Nanolathe, it's far more productive and useful if you either put forward your own, complete, idea about how the orbital layer should work, or provide improvements over existing ideas, instead of taking the position of automatically assuming the worst possible final implementation of everyone's idea and shooting it down dismissively. As it stands, not everyone agrees that inclined orbits should be implemented. Collectively, we have several, vastly different, ideas about how the orbital layer will function, how it interacts with other layers and how important realism vs gameplay is.
Simple reason: Geosynchronous (and thus geostationary) orbits are all a set distance away from their parent body. A quite long distance actually (35'000km and something on earth). A satellite in a geo orbit just doesn't have the resolution necessary to see many details on the surface. Spy satellites are what, a few hundred kilometers up there and give much higher resolution. But they won't be geosynchronous at that stage. So, you have to choose between a geo orbit which sees only large features or other orbits (polar for example) that see details but not all the time and not everywhere. You can't have everything. (On the other hand, shooting low orbit sats down may be easier then high orbit ones. Then again, they're much faster so... tons of ways to balance it through numbers. )
If I was certain that such ideas would be given a fair reading and compromises between community and developers could be made, I might do just that. Considering what happened in MadSci's thread however, with the whole idea being put down without any give-and-take from the Devs, I'd rather not waste my time.
That just isn't true. Many, many ideas just vanished in the depths of the forum without any feedback in the last few months. The less provocative the topic, the faster it would disappear and never be honourd, and afterwards you had to realize that it disappeared completely unnoticed and had no impact whatsoever on the development. Sorry, but neutrino himself confessed, that he considers shitstorms the most (actually right now: only) effective form of feedback, and that requires to create awareness of the issues first so that enough people participate in the discussions so the topic won't die unnoticed again.
That makes some sense, though when your talking about giant robots some which are bigger than trees, plus a powerful active radar systems I'm not sure your going to need to be too close to see them . Also it's worth noting many Geosynchronous orbits are elliptic so can/do swing in a lot closer (example of 1000km on wikipedia) before moving out again which puts them at LEO distances for a while. Still I'd think strategically having a periods of excellent coverage then lesser coverage over the same region would be preferred to sporadic coverage over the entire globe. And as mentioned before any active propulsion system or Solar sail like systems changes everything allowing you to spend a lot more time in LEO or near LEO while still being geosynchronous. At the end of the day it seems some people want orbits that go around the planet like many current (low tech) Sats because they're Sats and thus should orbit. Others only want geosynchronous sats which are doable with current tech (with some limitations) and that can be modeled fine with the current system. While others either don't care they just want something fun, or don't want them at all unless they're a completely unique from the other layers and finally others want a perfect simulation of orbital dynamics with the restrictions of 21st century Sats (unlike every other system in the game). Uber will have fun working out this one!
For geosynchronous orbits it turns out the smaller your planet the closer in you can get so using Kerbin 600KM radius the distance from the planet needed for geosynchronous orbit is ~2800km. Considering the PA planets have a lot smaller radius than 600KM your not going to need to be that high up for such an orbit meaning you should get really good vision & radar coverage even in Geosync orbits. Orbits on PA planets are going to be really really close.
I didn't say don't discuss it, or even not have a healthy debate. What I said was it's not productive to assume the silliest, worst implementation of every idea without any thought to a way of achieving the same idea in a way that is suitable (especially when obvious ways exist), and furthermore under no circumstances is it acceptable to belittle people or make them feel unwelcome on this forum just because they have a differing opinion, in order to get a thread noticed.
As I always say with such arguments. We have WW2 ship combat (Battleships!), Korea War air combat (Dogfighting!) so why shouldn't we have early 21st century satellites? Too much futuristic tech doesn't lead to good combat and imo more limited satellites are more fun then sci-fi omniscient eyes of Sauron. (In the context of a RTS that wants to be similar to TA, there are other ways to do it of course but it would be a totally different game.) Yes and with that line of argument PA tanks should be able to shoot all the way around the globe. A tank can shoot what, 4-8km effective range depending on ammunition? We scale things down to unrealistic ranges because it leads to better gameplay. As I love to say, limitations and restrictions lead to good unit design. Restricting the abilities of an unit (within reason) gives you more and a more diverse set of units. Jack of all trades are boring, limits force creative use.
