Return PDCs please

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

Does not have the same basis or results.   If it was taken out because it was too much trouble then so be it.
But don't defend it because you personally did not like them.   I found them great and fit in quite well with any
Sci-fi series I can think of.  I have no problem with Steve doing what he wants in the game.  Its his game and
I am deeply grateful for all his work and its a blast.  If you don't like them just say so in your response.  The
arguments given are simply 'I want ground combat'.  So do I but we are discussing 2 completely different cans
of beans here.

and what the heck is a STO...  I have not found a key yet for all the new terms.   Thanks!

[Demonius]

Surface to Orbit Weapon.

[alex_brunius]

and what the heck is a STO...  I have not found a key yet for all the new terms.   Thanks!

STO is the same as a PDC but in the new system. It's anti space weapons put on a static ground emplacement that can be used to fire on enemy ships.

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

I will look at that but am wary if its simply plop a gun turret from New Jersey in a field without all the back up and
culmination of all the other parts that make up a battleship.   I will see what Zorg thinks of this.....  thanks!

[mtm84]

I will look at that but am wary if its simply plop a gun turret from New Jersey in a field

Oh there are plenty of cases where countries did just that.  I do wonder how for example a turret with armor reacts when used as a weapon for an STO with its own armor stat though.

[Migi]

I do wonder how for example a turret with armor reacts when used as a weapon for an STO with its own armor stat though.

I just checked armour and they only increase the weight and cost of STO's. HP and armour are unaffected.
STO's are affected by turret tracking speed (I just found out). STO's will use the lower of racial tracking speed or the turret tracking speed. If the PD box is ticked then they use the lower of 4x racial tracking speed or turret tracking speed. Because turrets are larger than the base weapon you can't gain any benefit from using a turret vs just using the weapon alone.
I suspect that Steve didn't consider the possibility of using turrets when he coded STO's.

[xenoscepter]

Turrets are not larger than the base weapon. 0 km/s tracking speed with four 25 ton gauss cannons yields a turret of 100 tons. It is only bigger if you add tracking speed. So turrets are the only way to make an STO w/ more than one weapon system.

[Frank Jager]

...snip...

Where you put a PDC makes a difference.    Into a swamp is not going to be as good as into a granite mountain range which
is why NORAD is under a mountain and not in Florida.   It would require different types of designs of PDCs for different planet
surfaces.

I feel that the PDC was removed rather than remodeled because perhaps it was easier to simply make it a ground combat game
in a game.   But if your sitting in a hole in the ground with a big gun and somebody drops a nuke or a big rail gun round on you
your little hole, or armor, or shield, in that relatively small Mech is going to be paste.   The PDC protects mobile ground units so
they can move and fight in relative safety.

I just feel there was no either Sci-Fi or Historical reason to remove them and replace them with mobile units.  Or to micromanage
a bunch of static units.

...snip...

These are two different things doing 2 different jobs.  Go back and look at Fort Drum again or the Maginot.    They are not invincible
but the Japanese never took Drum by storm nor did the Germans fully penetrate the Maginot line, they went around.  You want to
see what heavy naval gunfire can do?  Look at the Japanese ships that pounded Guadalcanal or the US vs what actually was an
island converted into a single fortress in Iwo Jima.

...snip

Some of these things are modelled..

Each planet has a 'dominant terrain' that allows a bonus to the fortification rating of static units. The base is 6 with Jungle Mountains providing a 3x multiplier.

That's 18 Fortification, which I think is an orbital to hit ratio of 144 to 1.

Some planet bodies don't have mountains after all... Or don't have enough big enough ones. (Earth is Forested after all)

There's also not a lot of micromanagement.

You specify the size and how many guns each formation has. You build the guns in formations.

Then you move those formations onto whatever youre trying to protect.

That formation can be one gun in size or 2,000 guns. If you want it to have a named commander and bonuses to its attack and defense you'll need to add a HQ somewhere.

Now Static ground formations are vulnerable to attack from the ground...

So you'll need to design a formation to protect it...

See where I'm going with that?

[Agm-114]

Hey you can always just stick a ship with no engines on a planet and call it a PDC.

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

I will look at that but am wary if its simply plop a gun turret from New Jersey in a field

Oh there are plenty of cases where countries did just that.  I do wonder how for example a turret with armor reacts when used as a weapon for an STO with its own armor stat though.

uh...yeah... pearl harbor got Arizona's guns and a couple turrets.... but if you build something with NO foundation good luck pulling it up out of the ground, or loading it, or firing it, or aiming it, or turning it.. if you have a foundation then you have the infrastructure of a harbor defense which is the Terrestrial version of a PDC

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

...snip...

