Aeonsim, we currently have a game that has: tanks, fighters, bombers, battleships, nukes, artillery etc. and satellites. It is already heavily based on today's technology (obviously with some exciting futuristic twiddlys). If we are going to have satellites as well, then they must orbit, that is what a satellite does. What you are suggesting is an anti gravity unit which at the very least should be higher tech and more expensive than a satellite. If they are going to behave like anti gravity units, lets call them such and shape them like 1950's flying saucers. If we are going to have satellites, then lets have satellites. Edit: Corrected Aeonsim's name...
I should have said "stable off-equatorial geostationary orbit", I can see why you misunderstood me here. It is an orbit. There are multiple types. If you draw a line perpendicular to the surface of a planet out into space, and put a satellite there, it's in a geostationary orbit and does not move with respect to the ground. A satellite can, using the same mechanics, utilise additional constant thrust to push it north or south of the equator while still maintaining a stationary position with respect to the ground, exactly as they are now in PA. We don't do this on earth because we lack the power source to maintain such an orbit. But that's not a reason against it happening in PA, and they don't need to be "anti gravity" to achieve this. And please don't Strawman me . You can choose not to send a plane over an enemy base, or tanks into defences. You can't avoid satellites in an orbit going through enemy territory unless you control greater than half of the planet, or are able to move satellites at will, in which case what's the rationale for not being able to have them stay where they are? This just turns satellites into suicide scouts, a function much cheaper performed by aircraft. I think you're underestimating my knowledge on the subject and/or I'm not being entirely clear. Either way, I agree with this statement, and am perfectly happy for uber to try it out (especially if there's a toggle between the orbit you would like and a geostationary orbit). This whole thing started because I raised the issue of satellites going over enemy bases, and I still believe, gameplay-wise, that this is an issue. If I'm proven wrong, then that's cool, but I'm not yet convinced there's a way to avoid this with respect to the system being proposed. Edit: Mixed up geostationary with geosynchronous.
A term which returns zero results in Google, as it is a meaningless thing to say. Basically, if you are having to apply a constant thrust then you are not in orbit. OK, for a start that only works for a specific altitude, an altitude determined entirely by the mass of the body and its own rotational period. In most cases, that would be a significant distance from the body, probably far enough as to render information gathering much more difficult than is necessary. Additionally, as soon as you move it away from the equator, you would also have to be maintaining a constant downward thrust to maintain altitude, you are now *not orbiting* you are flying through the use of constant thrust. The amount of thrust you have to output increases as you move away from the equator until it reaches a maximum at the pole where you are permanently supporting your own weight with a constant downward thrust. I can't think of any reason at all why you would fly any space craft like this unless it is to maintain the pretence of floating. Technology like this could allow you to ignore gravity entirely, move in square orbits, move to any altitude, fly anywhere, visit any body in the solar system. With infinite fuel that weighs nothing it behaves in a way that would be indistinguishable from anti-gravity. Why the hell would you limit a vehicle like that to a single altitude with quite a slow traversal of the surface. It would certainly be able to move much more quickly above the surface of the planet. In short it is a nonsensical realisation of a vehicle, that has clearly been represented like that because nobody wants to move away from tanks and planes in space. Anyway, you do agree with the testing of the mechanic in the Alpha, so nuff said. It's been a blast
You've already got weapons with unlimited ammo, units that never need to refuel. Sats with unlimited fuel is a logical extension (note there are plenty of logically consistent ways to justify this within the level of tech in the game or described in the forums). And if we're down to arguing specific tech level as why Sats must take up passive orbits it's not that impressive an argument when the entire game is based on nano tech & is likely going to have networks of Teleportation gateways (mini versions of which provide a really nice explanation for why every unit has unlimited ammo/fuel/energy). If you want your units to orbit you can setup some patrol routes with the current implementation and once they've got the full orbital set in you can see if you prefer it by setting every orbital unit you build into a orbit.
BTW for geosynchronous orbits which are near constant over one spot of the planet & off the equator (some wobble in a 8 pattern). http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Geosynchronous_Orbit_(Math) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit
If you wobble in the sky, you're not geostationary. Geosynchronous, maybe, but not stationary. All PA's "orbital units" move around like ships on water and then hang there in space... as if they can be geostationary anywhere on the planet. You can't interchange the two terms. They mean totally different things. --- Also, infinite fuel is one thing. Having the engines produce enough delta-V is another. having infinite (or near infinite) fuel does not mean you have the delta-V to just hang in space. You need powerful engines to do that, especially for the distances that PA's "satellites" are at from the planet. Uber's satellites don't look like they have powerful engines. Therefore they are using 100% grade-A bullshit to stay still in space.
