Orbital units - 2 directions

Feel that I need to say something rather than I have anything good to say.

Suspension of disbelief is the wrong concept here. The heritage of the game is that it is a simulation, that was a key differentiator of TA and Supcom from games like starcraft. The most obvious effect is with real projectiles and all that comes along with them. Air, land and sea feel like reasonable simulation’s, orbital as Air2.0 does not.

On to air2.0, what is the point, ok it is an easy way to make the gas giant stretch goal but above that I mean: why and meh and various combination thereof. Why not go for a land -1.0 and have tunnelling units, it feel to me like the same principle of taking the same mechanic and putting on a different layer.

I think something like polar and true geosych orbits can work, I think they will be too much dev time to get a intuitive UI worked out within the kickstarter budget.

Why not just make orbital a transport layer and nothing else, a means of getting from planet to planet, rockets, unit canons, space transports, etc. orbital is then something you move through but don’t stay in. Add orbital combat in an expansion if that floats your boat but get the transport element nailed first.

If I had to put the dreaded compromise hat on a come up with a solution I don’t like, have air2.0 have low acceleration but more importantly make it so the units cannot stop, they always have to be moving relative the planet surface, that would truly make it different and low acceleration would hopefully stop everyone just moving things in a tight circle.

Or to look at it another way you’re going to get it wrong, get it wrong in way that costs you the least amount of money. Fail fast principle. Complex orbital I would love to see, but would fail too slow.

Air layer 2.0 I don’t like, but it’s not my choice.

Work on a cheap and easy way to get interplanetary transport and keep throwing cheap and easy alternative orbital fighting solutions at the alpha and see what sticks. It won’t be logical winner something will fall into fashion and become accepted by the majority, go with that.

The solution I'm most pleased with is the idea that you'd be able to set up a circular 'orbit,' and once something is in orbit you would be unable to control its movement, much like a building. This gives it a significantly different feel than 'Air 2.0,' as well as being very easy to understand on an intuitive level (people 'get' the idea that an orbiting object circles the larger body. Anything more complex runs into ease-of-use problems, and anything simpler doesn't feel much like 'orbiting.')

This, however, has a couple significant issues. One that's most commonly brought up is being forced to enter an opponent's territory. This depends entirely on how 'interactive' the orbital and surface levels are. If they require the production of specific buildings to interact (much like the antinuke missile launcher), then it should be fine. If there is a very high level of interaction, then we have to come up with something new.

When it comes to fabrication in space, it's simple to simply have whatever is 'fabricated' move into a new orbit, dictated by a rally-point of move-order in much the same way that the initial sat. launch would work. That way you can send over attack sats to engage enemy orbital assets, and eventually the orbital layer becomes more and more 'crowded.'

The lack of interaction is a problem though, I'll admit. A possible solution is to allow for a change in the direction of an orbit, but relatively little change in velocity. I can imagine this being frustrating to control, however, if someone wanted to make a 'concerted' attack on an enemy base. Indeed, I think that's going to be the biggest issue; synchronizing orbital assets so they can act in a concerted fashion. Disallowing control would remove that as a potential point of 'frustration.'

I'm ok with not having orbital stuff available in early game. Orbital stuff is to me supreme stuff you have to unlock when you have allready colonized your own territory and you want to protect it. I know the game does not intend to be realistic, but i would hardly understand that someone can access orbital layer in early games. Same idea as if someone could quickly build nukes in early games. Nukes are supreme weapons. We have supreme weapons, let's have a supreme layer.

Well, fair enough. I quess we'll see how this turns out when it's ready to be implemented to alpha I'm really looking forward to that! You have done an exceptionally good job this far and I have confidence you will keep suprising me positively in the future as well.

I don't know about having it be available right off the bat, but I would say early/mid as opposed to late/mid. I had always viewed the first orbital factory as being built by the player's basic constructors, and the adv. orbital factory as being built by the advanced constructors (if we are trying to ditch T1 & 2 terminology).

A balance needs to be struck as if it's too late game, then I suspect it would make the overall progression of games become quite predictable, while too early would lose the sensense of escalation that unlocking new tech gives, and not allow combat to develop when players are on the same world.

