Planetary Invasions...

Are these going to be a thing? It'd be super disappointing if the "planetary war" aspect just revolved around using superweapons to wipe-out enemy worlds before being able to colonize those planets slowly via a couple construction units.

What would be the point of building up armies if they cannot leave the planet they are created on?

We need mass interplanetary transport one way or another.

so far, not really the case. automation of the trasport drop-off and pick up would be needed, right now it just sits in orbit and the fact it can only carry one unit at a time makes this strategy unthinkable when you take into account the time it takes to travel from planet to planet and how obvious these travelers are. speaking of which : will there be an area celestial radar unit? the real question is : will there a be celestial view FOW option in the host game?

This is something I've had to answer a lot lately so I'll just just hit the main points. The threads are out there if you search for them properly.

Yes it seems as if the intent is that it is hard to transport an army from one planet to another with the intent of 'invading'.

The flipside is that building armies 'on site' either via a Moon or asteroid that was in orbit or was placed in orbit around the target planet has factories and Unit Cannons for getting units to the surface OR because it's really hard to defend an entire planet allowing you to establish a base of somekind and if you do manage it you can just crash asteroids into it until it isn't a planet anymore.

Also if you can't transport armies around too freely then the "standard" play will be to not have wasted metal on building huge armies if there is no one to fight.

Neutrino has talked about teleportation being used to help move stuff around quickly but because of the need for a Teleport structure at both ends and the potential for a very high cost to transport large numbers of units

Mike

They are making a gateway type unit I believe?

Can't say I like the sound of that. Why would they want to discourage mass transport when it's essentially pretty awesome? It goes along perfectly with the idea of large-scale inter-planetary war, and provides strategic options other than "smash it with an asteroid".

If the only way to deal with a hostile world is through asteroid or nuke bombardment then I can't help but feel that is one-dimensional, repetitive gameplay design. At that point you are not fighting wars with units anymore.

I want to build armies and use them, not picket forces.

I don't know much about unit-cannons, but from what I've gathered they only work between a world and it's orbiting bodies right? Maybe they could be useful if you could build them on an engine-fitted asteroid and use that in lieu of a proper-transport ship, but it seems like it might be an unnecessarily complex and expensive alternative.

If teleport gates are too cost prohibitive to move any substantial quantity of units then they will end up as tools for colonization rather than invasion.

And I never said you couldn't build armies, what I said essentially boils down to "don't expect to freely move armies around and instead be prepared to build those armies on site instead"

think of it like a swing set, you don't buy the swing set online, and have it delivered already fully assembled directly to you back yard, you get the parts or larger modular elements delivered and assemble it in your back yard. You still get the swing set in the end.

Mike

I like the idea of orbital bases + unit launchers on the base.

That would be a poor analogy, it would be better to just compare it to historical landings of forces into hostile territory.

The English channel is a very good example of what the logistics for a planetary invasion would involve (although the scale would be massive in comparison to these historical battles), and why it would be so difficult: advancing under fire, deploying in an area that the enemy knows about, has prepared defenses at in advance, and the inability to rapidly deploy your heaviest units (in ancient times like the Norman invasion of England this would be cavalry, and in more modern times this would be tanks deployed by the allies onto Normandy in WW2).

Now, while this means that it wouldn't be easy, I don't see a reason as to why this couldn't be an option (albeit it would be an option with its own benefits and drawbacks) in the future. Now whether this becomes an option because Uber designs it into the game, or because someone mods the game to accept it is another discussion entirely.

But doesn't that beg the question of how? How can I build an army on-site if the world I want is already held by an enemy? Surely he won't permit my few construction units to simply show-up and snowball for 20 minutes when he could crush me as soon as I land.

If mass transport is not allowed then the only answer seems to be nukes or asteroids to clear him off the map and make it safe for construction units. If the game relied on a system like that I don't see where you would ever need or want to build a large-scale army unless multiple players spawn on the same world(s) at the beginning of a match.

Any army you build on a secure world would just be a waste of resources waiting for the next barrage of nukes/asteroids to come along and destroy it right?

