What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital combat)

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean?

Hmm... I think the orbital mechanics in the game will be much simpler than they are in real life. Besides, a geosynchronous orbit that's not above the equator can still be pretty nearly stationary. At least stationary enough that you can ignore any gameplay problems it would cause.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean?

This is a case where Gameplay should trump Realism, obviously there should still be some limits(and there is also regular satellite orbits as well) but I think in this case trying to stick to realism would only hurt the game experience.

Mike

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean?

I hope they Keep spaceship combat out of it. From what i can tell from the video and forums this is the vibe and thoughts I get out of it.

The asteroid super weapon will be your main weapon of assaulting a monopolized planet. The crater of the asteroid would give you natural resources and a prime starting location for your extremely large interstellar transport ship to land with a invasion force.

Of course there would also be a planetary death star ray gun you could fire at planets and incoming asteroids but it would take tremendous power and a cool down timer.

Satellites would be used as spy vessels giving you continuous large area coverage of planets while they orbit by.

In my opinion I believe that is all that is needed. You may add a planetary shield but Im on the fence for that

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean?

I think spaceship combat can be introduced at one point. Just not now.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean?

Did you read the OP? What are your thoughts on the "Gas Giants and Expanded Orbital Units" stretch goal?

Shouldn't there be a way to assault a monopolized planet that doesn't involve destroying it?

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean?

I agree.

I really hope there are some kind of orbital battleships, transports and fighters to make this possible.

as for being arbitrary they can not fight in space, mid space intersect courses are very hard to get (anyone played kerbal space program?) so it makes a bit of sense there are no deep-space battles from a physics point of perspective.

There just needs to be some kind of way to move from orbit to orbit without teleporting right in someones hypothetical defense array.

I also heard about ideas to bring asteroids into planetary orbits (like the moon was in the video), instead of crashing them into the planet, to use them as staging positions for an attack. I really like that idea, however I would still like my asteroid to look like a battleship though XD

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean?

That would be my wish too. But it all needs to be designed and balanced to support the ground battle and not replace it. I think there needs to be a strong level of interaction between ground, air, and orbital, but where orbital is the absolute least cost-effective means for waging war. That way they're important but the main game still takes place on the ground.

Good point. You have to be able to choose where the units will "land" in the orbital field. And travel should have a delay. It can't be like teleporting with units able run home instantly.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean?

let me rephrase:
i think deep space combat can be added at a later point.

I think the Gas Giant stretch goal will mostly add in-orbit battles. sattelites, space stations and orbital craft...

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

I guess the original title was misleading. I added a subtitle...hopefully that helps.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

In terms of gameplay? Space ships threaten to dominate over the ground based aspects of the game. It largely can't be helped. Space battle creates a big issue with the game engine, in that multithreading really likes clean separations between areas of space. Space travel blurs the lines a lot, creating any number of programming headaches. Also, PA is aiming towards big robot battles on big beautiful worlds. Space battle is pretty much an entirely different game, with different tactics, and different needs. It's too much for one plate.

In terms of Lore? I'll just copypasta this (and fix a few things).

Don't expect to see real space ships. The most likely options will be weapon platforms, unit transports, factories, and light raiders.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

I disagree that they necessarily dominate gameplay. They might if done poorly, the same way that aircraft and gunships can dominate if done poorly.
And it's up to the developers what's too hard to program.

Where do you get this from? Wasn't this made up by fans? How can PA be a prequel if humanity has all been wiped out ("The age of humanity is long past") when there were humans in both TA and Supcom?

PA, TA and Supcom are all games with similar settings, but they don't have a shared history. All arguments from lore are void unless it's something the devs said specifically about PA.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

If I count as a fan, then yes.

TotalA takes place after the galaxy has been thoroughly wrecked, both sides are "ruined beyond repair", and Commanders chase each other across scattered bases and ruined worlds to finish it. What I mean by "earlier events" is that both TotalA and PA share similar ideas for the endgame, except PA starts with a galaxy that isn't quite yet ruined.

The rest is just fluff. It merely offers the idea that space warfare was one age of the conflict. The birth of the Commander heralded the end of that age. When the war can move faster than space ships, there is no point to using space ships anymore. Don't worry about fluff.

