some units to eventualy spice up gameplay ...

the same counts for the hunter ...

The deer cannot don lead body armor and 360 noscope the hunter from behind a tree.

A half decent PA player can, in this situation.

we are not speeking about the hunter with the rifle and the deer
but the one with the knife and stones to crack the turtles hull

errrr .... yeeeeaaa ... ... ... soooooo ... .... how about that nukebot?

rebump due to OP update (sry for multiposts -_-)
and as far as this thread, the talk about implementation of hovercrafts that has been talked about before, and the request of multiunittransports and orbital carriers having been discussed to death, go ... i personaly realy can´t think of anything else the surfacetype factories would need more for diversified gameplay

orbital may make use of some poeples ideas but i rather let others make suggestions to that

what are your thoughts on the added unit suggestions here?

Ok i don't want this thread to die.
Firstly all the ideas propposed are interesting but I find them a littel dull.
We need tos focus in the real unbalanced aspect of the game:
Orbital.
Thus is not about winnig, instead I proppose an easy solution for the orbital layer.
As I see, the sxx is perfect eight now, goog for stabñishing beacheads, strong against commanders but not op.
The way I proppose a solution to this problem is a three way unit balance.
First of all, we need a new unit:
A bomber one, like in star wars, designed to destroy orbital structures,
slow mediun rate of fire, and tankier than the avenger.
I see that making it behave just like the actual avenger would give it a good starting balance.
The real problem are the avengers, cause with the new balance anchors are spot on ( good work uber), this are fighters, they need to be fast, not the blob unit like we have now.
Good against sxx, radars and bomber.
Bad against structures, also it´s shooting behaviour doesn´t feel right.
The way the orbital overhaul mod changed it´s movment feels spot on. It should shot like fisghters do, making that infinite shaped movement around it´s target.

The numbers just need to be stalished by uber but in general it would behavelike this:

avenger:
faster, with new attacking movment ( fighter like), but weak against structures.
Bomber:ut weak against avengers, without the abbilit to shoot back.
Move like the actual avenger, strong aggainst structures.
Anchor:
just how it is right now.
Bomber > anchor >avenger > bomber
Also I need to mention the brokes eco it gives to the player, jigs should not produce energy but consume it. That way solar arrays have an utility, also making those structures would make economy easier to target.
@jables I think everyone would like to know what you think about this aspect.
Anyone with constructive suggestion please reply. Thanks to everyone for reading ( pd: This will have lots of typos and grammatical mistakes, just forgive them please)

the thing with orbital imo is that it rather will get more intresting with propper carriers and transports because then invasions will be tried more often that arent dependant on buildings or single routetransit ...
i am not sure bout orbital torpedobombers though .. a fair number of avangers can deal well with structures already ... and than it would be about who has more avangers anyway because of orbital superiority ... add in anchor prioritarysation against orbiral bombers and you have the exact same situation like with air ...

i rather think it will be more a thing of avangers and ssx asisting those transports than anything ... and there would then be the risk of orbital bombers being to powerfull when you would have umbrellas anchors and tactical missilelaunchers already against you

I have just had a match were the enemy locked down the moon. There were no endgame weapons so the invasion was impposible beacuse of the op eco they got from the gas giant.
It is obvious that the umbrdellas are the peoblem in the mix, those need a nerf. Possibly in cost and expand their area built command so the whole planet surfae doesn't get prottected.

adding orbital bombers wont change that ...

I didn't say anything about that...
I think you misunderstood me xd
Thaht doesn't invalidate my ppint. I still think a three unit balance would be the ideal one

does' n invalidate the fact that avangers are primarily used for orbital superiority ... bombers vs anchors prioritising them = bomber not as usefull ...
avangers being effective in numbers

Dont you get that you suppose that they would be prioritized??
The sole reason bombers (air) do is fpr comm snipes...

Why not have bombers, carriers and transporters ....?
Maybe even radar jamming satelittes.

be it comm sniping or general sniping ... it is simply to prevent intercepterblobs taking the fire supposed for bombers ... how much damage would you think a single bomber would do on a gasgiant causeing multiple chainreactions ...

"hey there is this potentionaly higher alphaunit lets target the grunts instead of it"

yea of course this is speculation
but considering how bombers are implemented here it simply would make sense to me orbital bombers getting prioritised as well ... it' s not
a matter of just commsniping but sniping of high value units in general ..
jigs are a high value targets aswell as orbital factories ... both not something you want to lose because of the time invested and output of the former and the investment in metal of the later ...

No, he means anti-orbital structure, like the excalibur in the orbital warfare overhaul mod.

@emraldis

so to me that sounds like y(?)wings or tie-bombers with torpedoes instead of dropbombs
and yea i know he means anti orbital-strukture, jigs and orbital factories are orbital structures

So that has nothing to do with commsnipes....

spess torpedos are fun

the topic was about defenses prioritising bombers ... he thinks that prioritarision was only due to commsniping which i disagree with ...

Ah I see, I must have misread.