How are we assuming the 'silliest, worst implementation"? We are using the same thought process and same type of informations from Uber we've gotten all along. Uber has pretty much never shared anything with us until they've had enough time to work out the idea and develop it to the point where they are confident in it. So when Uber shows us the Orbital we see in 52512, we do need to be concerned, because unless they change the design goals how much can it really change? It also doesn't help that Uber has never talked about what they plan to do. I can accept that to a point, it is new never before done (whoops not the case anymore >.>) type of thing but because of that, over the slat year we've all been developing an expectation for it, and have talked about it on many occasions but each time, Uber has either not added to the discussion, or been so horribly non-committal that they shouldn't have bothered posting in the first place. I mean, you seem to have quite the opinion yourself on what the Orbital set-up will be, maybe you should put forward your own, complete, idea about how the orbital layer should work because so far we've only had snippets from you based on what ever post you're replying to. EDIT: Heck, while we're at it, lets ALL do that, so we can have 15-20 threads about this that all get the Dev's attenti-oh wait we know how that story goes already. Mike
This was a continuation of the previous post, it wasn't directed at the wider audience. Most people aren't doing it. Geostationary satellites (I'm not concerned with absolute scientific accuracy. If you want to describe it as a movement shell, that's fine), slow movement speed. No orbital fighters. Satellites further out than they currently are, but closer than some people suggest. Ground-based anti-sat missiles would be medium ranged, built but automatically fired, cheaper on average than satellites (which should be much cheaper than they are currently). Longer range (including inter-planetary) anti-sat should also be possible, but more expensive. Satellite based anti-sat would also be available. Other than this, nuke and anti-nuke would be available as weaponry in the orbital layer. I'm not decided on whether there should be any other weaponry present. The result is that satellites act more like slow versions of static defences - constant micro isn't needed, and the resulting interactions are not similar to any of the existing layers. Additional satellite types can then be added around this framework. Ultimately of course, I don't know if this particular setup will work. I do know though that it doesn't suffer from the forced fly-over of defences that non-stationary orbiting has, which has been my main debating point.
I just want to point out that there seems to be a false dichotomy here. Those who dislike real orbital mechanics seem to have got this idea that satellites will always be in a low orbit, and hence will always be flying over enemy bases and getting shot down. Aside from the fact that players can always choose orbits that don't go over an enemy base, and then shift them when they feel they have enough satellites to do something useful, there seems to be the perception that people who like orbital mechanics completely wish to exclude geostationary orbits. This is false. I would like the geosynchronous/geostationary altitude to be smack bang in the middle of the orbital layer radius. We can do this, because the critical altitude is dependent upon three parameters, namely the universal gravitational constant, the rotation rate of the planet, and the mass of the planet. All three of these are fully in the control of the simulation. I would envisage that the geostationary point nearest to a players base will be an incredibly important place to fight over. It will form the immediate staging area that most players will send their orbital units to, before they alter their orbits, and have them start flying over the enemy bases. This automatically adds a texture to the orbital layer whereby the strategic importance of different areas is a product of the groundside battle, AND the the energy landscape of the orbital layer. Furthermore, if people are worried about it being difficult to group units together in space, there are a lot of simple UI techniques to allow this that fit in very well with conventional PA UI paradigms. Have it so that giving a guard/assist order from one satellite to another cause the ordered unit to move and rendezvous with the target, whereupon it will stick with the target in a small cluster/flock of units. As long as the system is consistent with it's trajectory planning, then it becomes very intuitive to plan these things. I suggest that the best movement paradigm would be the lowest energy path which occurs at the point of giving the order, but there are lots of paradigms that could work, as long as players are consistent. Similar systems would be in place for attacking enemy units, and positions on the surface. Furthermore, we have every reason to believe there will be orbital factories, built by orbital constructors, as well as just launchpads. If an orbital factory is built in a particular orbit, than any units built by it will automatically stick close to it. Remember, if two satellites are in the same place with the same velocity vector, then they will be in the same orbit at the same location. I'm not suggesting this for the purpose of realism. Realism for it's own sake is foolish, and I have always said as much. What I am saying is that occasionally, reality actually throws us interesting mechanics that can be inspirations for fun and engaging gameplay. This is one of those occasions, and we would be silly not to investigate it. The concept of "realism vs gameplay" is a foolish and false dichotomy that seems to suggest that reality is entirely devoid of interesting ideas to adapt and twist to create great gameplay. This is one of those cases where borrowing a few ideas from reality has alot to offer.
