Longer games are more fun IMO, I like longer games.

cannot possibly constitute a game-changer. be real now, do you do this?

rather than KEW the planet???????

I just told you.

check above slowpoke

Why waste a planet? FFA with 8 planets, obviously. :>

Edit: Basically youre not thinking of all the events that can happen, I can tell you withou a shadow of a doubt most people play with 5 planets or more in FFA or teak games.

this is extremely unintuitive

you have to specify how many of them are non KEWable. Remember I personally believe all of them should be. (link if i can find it) but that's for another debate. say you have only one KEWable planet in this system ;

For ONE:
You don't waste time KEW-ing or not when you have the capacity. think defending a com from UC is hard? try a big bulk like the Hailley....

For TWO:
you haven't answered my question, you see..

there is little percievable advantage to begin with; from building three hailleys on a moon then MOVING the whole thing just to shorten your less expensive UC's travel route, but LEGITIMATELY NONE from a strategical standpoint. within games there will never be a percievable difference bewteen the results of the two. (the travel time isn't that long to begin with, will the extra turret upon arrival make a difference? not from my experience, no).

I... Did answer your question though? You asked why I'd move a planet instead of use the KEW, and I told you why.

Most people don't make all of their maps planets KEWs, so let's say... 2 host planets, both have a moon that is a KEW, then there are two other smaller planets thst aren't KEWs just off in their own orbit, lots of metal on those two.

Now then, that's four planets, and two smashable moons. Let's say this is a ten player game, eh? So 5 spawn on one host planet, and the other 5 spawn on the other, this is an FFA btw. Well now a couple players may orbital rush, and a couple may stay, duke it out, and attempt complete control of their spawn planet. Well there could be the possibility that we'd now have 1 person on a KEW planet, two people one one of the small metal rich planets, one player owns the starting planet and a KEW, and another player owns the other main starting planet.

That would a lot of orbital... That's only 5 players left of the ten, still fighting. (I realise in most circumstances you'd end up with less players, but that'd just make this an even bigger thing) so now... What do? The one with the main planet may try KEWing, as he has a main planet, but with one guy out and his KEW destroyed the other player who owns a KEW may destroy him with it. Ah well.. That leaves thst poor little guy, all alone on that metal rich moon, completely unscathed... And the player who just KEW'd... Who lost everything he had.

GG, I think we know who wins.

edit: I realise this is all set up by me, and so of course it'd work out for my argument, the point of it all wasnt that it's entirely commen, but there could definitely be an application for moving planets over KEWing. As one KEW can cause a chain reaction of people frantically throwing their last bets, and possibly even just bored with the match.

he'd loose less then if he did the stupid move closer and UC strategy. I think it'd help the oponent more then him.

on a bigger planet with another planet.... he has way more ressources.

the KEWable planets are fine goods that everyone fights to the death for ESPECIALLY if they're occupied and EVEN MORE SO if they get a KEW activity warning or scout the halleys being built.

face it, your senario is nonsensical and a terrible strategical choice if not to say suicidal.

Kewable planets are used for KEWs or for ressources, if you're taking the time to move them JUST to shorten your orbital attack's travel path you're imminently loosing the game or have already lost. it's not possible that the enemy not have used those same ressouces you put into building halleys into building UC or nukes. If you're just investing capital and not using it you're bound to loose.

Moons are so so so easy to defend against ANYTHING that couldnt hope to attack, the fact you suggest you can attack a moon, completely covered in umbrellas and Orbital is laughable at best. The difference between a moon and a large planet is a moon has very little surface area by comparison, and are so much easier to defend.

you've twisted the myth to fit the needs of your scenario. here it no longer applies :

in a situation where you only have the moon you do not have the necessary ressources to defend it as you say, this only occurs when you have ressources flowing in from another full planet; THAT is the case in which you get the fortress.

without that and with only the ressources from the moon you'll loose the ressources race and you won't be able to cover your moon fast enough and the enemy will be able to break you in a number of ways. the scenario you brought forth is fictive.

And you still really haven't answered how there is an advantage from being closer to the planet to fire your UC from the points I brought up about that above.