The Depressing Orbital War

Unlike the SC2 Viking, I see no reason for a formal mode switch at all. The same unit can simply fly up or down as needed to close to range to its target in three-dimensional space.

Furthermore that player with the Vikings is stupid. Land half.

Imagine the following:

"Those radar sats are approaching my base, but they're surrounded by enemy fighters! Better take my guys down to air, then up into orbit once I'm underneath the radar sat."
"Oh no! He's trying the old "under and up" tactic! Better pre-emptively fly my guys down to intercept."
"Shoot! He's moved down to intercept! Better go up to orbital..."

Even without a dedicated mode switch, players will find a way to do this.

Et cetera. Reverse for trying to get AA fighters to a target, such as an air-fabber-loaded base.

I think a large transport ship that lands on a planet to load/unload with some strong built in air defence could be what we are looking for.

No, if they are simply both air and orbital all the time, then you cannot do this. It doesn't happen. There is no "under and up" tactic because their altitude is functionally irrelevant except for their actual position in 3D space. They don't magically become targetable or untargetable by any weapons.

Ok both air and orbital.... so they can be hit by flak aa , umbrellas
and avangers ... guess which 2 are rather useless against them as they were meant to be antiorbital only
... how do you want to deal with those when starting an invasion with non moveable non orbiting moons? Bombers and nukes became a pain in the butt for people trying it with orbital fabs ... you are making it even more of a pain in the butt not being able to even touch the ground this way ...

The best way to breach an orbital defense is to not waste time in the orbital layer. Go straight to ground, and don't worry about getting back up again. Dealing collateral damage is a bonus.

An air fighter that can travel between orbits might be cool. It at least offers a potential solution against too many bombers.

I'm inclined to agree - orbital presence, things that stay in the orbital sphere continuously rather than transporting, should be more of a support/intel role. Radar, orbital lasers for some harassment, et cetera. The primary game should be fought on the ground, with Orbital existing to supplement that. The main game needs to stay on the ground/air, and solutions to stalemates will need to center around that, not magical orbital-air-storm-unit.

Trying to win a game with only orbital lasers/etc. is like trying to win chess with only pawns. It's slow, frustrating, and feels inadequate because the units involved are inadequate as game-winners. They're more than adequate as support, however.

Would turn the whole thing into a horrible fighter spamfest ..... even more ....

I agree with that, put in a Spaceship Fab, even if all it can do is produce current orbital Fighter and an orbital to atmosphere Fighter. (one time use only, the ceramic shielding only survives one go)
or something like that.

Lets not have something arbitrary like that

Won two games against the fighter spamfest. Not saying that matters, it is beta. Still, i doubt it will ever be any stronger than this.

I still would like to have other options than this ...
I and others gave examples with transports and rocketcapsules....

Advanced aircraft could be able to interact with the orbital layer in the sense that they can shot at satellites. But they shouldn't be able to enter in the orbital layer. Or to say better, the player shouldn't be burdened with the possibility to make them pass from a layer to an other.

Navy doesn't move across layers, and it is still able to virtually shot at everything. T2 fighters could carry a missile able to enter the Orbital layer and impact on Satellites. That's so simple it hurts. Of course they shouldn't be able to see a Satellite by themselves. Also, they should be much more expensive than now, but that's balancing.

The Astraeus indeed cause a micro management to the player that's annoying and it could be avoided. How many times we use an Astraeus more than once? the 0,1 percent of the time?

So what instead implement what we saw in the Kickstarter trailer? Loading the Commander on a rocket would force the player to better plan where to send the Commander, and the Astraeus will no longer be an escamotage to hide it. Actually the Astraeus will no longer be necessary and its design will be back at its original scope, as in the Kickstarter trailer, as I said.

Also, at the present the whole Obital layer and the Orbital fabber are not extremely well designed. The Orbital fabber could simply be able to descend on land, like the Lunar lander of the 70s', and doing so losing its Orbital capabilities.

But doing so, one could send dozen fabbers on site, and start much faster the constructions on the ground. Instead right now an Orbital fabber that builds a Teleporter from the Orbit, apart for being frankly silly, it's highly inefficient.

I already see someone replying that that's just a temporary solution. And he will likely be the same person who said yesterday that temporary solutions are REALLY bad. He is right. The Orbital fabber is in fact very poor.

Back on topic. At the point, the Orbital launcher could produce T2 fabbers incapsulated into a sort of Lunar lander. Actually at that point the Orbital launcher could produce any kind of units incapsulated into its own lander, therefore giving us the opportunity to build a small invasion force to pack and send on an other Moon altogether.

Regarding flanking.

If units (specially tanks) would have a different HP on different sides, higher on the front, and lower on the rear (and of course in the between for each side) it would encourage people in trying to flank them. We would see more maneuvering on the field, 'cos it would be better rewarded.

Wrong the orbital fabber is rather a good thing ... let it built anchors on another planets orbit and you have that orbit somewhat secured

Tanks with different armor values? Yay more micro ... horrible idea

If you want to kill satalites from surface build umbrellas .... because thats what they do
Maybe we get a mobile version or shipversion later

To be honest if the Unit Cannon or a dropship that can fire ground units down from orbit is completed this problem will probably disappear. Use nukes to silence their air factories whilst dropping in AA units to secure a bridgehead and establish a teleporter, then move fabbers through to secure it with some serious fire power and ship your tanks through.

This issue is only temporary and I'd suggest Uber not look at 'solving' it until the full roster is in place, I suspect this is a temporary issue due to an incomplete roster.

i dont think it is that easy ... balancing all that stuff will take a while ...

Why? That's a good micro, it requires ample movements, and learning how to maneuver more squads side by side. Anyway, players who can foresee will have the upper hand.

That's a micro that can enrich the game-play. Not like the micro we are forced to operate now, dodging bullets face by face. Dodging left and right takes us away from more important tasks. But have a reason to flank is entirely an other thing.

For instance. It would make combining armies stronger and dynamically more effective than just having faster units waiting for slower ones like we do now. It would allow players to keep the enemy under pressure with tanks on front, while bots will take a loop around, for example.

Possibilities will quickly multiply as soon as you think about.

We could have units greatly tough on front, to absorb damage, but weaker on the rear, and skilled players will know how to take advantage of this. Timing in attack and reaction would make a significant difference.

No, really. It would be cool.

this game is all bout macro and big armies the devs dont want micro to matter much in this game
micro wins you onlya battle but not a war .. you are fighting wars here

Ok, so, when you move 200 tanks, what is it? Macro or micro? If you point them to a specific target on the map, is it macro or micro? If I set a path that allows my tanks to take the defenses before the primary target frontally, instead of by side, it is macro or micro?

When you have only 10 bots, after 2 minutes of game, and the opponent attacks you with 7 tanks, what are you doing? Microing your 10 bots, or macroing your 10 bots? If you can overcome an stronger army by moving it in a better position, or splitting your troops in two phalanxes, is it micro, or macro?

I do believe that where you send your troops should matter as much as the path you're sending them, and the timing you're sending them. Those details aren't micro or macro. This is tactic.

I hate having to dodge right to left bullets with my bots. But I would love to be able to overcome tanks by surviving the first wave, letting them passing by, and re-catching them from behind. This will also make me consider if I need to deal with an attacking foe far from my structures, or nearby.

Damn, it would add a tons of thing you could do on the battlefield.

In fact I do believe that having to consider how your troops approach the enemy, or not let your units be flanked it is a big part of moving units on the ground in any great title that simulate battles in details, at units level.

Otherwise why do we have individual units and a large maps to play with, in the first place? Don't you think?