A comprehensive Example of Orbital Combat

I would imagine an asteroid placed in orbit would be like having a very tiny moon. It requires very little deltaV to leave it so you have more options of orbit layers to send units too. But since the asteroid is close to the target planet it will be subject to T1 orbital launches from the planet because it's now much easier to get too from the planet.

I would imagine that if you place a satellite in orbit and then drop it, you would end up with a lesser impact due to having shed a bunch of the asteroids energy getting it into orbit.

One issue is incoming asteroid, say you launch a unit in a transport at the planet(or a sat into orbit if we make it possible to orbit asteroids), to match vectors you'll need a LOT of deltaV, how would that be taken care of in this system?

I hate to break up this party but we aren't planning on applying actual orbital mechanics to units that are in orbit. Although I love KSP we are going with a simpler model where units are in a geosync type shell. If you are expecting actual orbital simulation similar to the planets for those units you are doing to not be happy.

Keep in mind this is nothing new, RTS games in general don't follow real physical models, only some approximation thereof.

It still depends heavily on the implementation. There is still a large difference between stuff being on an orbital shell around the planet and air-combat in orbit.

So I won't cry before we see how it will work exactly. (Although I will yell at the moon if its air-combat in orbit. )

Well a pity, but understandable considering the extra effort required for this type of orbital simulation.
Also good that there's finally some confirmation as to which direction orbital will take.

Still if i imagine a geosynchronous shell, i can't help but see a lot of problems and not that much added diversity to the gameplay. However i'll freely admit that i have a very clear picture of how i'd like to see orbital done. So maybe i'm just a little too focused on my own version to imagine how this one would work. I guess we'll see once orbital get's added to the alpha...

Edit: Like smallcpu said, the one thing i'm afraid of is planes in orbit...

As i said in the OP, although I very much like newtonian orbits, and I'm still waiting for an RTS that has tried to use them, it's something I would give up for the other two aspects I propose (namely limited movement between orbital layers, and gravity wells.)

I understand that theres a preconception that they are too complex a thing for many people to be comfortable with. If thats why you decide that full newtonian would be not be worth it, or if there are other technical more reasons, then I understand where you are coming from. I'm also glad that this is something you're willing to let us know, as this is one of the first bits of information that's been revealed about how the orbital layer will play.

However, as people have pointed out, air/naval combat in SPAAACE is still something that I think should be avoided. And with the new information filtering through about orbital, theres still plenty of room for discussion.

I think my thoughts on the perceived complexity and lack of implementation is more of an UI question. How many actions to set a move(or change orbit) order, how long per unit to give it an order. Also it's not easy to resolve what point a player means when they click on a screen in 3D space, with a sphere like they're going with, it is easy as we can chose the closer surface.

I think orbits is easy to get once you toy with it a bit, just that we're fighting issues with a fundamentally 2D input method trying to set 5/6 parameters. I'm not sure what ever hack we come up with can scale that way.

To be clear, I have the same desires as you MadSci. I want this.

well, even if it's not a full orbital simulation I hope you guys plan on making the satellites and orbital stations move in a way that is distinct from air units. The main concern people are voicing is that no one wants another air layer, but higher up, everyone seems to want something unique.

Indeed, as do I. I'm also of the opinion that full newtonian would be the best orbital layer movement system for the large amount of depth it creates, and the contrast it would form with all the other theaters of warfare available. I'm also of the opinion that it is not at-all difficult to understand when the right tools are placed at the players disposal.

However, presumably Neutrino has his reasons for not going for this. Perhaps because of the perceived overcomplexity. Perhaps there are technical difficulties, and it would take too much work to implement. Perhaps because he simply doesn't think it would be fun. Unless we find out what those reasons are, then I don't know what else we can say about the matter.

However, as stated before, newtonian orbits are only one leg of the tripod which forms the suggested system. It is also, surprisingly, the least important of them. The other two, (gravity wells and orbital lock in) are necessities as far as I can see, and I have yet to be convinced otherwise. True orbits are something of a bonus, albeit a significant one. With that option removed, there is now an additional necessity - the need to make orbital combat distinct from surface, sky and sea. I'm struggling to think of how to achieve this, so I suspect I need to sit down for a bit, and deconstruct the key differences.

Don't get me wrong, I love KSP and orbital stuff. With unlimited time I would probably consider experimenting with it.

The "depth" of that design is out of sync with the rest of the game. Do understand what I'm getting at there? I can try to explain in more detail but basically if we are going with "real" orbital mechanics why aren't we doing "real" aircraft physics? Et al. Trying to have a similar level of abstraction in the game.

Moving stuff from planet to planet is expensive. Things in orbit around one body need to fit within the profile of a lander if they want to move to another planet. Is this what you mean by orbital lock in?

For transports each unit basically has a "slot count" and transports can handle units with different size slots. A lander isn't going to be able to move a big orbital weapons platform to another planet but it can move an orbital fabber that can then build that.

The main ways of moving between planets are:

a)
- Launch a lander from an earth type planet with gravity well and atmosphere that's deep. This can only happen thruogh the orbital launch factory
- move a lander from the surface of a small atmosphereless body to orbit
- move a lander (with or without payload) from orbit to orbit
- land the lander on a body - whether they can take off again depends on the planet
- still debating whether we can use landers as transports if they can't reach orbit (e.g. can they cruise around on the planet but not reach orbit)

b) unit cannon
- launch units from a small body to other bodies directly from the surface. Each payload is up to a certain number of slots. Units are queued for transport and then get stacked together in these pods (see video).

c) teleporter - Queue units for teleport and then select the move location on the other body. Units will use the closest exit teleporter so you are basically creating a network here.

