Orbital units - 2 directions

I do agree it's an interesting idea, so far this feels like the kinda 'worst case scenario' deal for me, it works, but I'd prefer something 'better'. It would also have to be handled rather cautiously and depending on all kinds of details you could end up with scenarios where bases in certain locations are and a huge disadvantage/advantage when dealing with Orbital units. For example a Nuck Launching satellite might be much more troublesome to deal with by a base near the polar caps as it's higher speed might make stopping it more trouble some, or a base along the equator is more vulnerable to a radar sat just sitting within range of the base but outside it's satellite defenses.

I'll admit that coming up with these systems 'from scratch' isn't my forte, I work better when working with a system of some form to expand upon it or analyze it, it's why I mentioned YLMS's proposal because it was fairly in line with my own 'end goal'. A second pass on that which further refines it now that we have a better understanding of the context of both your vision and your concerns would be very interesting I think.

For Gas Giants, my idea was based on the theory that Gas Giants would have a rather large number of Moons/Asteroids orbiting them, providing the 'land' and allowing Satellites and such to be launched from them to the Gas Giant. Part of YLMS's proposal is that when launching a satellite from a planet you didn't have to necessarily have it orbit the planet it was launched from so you could launch the HE3 Generator form your planet to the Gas Giant, of course sending it when you don't have a presence 'on' the Gas giant is risky. If things like the HE3 Generator are meant to be build by Orbital Fabbers that could be a kink in th system.

Woo faulty reasoning! Woooooooo!

Anyways, it obviously depends a lot on the method used to define orbits, and the 'difficulty' of the command depends on the complexity of the process which is related to how complex the orbit system is to begin with. As I've said, many assume that guys like me want 100% realistic orbits, when that is not the case and I'm sure many would still be fine with a system that is simplified but maintains the core ideas behind an orbit.

Mike

In thinking about it I don't think it would be an issue to have some units be able to move between orbits like that. So I can see building a gas mine somewhere and then moving it into position later.

Probably very slowly I'd assume as a trade off to building it in a 'safe' location? Where as launching an OFabber directly to the Gas Giant and building it on site would overall take less time?

Mike

Yes I would think large things would take a while due to thrust/weight ratios.

All orbital defenses would suddenly have the same effect vs every single unit in the whole orbital layer, as it would be unlikely that a unit could completely avoid all missile defenses, even less so if it was in a phasing or high inclination orbit.

Thats not a bad thing, though. It only requires for a balancing of the cost for shooting down a satellite in comparison to the deployment cost (and possible upkeep!), so that you don't just shoot any satellite you see, but safe your missiles for the more expensive/dangerous targets.

For the most basic satellites like the limited radar, the cost for shooting the satellite down might even be higher than the deployment cost, although this would have been to balanced with an appropriate upkeep to discourage the deployment of unneeded instances. A player with a superior economy can still afford to clear out even these cheap satellites, but he already needs have an huge economical advance in the first place before this would be worth the effort. (Helps levering out the impact of small advances in the early phases.)

On the other hand, units like a "death laser" are something you don't even wanna give a chance to fire at all. Taking it down has top priority and it's just waiting to take a bite on one of your nukes. Being able to take them down before they are in firing position, is IMHO essential for balancing such units, as even a single shot could be fatal. (If a single shot wouldn't be fatal, it wouldn't feel like "death laser of doom" either.) Besides, if you haven't ensured that your enemy isn't helpless (that mean deploying such a laser only in the orbit of a planet you already have control of), you shouldn't be allowed to play with such tools either.

Even more so for orbital transports, they would most likely drop into orbit at a seemingly random location, and it would appear unfair if the defenses could only take action, if the "random" location was anywhere in range of a defense. Even if the location would be influenced by the constellation of the planets, this would still require some unnecessary micro.
At the same time, empty "decoy" transports could turn out as an valid option to lure your enemy into wasting his defensive capabilities before launching the actual assault.


It would even work with the "classic" orbit layer if it used the low acceleration, virtually unlimited maximum speed settings because distances don't really mean that much when the movement time scales only in the square root of the distance.
Being able to take down orbital units everywhere in the orbital layer appears just fair if the units in this layer are also capable of moving into any location in orbit in a "fixed" (not really fixed, just sublinear) time.