I do think that the cost in the present build is somewhat high, and i would be tempted to bring basic orbital factories and units into rough cost alignment with the surface based advanced tiers , with advanced orbital being perhaps double that. This is currently just my instinct for the right balance of accessibility, but i'm sure costs are one of the easiest things to change.

I would be tempted to do an experiment with orbital being fully accessible by the commander at the start, but I suspect it would just make it difficult to find opponents in the vastness of the solar system.

I'm personally in favor of Geo stationary orbits in a thin band around the equator (I've seen the number 20 Degrees on either side thrown around), and rapid orbits across the polar regions. This alone I feel would make the layer visibly, and functionally, different than the Land/Sea/Air layers currently in game. Just like land has different movement considerations than Sea or Air, why should Orbital not be unique in this way either?

So would you say getting some orbital stuff up/sending an egg to another planet is like...building a t2 factory and some stuff? Or building 5 and an army? Costing more than a nuke? 5 nukes? How does it compare to building a KEW? Does it require t2 power? I find it difficult to judge these sort of things without having a relative cost/gametime sort of thing to consider, and the current (I understand it's highly subject to change) cost is pretty darn high.

In any case, at the end of the day, you're the person we've entrusted our money with to make this thing. With the lack of any consensus, you've just gotta make the choices you think are right.

The only real opinion I can have at this point is I don't think you should stray too far on the "realism" or even "faux-realism" side. Usability and fun are much more important.

I'm defintely not thinking "late game", so I agree with you.

BTW the current build costs have nothing to do with final balance on orbital, it's completely arbitrary and expensive at the moment due to it being worked on.

Hmm I'm curious, how would you tell new players that such mechanics are in place? Is the faster orbits different colour? I feel this adds too much complexity of movement to a game that is all about war not logistics. Feel free to change my mind if you have a better idea how to make it intuitive.

One you build the factory landers will be fairly cost effective. Basically t2 level stuff.

"realism" is not something that's ever been in any of these games. I would love for someone to make a case that anything we've done is at all realistic. At best we try to create stuff that's mostly internally consistent (although usually the mostly ends up being barely). Perhaps slightly more realistic that most RTS games but still nowhere close to anything real. Even the ballistic arcs don't take into account things like air resistance which are really basic stuff that makes a huge difference in reality.

It's not intuitive at all. That's probably the biggest argument against it. It's something I think we be easy to try though.

Just another idea for orbital mechanics, maybe a source for inspiration!

Let's divide the orbital layer into two tiers. One tier consisting of cheap units available (almost) right at the start, while the second tier should me more expensive, like the current orbital stuff or maybe a bit cheaper.
T1 has light and agile units while T2 gives access to stronger units with slower speed and turn rates.
Both tiers have their own orbital launcher.

ORBITAL MECHANICS
An image to illustrate:

The black square is your orbital launcher. You set a rally point, let's say it's the black cross. When the satellite finishes building it orbits in that direction, in this case the black orbit line. You pass over the enemy and you see they are building an anti-satellite weapon (more on that later). Meanwhile your satellite went around the planet and is now located at the red cross. You decide to change orbit. You only have to choose a direction by clicking somewhere, and it will automatically change orbit in that direction (in my example clicking at the lower gray blob will go into the green orbit). Let's say you want something more drastic, an orbit like the red line. In this case clicking both gray blobs while holding SHIFT will get you into that orbit. Note: The blue line is an example for t1 units while the orange is for t2)

One of the downsides of orbiting units are difficulties bringing them together. A possible solution to this is a feature allowing grouping of units through a button. This should only be possible when they are orbiting in the same orbit line, and makes your units automatically go slower/faster to catch up with the rest.
To avoid abuse, orbit changing, grouping and maybe also launching units should be given a 'engine boost debuff', disabling their combat/utility weapons completely until finished.
IMO this orbit mechanic would be very easy to implement, it could partly use the behavior of air and still be entirely different!



