Orbital units - 2 directions

The definition stated in the original post of this thread.

Real orbit. Actual real orbit like in real life.

People like me don't want that.

Mike

As Mike is pointing out, it's not binary "we want full n-body orbital mechanics" vs current system. There are some who want 2 body orbital, some who want something that they don't realize is 2 body orbital, some want restricted 2 body orbital (i.e. only circles), some want a shell but with orbits, some want GEO ring, some want shell of orbits + GEO ring, some just want a shell but no orbits, and I think I saw at least one serious claim that we should just scrap it all together. I don't think anyone wants n-body for orbital units (but I could be wrong).

And that is off the top of my head without rereading the last 12 FULL pages in this thread alone. AND that is not the only issue people are yapping about.

Question likely without an answer (for now at least): Just how modable are the orbital movement mechanics going to be? I could see a whole subset of mods of people trying different things (UI's, mechanics, etc.)

Kudos to neutrino for kicking this wasp nest intentionally!
I'd like to throw in a vote for simplified orbital (pick a circle around the planet and off it goes).

This leaves out the weird patterns that real orbits trace. It also leaves out the stationary/slow moving omni-directional units that exist now. The way it is now feels completely unnatural to me, more like slow tanks in space. It breaks the suspension of disbelief (in a game about giant robots!) and without adding any "awesome factor" to compensate. Hearing that this is a serious contender is really disappointing to me.

A cited reason for semi-stationary/"fake" is to have defensible territories in space. Besides the realism problem, I think this is actually a non-issue. Orbital would truly feel like its own layer if it has a difference paradigm. This paradigm could be that you instead have clusters of satellites that form moving territories of control. Assuming that ground-to-orbital combat is expensive/rare, this would not be decimated by existing ground territory, but act as a moving high-ground.

To think of it another way: it would be a smaller scale of the type of combat generated by close planet-to-planet fly-bys. This would make the jump from the on planet to interplanetary combat more natural to the user learning to play.

Thanks again & respect to Uber for encouraging all of this discussion!

in the words of Sally when she met Harry: "YES! YES! YEEEEEEEEESSSSS!"

I'm not *opposed* to orbital-to-ground satellites, I just have yet to see a good argument for their inclusion aside from "because it's cool" or "because it explodes stuff".

faux orbital = keep it simple, keep it sweet

Personally, I think that forced movement (aka fake orbits) for these units can balance these types of units well, since you can't be in the range of everything (or more specifically, stay IN the same range) all the time, but present some interesting strategies/defense decisions by not being in the same place, all the time.

This sounds good to me. I think that having a RANGE of speeds for each unit would be a key to allowing more interaction, especially if the assist command acts something like "change your orbit/speed over time to match up with the unit you are assisting".

Perhaps the statement in the quote is somewhat shortworded. But the whole game kind of is about blowing stuff up. In other words, if the unit could be balanced properly, having another way of making things explode seems like a fun thing to have.

That raises the 2 questions for me, "What role is the orbital-to-ground satellite going to have in terms of gameplay?"
and "What will counter it?".

To answer the first question, we should look at what this unit can do that other units can not do. For the sake of this example I will presume that satellites are restricted to some kind of orbit. This means that they move in a line, and any bombardment or laser will move in a line as well. That's why the satellite would be ideal to provide a low damage continuous beam that can cover a large area. This could be used to damage concentrations of buildings or a large sum of units.

The role it would have would be the "damager". It wouldn't really have much damage potential against any given target, but it would weaken a large group of units and buildings so that the situation becomes more favourable for a smaller group of units to beat a larger group of units.

Another example that I discussed with Nanolathe today was the idea of a tractor beam satellite that could move one or more units from one spot to another.

How would it be countered? I still consider an electromagnetic pulse defense to be suitable to gameplay, perhaps a way to disable the satellite without killing it. The effect would either be temporary, or it could become damaged and non functional but still in orbit, until an orbital fabricator repairs it.

This is the kind of stuff that I would appreciate seeing in orbital.

