Stuff not shooting automatically clearly isn't a solution. But they would have to hit first. Satellites could be too fast to hit reliable, fly too high on some parts of their orbit, have their orbit not over the enemy base (thats possible as long as the enemy doesn't controll all of the equator; and if they do... well you're pretty safe from satellites on the poles yourself then so not that much of an issue if you can't use them yourself). Cheap satellite defense could only disable them instead of destroying them and destroying satellites would be more expensive. Or you may not be able to detect some far away satellites over your base that are engaged in stealth or only from short range when they allready almost over your base, etc. etc. etc. Just because the movement of a satellite is limited doesn't mean they're always dead when passing over the enemy (or have to pass over them).
Along with smallcpu's point, we also need to realize that handling the Satellite and Anti-Satellite relations is tough. If as Garat said Satellites continue to be few and expensive, it's hard to do anything but a binary relationship and that really lacks a lot of the depth we can find in the other layers. Mike
To attack orbital units when told to, with an appropriate cost of resources and time. Just because a satellite is above your base, dosn't mean it's close to it, it's still farther away than any point on earth. It's not a scout wandering into your base, it's effectively another base really really far away. Destroying it should take an active effort comparable to deploying units to go and attack it. In my opinion it should work like this. You notice your enemy has a satellite up there, You decide you don't like the idea of your enemy having the high ground, You build an Asat launcher (if you don't have one already, it's probably best if you do) You que up an Asat missile on the Asat launcher (again if you don't have one already) You select the Asat launcher, and order it to attack the satellite. The Asat missile is launched and will chase the satellite. After about half of an orbit, the missile will catch up to the satellite and destroy it. Perhaps the satellite may have some sort of defenses, perhaps not. It could go a bunch of different ways, but for now I am assuming it's a defenseless recon sat. If the satellite gets shot down, your opponent won't have up to date intel, but he still knows the layout of your entire base because nothing can prevent the satellite from making at least one orbit. You que up another Asat missile in case there are more. You don't passively shoot down the satellite that is wandering over your base, you actively remove the satellite that is orbiting the planet faster than a bullet from a gun and farther away from you than any point on earth. Space =/= Air
What you described smallcpu is probably one of the most sophisticated, believable, and coolest potential implementations of orbital units. As Neutrino has previously stated however, this is probably not how it will work for various reasons. Instead of trying to paraphrase Neutrino, I will simply quote him: Edit: Added the word "probably" to the following sentence to make it accurate: "As Neutrino has previously stated however, this is probably not how it will work for various reasons."
... continuation of previous post Also, I think it is important to note the following text from the most recent changelog: In other words, what have right now is not indicative of the final vision for orbital unit mechanics. Perhaps Uber decided to give us what we have now simply because it is better to give us something for us to generate feedback about instead of nothing which would have likely just led to more complaints/disappointment about the lack of orbital units. We should be appreciative that Uber has given us a mere glimpse of what they have been working on and continue to be patient while full support for orbital and interplanetary is being implemented. Edits: Just correcting my grammar.
I don't quite believe that to be honest. Yes all in all Alpha is Alpha, but if we're given these as a preview despite the fact that all the supporting systems are not ready yet I'd have to say they have some confidence that what they've shown don't need that level of context to understand/use regardless of the missing systems. In that light, these recent developments are very troubling. At this stage Orbital is looking to be nothing more than a slightly different Air Layer, in particular the inclusion of an Orbital 'Fighter' enforces this. If that is not the case and what we're being show is not indicative of the plan, then the real question is why show it at all if what you're going to show isn't actually related to what the end goal is? For the last year Uber has been pretty careful to show things only once they've matured to the point that they aren't easily misunderstood and are indicative of Uber's goal, and while we might have griped about it when things have been quiet, this whole situation is a prime example of why they do it. Of course, Uber has been very, very vague on Orbital and Interplanetary (in certain respects), so we've been free to imagine things without any kind of starting point or foundation and it's only been pretty recently that Uber has even started dropping hints about how things might be so expectations are a bit high at this point, but the fault is on both sides at this point and we have been getting some mixed messages as Nanolathe mentioned, we have the very simulation focused game, yet Orbital units going in an actual Orbit not being part of that is kinda counter intuitive. Mike
I included a lot of steps because I wanted to show how it would be more complex than just the satelite flying over the enemy base and getting shot down, On the players side It would be exactly as much micromanagement as nuking somebody. Build launcher Build missile Launch missile That's just three clicks. Considering that attacking a base is Build units Move units into a group Move group of units to base Tell units to shoot specific targets first Decide when to pull back or send re-enforcements I don't think that's a lot of micromanagement at all. And Satellites (and anti-satelite weapons) should NOT come cheep. Putting things into orbit is hard, taking them out of orbit should be just as hard.
