Orbitals movement mechanics shouldbe reworked

Currently they're just higher flying flying units.

It not only looks silly and is unrealistic, but sometimes more realistic game mechanics can make more interesting ones.

They are Orbitals. They should orbit.

If an "orbital" sat there like they do in PA, they would just fall straight down to the planet. They need rotational velocity to stay up.
Though you should be able to set a geosynchronous orbit too, to keep them over a spot, or roughly over a spot, near the equator.
This introduces more tactical things, like the equator being more valuable since you can set up stationary defensive orbitals there, while in other areas you need a ring clear for them to stay up in.
Of course orbits should be adjustable, but they shouldn't just fly around like higher up helicopters.

Not only is that more realistic, but I think it'd be a heck of a lot more fun too.

Really this is more of Land 2.0 than Air 2.0, anyway, this was suggested way back when Orbital was in conception. It simply wouldn't be good for gameplay, you'd need to micromanage your units much more, and it'd be even more difficult with large amounts of satellites (And remember a lot is literally the point of this game. )

Not going to happen if left up to Uber.
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/orbital-units-2-directions.51008/

We'll have to Mod it in. The Realm has an interest in doing so.

---

Edit: By the way, Welcome to the forums!

We had a big long discussion about this when Uber first decided to do it this way. A lot of us were kind of disappointed, but we'll just have to go with what they give us. Like nano said, at least we'll have mods.

I actually quite like it at the moment, although Id prefer not to have orbital fighters, and to actually have more then a 2 unit balance for a orbital battle.

Id like orbital warfare to be more about area control, and for orbital unit to tale up a lot of space with solar panel's remeasuring space to be be positioned.

While people disagree, I feel like very few orbital units should be able to move, as the currently do actually move like orbital units, but enough to have them sitting still.

As staying in orbit requires speed enough.

ANd make the orbital layer about zoning off an area with slow to build platforms that give domination over the ground below, but not to the extent of the current anchor, more less direct help and assistance then actual army destroying.

And this of course make destroying a orbital centre about ground control.


And personally, remove the ability to have orbital units defend orbital space at all, thus allowing transports to move, but no moving orbitals constructors, so we don't get that silly orbital war that we get now.

Making moving though space a luxury for one way transports completely, relying on the use of more long ranges but static orbital lasers to act as a game ender, but within reason.


That to me, would be awesome, and would completely ground orbital stuff into a ground based assistance and ground based controlled layer.

Even more so then the independent air layer, who can do stuff for it's self into of the ground support they also provide.

So you want orbital to be glorified bombers that are worse than just spamming t1 bombers?

If you want a oversimplified answer:

I want orbital to be glorified turrets, that can't shoot at other orbital turrets.

Exactly, glorified bombers that are worse than t1 bombers.

No, glorified turrets, that are worse then normal turrets.

As I said, they won't be moving.

That's why they are worse bombers, they do the same job but are worse at it.

They would also be worse than just building a bunch of turrets and therefore pointless

And why should orbital be immune to itself?

Actually they would be doing the job of artillery, adding support fire to assist normal units.

The point is that it would add support elements above the battlefield to assist standard defences, elements such as long range fire support, additional power generation and radar.

It would be immune to it's self, because they would all be static structures, and this would bring that games battle back down to the planets surface where it belongs, making controlling and attacking the orbital layer about controlling the ground.

This would elevate hundreds of problems with planetary invasion, and overall would make the game a hell of a lot funnier in my opinion.

FYI, it's ok to say to don't agree.

*Mod Edited - no personal attacks. Come on, people.*

And why does orbital combat in a game where the existence of orbital mechanics (albeit simplified) is one of the primary selling points of the game not have a place in said game?

Also no matter what you keep renaming your orbital concept to, it's still worse than static defenses on the ground or even just t1 bomber spam.

Basically, avengers don't need to disappear.

I disagree.

Realistic doesn't always mean more fun.

Having realistic orbits would be overly complicated and not fun for gameplay. It would be difficult to control areas in the orbital layer, or attack areas in the orbital layer. You'd constantly have your units orbiting over the enemy's base and getting shot down by Umbrellas.

It would simply suck.

Also, there is such a thing as a fixed orbit.

I'm ok with orbital where it's at, but I do agree the Avenger-vs-Anchor balance could use a third unit to help equalize things a little.

I'm not really on board with taking the orbital vs orbital gameplay away though. Many players here say "back on the ground where the battle belongs" but I disagree. "Back on the battle" is great, but I think we're needlessly limiting ourselves to a single theater of war when we focus on ground only.

For me the "total war" aspect of PA is what sets it apart from it's TA/SC brethren. Orbital is should be as fully developed a layer of combat as air or ground. If your enemy neglects to defend against air you can win the game with bombers. If the enemy neglects to defend against orbital you should be able to win with weapons there.

True orbit paths sound interesting, and I've imagined a few ways to make it work, but I'm not convinced it would be an improvement upon gameplay. I have mixed feelings about it. Floating satellites do bother me a bit, but I can deal with it.

Only around the equator, or on a longitudinal line (a diagonal 24 hour orbit). I still completely agree with your view though. If satellites are forced to orbit the planet enemy umbrellas will become hell for the orbital layer. No fun to play with.

I put a thread up about this a while ago, and honestly, I think orbital is very unfinished atm.

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/remodeling-orbital.58992/

Until we have Homeworld 3 every game is very unfinished.

I still like the general direction we are moving in though. The changes to the orbital layer such as adding lines to the ground make a big difference in control. I also feel the changes to the anchor and the addition of orbital factories are for the better.

UI wise, I would like it if it were a little easier to zoom out to see a broad orbital area without unfocusing the planet, and often the orbital view is cluttered by the hundreds (or thousands) of icons on the ground layer, but it's still much better than it used to be.

Orbital is no fun to play with now. That is why most people like to play in small systems.
I agree that orbital should be orbital, but could change orbits to avoid umbrellas if necessary.
With this change I would expect a change to umbrellas that would make them less effective against high speed LEO units by either giving them either a high miss rate, increased cost, less damage, or all of the above.
But I am not likely to change Uber's mind, looking forward to some good orbital mods.

The biggest problem with perpetually moving orbital units is that you are inevitably going to end up having to constantly babysit them.

Well, I'm going to stand by hating that it's simply a higher air layer. It's especially funny that they're called "orbitals" when they don't orbit.

The hilarious thing about these "downsides" is that limitations can breed good gameplay.
You limit things to actually orbit and now you have the equator mattering more, to get a geosynchronous (fixed) orbit.
So maybe someone places Anchors around their base at the equator.
Then someone else at the pole can say build a bunch of anchors at once that will circle from pole to pole, and cut through the equator, to cross with them. But they have to finish construction quickly, before they intersect that line.
That's cool. It's not even about realism. It's just way more interesting and adds way more to gameplay.
Anchors become something with a fixed orbit, and Avengers and orbital fabricators and such are things which can change their orbits, but can't just stay still over a point of land unless at the equator.

That's like saying "We're going to buff Vanguard range to 1000 because 30 range is a downside, and downsides are bad".


I don't understand the "perpetually babysitting thing".
They'd be going around a ring of the same ground.
If you want them to cluster together, you right click on what unit you want them to move to, and they speed up and enter its same orbit.

Does this "perpetual babysitting" thing come from people implying that you'll have to constantly manage them like Kerbal Space Program units, but hundreds of them? Is it some misunderstanding that "because they go in orbits, it must be hyper realistc"?
No, they'd simply travel in a ring, at the rate a planet spins. You move them by clicking the ground, then dragging to rotate the orientation and direction of that ring. Simple.