Moons of Moons?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Awesome...

What is the point of this, other than to troll? Come on...

Erm... I'm not trolling. I'm relating information. :?
What is your definition of Trolling now?

I always thought it was when someone was being a [expletive] for no reason other than to provoke a negative reaction.

I expect no such negative reaction from my relating information.

... Which is why I'm so confused over why everyone is arguing against scientific data for no appreciable gain in gameplay depth.

Because your reasons for the idea that there is "no appreciable gain in gameplay depth" also can be applied to the rest of the game.

So your reasoning for not having sub moons can be applied to moons and asteroids, and even to other planets.

And you have said it yourself, their orbits eventually lead them to being slung out or being pulled in to collide.

So why not allow players to play on them during the time that they are around?

Ok igncom1, let's take the argument the other way; When does it end?

Do you want Sub-Sub-Satellites? Sub-Sub-Sub-Satellites? Sub-Sub-Sub-Sub-Sub-Sub-Sub-Satellites?

Why? What for!? At what point does this become ridiculous?

What do you GET out of a randomly generated sub-satellite that isn't already catered for in an Asteroid Belt?

WHY put it into the Random Planetary System Generation for those poor unfortunate souls like myself to stumbleupon during my Galactic War Campaign?

Why? What is it for!?

i wonder how they will handle unstable orbits, that'd be pretty interesting.

Well, I can't see any advantages or disadvanteges. Moons of Moons sounds a bit strange but if people like it, make it an optional feature. I mean, in Supcom and TA were a lot of maps that I didn't like, but that's not a problem for me. Nobody forces me to play them.

And so will it be with PA. If I doesn't like the map, I will go for another and this should be the best way for everyone.

veta, Yes... Yes it would... Maybe the two Commanders could kickback, relax and what an event taking place over hundreds, thousands... perhaps millions of years. How early do you want these "Unstable" orbits to be observed from?

As I've said on multiple occasions; Optional Feature Please! Let me TURN OFF THE IMPLAUSIBLE!

i was more thinking really unstable orbits that either result in collision or being flung out of the solar system.

such an orbit would occur if you design the map as such or cause it via orbit manipulation engines.

it's likely planetary revolutions won't actually take a super long time either

Maybe, but those are sudden death mechanics that should definitely be optional.

It ends when the person who generates it wants it to end, but to never have it happen just because you don't like it is silly.

Ow and a sub orbit of a couple of asteroids or a moon around another would just be an asteroid belt.

All of the sub orbitals would just constitute a asteroid belt around the original planet, no matter of they themselves orbit a moon or another asteroid.

So you are ok with a asteroid belt, but not with a asteroid belt that's made up with rocks that orbit each other as well, that would actually make more scientific sense anyway due to the way gravity works?

It sounds like you are arguing for and against the same thing.

You're misinterpreting me... I mean a third 'sub-moon' orbiting another moon, orbiting another moon, orbiting the first moon, orbiting a planet... such as in this image:


How is that useful at all?

Space, resources, kinetic weapons, staging bases.

It's terrain, saying that it's not useful is like saying mountains aren't useful, you have to apply strategy to them.

Such positions would be the first targets attacked by a invader, possible use in a staging zone for an invasion, setting up resources and factory's to push further down the chain and giving a position to place bombardment weapons to use in the siege or to simply use one of the micro moons as a bombardment weapon.

I like it as a way to allow players to ramp up an invasion of a planet without having to just straight up make the plunge.

*shakes head*

You're impossible to reason with, so I'm not going to even try.

Nevermind. Carry on dreaming in your world of pixie dust and 'no-clip' enabled sub-sub-sub satellites igncom1

Ditto, but then again you are the kind of person to accuse me of trolling, and then complain when people accuse you of the same.

If we're still in it for science, I simply don't get how the fact that these sub-moons eventually decay from orbit is relevant. Our own moon is doing that, just in the other direction. In who knows how many years, our moon will be floating out in the universe, and the earth will all of a sudden not have tides. And yet, here we are. *shrugs* I mean, I'll give that we've never seen it before, but then again, we have a hard enough time seeing planets (78 last I checked, probably more now), none of which feature earth's features, and yet it's theorized that there are potentially lots of earth like planets out there. That kind of astronomy is in it's baby stages at this point

From a gameplay perspective, it could be featured as an offensive base that has a window of opportunity to attack the planet at a certain point, but then is hidden by the moon, which forces an opportunity for both bases to make repairs and re-introduce gameplay units into the setting. This sort of gameplay never really could have happened traditionally in RTS, except maybe on island maps, but even then, the gameplay aspect is unique.