But then why not just use nukes or artillery or some other means to blow it up? I'm playing the devil's advocate right now mind you, I would have no issue with a satellite that blows stuff up. But the important part is that there's no point in adding one if there are other things just as capable of blowing stuff up.

Why use catapults if you have lobbers?

In the end they are similar in the way that they can blow things up. It's the minor differences such as AOE damage, and the arc of fire is what makes them different. One difference between orbital and ground based buildings is that orbital units do not require you to have a decent foothold on the planet.

For advanced fabricators to build advanced artillery or nukes means that you have to have an entire economy running. A satellite would be much more ideal to support invasions of the planet where you have to fight to gain a foothold. There is nothing that prevents the enemy from building the entire planet full of turrets.

While that may be technically true(you still need a decent foothold SOMEWHERE in order to launch Satellites at all) you must also consider that unless you have some presence to take advantage of the situations orbital units can create it's unlikely the Orbital unit will have a significant impact on thier own long term.

Mike

My understanding is you can launch a satellite (via a rocket) from a different planet (it's how they get to gas giants), but once deployed from the rocket into orbit they can't change planets. If this is the case, you don't need a foothold first.

I think it would be safer for the developers to keep it simple.

No orbital units period.

The Launcher is used exclusively to launch units (constructors primarily) onto other worlds or asteroids.

Yes you do, you just don't need it specifically on which every planet you're sending the satellite to. you ain't gonna be able to launch a satellite(especially if the current balance carries over) if you're being hard pressed by an opponent on your own planet and can't spare the resources.

The follow up point is that if you send the satellite somewhere you don't have a foothold, what can the satellite(s) realistically accomplish on thier own?

Mike

Ah, ok, I thought you meant specifically on the destination planet.

Blowing things up is great! As long as there are interesting strategic choices. I really hope we have the ablity to move more than just the lander and commander between worlds. I don't want to move everything just a subset of the orbital units. I think it will provide for more interesting game play if you can some how bring stuff with you to increase your chance of creating a successfull foot hold. There may be tactical reasons why you would rather defend or assult a body over blowing it up. Maybe you need / want more income and feel you can take it from your opponent. In other cases maybe you feel they are too deeply entrenched and you can spare the redicilous amount of resources to destroy the body instead of taking it over.

Orbital bombardment would be a boon. Either a big fat bomb you build and drop, or an energy beam that causes 'discomfort'...

An EMP style bomb that you either drop for an x-second pause to affected tanks, powergens etc would be good. Or a 'cone of influence' projecting down from the satellite (for a high energy cost to the user) that disables units within it's cone for as long as it's switched on. Comm excluded.

This.

Since the majority of these ideas would fit into the 'fake' side of things, the question is which one offers the best gameplay opportunities whilst still allowing the player to feel in control over units on the layer? This seems like something that needs more discussion.

I personally fall under the shell with orbits category, but think things can be done to make movement more intuitive, such as having satellites enter a geo-sync orbit to limit their movement over the planets surface when they finish a move order or are commanded to stop. That way the amount of satellites unintentionally flying over enemy bases is minimised.

I think some sort of orbital bombardment should take place, but it shouldn't be too strong. You should be able to win using only the bots, or the tanks, or only the aircraft, but you shouldn't be able to win using only the orbital against opponent who uses everything. Even if you are attacking the planet from outside. Exept if you smash planet in pieces, but that is not always win.

This game is about combat on the surface and I don't want to take the focus away from it. This is why I prefer orbital (at least significant part of it) to be mostly support with no control - that way this layer will be defined by numbers (how many of which type of satellite do my opponent and I have) and not positions. Keeping player attention on the ground, while still maintaining another layer of macro strategy. And if you want something more epic and controlled, there can be geostationary ring that is essentially extension of your base towards the space.

Also, about anti-orbital. I think anti-nukes could fill this role well. You can consider nukes to be suborbital weapons, right? There should be an option to forbid them firing at anything but nukes, of course, to conserve the ammo.