Orbital: reduced complexity vs Air 2.0

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by guzwaatensen, August 26, 2013.

  1. exterminans

    exterminans Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    986
    I can't remember who suggested to make all pgens consume metal in return for the energy production, but that is just what is missing within the concept of energy as upkeep and kind of invalidates your worries about spamable space navy.
  2. BulletMagnet

    BulletMagnet Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes Received:
    591
    Spehss Nevvies are not what we pledged for.

    Go here if you want them.
  3. schuesseled192

    schuesseled192 Active Member

    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    219
    Why did you post this thread? When there was already a thread on orbital mechanics on the first page.

    hmmm ;)

    Except air units and artillery can't attack the orbital layer, and they shouldn't because frankly that doesn't make any sense. :mad:

    Point defenses on a planetary scale would inevitably cost a **** ton more than a navy would to build, if they have a heavily fortified base no doubt you have ten billion battleships hence rendering their turtling strategy inept. :(

    That doesn't actually make any sense either. :confused:

    ---

    @mushroommars, i suppose sins can't be to everyone's taste, i always liked building a fleet that consisted of just 20 MOTHERF*CKING CAPITAL ships, which admittedly were the only interesting unit. (The only real problem i had with that game was the extremely long amount of time things took to die)
    Last edited: August 27, 2013
  4. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    NO SPACE NAVY. The orbital layer, at a minimum, has to support ground warfare by allowing planetary warfare. You don't need "ships in spess" for that.
    Wait, why can't artillery attack stuff in orbit? It's one of the few weapons with enough reach to make it possible.
  5. exterminans

    exterminans Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    986
    Good luck at aiming.

    Rocket artillery DOES meet the prerequisites though, and should IMHO be the weapon of choice to shoot down spacecraft, but again only with the limitation that every single shot must be payed for on such artillery.
    (This does NOT include the rocket artillery bot, but only catapult and bigger units, including nukes.)
  6. mushroomars

    mushroomars Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,655
    Likes Received:
    319
    Space Navies move really slowly and in predictable patterns. Even if you have a rocket with barely enough velocity to breach atmo (as in, traveling upward at a visible rate of about 1km/h), you can still hit the ship assuming it remains in LoS and doesn't deviate from its flight path.
  7. schuesseled192

    schuesseled192 Active Member

    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    219
    Oh is it magic artillery? I didn't know that.

    (artillery shells don't have enough speed to attain escape velocity!)

    maybe if they were fired from a moon, i dunno.
  8. mushroomars

    mushroomars Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,655
    Likes Received:
    319
  9. menchfrest

    menchfrest Active Member

    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    55
    To hit something in orbit from the ground you do not need to hit escape or orbital velocity, you need to only get enough height. An orbit is not really about how high you are, but about speed. A bullet standing still at the right height will punch a hole through a satellite ramming into it.

    This may help http://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
    BulletMagnet likes this.
  10. iyenrithe

    iyenrithe Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    5
    Last edited: August 27, 2013
  11. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    Oh really? A game about literally smashing planets to bits, and that's where you're going to draw the line? FYI Space guns aren't so outlandish using today's primitive tech.

    Shooting across a round planet means dealing with orbital trajectories. Things are going to be in orbit. Therefore, artillery will be able to shoot things in orbit. Why would you expect otherwise?
    Last edited: August 27, 2013
  12. exterminans

    exterminans Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    986
    It's not about getting the projectile up there.

    It's about hitting the target. And don't tell me, that you are going to shoot an object with a diameter of <1m over a distance of a few hundred kilometers without having active steering on the projectile.

    That's just not going to happen, rockets are the only reliable option to get satellites down, but then again, a rocket is not bound at firing at a target which is right above your head, it can travel once around the globe at ease, given enough fuel and proper aerodynamics. (Low atmosphere for travel, and then go up into the orbit for the strike... Don't waste any fuel at trying to reach orbital velocity!)
    Last edited: August 27, 2013
  13. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    In reality, that could be a problem. Actually, no it wouldn't. PA weapons are already shooting across continents, which would correspond to thousands of km on the ground. A few hundred km is child's play at that point. Find the target, lead it, shoot. Satellites were never very agile.

    In game, orbital distances are going to be very similar to continental distances. If an arty gun can hit something across the planet, it can certainly hit something in space. Just consider it the new "bertha cannon hits bomber" effect.
  14. exterminans

    exterminans Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    986
    "Lead it". Nice try, look at the spread even PA weapons have. You are never going to hit the target unless you get an really lucky shot. Hitting an target of 1 meter diameter over a mere 100km range requires an deviation of less than 0.0005°.

