Unit launcher

exactly.

Tatsu, the only things I got from the trailer were possible unit numbers and the Unit Launcher. Also the shockwaves in explosions which looked oh so sexy.

There is going to be a unit launcher, not because it was in the trailer, but because it adds depth, variety and awesomeness. I'm simply basing my postulations on what little fact we have to go on. For all we know, the Unit Cannon could function like the Noah Cannon, an artillery unit with effectively infinite range, has no blind spot, and pays for itself because of its fabrication efficiency.

I'm relaying what I know about a good idea with my opinion attached to it. No need to throw a hissy fit.

sorry, again, it's not about the unit cannon. this has been bubbling up for a while. there is effectively a Pa kickstarter video sect on the forums. And you're one of the good chaps, I don't want you in it.
What is there to do except manifest against it when I see it? I don't think creating a thread for it would work.

The unit cannon is a really good idea, just wetatsujb is saying that having an open mind about the game is a lot better than basing everything on the video we got.

While awesome, the stats of a unit launching cannon are still very much up in the air. For example, the video shows the cannon as a totally fixed weapon that can only fire in one direction. That sort of thing could be very cool, or very bad. It's bad because a fixed cannon isn't very useful on planets. You get one firing arc and thus a very limited selection of targets. Asteroids move around, so they don't care. That means the tool is only fully effective when used on gigantic space rocks, which is a very cool balance mechanic that doesn't rely on "costs 50000 metal burns 200K energy per shot" sort of crap.

good point, makes the orientation mechanic become crucial in that case.

i imagine the unitcannon is just first pass since it just has been shown in the trailer ... it would be definitively preferable if they make it so it can rotate like a normal artillerygun

Preferable yes, but necessary? I guess that depends on how you perceive the unit gun's role. You can already get omnidirectional transport by using plain ol' transports, and you can move between bases using teleport stations. But neither of those are good for assaulting planets. The unit gun is clearly shown to be good at assaulting worlds, which is something you're likely doing from an asteroid. So the gun needs "cheap, fast, asteroid friendly" in order to be any use.

A fixed gun is much less useful, and thus much cheaper. It remains asteroid friendly, which is exactly where the gun needs to excel. And if you really wanted to turn the thing, then you can
A) build another one
B) reclaim the old one for a refund.

Which is much easier to do when the weapon is cheap.

A) transports can be shot down if spoted by interceptors that alone makes the unitcannon much saver even on a earthtype
B) what has unit functionality to do with it´s cost? what big difference would it even make costwise if this thing is able to turn .. it would clearly cost much more to built 2 of those instead of one that is turnable ..
oh i built the canon the wrong way i wasted time money and energy and not only is this canon worthles but i have to built it again ..
and even IF the turnable one were more expensive i still would prefer it more .. and who says it would be cheaper to begin with?
it´s yet not in ..

Alternatively:
Put Unit Cannon onto a railroad system in order to move it around. Now we can aim it via a choo-choo train!
Also, add choo-choo train unit!

Then we you take it over you can pose with the cannon!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/274mm45_railroad_gun_captured_Apr1945.jpeg
Or give it treads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1500_Monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte

(I've got a thing for random WWII references)

You appear to be experiencing some technical difficulties. Please stay on the line, and a representative will arrive shortly to explain the fundamental axioms of a strategy game:

i see ... cause you don´t seem to be compentend enough to explain it ...

Because my last 2000 posts are clearly that of incompetence. Yes, good job calling me out on that one.

No, the reason I won't explain it (other than because it'd be repeating myself yet again from long ago) is because you don't actually need to know. All the explanations are going to sound trite, arbitrary and pointless to a typical person, and that's because they are. They aren't made for you. They're made for the dev, who is tasked with making the reality of a unit correspond with its supposed to do. One might call it the unit's intended use.

Let's try the unit cannon again, a bit slower this time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing can competently send units from one allied world to another hostile world. So that's where the cannon needs to shine. The unit cannon's power on a planet is not that relevant, because other tools can competently move units around the same planet (transports) or to allied planets(teleports, asteroids). So these roles are mutable, it doesn't matter if the cannon is good or not for this.

A fully turreted cannon can launch units anywhere, anytime, with no mitigating factors or additional expense. It ends up so good that... say... it can't cost anything less than 15K before it becomes a spammed iwin-cannon. But asteroid invasions are expensive because you need rockets and engines and a whole bunch of other stuff. Adding a 15K unit gun is simply too expensive.

So the gun needs a nerf. You already gave it paper thin armor and limited range, and making it not shoot units is a class S retard move. But hey. What's this? If the gun doesn't turn, it totally sucks on the ground! And it still works great on asteroids. And now that it's not a win-gun anymore, I can drop the cost to 5K. Finally, I can launch units from asteroids and conquer worlds with it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Look again. The turret actually hurt the weapon's intended role. It made the weapon directly good at something that didn't matter, and indirectly broke it by taking away the only thing it needed to do. Now if that's still too advanced for ya...

Because better things cost more, and the unit cannon needs to be cheap.

The end.

your explanation means to me the cannon shall only be good on a moon or astroids but suck when build on a planet
which imo simply just sucks in general ... yes it shouldn´t be spamable as i said i´m ok with a high price and high contruction time since it is a VERY special building compared to air or (even) orbital platform at least i consider t like that .. otherwise i could go as well and theoreticaly spam orbital transports/landers instead of the unitcannon

units don´t need to be cheap they need to be cost effective with a propper balance on risk/reward ...

the dev team already said that the orbit the unit is fired on "could" be changed, without having to rotate the cannon, and that it wasn't necessary. (Please note, they didn't confirm that orbits of fired units will be changeable, just that it is something that can be done without having to alter the unit cannon model)

Yes. That's exactly what it would accomplish, and the way in which it is accomplished provides the least collateral damage while hitting its targeted role.

Welcome to design 201, where we laugh at babies that think numbers solve everything. If that explanation is not satisfactory, then this type of discussion is too intense for ya. Ain't nothing I can do about that.

never said nor assumed that numbers solve everything though they can solve stuff ... get from your high horse

Hey man, I tried the best I could. If you won't get on my level, and persist in taking everything personally rather than learning from the experience, you'll just have to be stuck looking up.

(It's bad for your neck, I don't recommend it.)

(Careful, the thin air up there is known to have a negative effect on the brain functions.)

You completely forgot that the range of the unit canon is highly dependent of the local gravity, so even if it was turreted, it would still have insignificant range on planets, despite the fact that the very same unit canon is capable of interplanetary transport when placed on bodies in high potential orbit.

And yet another point you forgot: There is not only build cost, but also a possible energy cost for every single use of the unit canon.

I'm not forgetting that. Range is being handled through hard coded range limits, rather than absolute physics. If the team decides to have range rings account for gravity/altitude/etc., then that has to change first.

Yes, the cannon doesn't need to have a huge radius to reach to and from orbit (it's not as though real space ranges are being used here). But the tradeoffs still remain the same. A stronger/more versatile weapon necessarily has to cost more, which means one expertise is being boosted at the expense of another. It's just a matter of deciding what works better or worse to match the game's vision.

Nope, didn't forget that either. Energy/sec ==> Fixed # of Generators ==> Fixed amount of metal.

Energy is always going to be a FIXED cost in the grand scheme of things.

(A crazy old man said I'd find true love on top of a mountain, but all I see is a pristine, untouched land with infinite potential for miles around. What a total crock. I want my burrito back.)