Orbital units - 2 directions

that's why I posted my post too... I'm also willing to compromise my opinion. But I was catching the general drift from Neutrino that even if he doesn't have the time to do it, he likes the idea of true orbits and would like to add it later in a DLC. And I'd like to eliminate the "maybe" from that sentence.

radars should be domes instead of semi circles, making it harder for ground based radar to detect satellites, where as satellites project a cone downwards, and a small sphere around themselves to detect other satellites.

It's good to see a lot of conversation on this! I'm starting from the top, so this will take a while.

First off, I don't think it's a problem if there are few orbital units to contend with. The space theater is not something you want clogged up, because it directly blocks access to the lower levels of battle. All the interactions on the surface are most important of all, and a hundred satbugs flying about will severely frustrate that. Keep them simple, keep them sweet, and focus on supporting roles rather than direct slugging. There will be plenty of direct combat as is.

Now you're just talking about experimentals 2.0. Big numbers does not suddenly make a unit compelling. It is in fact why Supcom experimentals were so boring.

- build it on the surface, launch into space.
- Build on an asteroid, launch into space
- Build on asteroid, deploy asteroid to planet

There's a reason Commanders land on planets, and not in deep space. TA units were not made exclusively of metal. They required plenty of other common materials, so common that they were abstracted out as demanding more or less energy. Unfortunately, common materials are hard to find in a vacuum, and PA already fixes energy demand. Given these factors, it is not unreasonable to expect or demand a solid surface for construction. In PA these might be "asteroid fields", singular rocks, or full sized moons. These surface facilities can provide everything needed to fill the orbital layer.

What are moons supposed to be, if not launching platforms? A gas giant doesn't have to stand entirely on its own. It only needs to provide a good backdrop for a heavily mooned orbit.

Laser weapons (both attack and defense) are a good fit for orbital units. You get that long range high speed attack, which really helps accuracy, and the natural curvature of planets will naturally limit attacks between ground units.

Yes, attacking space craft is difficult. So is attacking stuff on the ground! Stop cherry picking when you care to apply real world principles and when not to. The tech involved in this war is not human. It can account for any difficulties you find.

Uhm. Shoot it down? Kill the enemy with any number of units? Since energy has no boundaries, there is no way to define where high energy units can and can't be used. Making it a high energy unit will help, but ultimately a unit has to be vulnerable of its own accord.

Please, do not do this. Real life space ships are expensive yes, but they have very little in the way of heavy metals. Most of a space vessel's cost comes from R&D (which is already resolved in PA), professional expertise (which is free in PA), and with fuel (which is NOT METAL). Fuel is expensive because shuttles have to deliberately throttle their engine output to avoid killing pilots. This leads to the enormous and costly rockets you see today.

Purely mechanical rockets (which is everything in PA) can achieve orbit much cheaper and by using less fuel. Land facilities can also provide an initial boost (such as shooting the payload), which further cheapens the raw material cost of space travel. A surface space gun can launch stuff up very easily.

Have unit costs represent the value of the unit. Unit value goes up when a unit is very effective and difficult to deal with. It goes down when a unit is simple or easy to defeat. Easily defeated satellites get to be cheap. Therefore, you can build lots of them and get the big space theater you may so desire.

Perhaps this is the only unit that is really concerning. Landers do look sexy, but they also imply a very high cost of space travel. Two separate worlds need to be able to engage in full scale war. That means travel can't be too expensive.

Anything with more moving parts.
Orbital units with a lot of moving parts would make the game very complicated very quickly.

Yeah, this way one orbit could be "filled" with more and more units/objects/debris and become more dangerous as the number of object put on the same orbit increase (=random collisions), forcing us to use different orbits while waiting the debris to naturally fall on the planet after a while (this could be obviously accelerated the same way the planets's orbits are).
This way therewould be some kind of natural limit of how many object it's safe to keep orbiting before collisions and debris falling randomly everywhere on the planet occur.

I think the biggest issue with orbital units is the "units" part. Not many people attach moving units with orbits intuitively. Orbiting units, I think, should behave more like structures that happen to have a fixed path. That goes for how you control them and what not.

It's not even that. Lasers are actually excellent weapons for space usage if you have access to a potent power supply. This level of accuracy is easily within present day optical technology, let alone future tech. Nobody uses an aperture as the only focusing mechanism any more. What is used instead is a combination of mirrors and adaptive optics. This is actually really cool technology where an array of micro-servos positioned beneath one of the mirrors undergoes selective computer controlled distortions to account for problems in mirror fabrication and even atmospheric distortions (to a degree). To put this in perspective, the Keck telescope in Hawaii has a maximum focus error of around 0.0156 arcseconds which translates into 0.0000043 degrees. At this point, the focusing becomes limited by diffraction effects which can be minimised still further with smaller wavelengths and larger mirrors.

Ok, Exterminans, I understand you have particular viewpoints about this subject, but please, if you want to make arguments based on actual physics - do your research. I'm glad that there are people around to provide counterpoints, but it becomes irritating if I spend more time in correcting misconceptions then debating gameplay mechanics.