In my previous post I should have also included the following quote from Garat (page 4 of this thread) which partly answers your question:
I like the satellites so far, used it in a match (planet size 4, it really made a difference). The orbital fighter should be more of an orbital tank that resembles a satellite, but does damage to orbital units instead of intelligence gathering. Performance is getting better. I am quite pleased with the build. I think the satellite crashes to ground if you tell it to stop all actions. PS: I kinda liked the old forum style more, it was cleaner and easier to look at.
I like the way the AI is coming. It's like a planetary hornets nest. They seek you out and then they bombard you with endless bomber raids until you cripple or destroy them. They can be annoying but it's hilarious
Honestly it really doesn't, it flies in the face of everything Uber has done to this point in regards to communication. As I said up until now they've been very careful about what they say in order to try and avoid as many instances of mis-understanding due to lack of context. With this it's essentially saying "Here's a preview, but it doesn't matter because we're doing something totally different and this preview isn't representative of that." The full-blooded skeptic in me compares this whole situation to the Xbox One announcement story. A bunch of things get revealed that are open reviled and you have to wonder what kind of focus group ever made this seem like it was an okay thing to do and is followed by a bunch of half-hearted backpedaling(but maybe not according to rumours >.>) to appease people. Luckily I keep that skeptic on a tight leash but still, he's not really wrong, or at least he's as right as far as the information we have. Mike
But being nuked doesn't require any micro. If I have to manually detect and destroy this is something completely different. Another thing bothering me about this idea: If my Anti-Sat weapon is cheaper than the satellite and the enemy benefits of a satellite, I want that thing down ASAP for sure. And I don't see what gameplay improvement results from shooting it down manually compared to automatically.
Scenario: you have 100 satellites coming into your base, you have enough ASAT missiles, how long will it take to systematically manual launch at each distinct target? It's like micromanaging TMLs from Supreme Commander to take out lots of individual units, a lot of effort. All defences right now are automatic or semi-automatic. Imagine having to manually launch each and every anti-nuke, that would be hard wouldn't it?
That is very much the problem when the interaction of Satellites and Anti-Satellite devolves into a binary relationship. It works well for things like Nucks because there isn't a lot of variables there to begin with compared to the possible variations of unit to unit interactions. Mike
Air, land, and sea units in PA are minimally simulated, so the comment "very simulation focused game" is not accurate. And as stated by Neutrino in one of quotes I posted above, they are currently going for a "fake geosync" but this may be changed after they "play with it".
Just because it's not an accurate or complex simulation doesn't change the fact that simulation plays a big role in the game's design. TA/SupCom/PA without all the simulation they have just leaves a hollow Starcraftian shell. Units accelerate to a max speed, they have set turning behaviors, patterns and speeds. Weapons have to be actually aimed and the projectiles are simulated well beyond what the greater majority of games do. I don't see how my comment can be anything BUT accurate, it's literally one of the biggest selling points of this RTS Sub-Genre. Mike
This update certainly seems rushed and (like many others) I hope it's not indicative of the final implementation. If I had to take a guess, I'd say Uber only pushed this update because Beta is due soon and we're still far from feature complete (at least that's my impression). If not for the backlash we're experiencing here, I wouldn't have been surprised to see a crude implementation of interplanetary mechanics in one of the next builds as well. I might be completely wrong about that, it's just the impression I'm under right now. Don't get me wrong, this wasn't necessarily a bad move. If this implementation is really indicative of the planned mechanics, it's a good thing they pushed it out this early. This way we can get ourselves heard early on and it's more likely Uber can backtrack, cut their losses and continue working on mechanics that push the limits of the genre. Pushing stuff out early is a good thing if Uber can commit to acting on our feedback (as far as it's sensible). It's a bad thing if they just do it to tick off another item on their Alpha checklist and to gauge what's the minimum amount of mechanics they can put into the game in order to avoid the backlash when the Beta crowd arrives. Concerning the orbitals, I'm not too happy with the current situation either, I'd much prefer seeing true orbits myself. I'll leave the proper feedback to those vocal few that went to the pains of putting that much thought and work into mechanics this game really could benefit from. I disagree that some suggestions we've seen recently are too deep for a game featuring interplanetary warfare, on the other hand the current implementation seems to add hardly any depth to the game while still increasing complexity. I could not agree more. T2 was supposed to increase the diversity of units, not just their scale. For now the biggest specialization in T2 is mobile artillery, everything else is just bigger and more expensive. I suppose this is going to change, but I'd really like to see Uber stating their intentions clearly at some point.
If the enemy builds 100 satellites he either outproduces you so much that he can crush you effortlessly with nuke-spam or tankblobs, or is wasting his economy on something he should only need a few of and you should just steamroll over him with tanks. Again you are using the wrong analogy, having a satellite over your base isn't like having a nuke or an airplane. It's closer to the enemy having another base on an island off to the side. The decision to engage and destroy it is an active one not a passive one. You don't have your army automatically go out and attack enemy bases, you have to select units and order them to do so. The same goes for orbit.
