Planetary Assaults and Interstellar Transportation

@sorynarkayn: You are arguing semantics. By saying dropship he is referring to a ship that can actually land. It doesn't matter is the wording is quite correct.

Thank you man, maybe he realizes he is wrong if somebody else than me tells him.


@sorynarkayn: And also, I didn't take the dropship idea from halo or alien or whatever... why do you assume that? I mean, if you were to assume I took the idea from anywhere, then form W40k, as I even linked to a Lexicarnum article on orca dropships...
And please stop the arguing about if the word is right or not now. I am gaining the impression you have fun harpig on about that and keep harping on just because you can. This whole thing adds nothing to the actual topic.

There is only one thing I need to still add:

I didn't conveniently omit it. I omitted it, because I am talking about interstellar transportation there. So, when I proposed they could be needed for interstellar transpiration I didn't say they were needed for interplanetary transportation. Apart from that interstellar transportation is not relevant for the game probably (when I created the thread I thought there would be multi-system real time matches), but definitely not for the discussion in its current state.

@ doctorzuber: Dude, I never claimed dropships to be capable of carrying 500 units, I just assumed that hypothetically. Please calm down...

I am more in favor of galactic gates warping in reinforcements every few min upon request for interstellar travel.

Interplanetary travel however I am more in favor of MIRV transport rockets, unit cannon artillery and unit cannon artillery on asteroid for planetary assaults.

Ow and and an experimental unit rocket for experimentals.

Semantics is the study of MEANING. In the discussion of ideas, nothing could possibly be more relevant than the meaning of those ideas.

So by dismissing the OP's misuse of "Dropship" is like saying it doesn't matter if someone calls a jet a ship, or a truck a car, or an apple an orange.

Well it might not matter to the idiot that misuses those words, because supposedly they know what they mean -- but when they use those misused words to try to communicate their thoughts and ideas to anyone else, it doesn't work.

How could I possibly be "wrong" when you don't even know WTF you're talking about?

Regardless, in this discussion over how units should be transported between planets and solar systems, there is no objectively right or wrong side.

Get your head out of your a$$.

It's ironic that you claim you took the idea from WH40K, which was introduced in 1987, a year after Aliens! So the Orca Dropship was probably inspired by the Cheyenne Dropship from Aliens.

But you still got it wrong, because this is what YOUR OWN SOURCE says about the Orca Dropship:

"The Orca Dropship is a dedicated orbital transport vehicle of the Tau Empire. Used for moving equipment, supplies and troops from orbiting spacecraft to a planet's surface..."
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Orca_Dropship

So explain to me how I'm "wrong", when you can't even get your information right.

I've already made my position clear regarding this topic: Yes to large Interplanetary Transport ships, NO to small Dropships that require a Carrier ship to ferry them between betweens (or solar systems). Keep It Simple, Stupid!

Focusing on your misuse of Dropship just proves that you don't know WTF you're talking about.

Again, it all comes back to your misuse of Dropship, because a Carrier ship is absolutely necessary to transport Dropships between planets and solar systems, because by their DEFINITION, Dropships are incapable of doing that. So the poll option that carriers weren't needed in PA was doubly wrong.

The OP claims that he wants this thread to get back on track. Fine.

This is my position: INTERPLANETARY TRANSPORT SHIPS are required to ferry multiple units between planets (moons, asteroids, etc.).

DO NOT REFER TO THE INTERPLANETARY TRANSPORTS AS "DROPSHIPS", BECAUSE THAT IS INARGUABLY WRONG.

The Rocket Gantry's rockets can launch the Commander (or a few units) to another planet (moon, etc.), but it's not practical for deploying invasion forces to enemy-occupied planets. Neither is the Unit Cannon, because a planet's gravity doesn't allow the Unit Cannon to launch units into space. The UC can only launch units to a planet from an orbitting moon or orbital platform (as seen in the KS trailer).

IP Transports are Tech 2+ Tier "space units". The Rocket Gantry would be a Tech 1 Tier "spacecraft factory"; its Rocket would be a Tech 1 Tier "space unit". The prerequisite for the RG would be Tech 2+ Tier buildings, so a Commander could not build a Rocket Gantry at the start of a match. The player would have to establish a base before unlocking the RG.

A Commander and/or advanced Engineer units can construct a IP Transport similar to how Experimentals were built in SupCom, after the RG is completed and Tech 2 space units/buildings are unlocked. Or IP Transports could only be produced at an enormous factory, similar to the Experimental Gantry in SupCom2. But I think the size of such a factory would make it impractical, considering the relatively small size of the planet in the KS trailer. And if the factory didn't produce any other large units (i.e. Experimentals), it would be pointless.

Therefore, the "spacecraft factory" should only be constructed in orbit -- call it an "Orbital Shipyard". The player would obviously need a RG to put units in orbit to build the Orbital Shipyard, thereby making the OS the Tech 2+ Tier spacecraft factory. So the player would produce the IP Transport in orbit, land it on the planet, load up units, take-off, fly them to another planet (moon, etc.), and unload them.

The player would have limited control over the IP Transport for Interplanetary Travel, using the UI seen in the KS trailer. The player selects a destination planet (moon, etc.) and one of a few pre-determined landing zones on that planet. Once the IP Transport reaches the landing zone on the planet's surface, it would be fully controllable (like any aircraft), and the player can choose where they want to unload its units. If the player didn't scout the planet ahead of time, they might pick a landing zone occupied by the enemy's base, and their IP Transport would probably be shot down. Obviously the player would want to choose an empty landing zone instead. I suppose the enemy could stake out all of the landing zones (which are probably the same as the possible player spawn locations) and defend them, which means the player would have to invade in force and clear the LZ.