Since I totally know you guys like skipping the big posts, I kept this one for last:

Code:

Geostationary at +-40 degrees latitude
Orbital beyond

This system could be really cool. You have a highly accessible area over most of the planet, but the poles are much more difficult to target. In order to reach those areas you have to "throw" the satellites over the dead space. This gives them limited time to get their tasks done, and they must cross enemy defenses that are in the way. The commands are not too difficult to give either, as the direction of the "throw" is an easy 2 point line between the unit's previous position (using shift queued commands) and where the next command is set in the polar region.

Metal worlds can show the orbital belt very clearly thanks to their huge *** longitudinal canyons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What happens if 2 orbital layers intersect? Half of your space units are going to crash! One could say that small bodies don't have enough gravity for orbits. So you might, for example, not allow orbital units around asteroids, since they get their own engines and that would mess up satellite behavior.

If two planets have a very close brush with each other, you could be looking at a clean sweep of half of your orbital units. Hmm. Mass orbital destruction sounds pretty cool, actually. It's definitely a problem you can't simulate with air units. Time to build cow catchers on the asteroids!

Yes... every possible problem in the game can be solved with asteroids.

Haven't read every single post yet.
Anyway, here's my idea:
Why have one orbital layer, when you can have two?

(Yes, I like drawing in MS Paint.)

First layer - low orbit. Those are small support units, practically useless, exept in large numbers. How do you control them? You don't. You pick direction for a launch pad, like you pick rally point for a factory - same mechanics, slightly different interface.
Some of them (like interceptors) can slightly change their trajectory (which is not physical, just constant movement on a sphere), but they are smart enough to do it without input from the player.
Possible units:
Low range radar, can only see directly under itself. Build one and you will find enemy base... eventually... maybe... Build 10 and you have a good chance of screwing enemy's sneaky attack. Build 100 and you will see everything all the time.
Blind weapon that can't even shoot radar signatures - only visible stuff. Build one - it's bloody useless, build 20 and every decent engagement will have damage support, build 100 and you can use a couple of scouts to attack enemy base.
And others along those lines.
The question here is: should the sphere of low orbits rotate with the planet or not? First option will lead to every single satellite passing directly above launch pad and you will need to micromanage the pad to achieve relatively even distribution. Second option will lead to unpredictable ravel of orbits lategame.

Second layer is significantly higher and geostationary. This is where you build heavy stuff. All those rockets, lasers, factories, gas pumps, interplanetary stuff (you can go interplanetary from surface, but good luck building this behemoth of a rocket)... You should even be able to build a solid ring if you want.
"But it's just a single line."
This line is three, maybe four times longer than equator. That's plenty of room. It can be reasonably wide too.
"It's only above the equator."
From this height the only difference between equator and poles is the angle at which my lasers will hit your face.

That first layer is called "air".

Haven't read every post so sorry if it was mentioned earlier.

You could make the orbital layer look real using the fake one pretty easily. To change orbit in a real orbital system you need to decelerate to get closer to the planet. You change your orbit to "catch up" with the position you're trying to reach.

To repro this just use the fake layer you have (the geostationary orbit basically). Draw the unit closer to the planer depending on it's speed. The faster the unit the closer to the planet. You could set a top speed to all units depending on planet. Maybe moving fast enough could mean the unit would be out of range of fire of the enemy.

If even more realism is wanted the speed of the unit could be handled with orbital equations. That would give it a very unique feel. The units would only accelerate and decelerate at the start and end of the move.

Other interesting things would be to prohibit air units on moons/asteroids but set the orbital layer much closer. Might be harder to balance but then your orbital fighters would replace your air units and could shoot units on the ground. Would make fighting on moons more unique.

Haven't read every post so sorry if it was mentioned earlier.

You could make the orbital layer look real using the fake one pretty easily. To change orbit in a real orbital system you need to decelerate to get closer to the planet. You change your orbit to "catch up" with the position you're trying to reach.

To repro this just use the fake layer you have (the geostationary orbit basically). Draw the unit closer to the planer depending on it's speed. The faster the unit the closer to the planet. You could set a top speed to all units depending on planet. Maybe moving fast enough could mean the unit would be out of range of fire of the enemy.

If even more realism is wanted the speed of the unit could be handled with orbital equations. That would give it a very unique feel. The units would only accelerate and decelerate at the start and end of the move.

You can control air. You can't control low orbit. I think that creates significant difference.

Another layer would just take the gameplay focus away from the ground. It is more difficult to work with in many ways, not only do you get another layer of depth that you need to manage on top of managing multiple planets. But it also complicates interaction even more.

I also very much prefer the idea of having the orbital layer dedicated to support type units, with limited interaction between each other, but I saw someone make a point in another thread about gas giants being exclusively an orbital playfield which screwed my idea up. I'm really not sure how you would avoid making it "just another battle layer" without making gas giant gameplay incredibly dull.

(Thinking...)

