Orbital units - 2 directions

just throwing out my 2 cents
i´m ok with fake orbital though it may not feel all too right first i imagine it will be easier to control..the only thing that shouldn´t happen is to put to much offensive options on orbital like say orbital to ground laser or missile pots or bombers stuff like that .. i mean i wouldn´t want to have my commander attacked from a layer were i hardly can fight back .. ok some of you would say "then you shouldn´t have let your enemy do it in the first place" yeah but if you start from different planets and need to go orbital anyway to reach your opponent? then what?
like he spotted you sends over some orbital to ground bombers or ofabs to build said stuff and you can hardly defend cause you didn´t manage to build nukemissiles that are the only way to defend against that stuff in time (JUST as an example) ...
what i mean to say is that the overall battle should still be focused on the surface of a planet (with the exception of gas giants since there is no surfacebattle possible) and not go to much into orbital"space"fights ..
putting the costs high seems to be one good way to go as well as the mentioned idea of making orbital units accelerate slow and reach high top speeds to not be too effective or rightout OP .. so in short as some may have stated already i too rather would see orbital as supportiv and deffensiv layer then having offensive capabilities like those mentioned ... well we have to see how orbital turns out anyway ...
i just liked to state my concerns ...

I think the question of "fake orbital" vs realistic is not the question we should be answering. To me, and most others, it's obvious that it is the more fun of the 2. The real concern seems to be how it will distinguish itself from the other layers. IMO Orbital already does that more than sub-naval (which is a layer no one complains about) and Gas Giant game play should work similar to a completely ocean world that uses only naval and sub-naval (and perhaps air), so Orbital unit's with combat abilities are essential. All that said, lets step back for a minute.

I'm really interested in hearing from neutrino how he plans to do Asteroid movement because to me orbital and celestial bodies have a lot in common. If you are able to assign orbits and targets with asteroids or planets with engines or even metal planets how will their interface work? Similar to how orbital works now? If not, you will be making a whole new interface to deal with their movement so then why not use that for orbital units too? How do you (neutrino) envision a player on a planet might defend against a metal planet with weapons trained on your commander? I think these are questions we need to answer before we make decisions in stone about Orbital units.

Many reasonable systems have been proposed (I particularly Teod's picture) and I see a lot of people arguing for realism. I'll try to explain why I don't want 'fake' orbits from a gameplay point of view. In the end I think we need to discuss gameplay instead of realism because the realism arguments can hide different assumptions about gameplay and thus never be reconciled.

The main thing I want from the orbital layer is something which does not behave like any other layer. So to me the stated advantages of the 'fake' system are actually disadvantages.

The orbital units in the 'fake' system have the same movement characteristics as ground units. As in they move freely in any direction and are able to hover in place (unlike aircraft). The only major difference is that the ground layer has terrain.

With these movement characteristics the orbital layer will have a very similar 'spacial/tactical' structure to ground. These similarities line up with the above quote. Units which can freely move naturally create a notion of territory control. The territory in the orbital layer will be able to mirror territory on the ground. Slow moving 'fake' orbital units will cement the idea of territory and probably lead to bases.

In Depth Explanation
Imagine the usual distance metric on a sphere, this metric loosely defines how long it would take for a ground unit to move to another location on the sphere (assume there is not much sea). As in this metric is closely linked to logistics, spacial control and tactics. Now think about the staples of RTS spacial control; things such as well defined territory, a 'main base', flanking, fighting in concaves, raiding distance. Imagine an overlay which displays the level of control each player has over the ground layer of a planet. The control-map for a player will commonly look like a roundish polygon with the highest density at their base near the middle of the polygon.

The shape of tactics and spacial control on the ground layer of the planet is a consequence of this distance metric. Ground units can move equally at some max speed in any direction on the sphere and this gives rise to the shape of territory control. If orbital units have the same sphere with the same metric as ground units it is very likely that the two layers will synchronize. The orbital layer will require no new strategies or tactics. In effect, at it's core, the orbital layer will be a copy of the ground layer. This issue can be hidden by giving each layer unit types or roles unique to that layer, the layers could also have asymmetrical interaction. But the core mechanics of territory control remain the same.

