Anchor Suggestion

Spynal Toad aka (thetdawg3191) submitted to bugtracker that the Anchor doesn't move and just spins in place after launched. When told it is intended, he submitted that they can't be deployed very far if they don't move upon launch, they can't be put anywhere except directly above the orbital launcher.

...That's the basis of my suggestion. What if, and I know this will add 2 clicks when there used to be none, but what if when building an anchor, it launched an undeployed "box" that didn't attack yet, and the player could move it someplace and "s.move" or something on it, and it made it slowly unpack and no longer move and able to attack.

That way, you could set these up more places. To abuse deploying it somewhere "aggressive", make it's unpack time a bit long. Obviously it would be defenceless against umbrellas anyway.

brianpurkiss suggested something better actually. How about when the Anchor is stationary it automatically unpacks and afterwards becomes hostile, but if ordered to move it slowly repacks and moves and after reaching it's move it automatically behinds to unpack slowly and become hostile. This way, you can move it anytime, but moving it disarms it and being stationary for so long rearms it.

I like the idea of it being moveable.

Either make it very slow or create a new move mode for satellites and the like.

...

Which I kinda like that idea...

Have Radar Satellites, Anchors, and maybe others have an activated mode and a move mode. By default they're activated. So when the Anchors are built and sent into space, or when an advanced radar is contstructed over the enemy base it's on.

But if you want to move it, you just tell it to move. The satellite then packs up, which takes a little time, then moves, then unpacks. The whole thing is automatic, so you just tell the unit to move and it automatically packs up and moves just like if there was a move order.

That'll accomplish the balancing that Uber has just done but will be faster than it is currently.

Or that. That works too. I should edit OP.

I really like this idea. It gets annoying with how cluttered it gets directly over the orbital. Being able to move them, even slowly before they actually activate would be really useful. Better way to defend others points over your base.

I think the whole point of the anchor is to be a deterrent to camping the opponents orbital launcher.

That is the idea, but it hampers gameplay. The huge cluster of Anchors above the orbital launcher makes it difficult to select fabbers that are launched. Also, even if the idea is for it to defend the space above the orbital launcher, why can't we move it anyways?

It's a very powerful structure, so we can't have it turn into a slow, but very powerful, orbital fighter. Which is why the packing and unpacking idea is a great balance. 100% vulnerable when moving and an orbital fighter can destroy it before it unpacks.

Yeah, the movement needs to be simple. If we have to click pack, then move it, then pack. That's too many actions for such a large scale game.

So if we move it like we'd move any other unit, and it'd just take longer. So there's no extra actions.

I thought the idea was to have a mobile orbital fabber which builds the Anchor. A deployable "box" is unnecessary if you have a constructor build it wherever desired.

However I agree that implementing orbits around the planet would be more interesting, even if they are just simple circular orbits.

honestly, I think the Anchor should be built by the fabber, and the avenger should be built by the launcher. In fact, I think that all units built by the launcher (so far, that is when you swap the anchor and the avenger) should be able to travel between systems, and all the satellites built by the fabber should not be able to do that. That would lead to a wider use of the normal orbital radar, since it is more mobile (can go between planets), while the advanced orbital radar must be built on-site. Same with the orbital laser and such. They would still be able to move around in the orbital shell, but just not between planets.

I think the orbital fighter is basically redundant with the air fighter. Suppose instead they were just one unit that could fight both air and orbital units.

The Anchor would be an orbital air factory. The normal air factory would be a surface version.

Suppose you want to defend against an orbital siege where the enemy has total orbital superiority. You need to be able to build units that can attack orbital units without already having control of orbit. Conversely, if you are the one in orbit, you would want to be able to build units that can fly down to the surface and deal damage without needing to already have a foothold.

I think it would feel better if they were swapped, but I think that the reason the anchors are built from the launcher is to provide a powerful defensive option that can be used to retake the orbital layer above your base. If the orbital fabber built them instead, someone can camp your orbital launcher with a very small number of patrolling avengers, and you'd never have a fabber live long enough to build anything.

I think that'd be a pretty good idea, but I'd rather see the avenger be given the dual purpose atmosphere/orbital role (or maybe have the peregrine do it) than give the ability to the basic tier fighter.

Yes, more orbital anti-orbital play!

orbital laser/ion cannon? Yes, i know they are slow as hell, but still, they do provide contention between the two layers. I'm not a huge fan of the air into orbital idea...

That's definitely what ion cannons are for. And if they are camping above your base, you still have avengers, which can do a similar job to anchors in that situation. Unless the avengers are moving, then the ion cannon can't do squat. But still, you have a launcher, you just need to build avengers.

That's what we had before the anchors, and it just didn't work. Moving avengers can't really be hit by umbrellas, and if they're patrolling over your launcher, they can kill any avengers you try to make as they are built. I don't see any reason why anchors can't be built by both the launcher and the orbital fabbers, each has a good reason for wanting to. I would rather see the avengers constructed at some sort of orbital shipyard though. Trying to build a decent number of them is quite a pain with the fabbers.

ah yes, you're right, I forgot about the whole "can be killed while under construction" bit.

Perhaps the orbital launcher should have a short-range anti-orbital weapon that is able to hit avengers? allowing just enough range for a safe launch...

You mean like an Anchor?

well, yes, but why make a unit that can't even move from around the launcher? I guess the orbital fabber and the launcher could be able to build it, but that seems a little redundant...

To give it cover from camping?

That was a big problem for a long time.

Anchor being built in orbit, not only doesn't address getting orbital if enemy precamped over you, but is a orbital direction itself.

generally, I like the idea of most everything being launchable but limited to one planet, and the fighter and fabber being able to travel and the fabber being able to build the same one planet satellites himself on other planets.

as long as the launcher can build it too. And if the launcher can build it, allow it to move like a laser platform and be defenseless when it sluggishly moves.

for balance suggestion, and this is an orbital mechanic, but let launched things shoot on the way up but not be shootable. That is really useful.

Ehh, I kinda like the idea of a static satellite to control areas of orbital space.

I agree about the moving of most satellites between planets.

But I really do like the idea of a large defensive satellites that avenger squadrons fight around.

This may work the best.