[Poll] Laser Sats - Snipers, Bombardments or Beams?

This right here - the SXX is too fragile for too little ROI, in my opinion. But if it were accompanied by a herd of its younglings... then we'd be getting somewhere. =P And there would be a much better reason to build more than one or two umbrellas to keep a position on total lockdown.

I think a part of the problem is also the overabundance of orbital intel you get from a single deepspace radar. When it's easy to see an SXX being built, you can quickly spam out umbrellas/orbital fighters for an easy, cost effective kill. However, if you had to earn that intel to find out your enemy was building one, the surprise/unpreparedness factor would make it a lot more useful IMO. It's the same situation that nukes used to have on planet.

Although I know most people hate this idea since it adds more scouting/uncertainty into the game, I think the deepspace radar is almost as OP as the advanced radar satellite used to be; it gives way too much intel for it's cost and somewhat negates strong orbital strategies, since you can easily see everything that's happening everywhere.

True as well - though they are separate issues, they do intersect a bit.

Also - does the SXX have some kind of beef with the area attack command? Sometimes I want to park it over an enemy's base and tell it to just have FUN, but it will attack one target and then quit...

I created a Poll on possible ways Orbital Recon could be Tiered. I feel different kinds/Tiers of recon might go some way to allowing for more tactical play in Orbital.

I think that Orbital Combat should be expensive and late-game. After all, it's for when you're fighting interplanetary wars. I think it would be difficult to balance cheap satellites as T1 Dox killers, and might be a tad unnecessary as Air already fills the role of cheap, semi-invulnerable bombing. I agree the SXX should be T2 - I think Orbital's role lies with late-game, interplanetary invasions and siege bombardments.

Haha, nice poll. My take on how Uber should change it is a bit different though, mostly explained here.

Re: the original poll - I think an orbital nuke/antinuke system would have to be super limited (no interorbital attacks, for example) but it could be a fun idea. An orbital antinuke platform would also be mobile, so you may not need as many of them even if their effective range were stunted (as I believe it ought to be if it exists.)

As for other superweapons - I've had an idea in my head of a ground-based or huge satellite-based megalaser that can only attack targets on other orbital bodies, with an effect similar to a scaled-up Holkins. When asteroids come into play as orbital warships, I see this and nuclear missiles as their primary means of attacking each other.

nothing particullarly intresting in the poll for me ...

Are the poll result percentages messed up for anyone else?

This is quoted straight from the poll. It adds up to 267.5

In this poll you can select more than one option - the percentages aren't how many responders want ONLY that thing, it's how many responders want that and possibly other things.

Your apathy has been noted.

As I said in my OP, these options are not mutually exclusive, hence I allowed the selection of multiple options in the Poll. My brain is not feeling like cooperating in trying to explain how this works with percentages. Basically if 50% of people voted for something, then 50% of all possible voters who voted (possibly for multiple things) voted for that option. It's percentage of voters to options, not votes for options. I hope that makes sense because it took me an embarrassingly long amount of time to vocalise that.

ah okay, didn't realize you could select multiple options

But I made it so obvious in my OP!

you sure like using high-res meme images don't you?

Apparently. I don't even.

Edit: Hah open the quoted thread and click the trollface.

Hahaha

this ... ... is ... sooooooo .... soooooooooo ... SOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! ... beautyful