Orbital units - 2 directions

Definately still leaning towards the double usage of the catapult as an early anit-orbital defense.
Not a fan of the lobbers and other artillery shooting out of the atmosphere. From an asteroid and IN, sure why not, just like the unit cannon.
The argument of "well then somebody can just spam ____ and then the planet is invincible" will always have to answer to the Ultima Ratio Regum we call the kinetic asteroid bombardment.

We will need to put huge gears on metal planets, smoking pipes on tanks, bots and ships and propellers on aircraft. Then it will be fine.
Someone will make that mod, it's inevitable.

Here's my two-pennies-worth. While it makes me sad not to have proper orbital mechanics for orbital units, I fully understand why it would be too complex for the game. You need something fast and easy, and "fake" geosync does that much better. I have a compromise though: give us a command where we simply press a button, and it sets up a patrol path that makes it look like it's orbiting. Also I agree with earlier posts on the movement mechanics - give orbital units high top speed but low acceleration/deceleration.

This can easily be fixed with the ammo system. Lets say that some player has half a planet covered in lobbers. When a single satellite passes over them, all of them will begin firing. Now they are all consuming energy to regenerate their ammo. Since the lobber is a high tier artillery unit, I would imagine a single lobber would consume a rather large amount of energy to generate its ammo. Now multiply this energy drain by all the lobbers that are firing. I would hope that it is balanced in such a way that this players energy economy is completely tanked by all this shooting causing them to either fire at a much slower rate then normal, or cease entirely. This can (and should IMO) be applied to any and all static defenses to prevent them being spammed too close together.

As far as requiring a special counter, I think the idea is to avoid unit bloat as much as possible. Specialized, hard-counter units, I believe, are frowned upon and avoided where possible (I think). It's more work for Uber to create a new unit for this when there are plenty of other units capable.

If the lobber/catapult don't make sense as anti-orbital and are too cheap, then the nuke could be used as an/the anti-orbital weapon. The nuclear explosion in the upper atmosphere causes an EMP which disables nearby satellites causing them to come crashing back down. Some people were mentioning creating a 1-shot missile system that you have to manually launch to be used as anti-orbital. Why create a new unit when the nuke already functions exactly like this?

I really like this one. A lot of people want complicated solutions like "only floating around the equator" or "just make a whole new UI method and control scheme", but an orbital layer doesn't have to change game mechanics completely to differentiate from air. The units themselves, their functionality, their traits, etc. will determine whether the layer is more than an air 2.0.

BTW, I know probably answered somewhere but...

I just wanted to say that one of the weird points of fake orbital right now is the fact its bound by ground. Anyone else notice since the planet curves that a nudge of a scroll makes it tilt way off to the side when you look at an orbital unit? I can't wait to see the shell idea in retrospect.

eh, I actually disagree with this. Catapults and Lobbers are already insanely useful and powerful, completely stopping any chance of enemy expansion within their range of fire unless the enemy can tank through their volley of fire and destroy them directly in that sense.

A separate, missile based system (think anti nuke with a bunch more missiles) could really work. You could invest in building more missiles to the defense platform if you have intel that they have a lot of attack satellites. That way, sattelites maintain their high-value, while allowing a reasonable counter.

My votes still goes against the idea of having all orbital units in a constant state of movement but I rather like this idea. By keeping simple A to B move orders but adding high top speeds and inertia you would get a much more "spacey" feel to the gameplay and would allow tactics that are actually representative of the orbits some people are hoping for.

A fast moving satellite can drop a payload on an overpass then use the time it takes to make an "orbit" of the planet to replenish in time for another strike, without ever slowing down, and I'm assuming the constant high speed would be a factor in it's survivability. Orbital fighters have the acceleration and speed to catch the satellite but given the speed they would need to be going could easily end up in hostile territory by the time they do, and the success of anti satellite missiles should depend on their ability to catch up before running out of fuel, a slower moving satellite would be much easier prey in both cases.

Planning an orbital strike would involve choosing an approach that gets you to very high speed before coming into range of the enemy but where you can maintain that speed and get back into an area of safety as quickly as possible. Similar to choosing the best angle for a bomber run but where this also pretty much determines your angle of exit at the same time.

Full support also for a hit and run mode that could be useful for a range of units, not just orbital.

I wish people would stop suggesting stuff like this, unless the mechanics of Orbital are such that there is a purpose to moving in an Orbit there is no point.

It's kinda insulting really.

Mike

Catapults and lobbers are insanely useful because they are not currently using the ammo system, and lobbers are 100% accurate which I assume will change. Once they begin to drain your energy eco people will be using them much more carefully. Also, IMO the lobber should be long range/inaccurate, and the catapults should be short range/accurate. They should also not be able to 1 shot large buildings like factories.

The point is there really hasn't been a balance pass yet so arguing balance against an idea just has us arguing in circles. We could "what-if" this to death, but I believe we are going off topic at this point. If Uber wants to create specialized anti-orbital ground units, then by all means, go for it. I'm just suggesting an alternative to save them time.

