"Natural" planet collisions are anti-natural?

I can't seem to find an explanation on this, but people seem to be talking in the forum about planets colliding "naturally"? I.e. without thrusters?

I've seen a tournament video of this. What's up with it? As far as I know, planets do not collide naturally -- they all have their own orbits, so what's the point of making them do this in the game? I don't know what effect this has in terms of mechanics, but aesthetically at least it looks stupid. Not even awesome, just stupid.

And do units get destroyed on them, or do they just pass through each other?

The units get destroyed, also:



The moon was formed by a natural planet collision.

There is a video of TheWrongCat linked on the Exodus website where he's playing in a system with two moons that pass through each other every 15 minutes. Even if we forget about the "passing through" business, celestial mechanics do not work this way. The event that formed the moon was a one-off event, not a regular event like the way that planets and moons orbit the sun and each other. There's no regularity in catastrophic phenomena of this kind, and if the game is trying to simulate them with regularity it ends up looking stupid.

Would y

would you rather the planets just phased through each other?

It's known as "incidental" collision, and can happen for a number of reasons:

• The system was deliberately set up so planets start on a collision course
• A planet under thrust sideswipes another planet
• A planet gets moved into a collision path with another planet
• A planet gets it's thrusters destroyed while moving, leaving it in a position where it can be hit.

Planets do not pass through each each. They used to in earlier builds, but not any more. Incidental collisions destroy the part of the planet that is involved in the collision.

For example:

I would rather planets behaved like planets, i.e. each had their own orbits. So I only have a problem with this:

I like the way it works. It is a fun game mechanic, that can be used to setup interesting situations. This has been this way for quite some time. Not sure how you missed it. Also I think we have established that this game isn't trying to simulate reality.

The reason we don't see them regularly is because our solar system is billions of years old, and have had time to settle down and reform all of the planets after such collisions.

In PA, people are purposely setting up systems to collide, so that's what they do.

We're playing Planetary Annihilation not Universe Sandbox.

Planets don't just randomly decide to smash into each other, but when they're on a collision course they - you know - collide. Don't know about you but that makes sense to me.

At first I only played single-planet systems to get used to the game and because shitty laptop. When I got a better laptop I started playing multi-planet systems, but I always host the lobbies, and I always use randomly generated systems (which don't seem to have planned collisions).

It's all up to whoever made the system. IMO it's really intense if you know that your planet is about to hit another planet and you need to get off planet fast. Adds some extra chaos to the game.

If the game were completely abstract and not meant to have any connection to reality the devs would not have used the word "planetary" (and most of us would not have bought the game). They would have called it "grey goo" or something.

The "it's not supposed to be realistic" argument cannot be used to deflect EVERY criticism of weird simulation effects. If the weirdness gets too much, it will break suspension of disbelief for many people. Imagine for example the Commanders looking like dildos, etc.

All I am saying is that this breaks suspension of disbelief for me, except if igncom's arguments are correct, and the game does indeed a decent job at simulating this aspect of our universe, in which case I have to do a little research to get myself up to speed on it, and then I'll be okay with it.

Oh ok you're complaining about something when you don't even know exactly how it works then?

The capability is intended to make planet smashing more interesting. What can now happen is if you miscalculate a planet smash and intersect something else *on the way* to your intended target, you are destroyed! That kinda makes sense to me I must admit (as before planets just passed through each other).

It can also be used to create some interesting scenarios (e.g. a rush to the middle type map) where a set of planets are set to collide at time 'x' and everyone has to run for the safe ground.

Edit: This type of system would never exist in nature for very long, but it isn't completely infeasible, there is evidence that the moon and Mars have both been hit by various comets or asteroids and Earth has had some pretty close passes recently so it's not impossible.

How old is the video? In fact, link?

If this is making you uncomfortable, I suggest not watching this video.

In this case they can use the term 'not supposed to be realistic" because.....i dont know, giant robot armies slamming into eachother isnt enough to tell you its a game?

Geers, could you please stop following me around the forum and trying to start fights with me? I've never used the ignore function because I find that stupid, too, so please don't me make change my mind and use it. I can't be bothered to explain to you more what I said. If you don't understand it, try rereading it. If that doesn't work, I am sorry but I can't help you there.

I don't have a problem with this. Only with planned collisions. Thrusters are thrusters and they do what you tell them to, but that's not how a stellar system works naturally, as I understand it. I could be wrong though, as igncom pointed out.

Which, by the way, is ABSOLUTELY AMAZING. Had a long chat + demo with one of the guys there at PAX - if anyone hasn't seen / heard of it yet you should take a look.

Well the 'annihilation' type games have always been based *loosely* on actual physics (e.g. why orbital movements make slingshot manoeuvre). They are all based on 'simulated projectiles' and everything is controlled around a base set of rules. This isn't a game about total realism, but it does have much more realism than many more 'natural' looking games (look at how 'Age Of Empires' games play and you'll get what I mean).

I'm not following you. I'm just pointing out that being so critical of a mechanic you didn't even bother to look into properly is silly.