Nerf envirosuits

[LordAldrich]

ORIGINAL: Destragon

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I would prefer to have 3 options for planet generation: earth-like, mars-like, moon-like with deep consequences, with significantly differences in play style and combat strategies than to have 10+ planet options that play exactly the same, with some minor building constructions but otherwise cosmetic differences like lakes water or lava

The resource availability and terrain differences seem pretty significant to me.
What kinda deep consequences do you actually mean?

I think OP is just expressing that they'd prefer fewer and more noticeable differences than more and less noticeable differences.

As to your question, this thread has highlighted a few categories that just don't feel any different regardless of world right now:

Temperature - envirosuits negate it entirely
Atmospheric hazards - envirosuits negate them entirely
Gravity - not really used for anything yet, but I can see it (plus atmo density) becoming a big deal when Vic gets around to adding air/space forces

You're right, we see secondary effects of these things reflected in the terrain (cold worlds have glaciers, lava rivers are way harder to cross than water rivers, etc.), but these things should have direct, noticeable, primary effects that set the worlds apart.

[Mitigan]

I was thinking, instead of just adding penalties to envirosuits and armor (afterall they are there to negate those same penalties from rad poisoning and stuff.) just add engine and weight to the equation? like with vehicles? there would be a choice for weapon, envirohazard, armor and "engine".

enviro choices would be the around the same as the choices from turn 1, from filters to envirosuits, and later mark II, III... to make up for the increase in enviroprotection from the armors you currently research. it would increase weight and cost mainly IP.

armor would go from basic armor (the 50 armor protection the envirosuit already offers), "padded armor", combat armor, etc. it would increase weight and cost mainly metals.

engine would start at servomotors, then advanced servomotors, these would cost no fuel or energy as they would be "negligible", then "jetpacks" (which could be renamed propulsion engine, to imply they don't necessarily fly) which would cost fuel or energy (by then you would have ways of generating infinite fuel and energy from deep core mining and stuff.), "advanced propulsion engine" and so forwards.

basically by default if you put the heaviest stuff , best engine and engine design 100 it would offer a small penalty in move speed but negligible or no penalty in combat. if your engine design is worse the penalties start getting noticeable and if they are better they negate, and if your put light armor and overpowered engine they start offering bonuses in move speed and combat eventually becoming + 40% move modifier and the same combat bonuses as the current jetpack with the propulsion engine and light armor.

the problem would be redesigning the "jetpack infantry", anti-tank and artillery, which already have big weight modifiers from they're guns. but if they use lighter armor that wouldn't be a problem i guess.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: Destragon

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I would prefer to have 3 options for planet generation: earth-like, mars-like, moon-like with deep consequences, with significantly differences in play style and combat strategies than to have 10+ planet options that play exactly the same, with some minor building constructions but otherwise cosmetic differences like lakes water or lava

The resource availability and terrain differences seem pretty significant to me.
What kinda deep consequences do you actually mean?

To what had already being said about gravity, temperature and hazards
I would had preferred less options, but each of these options coming with different unit types or at least variations that make sense to the hostile environment they are used on
examples: maybe a buggy or a truck or a dirt road on a lava planet makes little sense

[Destragon]

ORIGINAL: LordAldrich

I think OP is just expressing that they'd prefer fewer and more noticeable differences than more and less noticeable differences.

As to your question, this thread has highlighted a few categories that just don't feel any different regardless of world right now

I didn't express myself clearly enough. I wanted to hear some actual suggestions for how these differences should affect gameplay.

... but these things should have direct, noticeable, primary effects that set the worlds apart.

Like this. What would be direct, noticeable, primary effects?

I agree that gravity and atmosphere could probably make air units more expensive or prevent the use of certain types of air units alltogether, but we're still many months away from even having air units, so this is still mostly speculation and depends on how they actually end up getting implemented.

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
To what had already being said about gravity, temperature and hazards
I would had preferred less options, but each of these options coming with different unit types or at least variations that make sense to the hostile environment they are used on
examples: maybe a buggy or a truck or a dirt road on a lava planet makes little sense

What would make sense on a lava planet? In what way would these hostile environment units be different from the normal ones? Would it just be visual difference?
You said you want less differences, but more impactful ones, but you didn't say what an actually impactful difference would be.

[MatthewVilter]

(temperature:)
I can see an argument that vehicles with soft tires make less sense than treads on burning hot planets.

