I completely agree with that. Then try playing one of the mods were the Novax was pushed on par with nukes and was counterable with anti nukes. Still didn't work so well (actually turned into an Air 2.0 unit, with anti nuke silos as AA).
Agreed with your second point. I didn't like MadSci's interpretation of Orbital Combat (and even said so in the thread) but it was the total shredding of the idea and zero comprimise shown by Neutrino that was unwarranted. As to why I still post? I payed money. I invested in this project. I'm going to try to steer it towards a better path. Even if the Devs refuse to give me a wheel I can find at least a voice here in the forums... and maybe a few like-minded individuals to talk with. Why do I still post? A sense of ownership and sheer bloody-mindedness.
That was a rhetorical question though, i was merely pointing out that you haven't lost as much hope as you tried to imply... Now, I sincerely hope that the devs do find it within themselves to respond to our concerns next week, even if all the shitstorms might look intimidating...
I don't agree with taking away player control though that could be an interesting experiment. In my opinion that pretty much fixed the Novax. Novax spam was only a problem because of the crazy scaling of supcom economies. It only seemed like air 2.0 because there was only a direct fire satellite rather than an assortment of support satellites.
I like answering rhetorical questions. In any case there's still the modding scene. Once I and a few of my compatriots get our hands on that code... There is a silver lining to these blackened storm clouds.
I wouldn't say this actually "fixed" the Novax. Instead the Novax suddenly played like any regular experimental aircraft, except that you had to look out for anti nukes instead of AA. And yeah, hopefully they don't screw up the server architecture so that modding actually remains possible. And not just to the level where all you can do is replacing numbers and graphics.
Having to waste your anti nukes to counter a satellite does only mean one thing: That satellite is game ender class. Or in other terms: It's to big, it just became an experimental unit with all the drawbacks, like never being used in a competitive game unless completely overpowered. Oh, and it behaves just like any regular air unit, except that it moves in a unintuitive hight and is invulnerable to regular AA measures.
i would like to answer that as well: The counter is not at all relevant if the premise is entirely different. You are arguing against yourself here, the problem of finding a meaningful counter to satellites is only a problem if that's the only thing that separates them from other units. If satellites play a complete different role than other units you can counter them in any amount of different ways from dedicated ground based weaponry to allowing for example everything that has cruise missiles to also fire into the orbital layer... EDIT: One thing that is completely mandatory though is that orbiting units cannot attack other orbiting units. Otherwise it's: Spacecombat in orbit A new layer that can be fought on, diverting your attention rendering many good ideas for orbital speciality units useless
It's not baseless opinion though. He's pretty much on the money for those of us who really despise Air 2.0 and the thought of another layer to divide our attention from the real battles on the ground.
I must agree with Nanolathe and guzwaatensen, the main focus of the game is on the planets surface and every feature which does not take place on it, must be designed in such way that is requires only a minimum of attendance in the corresponding viewport. Direct, interactive space combat violates that paradigm as it requires personal attendance over an extended period to manage the satellite as defender/attacker. And so does the use of real or even just simulated orbital mechanics, too.
I hate to admit defeat, but you're right exterminans. Orbital mechanics aren't important for the Orbital Layer... But neither is having direct control over the units there.
Possibly >Destroy power. >Destroy launcher. >Build jamming to counter a radar sat (Provided we get jamming). >Build spy planes to counter a jamming sat. The only way to counter a catapult or lobber is to kill it. At least orbital gives you more options. It doesn't have to be a game ender to justify it being expensive or needing anti-nukes to counter it. It could be a late game surveillance option or jamming option that's difficult to counter but is expensive because of this. Anyways it doesn't have to be anti-nukes. It could just be a catapult or it could even be nukes if you need to target it from far away. How else can orbital be countered? If it's by orbital fighters it's definitely air 2.0 , if it's by anti nukes , catapults or nukes it's apparently air 2.0 , if it's by AA it's air 1.0, if it's by air then it's really looking like air 2.0 again. At least by tying it to your power and launcher it's a bit different. It has to be countered by something and no matter what anyone says I feel like it's going to be called air 2.0.
It's no different than the Novax launcher. Hell, at that rate it's no different than a catapult, an infinite-range weapon that can only die by attacking the base in which it was built. And before you say it's not a weapon becasue it's "intel only", Information is a weapon. Knowledge over your opponent is a weapon. Denying information to the enemy is an attack.
But it doesn't have be a weapon..... And it can't be over your base as anyone in their right mind will have a counter. We might as well remove nukes then.
I wouldn't mind removing Nukes. They're a horrible binary Work/Don't work mechanic that relies on you opponent either forgetting about Anti-Nukes, or failing to defend them.
Not at all. They're just a poorly implemented unit pair. Teleporting is fine. It's bullshit, and there's no hard counter other than stopping your opponent getting to that stage of the game... But I like that. Not everything must have a "hard" counter.
