Moving asteroids into and out of orbit

I'm really looking forward to being able to move an asteroid into orbit, but I know it will take about two games before someone hotkeys a dozen nuke launchers on an asteroid and launches as soon as it gets into orbit. They can immediately move the asteroid out and not need to worry about a counter volley. Should halleys have a cooldown timer to prevent drive-by nuking?

See this is one of the reasons I don't like Interplanetary Nucks.

One would hope that between the way things transfer orbits and such and a not quite 'binary' targeting setup should prevent that kind of thing.

Mike

Hopefully it will be a sort of charging system like the Umbrellas or Lasers have.

That will make it easier to code and functional as well.

A cooldown time makes a lot of sense. I hope it's implemented.

I am hoping for a possibly slower transfer of orbits as well as interaction of bodies in mid-transfer. ie the ability to send a small asteroid to quickly intercept and smash an incoming orbital nuke moon. I have a feeling the interaction might be limited when they are in these states though. Especially when working out the definitions of what is a body that orbits/can be orbited.
An example of that problem would be:

-Solo moon orbits sun, can a smaller asteroid be sent into orbit around that moon even if it was also halley capable?

-Would the solo moon lose its ability to travel when you have an asteroid (smaller moon) orbiting it?

-If it can move, would the other asteroid tag along? or would it awkwardly break orbit?

-Can this mechanic be used defensively as such: Placing a small asteroid in orbit around a halley capable moon, locking it out of its ability to become KEW. The asteroid would have to be sent elsewhere or smashed into another body to be removed from play and unlock the now parent moon.

-if different levels of destruction based on KEW size are implemented, would we see a difference between the value of using a small, low-resource asteroid vs risking a high resource but large (assumed more destructive) moon/planet KEW. This would give a legitimate reason for somebody to attempt to block a transfer by placing a smaller body in orbit around the target moon and nuking it clean, rather than spending a small asteroid to clear the map, and then populate to use as resources or another KEW.

-cooldown time for halleys seams like a fair mechanic in general. Drive by nukings sound a bit silly to me.

It's all up in the air to me at the moment.

edit:
my only fear goes back to knight's mentioning of "binary" gameplay.
We have nukes vs anti nukes, and would essentially have KEW's vs orbit locking. It's a tad more complicated I hope, but it is pretty easy to step back and see the similarity to the current nuke gameplay.

The asteroid should have to orbit the planet at least twice before getting out of orbit. Once to get in orbit and once to sling shot out of orbit. That should give time for nuke return fire or unit cannon attack.

Yeah, requiring timing would be micro. It should allow plentiful time to react to it, with out havingto speed micro it up.

Timing is an important basis of strategy. While a large portion of this game is macro, I dont want it to play for me.
I feel that on the macro scale the game is an even playing field and the commander who can squeeze in more micro than the other gains the benefit. We can call this "attention to detail".

However,
The amount of time to react should not be on the lines of building halleys on an asteroid and intercept. Just like the anti-nuke, you should have it ready in the first place. That's not micro, thats just a big mistake.

But the most effective antinuke is still to have nukes. Antinukes only delay the inevitable. And they are pretty easy to nuke around. I think you can destroy them with a nuke or two if you place the nuke properly.


I think this is a very real concern. Especially if unit cannons can't be used on large planets. It becomes nuke wars

I really like this idea but I totally agree there needs to be a cooldown on the halley fire.

I think the speed with which planets/moons needs to be slower though, I realise it takes a lot longer for "space craft" to get to places due to the need to slingshot but its just too quick (moving moons). There is no (well very little) chance to react to an incoming moon collison. Given that the moon will be coming into orbit and not just smacking into the planet more "finesse" is required and as such the speed should be slower. Somewhere inbetween the spacecraft and the crashing moon speeds.

Cheers,
-Felix

I am going to answer your questions as the system currently exists. We are in Beta. Things could change.

-Solo moon orbits sun, can a smaller asteroid be sent into orbit around that moon even if it was also halley capable?

A Halley capable planetoid A can be sent to orbit another Halley capable planetoid B. However, sadly if while Halley capable planetoid A is in transit to planetoid B, and planetoid B is moved to another planet C the original Halley planetoid A would be cut adrift and lost in space.

-Would the solo moon lose its ability to travel when you have an asteroid (smaller moon) orbiting it?

Great question. Answer: No. It would not lose it's ability since we aren't really using physics and mass to determine Halley use. Tested confirmed. See next question.

-If it can move, would the other asteroid tag along? or would it awkwardly break orbit?

Love these questions! I decided to test it out. The momma planetoid doesn't not leave her babies behind. Yes, orbiting planetoids are carried with the Halley propelled planetoid!

-Can this mechanic be used defensively as such: Placing a small asteroid in orbit around a halley capable moon, locking it out of its ability to become KEW. The asteroid would have to be sent elsewhere or smashed into another body to be removed from play and unlock the now parent moon.

Probably not or not yet assuming physics support such an argument, which I personally in my gut think it does not. I mean, they would be in orbit of one another if they are relatively the same size and PA doesn't support that yet (binary orbit). It's not like you can force the gravity of one asteroid on another without some kind of interplanetary super strong nano-tether or maybe a sci-fi inspired tractor beam.

