i have asked for multiunittansports and orbital carriers since the implementation of orbital and those are rather surfacefocused units as they bring ground- or airunits units from the ground or air of one planet to the ground or air of another planet ... because here is the thing: I don´t wan´t to be reliant on beachheads only ... i even suggested a orbital version of the supcom FA mercyunit as a compromise for those who wanted a kineticweaponsatalite and for those that want more intresting missiles naval has structures as well ... the only layer without structures as of now is air ... orbital feels a bit like a bastard of both of them the biggest thing that matters to me is that surface armies stay to be THE MAIN TOOL of destruction against your enemies base and commander i never said orbital can´t have more units or unittypevariety but like with the "more units in general"-thread or the "implementation of megabots"-thread what would those more orbital units do what other current unittypes don´t? is it right to have a artillerytype or bombardmenttypeweapon in every layer existing? why would that make the layer any more intresting or fun than others? if that layer also turns out to be the most secure why should i ever use the others in a competitive match when i have basicly all the same options off spamming and rushing on every layer? imagine you would have a destroyer with cannons, torpedos, aa and ao ... on every layer, be it ground, naval, air, a hoverversion, a submarineversion and lastly orbital ... what would be so different about each of them? what would make them any more intresting than the other? no, limits and exclusions are needed ... otherwise you will make things either confusing or monotone and at worse breake the game ...
I explained the differences in my OP, and also didn't suggest any of those units... and how are normal units on the same level as megabots?
didn´t say you did and those where rather general questions not aimed at the OP but on your statement of " I think orbital needs at least 5 or 6 more units " what does one armored megabot with 2 or 4 heavy directfireweapons do differently that 50 or 100 lightarmored bots with small directfireweapons don´t? ultimately nothing different ... the difference in "level" is irrelevant ...
An orbital unit doesn't need to do 4 or 5 things... I'm not sure I ever suggested that... I've been against megabots for a loooong time, so I'm not sure where I start sounding like I suggest something like that...
justification argument in those threads mentioned : "it adds more variety ..." but does it realy? what variety?
Justification here; "it adds more variety to orbital" orbital currently has 2 combat units. How is adding more, with different attributes (slow firing, high damage, decent range, good for use against anchors, or making anchors not able to shoot ground then buffing their anti-orbital damage a bit, etc.) not more variety? That's like saying that having a bomber that shoots a tactical missile instead of bombing is not more variety. And currently, for the "megabot style" argument of "but other units could do it", there are no other units, and they do not do much.
ok,example: you have 5 tanks one with a laser cannon one with an autocannon one with a experimental particleprojectorcoilgun one with multitube-concusive incendianarygranade-launchers one with double autoplasmagatlings friggin cool, right? .. ahem .. but .... having enough units of each type grouped what does one type of those do differently than the other? imo it is a mere optical and stat difference but ultimatly each of the types can be as destructive as any other weither it has high alphadmg, high rate of fire, long range or aoe ... also stuff like "is stronger against x" multipliers buffs/debuffs are totaly horrible more significant variety is f.e ... buildrole, supportrepairrole, scout, sabotage, antitank/antiunit role, siege/antibuilding, antiair, transport, meatshield etc. the thing is we have an ammount of those already and currently pretty much any other unit is merely a slight diversion of an already existing role ... f.e. what does the t2 kestrel do differently than the t1 bumblebee ... both are effective at taking out groups of groundunits or single small buildings both can be used for hit and run, they do ultimately the same thing the t2 bomber with it´s tac missile seems to have a clear antistructurerole which i very like ... what does the t2 leveler do differently than the ant, the grenadier or the slammer? they feel all like minor variants of firesupport the problem with this ammount of units is it makes the unitpool less transparent while not realy adding new strategy or tactics ... it rather adds "only" further options to the same strategies and tactics that already exist ...
