Well the thing about satellites is they bring things closer together. They are in range of everything, and everything is in range of them. You are thinking of this as a downside but it's actually what makes Orbital units different from air 2.0 or Navy in space. Yes your radar sat is constantly at risk of being shot down, but it also gives you perfect radar coverage. And I disagree that ASAT missiles will be too cheap or too expensive, it is very possible to find a happy medium between the two extremes. After all the same argument can be made to say that nukes can't possibly be balanced against anti-nukes and that lategame play will either devolve into nuke spam, or nukes will be irrelevant.
It's not a risk, it's a certainty. You're flying directly over their base - you wouldn't put a radar within clear range of an enemies defences even if it did provide full coverage. Either ground to orbit weapons can take down a satellite, or they can't. If they can't, that has it's own issues. If they can, then satellites become useless. The happy medium is cost for cost. You still lose your satellite, making them useless. If missiles cost anything more than a satellite, the missiles are useless. Any less, and the satellites are. Nukes aren't forced to fly over anti-nukes. You can also overwhelm nuke defence with weight of fire, which is not applicable to satellites.
You still are thinking of this 1 dimensionally. Player 1 has a satellite, it flies over player 2's base every few munites and gives updated intel. Player 2 dosn't like this so he builds Asat weapons. Player 1 wants to protect his investment so he scrambles his bombers and takes out the Asat weapons. Building a satelite is not placing a radar right next to the enemy base. It completely changes the way distance effects the overall strategic picture. Also it's important to remember that even when the Satelite is directly above the enemy base, it will only be there for a few seconds, and it also should still be farther away than any point on the planet's surface.
If you can bomb that, why not just bomb the commander? Destroying something in the center of someone's base is not an appropriate counter to your unit orbiting over the top of it. It doesn't matter if it's a fraction of a second, as long as the defences have a chance of firing. Ground based anti-satellite weapons must be viable at taking down satellites, as you can't limit the function of anti-satellite to other satellites. In short: Ground-based anti-satellite weapons must be viable Your satellites will fly over their (viable) anti-satellite weapons ... Profit Loss So why would you build satellites on a planet the enemy is on also? It's like sending a plane directly over enemy AA, as soon as it's built.
But it's not, orbital units are not airplanes, anti-sat defenses are not AA. It's a completely different paradigm. Anything that can shoot down a satellite should be of comparable expense and micromanagement to launching a satellite. It dosn't matter that the Satellite is over the enemy base, it's still farther away from it than any point on earth and moving really really fast. Viable =/= automatic.
You misunderstand me if you think I was directly comparing satellites to planes. I was only trying to draw an analogy about moving over defenses. Whether it's a plane moving over AA, or a satellite moving over anti-sate, it's the same concept, even if the anti sat costs resources. As long as it moves across the whole planet, your opponent can shoot it down at their will. You cannot stop it. I'm not sure why you keep making the point about distance from the planet, as it doesn't matter - all that does is whether the defences can target it, which they clearly must be able to in order to function. Non-equatorial geostationary orbits are entirely feasible if you aren't worried about a limited fuel supply.
I'm happy with the satellites being geostationary. They are a hefty investment, and will be hard to protect; So being able to know where they are and control where they're going will make them much more usable. If they must orbit, then they will require a colossal amount of attention to protect(if at all possible). I'll happily abandon realism for fun and balance. Despite what Nanolathe seems to think, realism is not equivalent to depth, and departures from reality aren't analogous to making the game shallow.