This is why I want something like 'real' orbits. Orbital movement mechanics create an entirely different notion of which parts of the planet are close and which are far away. I want the shape of territory control in the orbital layer (if control is even possible) to be significantly distinct from the shape of territory in the ground layer. With such differences it would be difficult to synchronize your ground and orbital territory. In this case both layers would be important as neither is just a mirror of the other.

I'm not even sure whether the orbital layer should have territory. The orbital layer could just exist to support the ground and have no interaction between orbiting entities. I am only sure that I think an orbital layer with the same spacial characteristics of the ground layer should be avoided because then we've just got two copies of the same thing.

Planes
Just as aside it may seem like I am arguing against the air layer as well. I'll clear that up here.

• Aircraft are a lot faster than ground or sea units.
• Aircraft ignore terrain.
• Aircraft provide different roles, mainly fighter and bombers.
• Aircraft are unable to stop while fighting and must fire forwards. The idea of placement and concaves does not directly transfer from ground battles to air battles.
  
• There is a lot of interaction between ground units and air units (almost all weapons can shoot at both unit types) so in some sense air and ground are on the same layer.

"Real" Orbital Mechanics
There are many ways to create a layer which is spatially distinct to ground but they look arbitrary. This is the advantage of using "real" orbital mechanics, many people are somewhat familiar with them and they do not behave at all like ground units. Real orbits could also provide some sort of terrain for the orbital layer.

I think Teod's idea could work. Instead of a 'shell' of fake orbits have a band of distant orbits around the equator, simply restricting the orbits to a band significantly changes the shape of the terrain. It makes a good distinction between orbits and ground combat. In addition have low fire-and-forget satellites which orbit rapidly around the planet in circles. "Territory control" in the low layer would be gained by spamming many orbit-to-orbit satellites in an orbit, the aim is to create band shaped territory.

My Simple Idea
Just throwing this idea out there. It may not work but it seems to implement something like orbits while retaining RTS controls which everyone is used to.

• Satellites accelerate/decelerate slowly and turn very slowly when moving at high speed (think a few revolutions of the planet).
  
• Set a minimum speed for satellites based on their latitude. They can be stationary on the equator and must move rapidly at the poles.

Low turnrate and acceleration poses many problems for the unit AI and people would have to setup patrols around the planet to maintain speed.


This turned out to be a pretty long post. I hope it prompts more people to think about how to make orbital units fundamentally different.

Alright, after reading through a decent portion of this thread I think I've come up with a very simple solution that will satisfy people who want orbits, while still keeping the UI basically the same as it is now.

The basic idea is that orbital will work similarly to how it does now, but with low acceleration/high top speed (which has been suggested before). The difference is that there needs to be a gameplay reason for the player to have/keep their satellites moving at high speed (i.e. patrolling and/or orbiting). To help accomplish this I think a third "behavior toggle" should be added (the first two being "hold fire/fire at will" and "roam/hold position").

The new behavior would be a toggle between "siege/hit-and-run" and will only be available to units using the "ammo*" system (which is only partially implemented for bombers currently).

In siege mode, when told to attack something, the unit will behave as normal (move into range, stop, keep firing until target is dead). In "hit-and-run" mode, units with ammo will move into range, fire until they run out of "ammo" and then the attack command will be canceled and they will carry out the next order you gave them.

Why is this helpful? I will go through a gameplay example to show how this might help while also adding gameplay to other layers.

---------------------------------------------------

Lets say you have 10 orbital bombardment platforms, each with 3 ammo currently stored. You set 5 to "siege" mode and the other 5 to "hit-and-run". You tell them to attack move into the enemy base and then queue up a move command back in your base so that they will return when finished.

All 10 satellites (currently sitting motionless above your base) begin to accelerate towards the target. At the halfway point, the 5 "siege" mode satellites begin to decelerate, so that they can come to a stop above the target. The 5 "hit-and-run" satellites continue accelerating the entire time and reach a moderate speed by the time they come into range of enemy anti-orbital.

Lets say the enemy has catapults and lobbers (both of which I think should be anti-orbital weapons). The lobbers are too slow/inaccurate to track the fast moving satellites so they miss. Two catapults fire and kill two of the satellites. The 3 remaining satellites are now over the enemy base, they drop their ordinance while moving at speed and are now out of ammo, they cancel the attack command given to them since they are in "hit-and-run" mode. The next order in the queue is move. Since they are already traveling at high speed, they plot a course back to base which uses the momentum they currently have (most likely orbiting back around the other side of the planet or curving slightly).

