Ineter-Planetary Artillery

Except you can manually blind fire.

^ this. Very much this.

It was broken in SupCom, this will be even more broken.

Yeah and you can, im suggesting that you select your target planet then, if you have vision or blind radar blips, you can manual fire.. it would hopefully project a red circle on the ground that moves in relation to the artillery..

The supcom arty had a Ridiculous range, i agree... im not saying it has to be able to hit any target on the half of the planet in line of sight..

As i stated earlier this is an instance where physical realism detracts from the game. I dont want this unit to fire on anything anywhere at any view factor. That is what you seem to think i want and it is not.

You

You think this game is Supcom and it isn't... it is very much a different animal.

The validity of this idea cant be compared to 2dimensional 1 surface game.

Take a 777 and 787 boeing model aircraft. The former has a higher initial cost smaller flight range and lower fuel efficiency then the 787.. then why is the 777 being produced and successfuly sold and approximately 360 million dollars each?

It is because of the purpose the aircraft serves, its primary function is domestic transportaion and can seat nearly 100 more people per flight then the 787. At certain costs.

You need to think about purpose, and when you make comparisons to topics make sure the topics are comparable. Stay away from statements.

Saying
"It was broken in SupCom, this will be even more broken.."
It is a bad argument

Try saying
If this idea is implemented like supcom artillery was this will be broken.

The latter is not only a better way to communicate it challenges the idea by citing past conflicts and states a potential for failure should the idea be implemented the same way as supcom.

No where in my origional post have i.mentioned likening this idea to supcom maptillery

technically, regular artillery shouldn't work on bodies lacking atmosphere. Ants would barely be able to shoot on a steep curve. Would not be a winner gameplay wise, so reality can go back to being ignore where it belongs in video games. I'd plug a controller into the dirt if I felt like playing real life.

as far as gameplay, interplanetary nukes makes me want interplanetary not-nuke-missiles, since interplanetary nukes are suprisingly good gameplay so far. I suggested cats, but it could be its own unit entirely, idc, balance would be plausible.

Being able to fire between two planets artillery stile with no way to counter them aside from invading the entire base is exactly like supcom mapertillery – except they're on two different planets rather than on two sides of a flat map.

Your counter argument is that they can't hit everywhere on a planet based on vision – but that doesn't matter.

It's still a terrible idea that will do nothing but piss off players.

This is far from the first time this has been suggested and it has been rejected by the community each and every time.

Brian you aren't understanding what i am saying.

I am saying you need a satellite or ground based radar to strike at an oponent with IPA. By vission i dont mean, "hey a planet.. Open fire" i mean radar vission.

Again if your going to make a blanket statement in regards to the entire community i would ask you cite some sources.. especially considering the pole in these early stages of existance seems to go against what you claim public opinion is..

Well Brian, nukes are technically already in the game. They do exactly that. Didn't you not like them refered as nucks? Then "nucks are already in the game as maptillery".

anyway, they work fine having a counter and a limit enforced by cost and load. A similar single non aoe shot interplanetary weapon could work with balance.

limit its rate. Make it an eco dump. Make aquiring radar or vision via orbital on another planet little harder. Make it appear to enemy as seen before when it fires. Add a few interactive ways to intercept shot or react to kill it. If none of that is done, well a dox with infinite range is op derp.

Brian i am not saying my implementation is flawless but i ask that if you plan on refuting an idea.. provide grounds for refutation other then the it failed at x therefore it must fust here. Trophysystem stated his reservations about implementation and provided examples.. you continue to just say it will fail, and the community will not support it.

Do you know what this would do? Trying to figure out if your artillery has a proper firing solution, or where to build your artillery so it will have a proper firing solution over a particular time period would be a HUGE pain in the ***.

Players would probably take to calling them "Blind Luck Cannons", or perhaps resort to a more colorful nomenclature...

And yes nukes please lol... to many nucks...

True on nomenclature....but if you mean to tell me that you cant intuitively see where optimal firing placement is i wouldn't believe you...

The answer would be to put it on the equator of your orbiting body.. what part of our earth sees the majority of the sun.. a kindergardener has that level of intelligent capacity to answer that question.
As far as range goes it may be tough to see... the farther the orbit the longer you have to fire on a target... to me that seems intuitive..

I would like to see tactical nukes that cost less and have a shorter range and smaller explosion.

I think interplanetary cannons would be nice as well, and work them like the interplanetary nukes.

Anti nukes need a larger range.

What day of the week is it on November 26, 2072?
What will be the date 266 weeks from now?
Is 908716 divisible by 13 and 7?

A planet orbits the sun 3 times every 20 minutes, and rotates once every 2 minutes.
Another planet orbits the sun 4 times every 45 minutes, and rotates once every 3 minutes.
If an artillery cannon on the first planet, what spot on the second planet will it hit a minute and a half later?

Try to answer these questions off the top of your head.

The placement which is most parrallel to the plane of orbit between two objects maximizes the view factor between the object and the other planet. Period..

an obstruction doesnt matter because it will obstruct firing at any location on the planet.. the maximum will be allong that plane.

The system in reality, while numericaly based, is an intuitively easy concept. If you want to optimize the the thousandth of a second.. bring a calculator or play starcraft..

My point is the system is more intuitive then you think.

If you have an obstruction, then that is what you have and you cant fire on your target. You wont have a perfect los at all times plus planets will rotate.

Orbits arent complex and occur in one percieved plane.. use your intuition to guide your decision on how many cannons are built and where they are placed.

Classy way for a Vanguard to act.

Adios.

Please read the entire original post... I talk about turtles.

My referring to the catapults on small bodies is a topic of range.

The way you stop the bombardment is simple.. take out their cannon.. or take out the radar instalations and radar satalite...
Intelligence gathering units would recieve a higher threat priority if you knew orbital bombardment would result from ignoring them for to long

I sometimes actually don't realize what I write. So I doublechecked the post and rules. Turns out, this isn't one of those.

twas neither a personal attack nor offensive. Was going out the way to agitate, but its by all definition correct. Anyplace you can't plop down a nuke is considered broke (single way planets no moon), nukes aren't that bad as stalemate breaker.

No I do not want inter planet artillery, it would be to hard to counter unless with shields or an anti arty ...
And take the game away even more from planet invasion.

that's an arbitrary rule. why couldn't you just ground fire it wherever you feel like?