Guys, calm your tits. It's an alpha. We've clearly expressesd ourselves and shown that we'd like to have the orbital units to actually orbit. They know. This thread is full of it. I'm pretty sure Neutrino will reconsider the way it works now. I'm pretty sure they'll have to change it otherwise it looks weird when getting units to other planets. Rockets would use orbits and sattelites won't? That doesn't make any sense. I quite like the orbiting thingy, where the sattelite will fly over a base every {INSERT TIME}. That makes them slightly less Uber-Radar . It'll enhance the gameplay as well. The only problem is that we have to balance the weaponry that fights sattelites. I'd quite like the idea of a rocket (slightly less expensive than a sattelite) that can be fired and that will go after a sattelite. It destroys the sattelite but it destroys itself with it. @thepyro13, I'm not really sure if you completely comprehend the idea of geostationary orbits. It basically means that your orbit and the planet's rotation work out in such a way that the orbiting unit will always see the same side of the planet. Such thing is of course only possible in an equatorial orbit, whereas in the PA Alpha, they can be positioned anywhere. Also, departing from realism isn't an analogue for making a game shallow, but this is just turning the orbital layer into Air 2.0 which is no fun imho. Also, it's quite imba because you can just place a sattelite on a certain position and see everything there. With them orbiting that imba problem would be resolved and the orbital layer would be a unique layer that's different from the Air layer.
I'm not aware of it being stated anywhere that rockets use orbits? If they've mentioned it in a post or somewhere, can you link it - I'm curious what Uber's plan is. This doesn't address the main issue of satellites being made useless by having to fly over anti-satellite defences. It's especially true if the missile is cheaper than the satellite. Not true, it's only possible on the equator if you don't want to spend any fuel (as man-made satellites are aimed at doing). All units in PA have unlimited fuel, so a geosync orbit can be set up outside of the equator. Air 2.0 would be having a fighter that is just an aircraft in orbit (hence the opposition to the Avenger) - I agree that this shouldn't be the case. Whether satellites have geostationary or other orbits is a different issue; having a geosync orbit doesn't automatically make it Air 2.0. You can place a radar on a certain position and you'll see everything there too, so i'm not sure why this makes satellites uber. I agree moving orbits would make it very different from air, but there are serious gameplay issues with non-geosync orbits that need to be resolved first.
The original concept video displayed orbital looking pathways when the Commander took his rocket to the moon...
I don't get it, you can't have a unit if there is a counter? Opponent still has to build/deploy/pay for the counter. So what if he is able to shoot your satellite down. If the missiles are expensive, then he has to weigh that cost over allowing some long range intel. We've already discussed intel from space being possibly less effective than air scouts. (Which also have a counter...) This viewpoint is so depressing. You might as well call them magic. The whole approach to launching rockets is so heavily tied into the amount of fuel that they can lift into orbit with them. If you want to adopt this viewpoint that satellites can carry infinite fuel, lets stop calling them satellites, stop making them look like satellites, call them star wars space fighters and move on...
The commander rocket goes in a straight line, as does every other rocket seen in the video. Only the asteroid engines go on a circular path, and that's because it is performing a slingshot. My argument isn't "you can't have a unit if there is a counter". The difference between this (and any other unit & it's counter) is that orbiting satellites pass right over the counter, giving the opponent a trivial way to destroy it. This has already been answered. If the missiles are less than or equal to the cost of satellites, then satellites are useless and would just be shot down (at worst, you are even with your opponent). If they are more expensive, then you have a situation which just leads to orbital units being the only counter to orbital units, and that's very poor for gameplay. Satellites having unlimited fuel doesn't mean they have the capacity or thrust for extended spaceflight. Course correction on a satellite doesn't take much energy, so while they have unlimited fuel, they don't get much out of it (Think a AAA battery that never runs out). Also, when I say "unlimited fuel", I mean an energy source that (for all intents and purposes over the lifespan of a game) doesn't run out. I don't mean a magical amount of liquid propellant or somesuch.
The concept video indeed showed a slingshot, but if sattelites disobey the laws that make slingshots possible, then that doesn't make any sense. Maybe make the anti-sattelite unit inaccurate? So that the sattelite doesn't necessarily get destroyed when passing over. Or make the cost for a missile less, but the build time is longer? Saying that sattelites don't have enough thrust for extended spaceflight is nonsense, you can just thrust much longer. The longer you thrust, the more effect it has. So that's not a factor here. Anyways, making the sattelite behave like it does now makes the orbital layer a very boring and probably underused layer, which would be a real shame and throwing a nice opportunity in the shredder.
