Will projectile weapons be able to shoot further on smaller planets? Since the planets are smaller and the gravity should be less, the projectile would have a greater height advantage over the target and less pull of gravity on the projectile which together should increase the distance the projectile can fire. Whereas on a larger planet, the curvature of the planet would not come into play as much and the gravity of the planet would be greater, so the projectile should not be able to travel as far. Of course this would have a pretty minor affect on most units, but on a stationary long range rail gun (think TA's Big Bertha or Intimidator) it could create a large difference. Potentially on a small enough planet, with a big enough gun, a stationary gun could shoot itself. If we are contemplating projectiles, gravity and planet size, assuming the previous to be true, wouldn't it be possible with a high enough powered weapon to place projectiles in orbit around the planet? While projectiles orbiting the planet would not be extremely useful, it would suggest that there is a critical size planet where a single high powered gun can cover the whole planet. Also if projectiles can break the gravitational pull of a planet or asteroid is there anything stopping me from taking an asteroid, placing a few big guns on it and a booster then flying it around as a personal star destroyer that can pummel my enemies from space? Granted I think this all could create a very confusing game play mechanic, but it would be an interesting little twist.
I'd laugh a lot if the only crippling weakness of the ultimate stationary weapon was that if you missed or your target was destroyed before you reached it, then the gun would commit suicide in shame. :mrgreen:
That is more or less how i expected it to behave in my head all along, but now that you brought this up i'm not really sure that really is how it will be implemented. I'm pretty sure higher range weapons being able to overcome escape velocity and target other planets is a given, but as to how realistically interplanetary range is reflected in game i'm not so sure. As Heinlein put it: "Reach low orbit and you’re halfway to anywhere in the Solar System." So if you put an artillery that can reach everywhere on a planet on an asteroid you can basically reach every point in the solar system which might be a bit overpowered. So there might be other limitations enforced somehow... On a second thought this is fairly easy to balance, as projectiles will take more time to reach further targets and just become rather inaccurate...
I think it would be awesome to be able to put an asteroid on a non-collision orbit with lots of guns on it...
Mavor himself talked about this kind of thing in Early interviews so I'm sure it will be something they try when they get to that stage in implementing Asteroids. Mike
Being able to put cannons on a asteroid and flying it around WOULD be a nice idea, BUT as it has been covered over and over that there will not be shields, that makes a devastating super cannon ALL that more powerful. If your playing on a nice 4 planet system with 2 players per planet and someone get taken out in the first few minutes letting the remaining player on that planet play uncontested HE will be the one flying around asteroids loaded with super cannons! Like the idea, THINK there should be a way to 'upgrade' asteroids down the track to receive these sort of weapons, BUT until we have shielding so we can withstand long periods of bombardment, it a potential 'I WIN' button.
The gameplay Pre-Vis showed Nukes breaking apart an asteroid. If that's put into the game proper I'm doubtful that a "Carrier Asteroid" would be an I Win Button.
But think about it, a 'Carrier' Asteroid would likely cost MORE than a KEW Asteroids, because all a KEW needs is engines, but a 'Carrier' would need not only engines(possibly few if time isn't a factor)but also likely factories and Unit Cannons. A 'Firebase' likewise would require not only engines but also all the weapons. Because Asteroids are essentially just small planets, these things need to be built 'by hand' meaning they aren't intrinsically 'more' powerful than being built on land, but this largely also depends on how the orbital aspect will be handled. Frankly between a Land Based Artillery Structure and a Asteroid Based Artillery Structure, I get the feeling the Land Based one will be far more annoying. So long as they are balanced I don't see any huge pitfalls. Mike
'Land Based' versus 'Land Based' you say. Hmm, yes... I see the distinction you're making there. Good thing that wasn't confusing or I'd have eaten my shoe out of desperation. Edit: Awww, you edited your post. It's less funny now
I'm sure if your able to make a moving asteroid with guns, then your opponent would have more then enough time to make more stationary planet defence guns due to not trying to put engines on the planet (in the case of Turtle vs Hammer).
Well, from my personal experience, in an FFA or multi-team game, it wouldn't be *all* that hard to manipulate two players to fight one another while I rig up some asteroids with pew-guns. Then, once one player kills another, I take the surviving one out. An entire planet of resources all to myself!
This happens in our 4 player FFA games. Me and 2 other friends head straight for the 4th guy who is really good. Problem is we end up fighting in the middle of the map while he builds up his army. So we are battle worn and he is only getting hit by air. Then he wins by using tactical missiles to eliminate the enemy's defences as we are putting all efforts to hold off the other enemies who have given up on the op guy and heading straight our bases. Then once the defences are down he moves his ridiculous army base by base eliminating all players. GG
This brings up a good question. If you decided to orbit a planet rather than impact it, are you then totally stuck with that decision? Can I mid-flight, change my mind due to furthur intel and alter my trajectory to an intercept path? Can I change it after I am orbiting (Leave orbit and build up speed and return... assuming my engines were still in tact)?
Speaking from the generic physics side: mid flight going from orbit to impact shouldn't be too hard, if your planned orbit wasn't too huge, just a tweak in where you're aimed. Going the otherway gets interesting because you might be going too fast to orbit, or too slow so it might need an engine burn. Leaving orbit flying off and coming back would be more of a game design decision. It's kinda like jumping off/using a banked turn... like the dukes of hazard... ok, it isn't, but now I'm thinking about jumping cars over rivers...
Never mind all that, Any time my transports try to land on a moon orbiting kinda close to a planet of even the sun, they get stuck in orbit. Can transports be rerouted after launch? so you can do something about it, if they get stuck orbiting, or you simply realize it is unwise to land your commander on a moon that you have come to notice it is covered in guns.
bear in mind that a gun on the ground cannot put anything into orbit unless whatever its firing has a small rocket to complete or circularize the orbit when its in space and at apoapsis
