Orbital units - 2 directions

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by neutrino, August 28, 2013.

  1. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    For more advanced satellites, that 'could' be fun, but for any basic tier I really feel like a raiding kind of unit would be best, as to prevent massed satellites from becoming a thing.
  2. Ortikon

    Ortikon Active Member

    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    183
    Totally agree about the range. I spent a walk home thinking about this. I think that by the time players are in space they will have lots of catapault launchers (assuming this is what is used) Out of fairness I think that the effective range vs orbit should be a smaller radius to represent the less effective use of the missiles and the energy required to get them to target. So the position of a few catapaults in your base would be more like have an anti-nuke system range that takes out stuff directly above the base give or take a little range.
  3. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    Madsci has some good stuff. It is perhaps too focused on the big guns, but it has plenty of things for little weapons to do.
    The only way for this NOT to happen is to keep the orbital layer so far away from the planet that nothing can reach it. Hello UI issues!

    Man, these things are always going to be a hot point of contention. The long range ground stuff will have to change as orbital play gets further refined. Currently there is little difference between catapult vs. lobber, but that could change dramatically with orbital. Are sat busting missiles cool? Sure. Ordnance interception systems are also a neat way to protect against specific types of weapon spam. The power of mega artillery on the ground can be a completely secondary feature, with the main appeal being its interaction between orbits and worlds.
    Uh oh. We're having a T3 experrrrrimentals in space moment. Don't do it! Think of the children!

    There's nothing wrong with having a few impressive weapon in space. But don't get carried away with "big explosions and nuclear fallout" on every single thing that gets up there. A rod from god shouldn't be putting classic artillery to shame, not when everything on the field is already using hyper fusion etc.etc. megatech. The only advantage from space is getting the speed of gravity, when PA cannons can already get these speeds without much effort. (actually, the majority of KEW speed comes from orbital velocity, which you can't get without having the power to put the projectile up there in the first place)
  4. menchfrest

    menchfrest Active Member

    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    55
    I want there to orbital to orbital combat and orbital to ground and vice versa. My preference is for it to be light on orbital to orbital combat. Ground to orbit combat and vice versa would have cost with engaging in it, not just having cost on the units, cost on the order of a significant fraction of putting cheap unit up, minimum.

    I would also suggest that a lower tier version of orbital play would have little to no combat and the defense from the ground would be a kind of 'laser blinding' tower that could hit 1 to a few units. A higher tier would acutally start involving weapons w/sufficient energy to do damage back and forth and sufficient complexity satellites(or heavy enough launchers) that you can put that up there.

    I do assume something orbital-ish for these though, not sure how I feel without that.
  5. Ortikon

    Ortikon Active Member

    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    183
    The only way for this NOT to happen is to keep the orbital layer so far away from the planet that nothing can reach it. Hello UI issues!

    This is assuming that we are only worried about range and not just a units inability to actually shoot via being made not able to.
  6. aeonsim

    aeonsim Active Member

    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    42
    I certainly hope so! I certainly would love to be able to rain Kinetic energy weapons on something foolish enough to pass under a bombardment Sat. Though I think multiple smaller projectiles might be more fun than 1 big metal bar. 20 or so small kinetic weapons launched at once and pockmarking the ground where the hit would be rather cool! High damage small to medium radius capable of striking any ground or sea unit directly (or close too) below the Sat, with make a slow reload rate...

    Also all the rest would be awesome as well!

    KEWs!
    [​IMG]
    Last edited: August 28, 2013
  7. neutrino

    neutrino low mass particle Uber Employee

    Messages:
    3,123
    Likes Received:
    2,687
    What's the point in having bots and tanks? What's the point in having naval? Why air? What's the point in doing anything at all?
    stuart98, SXX, Antiglow and 1 other person like this.
  8. krakanu

    krakanu Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    540
    Likes Received:
    526
    The point is to

    BLOW

    ****

    UP!
  9. Ortikon

    Ortikon Active Member

    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    183
    PA stands for Planetary Agreement now? Lets build wonders and trade spices.

    uuuuughhh ...
  10. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    =I
  11. osirus9

    osirus9 Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    14
    Um I think he's in the minority here... If somebody tells me I can nuke an enemy base I'm like "yea thats kinda neat, but I've seen it a million times" But if they tell me I can have orbital bombardment platforms? Orbitally launched nukes? I say "HELL YES I'M DOWN FOR THAT!"

    I imagine the main purpose of orbital nuke satellites is to launch interplanetary nuke strikes, or to bring nukes with you to enemy planets. Both of which seem different and awesome.