Note that all of these have room for future expansion as needed. For example we could create orbital only giant ships that don't land but can move around bigger orbital units.

A lot of the areas that are still fuzzy revolve around exactly which weapons can be used against the orbital layer. There will be on orbit weaponry and defenses as well as ground based stuff that can attack under certain circumstances (nukes for example). Nukes are also meant to be able to go to other planets if they are close enough and the gravity well gradient can be overcome (notice the planet scale numbers in the UI, that's are roughly equivalent to mass although not exact right now).

Sounds very interesting. I like the idea of using the lander as a intercontinental transport when necessary, although some larger (non-orbital) transports would be useful as well.

Neutrino,

Thanks, that response was very informative. So the issue is relative complexity of the system (orbital units) compared to other systems (i.e. air).

Yes non-orbital transports will make an appearance. Something along the lines of atlas but with better UI so you can get a fleet of them going.

Think about it this way. We have to support order queuing and all of the other things for these units just like any other units. Adding a new system to, for example, change your orbital inclination and shape is radically more complicated than giving an order to attack something or to move to a specific area. When adding new special case verbs to the game that don't fit within the other systems you really need to be extra careful. Especially as we want to make the UI more generally powerful going forward. Even without super complex orbital mechanics (and if you don't think they are complex go launch and dock two spacecraft in KSP) there is still a ton of unique things about orbital that we haven't played with before. In fact orbital and cross planetary are already amongst some of the most complex systems in the game.

Of course nothing precludes us from adding more orbital layers in the future that aren't lock into a fake geosync like we are currently working on. Maybe that idea sucks but I need to play with it before I can move further down the field.

wow teleporters

can we also imagine a set of a couple units working in organised fashion to transport units?

What I'm saying is : part 1 Atmosphere departing-capable rocket takes units into orbit, part 2 it undocks unit pod wich docks with precedently launched interplanetary rocket. the rocket goes to destination planet and lets the pod (which is re-entry capable and equiped with parachute) fall into the atmosphere. part 3 interplanetary rocket goes back (loaded or empty, it could have picked up some other units from the other planet) to first planet and awaits new payload there, it can travel countless (or a set number) trips.

And from your post I understand the orbital unit list counts around 5 different units (which I'm totally cool with, I know we're on a deadline)?

This is great stuff.

Understood. It does make sense, although i personally thought that the level of abstraction wasn't too much above the rest, seen as projectiles are physically simulated, and aircraft do kinda bank and turn a bit. Never the less, I get where you are coming from.

This is pretty close to what I meant. My concern was that if any orbital units could simply up and go from planet to planet under their own steam, that there would be a massive bias towards using them above ground units. I know we don't have a perfect analogy to how this stuff is actually going to play yet, but I think the closest we've got is the island analogy. If orbital units could flit about at will (between worlds) then we have the equivalent of every multi-planet game being an archipelago, and orbital units being the planes/navy. Just as in supcom games, such maps are dominated by the navy (which does make sense), i didn't want every game with multiple planets to be dominated purely by orbital units. The only way I could think of was tying orbital units to the the layer they are launched into. If transports are the only units which can ferry things between orbits, then this would create a bottleneck, so the concern I had is addressed.

One little question. Do you anticipate landers will be able to go from one orbital layer to any other orbital layer in one go? For example, if we were on a map that was set up like our own solar system, would a lander be able to boost directly from mercury to jupiter? Or would the lander have to go via other planets, or wait for a conjunction.

I understand if this is something that you don't yet know how it will work, and want to try a few different things out later.

This is more or less what I was expecting. I like the teleportation description. One of my favourite Sci-Fi book series is Peter F. Hamilton's "Commonwealth Saga". In it, people get from planet to planet by taking trains though wormhole projecting stations, in what amounts to an interstellar rail-network. The transporter network you have described reminds me very much of that (obviously without the trains), and it's an idea I would love to see explored.

Overall, sounds very promising, and I look forwards to getting my hands on it. I still have a fondness for orbital mechanics (KSP is awesome, and I've been experimenting with some ideas for an orbital RTS long before KSP was around). I have a number of ideas as to how they could be implemented, but I'm happy to bow to your experience that this is not necessarily the time or place for them.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with us.

I wouldn't go so far to say it sucks, just that it depends on the details. And if it does work out, I would imagine (knowing nothing about an undeveloped addition to an unfinished mechanic I know little about) that it could also be applied to air, though that also begs the question of would you want too.

And KSP looks so amazing I've not touched it so that I don't burn out before it's close to release and even more amazing. Kinda like this alpha... >.> <.<

Definitely way more than 5. There are already some listed in the game, I'm sure others can fill you in

Believe me it's not a simple decision. I am a pretty huge fan of KSP.

Not sure about how long it's going to take landers to traverse. We could potentially make them use the same system the planetary orbits do which means they would have to do some kind of transfer orbit. Ultimately though it's a "click where I want to go and it takes time" kind of interface. The time could potentially be scaled by orbital complexity.

I've read all of this stuff more than once.

One thing to consider is that I am trying to build the engine into a platform for doing cool ****. So down the line this might be a good area to expand and experiment with.

Neutrino, how do you get me excited by saying no?

I don't think teleportation should be in the game for the sake of logic. It is more logical to teleport a nuclear bomb on top of the enemy base than to teleport a worker to a far away planet so you can build an expansion or whatever in order to ultimately destroy the enemy... I'm not talking about physics or how things work in RL, I'm just talking about what is more logical.

Unless of course you have a believable reason as to why we can't tp a nuke/bomb.