Multiple Uses for Rocket Gantry

In my mind, the Rocket Gantry seen in the Kickstarter trailer that shot the Commander to the moon was a total game-changer! And it's instrumental in PA's unique selling feature of slamming asteroids into planets.

Recently, I was wondering if launching Commanders into orbit would be the only purpose for the Rocket Gantry?

Hopefully, it can launch Engineers in addition to the Commander -- that seems like a no-brainer.

What I'm really interested in is if the Rocket Gantry can launch ICBMs, or orbital weapons and/or units, and super-units?

My guess is that orbital units can be launched from a rocket tower, and it will be at least a part of the interplanetary transport systems

Well, the units are all giant robots, so why not just mothball a small offensive force and use this to launch a cannon shot straight into the middle of an enemy base? Damage like a nuke when it lands, then offensive units start pouring out.

I thought about using the rocket as a weapon itself, but realistically, it wouldn't impact like a nuke (or asteroid) -- it doesn't have the mass or explosive firepower. It would be a waste of a rocket to not load a warhead or a payload on it.

Also, the units inside the rocket would never survive the impact -- especially if it's supposed to impact like a nuke. If the rocket deployed the units before impact, like the orbital-dropped units from the Unit Cannon in the trailer, that would work. That idea is more or less the same as my idea to deploy a super-unit via rocket, like I suggested, except instead of one large unit, there's a dozen or more regular units.

The point is that I want the Rocket Gantry to be used for more than just launching Commanders into space.

Sounds wasteful. An ICBM is about 15 meters long IRL, while even a relatively small launch vehicle is over 60m long. The Saturn V was 110m long. You don't need a giant rocket for suborbital flight.

It could be used to launch an IPBM instead....

Launching ICBMs would be just one of MANY possible uses for the Rocket Gantry. And the Rocket Gantry's ICBM could be more powerful to justify the larger rocket. Perhaps it's armed with MIRVs, requiring multiple missiles to intercept. Or maybe a tunsten kinetic projectile that orbits the planet multiple times to gain velocity and then slams down on the enemy base with greater destructive force than a nuke.

Or...

EXACTLY. The Rocket Gantry could launch nukes at an enemy moon base, asteroid, or even another planet. That would be awesome! And logically, if there are solar maps with multiple planets, there would have to be inter-planetary ballistic missiles.

Guess you aren't familiar with the idea of "kinetic warheads" or "mass drivers". You don't need a nuclear explosion, all you need is mass and velocity. And a rocket can just keep accelerating. An explosive material would be redundant at planetary distances.

But thats neither here nor there. The root idea, of launching different payloads be it a commander, construction crew, invasion force or mass driver, is sound. There may be balance issues though with making a multipurpose building, even if it does make sense. I would think a commander should be available to be launched to any planet or asteroid at or near the beginning of the game, but most certainly not a mass driver.

Heh, actually velocity is better than mass. For energy velocity is squared, where mass is not squared, double the speed is better than double the mass.

This could be as simple as making your first rocket a mass driver suboptimal. KKVing your own planet is a fairly slow and predicable process due to the distances involved. Sure, you could use your first rocket on KKVing your opponent's base, but it'll be really obvious, and they'll use their first rocket to stick their ACU into space, and you've immediately ceded orbital superiority to them, and only succeeded in destroying whatever early assets they couldn't evacuate from the impact site.

Frankly I wouldn't mind if it was only used to move singular units from a planet's surface to other planets/moons/asteroids. I do think that the option to also use it to launch size appropriate Orbital Buildings/units/whatever would be good as well.

Mike

Guess you don't READ before you post, because I already mentioned tungsten kinetic projectiles in my previous reply, so obviously, I'm familiar with them.

A rocket itself is NOT a viable kinetic weapon because a rocket is relatively fragile, and it would burn-up on re-entry and explode in the atmosphere. That's why manned space vehicles have to follow a specific re-entry trajectory otherwise they'll burn-up or bounce off the atmosphere. The greater a stellar object's velocity, the greater resistance it encounters by the atmosphere. A rocket would have to travel at a LOWER velocity at a shallow trajectory to re-enter the atmosphere, but then it wouldn't be travelling fast enough to inflict a catastrophic impact. That's why ICBMs deliver MIRVs, which fall at relatively low velocity and air-burst, instead of the rockets themselves being used as kinetic weapons.

If the rocket carried a solid tungsten rod instead, that could survive re-entry and be a viable kinetic weapon.

The KS trailer revealed that a Commander is delivered to a planet via a kind of disposable retro-rocket landing vehicle, and has to build a base from scratch. I assume that the Rocket Gantry is a relatively high-tech building, so unless it was part of a pre-built base, it wouldn't be available from the start to launch the Commander or weapons. And even if it could, the production time and cost of such a kinetic weapon would ensure that it wouldn't be affordable until the player had their economy up and running, the mid-game at the earliest. There could also be a limited research tree in PA, similar to StarCraft, wherein certain buildings have techs that unlock advanced units, buildings, and abilities. So the Rocket Gantry would be allowed to launch the Commander or Engs into space, but a weaponized rocket would have to be unlocked first, and it would be fairly costly to unlock.

I dunno, I think it would work as a high cost(as in resources and build time) Tier 1 structure, depending on it's uses, if used purely as a Single unit transport there wouldn't be any issue, leave the more efficient transport systems for Tier 2.

