A comprehensive Example of Orbital Combat

Folks, I’m afraid this is going to be a long post. Multiple posts even.

I’ve been putting off writing this for a while now for a number of reasons. Mainly because, although I enjoy throwing out the odd suggestion or bit of analysis, I don’t like suggesting entire systems and mechanics from the ground up. It feels less, “hey let’s talk about this interesting idea” and more like “Please make my game ideas for me”. However, the Devs are getting to the point of beginning to implement some of the orbital stuff, so it may be time to have this discussion before too many things get locked in. I’ve come to the realisation that although there are many suggestions about orbital combat, most of them follow the “star-wars” paradigm of wet-navy battleships and fighters in space, there are few alternative visions to point to. I’ve spoken in a number of threads why this is a bad idea, and could very easily lead to a complete obsolescence of ground side combat. Fundamentally, Planetary Annihilation is not about space combat. It is about surface combat. Orbital combat in PA should support the war on the ground, not supplant it. Thus the overall goals of this suggestion are to add interesting and unique orbital mechanics, without removing the point of ground combat, or becoming un-true to what PA is. This isn't an iron clad list of features that devs must implement, but more an example so people who want an model of non-star-wars orbital battles have something to refer too. So, without further ado…

Part 1: The orbital layer
The orbital layer represents a 3 dimensional sphere centred on each celestial body in question. Asteroids do not have an orbital layer for simplicity, but all other bodies do.
The most fundamental command in any RTS is moving a selected unit. In the orbital layer, this works a bit differently to normal. The key aspect is that all objects in an orbital layer follow a simplified form of Newtonian mechanics. It is simplifies in the fact that the paths of each unit are modelled as analytically elliptical equations, rather than numerical iteration, but the player doesn’t really need to know this. Fundamentally, the player doesn’t give move commands to a place, but to an orbit.
The simplest kind of orbit is a circular equatorial one. When moving a selected unit, the player double clicks on a location outside the boundaries of the planet. They may need to zoom out in order to do this. The “location” that the mouse click actions at is the point where the projection of the mouse cursor meets the equatorial plane. This would create a simple equatorial orbit with a radius of the distance from the planets centre to the cursor. Simple.

If you don’t want a circular orbit, then simply hold down the mouse button, and drag the mouse. This creates an elliptical orbit. It’s no more complex than drawing an ellipse in MS Paint. The only thing the player really needs to bear in mind is that the unit will be travelling fast when it is at the low point in the orbit (the periapsis), and slow at the high point in the orbit (the apoapsis). Thus there is strategy created in how a player creates their orbits. If you want your satellites to linger over a part of the world, then put the high point there, while if you want them to go quick, put the low point there.
The final component is inclination, and this is where the double-click comes in. The first click (and drag) sets the periapsis and apoapsis. If the player just clicks again, then the orbit remains equatorial, or has a inclination of zero. If the player drags the second click, up or down, then the inclination changes up or down. Thus, with two click/drags, the player can specify any possible orbit. The only limitation is that the apoapsis and periapsis will not move outside the confines of the orbital layer. A further suggestion is that the mid-altitude of the orbital layer is tuned (via setting planet gravity and rotation) to be geosynchronous. Thus players always have an easy way of making satellites hover over the same spot on the planet (so far as possible). I would also suggest that when selecting an orbit, the trajectory of the orbit is always drawn on, and a line around the planet is drawn which shows the path directly beneath the satellite. The player can shift-queue up orbits, which means that satellites will move to the new one, as soon as they have attained their current one. Patrolling orbits would mean that a satellite constantly swings back and forth between the selected orbits. Ultimately, these are largely a fire-and-forget kind of thing that would require little player engagement once they have set up an orbit (which would probably take about a second or two).

If the player gives an attack command, then the attacking unit automatically figures out an orbit which will immediately bring the attacking unit to a halt relative to the target at maximum range for as long as possible, manoeuvring using a low energy Holman transfer. Given a starting orbit, these specifications, and a target, there is always one and only one path that a satellite will take. This may sound complex, but it really is just the maths that happens under the hood. The player doesn’t really need to understand this, and it’s pretty intuitive to see how the satellites would move under these constraints. I have no doubt that pretty much any player would easily grasp how this works after gaining a minimal amount of experience.

This concludes how movement is described. If it sounds complex, trust me, it really isn’t. After 5 minutes playing around with it, I reckon anyone who can understand how to draw an ellipse in MS paint would find understanding this pretty easy.

