Orbital units - 2 directions

I would personally like a system that is not like air 2.0 simply because it has realism... To shoot down an enemy satelite, you should let the orbits collide, or to bomb an area, you should not just hover over that area, but have an orbit that intercepts it...
This obviously should be simplified a wole lot, with things like:
- you don't design the orbit exactly, but you give an attack order, and the satelite calculates the interception orbit and slowly moves to it
- there are only perfectly circular orbits
- and?...

Please suggest if you're interested

~evolve

this is a system i wouldn't mind, however i still dont like the problem that my spy satellite won't be were id want it, i think that if orbit to surface bombardments were put in they should have an orbit but at the same time id prefer the spy satellites to be hovering so i use them more strategically.

Personally I like the direction orbital units are going in. From a gameplay perpective geostationary orbits just work better. it lets you put your units where you want and not have to constantly micro them.

'real' or even 'fake real' orbits would be such a headache, I want nothing to do with it. I have enough to worry about, without also having to babysit my orbital layer, and constantly search for where my units are (since they won't be where I left them)

After the game is released I'm sure someone can mod it in for the more hardcore people to play an alternate style of game.

As a bonus it also fits the lore. these robots are so advanced I'm sure they figured out geostatonary orbit (humans thought of the idea in 1928), and can implement it quite easily.

Neutrino, try not to let the negative feedback get to you! In this day and age it's impossible to do anything without severe criticism. You, and the rest of the Uber team, are doing an amazing job and I wait with much anticipation for each and every patch. Keep up the good work!

Or, that the orbital bombardment satellite is stationary as well, but has a "burst" rate of fire, fires and long pause, because that would be more control of your own unit and the unit would be more "consistent", compared to more shots on smaller planets cuz quicker orbit, compared to less shots on larger planet cuz longer orbit, and a pause would be the same no matter the planet size because the delay would not be longer or shorter but always the same.

If you ever played Kerbal Space Program you can understand why it's such a headache. I think that while most people think "hey cool, orbits" the general reaction will be "too complex, just throw air and it gets the job done".

Oh and geostationary orbits -in real life- don't work in a shell; it's only a thin band around the equator. However, if you have plenty of energy (and the cost of running 100+ combat robots firing weapons isn't factored in, so we know the Uberian Robots have plenty) you can keep it roughly in the same spot on engines.

I don't want to keep banging my own drum, but please check this out:

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...s-intuitive-queuing-of-movement-orders.51056/

as it deals with exactly how what you are suggesting might work.

Thanks for the link, that post was really well done!
I am playing KSP and I don't want it to be so difficult, just a little bit more than " I-CLICK-YOU-GO-WHERE-I-WANT " system...
I'd prefer it a little more complex but not that much, like " I-CLICK-YOU- SET-AN-ORBIT-FOR-IT-AND-GO-THERE "
Is it so difficult to do?

~evolve

I honestly think we've managed to suggest, discuss, agree upon and/or reject just about every possible way to do the orbital layer. At this point I think our job, as backers and supporters, is to step back and let Uber make the final decision.

~G10

Agreed.

You're right, or we'll keep arguing about things that may have already been decided!

~evolve

I disagree we should keep rehashing this topic until next year.

(after the game has been released ;P)

Here is a downside fake orbits, you can park the satellite over the enemy's base and build lobbers so that base is just inside there firing range and destroy there base. Granted the enemy will have to be a bit of a rock, but it still just feels dirty.

Yes, I totally understand where you are coming from. I just want to play fair and to be honest the idea they are going with is close to mine anyway (there really is no value in adding another nuance). Things can be easily misunderstood.

Something along the same lines as my own thinking!

Quoting for importance.

You can do this with regular radar as well, seems like an extremely large investment to avoid having to build a second t2 radar.

Yes, but t2 radar can be killed with ground/air troops. Satellites need (as far as I know at least) the orbital interceptor to be destroyed, and satellite can move unlike the radars

Yes, but if you send a big enough army, or an army soon enough after he starts building the artillery attack, you can destroy the radar and cripple his attack. Currently, you cannot do that with orbital. Personally I think that always moving orbital units opens the door for more soft counters, and not just some kind of "build a missile silo" that would make orbital more limited in usability than it has to be.

Maybe it's just me thinking that orbital should be mostly supportive/utility until the advance stage, and a "territory" in the softest sense. Re-reading some of posts, it seems like the original plan is (was?) to make it more of a hard bordered area, with front lines and all that.

Personally I think that maybe @neutrino needs to lay out whatever unit types/functions/battle styling he had planed originally. Even just an example of how he envisions the orbital layer taking place. This thread has been on the movement style for the most part......... maybe we've been talking about the wrong thing? Just a random thought.

but if your playing a strategy game and you cant think "i should build and obital factory so i have the ability to counter satellites if needed" then thats your fault. i personaly dont like the idea of my satellite not being were i need it most because it moved to the other side of the F***** planet.

Then perhaps that's a way to ensure that the Adv. Radar doesn't become obsolete. It provides constant mid-ranged radar coverage. Basic provides constant short ranged Radar coverage, and Sat provides Intermittent but large Radar coverage.