UNITS

I really like the units proposed by Yourlocalmadsci, with the exception of orbital factories.
I don't want to have an orbital layer similar to starcraft 5
Some core units I had in mind:

T1

Spy satellite
Cost: +
weak to: all anti-orbit

This unit reveals a small radar area, with a range similar to t1 radar.

Defense satellite
Cost: ++
Weak to: Drone Satellite

Armed with twin lasers, this satellite easily kills any orbital unit similar in size.

Rocket satellite
Cost: ++
Weak to: Defense satellite

This unit, equipped with long-ranged seeking rockets, is able to fire at both space and ground targets. Although it's rate of fire and damage is quite bad, it can easily take out bigger orbital units and base buildings when not alone.

T2

Scout telescope
Cost: ++++
Weak to: all anti-orbit

This unit gives line of sight similar to a t2 radar's range.

Drone satellite
Cost: +++++
Weak to: Rocket satellite

Equipped with 5 drones, this drone carrier is capable to take out any orbit unit on it's own.
These drones fire small bombs and automatically repair/replenish when out of combat.

Bombardment satellite
Weak to: All orbiting units

This unit lacks any anti-orbit defenses. However, it is packed with bombs capable of
matching a lobber's firepower, leaving your base in ruins unless killed.

For more units have a look at yourlocalmadsci's topic. No point in copying them all here

BUILDINGS

T1 orbital launcher: Costs should be the same as 3 land factories.

T2 orbital launcher: A little bit cheaper than current launcher

T1 anti-sat:
Automatically fires small missiles at orbiting t1 units every 5 seconds. While deadly for t1 units, its not able to target t2 units due to their special missile jamming equipment.
(could not think of a better argument, feel free to give feedback )

T2 anti sat:
Fires advanced missiles to take out t2 units. Every missile has a seperate cost, about 75% of the cheapest t2 unit. This building should be merged with the anti nuke building, like others have mentioned.

I believe interplanetary and asteroid stuff should be seperated from the orbital launchers.
Personally I oppose fabbers in space, that just doesnt feel natural.

I would love some feedback

I am in complete agreement with you here.

I have only seen a couple of arguments for orbital being available early game and neither struck me as compelling at all.

Personally I like the thought that getting into orbit/making orbital units is much more complex/difficult than making a tank - and therefore not something you can just jump into right off the bat.

Have the option of enabling visible lines around that planet the display the geosynchronous region around the equator when you zoom out far enough. Somewhat like the lines you would see on a map to show the equator and the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. As for how to handle the orbits:

When a move order is in the geosynchronous region the unit in question will move in a direct manner to the location and stop. (Edit: This includes moving through the polar region if this is the most direct method of Travel.)

When a move order is outside the geosynchronous region the unit will make a beeline for that point and initiate an orbit around the planet that crosses over the point specified. it continues this orbit until ordered to return to the Geo synchronous region. Again all things that can be accomplished with the available UI. Of course a visuallization of the orbit could also appear for a few seconds after the order is given so that you can make sure it doesn't go anywhere you would rather it avoid.

Right so this is something I addressed in an earlier post.

In a scenario where two (or more) players start on disparate worlds what viable interactions can there be between players if you make Orbital an Adv. Unit only? I'm aware that there were no-rush-timers in SupCom and starting on different worlds with the required time to advance to the Adv. Units stage of the game acts as a 'soft' no-rush-timer... but such things were never part of standard play, and definitely not competitive play. Even in Total Annihilation, raids, rushes and scouting information were paramount within the first five minutes of play and helped define that low-eco start with something for the players to engage in, rather than just Eco-whoring.

If it takes say... fifteen minutes to get the economy to support this 'Cost Differentiated Layer', then... is that not a very boring fifteen minutes, where you are utterly unable to interact with your opponent(s) in a meaningful way? (smack-talk doesn't count)

What thoughts do you have on the subject of early-game Orbital Units that would allow player interaction within the first few minutes of play? (rather than after a very slow and completely uneventful start)

You want to keep your players on the edge of their seat, especially at the start when they are vulnerable. Letting them relax at the beginning sets a dull tone for the 'standard' units and renders them ineffective for the beginning of the game, unless you both start on the same planet.

