Moons and Asteroids should not have air or atmosphere

There's a discussion on random weather events in relation to stealth that can be found here: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/natural-stealth.56091/

The biggest issue with, by your example, fog or volcanoes is the random element; terrain is one thing, but random events like weather aren't great things to balance by. Permanent, easily-understood alterations to gameplay - such as no naval on dry/lava planets - are the easiest way to diversify gameplay, as they affect all players at the same time.

Balancing air is going to happen, but it's currently broken and removing them on moons sounds like a band-aid in light of that. I still firmly believe that removing air in at least one planet type would help diversify gameplay.

I beg to differ on the stressed part - no random events, thank you very much! I do agree on the second notion but I think it would have to be made abundantly clear visually whether a planet has an atmosphere able to support aircraft or not.

Not necessarily. Notifications about placement rules beyond an error sound aren't in yet. It might have to be a concession to arbitration, though.

I agree with this.
There should be No Atmosphere Moons/Planets, also no land planets (Gas Planets), and Water Planets.

From a lore standpoint, I'm not convinced that the aircraft in the game are dependent on aerodynamics for flight. The technology in the game lore is capable of using mass-energy transference to mass produce massive quantities of stuff, it seems unlikely the planes can't fly without air.

lore, aerodynamics, and techo gobbledigook aside, I think that there should be no air on moons and maybe metal planets, to introduce interesting and changed up game play. Also for these planets the orbital layer should be closer.

I don't see how effectively banning a whole set of units is interesting. It's just annoying and contrived. I don't think air should be recognized in the game at all.

your post, confusing as it is, I will reply to it. (do you mean air as in actual air(if so use the word atmosphere instead) or air as in a unit type) I am using the first translation because banning air units entirely is just illogical.

Forcing the player to not be able to use a set of units in, this case air, would make them have to use different tactics on that planet thus causing gameplay on that planet to become more interesting or to use another word different. To quote @Pendaelose because somethings dont need to be said twice

I understand your reasoning but for every strategy you add, you're removing another. If you're going to do that, it needs to be justifiable. Air units not being able to fly is not justifiable in a sci fi game like this, it's a little too far from believable. I'd accept something like no naval on lava planets since it's entirely plausible there's no alloy that can withstand direct contact with molten rock and metal for extended periods of time.

Just as you "justified" that planes could have technology where they can fly with no atmosphere I can say because there is no atmosphere a normal plane could not fly (thus they should not fly in no atmosphere environments). If those planes can fly with no atmosphere like you tried to "justify" above then why can they not change altitude and interact with the orbital layer?. basically all those types of arguments are unwinnable because it is a science fiction game.

Now onto what really matters
You are not necessarily removing another strategies as much as you are removing common ones to differentiate between gameplay on planets thus adding more strategy and tactics as a whole. It would make the game more interesting because it would mean you can not play the same exact way on all of the planets. basically the same thing I quoted from @Pendaelose above (apparently it does need to be said twice)

Just because it doesn't need air to fly doesn't mean it can go into space. It's contrived, yes, but not as much as stopping them from flying all together.

No one should care about realism in a video game. Especially in a video game where robots wage wars on tiny *** planets and sometimes smash them into one another.

The argument for no air on moons and Asteroids is one of those times where you can bend logic for the purposes of gameplay. Air in its current state is very powerful thanks to its uninhibited movement and you can build it anywhere. Bots and Vehicles can only be built on the ground, Naval only in water, and air anywhere. Having one particular instance where Air is unavailable will drastically change gameplay, possibly in a good way. Moons and asteroids are tiny enough to create frantic ground battles. With air's absence, invading is easier and defending is now more difficult. In theory it would be a good thing when battling over access to planet smashing game enders and give a niche use to some ground units, like the scout buggy.

For me it's a bend too far.

space consists of a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles. aka a craft traveling in no atmosphere is traveling in space.

for giggles

You must hate video games then.

Gee thanks I had no idea.

No I hate overly contrived gameplay mechanics.

Can we just say no naval on lava planets? We can all agree on that can't we?

Without an atmosphere indefinite sustained flight really IS the same as being able to break orbit and fly away. Sustained acceleration away from the planet above 1G can waltz away from the planet and doesn't care about altitude at all. I have a problem with their magic levitation that only works just above the ground. I could easily ignore it for the sake of gameplay, but that runs against how I really feel. For the sake of gameplay I think we should have an environment without air units, just like we already have environments without land units, and others without naval units.

And BTW, a ship capable of surviving on a lava ocean is way more believable than winged planes flying without atmosphere. There are tons of alloys in the modern world already capable of resisting those temperatures. You wouldn't get any hotter than the ambient temperature of the lava and it's within an acceptable range when you compare it to the range of temperatures you can experience during space travel. Even if the ambient temperature were not acceptable, as long as you have a way to transfer the heat out of the hull you're still OK. IE: you could use the heat to power a giant frikk'n laser and it would be super believable. Super believable, but I still don't want it. Lets give lava planets a unique gameplay environment because it's good for the game. I think they're better off without ships.

Metal planets need atmosphere or choke points become extra choking on game play.

Asteroids no atmosphere would too ridiculous

Moons I would say small ones only no atmosphere

There must be a hook to disable players from building air units and easy to identity why you can't.

Translation: Yes atmosphere on metal. No atmosphere moons/asteroids.

There does need to be an easy hook, and it could be as simple as making air factories red on these planets the way naval is red on land.

Some planets have no water, on these planets you cannot build navies.

Why not have some planets with no air so you cannot build air units? I think a no air gametype would be intresting as it would make Arty, radar, and ground scouts more useful.

Have you ever seen anybody ever build the ground or naval scout?