think Steve have made any exhaustive explanation for why he did not include missiles as a ground to space weapon.
its part of an infrastructure of radar, command and control, support forces, maintenance.Radar and C&C are assumed to be part of the weapon, support and maintenance (supply) you provide yourself.
