You know, geostationary satellites do exist and there is a shitload of them. Making the satellites orbit by default would be a mistake. Why wouldn't you want to place a satellite or two somewhere and keep them there indefinitely. Satellites should work similar to other units, depending on what their purpose is like YourLocalMadSci nicely explained in his post above. I will not take any part of the game seriously until mid Beta when all basic features of the game are functional. It would be silly to act like some of us already are.
+1 I want my satellites and orbiters to be satellites and orbiters. If they're gonna be geo-synch battle carft .... meh.
This build is getting me so excited for the full game ,obviously some unfinished features but it's nice to have these features in the game now. Über is now making a game type that has never been done before. When you start adding multiple planets its puts this game in a league of its own . Well done uber!!!
Aye, a flatbed truck with an ASAT missile loaded is enough for me to shoot down satellites. Or a an ASAT laser, doesn't do damage but damages optical and other sensors and disables satellites for a while until they pass. ----------------------------------- I can think of a lot of uses for an orbital fighter but none of them lead to a gameplay that I want to have. I personally don't want orbital fighters to be the answer for fighting orbital units else we end up with the same situation as air. How do you fight planes? Build fighters is the prevalent answer of almost everybody. I don't want the same with orbitals.
Actually, no there are not a lot of geo sync sats IRL. Less than 200. The number is capped. Not to mention it costs a crap ton of money to boost them up there. And making them mobile isn't worth the weight cost in fuel. Contrast that to low earth orbit satellites IRL: 1000+ http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapo.../technical_issues/ucs-satellite-database.html I can't find any reference to the number of satellits in highly eliptical orbits.
I'd much prefer hulking missile satellites than fighters. Fighters make for really cool space sims, because it is fun to fly a fighter, and it isn't all that fun to fly a satellite. Most objects orbit along the equator of their parent body, so a 2d 2-body orbital layer wouldn't be hard to do. It would make the equator a constant Warzone, whoever holds it would be able to get into space a lot more easily. On the other hand, whoever is one the poles is almost entirely safe from direct-fire orbital weaponry, making the poles a source of strategic zoning as well. A little tiny FabSat launched into orbit, which flies out into the planets debris field and converts some rocks and space junk into a space factory sounds interesting RTS-wise. The the space factory then builds some weapons satellites and a few landers, which are flung into orbit with a small impulse thruster, and do their thing. By the way, I'm going to apologize for my earlier post. I'm very passionate about this game and the way it's panning out, and I just can't wait to play with every feature.
I could maybe see the use of fighters when i go asteroid jumping.?? Maybe like planes on earth. And it would make more sence with there movement, where there is no gravity vels. They just seem out of place above my base on a planet, so do the satellites. Like slow moving expensive tanks. And why can i move them anywhere, it's just not tings in orbit when they do that. They sould be fixed in their predetermined orbit, with the possibility of changing there orbit at some expens. And why should i build a very expensive t2 radar in space it gives me no advantages just dots on my planet. It should give me a damm big visuel view of the battleground, with the disadvantaged, it moves around the planet. A way to toggle between the different layers, orbit, air, land, naval and fabbers would be a very nice feature, not just fabbers and attack units. Thanks for pushing the new patch. I'm a PA patch junkie ind the morning. google translater sorry for any crap.
Just had a 2v2v2 game on a reasonable size planet and we managed to build a Orbital & Radar Sat with out screwing the economy (or losing). It may be a bit expensive but the Info advantage with the MASSIVE radar coverage is certainly well worth it if you've had a chance to drop a few long range artillery defences, being able to see the enemy miles before they arrive makes repositioning forces much easier and unlike the forward built Radar outposts and defences guarding them no one managed to kill it (or even realised it was there I think) seeing it went up after the fighter patrols sealed off the airspace around the base.
