Turrets and Immobility

Range is useful, so is power, or price. All of those are in fact very realistic. An immobile turret can simply mount much larger guns for a much lower price. Big guns on a tank requires even bigger treads to move the guns. Big guns sitting on a hill . . . the price of the guns is the only factor.

Additionally, a emplacement will likely be more accurate than a tank, merely because it is not moving, and has never moved. The gunners will have a very good idea of firing patterns and ranges, and thus will be able to put ordinance down in just about any spot they choose the first time, every time.

Realistically, fixed emplacements are indeed going to be better than mobile units.

PS: Props to igncom, he got there first.

I don't see how you can lower the price (from a real-life perspective). A 155mm Howitzer is a 155mm Howitzer whether it's on a concrete block, or on the back of a truck.

Does concrete cost less than a truck? Possibly so. I certainly can't argue against it.

Does a mobile gun shoot softer than an immobile one? Not if they use the same ammo, and have the same barrel.

Can a concrete block raise a gun up higher than a truck can? That's the justification I use for extra range.

I would have imagined that we were talking from the perspective of a self propelled gun, rather then a truck carried one.

But you are correct Bullet, however wouldn't a static gun have better logistics, leading it to have better shells to fire? Or more often?

I am inclined to agree that on firing more often, based off ample supply of ammo. That said, ability to supply both is dependent on where they are, not what they are.

However, I do disagree with better ammo.

Fair enough, it was a stretch anyway!

Being able to mount guns, and being able to feed the guns are pretty different things.

Don't provide the ammo source(in this case, energy). Then the gun is SUPER cheap!

Also, leg systems tend to take up much of a unit's design. Removing them leaves much more room for heavy armor and the like.

Indeed, but feeding the guns comes down to the same methods used to feed constructors. Nano-tech is like that.

Regarding concrete prices, a ton of concrete costs me about $200. That's buying for a driveway and not in bulk. Unless you see any $12000 tanks running around, I'd guess it's quite a bit cheaper.

Also, factors of weight, armor, and maintenance become vastly more simple for emplacements. Dirt is surprisingly good armor, even in our current modern age.

Right, but making a big weapon mobile is much more expensive than making a small weapon mobile. The costs aren't linear.

I have no issue with mobile artillery, so long as the costs and durability are reasonably represented. Also, as I noted, emplaced artillery would be far more accurate.

About the original posters question, what if you could get an end tier near-experimental building transport, like a giant helicopter which could be used for base management/bringing along the factory, but is balanced by the extreme cost/easy target and would be slow... Probably not something that would get put in with the first couple of builds of the game, but defiantly something modders could put in...

A mobile unit that plants down buildings? That could be pretty neat. Obviously its selection would have to be limited, probably to the smaller turrets and towers. A full experimental can land on a planet and build up a defensive line faster than anything else, because... well, it's already built.

I would love to see NOTA style transportable turrets. +1 OP