That's because they are using current systems, which is just air. Orbital mechanics will come in the next patch or something.
Must I really quote Neutrino again? He's using a slippery-slope fallacy, but there it is in black and white. They have no plans to use any orbital mechanics that even approach reality. Stop being such an apologist... and for goodness sake, check your facts before you so readily jump to Uber's aid.
Since the current "orbital" layer is temporary (using the air layer system), and the real one is not ready to play with yet, that must mean that there are differences between the two systems. And there is no point to complain about a lack of important feature during an alpha, especially if that feature has been announced as being in active developpement. And the goal of this game is too be fun, so if the reality-like orbiting system doesn't come well during gameplay, it's fair to make modifications, isn't it?
Speaking of checking facts @Nanolathe, Orbits that appear stationary *can* occur off the equator if you aren't solely relying on gravity. So saying they don't fit the definition of orbital is false, and in no way did they promise a particular kind of orbit.
But neutrino already said that satellites would not orbit. I don't know where the quote is but he said that satellites would be in a geosync orbit, and nowhere else. I know that orbits wern't advertised as a big deal, but I am still disappointed that they decided to go with a simple 'units float in space'. I thought that normal satellite orbits would come with normal planet orbits. I don't care if it will take longer to implement; I would much prefer normal orbiting (which isn't much more complex to have a grasp on) to pseudoscience space stuff.
Oh raevn, you're a funny guy. You can justify anything with bullshit, can'tcha? Satellites with infinite thrust, eh? I am in no mood to play that game today (or any other day)
If only this game was set in a future where tanks, aircraft, ships and pretty much everything had an unlimited power supply...
If only this were set in a future where you could just rationalise away inconsistencies and lazy design decisions with bullshit. Oh wait, that's exactly what Uber is doing here; making up excuses to be lazy and inconsistent. Here we have an RTS with fully simulated projectiles fully simulated 3D planet battlefields, each of which are going to be differentiated based upon planet class, gravity wells based on planet size for restricting Unit-Cannon targets, moving asteroids and moons to create either mobile battle and bombardment platforms, or turning them into literal KEWs of mass desruction, all the while performing hohmann transfer orbital injections and slingshots within simulated n-body systems... And you're telling me that Orbital Units behaving like they should is "too deep", that it is "inconsistent" and out of "sync" with the design? Are you trying to be funny?
Nanolathe, orbital units locked into geosync orbit makes more sense with the design then 'true orbital', or at least in the case of pure radar at any rate ( which is all we have to go on)... over a battle waiting five or more minutes while your radar comes back around is going to get very annoying very quickly, yes I agree that it would be cool if more powerful orbitals had orbits ( vision, weapons etc) to create a sense of movement and dread to the weapons ( think super-weapon from red alert for example) but what we have at the moment has to of use to a player. Otherwise the number of satellites lost to catapults and the semi random radar would result in them never been used, especially considering the cost of them...
Jesus nanolathe, your constant trolling of these forums is really getting on my tits. I know you will probably argue that they are heated discussions on something that you are clearly very passionate about but the "if its not nanolathes way of doing stuff then it is wrong" mentality you fill all your posts with is getting incredibly old and annoying.
Oh, so Orbital units have a niche and a downside? It's not just a quick-fix, solve all solution? Maybe you should be using ground based radar, rather than Orbital then, hmm? Oh and the "cost" of them is f*cking ridiculous. If that kind of ludicrous cost sticks for the final release that's the first thing I'm changing once I get my hands on any form of modding software.
Firstly, you are excusing every other scientific innacuracy, which is rife throughout the game, but this one is somehow inexcuseable? Secondly, "you're telling me that Orbital Units behaving like they should is "too deep", that it is "inconsistent" and out of "sync" with the design". No I'm not. Again, strawman. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said any of that, and you did the same thing in the other thread. Thirdly, my objection to the style of orbit you want is for gameplay reasons which may effectively make them useless. Avoiding bad gameplay is not lazy design. Fourthly, you are assuming (again) that I am fundamentally against orbiting as you would like to see it. I'm not, and said as much in the other thread. I just see several gameplay issues with them being implemented in that way. If those are worked out, fine. On the other hand, if satellites are kept as they are, I don't really mind.
I never said the other inaccuracies are excusable, I just don't mind them. By your own word, you don't mind if orbital units act like a wet-navy in space. I do mind that... I mind that a lot. Your gameplay concerns with realistic orbital movement can be addressed, and should be. However I am firmly against the Air 2.0 units staying as they are. This is a time when actually innovating on the gameplay, and letting emergent strategies evolve is much more preferable than sitting safe of Air 2.0 We all have our own battles raevn. What's your stake in this one if you don't really mind?
Just in case you've interpreted it this way, I'm not advocating Air 2.0. That's a related, but different, issue. And I am against that. Non-stationary orbits however are not a requirement to avoid this though. As per my post, I only don't mind the stationary orbits at the moment. I do mind non-stationary orbits as I don't yet have sufficient evidence that my concerns about gameplay issues can be resolved. If they are shown to be able to work, and that's the way that's chosen, then awesome.
Then we're fighting across purposes. As long as they can be made to work, we're cool. I advocate at least trying to make them work. Testing them and finding creative answers to difficult questions, rather than keeping them as they are, as Air 2.0. Because that is neither realistic, nor awesome.
Satellites are still units, it's still early days to deal with the cost of the units right now, but any ground based anti-satellite defences are most likely going to be automatic rather than nuke missile style of manual launch. A few of these around the base would mean any satellite on the wrong orbit from launch would get shot down. You wouldn't be able to have a group go in all at once. If the enemy has bases on all sides of the planet then it is not worth it to build orbital units at all because when built it would get shot down whatever the orbit. Simply having that in place (when you still have free space above your own base) is just crippling any use for orbital units whatsoever.
I'm 100% with Nanolathe, he's not trolling just telling it like it is. There has to be a nod to reality otherwise the game descends into farce. Anyone defending the current implementation of satellites must understand that what they do is not orbiting and therefore they can't be called satellites. Currently they behave like anti-gravity machines which are weirdly restricted to a spherical surface above the planet. That might be good enough for some of you, and I'm sure anti-gravity technology could be within the grasp of these futuristic robots, but if that is the case, why do they look like satellites, why are they called satellites and why are they bizarrely restricted to a spherical surface above the planet surface.
Nanolathe is passionate, much more than I personally could ever get over an issue. My normal solution to something I'm unhappy with is either fix it, remove it or ignore it. Not... Wage a holy war against gods. But I am still in agreement with him. Orbiting Orbital should be, at the least, tried out. If nobody likes it, okay then. There's already a system in place to get this stuff to work, so might as well use it. It'd be hacky, yes, it'd involve declaring man-made Satellites as moons, yes, but at least we (meaning the Uber devs) TRIED right?
It doesn't really matter whether they are in a real orbit or not, at least not gameplay wise. But there is still some horribly broken about the current concept of "orbital" units which makes it feel so weird in the first place. Why would you usually send something into orbit? No, not just to deploy it faster, that's what you have stealth bombers and alike for. You put satellites into high orbit to get coverage over an large area or even the whole planet AT ONCE at the expense of reduced(!!!) effectiveness. The current iteration of "satellites" has neither the coverage nor the drawbacks you would expect from a unit in the orbital layer, which renders the concept broken. It doesn't matter how units in this layer or their movement represented, what matters is the role the fulfill.