sat·el·lite /ˈsatlˌīt/ Noun An artificial body placed in orbit around the earth or another planet in order to collect information or for communication. This is something I feel very strongly about, satellites *must* orbit, nothing else makes sense. This is an RTS with planets orbiting stars and moons orbiting planets, along paths that materially affect gameplay. That's the game we all paid for and IMO if we get hokey bull**** satellites that float about on hover cushions like the ones from Forged Alliance, then I for one will be bitterly disappointed. Uber, I implore you, at least try satellites that orbit, see what happens. You are already playing on spherical battlefields, don't wimp out now under the weak defense that 'it's too deep'. That chap, Ryan Gaffney, who set up the whole n-body simulation as an option (as well as the default on rails movement) he must be spitting feathers surely. I can't believe he doesn't hate this. Orbiting satellites can give you all kinds of interesting views on a planet, generally passing over different areas on a regular basis, every 5 minutes you can get a new view on the enemy base. You can make sure that the whole surface is covered by a number of orbits, to try and find any tricky enemy bases. Intel could still be limited as you might not be able to make out individual unit types from that distance (but maybe T2 ones can?) Just try that, and not some cop-out higher than air extra air level where the units look like spaceships but behave like tanks. I am literally begging you. Regards P.S. Anyone who thinks the word 'Geostationary' can be used as an excuse for any of this has absolutely no idea at all what they are talking about...
If we consider orbital units from a theoretical point of view, exploring the gameplay pros and cons for each possible implementation of how orbital units are designed to play as, we can perhaps gain insight into the design choices made. First off, when should orbital units be first available for use, at what stage in the game? If we allow orbital units (and by extension interplanetary travel) available from the beginning of the game, it could allow players to migrate to a different planet in the system and start off there, however it also could allow players to spread out too thin, not having sufficient infrastructure or defences and could cause some economical woes, especially since it would take time to travel to a different location in the beginning, giving other players a headstart in expanding the territory they control on the starting planet (which could be the same one or a different one), putting the migrating player at a disadvantage. A lot of how the game is developed is that we have an "escalation", both players start of small, produce weaker units and generally expand and claim resources, then higher tech units are produced later to help with an opponent who has produced a lot of defences (and vice versa) and generally continues to escalate in terms of numbers and technology. An extension of this escalation is then expanding out to other planets once the main planet is either fully exploited, conquered or at a stalemate. The description given by some of the developers say the technology tier system is designed such that "these are things you would build in the beginning of the game, these are things you would build later in the game", which in essence mirrors the arms race sort of feel of these types of games. TL DR: Granting access to interplanetary travel from the beginning adds a tactical choice at a massive risk, players at economical disadvantage compared with a player who remains on one planet Granting access to orbital units at the later points of the game follows the "escalation" principle; starting off from T1, expanding, upgrading to T2, expanding till planet is conquered/stalemate, orbital units, expanding to other planets, fighting on other planets... etc. etc. Secondly, how much should orbital units cost and what implications should that have? If we follow uber's implementation of orbital units and travel being the late game (although late game when concerning one planet providing multiple planets are in place), how much should the units cost? From a realistic perspective, sending anything to orbit currently consumes a massive amount of fuel and resources, from this perspective, it makes sense for orbital units to be relatively expensive to make. We can also couple it with the fact its a progression from the normal surface T2, so if it's designed to be deployed beyond surface T2 then it would make sense to be more expensive anyways. If the units are expensive to make then it would make better sense to make them strong and powerful (a downside to strong and powerful units is that they are typically slower than most units to balance it out, which is why you don't find most powerful units being mega fast in games) If however orbital is something that should be accessed from the beginning of the game, as another theatre of war viable to do most surface combat on, then orbital should have a similar cost to units of the other theatres of war (land, naval, air), the problem we can get with that though is in that case, how do we differentiate it from air as the main point. Air is typically used for extreme mobility, the ability to strike fast and hard and provide support for