Besides, considering how fast orbital units would be able to move in BOTH concepts, would it be fair to make the activation of defenses a time critical task?
Automatic activation is not an option as soon as every shot has a cost assigned, yet it would provide the only solution if a player was to exploit the high speed to shorten the timeframe in which the defenses could even target the unit.

Limiting the speed of units in orbit again doesn't sound like such a great solution either, as it would eliminate the most unique feature of orbital mechanics (simulated or sphere): Distances and absolute speeds have no meaning up there, only delta-v matters.

Another side effect: Defensive measures don't need to be scaled down in their construction / upkeep cost if they can operate planet wide. This can be used as a lever to put soft limits upon the number of defensive units, and at the same time it also uncouples the cost of orbital defense effectiveness from the size of the planet. Which means that defending against assaults on a small planet is just as expensive as defending against assaults on a large planet would be - essential if you want to avoid asteroid/moon turtles.

Probably very slowly I'd assume as a trade off to building it in a 'safe' location? Where as launching an OFabber directly to the Gas Giant and building it on site would overall take less time?[/quote]
Yes I would think large things would take a while due to thrust/weight ratios.[/quote]
I like that, did you have any other ideas about the units or unit roles that would need to be built 'in-Orbit'?

A few months ago I had an idea for an 'Orbital Drop Factory', the basic jist was that you launched it into orbit and it could build land units but it could only store a limited amount but because they were dropped from orbit it is primarily focused on providing a 'fast reaction force' as opposed to general production. Similar in theory to using the Unit Cannon from a moon or asteroid but on a different scale.

Also any thought how how detection goes? Like is a satellite detected by passing overhead of radar or do they have enough of a signal to always be detected from within a certain range of any unit? Any thoughts on an 'Early Warning' Structure/Unit/Satellite that can detect orbital units traveling to/towards the planet it's deployed on and/or unit moving just near the EWR?

Mike

Yes I would think large things would take a while due to thrust/weight ratios.[/quote]
I like that, did you have any other ideas about the units or unit roles that would need to be built 'in-Orbit'?

A few months ago I had an idea for an 'Orbital Drop Factory', the basic jist was that you launched it into orbit and it could build land units but it could only store a limited amount but because they were dropped from orbit it is primarily focused on providing a 'fast reaction force' as opposed to general production. Similar in theory to using the Unit Cannon from a moon or asteroid but on a different scale.

Also any thought how how detection goes? Like is a satellite detected by passing overhead of radar or do they have enough of a signal to always be detected from within a certain range of any unit? Any thoughts on an 'Early Warning' Structure/Unit/Satellite that can detect orbital units traveling to/towards the planet it's deployed on and/or unit moving just near the EWR?

Mike[/quote]

I was intending on having the orbital layers and above always visible to all players.

FYI will be back in this thread tomorrow. Keep up with the comments.

so that means if I'm playing a 1v1 in a 4 planet system and we don't know which planet the other is on we give ourselves away as soon as we launch anything into orbit to to a different interstellar body? Not sure I liek that if it's the case...

Mike

It's not like you are staying on that planet for long, is it?
The satellite is just an indicator that the player is about to move to the next planet.
If there was no indicator, well you could try playing hide&seek in an asteroid field with only an interplanetary transport and your commanders, and probably never find each other because without the indicators, you could jump from one asteroid to the next without ever leaving a trace behind. (Assuming that you don't just mine every single asteroid you have visited.)


It's also not like you would have a real disadvantage if the enemy can see your satellites, considering that most of them are going to sit right above your enemies head anyway.

That would be a disadvantage if you had an economical disadvantage if he just hunted down your satellite, but thats an issue which can be addressed independently (by inverting the cost of counter measures and deployment, there are other ways of making up for the low cost).
Bigger threats like the attempt of building the "death laser of doom" actually need a forewarning, making the orbital layer visible is only fair, unless you want to add the full system of scouting to that layer, too.

Same goes for interplanetary assaults. It's bad enough that your enemy won't be able to tell at which location on the planet you are going to land. Don't make it worse by not even telling him, that you are on your way. The actual content of transports should be hidden (for various reasons, including that you want to be able to ship your commander without disclosing its location), but the transports themselves should be clearly visible.

And that is perfectly fine.

I think Satellites should be detected by Radars from an increased distance. The reason radars have limited range is because, even if they are over-the-horizon radars, they are still affected by terrain, as well as diffusion and distortion caused by air. When you are searching for orbital units, you can remove the 'terrain' from that equation. This is of course based on my high school education on the way electromagnetic waves interact with mediums. And that a single radar structure is more intelligent than a (human) leading professional in radar arrays, both in terms of IQ and creativity.