More so I think vehicles on such planets would require heavy and expensive heat dispersal equipment (even more burdensome on hot planets with little or no atmosphere).

Insulation/electric heating on cold planets is not such a huge problem but might still impact infantry loadouts significantly.

(atmosphere toxicity and pressure:)
Aside from the impact on atmospheric survivability (and corresponding effects on unit survivability that we have discussed) atmospheric pressure might impact the costs/availability of heat dispersal equipment and should eventually have a major effect on aircraft design.

(radiation:)
I'm not an expert but I suppose that after hundreds of years filters or other breathing apparatus should provide decent protection against radioactive fallout. In highly saturated areas or on worlds subject to high levels of radiation from their star or, say, the Van Allen belt of their gas giant parent radiation shielding might be necessary. Such shielding might not be much of a burden for a vehicle but the high surface area to volume ratio of infantry means they would be disproportionately impacted.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: MatthewVilter

(temperature:)
I can see an argument that vehicles with soft tires make less sense than treads on burning hot planets.

More so I think vehicles on such planets would require heavy and expensive heat dispersal equipment (even more burdensome on hot planets with little or no atmosphere).

Insulation/electric heating on cold planets is not such a huge problem but might still impact infantry loadouts significantly.

(atmosphere toxicity and pressure:)
Aside from the impact on atmospheric survivability (and corresponding effects on unit survivability that we have discussed) atmospheric pressure might impact the costs/availability of heat dispersal equipment and should eventually have a major effect on aircraft design.

(radiation:)
I'm not an expert but I suppose that after hundreds of years filters or other breathing apparatus should provide decent protection against radioactive fallout. In highly saturated areas or on worlds subject to high levels of radiation from their star or, say, the Van Allen belt of their gas giant parent radiation shielding might be necessary. Such shielding might not be much of a burden for a vehicle but the high surface area to volume ratio of infantry means they would be disproportionately impacted.

Thermal:
Keeping something warm is relatively easy, compared to keeping it cold. We know how to keep stuff warm since we tamed the fire. But keeping something purposefully cold? 1850's for Commercial uses. 1920 for Residential uses
In fact, the game currently ignores heat as a source for Hazard/Issues for anything but open air farming.
I would not worry about tires too much. They are Polymer. A "designable crafting material". We make Rubber for -60°C to +300°C on earth. And the Volcano planet is only ~87°C on the surface.

For Airpressure, again: The Game currently does not track overheating at all.

Radiation is not to be underestimated for Hardware!
In nuclear reactors it is such a huge issue, they can not do direct measurement of stuff like the water level.
Our Mars Rovers use redundant computers, made from radiationa shielded variants of designs that were 10-20 years old when the Rover was launched. And Radiation Degradation of the Solar Panels is a actuall concern (not a big one, but still needed consideration).

If we had realistic Lava Planets or Desert planets with overheating considerd, chances are we would be unable to run anything but APC, Tanks and Battledress there. Even the Environmental Suit seems to be lighter then a NASA Spacesuit. While those are rated for 150-250°C, that asumes only heating and cooling via thermal radiation (wich means they can happen into different directions). And not for more then a few hours on end.
The suite would have to overcome a temperature gradient of 50°C just on the 87°C planet. That is a massive temperature gradient to overcome, even for a stationary, top loading freezer. Wich are damn efficient.

[TheSquid]

What would be awesome is if a planet's environmental conditions affected choice of armour and enviro-suit - as others have stated.

I'd envisage it as:
- armour protects against enemy fire, adds weight
- enviro protection protects against the atmosphere and/or temperature, also adds weight.

Then possibly some kind of DEGREE of enviro protection, similar to armour. So, if the atmosphere is barely breathable and also freezing cold, you'd likely require more weight in enviro protection, leaving less weight for armor (or you could have both and just be really slow).

Potentially you could possibly choose heavier armour over better enviro even if you needed it, but IMO that would be a bit fiddly and wouldn't be that realistic - if you NEEDED a minimum level of enviro protection I'm pretty sure the researchers would factor that in first (unless Hitler is in charge and wants to motivate the troops to win before the end of summer or something).

Planets with breathable air would therefore allow for heavier armour earlier, while planets that are more toxic may require more research to get the weight down first (e.g. due to the enviro stuff), or just simply end up with lower-than-average armour values across the board due to the environment (the latter in particular would provide more varied gameplay and make the different atmospheric conditions actually mean something).