In actuality, Uber just doesn't want space ships. It doesn't really need to be justified beyond that. I think the links to their comments are already in this thread.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

@bobucles

That Commander argument works for TA, but not quite for PA as here Commanders are (I would estimate) one thousand times bigger (height) and, even worse, one billion times more massive (assuming more or less the same density). To teleport it, you would have to have basically unlimited teleportation capacity. The only thing that may limit you is resource output and the rate at which you can build units -- if your goal is to rule/destroy the entire galaxy, sending one Commander to each system would be a better idea than pushing a lot of resources into less. On the other hand, sending a big Commander makes it possible to conquer a planet much quicker.

And, by the way, the big Commander is so awesome that small ones become totally insignificant.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

It's not the Commander that is bigger, it's the worlds that are smaller. PA takes place in fun-sized systems, where planets are only a few km large.
Wait, I just got it. PA is in fact a post-apocalyptic sequel to Dragon Hunters.

Anyway, Commanders are probably extremely hard and expensive to build, which is why no-one managed to zerg-rush the 400 billion stars of the galaxy with those. Still, each one can process an entire system in a matter of days.

What I suppose to explain this 'infinite war' setting (and the only logical explanation I could ever muster) is that each Commander turn a system into a giant star fortress/Death Starfleet factory. Starships are slow-moving, but they are also the only thing that can take on enemy star systems. So the more star systems you capture, the more your 'influence' (i.e. how many starfleets you have around) grows in the region. If you want to capture an enemy sector, you choose an empty system, jump in and build your own fortress. Obviously, you can't jump too deep into enemy sectors, or a starfleet will wipe you out before your star fortress is up.
The only way to prevent a Commander to do so is to teleport in the system at the same time than them (guessing that there's a way to detect incoming teleportations and lock on them), because even a 30s advantage can mean victory. Hence the Galactic War rounds, always in unclaimed systems and beginning always at the same time for everyone.
This would work, obviously, only if you don't fight twice in the same system in a GW campaign, and if you are specifically sent in a system via teleportation instead of, say, being in garrison there or arriving with slower interstellar ships.
If we want to do the 'endless war' well, Commanders also have, lore-wise, to be able to build other Commanders (it wouldn't last that long otherwise). Bonus points if each Commander is an individualist whose ultimate purpose is to be the last one, but weaker Commanders build new ones as convenience allies, while both will initially have a stronger common enemy. There could even be varied factions, but it would be made funnier by the fact that any winning faction will end up backstabbing itself and repeat the cycle. Preferably with another of the absurdly numerous galaxies of the Universe.
I wonder if there could be a Cluster War, metagame for Galaxy War campaigns...

(TA and worse SupCom have no excuse, though.)

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

I believe it was the stealth advantage on an enemy who couldn't transfer forces between star systems, or communicate to other systems.

Making the garrison forces for a system, what was left after the last battle and the commanders gated away.

So no super fortresses, and no need to build up after battle (Technically).
Leaving the beginnings of a galactic war the infiltration of enemy worlds and the eventual use of WMDs to destroy determinant resources for future and current campaigns to prevent the build up of commanders.

(Of course my interpretation has plot holes).

It is possible that the FTL of a commander requires the construction of a one-time use engine to get to the next system, making traditional space ships obsolete, as you can only send 1 at a time, and possibly with ancient and forgotten technology using resources that were extinguished long ago.


The commanders possibly posses a permanent FTL-Kickstarter, and another possibility.

(All speculation^)

However, I still don't understand from these games why FTL Experimentals or Krogaths weren't used?

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

Smaller world? So it's much less interesting. And less awesome. No (size-related) comparison with TA/SupCom can be made then, as the worlds are too different. And teleportation/space travel parameters could be quite easily chosen to 1) make space travel inefficient and 2) make sending more troops inefficient. For example expensive teleportation with jamming and no/limited FTL travel for starships. Local starships wouldn't be reasonable either if they could be easily fought off from planets.

Anyway, it's hard to make any explanation since we still don't know how Galactic War will look like. I think Uber should focus on good game mechanics and make a story for what happens to come out.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

So much misinformation. Planets can be arbitrarily sized as far as I've heard.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

Yep, and the unit limit can be disabled, and there's no limit on the amount of objects in a system.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

Pluto disagrees.

Re: What does no space combat/spaceships mean? (Orbital comb

rdr^2