0 I am aware there are supposed to be no space ships but... it sort of makes sense under certain circumstances, mostly a situation where two planets which are not moons of eachother are dug in and sending over orbital lasers and fighters isn't going to do it. I also assume the unit cannon & nukes will not be able to fire interplanetary (only between planets and moons in the same planetary system). 1 The Launcher now makes a new unit, the space engineer. 2 The space engineer can make a building called the space elevator. This is an enormously expensive mega project. 3 Once complete, if the space elevator is destroyed (on the surface OR in space) , it basically falls down, and the cable destroys everything it touches in a straight line to where the top of the elevator fell down. IRL(lol), this would be a line that wraps the equator many times, but since geostationary orbit in PA is modelled very close to the planets its ok if it doesn't. Also destroying the ground tether wouldnt do anything IRL either but... for game balance & practicality reasons, you should have to control the surface where the space elevator is tethered. 4 The space elevator can manufacture any unit that is buildable at the launcher at reduced energy cost, because it is much less expensive to get the metal into space. 5 The space elevator also makes possible much heavier construction than would be possible with just the launcher. 6 such as three new units: A space carrier, which can manufacture space fighters or somehow support them, if we eventually add fuel, etc. A cruiser armed with nuclear missiles for bombarding planets from space. And, metal planets- you can make a very small metal planet, which can then be used for annihilation purposes if you build halleys on them. This would enable annihilation in games where the planets are too large to Halley, and there are no moons (such as all of the current auto generated systems, i know that will be fixed, but the game shouldnt require moons for annihilation to be a possibility)
no offense to anybody but the discussion i found didn't seem very on point, I couldnt really find the pitch in it. This concept is borne out of a two planet stalemate situation we ran into last night. With no moon, and no ability to establish control over either planet's orbital sphere, we had to rely on cheap shots (their coms wandered out of range of their umbrellas for some reason) to win.
The question is, why did you create a 2 planet system, when you could have created a 2 planet+1 asteroid system.
The Better question is what can you do to solve the actual problem and not just create a band-aid solution? I've already talked about this in other threads dealing with the '2 planet stalemate' "problem". Mike
The issue will solve itself once we get more methods of assaulting other planets. A band-aid solution is fine as a temporary fix until a more elaborate solution makes it's way into the game.
Then why waste any Dev time on a band aid when the problem will be fixed naturally as things get worked on? To use one of my patently bad analogies, why give a man a cast on his leg if you'll be amputating it tomorrow? Mike
I think maybe a better fix, for the time being, assuming Uber doesn't want to spend a bunch of money and time making more content, is to make it so nukes and the unit cannon can target any planet, not just moons. and also the unit cannon.
Semantics much? Having to use an asteroid-sized band aid when you basically can't use a configuration without an asteroid in it.
I was talking about OP's second post, where he indicated that he's proposing this because he was in a stalemate last night. You even indicate yourself that his suggestion could have been brought up in previous space elevator posts. I was simply pointing out he's going to be forced to use an asteroid, until the issue fixes itself in the future. This back to back posting makes for an ugly thread in my opinion, I'm out of here.
