Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Is Pluto a planet?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: plasticpanzers
« on: May 25, 2018, 03:35:25 AM »

Been pondering the physical size of PDCs vs their ground defense.   The closer all parts of a PDC (or ground to space defense system) the
easier it is to defend it from ground attacks with ground units.   The larger it is the higher the garrison you need to protect it (say it stretches across a
small mountain range).  Folks are talking about just setting one up like a trailer park but that leaves it small and vulnerable to a simple kinetic strike
like a dumb missile or rock.  But a PDC spread over a vast area can have multiple weapons clusters but it would require a ton more troops to defend
from ground attacks being spread to far apart.   Any trailer or towed (or air carried) PDC pieces are very vulnerable and impossible to armor in any
effective way but if you have a handy mountain range say of granite.... From this expansion to spread the targets apart a really impressive PDC
might require several divisions to defend it and having less would force a malus on the defender by a ground attack.
Posted by: Person012345
« on: February 16, 2018, 07:33:38 AM »

Fighters can at least dip into the atmosphere last I heard, becoming ground troops. This may require them to use fuel the whole time though, I'm not sure.

Even if it does burn fuel, this opens up an interesting role for fighters as planetary defense since they can probably de-orbit to avoid incoming missiles.
Sure, until their maintenance facilities get melted and they run out of fuel.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: February 14, 2018, 01:59:59 PM »

Fighters can at least dip into the atmosphere last I heard, becoming ground troops. This may require them to use fuel the whole time though, I'm not sure.

Even if it does burn fuel, this opens up an interesting role for fighters as planetary defense since they can probably de-orbit to avoid incoming missiles.
`

If that isn't promptly followed by said missiles impacting the planet hard I'm going to be disappointed.
Posted by: Bremen
« on: February 14, 2018, 01:12:00 PM »

This isn't really satisfactory though, and there may end up being a ground based hanger. I don't think steve has finalised and confirmed what he's doing in that regard. But this basically makes air support for ground combat an entirely one-sided thing for whoever has space superiority, which doesn't make sense and detracts from gameplay imo.

Fighters can at least dip into the atmosphere last I heard, becoming ground troops. This may require them to use fuel the whole time though, I'm not sure.

Even if it does burn fuel, this opens up an interesting role for fighters as planetary defense since they can probably de-orbit to avoid incoming missiles.
Posted by: Person012345
« on: February 14, 2018, 12:28:35 PM »

C# Aurora will have different rules for fighter maintenance:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101959#msg101959

Specifically this part:

"Fighters can be maintained by Maintenance Locations and do not need to be stored in hangars (because now they use capacity whereas the VB6 rule was implemented to prevent unlimited fighters being maintained)."
This isn't really satisfactory though, and there may end up being a ground based hanger. I don't think steve has finalised and confirmed what he's doing in that regard. But this basically makes air support for ground combat an entirely one-sided thing for whoever has space superiority, which doesn't make sense and detracts from gameplay imo.
Posted by: Nori
« on: February 14, 2018, 12:12:00 PM »

Nice! Sounds like that'll work.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: February 14, 2018, 12:10:53 PM »

Well, in current game rules you can't maintain fighters which was my primary question. I don't believe I've ever put anything other than 500 or 1000 ton ships in hangers. In my current game I have 80 FACs in hangers and isn't really saving me a whole lot in maintenance compared to the cost of building a PDC capable of holding them all. Though if someone instead built a 80,000 ton ship and put it in a hanger...

Maybe a new installation that allows only fighters (maybe FACs) to be hangered on planet.

C# Aurora will have different rules for fighter maintenance:
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101959#msg101959

Specifically this part:

"Fighters can be maintained by Maintenance Locations and do not need to be stored in hangars (because now they use capacity whereas the VB6 rule was implemented to prevent unlimited fighters being maintained)."
Posted by: Nori
« on: February 14, 2018, 12:06:58 PM »

Well, in current game rules you can't maintain fighters which was my primary question. I don't believe I've ever put anything other than 500 or 1000 ton ships in hangers. In my current game I have 80 FACs in hangers and isn't really saving me a whole lot in maintenance compared to the cost of building a PDC capable of holding them all. Though if someone instead built a 80,000 ton ship and put it in a hanger...

Maybe a new installation that allows only fighters (maybe FACs) to be hangered on planet.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: February 14, 2018, 12:02:19 PM »

The ability to shove otherwise very expensive to maintain ships into hangars and get them maintained essentially for free is a considerable part of the reason PDCs are disappearing IIRC.
Posted by: Nori
« on: February 14, 2018, 11:53:30 AM »

Apologies if this was asked.  But one of my favorite uses for PDCs is as inexpensive hangers.  Military ships with hangers are pretty spendy early on reducing the chance that I would use fighters (of FACs).  So, is there going to be a hanger facility that could be built on planet or as a ground unit?
Posted by: Starmantle
« on: January 30, 2018, 01:00:46 AM »

I really, really love PDCs.  So there's that.

But I also really like the changes to ground forces to make them deeper and more interesting.
Posted by: Drgong
« on: January 29, 2018, 02:34:04 PM »

Just going to say I love the idea of more diverse units, and like the idea of PDCs being replaced with troops.

I want my Mars Desert Infantry  ;D
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: January 04, 2018, 07:05:30 AM »

Shouldn't Construction Vehicles require mostly similar resources to build that construction factories do though?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: January 04, 2018, 05:55:46 AM »

I think ground units have maintenance and construction factories don't, which would be pretty big if you tried to run your entire economy on them.

I take it engineers produce BP in addition to helping fortify units? I actually couldn't mind if they were purely combat engineers/ruin excavators; without PDCs there's not a lot of need for ground troops to build stuff, and still less if you start garrisoning worlds without populations.

Yes, they will produce BPs as well if they are not fortifying units.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: January 04, 2018, 05:53:34 AM »

really cool screenshot  ;D

maybe I have my math wrong but what got me irritated:

a construction factory costs 150 BP - the quivalent in Construction Vehicle 127 BP

1 factory has a cargo space of 25.000t - 2,5 factories in Construction Vehicles without security have a cargo space of 8.000t = 3200/factory

1 factory needs 50k population - Construction Vehicle needs 0 population...

I guess if these numbers would stay that nobody would ever again build factories after he got TN-industries running, only ground unit facilities and construction Units (cheaper after you have the facilities running, 7,8x more mobile, no population need)...

"I've settled on 150t for a Construction component" does not sound like a "dummie number" - so maybe I have an error in my thinking  ??? ???

A construction factory is 120 BP, not 150 BP.

Yes, it is less space to transport construction vehicles than installations, but you need troop transport bays rather than cargo bays. A 100 HS cargo bay is 12 BP, compared to 80 BP for the same size troop transport bay. Also, you pay 12.5% maintenance per annum on ground forces so after 10 years the equivalent construction vehicles will cost double the construction factories. Finally, it is a lot easier to build construction factories than construction vehicles because they can build themselves.

The main advantage of construction vehicles is they are immediately available without the need for supporting population, so despite their higher cost they are more convenient.

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