First off, a planet is a big place, although it might not be impossible to fortify a planet to the point that trying to establish a base on it somewhere on it just can't be done, it's not exactly the best economic solution either and the natural solution to have is simply destroying the planet and because he's spent so much trying to fortify an entire planet it should be easy to take control of the rest of the system.

Secondly, don't forget that both you and your opponent are under similar constraints, if you're both on separate planets neither one of you should risk building a huge army because nobody has an easy way of getting it off planet, Obviously you want some units and the capacity to create more in case of an invasion but you'll not want 500 units just sitting around, if you do and/or build lots of defenses it's at the stage where invasion just isn't effective and you should instead of focusing on exploiting his other weaknesses, like the fact he doesn't have any significant presence on a Moon, other planets or in the Asteroids.

Now, if the situation is right for Invasion you'll end up doing something very similar to what was seen in the Original PA Pre-visualization, you take a moon/asteroid in orbit around the enemy planet(or if there isn't one put one in orbit yourself) and use it as a base with factories and Unit Cannons, with the right ratios you'll be able to send a constant stream of units planetside, and the best part is that YOU have the luxury of choosing where(there may be some limits) so you can focus on the weakest area on the planet. Of course, Once he realizes that he has lost the 'invasion race' he'll be spinning up his factories to produce units as well so you'll have a good fight on your hands but you still have the initiative AND the Unit cannons allow you to be much more flexible about re-enforcing your army as well.

Lastly, the thing you've forgotten to consider is that in grand scheme of things, neither Planetary Invasion NOR Planetary Annihilation is to goal of the game, the goal is to kill the enemy Commander, and while taking away a planet's worth of income will hurt his war efforts, the cost to do so would be sufficient MANY times over what it would take to just flat out kill the commander and win the game.

And before you ask what happens if they turtle with the commander on a planet, you laugh all the way to the bank as he'll be at a huge disadvantage in Orbit/on other planets/moons/asteroids which are EXACTLY what you need to use to crack someone who turtles like that.

Of course, that's only when you start on separate planets, the gameplay will be more so like other RTSs if you both start on the same planet. At least initially.

Mike

Do a search before posting. This has been discussed many times on the forums.

There will be a variety of ways to invade a planet.

There's the ever classic, smash it with a moon or astroid.

There's speculation of interplanetary nukes.

There will also be the unit cannon (seen in the kickstarter trailer) and the "egg." The unit cannon will shoot individual units one at a time through space where they'll then fly down to the planet and start shooting. The egg will be a capsule that you load up with units and shoot down to a planet and units come pouring out.

There's also the option of wresting control of orbital. Send a bunch of fighters to the enemy planet, take control of the skies, and then send laser satellites after. Use that to destroy defenses and then send units after them.

And that's just what we know about. I'm sure there will be other ways to invade a planet in the future.

Send them a massive Horse, give it as a gift to them for their skillful play, fill it full of T2 tanks. I have a feeling they might catch on to this one though.

Why not make the Lander unit carry more units, simple..I doubt uber intended for the current planet transporter to carry only one unit lol

Catapults effectively render the entire planet a no go zone once you have enough of them, massed transport is necessary or the only option available to players will be annihilation.

I'm sure there will be anti catapults like in supcom, I'm sure there will be an interplanetary transport that Carries many more units at once

Been done before I think.

The devs said that they had no plans at the moment to introduce any anti-artillery systems. And even if they did, how will that help you land on a rock smothered with catapults, you have to land then build them, which you can't do.

I don't have a problem with the idea of building armies on-site rather than deploying them from orbit, but I still think we need a bigger space transport. Something that can carry, say, 4 units to serve as the initial protection for your beachhead.

Frankly, I'd prefer that to a unit launcher.

Gwhat about those of us who are silly enough to play game continues when comm dies??? Provided it will even be an option......

Then you have to consider that the game wasn't designed with that in mind and the gameplay might break because of it. It's why I never played any NR20 No Nukes No Artillery No Air 2x Resources 4v4 Thermopylae games in SupCom, because when you change things like that it drastically changes the gameplay.

If you choose to play differently than it was intent that's perfectly alright, but don't complain when it doesn't end up being fun you know?

Mike