What do you think about the workings of the current orbital units?

If they are not intended as a replacement, what function do they serve at the beginning of the game?

Complexity for complexity's sake is not necessarily a good thing. Locking the orbital functionality until such a time whereby orbital units and structures can be beneficial is a sensible option for reducing player confusion.

Important Note: if this time in the game - let's call is X - is very early on, so be it. I'd unlock a suite of orbital tech for each fabber type you've constructed a building of (or have an active fabber of: bot, sea or air).

Support from the start for a certain strategy or early interplanetary expansion. You won't need that type of support if you are playing an overly aggressive playstyle since any benefit a satellite could give you is already covered by that, but early expansion is not less interesting for you.

However, orbital units would a viable choice for less aggressive players who can actually profit from easy (yet incomplete!) intelligence, basic fire support of site and alike. They would pay for this "advantage" with a slightly crippled economy though.

Why are Satellites crippling your economy any more than Tanks or Bots now?

As alternative intel and possible raiding forces, much like the scout units for the other unit types but in a position that it is harder to effectively deal with them, but also in a position that they themselves are not game winners.

They are an alternative way of playing, using the orbital advantage to keep an eye on locations that are inaccessible, and then to possibly deep strike in places that are unexpected. Later growing into a force that can take the player to new worlds and dominate that layer above gas giants to produce massive amounts of energy to be employed, possibly across the battlefield or in the function of metal worlds.

But don't mistake me, I do understand your point.

But do understand that newer player are always going to be confused, and they will fail and lose and possibly even whine, but thats just apart of the process of learning something new and once they do it will be grand.

Edit: been ninja'd!

How do you balance this intelligence against the aggressive, more gung-ho players? Bearing in mind that tactical map awareness is generally far more coveted than a simple numeric advantage (in terms of offensive units).

This is usually balanced by increasing the relative cost of recon drones/sats/whatever and increasing their frailties with regards to combat-oriented units, however if you want them as a viable option alongside the other unit types, they have to be balanced as such. Which means the intelligence they provide is generally going to be more useful than investing into combat units from the off.

However, if you limit them until you have the relative bots or fabber structures ready, it doesn't matter which area you focus in, you will eventually have access to certain types of orbital technology. Nobody is restricted, and you don't have to screw around the with relatively complex balance constraint that is map awareness and the strength of units that affect that.

You are making the assumption that map awareness would need to be a boolean attribute for a certain area, but it isn't.

Knowing where enemy bases are can be uncoupled from knowing where enemy units are (that doesn't invalidate the use of the first information) whereby the second information is reserved for recon units with small radius which can also be intercepted while the first type of information can be made available to units with a much larger range.

Without making a recon unit superior over the long range unit or vice versa, although aggressive scouting can make the second unit obsolete.

Oh, I'm not assuming anything. I already suggested infrared layers and the like (and give how Uber already have multiple layers that can be rendered - admittedly for debug, mostly - I see this is doable). Vision is not a boolean attribute.

Also, I'm not assuming that my intepretation is the be-all-and-end-all. If I'm being picky, it's because I want to expose any issues with your construct(s) so that all end results - even if they're not agreed with - are as cohesive and thought-out as possible.

Your suggestions are good at expanding the roles requires for an additional start tree, however they do not fix the inherent problem of map awareness being more important that combat potential,in terms of raw offensive power. Do you disagree with this statement? Feel free to!

It also feeds into a potential issue of buffing defensive strategies in general being able to focus on defensive reinforcement based on the unit types and/or structures and/or power sources you can detect that your enemy is building.

Defensive strategies are not necessarily a bad thing, and as you said: You can counter what you can detect.

That leaves you open to all the stuff you can not detect with your crippled map awareness, so your only real option is a move forward to attack what you can see, leaving the option of being surprised by an ambush or even simple defenses you couldn't see.

Personally, I feel like the game as currently defiantly needs a greater focus on defensive strategy if it ever wants to have players fighting across multiple planets at once.

