T1 orbital, a possible solution to the Space as T3 problem.

Right now orbital units are essentially T3 and it's very easy to win a game before either player's economy reaches the stage where they can afford to go into space. As a result space, the selling point of the game, gets neglected.

Here is my sugestion.

Introduce a T1 orbital factory that can only be built on moons and small planets without atmosphere. These T1 orbital units would more or less replace air units for planets without air (airplanes on the moon look silly)
There would also be a T1 version of the orbital transport which can only take off or land on moons, or crashland on larger planets.

If a commander is on a Moon, he can almost immediately travel to anywhere in the solar system if he invests in it. However once he lands on a large planet, he is stuck there until he gets T2 infastructure.

This creates some interesting strategic situations. Large planets would be more valuable resource wise than moons, but also more expensive and restricting.

Orbital in T1 might be a good idea, but having it be specific to moons and small planets is killing your idea before it starts.

How so? On a larger planet it takes more energy to put something in orbit.

If you can only build it on a moon, it is a non-factor when players start on a large planet. And furthermore, what if it is a large moon? It's an arbitrary rule for no legitimate reason other than "gravity well" realism.

T1 orbital is an excellent idea, however. My proposal is to have basic orbital units be launched using rockets, and be disposable craft or low-tech satellites. Such as a one-way transport for one unit at a reasonable price, or an unarmed probe or spy satellite. Inexpensive, and they give players access to the orbital layer and other planets in a limited way.

Advanced orbital would be ships, space stations, and other enduring, reusable orbital units. The factory itself might be a space elevator for a very high price, acting as a large time delay for when these enduring orbital units can be fielded. But since you can access other planets using rockets (you just cannot easily transport an army or rain fiery death from space) you don't necessarily need advanced orbital at all to have interplanetary warfare.

I also am of the opinion that orbital units should 1) actually orbit a gravity well instead of being able to move freely in any direction, or even stop. And 2) they should need to stay in space. If they land, they ain't going back up again. Suborbital aircraft would be able to go down to the surface and back up again, such as to pick up or drop off land units. But your real interplanetary spaceships themselves never go down to the surface once launched.

The idea is that A) if you start on a moon, the game will progress differently from if you had started on a planet. and B) if you DO start on a planet and get to a moon, space things will be less expensive once you are already in space.

Wait... why would you want orbital early?

I'm all for toning down orbital so it's not such a huge jump from Adv. but I can't think of a reason that I'd want it early.

Early-game orbital expansion could be fun for a game-type. Then you'd be fighting across multiple fronts while expanding your universal economy. Could have a single-use engineer transport for early-game.

But why?

As opposed to all of the ones in real life that do? Sure, there's single-use space vessels but if you're talking about sci-fi epic cruisers (etc) they'd never be "launched" as they'd be assembled in space. But in PA, it's not about realism, it's about coolness factor.

Because there are plenty of things you can do with Orbital early game, what I want to know why you don't think there is anything you can do in T1 with Orbital?

Mike

The basic orbital factory needs a few critical units.

Probe: This unit is for scouting when the players spawn on different planets. It goes to the target planet and crashes, spawning a scout unit (could make it a rover and call it the Curiosity).

Spy Satellite: Used for scouting your current planet. Orbits around one planet only, giving vision. This gives the orbital factory a use for when the players spawn on the same planet.

Missile Satellite: Light orbital defense. Weak, but can destroy unarmed units like probes and spy satellites.

Transport: The most expensive basic orbital unit. One-way transport for a single unit, crashes down and is destroyed. Used to get an engineer to another planet. Very inefficient to use to transport a large group of units.

I am sure there are other units that would make sense to include in a basic orbital factory. But all the really fun toys will go in the advanced orbital factory.

What's the point of trying to solve the 'space is T3' issue if your solution only occurs on a fraction of the maps that players will actually start on? It's like solving the basic/advanced power dilemma by only changing naval warfare.

Yep, very much like all of these ideas. I'm sure uber still have a lot of work to put into orbital, so I'm not going to make too many opinions yet but T1 orbital is definitely something I'd like to see.

