Orbital units - 2 directions

Well the thing is most real orbits aren't perfect circles unless they were deliberately put there (such as in the case of artificial satellites) most are ellipses. And the speed at which something orbits depends on the size and shape of the orbit, as well as the mass of the object being orbited. This is all defined by newton and kepler's laws.

I am proposing something much less fiddly. Orbits have one size and shape "Around the damn planet at a fixed altitude in a sphere that exists just outside the atmosphere" and they would travel at a speed which has little or no relation to the planet's mass and would have more to do with game balance and aesthetics.

If smaller units that can change there orbits and Rendezvous with other orbiting units exist, they would also not be using Homan transfer orbits or phasing, but rather just speed up and slow down or change direction to get where they need to go before continuing along a new orbit once they have finished the Maneuver.
In real life slowing down lowers your orbit, which makes you travel faster around the planet. And speeding up does the opposite, but not here.

I'm not re-discovering orbital mechanics, I'm inventing a new system which takes the element of "Travels in circles around a larger body" while leaving out all the math. The math isn't as important as looking cool and creating strategic depth. Units traveling in cute little cartoon orbits (Cartoon realism is a good way to describe PA's art style) would look cooler than having them just hover in place, and having to deal with your orbital assets only being above you part of the time would be more interesting than having them sit in one place.

Because it's not in range of there air-defenses. The enemy does not own the space above there base unless they invest into building orbital units of there own. That's like saying "why can't I destroy the army my enemy has on another continent over there?" Because you haven't got any assets in place to engage them. If you want to kill orbital things, build your own. Land attacking orbit or orbit attacking land should be limited cases.

Unless you control > 50% of the planet, your satellite is guaranteed to pass over (potentially) hostile territory.

Your satellites are always guaranteed to pass over potentially hostile territory.

Ah bulletmagnet, a pedant after my own heart

Exactly. Planes aren't unless you tell them to. You don't have a choice with orbiting satellites.

And no matter where you tell them to fly, your aircraft are also guaranteed to fly through potentially hostile territory. ;P

If you're afraid of getting shot at, don't play against anything that can produce weaponry.

I'm not afraid of getting shot at, I afraid of being forced to put units in a position they can be shot at.

In reference to:

I have shown, (pedantic wordplay aside) that they are very different scenarios.

First of all I think some people haven't really understood how this game is meant to be played. Its always about building more than all your opponents. So in that way thinking that says only 20 should be enough is never going to cut it. This is a macro level game, where you can never have enough of any thing and you constantly need to be expanding your idea of how much is enough. Enough can only be defined in that it give you the ability to overwhelm and defeat your opponent. I have won many a game because the other players couldn't open their minds to build enough units and or factories / economy. This isn't a simulation game, its a strategy game. If you build 5 factories and I build 6 I can produce more units than you can. That gives me an advantage. Assuming our economies are both preforming well, then it comes down to how we use those units. So it isn't the end of the world but it does help determine the outcome if I can out produce you.

Secondly, when thinking about the orbital layer game play needs to be first. And what I mean by that is that I could careless about realism. It needs to have game mechanics that are fun and different from the other layers that help to make for strategic decisions. I think we have a partial paradigm to go off of here. Each layer is defined by environmental factors. Sea units can only be built in the sea, they can attack some of the other layers but their function is really about guarding and making amphibious assaults. So they are the most interesting when you have different land masses divided by bodies of water. That is not to say it wouldn't be fun to have no water or all water either. Part of what is genius about this game is the variable randomly generated planets and solar systems. No one can memorize things everything is strategically fresh. You have to adjust your tactics on the fly based on what the landscape is and where you start etc. In the same fashion the orbital layer is really all about attacking from and defending space around a celestial body (moon, asteroid, planet).