Edit @ above post: I agree 100%, the "patrolling looks like its orbiting" is useless and silly if there are not gameplay mechanics added to make doing this with your satellites somehow giving them an advantage. That is why I suggested some things in my post earlier that would help with this, and I'm sure there are other minor gameplay modifications that could be made to make this even more feasible.

First off keep the thoughts coming. It's honestly going to be difficult for me to address even a fraction of them though due to time constraints.

I think we can all see here that there is a *huge diversity* of thought on this subject. Not only are there a myriad of different ideas but many of them are mutually exclusive.

Probably the most thought out orbital case is MadSci's which is a generally well thought out design for orbital.

I've always thought of orbital as being an interesting layer and one which can and will contain a lot of units and a lot of unit diversity. It's a very common request for people to ask for "more space stuff" and the design of orbital needs to accomodate not just my current thoughts on unit but the idea that the game is a platform and people may want to innovate with more units and behaviors. This is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of going the direction of having limited interaction between orbital units.

The current direction I'm thinking about it is basically the fake orbital I outlined about with a few provisions:
- differentiate the units based on acceleration vs top speed
- allow an easy way to setup a "looped patrol" for setting up orbits where they don't stop
- EXPERIMENT with not allowing the units to stop except possibly under certain conditions

On the flip side if that ends up sucking we will still have built a lot of infrastructure that could be used to do "real orbits" like what we are doing with the planets.

Actual question (not snark). If we give orbital units high speed low acceleration, but provide adequate defense to protect yourself, how is this different from air? The only answer I can come with is that unlike bombers they have to keep going through a base instead of turning around.

Just changing speed/accel parameters of the units and the list of things that shoots them doesn't feel all that different from air too me. I think they would feel like air balanced different, not fundamentally different in itself. Land has terrain, water has underwater( and borders) and air has global free movement, so far this does not feel like somethings different.

For the placement of structures and unit movement, I drew up a bit of my brainstorming on a semi-orbit combat system. This uses a bit of the existing system mixed with a large structure orbit system.
This uses solid circle locked orbit/stationary. The structures can be positioned over a single point, or set to drift forward or back to a new position. So in short, adjustable bases with free flying support craft.
Hope this isnt too big, i rasterized the font off and didnt want to type it out again, so resize was a no-go.

This is sort of based off an idea i found earlier, got frustrated looking for it too quote earlier. So please know i give you credit whoever you are.

I am content with any of this happening. I would give you a kiss but you probably wouldn't appreciate that.

I think that Orbital is more about protecting a higher advantage position than air, as well as protecting the interplanetary staging area. Air is more about countering other surface based units similar to how tanks and ships do, but Orbital has a massive boundry between itself and the surface, where few weapons can be interacted with between eachother, and in alot of cases is the staging area between planets, as well as the first receiving end of invasion if implemented in time by the player.

I will say again that if there are any Satellites fulfilling the same role as air units, I will be thoroughly disappointed with Orbital. Air units are currently Fighters, Bombers, Fabbers and Recon. Satellites that will be kept for the foreseeable future are Radar and FabSat. Fabbers are a necessary role for every layer, while there is no Radar plane. As a result, I expect there to be no FighterSat or BomberSat (BomberSat translating to orbital bombardment, which we really do not need).

On the topic of KillSats, they are boring and overdone. If you want to blow stuff up with Space Laz0rs, play C&C. Or Sins of a Solar Empire. Or Halo. Or WH40k. Or Gears of War. Or Final Fantasy. Or End of Nations. Or Infamous. Or watch Stargate. Or Star Trek. Or GET MY POINT?

Not needing orbital bombardment? Surely this is a minority opinion? If not then we aren't really thinking about this the same way. I want orbital platform that drop giant kinetic energy weapons, I want space based nuke launchers, hunter killer satellites, on orbit fabbers etc.

I just don't see a point behind them when we already have nukes, not to mention Asteroids which you can stick artillery and stuff on.

+1 Even just something as simple as having the orbital unit stay in its factory till you launch it, and having that command be a click on the unit -> click on the orbital layer -> drag for velocity/direction -> ??? -> profit.

I think that having energy requirements for different speeds in different orbital areas could certainly balance geosync vs. moving orbits, and preserve certain units usability. Currently thinking ground radar/visual stuff: ground radar = cheap to run but attackable, orbital radar = expensive to run but naturally defended but being in orbit.

I'm only up to page 5 of this, but just something I wanted to say.

The altitude point is good, but then I need to ask a question in response. If the defense against orbital is a ranged artillery unit say catapult, then how high is orbital in relation to that range? I know the current in game answer means nothing, I mean more intention. Because if that missile is simulated, then that altitude will be a huge limiting factor in its defensive range. The only thing I have to draw from for a "geosync shell" altitude is real life, and that number is ~1.5 times the diameter of the planet, which would mean that the catapult would be a global weapon. I know we don't have to make it real, but it's all the data I got

And my counter admittedly is not a gameplay concern. Space in RL is hard (i.e. expensive), not because they are high, but because you have to go stupid fast just to stay there. A gameplay system that has that cost without seeming to address that concern just seems wrong to me. And high max speed with low acceleration like deep space and not orbit. I will admit I may just be too familiar with it for anything but something that looks like an orbit to be feel right.