Though, I'll grant you that, as you say nanolathe, you can simply put an artificial base into orbit around a moon for the same effect. Still, the assumption that it would occur frequently is a little extreme. For all we know, it could be set to occur about as often as a worldwide supervolcano eruption, which is to say, almost never. Heck, it could naturally happen so infrequently that it could be given it's own achievement

Even if it doesn't happen naturally, I'm kinda excited to think about the gameplay implications this could make.

Sorry zoughtbaj but the constant stream of "I don't care, neither should you" sentiment that's been hurled towards me in this thread has killed my ardour for this topic.

Trying to argue a scientific standpoint with persons who obviously care not a flying-ferret about the position just loses its appeal after a few pages.

There's just no point in trying to talk sense to people who are actively refusing it in favour of nonsense.

To zoughtbaj, dmii, knight and a little bit of veta here and there;
Thanks for some reasonable discussions where we were able to compromise and all gain some illuminating facts about our solar system from each other. Thanks for Moons with Rings veta. I think Moons with Rings are cool, against all odds and probabilities... rings are always cool.

Peace, I'm out.

Just because I don't agree, that makes it an unreasonable discussion?

You are one of those people aren't you, who feels like they have to be right.

I didn't disagree with your evidence, I stated that even with that outcome the in-between process of a sub orbital being a sub-orbital is still an object that happens and so cant be used as a scientific reason to not have them in the game.

So then you asked my gameplay reasons as to why they should be included I stated:

and you stated that I was impossible to reason with:

So to say that my argument was unreasonable is just funny to me, I provided points and you just went of the handle about there being no reason for them even when I stated some reasons.

Claiming that you were the reasonable one in this isn't going to win you any favours when you act like that.

yeah...
without reading through that huge discussionexplosion let me just state that i am all for moons of moons (of moons).

I was almost stating that i'd like such a feature be restricted to the map editor and have autogenerated maps be more on the conservative side.
But the i thought about the implications for galactic war. i don't want to fight through and conquer a whole galaxy of conservative solar systems. I want there to be binary systems, moons of moons, maybe even three body type scenarios, planets in lagrange points. All the stuff that makes a solar system stand out and memorable. I don't care if it's likely or stable as long as it's not outright impossible, bring it on.

(Why would you insist on a stable system anyway, if you already are making plans to crash that moon into the other one)

... against my better judgement ...

---

igncom1, I do not agree that those are unique gameplay features that are created specifically by having pre-nested sub-satellite orbital bodies created at system generation.

Stop and re-read those words; created specifically... at system generation.
This is the last time I will say it;

• Map-Makers having the power to make maps with sub-satellites? Sure.
• Artificially created sub-satellites during gameplay? Sure.
• Forcing sub-satellites into the base game without an option to turn them off? No thank you.

Do you understand that?
If you do, great. If you don't then I see no point in arguing, m'kay?

Scientifically, it bothers me. Enough for me to go hunting for information and do some research on the subject. I searched and could find no evidence of these sub-satellites' existence in the real world...

I then considered any substantial gameplay that pre-nested sub-satellites could offer, that an asteroid belt or an artificial (one you'd put there yourself) sub-satellite couldn't offer...

I found none. I do not think anything you have said in your posts is unique to pre-nested sub-satellites igncom1.

I do not want them to randomly generate within the Random System Generation that I will experience in game without an option to turn it off. I am all for letting the TOOLS be there to create one for a custom map, should you so desire it.

I do not desire it. It feels "fake" without a legitimate gameplay reason for it being there.

Is that clear enough for you? Because I literally think I couldn't spell it out any clearer.

---

guzwaatensen, pretty much as above. If sacrificing science results in an increase in gameplay, Sure.
Sub-(sub to the nth degree-)satellites just don't offer anything that enriches gameplay for me. I'd like the option for them to not be there.

I'm willing to put my assertion to the test when the Alpha comes around, and I'll... I won't say gladly... but I will test maps with ... unorthodox planetary configurations. If I find that pre-nested sub-satellites actually improve gameplay beyond what could be achieved with artificial sub-satellites then I, as a scientifically principled person, will alter my view and accept pre-nested sub-satellites as a gameplay enriching experience.

Until such time; I am not convinced.

---

Is that more palatable for those who so vehemently disagree with me?
If it is tested, and the majority of players find no redeeming gameplay enriching qualities, can I please have a button to take pre-nested sub-satellites away within my own generated maps?