    As an aside, I'm very impressed with Jon Mavor for taking the time to listen to the community and really consider changing the way the game mechanics work based on that feedback. That's something a lot of companies claim, but few actually deliver on. Way to deliver Uber! My hat is off to you!
    LavaSnake and cmdandy like this.
  12. mushroomars

    mushroomars Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,655
    Likes Received:
    319
    I think gigantic explosions have actually grown on me. I've seen enough of them, I never use WMDs anymore.

    Kinda weird to say that... I get much more enjoyment out of a well-planned ambush falling into my place and the thought of my enemy silently tearing his or her hair out as he looses an entire battalion of units to artillery and Scampers.

    Yes, I am a Tzeentch player.
  13. Ortikon

    Ortikon Active Member

    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    183

    And having these alleged repeating units also adds a bit of variety seeing as we dont have factions.
    We instead have "you nuke from the ground, well Im gonna nuke from up here"
    We have a variety of methods of employing similar weapons. It is no longer using THE nuke, it is employing A nuke from _____.
  14. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    Ah, that's better. =D
    BulletMagnet likes this.
  15. menchfrest

    menchfrest Active Member

    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    55
    Equality for nukes everywhere! /sillyness
  16. osirus9

    osirus9 Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    14
    This.

    I loved the variety from TA where there were always a few ways to do the same thing. Sometimes choosing different units was more advantageous, sometimes it was merely preference. But its always more interesting to have more variety AS LONG AS each unit is still a viable choice.

    Also, please @mushroomars .... is there ever REALLY enough orbital bombardment? (the answer is no)

    I too enjoy setting up an ambush, and using my tanks to kill a juicy undefended swarm of fabbers or what have you. But there are always times when you need to just nuke (or in this case, bombard) it from orbit.
  17. aeonsim

    aeonsim Active Member

    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    42
    An orbital Nuke Satellite could be a mid game semi-mobile nuke platform, much better than the mobile nuke units (wasn't there a crawler) some of the TA modpacks used. And is an alternative to Nuke Subs for when playing on a map with out water...
  18. cobycohodas

    cobycohodas Member

    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    2
    Super interesting discussion.

    All I have to say is:
    1. Orbital mechanics: go with whatever is fun to play, not ridiculously complex to use, and easy for devs to implement so more time can be spent developing all awesome aspects of the game.

    2. Orbital layer unit count/diversity being pretty big is awesome- truly ads a new layer to game that is clearly not air 2.0 due to its unit diversity & originality & variety of attack/defence/economy options and strategies.

    3. I still have utter faith in Uber to make an amazing game.
  19. YourLocalMadSci

    YourLocalMadSci Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    766
    Likes Received:
    762
    Obviously all units should be replaced with self replicating grey goo in order to maximise efficiency. Each bot is a perfect cubic micron in size, and capable of absorbing all materials necessary to fuel itself and reproduce. All battles are decided as efficiently as possible, by means of whoever absorbs the first quantity of metal, and will thus be capable of maintaining a superior exponential growth curve, meaning all battles are instantly awarded to the victor after a few seconds.

    On a more relevant note, I am very much all for the idea of both orbital-orbital and orbital ground interactions, including anything from nukes, to tungsten rods, to death rays, to EMP bombs. I still believe that the orbital layer should lean more towards support rather than direct combat, but fire support by means of vulnerable orbital artillery is still support.
    smallcpu and KNight like this.
  20. MrTBSC

    MrTBSC Post Master General

    Messages:
    4,834
    Likes Received:
    1,816
    to which degree do you intent surface units to be able to fight back orbital?
    how do you envision a two planet battle to work out?
    will a player be able to send satelites via rockets to other planets?
    because this i consider a bit of an issue
    say the enemy sends in a spysat and 2 or more bombingsats and spot my commander (just ignoring all the other stuff he and i have built before for this example)
    what would be my options to defend my commander against that from the surface other then tac missiles or surface nukes assuming i CAN use them? how much could i use my navy or mobile missilelaunchers against them?
    the thing is people envision this whole thing differently in which case it gets a bit difficult or confusing to understand how much content you guys actualy want to implement into orbital and how much the different layers interact with each other so we either wait for the builds to be available to see for ourselves then judge or you guys may explain it to us to eventualy clear the confusion and concerns some may have ..

    can we maybe not make fun of each other when there are obscurities in a discussion?
    Last edited: August 29, 2013

Share This Page