Return PDCs please

[xenoscepter]

I liked PDCs.

That said, it's Steve's game and I support his decision. Mostly because I'm an American and "freedom & sovereign rights" is kinda our whole thing.

Now with that said, PDCs did some things that STOs don't, and I feel this thread is as good as any to put my 2 cents in on them.

 - PDCs could be used to make armoured STO missile systems, and with the special PDC missile launchers you could get a better fire rate than a ship.

 - With a pair 2,500 Ton Passives, you could make an Armored DSTS w/ barracks to defend it.

 - Maintenance Modules and Terraforming Modules could be used to make protected terraforming and maintenance areas.

 - In C#, if they were re-added, you could make protected Ordinance Transfer Stations and Re-fueling Stations. Also, with the Beam Changes, PDC B-FCS would gain greater relevance.

 - PDCs with hangars could store colonists in cryo, with the collateral damage rules in C# this is could be even more useful than it was in VB6.

I like STOs, and I think they're a pretty good solution, but IMO I don't think they are a replacement for PDCs. However, I think that the inclusion of missile STOs and Installations with the above functions would be a workable alternative. The ability to design them was nice though...

[alex_brunius]

Wow... I just cannot seem to make folks understand I liked PDCs.  I was happy with them.  The concept now
is a work around, not a solution.

PDCs was the workaround solution.

What we got now is the realistic solution that makes sense in how a planetary defense would actually work, not PDC spaceships that get free armor due to being beneath mountains and don't require maintenance unlike all other spaceships.

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

PDCs on the ground would have support from any civilian population in the area like they do now.   Since
you don't have to worry about a vacuum or air pressure (gas and biologicals being the exception).  Once
created you only need maintenance teams and a small engineering force.   PDCs in hostile environments
would be like many smaller ships fortified into the terrain.

To my mind some of this does not really makes sense.   Folks complain about 'armor' being mountains
and heck yes that is true, it IS armor.  The new system makes perfect sense for ground combat but you still
cannot get me to agree towing a trailer with a 20cm laser into a piece of land and plugging it into a mobile
power source is a fortification.  I don't care how much armor you put on that RV its still dead from blast or
concussion.   Modern forts consisted of reinforced concrete and steel.   They can withstand an amazing
amount of punishment.   having 6 'engineer' vehicles to dig pits and make sandbags for towed weapons
is pretty ludicrous when called armor.   Nor can you lay armor plate in pieces like Robbie the Robot in Forbidden
Planet.

Again spend about an hour or two online researching forts like the Metz forts vs Patton, the Verdun forts
that even when captured were horrendous to try and take back.   Fort Drum is my favorite.  It is the perfect
example of a PDC in historical warfare.   The Maginot Line...  Cheyenne Mountain, which is a fortified command
center.

I don't care what sized engineer vehicle you have its nothing like having reinforced concrete and 9,000 feet
of mountain around you.  and for desert all the buildings inside are mounted on giant springs to roll with any
blast short of destruction.

A PDC would be much more like a group of heavily (depending on armor and terrain) armored and armed
spaceships than 'static' weapons.  Especially so when you think of all the cables and antennas to connect
all these surface defenses together and how fragile those connections are (look at WW1 and 2 effects of
bombardments), or even you own troops, destroying the surface infrastructure.   And burying it 20 feet down
still would not be enough as has been mentioned in report after report.

Also surface launched missiles still should exist but they would have to be 2 stage with the lower stage the
booster for getting out of the atmosphere and the upper stage the actual missiles.    The Russians use alot
of mobile missile ICBM,IRBM,Tactical launchers and so do we but we have (or had) alot of fortified underground
missile launchers designed to survive a near miss.

Making the fort piece by piece as suggested would be fun but is alot of micromanagement and that it really
cannot take into effect real terrain and different circumstances on each planet.   Just like folks say a PDC is
just a ship on the ground but plugging the same static units in one place is not like having them in another.

I am still learning this all over again and with 1.8 I seem to have less crashes so I am getting further along.
I imagine I will use the included static designs for making 'defenses' on a planet but I know myself they would
be nothing like you would need in 'real' life and would be incredibly fragile.   Again, Fort Drum, concrete battleship.
Never taken by force from US in Manila Bay nor knocked out by heavy artillery and bombings.   Retaking it back
required US forces to pour a napalm like fluid into it with demo charges and kill the Japanese defenders but the
fort, with some repairs, would have been usable again.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/fort-drum-the-concrete-battleship.html

I will try and make this my last response.

[Pedroig]

And a simple KKW takes out your reinforced concrete, your mountain, and a good chunk of the landscape...

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

you made we want to respond, didn't you..... yes... and it toasts first all those cute armored
RVs sitting on the surface.   Here is just 45 year old tech with the Sprint ABM.  It travels at
Mach 10 as well, in the other direction.  It is not a direct hit weapon but carries a nuke to
destroy ICBMs.   The shock of the nuke in the path of the KKW weapons would destroy or
throw them out of trajectory making them tumble.   I understand they are working or have
stuff even better now.  For every offense there is a defense then from a new defense there is a
new offense.   Current US testing on KKWs done show about an impact of about 10 tons of
TNT.   You would need more than a few to dig down into the mountain and since it is shooting
back its likely you will lose your launching vehicle from space based defense weapons as well
(OWPs)  I always loved this video which after a fraction of a second goes at normal speed.  And also
(ta da) it is fired from a hardened bunker.

[Jorgen_CAB]

A STATIC mount can be a bunker... you then use construction units to "fortify" it into the ground making it very difficult to knock out. Static mounts also can have varying armouring options on top of this, making them more or less difficult to knock out with heavy weapons.