    I mean, some of the naval weapons in PA even shoot once around the planet (if they miss their target), and yet they don't even manage to hit a commander unit which is only a few hundred meters away.

    Let me clarify this:
    I guess most of you will know the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment. What most people don't understand, is that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to fire an focused laser beam at the reflector and still hit the target. Actually, the laser beam which hit the reflector, head widened to a diameter of over 6.5 km on the moon, and it still took several attempts to aim.
    Shooting a falling dime over a 2-3km range would be about to scale for this diameter.

    Shooting at an satellite would be AT LEAST just as difficult, and that is only if you were able to shoot straight upwards, aiming at the satellite at the shortest distance, if you could ignore the influence of the atmosphere on the projectile and if the satellite wouldn't move on so you didn't had to aim ahead.
    Last edited: August 27, 2013
  15. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    Nice hussle, but you're not going to win this one. Projectiles are physics based. Wherever they shoot, that's where they hit. Good luck finding a ballistic weapon that can cross planets without knocking down a few sats along the way.

    Space units kind of have to be large, because space IRL is severely limited by cooling capacity. A high energy nuclear generator would not work without a large surface area to provide cooling. That surface area makes a very large target out of an otherwise lightweight machine. Big target == easier shot. Uber seems to be going with large orbital units at this point, a very cromulent way to disadvantage their high position.

    There's no limitation on what type of weapons can be used to shoot sats down. If an arty weapon can make a direct hit, that's fine. Any weapon with slight seeking capacity will work exceptionally well. Shotgun scatter rays will also have little difficulty pointing straight into the sky for some kills. Nukes are clearly overkill, but the more precise SMD shouldn't have any problem scoring hits.

    But perhaps the problem here is that you can't provide a list of weapons that should be able to attack satellites. Here's a protip: allow as many as possible. The alternative is asking for trouble.
  16. exterminans

    exterminans Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    986
    Uh, careful with that.

    While I agree on the "many" part, I don't agree with the "many as possible".
    There is a certain prerequisite, shooting down satellites must not be for free. That means if a weapon is supposed to be able to fire at targets at an virtually unlimited range (either on planet or in orbit), then it must also have a cost assigned to every single shot.

    So even if a projectile could hit the target (like the battleship projectiles), it shouldn't be allowed to, as long as the caused damage would be out of scale for the operational cost of the attacking unit.

    Right now, this condition is only fulfilled by the nuke launcher, although the catapult would be a candidate too, if it had a build cost for each missile.
  17. l3tuce

    l3tuce Active Member

    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    76
    Here's an idea,

    Instead of space boats or space planes, Orbital units are buildings.

    You click the orbital factory, and que up a satellite, once it's ready you select the satellite, then click one point on the map, and drag in a direction. A ring will show up around the planet, and when you let go the satellite will launch. It will travel to the point you clicked and then begin to travel in a circle around the world in the direction you selected.

    This is not a real orbit as defined by the laws of Kepler or Newton. It is however traveling around the planet in a cute little pseudo-orbit. It looks orbit-y and adds depth, but doesn't require any sort of complex systems or knowledge or orbital mechanics.

    Most satellites would stay in these static orbits, but some might be able to fly around in space. They would never however stay in one point, they could speed up, slow down, or change direction, but they would always be traveling in circles around the planet. The only time they would come to rest would be relative to other orbital units such as when attacking, assisting, or building.

    Because the units would be moving relative to the planet's surface, it would be a lot different than air 2.0 because any effect they might possibly have relating to the ground would be defined by the timing of there orbital cycle. If you want to have 100% coverage with space radar, you need to build several radar sats. Or you could have just one and get a sweeping view of the planet. It won't provide up to date intel, but it will show you what there base looks like.
  18. KNight

    KNight Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,681
    Likes Received:
    3,268
    See this is the kind of thing we've been wanting all along.

    Mike
    l3tuce likes this.
  19. Neumeusis

    Neumeusis Active Member

    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    97
    This is the kind of orbital mechanic i would prefer for the game.
    Simple : create an orbital unit, choose it's path, done.

    Sometime select it to give it some kind of orders (in case of an offensive unit, like a DeathRay or Nuke Launcher or anything), but that's all.

    Different from Ground, different from Air, very predictable behaviour so no need to constantly babysit the units, very strong supportive role, with a downside of not being constantly available.

    For me it's a win...

    Edit : cleaned the post a little bit, mainly because off-topic, and i also catched up with neutino's and YouLocalMadSci's threads...
    Last edited: August 28, 2013
    l3tuce likes this.

Share This Page