Now the 5 siege satellites are coming into range, although they are decelerating, so rather slowly. The lobbers are pointing in the wrong direction from the previous satellites and for arguments sake, the catapults were destroyed in the bombardment. The satellites move into range and begin bombarding until the lobbers turn to target them and duke it out.

--------------------------------------------------

So in this example, you have "orbital-like" movement from the "hit-and-run" satellites and you only had to set the unit behavior and issue 2 commands, and you still have normal unit behavior as well with "siege" mode. This should be easy to understand and already uses existing commands/physics** other than the new behavior.

As for anti-orbital weaponry, as stated above, I believe there is no need for extra units. Lobbers should be long range/inaccurate/slow anti-orbital, for killing large or slow moving orbital units/structures. Catapults should be (relatively) short range/accurate/medium-speed anti-orbital weapons.

As a consequence of this, you can't park a radar satellite on top of an enemies base, but you could make a patrol path (read orbit) that passes within range of the lobbers (which miss) but not in range of catapults (which probably won't).

Also, the new behavior I suggested will be useful for any unit using the ammo system. If you set bombers to "hit-and-run" they will drop their bombs and then move on to your next order once they run out, instead of circling the enemy base and getting shot down while they regenerate their ammo.

This is a long post, so here is the TLDR, please don't comment unless you've read the whole thing however, as it all ties together.

TLDR: Add slow acceleration/high top speeds. Create gameplay mechanics that encourage putting orbital units on patrol paths (read orbits) so that it still feels like orbital. Orbital should be cheap(ish), and anti-orbital should use pre-existing long range defense units.

*Ammo: For those who don't know, Uber mentioned some units using an ammo system where they can store 'x' amount of rounds, it takes 'y' time and 'z' energy to create new rounds, and from what I understand, units will be able to shoot faster than 'y'. So after unleashing a volley of ammo, the unit will need time to reload or it will only shoot as fast as 'y'.

**physics: Units already have stats such as acceleration and top speed.

since were talking orbital...

ORBIT
TI
sensor satellite – high range sensor limited vision
point satellite – mid range anti orbit/air/missile reduced range vs air
TII
corvette – medium size/speed orbital anti air/missile ship. 4 medium point rails. Short warp drive.
frigate – explorer, mid range sensor, 2 anti orbital low range medium rail cannons. Long range warp drive can carry 1 shuttle
TIIx
missile satellite – long range missile launcher can target ground
TIII
cruiser – missile ship anti air/orbital rockets anti ground/orbital missiles fires in bursts.
destroyer – artillery ship anti ship laser cannons. Single target bombard vs ground has to set up to fire
TIIIx
shield satellite – shields nearby ships/orbitals at high energy cost. Moves very slowly.
TIV
battleship – sustained barrage heavy ship. Super heavy rail turrets fire constantly at medium long range. Has to set up to fire ground
TIVx
supercarrier – huge shielded transport that can carry 4 shuttles and launch ground forces in drop pods.




and thier functions:

-----------------------------------
Tier I ORBIT

THE SENSOR SATELLITE
early game space based wide radar. Moves very slowly in orbit. Has low armor and no weapons. Has a medium sight radius for the air layer and a small sight radius for the ground. Very useful for sweeping a planet for enemy bases to send air scouts to get vision.

THE POINT DEFENSE SATELLITE
slow moving orbital medium point gun. Cannot target ground and has reduced range vs air. Beats tier 2 corvettes for cost and shoots down missiles. Can shoot down unwary aircraft who get too close. Good for trying to deny enemy sensor satellites early and defending against corvette raids. Useful later against cruisers and missile satelites for their point defense and to shoot down long range missiles that pass through the orbital layer. Medium range, slightly longer than corvettes, outranged by frigates slightly.

-----------------------------------
Tier II ORBIT

THE MEDIUM CORVETTE
fastest unit built in orbit (orbital fighters are much faster) this medium armored raider is equipped with 4 medium rail auto point turrets. Medium range can target air orbital and missiles with reduced range vs air. Essentially it is a mobile point defense weapon platform in orbit very good at shooting down missiles It loses to point satellites however due to it being out ranged. Has a very short range warp drive with a long charge time. Can travel to orbiting moons/asteroid but generally not between more distant planets. Generally a system defense craft.