So, because we have fighters we shouldn't have orbital fighters? Why do roles need to be exclusive to one unit across the board? And isn't further options what we want? I want to be able to play orbital without being forced to spam 1 unit, that isn't strategy...
spam avanger - orbital superiority, escort for austreuses and fabbers spam anchors with fabbers - area control and siege spam solar arrays - saver power than surface spam ssx - structuresniping spam radar or spy satalites - saver intelgathering than surface so i can spam 5 that interact purely in and from orbit
I am talking about combat, not power or radar. To get power and radar you have to spam those things anywhere. For combat, Would you play a game, where you only had ants, hummingbirds, orcas, and dox? Why limit orbital to 1 combat unit and 1 turret? The SXX is a super-weapon, IMO, not a unit.
You need to reformat that. Here let me help. Surface combat: dox, stinger, gorilla (called bluehawk, idk why, silverback sounds better), gil-e, ant, inferno, sheller, spinner turned into a flakversion, double laser tower, holkins, nuke, flak, antinuke, umbrella, artillery and more Naval combat: gatling, spinner/stingerstyle aa -2, leviathan, narwhal, orca , sub, navalumbrela and more Air combat: hummingbird, kestrel, hornet, pergerine, T2 bomber Orbital combat: avenger, anchor, SXX (since we're counting nukes as combat units) SXX is pretty much a superweapon. It's only current use is comm sniping. I think orbital should look more like this: Orbital: Avenger, anchor (can't shoot ground or air layer, but great against orbital units), an orbital version of the T2 bomber currently in vanilla (IE sits outside of anchor range and can kill it no problem, but gets shut down by avengers), SXX (changed so that it's not very effective against units, but is good for seigeing structures, and is cheaper), some sort of battleship that is decent against avengers and anchors, medium health, and can rain down pelter shots on units below, making it nice against large armies, but taken out by the orbital bomber thing) an orbital AA turret (shoots the air layer), and a fighter that can go between ground and orbital (probably the pergerine) In addition, a lot more surface, naval and air layer units would be able to hit orbital (possibly the: T2 bomber, bluehawk, stingray, and a new tank, as well as the catapult, for starters), in addition to multi-unit orbital transports and other things. If that's not more variety, then could you please tell me what "more variety" is, because I'm clearly missing out.
Honestly, i think orbital needs more breakage. Stalemates are just too easy in orbital interplanetary play. I know uber hates the idea of naval 2.0 in space but i think it needs to happen honestly. that or removal of naval all together in favor of space. On that note, why not try that as an idea? remove naval altogether and re-purpose those units to space, but, allow them to land in pools of water to target ground forces? They cant stay in the air layer because they are not aerodynamic, but they could land in water and have a longer range to target ground and air units when landing then they otherwise would in space. This could make orbital more important and naval (which is useless on none water planets) reporposed for a wider role. At the same time it makes water a more tactical feature on planets as it lets orbital go planet side.
That would be a very... odd... way of doing it. Not that there is anything wrong with that gameplay wise... Though I would prefer that they are separate, but that's my opinion.
But what about naval structures then? And wait, what problems does naval have, that making them orbital fixes?
Naval are situation, they cant be used on any planet type unlike all other units. Making them orbital would make it usable in any situation. However, this would mean naval structures would go, which only currently include naval factories, torpedoes, and sonar i think? you could probably keep torpedoes but overall not a huge loss. Honestly, I think orbital should be the invasion layer, minimal defenses (maybe only umbrellas?) maximum offensive abilities, create a beach head, and invade the planet with minimal limitations but orbital should interfere with ground and air minimally unless there is water if we are using that idea. I'm not saying no orbital bombardments, im just saying it should be limited to precise attacks and multi-unit orbital transports bringing the heat, so to speak.
as answered before more unitroles are more variety already, everything else is a mere optical and statchange to something already existing ... i´m also against bluring orbital vs surface toghether through missile launchers .. this will make orbital invasions only more difficult as they are already i still don´t see much of a reason to implement a "bomber" for just 2 units ( actualy 1 unit as i don´t want the other in at all) that can´t be shot down by a number of avangers already soooooo totaly against those, have those modded in if you want but for vanilla ... no, thx
