Satellites.

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by wolfdogg, September 22, 2012.

  1. wolfdogg

    wolfdogg Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I suppose it depends on where they come in the game in relation to the units that can take them out. When a player goes to T3 he immediately has chance to build both SML and SMD. IF a player rushes to this option he can nuke an opponent who is still at T2 or caught napping and not built SMD.

    So if a satellite was a T2 technology and both players had access to it and the ability to counter it (by whatever means is decided) then I see no problem with it personally. Besides that, it's a passive ability unlike a nuke or the NOVAX. I think that is also worth considering in the context of how counter measures are applied.
  2. Sylenall

    Sylenall Member

    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not keen on weaponized satellites floating over my base. Seems kinda cheesy and would probably require specific specialized counters. Should I *need* to construct orbital layer tech just because you did(I'm thinking more of a 1v1 on single surface planet here)? Can I still win with conventional units? Or do they just get nuked by your satellites? Satellites seem like they would have too much free-range of movement and relatively high immunity from most types of units to be a fair map-based weapon.

    Intel(radar) or space defense (which intercepts incoming space units/special munitions) are interesting concepts though, and I think they would be more bonus than direct advantage, and also more applicable in larger multi-planet games.
    Last edited: October 7, 2012
  3. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    I feel that weaponized satellite should be a 'Glass cannon' type of unit, losing potential defense for ultimate mobility and firepower.
  4. wolfdogg

    wolfdogg Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I suppose it depends on how we are viewing orbital and I think we can only speculate from here on in. We don't know how it's going to work so I ask the question: Do we see them as simply another unit type or do we see them as an escalation beyond T2?

    Personally, since I would imagine it's unlikely that orbital units would normally be able to interact with surface type units. That makes me tend not to think of them as the same thing as land or air. So on this basis I would say it's more of an escalation that players should all be striving for. Allowing players greater influence over the planet and eventually facilitating interplanetary travel. So it would be something like: T1 --> T2 --> Orbital.

    So my answer to your question (I know it was hypothetical) is yes, you should need to construct orbital layer tech. Just as much as you should build T2. In this context at least.

    Yeah. For example, a direct line of sight satellite would just be a bonus compared to a ground based radar. You'd just be able to see what the units actually are rather than just radar blips. As for 'StarWars' satellites, I think satellites as countermeasures is pretty cool.
  5. slimexpert

    slimexpert New Member

    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    On Intel sats, I would like to see two orbits, a lower (cheaper) orbit, with perhaps a 10 minute orbit, this would give you a complete view of the planet, weather permitting, but not all at the same time. So, might frustrate you.

    The more expensive higher orbit would provide a geostationary sats, these are locked to the planets rotation, and can have their relative position set using thrusters to position over an enemies base, or near you own base.

    This would provide better Intel - i mean continuous from that point - again weather permitting.

    As for attacking sats, that should be expensive, but doable, perhaps a special aircraft that fires an orbital missile from altitude, of course the sats might have a small cache of anti-missile defense rockets, to counter.

    Again, lower sats easier to hit.

    The idea of weather i think should be looked at, as strategies would then ensue - we all demand the S in RTS. So, weather would allow for better concealment in attack prep and execution. Like earth some place might just be cloudy most of the time.

    Slim
  6. benrj00

    benrj00 New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    There could be a solar collection satellite that could be put in a geostationary orbit over a ground station and it could beam energy down to the planet. As far as WMDs go, instead of sending the energy to the player, one could put the satellite in a geosynchronous orbit and collect a massive amount of energy on the satellite to fire in a short but powerful burst of radiation at the planet's surface.

Share This Page