Orbital Units, and I must stress that this is in my opinion, should be something you can go for, pretty much right out of the box. Maybe not in the Commander's build selection, but certainly buildable by the standard Fabrication Bot/Tank/Plane/(Boat?). They should also be cheap enough to use within the first five minutes of play. I can only imagine the pain you'd be putting on casters and for tournament watchers if the first quarter of a standard game is played without the opponents so much as seeing each other, let alone actually engaging in combat of some form.

---

Short Version: Early gameplay will be boring if players, starting on disparate worlds, can't interact AT ALL, until the mid game. Restricting Orbital Units is not something that should be considered positive. Balance at least Some orbital units so that they can be used almost immediately between two players on different planets.

Restrict movement of large armies during the initial "build up" phase, but do not lock out all interaction. Some orbital units must be cheap.

Still I can imagine the new player clicking the same point over and over again in frustration because he doesn't have a clue why doesn't the unit stop where he wants it to, unlike how it does when he clicks on the geosynchrous orbit. Also I don't understand how a satellite with engines and infinite fuel can't stay on stationary position right where it wants to. I am still not convinced this is a good idea.

Without having read the whole thread, I think I'll chime in anyway.

Somehow I think a nice compromise would be the "intuitive, but completely unrealistic from a physics point of view" approach: Have orbital units move along arbitrary circles around the planet (which could be easily defined on launch, and maybe changed later too). And pretend the planet doesn't rotate (or the "shell" of orbital bodies rotates with the planet), so the "footprint" of the thing in "orbit" is actually a circle on the surface, and not a figure-eight or another complicated pattern.

This would be intuitive, because most people think of a circle around a planet if they think about orbits, but then usually don't also realize that the path over ground is not actually a circle because of the planet's rotation. So I believe that if we ignore the rotation part, it still wouldn't feel as completely fake as the "everything's geostationary" approach - but it would be easy to grasp, because imagining a circle drawn around the planet's surface is a simple concept.

That way you'd get all the cool gameplay features such as the fact that the satellite is moving, so you have certain and predictable time windows for it being e.g. in range of a base, or getting intel for a certain area below its path. You can set up multiple orbits, or circles, to intersect in certain points etc. And I would assume you could also have a rather simple UI for all that...

I can also imagine new players clicking repeatedly on a single point wondering that. Perhaps one could put that information INTO THE MANUAL when the final version is finally released. Until then I would consider it one of those things that people figure out through experience. (Huh my satelite starts orbiting everytime I order it passed these lines. Maybe that's an area its not allowed to stay in? How can I use this to my advantage?) Least thats my usual thought when I run into something like that in a game. Maybe its different for other people but I'm usually pretty calm when figuring out the mechanics of a new game.

Hmm but let's say that you can shoot orbital units to you'r enemies planets ( if you even know which ones they are on ) right off the bat, then what units can you send? One engineer as I proposed earlier? Singular tanks, maybe creating a squad of 12 tanks with 12 landers? In the first case you would be at a severe advantage against your opponent later on because with your land harassment he has no possibility of going after you on your planet. With the latter you could hardly do anything and the cost to do that would be ridiculous.

I think satellites should be mobile t2 radars they are now and all in all I can't think of other good early game orbitals than small lander that you would even want to send to your enemy to harass them. Bombers should be mid/late imo.

Pretty much... All of this. My strategy focuses on crippling my opponent's because I just hate managing my own economy. I don't want multiplanetary battles to be like Seton's Clutch where 90% of the match is "who can eco the best" and the last 10% is when the army of experimentals and swarms of nuclear missiles rain down. Whoever walks out of the inscrutable mess of death, reclaimables and particle effects is the winner! Yaaaay!

The reason so many people play (and like) the Alpha now is because you can get a meaningful engagement within the first 30 seconds of the game. Just like TA. And just like TA, while that engagement can decide the outcome of the game, it doesn't have to. A fluid field of battle where the direction can swing one way or another at any instance is ideal. A static field of battle where whoever can click the fastest and remember the best is a horrible melting pot of stupid game mechanics.

Edit:

Except he can do anything because he can do exactly the same thing you can.