Some are concerned about air 2.0. To correct this we need to expand our thinking again. So far everyone has primarily been addressing the orbital layer in regards to the other layers (land / air / sea ) that we have been playing with. (on a side note I thought I read that there would be another under water layer for subs etc)
What I think we should consider is orbital vs orbital. How will we defend our planets from other planets and orbital units? This to me should be one of the primary ways we distinguish orbital from air. Air can't help you defend your planet against other invading orbital units or celestial bodies. Orbital units should be able to shoot down (or at least try to) asteroids and other planets. Orbital units should be able to stop other orbital units from building things that would allow another team / player from gaining a foot hold on your planet. Air simply can't do these functions.

This layer of the game to me is paramount, because it is one of the main things that will set this game apart from every other RTS out there. It is not realistic orbits but the massive scale and abilities to gain access to a 3D multi-plane randomly generated chess board like environment that will set this game apart. Personally I think other games do a better job at simulating the things some people are advocating for and that should not be this games intent or goal. This game is first and for most in my mind a state of the art massive scale real time strategy game. While orbits look cool, I for one don't think they add interesting strategic choices and cause way to many command and interface problems.

The orbital layer should give you means to attack your opponent on the ground, via weapons and intel, as well as guard your planet from space and incoming threats. I think the satellites should give you some intel about neighboring planets and asteroids if they are with in range and def. tell you about incoming orbital units.

Haven't read through the topic yet, but here are some ideas for making air and orbital different without realistic orbital mechanics.

1.Large areas that are unpassable for air units but passable for orbital units (and perhaps land units too).

2.Acceleration of orbital units need a payoff (like a energy cost or reduced weapon firing rate), so you better keep them still or moving around the planet at maximum speed.

3.Having height of orbital units based on their speed relative to ground. All orbital and anti-orbit units should have cyclinder range and los, so height won't drain too much attention, and it should still have a impact on the accuracy of some weapons. This is quite far away from real physic laws though.

Firstly it is great to see this kind of conversation can happen between devs and end users before the game is anywhere near released. This highlights how great the kickstarter model can be.

Secondly I'm sure my comments will get drowned out by all the other posts so its up to the devs to find the gold among the crap... but here goes... my take on orbital.

There should be 4 units that can be launched from an Orbital Launcher.

1. Satellites. This should be for recon only and should orbit as per standard physics. They give you a view range similar to the current build but constantly move. They basically give you almost full map view, but in an orbital window. Launch a few to give you full coverage.

2. Orbital missiles. Cheap (you need the launcher) and can shoot at stuff in space. Particularly sats and bases. Not good against orbital fighters.

3. Space stations. These are the new base in space. They start small put can be added too. They would orbit too as per satellites. They can add there own anti missile defense. Can build Orbital fighters. Can add Laser defense to kill Orbital fighters. Can build interplanetay fabbers that can be launched at planets and asteroids. Can build solar panel arrays for power. Can build mining platforms for gas giants. Maybe even the dreaded mass converter platform to convert solar energy to metal?

4. Interplanetary transports. Send units to other planets without needing space stations.

There would be no map control in space. Just base vs base. No fighters launched from the ground. But the fighters would not orbit, just hang around their space station. Possible space stations could build star destroyers that would have anti missile and anti fighter, plus attack the enemies space stations.

Orbital would not be Air 2.0, but Base, Air, Recon, Naval combined.

Anyway ... thats my thoughts.

Cheers
Duncane

Key orbital mechanics in my mind are the ability to move your commander and or fabbers from one body to another. The ability to attack and defend those methods.

So for instance you build a T2 rocket that gets you off the planet, the lander then transports you to another planet or body. while in the orbital layer the avengers can defend and attack other craft that try to stop the egg/ transport. That would mean that the avengers need to be able to move from one planet to another as well. This seems needed from the stand point of being able to attack and gain a foot hold on another body as well. Thus you should be able to build some what stationary defense around planets to help discourage and prevent those attacks as well. I'm not advocating for full on space combat but a limited subset where in mobile attacks and defenses can be created. Just so there are at least interesting things and choice to finish rounding out the game in this last layer / aspect.

I'm imagining if two players started on different planets and then one went to attack the other that he would first need to scout his opponents planet / body, then overcome his orbital defenses, then his air and land and finally he could establish a foot hold / outpost on the planet. This gives different options that would hopefully have different levels of efficiency when trying to choose how to best defend a particular landscape / body. Do I focus on trying to get a good orbital defense in place or do I ignore it and just build a lot of land to orbital kinds of defense?