Launching
So, how do we get things into orbit? This all starts at the launch-pad building. Whether T1 or T2, the launch pad building is the basis of your orbital endeavours. It has a number of units it can build, just like any factory. The difference is, once something is build, it will sit on the pad, and wait. The player can still queue up things to build, but they will pause while the pad is full.

Once the space unit is ready, the player selects the pad, and gives a move command into orbit around the planet. Hey presto! The rocket launches and deploys the unit in the orbit. If the player gives a shift-move order, then this counts as a queued move. Units will launch one after the other as soon as they are ready, meaning the player can automate production of their satellites without having to babysit the pad.

Now, here is the most important part. This is a part I would even sacrifice Newtonian orbits in order to maintain. Once a space unit is launched into an orbital layer, it cannot leave that orbital layer. The only exception to this is transports, and only when landing on that orbital-layer’s planet. In other words, units cannot move from one orbital layer to another. Orbital units may alter their orbital path within the layer they are in but they may not leave that layer. It is possible however, to launch straight from one planet’s surface, into another planet’s orbital layer dependant upon the next fact.

Now we come to gravity wells. Simply put, some planets are bigger than others, and some are farther away. If you are on a big, heavy world and want to send a satellite to a faraway orbital layer, you are going to need a bigger rocket. The T1 launch pad can launch rockets into orbit around the planet it is on, and around nearby worlds if it is on a small body. It can’t launch to faraway worlds or even to other planets if it happens to be on a large world. The T2 launch pad is more powerful, and so grants more options. The unit cannon, artillery and missile launchers all operate under the same principle, in that they can hit other worlds only if they are on a small and nearby body. I would suggest that when orbital move commands are given, reachable bodies and orbital layers are subtly highlighted in green.

One special unit is the transport rocket. In this case, the player has to load a unit into the launch pad, and it will be put on top of the rocket. If the player gives the launch pad a move command to another point on a different (or even the same) world, then the rocket will deploy the loaded units at that point. This requires that the target point is one that the rocket can reach in terms of the gravity well it is in. This process is automatable with shift queue commands, such that factories can automatically build units, which will wait outside the launch pad for the next rocket to be built, which will then launch them to the shift-queued destination. In other words, although rocket travel costs for each rocket, there is nothing to stop a player constantly firing a stream of reinforcements at an enemy world.

This whole system is designed to create positional play in terms of invading planets. Let’s imagine our own solar-system as the set-piece for an example. If a commander starts on earth, he may need to use a T2 launcher to get to the moon, but once on the moon, he can use a T1 launcher to get back, or to mars, venus or the asteroid belt. A T1 launcher on an asteroid would probably be able to get to most planets. A T2 launcher on the moon would be able to get to almost the whole solar system. The whole mechanism behind this is that players will need to capture positions on planets in order to get to new planets. They can't just hop into space, then the entire solar system is open. Most importantly, this emphasises the point that the player is fighting over ground not space. Battles will rage across the entire solar system as players capture planets as staging posts for their next invasion. Players can use orbital units to help with beachheads, and to support their ground forces, but they won't steal the show.

This covers the basics. Hope this elucidates what I'm hoping for in terms of orbital combat. Part 2 will cover units.

Part 2: Units
A strategy game is only as good as it’s unit variety. So I think it will be helpful to describe the orbital tech tree. It is deliberately kept simpler compared to surface trees. There are some general rules to note when talking about orbital units.

1. Orbital units are fragile. Most will die in one or maybe two hits. Orbital structures are a bit better, but still weaker than their land-based counterparts.
2. Once placed, orbital structures cannot change their orbits, unlike units.
3. Weapon ranges are long. Most orbital units can strike pretty much anything on the same side of the planet that they are.
4. Orbital units are very easily seen. They can be detected from a long way away.
5. If it goes through the orbital layer, then it can be shot at. This includes units on carrier rockets, unit-cannon projectiles, and ICBMs which will be discussed later.

Now, onto the main show. We will start with T1 units. Where possible I have drawn inspiration from what has already been hinted at by the devs.

