Concerns About New Orbital Mechanics

I do agree that the Avengers need to be re-thought.

What about the Archon defense satellite?

It takes me more than just one to camp... as enemy avenger s are launched they do manage to pop off before dying eventually, slowly removing your fighters

If one player wins the Avenger vs Avenger battle above a planet, it is basically impossible to ever simultaneously acquire enough Avengers to take back orbital superiority.

In my opinion, aircraft and orbital "aircraft" like the Avenger should just be merged, allowing anti-air to attack fighters, and allowing fighters to attack orbital units. A second type of "fighter" that is strong against big flying targets (slow, high-damage weapon) would also be worth implementing, both against beefy strategic bombers as well as against big orbital ships.

The latest internal testing doesn't have the Avenger buildable in the factory. Instead they have a new structure, the "Anchor." A defensive satellite. I didn't see it in action. But it's described as a satellite used to protect the orbital layer above your base. So I'm interpreting that as kinda like a laser defense tower that gets launched into space.

I'd say that's a great way of balancing thing.

Well that is very interesting. A large orbital "structure" that builds units and I assume has weapons could be very interesting.

I still think that the Avenger cloud is going to function just like the ASF cloud, and adding in the equivalent of an air-to-air flying base to SupCom would not have fundamentally changed the ASF. Although if such a big structure were very effective against those fighters it would have made air play more interesting by making them stay away from it. If nothing else, it would be possible to protect an inferior force from a superior force by keeping it near the defensive structure.

Having an orbital airbase for fighters that are both orbital and air units would still work by enabling a player who lacks orbital superiority to use fighters and anti-air to contest air superiority. And having two different types of craft; one made to take out small air/space units, and a second made to take out big air/space units would also still be a good idea so a single fighter monoculture does not work.

Big orbital structures, including orbital defense structures, also add another type of target, and orbital defenses might be strong against both types of small fighters, encouraging players to bring bigger guns to outrange them and/or outgun them.

I can't wait to get my hands on it.

And the new Orbital Fabricators can build teleporters from orbit. So I think it's safe to say that Orbital will be pretty darn functional with this next patch.

GOING TO BE AWESOME.

Is there a particular thread where I can/should voice my agreement with that point? I'm not big on sticking around the forums of a game I can't/don't yet play, yet I'm rather concerned about PA's future (just not to the point of paying extra for spoiling my own fun with early access as an alternative to paying less for a finished product). Point is - I dunno where it's heading and what's going to happen around gas giants, but orbital is (imho) a better concept as something that correlates with planetary in a new and interesting way then as last-resort battle platform for planetless combat.

Seems all the big threads about this are on the backers only side of the forums.

Too bad... well, send them my regards or something... Can't do much more other than starting a yet another thread on an old topic.

It would make sense that non-backers didn't start one, but it doesn't mean that we don't have anything to say about the concept... Maybe there's a point in transferring (with the awesome power of moderation) one of these to somewhere where non-backers can have their say? Or, if that's impossible due to some under-carpet reasons, maybe it would be justifiable to start a new one?

LOL if you're going to quote me make sure to quote the whole sentence so it makes sense, not so it looks like I meant something else...

Orbital is already at the end of the "tech tree" adding an advanced tier to units that are already advanced is kinda overkill.

But I do agree with the rest.
Fabricator: producing (geo)stationary structures like
- Energy plant (= solar satellite)
- Mass extractor (only on gas giants)
- anti-orbital guns
- anti-planetary guns (AOE bombardment, to support the ground defences)

I would like to see a bit of variation in orbital units, The fighter(light,fast), a long range unit and a heavy slow unit.

Factory:
Light figher
Long range fighter
Heavy fighter
Spysatelite
Orbital laser
Multi unit Transport

I would like to see that the Umbrella is "improved." Either cheaper, faster fireing or something else.

The new way for making avangers looks stupid... impossible to Q up hundreds also am i right?
Avenger should stay launchable from the Orbital Launcher. IMO

If the catapult was allowed to target orbital units the Umbrella and Catapult could split the roles of engaging fast fighters vs hitting orbital structures with poorly tracking high damage shots. Two types of targets, two weapons.

That would be an interesting twist!

I worried that the Umberella would become useless. Because why would I build an Umberella when I can build an Catapult that covers both ground an orbital and has a bigger range. I'm guessing fire rate and damage is about the same.

I'm not against different surface to orbital weapons, but I don't agree that it should be the Catapult because it would make the Umbrella obselete. Still it is a very interresting suggestion.

On a different note.
I think the Umberella is weak. The fire rate of an Umberella goes down drasticly after the first 3 shots. With a group of 10 fighters distracting the Umberella the Orbital laser can deal some serious damage. For Umbrellas to be a decent defence you need atleast 5. Fighters are a much cheaper defence, but when you don't controle orbital you can hardly gain a foothold.

Should the range of the Umberella be increased, currently it's very hard to cover a larger area. The nuke had this problem, the range increase solved it, making it far more efficient.

On the other hand, an Umberella with a higher fire rate would be better. Orbital lasers usualy go for high priority targets, things as powerplants and factories are usualy ignored. A higher fire rate would make the 'Important stuff' more secure. And that is exactly why you make an Umberella. Too secure the commander, nukes, anti-nukes, gates and the orbital launcher.

My thinking is that if the catapult were added as a second anti-orbital it would be effective vs orbital structures and stationary satellites. The missiles are tracking, but they have a limited fuel life and would have a major loss of range due to the higher altitude. The Catapult's range is a sphere, so it reaches up into orbital, but it's coverage that high up is tiny compared to it's ground coverage.

If this change were made then the Umbrella could be rebalanced to fire much faster and more accurately (maybe even a beam) so it becomes highly effective vs avengers and other light, mobile targets. I'm also in the camp of "let the umbrella target nukes". If it took several hits from the umbrella it could stop a nuke or two, but not a heavy barrage of nukes.

Since the Umbrella would be a soft counter to nukes, the anti-Nuke structure could have vastly increased range. This way it remains an important structure with strategic value. If it waits until the missile has entered the atmosphere then it will let the Umbrella try first before we use one of our precious anti-nukes.

I like it because it creates a second utility for both the catapult and the umbrella without invalidating each other or the anti-nuke launcher.

Once we can re-orbit moons I expect the nuke assault to become far more common than it is now. From the safety of my own fortified moon I can build a dozen or more silos and take as long as I need to arm them all, then move my moon to your planet and let them all loose at once before breaking orbit and coming home to the safety of my main world. Once this is a valid tactic I think we need a more comprehensive anti-nuke system than simply trying to build more anti-nuke missiles than he has nukes.

Just a minor thing, but I think the defense satellite should be called the Umbrella and the ground-to-orbital defensive structure should be the Anchor, and not the other way around.

An umbrella protects you from the rain coming down. I think it's a perfect name for a structure that protects you from orbital bombardments.

The idea of the anchor connecting your orbital position to your base below fits with the name, though perhaps a bit more loosely compared to how aptly the umbrella is named.

A defense satellite protects you from orbital bombardment too, and it is above you like an umbrella. And an anchor is part of your orbital base, but on the ground.. so that kinda makes sense too. But whatever, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet etc.