Orbital destroyers

That unit was not meant to be a real representation of anything, just worked on it for fun

Right now Orbital is essentially like playing PA with the ant and a turret. How fun do you think PA would be if every layer was just a unit and a turret?

Orbital needs to be a first class citizen, and so does naval. (But at least naval has more than two combat units, haha)

For orbital to be fine, I'd say at least one more unit, hopefully two.

as far is i remember mavor kinda said something about reflecting current modern tecknology but giving it kind of a future skin on it ... if it were to go more torwards star wars ... there absolutly wouldn´t be a point to have naval at all

Just put in the Russian Sputnik satellite armed with a inferno flame thrower and lots of hp.

The you can decrease the hp of the orbital fighter, bing bang, a three way.

2? ok:
1. slow but bit tough antistructure satalite against anchors jigs and orbital factories with long range and low rate of fire .. easily destroyed by numbers of avangers ..
2. decently fast but weak suicideunit that crashes/releases bomblets before crashing into both groundstuctures and orbitalstructures but is also attackable by aa when in transit from orbit to air easily outmanuvereable by mobile units but the slowest ..

orbital should be a first class citisen for unittransit .. as it is already the case with austreuses and orbital fabbers
it just needs more transportationoptions that we have discussed to death already ...

Orbital transports can be set to carry more then one unit now, because they no longer show the unit be actually carried.

But they still need to when told to load to fill up on cargo from a area load.

The we can easily make multi-unit transports with a simple integer change.

lame ...

What, the not showing the cargo?

Yeah, but if thats how it rolls, then thats how it rolls.

Eak, why would they do that? That's terribly boring! I guess it's for a perf boost?

they were able to it before so they should be able to do it again ...

I think its to do with technical issues that made even showing a single unit being transported a hassle.

Well, with one unit.

I dunno man, it's their code.

so we realy get clowncars again ?... ... just screw this ...

sure it is .. but i don´t get it .. they managed it in supcom even if it did take a while ... don´t tell me they are going to give up on that here now ..

*Shrugs*

Clown cars are only bad when a unrealistic number of units fit into a smaller sized transport.

Otherwise, the current transport could fit, like, 6-7 bot, 3-4 tanks or a single com in one go.

And all units have a transport weight.


So it wouldn't be as redonka donk like the supcom2 transports.

no i don´t care bout that it´s still horrible ... ... ... sigh

I don't know about you man, but I haven't played a game where navel was really used or that important. I like it, but it is not nearly as enjoyable as Supcom's navel.

Semantics, what they wanted was to make a game without the hassle of balancing units capable of fighting in between planets (out of orbit) and bombarding planets from orbit.

Well I say they should have tried it. This current mechanic we have where units travelling between planets are completely passive and immediately in trouble-making range upon arrival makes no sense. Also satellite fighters (avengers) look and sound stupid.

Planetary bombardment is in every way superior to ground forces.

Damn right they didn't want to balance space ships, there isn't anything to balance.

Space ships are better.

This.

The only reason major space-faring civilizations in fiction even bother with ground troops is because there's something on the planet/moon/space station that they need to capture or protect.

In PA, your only objective is to destroy the enemy Commander. There would be no reason not to obliterate the Commander as soon as you have a space presence.

Can't disagree with you enough, teleporters can allow ground forces to be far more mobile than they had probably originally intended. (Where spaceships would be better at reaching targets than ground forces due to logistical limitations (having to use transports) )

Think about air units, they are way more mobile than land units, they FLY in the frickin AIR. How can they be balanced. The answer is simple cheap, plentiful and easy to produce Anti-Air units. The end result is a balanced and enjoyable game with multiple useful and interesting layers.

Balancing layers is fairly easy in principle, perhaps a bit more fiddly in getting it perfect understandably the only area where I could see a cause for worry is in expectations, they wanted the game to be focused primarily on using planets and not ignoring them. So how do you balance how players can play the game instead of the units, well that's fairly simple in principle as well, make multiple paths to victory viable. Yes you can attack with orbital battleships, nukes, annihilazer or you could just as easily (and maybe your opponent won't have prepared for this as well) teleport or unit cannonerize in some levellers to scrap their com.)

I'm assuming by AO you mean anti-orbital, if not then I apologize for my mistake.

Otherwise, just because there aren't as many weapon types, doesn't mean we should have only one orbital combat unit... Imagine playing PA with only an ant, a single-barrel laser turret and a spinner. Not even T2 units. Doesn't that sound boring? That's what orbital is right now. I'm just arguing that orbital needs more tactical variety, even if it is just an anti-orbital structure sniper and and anti avenger boat. It just adds the need to respond to your opponent's unit choices.