It has the same principal effect as what you talk about, it just use a different mechanic. From an immersive perspective that IS the same.

PDC as they were in VB6 is not necessary nor wanted as their mechanic don't fit with the new system.

I understand that you liked PDC from VB6... me personally think that the new system in C# portray all the things you describe even better from an immersive point of view. I can't see any immersive description you have given that can't be replicated and used with the new mechanic.

As for missiles... I would also like to see ground launched missiles at some point. For now I'm OK with how it currently is. I assume Steve left it as is mostly for balance reasons.

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

My suggestion was to put them back.... not take them out which is a 'done deal' anyhow.   I am only
responding to some very odd responses.   I am glad you like the new system.  It is not the same tho.
This is apples and oranges.  I don't care if you build a bunker 12 feet down with your magical engineer
vehicle (joke).  An integrated defense system is built into an area.   There is NOTHING mobile that
could withstand an attack from space.  What has been done is to take one system some folks did not
like because they feel it is illogical and replace with a system that is just as illogical but easier and more
fun to use.  Calling something 'static' and slathering it will armor plate is ludicrous.  You design something
from the beginning for certain perimeters and then build it..    Whatever is in the new system is an RV
with armor and that is all.  It is a simple work around to the same problem that existed to begin with.

Its just my belief folks have turned the ground system into a total overarching system and doing the
same with the problem with PDCs by simply using another system to try and work it into. 

You can easily visualize this... a huge armored turret built out in the field somewhere and tech coming
out to cover it with more plates of armor and ceramics... It is a vivid reminder of D and D systems where
visually the character is carrying a 15 foot long sword that must weigh a 1000 pounds and insisting he
won't tip over or sink into the ground because....just because.

Technicians running from bunker to bunker with extension cords to power stuff and water hoses and
sewage lines and telephone cable because its hard to jam a cabled communication system.   All that
because there is no infrastructure that has to be built for these to interlock fire and command and control.
I plop 10 anti-space lasers in a field and that is my planetary defense... and I pour concrete around them
and put more armor plate on them but there still is no infrastructure.

What this system has become is simply small to big field fortifications, nothing more.    I keep seeing the
argument that the PDC system did not work and was a bad idea.   The opposite is true of calling what
are FIELD fortification (yes they armor and cement those too) a workaround just as the PDC was.  The
infrastructure for either are completely different

The new system is simply a work around to make it part of the surface forces using surface forces parameters.
An apple is not an orange.   The replies are simply other folks justifying their choice over a 2nd choice and that
is all.  Instead of making planetary defense like a ship the new way is to make it a really big immobile tank or Mg
nest.

The ONLY argument against PDCs that is real is that they were unliked and were a workaround that needed to be removed.
I don't understand all the subtle hostility or need to explain something to me.  It was just my suggestion and I
think I have very valid supporting logic to my suggestion.   If folks don't agree thats all they have to do or not
respond at all.   I am happy with my suggestion myself and if other folks are not so be it.  move on but don't
keep telling me I am wrong, I just have a different view.

[CaptainFatty]

The video you posted earlier is the perfect example of a static, surface to orbit ground unit that has been fortified.  If you can't understand that, it's your problem.  In this case, people keep telling you you are wrong because you are.

[plasticpanzers (OP)]

wow...but we don't have missiles launched from 'static' ground forces now.....  by the way I am right.
You say the Sprint as a surface weapon that is fortified... the truth is it is a missile SYSTEM  that is
fortified.....its part of an infrastructure of radar, command and control, support forces, maintenance.
There is no infrastructure for the new system... you plop down your gun then cover it with dirt, concrete,
and metal... which is how you build something backwards.   If you want it stronger you take your magic
construction vehicle and pile more dirt, concrete, and metal on it.

I swear I am getting deja vu and thinking I am on a Paradox forum.

Don't like my suggestion then don't respond.... I continue to see folks afraid of a counter viewpoint.
Not the PDC/Static but that folks like and want something different.   My suggestion makes no
difference to you in your game play nor does it in mine.   relax.

[CaptainFatty]

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.

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.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I don't understand what is magical about a construction or engineering company building a Static weapon into a fortified bunker complex. It is the same thing just with different overall mechanics. Sure... there is no cost involved in terms of resources or wealth for constructing fortifications, but that could easily be changed if Steve felt it would make much of a difference.

The new static STO weapons can be imagined in exactly the same way so no there are no reason to also include PDC as that would give two mechanics doing exactly the same thing. PDCs as they were in VB6 will never get added... not saying that Steve might invent some new mechanic to improve on STO or similar in the future though. But PDCs will not return in the way they were in VB6.

There are NO immersive explanation you can through out that fit a PDC explanation that can't also fit the way it works now equally well.

[Gyrfalcon]

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.

[Jorgen_CAB]

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.

[smoelf]

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.

[Zincat]

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 issue here, I think, is exactly the automated combat. If you had missiles.... who is the sto shooting at? Should it start shooting at a target 80 millions km away? How should it even differentiate who to shoot at?
If a tiny enemy scout gets at 80 millions km... should my 4618155 missile equipped STO all shoot at him together? I'm sure you can see how that would be a big problem.

Not to mention you should build the missiles, equip the missiles, carry the missiles etc. Imo it's simply not what Steve wanted for Surface to Orbit weapons. I think what we have now works. If you want missiles, which are not a always-shoot weapon but rather a weapon where the player chooses when to shoot and who to shoot, you build missile bases.

And by the way, nothing prevents you from roleplaying that your missile bases are on the ground... since Aurora conceptually has a planet as a single point, with all installations in the same place.