+1 Aeonsim, your arguments could be used to justify all kinds of things that we definitely don't want. Do you want tanks to go around mountains? Why? They could just use their super unlimited mega-nano-hyper engines to climb vertical walls. You obviously want to bother with terrain that affects unit movement, otherwise it's a kind of crappy game. Well the terrain in space is curved by gravity, and if we are going to ignore that but not ignore mountains, then I honestly don't see the point. Ditch satellites (as they are affected by gravity) replace them with AG machines, and I'll go and eat my bitter bitter disappointment...
Maybe, just like the ability to transport resources instantly across an unlimited distance for free. Also, since you're basing this entirely on the look of the model, it current has no engines at all, so can't orbit they way you'd like either (or get into orbit at all, for that matter). I do agree on several thing: Orbits are too low (satellites are using existing mechanics, so this should change) Orbital fighters, or the gameplay they create, are a bad idea, and is definitely "Air 2.0" My position on orbitals is "I'm not strictly against non-stationary orbits, I just believe they have a significant gameplay problem". We'll see if this pans out to be true or not. Note that orbital mechanics are not solely tied to the issue of "Air 2.0". You can have stationary satellites and still avoid the "Air 2.0" effect, if the unit interactions on that layer and between layers are sufficiently different. I agree, moving orbits is one way, but not the only way.
There are quite some solutions to the issue of, satellite over enemy base means dead satellite. (And that the satellite HAS to pass over the enemy.) Basic one is the geosynchronous orbit. The satellite orbits with the same period as its parent body. This means that the satellite is always close to a point on the planet. Of course its not stationary but you can cover a lot more then just the equator with that. Tundra orbit from wikipedia for example: Or a highly elliptical orbit like the Molnya orbit where you can avoid certain points on the planet while still reaching near its poles. Now those are some special orbits that would be hard to make from hand but the computer can easily do those calculations. Give the options of some orbit types, show the full orbital path on the ground on the planet to the player, let them drag and drop it around as necessary, done. Then you can have regular circular orbits with low altitude and thus such a high speed that ground based defenses will have a hard time engaging those. Or high altitude orbits that are out of range for certain ground based defenses. Or cheap ground-based orbital defenses that uses lasers that just blind and deactivate satellites for a short time instead of destroying them and destroying them is more expensive. You can do a lot to balance satellites by tying satellite type to certain orbits (basically the orbits are their specific movement types). Finally, I don't see it as such a big issue that certain places on the planet will be easier to have satellite coverage on then others. If you don't like satellites, build near the poles. If you love them, expand to the equator. It gives the orbital layer a natural terrain distinction (something air for example doesn't have, air is effective everywhere). I always say this, but limits and restrictions on units often make it more interesting then having jack of all trades. Invading a planet? Land near the poles and ignore most of the orbital defenses! (Also just a comment for the existing orbital units. The radar satellites is basically a T3 radar unit that makes all other radar units superfluos once you get it. T1 radar is allready useless once you get to T2 and now we have T3 that does the same to T2? I don't like that at all.)
You shouldn't have to launch your orbital units as soon as they get built. If that happens along with proper obits then it won't matter that they pass over the enemy base.
Now you know why I got all up in arms over the overall T1 and T2 implementation the Economy thread. The "upgrade" problem is prevalent across the board at the moment, Economy, Warfare and now even more so for information gathering... and Uber hasn't clarified their position on the issue at all.
That "Commander" is a T1 bot. He thought we wouldn't notice, but we did. This thread really exploded overnight. Nanolathe, I think you've successfully incited a rebellion, can you die a happy man now?
Only if we can overthrow the ruling. Orbital mechanics are not "too deep" for us Jon Mavor. Give us some intellectual credit here...
That was my suggestion but Raven seems to be assuming that anti satellite defenses will automatically destroy the satellite when it flies over them, which is ABSURD.
Any chance of some more wisdom from the devs on this? I would especially like to hear from Ryan Gaffney. My position is that a satellite is by definition in orbit. A satellite moving in orbit is analogous to a stationary tank, it is expending no energy and is in a position of rest. If you are going to have satellites that hover above a single point, that is analogous to only allowing (for 'gameplay' reasons) the building of ghostly tanks that perpetually slide across the planet, through mountains and over chasms and seas, and then explaining it away with some handwaving about how future technologies allow this kind of behaviour from tanks. I'm like "Yes but I was expecting to be able to build, you know, regular tanks?? Ones that maybe drive about and have to go round mountains..."
Either go full space with fighters and stuff or leave them out of the orbital layer! ^^ Word bro.. dude... guy.... nerd! Yay!
If anti-sat defenses don't automatically shoot (and therefore destroy) satellites in their range, what is their purpose?
I don't think that is quite the intent of the comment, more so along the lines of that Anti-Sat shouldn't be binary, it's not like just because you built some kind of Anti-Sat doesn't mean you're immune to Satellites much like how having AA still means you are vulnerable to Air units, just that the amount your vulernable is variable depending on all kinds of different factors. Mike