One of the key aspects to the game (if we assume more than just commander killing type game play, like perhaps totally killing off your opponents) is to keep expanding. It is for that reason that I would advocate for the above mechanics.

So the questions I have are more about what are the units that we will have available in the orbital layer and what functions will they provide? I think the avenger (space fighter) needs to be able to do more than just shoot down other avengers and kill sats etc around one planet. It would be much more interesting if you could fly between planets with them. So if that kind of thinking comes into play a third question would need to be asked and that would be which orbital units are able to leave orbit and which are confined to it.

If we have a planet with a moon and each player starts on one of these bodies and the player on the moon builds a unit launcher what are the options / choices that the planet dweller has to respond?

These to me are far more interesting kinds of questions that will affect and change how the orbital layer is different from the other layers. So lets not just talk about realism vs fake orbit. Lets hash these other kinds of ideas out.

I'm thinking real orbital units would make the game too complicated - especially for casual players.

So apparently I went from not being happy about Orbital Info being fully available to that I don't want it available at all? I never said that. Also it's not about moving to a new planet, it's about expanding to a new one, the only thing that moves is the Commander Fabber, all the stuff you have on your first planet is still there and all that.

Obviously if you have a Satellite above an opponent's base you should have a means to detect it, it's why I suggested that Radar and/or any unit could detect them. As for the interplanetary stuff, it's why I suggested the Early Warning system so you can see things that are either heading towards you(like in Sins of a Solar Empire) or anything that's moving within the vicinity of the Early Warning System(with the simulated systems and planetary orbits you could have things within range even thought they aren't heading for you).

See, this is the kind of thing many want, not the 100% physics accurate stuff many people assume many of us want.

Define 'real'.


Mike

I guess in my mind there wouldn't really exist "anti orbital structures" in the same way that an AA would exist, and that instead it would be more a matter of having a launch pad that fabs anti-orbital single-use payloads to send at enemy sats.

The key here being that a space race should be about resource consumption. That's what the it was in the cold war for us, anyway. So by having the anti-orbital defenses be purchased shot-by-shot, similar to how anti-nukes are produced, we get that economic push to produce as much as possible. Gameplay being driven by the constant need for expansion, and destroying anything that gets in the way of that growth.

but what do i know, i'm neither rocket scientist nor game designer my suggested compromise seems to be getting shot down by a lot of people who are not offering any other alternatives, so I'd be happy to hear some other solutions.

I haven't messed around with the new build as I'm waiting to see some further implementation of Uber's ideas for orbital units. Looking forward to beta gameplay, for sure

I have previously posted (https://forums.uberent.com/threads/how-to-attack-asteroid-bases.50873/#post-777530) that there needs to be a warning when someone launches an orbital unit like a nuke in supcom... "Orbital launch detected". Then I think a cheap "Telescope" type unit that could see units over head in orbit or even on passing planets in orbit would be great, but would depend on how the rest of orbital works.

So... pimping my post above on orbital: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/orbital-units-2-directions.51008/page-6#post-780153

Alright, I can't just stay out of the debate now.

I'm personally for the "fake" orbital scheme, for the same reasons I assume the devs are for it. If you can actually control where the satellite should be (rather than sending it out around the planet and hoping that when the enemy's army comes by 10 minutes later that the sattelite is directly above them), it allows for better strategies (sending your orbital nuke launcher above the front lines to nuke the opponent's army before sending yours in, setting up spy sattelites just on the border of the enemy's radar detection range, etc.).

I do agree with this. Orbital units aren't like air units, where you can send in 100 bombers and hope that there will be enough after they're bombarded with AA to take out the enemy's catapults/nukes/radar. Orbital units are expensive and valuable -- to valuable to be shot down by an infinite auto-anti-sattelite-turret. Having an actual rocket system would be much more in the spirit of orbital.

However, is this the only counter to orbital? Should there be an orbital-v-orbital functionality? Such as orbital fighters (maybe not that, but something akin to them).

