Tech 3?

For cost Advanced power plant produces 39% more energy than T1 powerplants.
0.39x better.

Ah. I was going with flat energy production(5000 vs 600) since once you place them they essentially produce energy for free forever.

Adv. Mex is 4x production for 4x the price but price isn't the issue here as limited metal spots / limited well-defended metal spots mean their value is beyond their cost.

Sigh, i dont understand why you all cant just make it simple and use the same terms the devs use.

If you would then there would be no need to discuss what the definition of a tier (in a strategy game unit tree context) realy is (The definition clearly varies from person to person, as this thread any many others has shown).

Its not hard to say basic and advanced instead and everytime you use tiers your gonna have a argument. You would thing that its simply not worth the trouble, right?

(And before someone says "Why cant you all just accept the use of the term tiers?", its rather simple, 1. Its not called tiers ingame 2. As mentioned the definition varies greatly from person to person, why risk the potential missinformation born from it?).

We'll call them Basic and Advanced when they stop behaving like T1, T2 and T3.

I told you guys you don't want orbital fast. I told you guys....

Because like it or not, some of us think a bit more competitively than they do.
Basic and advanced simply isn't descriptive enough.
"Tiers" at least describes how many "prerequisites" there are to get that unit.

Side note:
Nanolathe is right, people will stop calling them "tech levels" when they stop behaving like an exponential power curve like SupCom's T1, T2, T3.

you mean "T1" and "T2" yea... that's what where doing...

what you meant is :

the devs are going to have an even harder time changing those bad habbits then us when they coined the terms "T1" and "T2" in the first place.
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/its-advanced-not-t2.52356/page-2#post-799688

Why? Are you trying to say that Orbital that is more in-line with the rest of the units we have so far is impossible to implement or balance?

Mike

no, ofc not.
but if you want decent play to be had with land in the first play and for orbital not to interfere to much then best to put it off further.

Or, you just design Orbital to supplement 'Surface' play instead of supplanting it.

Mike

not wilst keeping asteroid smashing.
AND COMMANDER-YOU-KILL-ME-NOT

the best thing since cloacked teleporting cybran commander

now you can take your commander OFF THE MAP, I was jumping with glee when I found out about this feature

That wouldn't even be a problem if you could use orbital fighters like orbital fighters and chase down an Astraeus.
Asteroid smashing isn't even done with asteroids, it's done with planetoids, because a) asteroids aren't implemented and b) five halleys require too much space for truly small objects.

The current orbital is awful for entirely different reasons.

uhm what? First I was going to respond : you don't play on two planet systems with neither one being movable, then I noticed you saying asteroids arn't implemented yet. well semantically not "asteroids" but things that you can smash into planets are and that makes your post very funny.

you're supposed to make or play on a custom map to get them. planets under 210 radius require 3 haileys and planets under 300 require 25, above that you can't move them yet, so yea you may end up on a stalemate but I don't.
here's why:

i send a (dominant) flock of orbital fighters escorted with one advanced satellite and one (or more if in mood for overkill) orbital gun to the desired planet.
you sent enough orbital fighters, you have orbital superiority? bam! job done.

in the case where I'm the one who fled and I'm on a moon that is smaller than 300 or 200 I can use the hayleys even if it was a two planet system because I can load up the com into a transport to the other planet as the moon is hurling towards it (the hailey-thrusted body gets there MUCH faster).

but I generally don't bother as the first strategy is less expensive (generally).

Can someone explain to me how a single radar station cannot give intel on the entire planet?

Over radio, from New Zealand, I can theoretically talk to somebody from Norway. There are Radar systems which also work for several thousands of kilometers. The technology has been around since the 1940s. It was replaced by expensive aerial radar stations, and is making a bit of a comeback now.

A satellite is really high up. It isn't particularly difficult to make an over the horizon RADAR for the satellite. Provided it's orbiting below the ionosphere, it can just bounce waves off the ionosphere all the way around the planet.

Lore-wise, because stealth tech?
Radar vintage PA isn't radar the same radar as today.

LOL I forgot Stealth Tech! Like there's some Destroyer or something that looks like a small fishing boat on Radar. Disregard my last.

In reality I believe the radio waves bounce off the top of the atmosphere (Ionosphere) and bounce back to the planet.

In game, it would be pointless to have radar that covers an entire planet, because that means that you no longer have the fog of war.

An integral part of a RTS game that would be lessened, even with the anonymous nature of radar blips.

the range of units, with standard and advanced, like it is right now, really is enough. the scale of the whole game is so big, its to hard to handle. i mean there is a big gap between the things u´re able to manage a things that could have be done. there is no need to increase the depth. and this is even without incuding orbital. managing several planets on a decent effectivity level is impossible.
and you cry for more possibilitys

If/When the UI is better, we'll be able to juggle a lot more.
People are spending needless actions fighting the UI right now.
Give it time.