Mike

Firstly, has there been an official disclosure of how many Tech Tiers there will be in PA? Because I've heard there will only be two, like in TA. I'd prefer three, even if the third is the Experimental tier.

A high cost Tier 1 structure doesn't make sense, because "high cost" is indicative of a higher tier structure that the player cannot afford until their economy is up and running anyway.

Also, launching the Commander into space shouldn't be available in the early game. Think about it, in Assassination matches, a player can launch their Commander to the moon or a random asteroid as a safety precaution, and drag the game out if they lose their base on the contested planet.

No, the Rocket Gantry shouldn't be available until at least Tier 2, so it can't be abused. Also, I don't see the point in multiple tiers of Rocket Gantries. One is enough. The KS trailer shows that Engineers don't even need Rocket Gantries to launch from a moon to asteroids, so there's no point in a cheap T1 Rocket Gantry, and a high-cost T2+ Rocket Gantry.

sorynarkayn, I don't have time for a detail response atm(at work and will gladly go into more depth when I get home), but I think you're reading my post(s) in the wrong context, I feel like you reading is as in the context of doing all kinds of things like launching missiles and what not as also being discussed in this thread when instead it needs to be read in context with my other post:

As to how it could work as a high cost structure, that will have to wait.

Mike

It's my understanding that there won't be space combat in PA, so units cannot freely travel through space. Instead, rockets are used as the means of inter-planetary transportation to all of the accessible "planes" (planets, in-orbit, moons, asteroids, etc.), controlled via that slick UI seen in the KS trailer.

Therefore, I doubt there will be a higher tier "more efficient" inter-planetary transportation craft, such as a heavy transport space shuttle that can load and unload numerous units, and deliver them anywhere in a solar system. I'm not opposed to that idea, but I see no basis for it at this time -- and it's not applicable for this topic, which is multiple uses for the Rocket Gantry that we know is in PA.

Considering that there are multiple accessible planes in a solar system map, I think we can safely assume their will be long-range, inter-planetary missiles, in addition to the asteroid engines. Since the Rocket Gantry can transport the Commander to other planes, like a moon, it's reasonable to assume that a rocket can also carry a warhead, such as nuclear MIRVs, or more exotic, futuristic weaponry, like a planet-killer bomb.

If the Rocket Gantry can't be used to launch inter-planetary ballistic missiles, then I'd assume that there will be high-tech missile launchers specifically for that purpose. It just seems like a shame for an entirely separable building just for that, when the Rocket Gantry is fully capable of performing multiple roles. Even if the rocket's payload was produced separately, be it a nuclear warhead or a troop transport module filled with units, and then loaded onto a generic rocket platform, that would suffice.

I was going to reply to individual points, but I think it might just be easier to lay out my entire idea at once.

So Anyways, I think Rocket Gantries need to be in T1, because in the case of players spawning on separate planets it needs to be something you can get quickly(think of it as a kind of No Rush game minus the arbitrary limitation) so you'd be able to focus on it. But it still needs a high cost(whether it be in resources or build time) so it can't always be rushed, to rush it comes at the cost of units or defenses or factories, things you use to hold the enemy back normally. Why T1? Well frankly, the Rocket Gantry(henceforth RG) can only launch 1(as far as we know, maybe 1 commander and 2 regular units?) unit at a time, not very cost effective between the high up front cost for the RG and I'm assuming there will be a cost to rebuild the rocket as well. But as the player can expand his eco to other planets/moons/asteroids(thought at this point it's unconfirmed if the RG Pod can go out to an asteroid) this cost is mitigated, but then replaced by the fact it can only transport 1-2 units at a time, thats where the T2 Heavy Lift Rocket Gantries would come in, same basic idea as the T1 RG, but moar units. Just because units got built onto a planet doesn't mean they shouldn't ever be able to leave it.

Now, what about the Humble T1 RG you built? Well I'm for letting it launch Satellites into orbit, same rules apply, it ends up bing expensive and you need to build multiple rockets to launch multiple Satellites. So you can still use it in the early-ish game to get some Orbitals up(at the cost of securing a Moon/Asteroid) and while it might be more efficient to build/launch them from a moon or asteroid it will still take time to launch to the moon/asteroid, establish yourself and build/launch the Orbital, so you trade the fact you can get it earlier for a higher cost to get/launch it.

Now, in this context I see T2 not being quick to get unless you rush it, and if you really rush it your eco wouldn't be able to support all that much T2 production so unless your sure you won't be hassled early on it's rather risky to rush it, even in SupCom FA T2 units, while better in every way compared to T1, could still be overwhelmed.

Using the RG to launch missiles or nuclear warheads I don't like all that much, I feel those kinds of attack options need to be kept separate from each other(where applicable) and be able to be scoutable in such a way that it is clear what is being done.

SupCom2 was really annoying because it was hard to know if someone went for nukes, and unless you happened to also be going for some structure based research it was really hard to tech to Anti-nukes in time to actually defend yourself, these powerful weapons need to be easily identified.

And before someone tried to pull the "But you're the realism guy and it's realistic to build nucks into the RG rockets dur dur dur", I'll say that you ARE right, it is more realistic, BUT, and it's a big one, does that realism make for a better game? Is it a better game when you don't know what your opponent is building until it's too late? Those wondering the point I'm getting to should read this: PSA - Realism VS Awesome

And I think that's everything.....I think.....

Mike

instead of ipbm,s why not just crash a asteroid planet or moon into it its more fun