Neutrino thank you for the response!
Here is my dialog back:

Absolutely. On the scale of boring to awesome - real life physics in orbital is on the boring side; but having them just sit there seems to sit on that end as well. "Awesome" would be just the right mix to play with.

I'm thinking there might be a huge amount of creative ways here - I'm not a programmer so I'm not sure where the limit is but maybe a larger sat dish that has the potential to displace sats that orbit within a certain radius of this structure due to the radio frequency hacking in and changing the orbit path that was originally set.

I was thinking conceptually of course - perhaps a better way of having two orbital sats link together is a "tractor" beam from one sat to another and then one or both sats travel along that pathway to connect to each other. Obviously the sats would have to be relatively on the same area of the planet hemisphere, etc. which may make it difficult when initially launching these.

I would think yes - imagine if you were queuing up 4 sats, you could set one orbit path and all 4 would be on that same orbit; symmetrically spaced out from each other. "Hold Ctrl" (or some equivalent keyboard button) to add more to the queue and set those at a completely separate orbit path.

Maybe even an option instead could be set an orbit path for each unit in the queue and if you wanted multiple sats on the same orbit you could select that pathway line to add it to that.

I don't know - what do you think?

And how big should that distance be?
It's simple with spy satellites, they won't harm you (at least no more than a regular scout would), so it would be sufficient if you could just detect them at the very same distance they also detect you. Vice versa, it wouldn't hurt much either if the enemy detected your satellite slightly earlier.

But what about bigger threats? Like transports or offensive orbital units?
No matter which movement system is going to be used, once moving, they are going to be fast. Faster than any surface unit and possibly to fast for you to react. In case of transports, they may even slip through completely unnoticed that way. Enter orbit and deploy units right at your base.
You had no forewarning since your radar would only detect them once the transports were already right above your base.
In the case of offensive units, you are calling for a "drive by" style. Spend as little time as possible in the detection zone (which is possible due to the movement characteristics), give a few shots and then leave detection range (and thereby also targeting range for countermeasures). Unless you design counter measures Instakill on sight, they would always trigger to late.

What if orbital units simply maintained velocity and orbited the planet in a direction based on their last vector. That way, you could use the existing queuing but once you stopped giving orders, it would keep going on it's merry way like the ship in asteroids except wrapped to an orbit.

Additionally, there could be a velocity fall off towards the equator so that orbiting units could be ordered into a geosync position simply by moving them to the equator.

This maintains the impression of orbit while involving no interface change.

My main concern would be how user friendly and intuitive it could be.

Also, can you please clarify the purpose of the orbit layer? Why not bypass it completely? What gameplay scenarios are desired or problems solved through orbital units?

Obviously orbital will be used to initiate planetary combat, which should be the main goal of this game, battles over planets and glorious murder.
Even if you control orbital units the same way as you control land navy and air, it is still different cause its in space dammit.
Orbital has a different purpose, it should be used as a tool to keep your planet safe and get it ready for expansion.

I would love for the elliptical orbit of planets to be used in a way where you get a few minutes to build and then when your planet is approaching the enemy planet, then the orbital becomes the ultimate tool of initiation and where combat begins.
Sort of like the calm before the storm and it happens over and over on different planets until someone is blown up.
You use the orbital units to transport your planet units to the enemy planet controlling them the same way as you'd control your land units, just in space(obviously it would be different, just same principle)

Basically I want the fake orbital cause it makes more sense, if all of your orbital units orbit all the time, you'd need to do math to win the game.
Nobody likes math.

In regards to detection, constant vision would be like playing chess in case you're not a minute apart, you know what your enemy is doing but you got enough time to figure out a way to react and do something about it, just not in turns but real time. I can see how it could be an interesting concept

One possible compromise is to have units in orbit not use any sort of orbital mechanics, but rather have to just keep moving in a straight (circular) line around the planet and never stopping. Maybe some could change direction and speed up or slow down to intercept other units, but your radar satellite is going to be traveling around the planet. If you build enough of them you can cover the entire planet with there radar coverage, if you build just one you will get a sweeping view of the planet as it passes overhead.
This would create strategic depth and feel more real than hovering in place.