Tech level 1
These units can all be launched into space from the T1 launch pad, or built at the T1 orbital factory. The build lists for T1 launch pad and factor are identical, save that the factory cannot build the transport capsule
• Transport capsule: a simple metal box with rocket motors on it. Designed to transport units who are loaded into it at the launch pad.
• Argus Spy satellite: Provides a large amount of radar coverage on the ground below it. Probably similar in radius to a T2 radar tower.
• Artemis Missile: a quick and cheap suicide unit. Plots a collision course with the target satellite and then smashes into it. Only targets orbital units.
• Aegis Defence platform: Armed with an array of rapid fire auto cannons to attack enemy orbital units. Shorter range than most orbital units. Quick rotation and target acquisition
• Apollo Bombardment Platform: Armed with a large number of depleted uranium rods, which are dropped one-by-one to bombard surface targets. Slow projectile travel speed, reasonable damage and AOE. Slow reload and does not track targets. Overall, enough to cause damage, but not enough to cause serious panic unless there are a lot of them.
• T1 Orbital engineer: Can build the following structures:
• T1 Orbital factory: Builds T1 satellites, so you don’t need to launch them.
• T2 Orbital factory: Builds T2 satellites, so you don’t need to launch them.
• Solar Power Satellite: Produces a decent amount of energy when it has a direct LOS to the sun,
• Deep Space Radar Array: Provides warning of incoming asteroids or units.

Tech Level 2
T2 units tend to be more specialised and expensive, as follows the previously set-out ideas. There are no “better” units, although some have different uses.
• Transport capsule: a simple metal box with rocket motors on it. Designed to transport units who are loaded into it at the launch pad.
• Aeolus Spy satellite: Provides a decent amount of visual coverage on the area below it. Does not provide radar coverage
• Arykd Space Telescope: Can be targeted at a location on another planet. Will grant vision in a small area where it is targeted at.
• Aurora Defence laser: A space defence laser with massive range, striking power and pinpoint accuracy. Very slow to re-load and slow to turn to face enemies.
• Asteria Heavy Bombardment Array: A satellite mounting a huge array of depleted uranium rods. These are dropped in a massive salvo with painful damage, AOE and spread. Takes a very long time to reload.
• Aether Missile Satellite: Drops remote pods into the upper atmosphere, which split open and disgorge anti-air missiles. Due to travel time, works better at lower altitudes.
• T2 Orbital engineer: Can build the following structures:
• T1 Orbital factory: Builds T1 satellites, so you don’t need to launch them.
• T2 Orbital factory: Builds T2 satellites, so you don’t need to launch them.
• Orbital Gas mine: If built around a gas giant, provides a MASSIVE quantity of energy.
• Atlas Orbital Fortress: Heavily armoured death fortress. Can build and drop nuclear weapons from orbit. Armed with a large beam cannon which can strike the area directly beneath it.

This should provide a large variety of strategic options. However, I have not yet spoken how to deal with orbital units if the player is on the ground. The obvious answer is build some orbital units, and hit back. The Artemis missile in particular is an excellent T1 level unit for this job. However, there should be multiple options for striking back from the ground, and more orbit-surface interactions than a one-way salvo of depleted uranium slugs (fun although that may be). With that in mind, part three will cover ground-orbit interactions

Part 3 – Ground-Orbit interactions and strategic weapons.

This whole system has taken a lot of inspiration from some of the ideas about orbital defence floated during the cold war. With that in mind, it makes sense that any orbital systems are able to interact with strategic weapons and other units. These are listed below:

• ABM silos: The cornerstone of static orbital defence is the anti-ballistic missile silo, normally used for nuke defence. I would suggest that it can fill it’s magazine with two types of missile: the normal ABM and an ASAT weapon. Both cost metal, and both strike at their target when it comes in range. Both are built the same way normal units are, select the factory and click on the build bar. Hit repeat if you want (once it’s in there). I would also suggest that both are slightly imperfect. I’ve played around with the mathematics behind guiding an ABM in the past, and I’ve learned that it is a lot easier to hit a target which is heading straight for the launcher, rather than at an angle. This isn’t some irritating “roll a random number to not get nuked”, but a simple and predictable rule which synergises with the other defence I’m about to explain: the nearer something is to the ABM silo, the less likely it will get nuked. I would also still expect it’s successful intercept rate to be well over 95% but that probability of failure means that a turtle can only be viable if they throw up a lot of overlapping ABMs.
• Mobile ABM: furthermore, I would add a mobile ABM launcher capable of protecting a small area. This function would also be best added to the cruise missile ship. Thus the player is always capable of putting up a defence from orbital units, and nuclear missiles.
• Nuke Launchers: The new nuke launcher would work great with this system. When launching a nuke, the idea is that it’s flight path will always take it on an arc through the orbital layer. Thus, satellites (particularly the Aurora) will have an excellent chance of zapping it. Of course, if the player were to coordinate a nuclear strike while some Artemis missiles were zeroing in on that pesky Aurora…
• Alternate missiles: To compensate for the enhanced effectiveness of a combined missile defence system, I would suggest that the nuke launcher can now build two more types of missile. These would be a MIRV, and a HANE. The MIRV is more expensive than a nuke, and actually does a lot less damage. However, it splits into lots of little missiles as it enters the terminal phase of its trajectory. This would use up a lot of ABM’s to counteract, and would only truly be countered by being zapped in mid flight. The HANE on the other hand, does no actual damage. Instead, the High Altitude Nuclear Explosive causes a massive EMP shockwave which paralyses any units in a large area. As it explodes at high altitude, it is harder to shoot down.