First off I'm not a supporter of constant orbital movement for this game, faked or otherwise, it should be left as a simple movement layer. In order to allow orbital gameplay to flourish over a gas giant when its usually a lot more limited over other planet types you need to leverage the core difference... (not) being able to build on the ground. Meaning ground fired anti satellite/orbital missiles need to be an effective way of clearing the skies above (but should probably be prohibitively expensive or vulnerable to other combat layers so that they are rarely built outside the confines of a base).

Orbital gameplay 'objectives' around gas giants should be similar to what they are currently for land, map control and resources, but for 'normal' planets there shouldn't be any resources available on the orbital layer, and the primary focus would simply be providing assistance for the main ground layer while preventing opponents from doing the same. Losing control of the orbital layer wouldn't automatically result in a loss of the planet, and any offensive orbital strikes against you would still be easy to defend against (assuming they don't take out your anti sat launchers).

I also think focus should be put on slower moving satellites and platforms, the only fast moving units should be fabricators and orbital fighters (which are restricted to Orbital-Orbital). I would like to see ALL orbital units be mobile to a certain degree as I believe this would lead to some unique/dynamic scenarios, like being able to physically rearrange defences after they've been built, retreating factories as they come under threat or moving them forward to supply units closer to the action.

Hope that all still makes sense, I changed my mind on several things several times while writing it.

The question i ask myself is: What do i want from Orbital?

To me, Orbital can never be Air2. Air has the purpose of being fast: Fast, low HP but powerful units that can react quickly to threats and disable specific enemy buildings.

So what does orbital do? To me, it's essentially a second building layer; as if the world has a second roof. As i read on another site about space combat etc:

Space is the area where you see all, and you're seen by all.

Orbital units have a distinct advantage over air: Both mass and aerodynamics do not matter. Once in space, you're in space. (However it does matter for launching.) This means that satellites can be equipped with defense lasers (e.g. anti-missile defense). In that respect, it could open an interesting balance between Laser Anti-sats and Missile Antisats. Missiles have 100% accuracy(i think tactical missiles could be used against sats) but can be shot down. Lasers are, as someone else noted too, trying to hit a dime at a couple of miles and so they can miss. Also, contrary to popular belief, lasers can have trouble melting through the outer plating so they do much less damage.

As to movement etc: Having a geosynchronous shell is fine. I must say that i like the geosynchronous band even more: basically, it make the poles places that are less vulnerable to satellites, yet it could also be used a as a fast-transfer orbit. e.g. satellites that move over the poles move a lot faster, creating an interesting risk-benefit assessment.

Holy, wow. This thread is a landmine of ideas.

One middle ground might be "real orbits with adjustment" - the units follow circular orbits with speed dependent on planet size, but can adjust both the orbit direction, and make fine adjustments to their position with standard movement controls.

So, if you want to bring two orbiting units together, you would want the unit to adjust its orbit to intersect the first, then readjust the orbit to match the first (once it gets there), while using its fine movement controls to travel closer to the target unit. All this could be compressed into a single "move to" command.

As for why this would be better than a "fake orbit" system - this system would make orbital management more dynamic and reward paying attention - so you can take advantage of moments when orbital positions are ideal for something, and watch out for when they're opportune for your opponent. For instance, a good time to attack the enemy base would be when your satellite is overhead.

I read through all this wow grows so fast this thread so I add my little bits in to be possibly lost.

Some one mentioned (sort lost the post to qoute and mobile not best to post with) units wobbling in orbit only slightly and rotating at different angles I agree would be better than absolutely very still.
Cosmetic really but possibly able to be done

Would a grid like mesh help in positioning orbitals that automatically fade in as you zoom out with out hindering planet view underneath to much?

Would be nice if you could link all your "orbital" base together in a nice tight base instead of all spread out. Plus it will all so makes it look more like a big custom built space station. If it should have bonus for doing so i'm not sure about but would look bit more awesome the a bunch of factories floating around bunched together.

First post here, just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in for the lulz.

I quite like the quoted idea above. I think it is a fantastic compromise between the two sides of the argument.

The limitation of structures only being built within a certain band will make for some pretty interesting situations. The addition of having units able to traverse the other areas, but not stop in them (along with the acceleration mechanics) gives the whole idea a degree of depth, and will distance it from air 2.0.

Personally, I am against overly real orbital mechanics, on the basis that it may require far too much micro/ baby-sitting to warrant what it'll achieve.

Really, think about it. In a game of PA, you are probably going to have several combat fronts happening simultaneously on different planets at some stage or another. To be honest, if I'm trying to macro the crap out of several planets, am I going to want to pay attention to my orbital units and their Newtonian shenanigans? No, not really.

What I'd much rather prefer is to give them an order, quickly go to another planet and sort 30 seconds worth of crap in that corner of the system, and then jump back to my orbital unit(s) and get them to do something else.

I think the direction neutrino was intending with the static shell idea was certainly a step in the right direction, considering the undoubtedly high macro requirements of this game.

Just saying....

Couldn't you possibly separate the orbital layer from the planet and make the planet spin slowly to give the illusion of actual orbiting?