I am actually quite excited about the orbital units. I had the opportunity to test one during a game against two bots yesterday. The first AI set up right next to my base, and defeating it was fairly easy with conventional units. However, the second AI set up at least a continent away, and would constantly send massive waves of bombers at me, which would prevent further base expansion, and force me to tie up my resources building air defense units. Furthermore, even with spamming mobile air defense and fast moving tanks, it was impossible for me to send any kind of ground or air force to attack or even properly scout the AI base. This is where the orbital unit came it. I launched a satellite and found their base instantly. I was then able to send my fabbers to build a forward base within nuke range, nuked 'em, and then sent tanks and artillery in to finish them off. IMHO, this was one of the most fun that I've had playing an RTS in years. Additionally, the style of combat closely matched the vision set forth for PA set down in the intro trailer - two players stalemated with forces of equivalent power, and the key to victory is using reconnaissance and the "high ground" (space) in order to gain tactical advantages.
The issue isn't that we are not going to get orbital mechanics, on the contrary. It's all about the fact, that the warfare on the surface and the warfare in orbit are both hogging on the same, valuable resource: The attendance of the user. Realistic (or even pseudo-realistic) orbits are nice to watch, but they require a lot of micro management to set up, even more if you had to deal with intercept maneuvers, circulation periods, inclination and various more. The time you need to spend up there, finetuning the parameters, is time you can't spend on the planets surface, macro managing your troop. Having realistic orbits and warfare would make for a nice game of its own, that is sure, but it's to demanding to be used as a simple "minigame" in an already quite demanding tactical and strategical simulation. Even the "compromise" (Air 2.0) isn't much better, neither does it fit in with the regular gameplay, nor does it justify the additional attendance required to manage a whole new layer with a full scale unit range from probes over fighters to space stations.
Where have you got the idea that orbital parameters need to be fine tuned to such a degree that players will spend minutes altering parameters from? This isn't planning an interplanetary transfer trajectory in KSP. This clicking on a belligerent unit, and having the satellite figure it's own path out, with simple and predictable rules. I think you are vastly overestimating the complexity required by the player in order to make this work, and untill examples exist, i think people will continue to make this mistake.
Why would you NEED to shoot it down in the first place? All the discussions about asat weapons, always resolve around the assumption that the satellite means a significant threat if in target position for an extended period, and that taking the satellite out would mean a also significant economical damage for the player who deployed it. The threatlevel is the first thing which needs to be adjusted to make a satellite suitable for regular gameplay. In the case of radar, this does require to modify a different variable than just the radius. Limiting the type of units this type of radar can detect would be a valid move. Second is the economical cost of deploying a satellite. For passive satellites the cost for deploying one should be low, but in return the upkeep high. This shifts the balance towards smarter use of satellites, and also works quite well with the next point. Third, global asat enabled weapons are fine. They only need to fulfill one condition though: Their use must not be for free. Taking down a basic satellite which only provides passive support, must not be economical for the attacking player. The defending player is already crippling its economy with the upkeep, but taking it down by force should be discouraged if a satellite grants only a minor benefit. This does change, once offensive satellites in the magnitude of a catapult or bigger are deployed, upon that point, taking down the satellite may become a good choice. These satellites however could be classified as REAL T3 units and should not be mixed up with basic T1 or T2 grade satellites.
IMO orbiting satellites would reduce micro management, as long as you keep it simple. No need for different orbital layers, hight adjustments and stuff like that, the only thing I want to be able to do is choosing an orbital pass around the planet and (slowly) adjusting it if necessary. It might not be completely realistic, but still much more interesting and a totally different playing experience than just another air layer. I actually like Raevn's idea, if only it included orbiting satellites. I don't understand the problem about anti-sat weapons, as long as they are not too cheap they shouldn't be much trouble. Just implement an anti-nuke like building, able to build missiles for about 50-75% of a satellite's price. It's quite simple, if you build alot of artillery/defenses, you're quite invulnerable to land attacks. Same for air and space, lots of anti-sat buildings/missiles would make them less useful. it's how this game works...
50-75% is waaay to cheap, you are still assuming, that satellites are a bad thing and always need to be taken down immediately. Which they currently are, thats a faulty balancing on the satellite, not a generic issue. Issue is also: Orbiting satellites still produce a lot of micro. There is only one trivial geostationary orbit along the equator, every other semi-stationary orbit is far more complex. Passing over a certain location once, that is easy. But thats not the issue, the issue is showing presence in a certain area. And for most locations, there is just no such orbit which would provide an intuitive coverage. Thats why there also quite a lot of people who call for an even SIMPLER concept than moving on a sphere, which includes making orbits purely cosmetic and completely forgetting about the "location" of satellites in orbit (= detaching the visual location from the location of the effect).
Well if uber implements other types like bombardment satellites it's good being able to shoot them down isnt it? I don't really see the need to make it too complex, the equator orbit may be the only one possible on earth, but what about orbits around metal and lava planets? I don't know much about space science and I don't mind if they implement things which are questionable irl. As long as it isn't air 2.0
