Moons and Asteroids should not have air or atmosphere

I don't think venus.(where i write this)
(You think this becouse in venus atmosphere is 96,5 %co2)
I write this becouse co2 going to liquid in 5.1atm. pressure. This not big pressure. And not on -200 celsius.
I only said: Robots can survive big pressure. Not 60000atm. but 5........
I don't think robots can land on gas giants.

Sure, but they can't both survive and be killing machines.

They can be.

Venus has the bonus of raining sulphuric acid while being really hot.

Depends on whether you have unobtanium or not. The thing about killing machines is they have ammunition, and ammunition can explode. Not sure I'd want explosives in my robot if my priority was survival.

not all weapons require ammo nor is all ammo explosive.

I'm using ammunition very loosely here. So the "ammunition" for a tesla coil is electricity. And yes, in theory you can have a metal rod-slinging rail gun robot with no volatile material to propel the projectile but there's no such unit in game. Magnetic rod-slinging would still require power, presumably generated by an in-built source. I hope it's well protected!

It depends on the atmosphere. Venus is hell because not only is the environment hot, it´s also acidic. metals get weaker as it gets hotter, and acid is more effective when hot. It´s basically the perfect anti-technology environment. Yes, there are more materials than metals but hot+acidic is bad for just about any material.

Who knew!?

It's a lot easier to make something withstand pressure and winds like on Jupiter than the hot, (compared to jupiter low-pressure) acidic hell of Venus.

Well, I wouldn't be all up in arms if gas giants could be colonized with floating platform factories, because there's nothing strictly scientifically impossible about it (if we ignore insane electrical storms and the usually >500mph winds) but I just don't really see the point of it.

It would make for a really one dimensional play area because there is no realistic or sane way to put geographical obstructions to make for any interesting terrain. Everything would have to be air. It would be kind of silly if it just took the same air units over since the bomber would have literally no reason to exist, so then we're left with just fighters. Just one unit.

If anything, the only sensible way to do it if gas giants are to be used for resource gathering is to give it an orbital layer only and further flesh out the orbital layer mechanics.


Back to the topic though, IMO air just should not be allowed on moons. A safe haven from bombers.

I don't think any manmade material could land on the surface of a gas giant. People are really underestimating the pressures involved, matter does really strange things at planet cores. You get hot ice, crystallized iron, and if things get REALLY crazy, metallic hydrogen.

The materials that exist at those pressures cannot exist anywhere else, it it goes without saying the reverse also applies. Venus isn't even close.

That said, the upper atmospheres of gas giants (or venus like planets) would be intresting for air battles with floating air platforms and gas mining rigs. You know on Venus you could actually float a giant balloon full of breathable air in the upper atmosphere and even build a city inside of it? It might be easier than trying to terraform mars.

... Are you me from a parallel universe? Everything you just said, I was about to say.....

I have a feeling this is directed to me.

In any case i didn't say we should be able to land.


Anyway, i wonder what other people's thoughts are on possible no-air mechanisms (how it's determined, not the effects)

I think that this is options territory and could be nicely worked into the UI in the system view. Availability of an atmosphere supporting flight could be toggled in the editor and the system generator could be given exclusion/inclusion rules depending on planet size and biomes present.
Every planet could then be attached a short breakdown of biomes present and layers supported in text or icon form.

options yes but what should be default for ladder or competitiv play? while im twominded about more biomes restricting gameplay with specific unitsets they may lead to more intresting gameplay through adaption ... gas giants would do this because you cant have any surfaceuunits on those except for may be air
full on waterplanets could still have air and maybe hovercraftsets ... in my opinion moons should be the only no flyzone template ... metalplanets might become too significant to use ground only ....

Ladder rules should be determined by the so-called competitive part of the community. If the options are in place enforcing them on ladder should pose no difficulty. Additionally, tweaking rules as seen fit for ladder play would become easier, too, should the need arise.
Meanwhile everyone else can adjust the game to his or her heart's content. I see no problem in this, honestly.

I think it fractures the community.
It really takes time for such things to settle and even when the balance becomes stable it might come down to subjective opinion.
True comptetitive players simply play to win and adapt to the ruleset that is given to them. They might have opinions of settings that cause more deep and rich gameplay but if their opinions are correct, those settings might as well be the default setting because once the community are in agreement, those settings simply provide more deep and rich gameplay for all players.
PA should allow for deep and rich gameplay without air. It is simply about making the ground unit rooster diverse enough.

I am bound to disagree, I am afraid. Game design and balance with competitive play in mind is fine. Design and balance revolving around competitive play and the fraction of a community advocating it - not so much. Most popular e-sports titles started out as being good and fun games in and of themselves. Their promotion to e-sports material has mostly occurred as a result of their popularity due to them being fun not due them being designed for being a sport. Take Shootmania as an example of what can happen if you try to design an e-sports title and then make it fun and popular instead of the other way around.
Additionally, the community will always be split into multiple groups - at least into competitive and non-competitive players with them being the majority for much of a game's life cycle.
Thus a game should be designed and balanced for the latter and options should be made available for the former to be able to setup their competitive environment in any way they see fit.

Apart from that design ramble: Yes, PA should enable you to use as many or few different units from as many or few different layers as you wish to use and still provide you with the ability to meaningfully react to your opponent. But it is not for the competitive part of the community to decide for all of PA's players what constitutes deep and rich gameplay and what does not.

You make a basic assumption that I think is flawed. You assume that deep and rich gameplay can't be the same for competitive players and for casual players.
I think that they can be the same.
Deep and rich gameplay is simply that there are many viable options and strategies available as well as a lot of variety. This is something that is good for both casual and competetive players.

If you want to change some game options, play on a strange planet or disable nukes you should be allowed to do that but the default options should strive for as deep and rich gameplay as possible.

Well, then we are seemingly in accordance. I am simply wary of a minority dictating the gameplay for a majority. Not on all levels of proficiency do things work out the same way and thus balance is dependent on the players skill levels, too.