Author Topic: Replacing PDCs  (Read 35080 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 984
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #570 on: January 04, 2018, 07:05:30 AM »
Shouldn't Construction Vehicles require mostly similar resources to build that construction factories do though?
 

Offline Drgong

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1175
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #571 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
Check out or Join my Community Game
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=235.0
Also check out my stories, including Interactive tales.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=239.0
 

Offline Starmantle

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 154
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #572 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.
 

Offline Nori

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 14
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #573 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?
 

Online Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 350
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #574 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.
 

Offline Nori

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 14
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #575 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.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 984
  • Thanked: 36 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #576 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)."
 
The following users thanked this post: Nori

Offline Nori

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 14
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #577 on: February 14, 2018, 12:12:00 PM »
Nice! Sounds like that'll work.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 467
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #578 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.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 424
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #579 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.
 

Online Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 350
  • Thanked: 28 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #580 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.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 467
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #581 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.
 

Offline plasticpanzers

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • p
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Replacing PDCs
« Reply #582 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.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 03:37:05 AM by plasticpanzers »
 

 

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