THE MEDIUM FRIGATE
medium speed medium armor transport craft can hold a shuttle and transport it at the cost of increased charge up time. The frigate also has a long range warp drive with a relatively low base cool down. It is only lightly armed with 2 heavy rail cannons with just over the T1 point defense satellite. Cannot shoot air or missiles only orbital units. Beats corvettes fairly well because of range. Its primary use is mid game extra-planetary exploration and fabricator/commander transportation to start new colonies. It is also the only navy unit with a medium sensor suite making it a very useful intelligence ship.

THE EXPERIMENTAL MISSILE SATELLITE
expensive orbital missile silo move very slowly. It has a heavy primary missile launcher that fires extreme range missiles with reduced range vs ground and slightly reduced vs air. These missiles deal low AoE heavy damage and can in many cases target enemy orbital units around the horizon of medium and small planetoids. There are many available counters to missile tech by this point in the game so this is mostly built to try and take orbital control and forcing enemy land units to have to take point defense escorts. Good to use if you are trying to make a big ground focused play and want your opponent to build the weaker point defense units that your tanks can eat up. Can take out unprotected navy ships as well and force corvette escorts to assault them efficiently. Its reload speed makes it very vulnerable to lighter faster air craft that can easily mob it and get in close. This is the first orbital unit that can target ground but is very easily counter-able on the ground by basic T1 units. This is what you build to start a fight.

-----------------------------------
Tier III ORBIT

THE MEDIUM CRUISER
the T3 medium cruiser is the longest ranged navy unit in the game. Fires 4 long bolt missiles weaker than the T2 missile satellite and slightly less range. Can target ground, again slightly less range than the satellite. Has 6 medium pod missiles at lower range for orbital and air targets. This is primarily an air zone control weapon. Can overwhelm low numbers of corvettes but en masses corvettes win out for cost. Can beat destroyers and even battleships due to the range and their lack of point defense, but when escorted by corvettes destroyers and battleships can beat cruisers very handily. They are like a long range orbital attrition unit.

THE HEAVY DESTROYER
the destroyer is a heavily armored navy superiority ship. Armed with a frontal heavy laser and 2 medium laser turrets. Has less range than cruisers and battleships but a fair bit more than frigates. Must align itself at its target to fire primary weapon. Heavy laser can destroy most unshielded ships in a few strikes but charges slowly. Can target ground targets but must rotate the whole ship to aim at the target, a slow process and has low range vs ground requiring it to be almost directly over its target. Deals very heavy single target damage and can 2 shot an unupgraded commander. Its 2 medium laser turrets charge faster but can only target orbital and have slightly more range than frigates. The primary defense against these formidable ships are shields, long range weapon, and mobs of small aircraft.

THE EXPERIMENTAL SHIELD SATELLITE
very expensive and very slow this satellite is used to try and bombard ground positions defended by lasers and rail guns. Its slow speed and relatively low maximum capacity for the cost (it has decent regeneration) it can easily be spotted incoming by a player with intel and you have plenty of time to bring out countermeasures. Like all shields missiles and rockets ignore it making navy units using those attacks are especially useful against them. Its shield radius is medium small and can just barely fit 2 battleships. It is the only orbital unit that can protect other units with a shield.

-----------------------------------
Tier IV ORBIT

THE SUPER HEAVY BATTLESHIP
the battleship is the heaviest navy unit in the game. While it is outranged by T3 navy ships it is by far the most heavily armed. 8 super heavy rail cannon along the hull fire just under the range of the destroyer's primary laser. But fires in a constant barrage at its target. Used to bust down shielded positions through brute force, is vulnerable to missiles and laser fire and relies on other units for protection from these attacks. It can target ground but must set up and orient itself to fire all weapons at the ground and has low range requiring you to be almost over your ground target. What ground target it can hit are pummeled by a constant heavy barrage of heavy damage medium aoe blasts.

