Planetary moving and how it can still be expanded

While asking Meta about the current planet moving mechanics he told me that it was done and only needed some bug fixing (but he wasn't sure). I hope that is not the case as I'd like to see it expanded a bit. One of the things I'd like to see:
- take planet/moon into solar orbit so you can "hide" your moon if you don't want to smash it.
- Taking orbital speed into account. The other day I had a game where I moved a planet and it was so quick it's orbital period was 5 seconds. Also would be nice if we could set up orbital speeds so you can tell your planet to chase another planet or to change the direction of orbit.
- http://pa.lennardf1989.com/Tracker/...1&opened=zweistein000&order=history&sort=desc Needs fixing.
- Being able to set the altitude of orbit, maybe even shape, much like the system editor but more drag and drop
- Maybe add an option to set the amount of halleys need to move to a smaller number than amount halleys needed to smash so the choice between smashing or moving the planet isn't so binary (so can't say I see myself moving a planet if I can smash it and win the game).

1. Moving a moon into a solar orbit would drag the game on, at least until interplanetary nukes are introduced, in which case it still wouldn't be safe.

2/4. The ability to change the direction/speed of orbit I guess could be useful if you want to keep travel time between the planetary bodies as short as possible, but seems like a trivial feature.

5. If you're in a large FFA with multiple players all spread out to different planets, moving your planet would be useful because you could use it as a weapon without losing your base. You could nuke it from orbit, shoot units over with the unit cannon (once present in the game), and do this over and over until you have either it becomes disposable or everyone is annihilated.

Basically in it's current state it is still useful, maybe it'll need some changes as the gameplay evolves, but for now it seems fine to me.

There's a few problems with your expansions.

I'm not sure what you mean by hiding a moon. Move it to different orbits so that no one can reach it? That seems a little bit OP to be honest. Besides, by now being able to move moons between different orbits, moons can now be used as an offensive nuclear weapon. And as soon as the orbital unit cannon gets implemented, the offensive capabilities of this will be tremendous.
[quote[- Taking orbital speed into account. The other day I had a game where I moved a planet and it was so quick it's orbital period was 5 seconds. Also would be nice if we could set up orbital speeds so you can tell your planet to chase another planet or to change the direction of orbit.[/quote]
The physics of the game are a bit woncky at best. Ignoring the fact that you're building giant thrusters on the side of a moon to derail it off its intended orbit, a lot of what you ask for would be nice but isn't really needed. You can set a moon to go into orbit of another planet and it will "chase" and catch up to it, but there's really no need for it to change directions. That just seems like an implementation nightmare.

Gamma is beta. It's unfinished and everything still needs polishing. Just like this and the thousand other bugs that need fixing.

Again, implementation nightmare. The reason you can do it in system editor is because everything is static and there aren't hundreds of units running around. It would be nice to have it but it really isn't a much needed gameplay mechanic.

I see what you're saying here but there are multiple reasons why you might not want to planet smash. What if there's no other place for your commander to go? What if it's a multiarmy game and the moon is your only base?

I personally think that the reason the amount of halleys are the same is because physics. If it takes 3 halleys to move a moon to smash it unto the side of a planet, it should take the same amount to get into orbit. (Actually, it would probably take more to move the moon into a stationary orbit since you'll have to speed the moon up by burning towards its prograde point to get back into orbit, instead of burning towards it's retrograde point to slow down, but more on that later)

I always wonder why they had to call it a gamma phase instead of just staying in beta all this time till the game is finished? like I mean what are they gonna do next Omega phase? lol they'll need it cause they're no where close to finishing the game ha ha.

Anyways back on topic my favorite tackic for using halleys is to just take a big non-moveable planet to be my economy base cause I need space for power plants and very quickly build stargates on moons that you can move and send a team of engineers there when I can build halleys Theres no loss of economy on a moon that has nothing but 3 halleys on it in exchange for the terrible terrible damage it does

It's called gamma because there were too many preconceived notions about what Beta should be.

i would like every single planet to be able to have thrusters strapped onto them and smashed into oblivion.

Th

They can. Just check the system manager

I think you have to smash them together so you can go down to one but can't clap with a single hand. Althought it would be a pretty moot point as in the last collision every unit is doomed.

Again check the system manager. Every planet can have from 1 up to infinite halleys.

But if you are down to the last planet what do you smash it against? So no total ruinage is archieved. Leaving a tombstone is thus mandatory (could be a cool concept of bones files for galactic war).

I don't get it. Why would you try to smash the last planet? That way the game can only end in a draw.