My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k words)

Re: My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k wor

That expanding orbital may be something better done at a later date (like in a expansion) may be true, but im not sure how they would do gas giant battles (all orbital) without it...

That it would simply be "naval in space" is also kinda true, but you can make them differ enof so that they arent just space versions of naval.

For example, you could make the naval battles of the game be more like modern navy (big focus on carriers and smaller destroyers, battleships are kinda out dated). While the orbital battles may be more old navy (most cannons at the sides, so broadsides and stuff).

There are likely better ways, but thats just one example i took from the top of my head without thinking about it much.

Well the same can be said for any of the stretch goals including naval. That it wasent part of the orginal vision dosent mean that it cant (or shouldent) be included.

While i do share your concern that space ship like orbital units could eclipse existing gameplay i belive that Uber could balance them not to be.

For example with strong anti orbital weaponry or/and most ships cant fire onto the surface (Its easy to make up a fluff reason, for example: The robots would have some sort of prime directives that they cant change programmed into them, one being not destroying a planet from orbit using space ships, the "astroid bombardment / metal planet weaponry" could be a way the robots found around this directive).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basicly, i belive that most of the flaws of space ship like orbital combat could be worked out (not without effort) and that it could be added as a fun addition to the game. However, as i wrote earlier, you may be right that its better suited for an expansion.

But the orbital gameplay would be kinda boring with the allternative "just satellites" (especially since its been said that gas giants will be "all orbital")...

... Well it could be fun to but i just cant envision it, i hope Uber releases some more info about orbital soon...

Re: My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k wor

You don't need spaceships for Gas Giants. It's plausible that there could be by default an above average number of moons/asteroids orbiting GGs, allowing for that core aspect for gameplay to still exist(if somewhat muted) and allowing for a larger focus on Orbital around GGs compared to other planets.

Mike

Re: My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k wor

As i said, it could be fun. But i just cant envision it...

Having a all out war over a whole planet (well gas giant) using satellites only (unless you use some sort of artillery from the surrounding moons/asteroids to take down things on the gas giant)...

Well perhaps uber has some other kind of orbital unit hidden in their pockets, i realy would love some more info on how they are planning orbital :roll: . Or maybe they have scrapped the whole "orbital only" idea and use some sort of floating ilands or something.


Of course i would still like spaceships :lol: .

Re: My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k wor

You're forgetting the possibility of moons and asteroids here, Are Water planets boring because you can't have land? No, they're different, and it's having those kind of differences that really change up the game and make it way more interesting.

Mike

Re: My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k wor

Having moons and astroids around the planet dosent change the fact that the planet itself would still be only satellites. And that i would find boring (atleast i think so, but i admit that i could be wrong).

The naval planets can be realy fleshed out with aloot of naval units and air, but try fleshing out "satellites only combat" and making them interesting without making them into semi space ships.

Re: My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k wor

Your version of Gas Giants sounds really boring. What about Gas Giants with no moons? There should be no planet type that depends on other planet types to make them interesting...

Re: My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k wor

Go full steam punk. Gigantic gas blimps everywhere, laying siege to the moons flying overhead!

Of course, that's assuming GGs have a surface at all. They could very well be pure orbital battlefields, where moons duke it out like some kind of glorified air map. Any way they're set up, strong and effective orbital tools will be a must.

Re: My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k wor

I always feel a little sad when reading orbital threads. There seems to be the assumption that satellites are boring, and that the only way to make space combat interesting is to mix Age of Sail naval combat with a sprinkling of WW2 dogfighting. And that's just not true.

I've already suggested in a different thread three possible ways of doing it differently. Fundamentally, in order to differentiate itself, orbital combat MUST make use of orbital mechanics, even if it's in a limited form. It's true that the maths behind orbital mechanics is complex, but that's what the computer is for. The actual number of things that a player needs to specify are pretty small, I really don't think it's that difficult to construct a UI that makes it easy and intuitive. Even for a complete novice.

I reckon that there are is one fundamental rule to making a decent form of orbital combat, which draws inspiration from how things actually move in space:

The speed of an object at any given time depends upon it's orbital path, not how big it's engine is.

This creates a system where there are advantages and dis-advantages to following different orbital paths. Do you want your "Rod's from Gods" satellite to be in the high or low orbit when bombarding an enemy base? The former means it will loiter longer, and drop more ordinance, the latter means a quick fly-over, reducing it's chance to be hit.

There are all kinds of interesting decisions to make when orbital combat is done with an actual hint of orbital mechanics. None of which requires any real expansion of the scope of the scope of the game, or requires the player to have prior familiarity with how orbit's work. I really hope that orbital combat doesn't get sold short to make yet another instance of Battleships 'n' Broadsides IN SPAAACE.

Re: My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k wor

While satellites could be fun, I don't think orbital layer should be exclusively satellites. I'm hoping for combat in the orbital layer as in combat that can take place in the orbital layer only. If that ends up being possible with satellite vs satellite then so be it, but they might as well be units at that point too.

Re: My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k wor

Mechjeb represent!

Orbital mechanics are tough enough with computer support as is. Making it a central point of gas giant warfare will fry a lot of brains.

Re: My hope for the orbital Layer (pictures are worth 1k wor

Ahh, a fellow KSPer. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few KSP players on these forums. The only difference between crashing a rocket into a planet, and crashing an asteroid is one of scale.

With regards to orbital mechanics being counter-intuitive, an awful lot of the complexity can be simplified with intelligent UI choices. The key question is how the player defines an orbit. If the orbits are limited to circular orbits of variable inclinations, then an orbit can be defined with only two mouse clicks. If the full range of orbits is permitted, then it is no more complex then drawing an ellipse in a paint program, with a few bounding conditions, and some additional action to alter inclination. I would suggest a necessary simplification is that interplanetary transfers are handled simply by specifying an orbit around the targeting body, removing any and all need for a player to consider transfer windows, and burn vectors.

I'm actually tempted to see if I can knock up a tech demo or two to show what I mean. I don't have any experience with developing graphics, but the back-end maths is certainly within my grasp.