THE LASER DEFENSE SATELLITE
the laser defense satellite charges up slow powerful laser blasts slightly weaker than the T3 Destroyer's main weapon but much much cheaper. Can target ground directly below and air within a medium radius. Against orbital units it has a long range and can make a quick work of unshielded enemy spacecraft. Due to its slow attack rate it is vulnerable to air swarming and is of little use against shielded ground positions. Can shoot down enemy heavy missiles

THE EXPERIMENTAL SUPERCARRIER
the invasion class super carrier can carry up to 4 transport shuttles (or 2 mega bombers or a sky fortress) for interplanetary transportation. It has a weak fast regenerating personal shield and high armor. It also provides and stores a small amount of metal and energy when the shield is down letting fabricators start building. Can launch ground units in drop pods from inside loaded shuttles directly to the ground for a fast safe assault. The pod drop quickly but can still be targeted by anti air defenses so you still have to be careful of the drop zone. This is the turtle planet cracker and invasion spearhead. Has 4 short range light point defense guns vs rockets and missiles.




note that most of the orbital units are fairly slow and few of them can effectively engage ground targets. the primary travel method for ships is a charge up by distance teleporter.

this kind of set up would require micro/attention on the level of naval combat (less required than ground combat) and would follow similar unit structures (making them easily understood) as naval combat.

also note this unit list is built to fit within a comprehensive unti list in progress found here
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/a-unit-list-for-a-future-mod-with-orbital-navy.49868/#post-766063

orbital fighters and bombers are built from the air factory.



TL;DR: space ships are giant satellites that can go to other planets come at me

what i dont get is why there seem to be so many people opposed to orbital unit diversity. this game really introduces 2 Major revolutions in rts gaming, multiple planetoids, and orbital units interacting over those multiple planetoids.

limiting either one of those in the name of realism, is just plain silly.

(Dont wanna derail the thread so i started a conversation with you (new pm system?), basically "Why would that be such a bad thing?" (reply only in mentioned conversation to prevent mentioned derail'ing), if anyone wants a invite into the conversation let me know.)

Im impressed. Kudos to you Neutrino for making use of the forum for a realy important game discussion.

My view of the orbital layer has been mentioned before, i would like it to be a fake orbit with "space ship" like orbital units (that may or may not have a ability allowing them to move between planets using movement rules involving distance limitations, cost and a charge up time for the ability).

(My realy old thread: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/suggestions-for-some-of-the-orbital-units.40426/)

However i am intrigued by many of the ideas mentioned in this thread and wouldent be terribly disappointed if they were to become reality instead (for testing in alpha/beta at least).

Things I don't want in Orbital:
-Air 2.0
-Slow moving units
-Functionally a third tier
-Any units that are "superior" to regular units, I.E. an orbital strike platform that overshadows Hornets, or a recon sat that overshadows T2 Radar

Things I would like to see but can live without:
-A 2-body simulation for satellites, reminiscent of the System Editor
-More satellite-like orbital units than spaceships, but this is an aesthetic issue

Things I expect and will be displeased without:
-Orbital being a CHOICE instead of a REQUIRED UPGRADE.

... (Wrong button, how do you delete a message?)

The planets already spin like you'd expect, you can way the day/night line move across the planet, shadows from mountains and other terrain get long as the sun in behind them and non-existent when the sun is directly above them.

Mike

I think this post really combines a lot of compromises between the two orbital camps. The slow to accelerate, high top speed is an excellent point brought up a few times. Combining this with a "hit and run" style of attack would make satellites naturally function better IF they decide to orbit (read: patrol around the planet).

This concept of ammo and burst fire definitely deserves a good look as well. I can see many other uses for it besides just satellites and bombers too, like anything that uses missile barrages like cruisers and missile tanks, low health raiding bots, etc.

I do not agree that a lobber could attack a satellite though. There is just no way in hell a ground artillery gun has the range or accuracy to hit something in space. I think you could make an argument for a catapult to have a reduced range for anti-orbital though. That would provide a good early counter to orbital without crippling yourself. For a later game counter I'd like to see ground based anti-orbital laser cannons. Super powerful and accurate, low rate of fire, low firing arc. They would easily deny orbits over sensitive areas, but be too short range and expensive to cover a whole planet with them. These would encourage ground assaults late game to destroy the anti-orbital lasers to allow the orbital bombardment platforms to move in. It reminds me of Warhammer 40k, where even though they have massive death fleets in orbit, they still have to send in troops for the ground assault. Which is way more epic, even though its not really realistic.