I hope this illustrates a rich array of interactions between orbital and surface units. The are counters and counter-counters to every action.

I know that this has been a long series of posts, but I’m not always that good when it comes to brevity. I’d like to point out once more that this shouldn't be thought of as a set of rules that the devs must follow. It’s main purpose is to create a full picture of orbital combat which does not rely on the Star-Wars paradigm, so it can be given as an example when this comes up. I know this system would indeed be a lot of work for the devs. Possibly taking more time and money than they have. However, the devs have promised some form of orbital combat, and this is one way I think it can be done.
I hope you can see that this creates a game where orbital units exist to serve the surface battle and don't overwhelm the game, the way that many suggestions so far do. It is difficult to explain how some of this works without examples, but I hope I have been clear enough for you to get the main idea.

Congratulations on making it this far. You deserve a medal. Now…discuss!

I can’t believe you’d say my poll was horribly loaded in terms of how it is phrased. Honestly. I now think you were pulling my leg.

1.) Orbits: I like your idea of orbits, this approach to orbits seems to me like the perfect middle ground between KSP and RTS.

2.) Launch Pad: launch pad is T2. I love the idea. Now one thing I find silly: limited fuel satellites can’t travel to another orbital layer once they’ve been sent to one, sure, but all of the darn ships except for transports? No way. Also I’ll add I wouldn’t find it acceptable that getting into the start planet’s orbital layer require the same rocket as to go to the edge of the system. You pay for a rocket designed to go certain distances, if you over estimated, or no longer need to go to the last planet in the system, then it’s your own fault! And you got to choose whether you use the precious (I’m imagining big price scales) fuel in that rocket or just send it to where you finally settled for and basically waste it. I’d rather have this then a mechanic based on planet size. Yes I know this is how it works IRL but that’s where you’re asking the game to become too much of a simulator, this RTS can’t afford this. Imagine a player who wants to play a big match with a lot of friends, better generate a big starting planet right? (He wants direct engagement but for the battle to wage stronger and stronger as it spreads across a system) and then he realizes his map is so big it forbids travel to other planets… big turnoff no? Or is that not how you see it and you think it would only be a limiting factor toward your t1 launch pad? I do NOT want a t1 launch pad. Space conquest should be late-game.

As for the unit cannon the way I understood it Jon Mavor only wanted it to be able to shoot units across space in the case where it was on a moon and shooting towards its center of orbit. Other than that when in use on planets the units would stay on the planet.

3.) Units: little 3.) not if the planet has an atmosphere and generally shooting anything towards the horizon would make gravity do unpredictable angle curves to the laser/projectile (atmospheric distortions look it up) so for the laser/projectile to hit on target it would have to penetrate the atmosphere relatively perpendicular to it

4.) T1: as stated above ↑ no.

5.) T2: as for the actual unit lineup presented in both T1 and T2 I like it lots except the missile which is redundant to the nuke and tml (but honestly I’d quite prefer scrapping the nuke and make it take off from there instead! Inter-planetary nuke! Now with much bulkier, meaner looking missile! :twisted: ) and any other redundant unit from T1. I don’t like the idea that the fortress attacks with a nuke, too many nukes already. If it were multiple long-range cannons, that would be pretty badass on the other hand.

I don’t think dealing with orbital units is such an issue. If your opponent has an orbital fortress and you don’t have a single unit in orbit, not even the launch pad. Honestly Honestly HONESTLY…… :roll: …GG give it up, you lost, how could you think you still stand a chance?

