Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat in PA

A lot of people seem to want space combat and the Devs seem pretty scared to attempt it based on scope. Would those that want space combat be pleased with the compromise of using the orbital layer we already confirmed in the kickstarter to accomplish this?

In the implementation I'm imagining pathing and animations would be similar to air units already in game. They could be built from orbital structures (which are already confirmed). They could travel to other planets the same way as the egg. Perhaps even transit from air to orbital in the same manner as submarines that surface (like some of supcom's experimentals). Maybe even include an experimental capital ship that operates using mainly asteroid like mechanics. In this way we can create the feel of space faring empires without putting too much burden on the dev team. What do you think?

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

I don't support the idea that the Space/Orbital Layer should be summed up as "Like the Air Layer but in Orbit" that's honestly quite boring and IMO, not worth the time to implement.

Mike

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

lol Knight. Sometimes you take things so literal

@OP: The devs have a good reason to not want to deal with space combat. It is a pretty big time consuming job

But I wouldn't mind seeing more use for the orbital layer. The idea that comes to me is a small warship with aerospace drones that rebuild automatically and launch planet side to strike (unless shot by AA). The big guns shoot at other orbital objects unless the player submerges it into the atmosphere, which makes it vulnerable to AA and Air attack but gets to use its guns against ground targets as well. And of course interplanetary drives so you can send it ahead of an invasion.

Though its on my "To Look Into" list for modding if the final verdict is no. So I am not too worried

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

I'm rather looking forward to the implementation of planets-as-isolated-islands metaphor. I don't want to see the emptiness between them filled with anything but a few transport ships.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

Space combat is not a successor to Total Annihilation. It's really that straight forward.

The best use of the orbital layer, at this point, is to connect worlds in a common way.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

To be honest it depends on how easy it will be to shoot down satellites & orbital structures. We may need an interplanetary "heavy" unit for bridgehead assaults against other planets if the turtles, i include myself in that, decide to stack alot of anti-orbital weaponry on the planet.

If you don't have a moon, want to use the landscape in multiplayer (thus no planet killing asteroid strikes), and no moon for unit cannons you would be in trouble. Granted I think firebase style asteroids have been mentioned so that might work too.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

I'm (perhaps unfoundedly?) assuming interplanetary transports just launch, then land on the target planet, ignoring orbital units entirely. So there's nothing you can do to prevent landings happening, so you have to deal with the landed units, so to prevent planetary turtling. Or perhaps the anti-asteroid nukes from the visualisation also target incoming dropships, so countering the actual dropships is very expensive.

I can't really see orbital units being a very large set. Spy sat, "star wars" missile defense sat, gas planet harvester sat, anti-satellite sat.

But, yeah, all speculation, and there's no gameplay idea the devs have shot down as strongly as space combat.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

As knight said, no airplanes IN SPACE or naval combat IN SPACE please. Its a pretty boring way to do and very unimagitive. Also, we allready have those theaters at the planet level.

I'd rather they concentrate on orbital units as a real set of units in orbit. Ie. different orbits around planets, from geostationary (but far away) to the close and speedy spy satellites.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

There needs to be space travel.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

If the space combat isn't on par with Sins of a Solar Empire or Homeworld 2 it would be a let down. And it's not the focus of the game anyways.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

This. Even if it works in the same vane as SupCom Orbital Wars it was essentially just flying navy. I think a well developed space combat could be great and unique but we don't need redundant layer of naval/air combat. The guys suggesting this are severely underestimating how difficult it would be to develop good space combat.

To paraphrase garat: PA isn't supposed to be a terribly complex game to make. It's essentially a spin on TA and SupCom with a larger field of play.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

Lol veta your paraphrase can be taken by both sides of the argument... Orbital Layer combat, while not full space combat and possibly just an air navy, is still a feasible extension to the field of play of those named games. The OP wasn't asking for full 3D deep space battles, just that something interesting gets done with the orbital layer that can open up additional tactics/strategies.

One thing I have noticed peopel are overlooking is that it has been suggested/confirmed we will have Orbital Structures & Gas Giants (which will probobly only have Orbital & maybe air layers). Having a "flying navy" of warships to fight in that orbital environment is something people should consider. Otherwise the only alternative to clear objects out of Gas Giant orbits will be interplanetary class super weapons (nukes/asteroid firebases/etc)

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

That's if Uber takes the easy way out, which is entirely the problem with the proposal in the OP. At this point, anything can happen but the point is that Uber is waiting until they have a better grasp of the core gameplay before doing Orbital, and while this isn't conclusive in any way, I feel this is a strong indicator that they want it to stand out from existing layers.

It's not fair to all it overlooking, we know nothing about it. Uber hasn't gotten to the Orbital stuff yet.

But maybe you're overlooking something! ;p At this point many have talked about the potential for Gas Giants to (by default) have above average numbers of moons/asteroids in orbit. This would provide 'land' for Gas Giants(but obviously still rather unique compared to a normal planet) and would provide areas from which to start seeding the gas giant with satellites.

Mike

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

Lol knight. You know me, just trying to provide constructive discussion on a subject that interests me

The OP makes a nice discussion point. It just seems that most of the first responders latched onto his comparison to the air layer with immediate refusal without actually taking time to consider possibilities. Everything is rampant speculation at this point, subject to change, and generally a good way to burn time discussing.