Yes, the idea is to allow orbital units to actually orbit (patrol) and for it to be a viable tactic if people desire, while still retaining the current model where they are stationary and omni-directional for shorter movements. This way they will both be simple and easy to understand.

Just to be clear, the ammo idea is Uber's, not mine, and the way I described it is only how I think it will work, since it hasn't been discussed much from what I've seen.

As far as the lobber attacking satellites, this is the future, so building a super gun that can shoot into space is feasible. As for accuracy, that's the point, if it hits a tiny satellite going rather fast, its simply a lucky shot, and should be a rare occurrence. The lobber would be for taking out large/slow orbital structures/factories or maybe even shooting at the moon/asteroids as they travel overhead.

Am i wrong when i say that the planets aren't rotating. It's the rotation around the sun that creates the day/night cycle.

Would get kinda tricky to command units on the planets surface if it rotates, unless the mentioned "separation of orbital from the planet" means that planets rotate in "orbital view" and not while on "ground view".

Look in the system editor. I may be wrong. But I do believe that the planet are still. Just a fun fact.

I like Teod's suggestion, and would like to add some options, all are independent and could be added or dropped (but they do chain off each other nicely I think)

1) LEO and GEO could be like naval and underwater. i.e. ground can hit LEO and vice versa but ground and GEO couldn't touch each other. A difference would be the 'surface' movement is a orbit, buildings would be built in the 'untouchable' layer and so on

2) GEO could be a small band (40 degrees is a bit much in my mind)

3) GEO units could move, very slowly, and units can go between LEO/GEO (takes some fixed amount of time. So, slow move in GEO takes you through GEO only and takes a 'while' but you chain a move to LEO then back to GEO and the 2 transitions and small time in LEO should be faster than the GEO only move. If you want to go to the opposite side of the planet in RL it would be faster to sit in GEO, I don't need that level of real, tweak the transition time and hand wave the fluff as shiny no fuel engines lets you get away with taking the shorter distance.

4) LEO shell rotates with planets, makes them simpler relative to the ground (they always have the exact same track) which means a move order in LEO would only need to be a click and drag (i.e. 2 points) or a single click will give you the quickest to get to orbit that moves through that point.

5)assumes # 3 - T1 launcher could only launch to LEO (units can be told to move to GEO while being built) and T2 could direct launch to GEO

6) You could also if you wanted blur the unit/building dichotomy, i.e. radar sat in LEO is scout, but in GEO is a large range (but preferably less quality intel if possible) radar tower. A 'figther' unit that is a satellite with a short range gun is a psuedo point defense in orbit. Ground attack becomes planetary defense. This idea is kinda out there and I'm unsure of it.

Want to synchronize units, move them to GEO, sort them out and move them back. you can group them there and send them places as a flock of units

Why I want something like real orbits in the game, in my mind, doing things in orbit is all about choice, it gives you so many options, too many I will admit that makes it very hard to control. But I want that element of radically different choices to be available, and I think orbit like things will give that. So yes, 'realistic' orbits because they're new and different.

And too those people who say sim is too much, I'm not proposing an actual sim, I just want it to look like a sim, and give me some of the options a sim would give me

That just means the camera has the planet rotation built in. kinda like pointing a camera on a carousel at another rider.

As stated previously, no it does not. To clarify, I don't have issues with this from realisim in the real life sense, but realism in the in universe sense. All of those are internally consistant within the universe. The current orbitals do not. Look at it this way, if the satelite can hover over the pole, then it has enough power to completely break orbit, so why is it locked in shell. Along the same line, right now it has to be placed in orbit by a rocket, again why, if it can easily do so under its own power. It's not even internally consistant. The planes make sense even with their VTOL characteristics, because they at least try to look like they're flying, and they land when no orders, as opposed to just hovering, or acting like gunships. The gunships are basically redesigned helicopters and act as its expected as well. All the navy acts in a consistant way, minus their fragility, but they behave as you would expect navy to. The orbital units right now only really make sense if you keep the current behavior of no rocket animation, and remodel them to having large ballons attached.

Like I said before, it really does look like the equivalent of a tornado with sharks in it in the current iteration.