land forces. The only difference orbital has is that it is a lot higher up and not subject to needing aerodynamic lift to operate. Intel has an advantage being higher up, offering a greater vision but it seems indistinguishable. If air is for mobility, then a slow orbital layer would still give air its advantage, but if orbital is slow then there must be a redeeming feature, such as firepower and armour. If orbital is weak and flimsy then what is the point of using it? And if orbital is fast, then it's surely Air 2.0. TL DR: If following from T2 surface combat / "Escalation", then orbital units should be priced as such, to be used when you have expanded enough and have a large economy. If they cost a lot, they should be powerful. If they are powerful, they should be slow, for balance and to retain Air's advantage of extreme mobility. Putting units to orbit is expensive and generally should be seen as an intermediary or part between surface combat and moving to another planet (which the last part is normally designed to happen towards a latter part of fighting over the first planet). If allowed from the beginning, orbital units should be of similar cost to equivalent theatres of war. If fast and weak, why use them over Air? They shouldn't replace Air as a theatre of war. If then slow, should they be powerful and strong? Or weak? How do we make this theatre of war unique to support the other theatres? Thirdly, how should orbital units move, in orbits or not? How should orbital units move? If we assigned each orbital unit we make an orbit then it may make managing individual units we make difficult. A lot of the time we may wish as with other theatres to build units in groups, then send them out in large enough groups. Such as stockpiling a navy or gunships etc. since sending units in streams can sometimes lead them to being overwhelmed by defences. It adds complexity to micromanagement if the units moved off on their own free will and would make them extremely vulnerable to defences without the ability to send them off all at once and even more so keeping track of which satellite or unit is moving where and in which direction (the shift interface would be overwhelmed) If however, they did have orbits, it would add to realism but would the increase in micromanagement be balanced with it? TL DR: If assigned orbits, units would be vulnerable to enemy defences since all of the units would have to move around the planet. We would be unable to build groups of units and send them out, much like building groups of bombers or gunships to overwhelm defence installations. It adds a lot of micromanagement If given free control over the units movements, we can stockpile and use them like other units at the expense of making orbital units become less unique compared to other theatres of war There might be more I'd like to add later.
Having orbital units actually orbit--especially with the option for geosynchronous, polar, and all kinds of other orbits--would go a long way towards making the orbital layer distinct from "air 2.0" and giving PA some really unique strategic depth.
I understand how the price would be this big for orbital to make people understand that there really is no point in building in multiplayer since its just for testing purposes. but once the orbital units actually give us a bigger use than now I hope the cost of metal will be reduced. except for satalite. its like a orbital radar that can see EVERYTHING..... well not literally but its like a Uber Advanced Radar.
Then you should nerf the satellite, not bump its cost to the level of a nuke. As for your question Garat, I can't see any situation where a space-plane would add any kind of strategic depth to the Orbital layer. In fact, quite the opposite; it makes Orbital Units play like Air 2.0... Something we all (and I do feel comfortable talking for everyone here) do not want. --- You sold us orbital units. Orbital. Please don't make a watered down, hiked-up-in-price, Air layer. Please? Satellites must orbit, otherwise what's the point?
THIS! So much this. You can't just make a game where you can use orbital mechanics to simulate solar systems and crash asteroids into planets, and then say giving the same level of control to in game units would be too complex. And yes, THIS is what geostationary orbit looks like. An object in GEO is farther away from you than any point on the earth's surface. I understand the scale in these solar systems is very cartoonish, even moreso than Kerbal Space Program, but there are limits.
I don't think the moon is tidally locked either. I'm not really as concerned about that kind of detail though. Whether or not any particular moon does a single full axial rotation per orbit around the parent planet isn't really important. Making Orbital Units behave like planes or like actual satellites, is.
Even a little more performance improvement great. You could put a gamma adjustment slider bar in there under graphics settings. Us linux users need more graphics tweak options. Right now using xgamma to correct it. Looks cool and dark with xgamma -gamma 0.5. Anybody know how to get the damn Catalyst drivers to adjust gamma and color not working under catalyst 13.4 with either aticonfig or amdcccle. Other wise F$#cking thrilled to be able to build ridiculous amounts of sattellites in orbit