[FAA]

There are so many questions it would be great to have answers for:
1) How did people survive following such a disaster on a terribly inhospitable planet. Were they recycling envirosuits for generations? Can they make their own? If so, how, seeing that it must be a highly advanced piece of equipment, likely using very advanced materials and components. How much of the population relies on envirosuits and how many rely on structures and their systems. What about raiders and nomads, do they all have envirosuits?
2) If farming requires huge agri-domes what do nomads eat without cities of their own? What about free folk?
3) How fail-proof is the suit? Are suits used for generations more prone to fail? What happens when it gets pierced in combat, or a stray bullet damages its internal systems? Can it be reusable after that?
4) How come it doesn’t require anything to work - energy, fuel or anything?
5) How were they so well-made they survive in working conditions for centuries?

[FAA]

Accidental double post

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: FAA

There are so many questions it would be great to have answers for:
1) How did people survive following such a disaster on a terribly inhospitable planet. Were they recycling envirosuits for generations? Can they make their own? If so, how, seeing that it must be a highly advanced piece of equipment, likely using very advanced materials and components. How much of the population relies on envirosuits and how many rely on structures and their systems. What about raiders and nomads, do they all have envirosuits?
2) If farming requires huge agri-domes what do nomads eat without cities of their own? What about free folk?
3) How fail-proof is the suit? Are suits used for generations more prone to fail? What happens when it gets pierced in combat, or a stray bullet damages its internal systems? Can it be reusable after that?
4) How come it doesn’t require anything to work - energy, fuel or anything?
5) How were they so well-made they survive in working conditions for centuries?

1) Clearly they can make more. They got the tech to make more. It is a starter tech. Most Citizens however life in domes, no need for Enviro Suits
2) Small agri domes that are useless for feeding a whole city? Unless you wanted to force a "non Cityless Minors" game, I see no reason to even bother with that
3) The answer is teh same as all other piece of the technology. Do however remember that they can build new ones.
4) It does require stuff to work, but such small amounts of stuff that travels for free anyway, modelling it would not mater.
5) Again, it is a starting tech. They never forgot how to make them. If you can not remember how to make a Environmetnal suit, you do not survive to be part of the "post Apokalypse" population.

[Pymous]

Nice thread, I agree with you, envirosuits are "too good".
Some work should be done to add more diversity / impact of different planets types on the gameplay -> (Energy requirements function T°C, transports/vehicules designs costs, different envirosuits function of temperature, weight cost function of gravity, etc...)
Envirosuits is just on side of the issue.

[Atros]

ORIGINAL: Pymous

Nice thread, I agree with you, envirosuits are "too good".
Some work should be done to add more diversity / impact of different planets types on the gameplay -> (Energy requirements function T°C, transports/vehicules designs costs, different envirosuits function of temperature, weight cost function of gravity, etc...)
Envirosuits is just on side of the issue.

If you are making your (battle) suit a mech, why do you need regular arms anymore in the first place, as you are long past the point where you could fit your arms there and use them as fine-tunable manipulators anyways?

[rwbrown]

If we are talking futuristic environment suits, which we could safely assume anyone living on an airless rock would be wearing after the fall of a galactic empire, battletech nailed this a billion years ago with the Elemental design.

But I cannot post it because my account is too new? Basically it shows a cross section of the armor. I feel like the elemental representation is more akin to battledress tech, whereas an envirosuit would skip armor and just be pressurized, powered and life support.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: rwbrown

If we are talking futuristic environment suits, which we could safely assume anyone living on an airless rock would be wearing after the fall of a galactic empire, battletech nailed this a billion years ago with the Elemental design.

But I cannot post it because my account is too new? Basically it shows a cross section of the armor. I feel like the elemental representation is more akin to battledress tech, whereas an envirosuit would skip armor and just be pressurized, powered and life support.

You mean these ones?

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/File:Elementar_cross.jpg

They seem very explicitly on the Battledress side of things:
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Elemental_(Battle_Armor)

[Pymous]

ORIGINAL: Atros

If you are making your (battle) suit a mech, why do you need regular arms anymore in the first place, as you are long past the point where you could fit your arms there and use them as fine-tunable manipulators anyways?

Yes of course, same for legs, and you can attach directly weapons, etc...

[MatthewVilter]

Nice visualizations @Pymous!