IP Transports do not require Carrier ships -- not even for interstellar travel between solar systems (because we don't know how that is accomplished yet, i.e. FTL Drive or Galactic Gates). Whether an Interstellar Transport Ship (or Starship) is required is an entirely different beast, and it's not worth debating here until we know more about interstellar travel in PA.

FYI, but due to recent posts here I will continue to call them Dropships for lolz.

Mike

Fine, if you want to be WRONG, and a d!ck.

Being willfully ignorant just undermines the credibility of anything you post. So go ahead, be wrong.

I disagree with any idea of building an orbital shipyard.

I still don't see the problem with transport rockets for bots, and unit cannons on mobile asteroids.

re Dropships - Your entire basis for the naming of Dropships are definitions that exist solely in fiction. And even then, while definitions agree that dropships should "drop" units, there are instances where dropships are capable of interplanetary travel. A big example of this is the Acclamator class ships in the Star Wars prequels (i know, i know) were capable of both dropping enormous numbers of units and interplanetary travel. (and fyi dropships were mentioned in Dune over 10 years before Alien)

Also why build in space? No ship from any race in Stargate was built in space (where references exist) and in Star Wars Mon Calamari ships were built underwater. Why create a space structure and then add all the extra work needed to create the ability to attack them when you can just build on land.

Also, since when was defending a planet easy?

Even 1-2 engineers will be enough to establish a number of factory's before the enemy knows whats happening.

Any layer that has spent the time to completely defend the entire surface of a planet will easily be subject to a number of nasty occurrences, so moving an army is kinda pointless when you can build a new one on the go, and radar jammers will just further magnify the problem leaving players to defend their bases and scout the rest of the planet in case of infiltration.

Enhanced Orbital Units was the second Kickstarter Stretch Goal, so there's no question that there will be orbital units and platforms in PA, which presumably includes factories and shipyards.

So you're disagreeing with Uber -- good luck with that.

Transporting all units via rockets is absurd. One rocket is required to launch the Commander to the moon. That rocket couldn't carry more than 10 units. The player cannot possibly launch a successful planetary invasion 10 units at a time. Larger rockets would presumably require larger Rocket Gantries. And rockets are single-use, one-way interplanetary transportation vehicles, which means those units couldn't be returned until they built a Rocket Gantry at their destination. That's impractical, especially if the destination is a moon or asteroid. And impossible if the player didn't include the Commander or an Engineer with the invasion force, so there'd be no way to build a RG.

Uber has already announced the Unit Cannon's limitations. 'm unaware of any announcement from Uber about mobile asteroids. It's my understanding that is not how asteroids will work in PA. You can't use asteroid engines to move asteroids wherever you want, because that would require mapping an entire solar system, which is impractical and absurd.

I can't be certain, buy my interpretation of orbital units was in relation to the gas giants which were also unlocked in that goal. They have made it very explicit that there will be no in-space combat.

Orbiting units, not buildings (Nit-picking)

Also, seeing as units are meant to be disposable, how is it not practical?

Hell why not just build another army at the destination?

Because it's possible he has his entire pop-cap there. You need some way of sending a large force there.

Well that's silly of him, still whats cooler then thousands of transport rockets?

And even then, planets will be mostly barren and un-coverd by radar (Planets are frigging huge), so build another base while your army is cut down on landing.

See it's that presumption which people are debating. Is that the best tantrum you can throw? I'm sure you can do better.

Unless I grossly misunderstood the Planetary Annihilation's Kickstarter page, I believe that Planetary Annihilation is fictional too.

It's pointless to argue the meaning of "Dropship" because every source I've found supports my position. It's only people like YOU who have wrong pre-conceived ideas about the "Dropship" who disagree with me.

NO! The Acclamator-class Assault Ship from Star Wars is NOT a Dropship. Here's it's official Wookieepedia page: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Acclamat ... sault_ship Show me where it says "dropship" there. You're WRONG. The Acclamator is an ASSAULT SHIP capable of hyperspace travel AND atmospheric flight. Simply because it can takeoff and land on a planet to load and unload troops, vehicles, and supplies does NOT make it a Dropship.

I read Dune a long time ago, so I don't have time to hunt down that mention of it. But a quick internet search lead me to this: http://www.tombsofkobol.com/classic/dune-ships-01.html In what appears to be a page from an official sourcebook, the "Harkkonen Dropship" is actually described as a flagship, which presumably means its a large starship. Ironically, that particular page includes Guild Transports, which are actual dropships deployed by the Guild Heighliner mothership. Regardless, one single source doesn't discredit all of my sources for the definition of Dropship.

As I explained already, Enhanced Orbital units were a KS Stretch Goal and have been confirmed by Uber. Presumably that means Orbital factories and shipyards.

I didn't say that it was impossible to build spaceships on a planet. My point was their large footprint would make it impractical, especially if they're built from a factory or shipyard, because PA's planet's are relatively small. A land-based spacecraft factory would occupy a substantial chunk of the player's base -- territory that could be better utilized. It's more practical to produce space craft IN SPACE.

Go on, say it three times, maybe it'll come true.

By the same logic you can't disprove there won't be orbital factories and shipyards either. It's a rational presumption based on Uber's KS Update #3 regarding the Gas Giant and Enhanced Orbital Units stretch goal: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/659 ... sts/293648

Perhaps they don't explicitly say "orbital factories and shipyards", but Space Platforms implies at least partial base construction in orbit, which would presumably mean factories and shipyards. Again, you can't disprove that either.

TROLL.

If the OP has any integrity he'll tell you not to try to derail this discussion with your blatant trolling.