6.) Ground-Orbit fire: I see no reason why not, but let’s not complicate gameplay with too much micro. The anti-nuke should (to me) be for blocking the nuke and partially blocking asteroids (as we see in the KS video) not that it would be efficient at that point but it could help to lessen the damage, in the continuation of the mentality that if you can shoot and it’ll even do the tiniest bit of damage, shoot!
So it shouldn’t be able to build another missile.
As for the nuke probability this is something supcom let the simulated projectile system do and it worked brilliantly.
Great examples:
-Sometimes the nuke defense would fire and it wouldn’t get there on time.
-Sometimes when facing a great number of nukes all the nuke defenses would fire, wasting missiles with overkill because it was unable to predict with the limited time who had which nuke covered.


I agree with the nuke but once again let me press my (new) campaign to suppress the nuke launcher and fuse it with the launch pad.
And finally I think different cost orbital defenses should be able to reach different heights of the said planet’s orbital layer, with the cheapest only being able to reach the lowest flying orbiting units.

Good post was a fun read. (I get a medal right?)

Jesus just publish a book :lol:

This post is pretty amazing on how it offers a clear picture of a very plausible scenario. I really hope that the developers read this and take the good bits out of it and implement it in the game as well. Especially the possibility of different types of orbit would be interesting to play around with.

Very good read, reminds me a lot of the suggestions/theories I made ages ago. I fully agree with the idea of Orbital play not supplanting what I call 'Surface Combat'(Land/Air/Sea).

Mike

Ok, to stimulate a dialogue with you yourlocalmadsci,

I notice that you have "orbital superiority" units (the Artemis Missile, Aegis Defence platform and Aurora Defence laser that function very much like Air fighters do, basically denying other orbital units from being there in orbit with you, and "orbital bombardment" units that can strike the ground.

This sounds like planes in space to me already.

So, say I was in an advantageous position and managed to muscle my opponent out of Orbital Space. How does he recover? If I have total Orbital dominance it's just like having total Air dominance. I have all the intel I need to make sure you NEVER launch another satellite, nuke... and by your unit list, even plane... ever again.

It sounds like Air Combat again... just higher and with "bombing runs" taking a little longer to pass.

well, a good player need to keep up! if hes in orbit, get him from the sea, if he is bombarding you, make a sneaky base!

and about them reminding you of planes, isn't a plane just a fast tank that go high? so an satellite is a faster tank that go higher.

its more fronts, its like playing chess 5 times in the same time (grammar i know)
i like it.

A plane is most certainly not a fast tank that "go high".

well, in a computer game everything is just code and models, but for the sake of the happiness of the world, ill pass on fighting over that.

strategically speaking, its pretty much all the differences (in this game)

Strategically speaking a plane is not a tank... at all.

Please don't derail this thread with such nonsense.

I mean, that if you play the GAME, not irl THE GAME you build a tank because its FASTER then a "plane", and you make ships, because they can go on "water", everything is basically the same, i can say just as much as you say that a SATELLITE is not PLANE but we don't need to do this because we both know what we both mean (i guess)

just leaving this here so no one will take this seriously

Edit : you know what? never mind, you won, i lost continue the thread and ignore my stupid concept of games (no sarcasm)

I'm always happy for some spirited discussion.

There are a few counters here. The most important component is that planes can turn around and go back for another run. Satellites cannot. Their paths are fixed by the immutable laws of orbital dynamics. This would make them look, feel and behave very differently.

I suspect orbits may take on the order of two or three minutes to complete. This gives time for the planetside player to start churning out ASAT missiles. I suggested three possible units/structures that could build ASAT missiles, which would reach out and blast most satellites in one hit. Two of them are mobile, meaning they can happily sit away from an orbital path, build up their missile stockpile, and pop back with a full salvo of exo-atmospheric-Kinetic-Kill-vehicles at the ready. Ultimately, although satellites are powerful, they are not quite as maneuverable as one would think, which allows players to adopt an surface to orbit form of guerilla warfare. I can particularly see a lot of fun occurring in this scenario if things like jamming and cloaking are implemented.

There were also two further options i was thinking about in this regard. I didn't like them as much as the other ideas, so i didn't put them in the main posts. The first would be a plane which can be given an attack order on a satellite. It would briefly boost onto a suborbital trajectory, fire it's missiles, and then return to the atmosphere. Of course, doing so would bring it briefly into the orbital layer, and there might be a coherent photon beam with that plane's serial number written on it...