I beg to differ: How is that 'at worst'? Come on now, 'Course correction'!! Don't make me grin. You are talking about a 'satellite' hovering over a fixed position on the globe. If you are essentially not moving (Special limited case of geostationary aside obviously) then you are having to apply a constant thrust straight down at all times, you try doing that with a AAA battery and holding a piece of equipment in space, it's a nonsense. I'll admit that course corrections are a low fuel requirement, but only if you are moving from one *orbit* to a fairly similar *orbit*
They aren't disobeying any laws, they are just using propulsion in addition to gravity to maintain a stable orbit... Please, you are deliberately taking me too literally. You know I wasn't talking about a literal AAA battery, that was just illustrating the difference between an unlimited qty of power vs how much peak power can be drawn at any one time. The point is the amount it would take to maintain a stable orbit off-equator isn't drastic. Acceleration is still an issue, as it would take much, much, much, much .... much longer for such a craft to travel the distance. Much better for a dedicated space-craft to do that. You're basing your view of it being "very boring" on two mock up units of the orbital layer. It's the unit interactions that make it boring or not boring, the orbit alone doesn't decide it. Also, without fixing the whole issue I raised, orbital units would be even more underused. Ah, I only watched the actual launch (shortly after this), which does appear to go in a straight line. Having said that, I'm not aware of any physical reason why an orbit would be necessary here, other than to get to the other side of the moon. Also, the other craft that take off from the moon to the asteroids don't exhibit this flight path. Exactly. There's no reason not to shoot the satellites down as they pass over your base, making them pointless to build in the first place. The worst-case scenario for the defender is still favourable (even).
It's pointless to build scout planes in the first place. They'll just get shot down over the enemy base. It's pointless to build large numbers of tanks in the first place. Most just get shot and blown up if they get close to the enemy base. Please don't slippery slope us raevn.
The units as currently playable in game are *not* in a stable orbit off-equator. That is precisely the point of everyone arguing against you here. Maintaining the satellites in the positions they hold currently is to hold them *not in an orbit* a massively wasteful and unbelievable situation for a satellite. I would imagine that your satellite still gets a good look at the base before it dies, so you still get some advantage. That's even assuming perfect anti-satellite defenses, which we could not assume... Raevn, no offense, I've read plenty of your posts, and I've got plenty of respect for the time you put in etc. But this kind of lack of awareness might be why you are at cross purposes with a bunch of people here. Lets face it this crowd funded game has attracted funding from a large group of game enthusiasts who also have a good appreciation of the basics of orbital mechanics. That's the kind of people that the kickstarter video drew in. Saying to all of these people that "Orbits won't work because I've thought through all the possible permutations and it's impossible" won't wash. This is the Alpha, and the people who put in for the Alpha want to see believable orbits. I think at the very least it can be attempted in the Alpha and see how it plays out.
Raven has surmised exactly what I've been thinking about (but didn't clearly express yesterday). Also static orbits are strategically more useful than orbiting, the reason Earth Sats orbit is because we don't have the tech to hold them in place except where the planet does it for free. PA does not have this limitation! There is a significant cognitive cost with orbiting units, adding a separate layer with a completely different mechanic is going to make it alot harder to track the game state and plan/coordinate your actions with it. Not to mention if you pass your Sat right over an enemy base or several enemy bases you can't expect it to survive for long. Note also you can create Orbits as things currently stand just set up a patrol route for your Sat around the planet! I guarantee once they get the full unit and building sets in you'll stop doing that in a hurry if there are anti-Sat defenses.
Why not use the same mechinism as anti-nukes? Implement a structure that can build missiles which are slightly cheaper than a satellite, but you first need to invest in that particular building. Limit their range so satellites can still take a different orbit route not directly over their base to avoid these missiles, while still being able to gather intel like an attacking army coming out of their base. Orbiting satellites sounds cooler than air v2.0
This is a limitation of our technology & does not have to be a limitation of PA, you do not want your Sat spending half it's time behind the horizon if you can help it. Why do you want 20th Century orbital mechanics with a 30th Century+ game?