Physics isn't required to give the illusion of orbiting satellites, and the illusion of realism is more important than actual realism. When people talk about "that is/isn't realistic" they are missing the point. Yes you can handwave anything, but if you just make **** up it's going to look dumb. On the same note if you make a game that's 100% realistic, you'll have created a simulator not a game.

Personally I think it would be REALLY cool if satellites used the same interface that the system editor uses. In this model they would be following orbital mechanics, and could get pretty complicated, they would also only be able to orbit around the equator. So I've mostly given up on this.

In my opinion having satellites just move in circles around the planet is probably the best of both worlds, it's easy enough to implement and feels orbit-y even if it's not an actual orbit, and would add a lot of depth with a small amount of UI complexity.

Rather than being units they would function more like buildings where you have to place them. Click at one point to select the start of the orbit, and then drag to select the direction, A ring will appear around the planet and when you let go the satellite will be launched.


As for the problem of satellites overflying the enemy base and being shot down. I have argued this for a long time with Raven, and I still say that's the wrong way to look at things. Just because a unit is orbiting over the enemy base, does not mean they are inside it's zone of control or within range of it's weapons. The ground and orbit layers should not attack each other directly, if they do it should be along the lines of nukes, expensive, deliberately constructed, and targeted by the player rather than fire at will. A unit in orbit is analogous to an enemy base on a nearby continent. Just close enough to be a distant threat, but not close enough for direct combat without a specific effort on the player's part.

Being in orbit when your opponent is not should be a significant advantage, but not an overwhelming one. If you have orbital radar you can spy on the enemy base without the enemy doing anything about it, but if you try to drop units from orbit, they will be vulnerable to anti-air defenses while falling. If the enemy leaves a nice big undefended part of his base for you to land in, well you'll probably kick his ***, but a skilled player who is expecting attacks from space will know how to practice defense in depth and prevent that.

The only instances of ground attacking orbit, or orbit attacking ground should be limited to two or maybe three units imo.

For orbit attacking ground, something similar to the nuke. Perhaps a rods from god type weapon that costs as much as a nuke, but only damages a single target. It can't destroy units (they can just get out of the way) but it can take out any building with one hit and might be useful for taking out key structures in the enemy base. It would be countered partly by air defenses, if you have enough of them they might be able to shoot down the incoming projectile.

For ground attacking orbit, the same story more or less. A rocket which is launched up and deploys a kill vehicle which kamikazes into the enemy satellite. It's cost would be balanced to make it slightly less expensive than the cheapest satellites. Like the nuke and the rod from god, it would be a strategic level weapon that needs to be built and targeted by the player. Just like how the rod from god would be for taking out key structures, the kill vehicle would be used for taking out key satellites.
Because satellites would "orbit" there would be a delay between the launch of the kill vehicle and it destroying it's target. This delay would be equal to between 25% and 50% of the distance around an average sized planet and in the case of radar satellites, this would usually mean the satellite will get a chance to fully map most bases before being shot down. Shooting down the satellite would deny the enemy further intelligence, and cost them there investment, but they would still get some useful intel from the launch.

It opens the door a bit for alternative intelligence systems hopefully, rather than simply automatically "seeing" them when launched.

Congratulations, you have just made a discovery ... wait for it... here it is: Orbits.
These "circular lines" you described, that's regular orbital mechanics , just as the ones referred to in the OP. You don't even need a physic simulation to calculate such an orbit (not even for the more complex ones!), thats basic two-body-physics, solvable as a function of time.
You do have all the disadvantages listed in the OP though.

As for the second part (not the rediscovery of orbital mechanics):
I agree with you in about all points, except for using antiair to defend against stuff dropped from the orbit. You had enough forewarning time to deal with the orbital unit itself.

An aside note:

If you tell your planes to patrol over the enemy base, and they get shot down - that's your fault. Wear the consequences.

If you tell your satellites to orbit in a way that takes them over the enemy base - how is that any different to the first scenario?


I'm still not convinced that the concerns raised by Neutrino, about control and grouping, are valid. [EDIT: 'cept for cost. That one most certainly is a valid concern]


I don't believe that orbital mechanics require an Excel spreadsheet to calculate (this isn't KSP or Eve Online, after all). Just put all satellites at the same height - they all now have the same period. Disallow ellipitcal orbits, and now all you need to do is provide two points for the satellite to pass across and you've got a stable orbit.

Even if that's not entirely correct according to Newton, it's a close enough respresentation of an orbit that everyone can understand it at a glance.