I hear what you're saying, and orbital units will probably be simulated to some extent in the final implementation. However, according to the lead designer of PA, having fully simulated orbital mechanics is currently considered to be outside the scope of the game's design. The example of very limited flight physics for air units is a good comparison. And again, this may or may not change based on testing conducted by Uber as well as feedback from the community. Even if this doesn't change by the time PA is officially released, it seems likely that it could be changed by the modding community eventually (considering the strong support for modding that Uber has communicated on many occasions). Besides the new orbital units, what does everyone think about the other changes in this latest build?
If I have the option to destroy it, why should I not? What would be the benefit? If there are no anti-anti-sat missiles what can I lose?
Let's not jump to conclusions. Uber is not Microsoft. However, I think you make a strong point about the message that Uber is sending with such an early preview of orbital units. As Garat mentioned, the decision to include this was at his discretion and perhaps the subsequent repercussions (as evident by this thread) will affect similar decisions moving forward. Whether including such an early preview of orbital units was a good decision or not, we should remember that PA is still in Alpha and that the devs are human beings too. We likely have many more builds to go before anything is finalized.
This is about defence not attacking. All defensive buildings actively track and attack any unit which comes into range, why should anti-satellite weaponry be the exception? Imagine if you had to manual fire point defence weaponry. Yes you can manual target with any unit, yes you can give attack orders but the units aren't brain dead, they will attack units passively not just actively. I don't see any benefit to a Nuke launcher style solution to mobile units.
The MAJOR factor at play here is that the satellites will be passing overhead. Air units only do so if you order them too. My point stands whether the satellites are killed in one hit or 10. They will be killed and you can't prevent it. Also remember that anti-sat weapons have to be viable at their role, defending against satellites. You can't weaken them to allow satellites to fly overhead with little harm, or you have a situation where only satellites can effectively deal with other satellites - this is a very bad situation. Having to micro these attacks, when we could be talking dozens or more satellites, is not feasible. We should not have to babysit defences on 5 different worlds just to balance the fact that satellites are forced to fly overhead. Every other defence system in the game is automatic.
Raevn, you're suggesting satellites are forced to fly over the enemy base. It shouldn't be too hard to implement a mechanism that allows you to adjust a satellite's orbiting pass so it flies around their base instead of directly over it. If you allowed your enemy to take half the planet then it's probably too late already. IMO anti-sat missiles should behave like anti-nukes, automatically firing at satellites within their range (which should be limited). Maybe some kind of orbit radar to detect these satellites before you can shoot at them would be interesting as well. This requires you to invest before actually being able to shoot at them at all. I really hope they give orbiting satellites a try, it will make the orbital layer much more interesting and less micro intense.
If you are allowed to change the satellites movement at will then either a) why can't you get them to be stationary, b) it would take a ridiculous amount of micromanagement to keep them alive, and c) The opponent can just build a new anti-sat under the new path. It wouldn't take many anti-sat stations to effectively cover most of the useful orbits, bearing in mind that unless you control more than half the planet, the satellite will cross into the opponent's territory.
I agree raevn, you can't solve a problem like that one with more hand waving and allowing orbital units to path around willy-nilly wherever they please. If Anti-orbital defences are the problem, and it does seem like you consider them the number one reason to not have even "fake" orbital mechanics, then alter the defences until they are not a "problem". There is always more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. Defending against orbital spy satellites does not necessitate a defensive option that is "shoot to kill".
a) Orbiting satellites are looking so much cooler and more realistic. b) Not really, as soon as you scout an anti sat station you only need to adjust the orbital pass c) True, but that requires another investment of recources which could be used for other things. Maybe if they invent space lasers in the future these could be used to attack the asat stations from space
You only have to control a small portion of the planet, like a timezone on earth, to make sats useless.
Not if the anti sat missiles are given an appropiate cost for each seperate missile. Compare it to nukes.
Or if you can render the satellite ineffective while it goes over your base... say with Radar Jamming. You don't NEED to kill the satellite to "counter" it.
And if it's a spy Sat with vision, which should certainly exist? Though radar jamming for Radar sats though is a nice counter & a nice example of a constructive comment (for a change ). The maximum micro I'd be willing to see for anti Sats is something similar to the anti nuke missile where you decide to build them but they fire automatically if a sat passes within there range. Any thing else adds far to much micro. Secondly do the current ground radars actually detect Sats?
What about the most simple solution? Just let the satellites be. There is no need to kill them of if they provide a FAIR advantage combined with an adequate upkeep. If you go the cheap way and just turn them into T3 units, of course, that WILL cause problems and suddenly calls for hard counters with short reaction times. The lever is on the satellites, or to be more specific: On their abilities. If you turn the radar satellite into a T3 radar station which gives you perfect information on a large area, how could that thing NOT end up unbalanced? Trying to hide that thing behind an economical barrier doesn't solve the problem, if you are to balance that thing, the quality of the effect needs to be balanced. In the case of radar, that cries for the introduction of graded radar, stop that madness with perfect information from radar stations.
I fail to see why having scouting information on any time your opponent chooses to leave the limited protection of the jamming tower is "more useless" then having the satellite be blown up as soon as it travels too near an opponents base. Not to mention that making the opponent clump up under his jamming towers is an advantage and never forget the seeing "nothing" is information in and of itself. You're now aware that your opponent has devoted time and economy into structures that are ONLY effective at countering your ONE satellite. Maybe you're just not actually using your head. --- Exterminans, Can we combine ideas? I'd like the idea of a balanced satellite (not T3 radar), with the ability to "counter" it, if you believe it's important enough to devote time and energy to.
You would have to control that section from pole to pole and ensure full Anti-Satellite coverage along that entire length to guarantee that you could kill any satellite. It's not about not sending Satellites over enemy bases, but more so about avoiding the Anti-Satellite equipment, just like other defenses, if they've spammed them all over to ensure "full" protection chances are they've invested far more than you have up until that point and/or that you can concentrate your investment on a single point and overwhelm the local defenses. Mike