Where you put a PDC makes a difference.    Into a swamp is not going to be as good as into a granite mountain range which
is why NORAD is under a mountain and not in Florida.   It would require different types of designs of PDCs for different planet
surfaces.

I feel that the PDC was removed rather than remodeled because perhaps it was easier to simply make it a ground combat game
in a game.   But if your sitting in a hole in the ground with a big gun and somebody drops a nuke or a big rail gun round on you
your little hole, or armor, or shield, in that relatively small Mech is going to be paste.   The PDC protects mobile ground units so
they can move and fight in relative safety.

I just feel there was no either Sci-Fi or Historical reason to remove them and replace them with mobile units.  Or to micromanage
a bunch of static units.

...snip...

These are two different things doing 2 different jobs.  Go back and look at Fort Drum again or the Maginot.    They are not invincible
but the Japanese never took Drum by storm nor did the Germans fully penetrate the Maginot line, they went around.  You want to
see what heavy naval gunfire can do?  Look at the Japanese ships that pounded Guadalcanal or the US vs what actually was an
island converted into a single fortress in Iwo Jima.

...snip

Some of these things are modelled..

Each planet has a 'dominant terrain' that allows a bonus to the fortification rating of static units. The base is 6 with Jungle Mountains providing a 3x multiplier.

That's 18 Fortification, which I think is an orbital to hit ratio of 144 to 1.

Some planet bodies don't have mountains after all... Or don't have enough big enough ones. (Earth is Forested after all)

There's also not a lot of micromanagement.

You specify the size and how many guns each formation has. You build the guns in formations.

Then you move those formations onto whatever youre trying to protect.

That formation can be one gun in size or 2,000 guns. If you want it to have a named commander and bonuses to its attack and defense you'll need to add a HQ somewhere.

Now Static ground formations are vulnerable to attack from the ground...

So you'll need to design a formation to protect it...

See where I'm going with that?

You are creating reasons that don't seem to be based on the game design.   Folks were saying that Steve just did not want them.    That is not the same as removing them and replacing them with something else.   Besides many of your arguments are kinda circular and not based upon physical parameters.

[Father Tim]

To summarize, PDCs weren't removed because nobody wanted them, or because they weren't 'spacey' enough.  PDCs were removed becasue they broke the game, and were a giant pain in the ass.

And they were replaced with something -- they were replaced with Surface-to-Orbit weaponry ground units, and orbital fortresses.  And it's very easy to pretend that what Aurora calls orbital forts are actually ground installations. . . I know, I've been doing it for years with shipyards.

- - - - -

For further information, I refer the honourable member to my statement of Tenth November, Two Thousand and Seventeen.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=9679.msg105060#msg105060

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

It is my suggestion.. If you don't like it you can ignore it..  Giving me multiple and contradictory answers
does not help at all.    If Steve does not want them thats fine.  I don't play 'imagine' with one thing for it
to be another.

[MarcAFK]

Hey you can always just stick a ship with no engines on a planet and call it a PDC.

Literally exactly what the old PDC's were, except for the free armour, and the ability to ship them around in components. That I miss actually .

[smoelf]

Mobile ground combat is not planetary defense.  It is far too fragile.  Despite the loving comments of folks
who want giant mech warriors (that a single good HEAT or APDS round would destroy).   You need more
than just guns with wheels or tracks or prime movers.  You need miles and miles of terrain to bury your
defenses in again from Prairie to Mountain chain.   You need rock and dirt for protection and as a layer
to soak up damage.   A mobile carnival would not be the same as Fort Drum or Verdun.

 There is a difference between mobile forces and static fortification.  Most folks cannot haul a 14 in gun
around with them in armored turrets.  The mobility of ground units is great for them.  But a  PDC
is stationary but far better defended both by ground and materials.   You cannot really pour both into
one pan and stir them together.

As we all know in dozens and dozens of scifi books the PDC is essential for planetary defense but mobile
units are needed as a reaction force or invading force to dig out the PDCs defenders.  We have 100s of
years of real history on harbor and land fortifications as a guide to show that Fort Drum cannot have wheels
but are defined by their design to hold certain ground.

I'm not trying to dismiss your suggestion for PDC's, but I just want to point out that what you are describing here is exactly what static ground forces are supposed to represent. The new system is not just about placing mechs in a field, but if you create a formation out of static units, you essentially have a PDC. Static units have a higher maximum fortification value, which means that over time and with proper contruction support, they can become very defensible and hard to attack. This is not just about slapping extra layers of armor on them, but also about taking advantage of the terrain of the planet when building fortifications.

The new system does not give you mobile forces instead of static fortifications. It has both, and you will likely need to use both in order to defend your planets properly.