Orbital: how to make it work...

The UI for it is a bit complicated, that's true, although there are ways to simplify it considerably. First and most importantly, draw the path of the satellite's orbit on the planets surface. Knowing where the satellite passes over is more important then its actual orbit.

Secondly, either tie possible orbits to satellite types (ie. those make circular orbits, those make elliptic orbits) or give the player standard orbits to choose from, ie. Tundra orbit, etc.)

Let the player drag and drop the orbit around the planet, ie. I have an elliptic orbit that needs to avoid the enemy base, let me drag it away from it. Or I choose a Tundra orbit, then I just have to click on which place I want it to concentrate on and the game does the rest to set it up.

Basically, you set the orbit up by selecting the launcher, choosing from an orbit or unit type, drag it and deform it on the planet until you like the path the satellite takes and then, when it launches it will automatically fly towards it and start its path. (Making orbits based on apogee, radii etc. is very complicated and could be an option for those that really need extreme control. But setting an orbit based on its projected path on the ground is very simple for the human (although quite a bit complicated for the programmer that needs to implement that feature.)

And most importantly, satellites are locked into their orbits. Once they're there, they won't move out of it (unless they're special satellites that have that ability as a speciality). This limits all micromanagement to the launch of the satellite, afterwards you don't have to babysit them anymore.

Some hunter-killer satellite may be able to alter their orbits, but that would simply be a rightclick on an enemy target and the computer would calculate a Hohmann transfer orbit to attack from its predefined orbit.


(If you want to get fancy, you can give satellites limited thrusting. Ie. they're able to alter their projected path on the ground [perhaps to avoid some base or move faster over it] in some ways that isn't just based on a gravitic path. The computer would automatically adjust for that to get back to the same stable closed orbit afterwards. Ie. you can give a bit more fine control where the satellite moves in relation to the ground. But this would still happen in the pre-launch phase.)

It doesn't matter how they move. Orbits are not as static as you think, you need actually only surprisingly little thrust to change your orbit in any way you like, especially switching between phasing and geosync orbit is quite easy.
Don't believe me? Try Kerbal Space Program, their simulation is quite accurate in these terms, especially in hindsight on fuel consumption. You only wouldn't do that with real live, CIVIL satellites because they are supposed to be up there for years and even the most efficient engines wouldn't allow for more than a dozen orbit changes, however militarily satellites DO usually have sufficient fuel to change orbit a few times.

Same goes for counter measures, if it can reach orbit, it can also reach ANY orbit, you can't hide or evade up there in any way.
There is no reason to force the player to deal with real orbits, orbit is usually that high, it only determines which hemisphere you are covering, and that's just it. Fake geostationary orbit over any position the player likes or even global presence is just fine, fast phasing orbits would provide this very same coverage anyway.


What does matter though, is which role these units fulfill in the game.
Again, they were only designed by the "bigger, better, more expensive" scheme and thats the main issue with orbital units right now. They turned out to be just bigger, better versions of existing unit roles with nothing but advantages except for the futile attempt to hide them behind an economical barrier. And we are running the risk, that this is just the role they are going to keep in the final game, one of many overly expensive late game options, from which only few are ever chosen and then spammed.

We all are aware of how orbits work. That's no the issue. My point is that limiting orbits and how often they can change is good for gameplay as it lowers micro needed for it and differentiates it enourmously from other theatres of war. Because if orbital will be a full fledge battle area it will be a pain to always have to zoom out all the way to control those in addition to all the stuff on the ground.

Because IF you get orbital units in real orbits and you can change them all the time then you'll guaranteed get a complex nightmare to play with that doesn't fit the scope of the game at all. (Btw. the most important feature in kerbal is time compression. Without that (and we won't have that in PA) changing orbits is a veery slow process. Its not expensive, but nothing that reacts fast and controlling something that is slow in a RTS is usually very annoying and prone to micro (as you need to ensure no mistakes happen as correcting those mistakes again is slow).

Let me just copy a post from another thread:

Micro up there would just have this very effect, so screw the simulation and just give every player straight access to the benefits they would have from micro in a realistic simulation. And then continue by scaling the actual effects so that they become a valid option - which doesn't need to be hidden behind an economical barrier.

I think this would be nice. It really only has to stimulate orbits somewhat, it doesn't have to stimulate orbits perfectly, and it would be a pain to select or change orbits, or remember what units orbit where.

Maybe just a simple two part move order? Place a move beacon like you do now, and then an arrow pointing out. When done, the satellite will change its orbit so it passes through the move beacon, orbiting in the direction of the arrow. Maybe keep a ghost of the move order with an eta until arrival and alignment or something. I don't think that should be too complex.

EDIT: well, it's a bit different from what exterminans is suggesting, but either one is fine by me.