I don't want to reignite an old debate, but another possibility to limit the capability of T1 orbital is to have it behave with realistic orbital mechanics (ie not be self propelled). This would make it useful for cheaply colonising new planets and getting rapid radar/rover scouting but not as precise as the more expensive T2 equivalents.

i`m for basic orbital helping you to scout and expand to other noncaptured planets while advanced either helps to fortify those or attack enemy planets

T1 orbital units,
Probe (Scout)
Orbital Fighter
Basic orbital transport (drops cargo off by crash-landing)
Small solar power sat

T2 orbital units
Radar Satellite
Laser Satellite
Advanced orbital transport (re-usable)
Large solar power sat

The T1 factory would only be buildable on worlds without an atmosphere and would not have the rocket launch animation, units would just fly directly into orbit. The T2 factory could build all (or at least some of) the units the T1 factory would build, but they would be more expensive because they need to be launched.

Why are you repeating such a bad idea as limiting the kind of planet that can have a basic orbital factory? It's arbitrary and serves no purpose except "ooh, different gravity."

Again, no. Why? No other factory would waste roster space on this redundancy for a factory you already have. And charging different amounts for the same unit in different factories is arbitrary and pointless. You would just never build that unit from the more expensive factory, you would assist the one where the unit was cheaper. And again, there's no point in even having the redundant roster at all, much less at different costs.

Because it adds verity which creates different situations. We already have some planets with oceans and some planets without. The idea is you will have to build different things and use different tactics on different worlds. The "Oh gravity" thing is just a convenient excuse.

The reason is because you wouldn't be able to build the T1 orbital factory on a planet with an atmosphere. The only difference between T1 and T2 factories here would be one includes a rocket to launch them and the other just sends them straight into orbit.


I ask you, what's wrong with having different planets require different types of units and different strategies? I think it's dumb that all planets use the same mix of bots tanks and jets, with the only difference that some also have boats.

If Uber added things to the game purely because there's "plenty of things" they can do then the game would never be done.

Why do we need early Orbital and for what benefit?
How could it diversify the early choices in a meaningful way?
How would it make the game better?

I see a few decent use cases:

• Alternative/supplemental to early radar with more expensive but optical satellite.
• Early expansion options.
• Orbital scout (although effectively uncounterable at this stage)

But the issue remains that almost every suggestion I've seen for Orbital is that it is either Air 2.0 or a separate layer of construction that is almost entirely separated from ground-play.

If orbital is more cost-efficient than ground then it provides too much power due to high mobility and a lack of early orbital defenses.
If orbital is the same cost-efficiency then it really is Air 2.0
If orbital is less cost-efficient then you have to weigh the risk of building orbital against the need to defend your base/commander.

Almost everything in orbital is a flat-upgrade/replacement to something ground-based.

Satellites make radar/scouting obsolete
Orbital lasers make bombers obsolete
Solar arrays make power plants obsolete

The main reason for orbital, at present, is for expanding to other planets/moons.

The obvious purpose of Orbital is to facilitate interplanetary warfare. It is better focused into that role rather than being supplemental to planetary battles.

Maybe this is a reaaaaallly dumb question.

But why limit the early-game map at all?


A lot of base building RTS games are fun because you play hide-and-go-seek.

• You can proxy/hidden base.
• You can attack from unexpected directions.
• We can see emergent tactics and game openers based the actual celestial layout.

I think this is one of those features we have been missing!!!
To fight all over a solar system right away?
This is scale!

I'll add another +1 for Basic Orbital. Very much do want.

More options and more choice makes that game funner.

On the other hand, why would you restrict a whole area of the game behind a tech/economical barrier? When good player face off, the game ends way before you near the barrier.

Quantity over quality is a terrible way to design a game.

Additionally, if you think nothing should be put behind a barrier then why have Adv. at all? Why shouldn't everything be buildable by one factory? Why can't the commander build every building in the game? It gives you more choices.

It's all about investment vs. reward. You invest in a path towards specific units by building their Adv. factory. That way it forces you to commit to a strategy rather than simply switching strategies constantly to counter the opponent. You have to make do and mitigate any negatives of your strategic choices.

This is why Starcraft has upgrades. Investment vs. reward. Something to compare, making decisions that last.

+1

It would be nice for the game to head in that direction.