will Astroids be next?

What current hallyable moons do not.

Reusable planet impacts.

+1 to asteroids.

What is that supposed to mean exactly?

Personally I would make a few changes to the current setup for planets / asteroids and hallies.

First I would make it so the mass of a planet / asteroid is tied to the size. In general, larger planets should have more mass (no need to force a specific number, but a range would be nice). Maybe even give different planet types different ranges, example the valid range for metal planets would have more mass than a similar sized lava planet.

Second, the minimum number of hallies needed to move a body should be tied to the mass of the body. Exceeding that number will give a body a higher impact velocity.

3rd The damage done by impact of of a body should be based on the mass and velocity of the projectile vs the mass of the target.

4th. Ability to intercept incoming bodies of up to a certain size. (Similar to the kickstarter video)

In this kind of setup, asteroids would give us a way to hit a planet with the equivalent of a large nuke using a small number of engines (or harder if you can fit more engines on the asteroid) but at the same time they could be intercepted. (perhaps by anti-nukes, but unlike a regular nuke it could take multiple anti-nukes to stop, just throwing a number out here but how about 4x the number of hallies that it takes to move the asteroid, with each hit blowing chunks off the asteroid, thus reducing the mass and amount of damage it does)

Larger bodies such as moons would take many more halies to get moving but would not be able to be intercepted.

Asteroid belts are places where you can get new rocks to planet smash with, as compared to a one off moon.

i belaved the devs said befor that asteroids will respawn after a set time

that's not re-usable, more like a regenerating source of smashable bodies.

Semantics!

no. re-usable implies something can be used more than once, which makes no sense at all in this context, how can you re-use an asteroid that you just destroyed?

What, is it Throwback Sunday or something?

(At one point semantics was quite the common word on these forums)

Perhaps poor @igncom1 here meant more along the lines of readily re-usable planet smashing. As in the action. Asteroid belts would make it infinitely reusable, unlike our current moons which are limited.

As far as I know, the Devs have put some thought into how asteroid belts would work, and I think that they would surely add to the game. I think I'd rather they spend their time on polish first, now that we have other game enders and the shiny Unit Cannon, but I don't want them to ever dismiss them entirely.

We know what I meant.

So Imma cut this discussion here.

Reskin small moons.

Then put in 20 million of them, but only make 5 "real."

Asteroids would also act as mini-nukes. Not as powerful as a "real" planet smash, more in the ballpark of 1-2 nukes, making smashing less game-ending and more of a strategical nuke.

That's actually exactly how the current system works with halleys when you have a smaller planet/moon.

Well, they could be small rocks that you can throw into your enemy base, and those rocks can only be countered actively (i.e. by sending nuke, SXX or orbital fabbers), unlike umbrellas and anti-nukes, which protect you from threats automatically. It could be nice way to stop mega turtles, when there is no annihilaser or smashable planets available.

Much like current smashable planets, the only differences are is that you don't smash your eco you have on that moon, asteroids are tiny and won't do as much damage, as real planet and probably have 0 res and nothing can be built on them, maybe they could be only accessible to orbitals, like gas giants. Another major point would be that asteroids won't show in planet list. Because if I make 3 planet system + 10 micro moons to act like asteroids, people would not join, because they don't like large systems. Asteroid belt could be just a checkbox in lobby or system editor, everyone would just know that this system has asteroids, and not 10+ small moons.

That's how I see em.

If they ever make it into the game, they should be an option, that you can disable.

tl;dr stop turtles more effectively

Asteroids would bring a whole new level of strategy to the game if done right. For me, the ideia of trowing a whole moon to another planet and that event only creates a crater is absurd. We should get that with asteroids, planet/planet collision should be much harder to do and, when it happens, both bodies should be destroyed, like now when two bodies with almost the same size collides.
For me asterods must be very small, so small that the current deltav halley is too big (or only one is necessary).

if there power will be how it is in the kick starter intro 3 asteroids and its destroyed

Just half a year ago even smallest moon would kill everything on both planets. 1300m planet vs 100m moon, no survivors. This was bad as well.

Current system is better, yet I agree that area of effect is too small, it roughly equals planet size and nothing around is damaged at all. If we could vote, I'd say 100% damage on direct hit, and aoe damage that has falloff (the further object is from epicenter, the less damage it receives).

I'm not an expert in math or geometry, but rule could be something like: 200m moon hits 1000m planet, everything that moon hits directly is annihilated and replaced by crater, then we draw a circle from very center of impact that has 2 or 3 times larger radius, then the moon had. This is the area that will recieve damage, but damage is non linear, objects that are very close to impact area will receive huge amount of damage, and those that are at 66% distance will receive insignificant amount of damage (only booms or dox might die), and those and 90% will only lose a tiny fraction of their health, but will still feel the effect of catastrophe that just happened.

Like this:




Basically, if you hit a 600 planet with 200 moon, everyone should feel the impact.
If it's a 150 moon vs 800 planet, those on the other side of the planet will not receive any damage.
Of course my math might be wrong, maybe we need to use surface area or volume to compare planets, and not radius. But general idea is that if moon is big, it should had significant effect, and if it's a tiny asteroid on huge planet, the effect could be comparable to nuke.