-if different levels of destruction based on KEW size are implemented, would we see a difference between the value of using a small, low-resource asteroid vs risking a high resource but large (assumed more destructive) moon/planet KEW. This would give a legitimate reason for somebody to attempt to block a transfer by placing a smaller body in orbit around the target moon and nuking it clean, rather than spending a small asteroid to clear the map, and then populate to use as resources or another KEW.

Well... this is your hardest to read comment/question. In short yes. In long you can't stop halleys once they are completed. You can piggy back on them if you reach them before they are started.

-cooldown time for halleys seams like a fair mechanic in general. Drive by nukings sound a bit silly to me.

Yeah, this seems popular and legitimate.

Thanks for testing those out for me.
I mostly posted questions based on the final goal. I am surprised that some of those features work the way they do. I don't relate these to real physics as it is a game, so I was mostly curious of how the parenting hierarchy worked with the "locked orbits". I am very surprised to see that a parent moon can drag along its child orbitals when in halley transit.
My second last long question was probably as hard to write as it was to read. In short, the basis of it was whether the final product will make different sized KEWs have different effects rather than always clearing the map. It would be especially fantastic if this new found "Cluster KEW" would put on a good show.
The physics would have to be a bit more in play as currently it seems that the asteroids follow a path, stop at dropping point, commence crashing animation and explosion effects on impact, clear map. Its not very fluid at the moment, I am sure it will at least appear less like a staged animation later on. Would be fantastic to see a cluster of small asteroids smash into multiple locations on a planet and do large damage without the exact same outcome as any other size celestial object.

You shouldn't be able to build nukes and fire on an asteroid in the amount of time it has started orbiting your body.

You should be able to fire already built nukes onto an asteroid in the amount of time it has started orbiting your body.

That isn't asking for a lot of time. Just more than enough to make it possible to gimmicky drive-by gangsta a planet with an asteroid nuke arsenal. All I ask for, is to hold a body dedicated to orbit long enough to allow a player getting nuked get hit and realize what happened and fire his own nukes before the asteroid is already gone. Not enough to allow him to build nukes himself (which technically gives the other guy time to build MORE nukes anyway, so none of that).

oh, well then I agree. Ya people should at least be prepared is my point as well. Not "oh darn, an asteroid is in orbit. I guess I should start making nukes n...." *incinerated by nuclear fire

Oh, I personally think orbital travel time needs to take, not specifically less, but a more uniform amount of time. This sort of matters here, because actually it will make moving an asteroid or colliding one into a planet faster-ish. I just want something to take a fairly speedy amount of time to do the actual transition part, and the orbit of the body to be the point where acceleration is done or whatever.

For instance, to travel from a planet to the sun itself should take the same amount of time, thirty seconds perhaps. The orbital "lap around the body" thing should be what takes the most time and even it should take a uniform amount of time. That way, you don't get ridiculously long transitions from extremely exterior planets in the system. Honestly, it should also allow easier transition, like not going closer to the sun to get somewhere farther away, or orbit a planet in order to orbit it's mood afterwards. However, in lack of the latter, it wouldn't be so bad if it simply transitioned at a faster velocity to more distant places but delayed the same doing the lap.

So, the lap should take like 30 seconds, and the trip should take like 10-30 seconds. Not the lap take 20 seconds, and each segment of distance in transition takes 20 seconds, for a possible maximum time of 4 minutes in space travel.

So, the transition for a planet to a moon would take 40 seconds, and the transition to another planet's moon should take a minute and a half. A lot more acceptably closer times, compared to 30 seconds for one and 4 minutes for another.

I think there should be non-kinetic/explosive defenses specifically designed to not let asteroids get near your planet in the first place. Cross-posting from the unit idea thread:

Walking Petawatt Laser: This is a unique unit in that its purpose is not to attack other units. It's a huge, 3-4 legged platform with a swiveling laser that is too slow and inaccurate to target air/spacecraft. Its primary purpose would be to target the side of an incoming planetoid. It would flash-vaporize the surface rock, ejecting it into space, effectively creating propulsive rocket at a right angle to the object's trajectory. In this way, it could deflect the planetoid and avert its collision with the planet the laser is based on. It may also take potshots at stationary structures on other planets when they're close in orbit. It would be... very expensive.

I think it would be offensive if we weren't given access to a ridiculously huge cannon to shoot from one planet to another. Always reminds me of the end of that Simpsons Halloween special skit. "I don't see why I have to work building a ray gun, pointed at a planet I've never heard of!"

...Wouldn't vaporizing the side of a planet and projecting it outwards into space using the propulsion of it's own propulsating gasses and plasma, cause blowback onto the planet it faces and probably cause areas of mass damage and general overheating of the entire planet surface?

Besides the realism, how is 2-3 nukes carpet bombing both the "halleys" and the enemy missile silos not a good enough defence? If you do that, you stall the asteroid in it's place, and then you quickly get more missiles up and running to continue to kill halleys and/or anything on that damned planet.

Speaking of, should "deepspace radar" be able to see certain "massive" structures on nearby orbiting planets? Like halleys, possibly nukes and orbital launchers and t2 factories?

That's nothing more that a work around to the root problem.

Mike

Mind elaborating on the root problem? I believe I am missing some context here...

I am genuinely interested in discussing the problem that came to mind for you. I was just discussing in general if that would be beneficial to close engagements (since things within the same gravity well are more interlaced in combat with nukes and quicker orbital travels and possibly unit cannons), since halleys on flyby asteroids and nukes on moons would be very effective yet technically right there in theoretical range for the not-overpowered deepspace radar.