No space stations and fighters please, I don't want another layer to micro and defend! It would make things
very micro intense. IMO all orbital units should launch from planet/asteroid surface.
Just implement 'fake' orbits, a compromise between air 2.0 and realistic orbiting physics. No speed/height changes, it would make things too complicated.
When selecting the orbit launcher, let us choose a 'rally point', a direction in which the satellite will orbit. We should be able to (slowly) adjust this orbit pass, to avoid flying directly over anti orbit weapons.
I prefer single use (anti nuke like) missiles. Orbiting units and these missiles shouldn't be too cheap tho,
to avoid too much micro building counters. Defense satellites, able to take out other satellites when it meet their orbit passes, would be cool as well. This would make orbit dominance more based on luck and the amount of defense satellites you have in orbit, which is entirely different instead of just sending a mass of units to your enemies, a strategy already available in air/land/sea layers.

Why?
- More realistic, looking better
- Less micro intense
- Not just another air layer
- Not hard to implement, no physic calculations required (just a visualization of the orbit pass)

Just some thoughts, I personally prefer the idea of orbitals being on a layer and not forced into realistic orbits. Maybe they have anti-grav devices or little thrusters be visible on their models to maintain their position.

I think that as gameplay goes ALL orbitals should be slow moving. This is getting further from the realism but think about it, if we have slow accelerating units that can eventually reach high speeds how easy would it be for players to set up slingshot like movement paths so the orbital satellite whips past your base, revealing everything but is moving to fast to get shot down? I personally don't think that is a good gameplay mechanic.

If all orbital units are slow moving, then they should only be countered by very specific other units. Make anti-orbital defenses large rockets that you have to pay for each rocket being produced, and give them some time to build up (not as long as nukes, obviously). I personally think that ground/sea/air units should NOT be able to counter orbital units unless they also must produce their armament. if they could then orbital would lose their special being in orbit status. maybe make a very expensive frigate for naval to counter, or a massive tank that fires bullets, which obviously have trouble hitting orbiting satellites but with enough could be an effective counter.

There should be a 2 types of anti-orbital satellites, 1 orbital platform for defense and the other for offense. Defensive platforms would have very fast shooting projectiles/homing missiles while the offensive ones can move quicker but fire a much slower slug which isn't fast enough to hit about anything other than defensive satellites. This way the defensive sat's will easily punch out incoming navigational satellites, but will have trouble picking off incoming offensive satellites. But the offensive satellites simply cannot support weaponry capable of hitting anything other than the defensive ones.

Also, with slow moving orbits you would set up your spy satellites to slowly move over your opponents base, easily revealing super large areas but your opponent can see em coming for quite awhile, giving them time to build their own expensive defensive satellites to put up, which takes a significant amount of time. Super satellites would be built to be ridiculously slow, but could be absolutely armored to heck, allowing them to soak up large amounts of fire before finally making their way into position, and unleashing whatever hell they were built for.

Orbital units should be detectable by standard sensors on the ground, maybe at either shorter/longer distance than regular units? this way the first player into orbit has the advantage of being done with the slow process of getting an orbital factory and launching the units, but the player who's late isn't automatically screwed because of it.

So in summary: If people just don't like the look, add little thrusters. they're over-coming significantly less gravity being so high above the ground than standard airplanes so it isn't to far fetched. Superslow moving makes them feel more fragile as any mistakes will seem to happen in slow motion (you'll get to watch their anti-orbital rocket make it's way at your sat for 5 seconds as it covers the distance, slowly for dramatic effect). At the same time there can be armored units for orbital dominance, mainly the defensive units which act like slow moving turrets, who are only countered by heavy ground defenses or the quicker offensive orbital units. The offensive units are completely incapable of killing anything other than defensive units, since to over-come the defensive units heavy armor they fire incredibly slow projectiles. Everything else fits in the quicker than defensive but still slower than aircraft category, which gets multiplied because they are way above the surface.

Feel free to tear my argument to shreds, hopefully it inspires some extra thought though.