To concerns about the technological feasibility of environment suits I would keep in mind that:

a) Modern irl equivalents like spacesuits, hazmat suits, and fire fighting equipment need to meet very high standards for very exceptional circumstances and especially in the case of spacesuits are a woefully underdeveloped decades-old technology

and

b) Just because in the first months or few years of the game you need to research a technology doesn't mean that that technology (and associated tools and concepts) hasn't already been in use continuously since the apocalypse in a more bespoke manner than is practical for your councils to roll out for the state (e.g. militia units start with RPGs and tanks, the private economy devises their own power and water solutions, etc.) I.e. I think we can assume that some beyond 21st century technology is in use if it's necessary for basic survival.

[Atros]

ORIGINAL: MatthewVilter

Nice visualizations @Pymous!


To concerns about the technological feasibility of environment suits I would keep in mind that:

a) Modern irl equivalents like spacesuits, hazmat suits, and fire fighting equipment need to meet very high standards for very exceptional circumstances and especially in the case of spacesuits are a woefully underdeveloped decades-old technology

and

b) Just because in the first months or few years of the game you need to research a technology doesn't mean that that technology (and associated tools and concepts) hasn't already been in use continuously since the apocalypse in a more bespoke manner than is practical for your councils to roll out for the state (e.g. militia units start with RPGs and tanks, the private economy devises their own power and water solutions, etc.) I.e. I think we can assume that some beyond 21st century technology is in use if it's necessary for basic survival.

Sure, there would probably be some advanced tech around, but the physics won't change no matter how far in the future you go and like the Pymous accounted for, there would be considerable problems about radiation and penetration depth is the only protection against it, meaning thicker layer of denser material equals more protection and denser material or thicker layer equal more weight. Also the need to breath will mean you need considerable supply of pressurized air or at the very least the oxygen component and filter to take out excess CO2, which means in its own right considerable extra weight for any meaningful amount of extravehicular time exercises in environment around earth gravity.

You do realize that those NASA suits are designed for maximum of couple hours of extravehicular activity in zero-gravity and they are already extremely unwieldy and cumbersome in Moon gravity, which is only around 16% of Earth's gravity, for example they hobble around to move in the pictures because they can't really walk in the suits and as the suits weight near 130 kg, I know very few people who could even move around with that kind of weight in 1g and much less fight on it.

Also it is good to keep in mind that for the 130 kg of weight, the astronauts have bought this far about four hours of Moon-EVA time (mostly sitting) and longer (or more demanding activity) than that would mean the oxygen runs fast out and if the oxygen wouldn't run out, the radiation would start to cause threat very soon. Sure, you could help that with exoskeleton (like in the pictures), but that would mean even more weight, more cumbersome to use and at some point you would start to take into account the specific pressure the suit's legs stepping area causes into the ground and can most grounds even support the weight anymore and when walking, more stepping area equals clumsier, slower and more energy demanding movement (like with those wide snow-boots) and more problems to fit trough small spaces or vegetation obstacles (try to move in the jungle with those same snow boots).

Generally when I play these games, I try not to think these things too much, because they ultimately nearly always collapse into some physical considerations that would make the approach impossible and even more so with all those TV shows. Thus it usually is better to take the "god explains it"-route and just think that there is some "unobtainium"-material that makes it all possible. After all, it is a game and games are more about imagination and tales anyways.

[MatthewVilter]

(I'm reading 7+ hours of EVA time for the 1960-70's Apollo spacesuits.)

I'm not arguing for woo woo space magic or a Moore's Law of spacesuit efficiency but with time, resources, and motivation design innovations and engineering improvements are usually inevitable (though, yes, sometimes impossible).

An example of futuristic technology that doesn't break the laws of physics might be the mechanical counterpressure spacesuit design.


I agree that proper shielding against intense radiation seems like the the most intractable problem.

[zgrssd]

On the mater of "why do they still know how to make a space suit":
If the planet needs space suits, there are two options:
a) Your culture still knows how to make them
b) Your culture has died out, either via conquest or the hard way.

[LordAldrich]

@Pymous, that's an awesome drawing!

To refocus the discussion a bit, I don't think anyone is contesting that envirosuits should be a base starting technology (at least, I'm not). My point is that they way they're implemented in the game right now makes all planet types play and feel the same.

A fight between two envirosuited infantry battalions that takes place on a frozen airless moon or sulfuric inferno should be more deadly and require more logistical support (at the strategic level) than the same fight on a harmless Earth analog with breathable air. Right now those fights are literally mechanically identical.