Another option would be to move naval ASAT weapons to the nuclear missile sub. If there is one type of unit that a satellite would have trouble dealing with, then it would be submarines. This may be a little too hard countery though, so I would hold it in reserve if other balances failed.

Ultimately, ensuring that satellites aren't too overpowered is something that would be down to playtesting and balances. I believe that this system, or one like it, has enough balance levers that it wouldn't be too difficult to tune.

I do think it should be possible that if your opponent has committed enough resources to the orbital battle, and you haven't committed enough resources to a counter, or done something clever, then you should probably loose. The same is true of a land-battle, or on the seas, or in the air. The good news is that there's still plenty of options for an astute commander to avoid getting to that point. And even if you do get orbitally locked down, and start getting bombed back to the stone age, the advantage won't snowball as easily. Thos orbital units are now committed to that world, and can't go a-roaming. As long as you can get your commander out, there will be other worlds to fight over.

I'd have to see some of this in action to be converted. This is definitely not what I had in mind when I thought about the Orbital layer...

(and to clarify, no, I'm not one of those who want "Star Wars" or "Boats in Space").

By all means, I would be interested to hear your own interpretation of what orbital combat could be. The more "Not-A-Wet-Navy-In-Space" ideas, the better.

I think this is an amazing, well thought out idea. Majority of satellites are locked into orbit once fired, so you really have to think about it. They'd end up being expensive and vulnerable, so not overpowered, I think it all sounds great. And very simply put out to understand too - a little playing around and everyone should be able to understand it.

The only thing I'm not too fussed about is the T1 & T2 launcher, with changing planetary bodies, but I'd have to see how solar systems eventually play out before I make any real claims as to like/dislike your idea of doing it.

Really interesting posts. Even the unit names are well thought out. Also, the points about needing a T2 to get from earth -> moon and then much less to get around the rest of the solar system - very true. Kerbal Space Program is a great little game that will teach those principles nicely (as well as the ideas of periapsis/apoapsis etc).

Perhaps there needs to be a 'ground control' type building that's required to get full benefit from the orbital units. This would provide a plausible target to someone who's been left a bit behind in going orbital, but has clear superiority on the surface. Blowing up the ground control wouldn't destroy the orbital units, but perhaps things like satellite views would not be available until you've rebuilt one. Maybe even the launcher serves this purpose.

Orbital solar power generators would be cool also.

Well, the Commander is basically that already, it's the hivemind of all the units it builds.

Mike

Instead of T1/T2 launchers, I would prefer having 1 launcher with varying metal/energy costs to reach orbit, with obviously higher delta-v orbits requiring more resources.

But apart from that, this all looks fantastic.

While reading though, the idea of space junk occurred to me as something that might alleviate orbital superiority once gained. A simple implementation of this would be best, in my opinion.

Space junk would arise as units are destroyed in the orbital layer. With each unit destroyed, one can consider the passive damage dealt to all units in the orbital layer of that planet would increase by a small increment, such as 0.1. This passive damage would be similar to damage by fires and acid lakes in TA in its execution, though would obviously need to be something that increases in game as units are destroyed in a planet's orbital layer.

So how would this work in practice? Say damage increases by an increment of 0.1 with each unit destroyed in orbit.

Player 1 launches a recon satellite: 0 space junk dps.
Player 2 launches an ASAT at the recon satellite: 0.2 space junk dps. (ASAT and recon satellite destroyed)
Player 2 launches a combat satellite into orbit: 0.2 space junk dps.
Player 1 launches an ASAT, which is shot down by the combat satellite: 0.3 space junk dps.

In such a system, Player 2 now has orbital superiority with their combat satellite, but eventually it will be destroyed by space junk passive dps. Even if Player 1's ASATs do not hit Player 2's satellites, the space junk passive dps will increase, compounding the problem for the player with orbital superiority.

To combat this, Player 2 must launch space junk cleaner units to slowly reduce the passive space junk dps over time to retain their orbital superiority. The more cleaner units, the more quickly space junk passive dps is reduced, and the more quickly space becomes safe. The obvious downside to this is that such cleaner units would be significantly expensive and have no utility other than cleaning space junk. As only the player with orbital superiority would build such units, this immediately gives the player without orbital superiority an economic advantage as they do not have to build such cleaner units.

This gives Player 1 an economic foothold to either push for the orbital layer once again, or to push at Player 2 with naval, air, or ground units.