That and I like stirring up some of these threads to generate mod ideas for later if nothing else... you did mention to me you were thinking we should focus on total conversion mods this time around didn't you? :lol:

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

Ya I tried looking for the exact post, no luck x). I agree something like space-navy would be pretty cool for a mod. That's probably the type of thing uber wants to encourage in their "Uber-Labs".

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

This entire discussion is kinda vague, partly because orbital is still being kept under wraps by uber (do to it's early stage), and partly because I think we're not being very clear on what we mean by space combat?

Do we mean combat around planets in orbit?

Do we mean combat between planets?

When I hear space combat I generally assume people mean the second, and the answer is just no at this point, other threads can be pointed too about the subject. The first I want some limited combat, but I don't want reskinned air, because reskinned air would break continuity for me AND be boring. If my satellites can do all this fancy turning and whatnot, likely with no fuel restrictions, I have no reason to not develop spaceships that do the same that should entirely redefine almost all combat.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

Then by the same logic submarines, amphibious units and underwater structures are also a waste of time? I couldn't disagree more...

Well TA didn't have spherical maps either, so maybe you should just play TA?

Doesn't sound like there is an easy way to please you so I doubt anyone will try...

it can be on par without being similar IMO...

When you assume you make an *** out of you and me (***-u-me ) I just want a cool way to realistically send large armies to other planets (especially turtled ones) and to launch assaults on incoming asteroids. I think the orbital layer is a good place to do this. Units in that layer being able to move more freely to and from other bodies not only makes sense but fits this need as well and adds a unique level of strategy above what we have seen so far.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

It is entirely possible to do orbital combat in a "layer" above air combat, whilst still making it unique and interesting, avoiding the "higher altitude air/naval combat" trap.

For a start, i would hope that when a player launches a satellite from their T1/T2 launch gantries, they specify an orbit for it to go into. The simplest way to do this would be to limit orbits as circular, with a fixed altitude but with variable inclinations. The player would give a single move order, at some point on the spherical orbital layer, and the satellite would automatically go into an orbit that maintains an inclination which passes over the launch site. If the player has given a shift-queued move order to the launch gantry, then satellites will automatically launch and assume the same orbit, as each one is built in turn, facilitating automation.

If a player wants to move an exsisting satellight to a different orbit, giving them a new move command will mean they alter their inclination, so as to pass over their present position, and the new target. This means that any possible orbit (under the limitations already specified) is achievable with two, shift queued move orders.

The satellite continues to move at constant speed, dependant upon it's altitude. For additional strategic depth, different satellites could have different operational altitudes. Small kinetic kill vehicles (read autonomous missiles), would orbit in a fast, low orbit, so as to quickly catch up with any targets they are given. Kinetic impactor launcher platforms would orbit higher, meaning they will spend longer over enemy territory to drop their weapons, but are also at greater risk of being shot down. These are just examples of two types of satellites, as there are a lot of options as to how they could be used.

The next step up in orbital complexity would be to allow satellites to alter their altitude at will, whilst requiring that they still remain in circular orbits. I believe the most prudent way of doing this is that when a player issues a move command, they can hold down the mouse button, causing a slider to appear. Moving the mouse up or down while this slider is open would alter the target altitude. If this was done, I would recommend that "faster" satellites can access a broader range of altitudes. This would mean they have greater flexibility into dropping into faster or slower orbits, so as to catch up with other satellites. The player need not concern themselves with the intricacies of orbital mechanics. If a player gives a satellite an attack order, it will automatically move to the best orbit to catch up with it's target, then occupy the best orbit to remain near it's target as long as possible.

The final option is full control. Here the player would have to specify an orbit by click-and dragging an ellipse around the planet. A separate action would be required to specify inclination. This offers the most control, but I'm not entirely sure how necessary it would be, or what additional strategies it would add to the game. The second option, with sufficiently good ai, could come close enough, without being overwhelming.

If this sounds confusing, then I apologise for not explaining it clear enough. With the right UI, (which I have outlined the key interactions of), even a complicated system like orbital mechanics can be made simple enough that someone can quickly grasp it's effects and make intelligent decisions as to how to use it to their advantage. If people care, I will knock up some example illustrations and diagrams when I have time.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

If you're going to herp derp, put some heart into it. TA was a game about robots conquering planets. It is no surprise to see a new game where robots fight over actual planets.

Well actually, it is kind of a surprise. But it's a good one.

Re: Orbital "air" units an acceptable form of space combat i

How do you figure?All of those have unique elements to them;

Submarines - Although they share many movement characteristics with surface Naval units they use/require a unique weapons and by thier nature of being below the surface they do not usually interact with on layers(Land/Air).

Amphibious Units - Although they can transition to different layers they still stand apart from the units of at least one layer. Tanks that travel along the seafloor are still unique to Subs, if the float on the surface or Hover tanks still stand apart from tanks simply due to overall design and by the fact than can go on Land and Water both. In the same vein, A naval unit that can go on land does not replace tanks, a prime example being the Salem from Forged Alliance.

Underwater Structures - Honestly, in this case the simple virtue of being built in a 'normally' unbuildable area brings about enough merit on its own, but they can still be done differently to the point of being fairly unique to thier land-based counterparts, if anything a strong focus on underwater structures will likely bring about more variety to underwater units/weapons.

Surface Structures - These are probably the most alike to their land based counterparts, it's to be expected as aside replacing land from water, they are the same, but on the other hand they still have to deal with the difference of land and naval units, which could lead to some unique structures(primarily defenses I imagine).

For Structures one also has to consider the fact we will have planets that are primarily water based, which as already said, will lead to some level of overlap.

Mike