There was one option in the exact thing you quoted: don't pretend the layer is orbital units and remodel them as high altitude balloons or something. I'm not trying to design your game for you, I'm just trying to tell you that to me, as someone who has never had an issue with any of TA's backstory or universe and someone who thinks everything else I've seen presented in this game look awesome (which is exactly why I prepaid to begin with, as a show of support), that the "orbitals" as they exist now are incredibly jarring and completely self contradictory on how they present themselves and act *in universe*.

Otherwise to dropping orbitals, orbits are easily changeable, that's how we have space stations now. Heck it's been demoed with asteroids how to do it by your own videos.

I'm not advocating for Kerbal here or anywhere near it, but they have to at least pretend to be freefall units under the current design. Because what we have now is the equivalent of having the ships move over land because its easier than having to connect the bodies of water. Sure it makes game play work, but it violates the believability of even the in universe physics.

Maybe add some thrusters, and have them animate and draw energy the farther you get from equatorial grav plain, and limit the satellites to 60% north or south, and if you lose power, they start drifting as if they were in orbit. At least then it looks like the satellite has a reasonable in universe way to be behaving as it is, instead of complete handwaving.

As for the issues of overflying bases with orbits assuming that is the direction it went, it becomes the same problem, any projectile you can send after a satelite has more than enough energy to hit said satellite anywhere in orbit. That's why orbital is such a huge step for an army, as it gives the ability to reach anywhere. You shouldn't have to be flying over for rockets to hit you anyway. Even if using directed energy and not projectiles, you still can target most of the hemisphere worth of sky as the horizon is normally the limiting factor. If anything, the orbital lauch pad should be the same way to take out other satellites, just load the assist rocket with a warhead as opposed to a bird.

The whole reason we don't do it normally is the significant cost of the launch vehicle, coupled with the issues created by having an orbiting debris field.

I get that its the future, and we can pretty much say technology will do whatever we want. But at the same time that gun would be able to shoot A LOT farther across the planet if it was supposed to be able to shoot into space.

But lets toss realism aside for now, and talk purely gameplay. I don't think it would be a good idea for lobbers to shoot at orbital units because orbital units should be more removed than ground, sea, and air layers. They should be the layer that has limitations on what can interact with it. They should also require special counters. If some dude builds a million lobbers, then he is suddenly invincible (not really, but nearly) from land, sea, AND orbital? AND you want to make the lobber be able to shoot other planets? Sorry that seems like a way too OP unit for me. It would also massively encourage turtling. Do you remember when catapults could attack air units? Yea... That was OP. Strictly from a gameplay perspective, there should be a separate unit that counters orbital from the ground and does little else. You should have to pay to defend from orbital bombardments, and then pay again to defend from land attacks. The catapult would be a compromise to this, providing more than one counter, but not able to defeat spams of units, or have the great(er) range and great(er) damage of the anti-orbital laser.

Look at it another way. Tanks can shoot air, fine. Are they good at it? Not really. So even if the lobber WAS able to attack orbital (which I still maintain would look silly and be OP if it was good at, and pointless if it wasn't), it would probably suck way too bad to be effective anyway. You'd want a dedicated counter to orbital, just like you want a spinner for anti-air.

Ballons? Are you perhaps joking?

How would that work on worlds without atmosphere like a astroid or a moon (or the metal planets, i doubt those have atmosphere)?

Speaking of other things that dosent make sense. Aircraft that can operate on worlds without atmosphere (basically the planes would have to be space worthy to do that, and if they are space crafts why dont they go to orbit or other worlds?).

However (just as a example): Both can be reasonably explained by new tech (aka "space magic"). Allmost any such concerns can be explained in such a way.

Lets see ("5 seconds of making things up without even realy trying" later):
Maybe some sort of device that pushes away from mass without costing energy (kinda like how two magnets repel eachother) but still transfers the mass's movement (rotation), that would explain how satelites can "hower" without costing energy and give a resonable explanation to why aircraft dosent go into space (they need the planets mass beneth them for the device to work, and they can be said to be a bit heavier than the satellites so that explains why they dont reach the same height.). Said device would be based on some bogus natural law that we "dont know yet", problem solved.


Personaly i think ballons would look out of place with the current design of the game, however i admit that my mental picture of a "ballon satellite" may be very different from yours.

Edited: Made my post a bit more polite and calm.