Currently the game moves so very fast that the micro management of bots in order to beat tanks means that players are constantly struggling to find time to do stuff.

Build moar turrets. They're REALLY strong with the health buff.

You don't even need to use walls, just build asstons of turrets. Cost-for-cost they beat everything on their tech level.

I just wish that they were the gaat guns of TA, using power from the mains to fire and thus justifying a higher fire rate.

But alas it is but a pipe dream.

Yeah for turret deathballs.

Almost as great as getting steamrolled by a tank/bot deathball. (Depending on which is superior in the latest iteration.)

The pace of the game is just completely off with a lot of micro enforced by bad choice recon options, a stupid unit AI (especially target selection) and the lack of mechanics which scale the strength of oversized unit blobs.

I am inherently against buffing defensive strategies in any way, shape or form until the offensive side of the game is approaching balanced. Otherwise you risk defensive strategies being too strong (and they shouldn't be, because this game is about multi-planet warfare. Not holing yourself up behind the current incarnation of turrets).

That's just my approach towards balance and design. I understand completely if you disagree!

That isn't a pipe dream. In fact I really, really, really hope Uber does that.

Like, you know. I really really really REALLY hope that happens. Wink wink nudge nudge.

There are multiple phases in any RTS, not defined by economical milestones, but by the overall situation on the map.
Expansion, fortification (this requires defenses) and ultimatively extinction. While it must be possible for one side to overcome, the other, it must ALSO be possible to slow down an advancing enemy while in the defensive position or even to start an comeback.

The game may not be decided in the first phase already, but that would happen if you omitted replacement options for a defensive gameplay as the attacking player could use his momentum to cripple the defending player in every aspect of the game, not just ground control as it should be.

A player is defeated if he lost to much ground control, but that should be the only reason for a defeat. He must not be defeated, just because couldn't maintain upper hand in an secondary feature like recon.

Besides: There are sufficient ways of dealing with overly defensive players if you only have sufficient ground control and therefor the required economy. You advantage is only CAPPED by the existence of a non-removable baseline like basic recon options which are overly costly to remove.

* until the offensive side of the game is approaching balanced. It really isn't, currently. We still haven't gotten a handle on orbitals in general (wherever in the debate people sit) and balance between the three major unit types is nowhere near done. We have defensive gameplay options and I'd rather not see those enhanced (in every respect) with the ability to see parts of the planet you do not control before the opponent can even attempt to strike at you.

Knowledge is power. It would mandate orbital expansion as the de facto approach before any other unit types are significantly explored.

Would you even do that, if you had to choose between building 3-4 pgens just to pay for the upkeep of ONE satellite while you could flood half the planet with spy planes with the same resources?

It's easy to design a feature in such way, that it isn't the perfect option to start with, unless you are in an inferior position already. In this case, there is not much point in going for spy planes if your enemy has already deployed fighters (or ground based scouts vs. radar + bombers). But the originally uneconomic satellite suddenly becomes an interesting choice for you while your enemy does not need it.

If you do have air superiority, then you wouldn't ever need the satellite except for backup since your recon planes are already giving you much better informations.

As a result, the satellite only provides a baseline of recon for the inferior player, but becomes an invalid choice for the inferior one.

Even if we don't all agree, I am really glad we are all discussing this!

If you had to build that many resource structures, then you're approaching a level of unattainable for such a basic orbital. Which is the problem that others have raised with T1 orbitals and the like (being too expensive for an entry-level unit).

Which is why I'd lock them out until basic structures are at least constructed, but that's just me.

I don't see why T1 Orbital, which would just be utilitarian and support based, should be locked behind a tech barrier. I don't think a recon satellite has the same complexity of a super-futuristic nuclear missile. Or a anti-ballistic missile. Or an interplanetary load-bearing rocket. Or a long-range cruise missile with pin-point tracking.

We were on the moon before we had flat-screen TVs. Orbital is expensive yes, but it isn't inherently untouchable in terms of tech.