Jump to content

Orbital Bombardment-OB  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Should orbital bombardment be added to DU as a game mechanic in order to seige bases?

    • Yes no restrictions
      11
    • Be fun if only limited to a degree as to not have abuse
      12
    • Not at all this will just create trolls
      6
  2. 2. Should we restrict bombardment to a certain side IE offence or defense?

    • Bolth
      13
    • Offense only
      1
    • Defense only
      1


Recommended Posts

I would accept this proposal but only if space born weapons have their damage reduced to around 20% of their normal space damage due to the atmospheric interference.

 

ie: (Proposed science/lore)

 

Atmosphere spreading laser beam weapon focus and hence intensity

Projectile weapons 'bullets' burning up as they travel through the air

missiles having to deal with weather (wind) conditions putting them off course - something they are not designed to handle (they are a space based weapon after all )

etc.

 

Naturally I would also assume that ground based weapons would also include anti-orbital options to shoot back at orbital attackers, though with greater damage potential as their weapons will be designed to handle atmospheric issues - to some degree. So lets say 35% of their close quarters (non orbital) damage potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CoreVamore said:

I would accept this proposal but only if space born weapons have their damage reduced to around 20% of their normal space damage due to the atmospheric interference.

 

ie: (Proposed science/lore)

 

Atmosphere spreading laser beam weapon focus and hence intensity

Projectile weapons 'bullets' burning up as they travel through the air

missiles having to deal with weather (wind) conditions putting them off course - something they are not designed to handle (they are a space based weapon after all )

etc.

 

Naturally I would also assume that ground based weapons would also include anti-orbital options to shoot back at orbital attackers, though with greater damage potential as their weapons will be designed to handle atmospheric issues - to some degree. So lets say 35% of their close quarters (non orbital) damage potential.

I would not be opposed to this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any way of balancing this, and I think it would be more compelling to keep atmo and space battles mostly separate. So if you want to attack planet side, you need planetary ships, just adds more to logistics/gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2018 at 8:52 PM, Haunty said:

I don't see any way of balancing this, and I think it would be more compelling to keep atmo and space battles mostly separate. So if you want to attack planet side, you need planetary ships, just adds more to logistics/gameplay.

Why not have atmospheric to space ship battles it also allows for powerfull defences giving defenders the atvantage they should have

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orbital bombardment would definitely add an interesting element in the game but there should be counter for it:, shields and anti orbit weapons, which being stationary should be easier to make and more powerful than ship based ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, unown006 said:

Why not have atmospheric to space ship battles it also allows for powerfull defences giving defenders the atvantage they should have

It makes it too easy for an attacker to go around damaging bases without any other purpose. And if defenders have powerful defenses, they could blow away non-attacking orbital ships just because they can. It's unbalanced, and to balance it you would need to introduce a bunch of arbitrary mechanics, when it would make more sense to just force attackers to come to the surface to fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Haunty said:

It makes it too easy for an attacker to go around damaging bases without any other purpose. And if defenders have powerful defenses, they could blow away non-attacking orbital ships just because they can. It's unbalanced, and to balance it you would need to introduce a bunch of arbitrary mechanics, when it would make more sense to just force attackers to come to the surface to fight.

If you start getting shot near a planet move also The shots are not likely to be fast and more for big warships " they could blow away non-attacking orbital ships just because they can" and yes its called life I still do not see unbalance "and to balance it you would need to introduce a bunch of arbitrary mechanics" maby but not necessarily it more depends on how combat works but you should name em off in your next response "when it would make more sense to just force attackers to come to the surface to fight." Not always there may come a time when orbital bombardment is the best form of action and it adds to game-play and the games reputation as how many other games do you know of that can do orbital to atmospheric combat in real time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if orbital bombardment weapons aren't added, I can see hypersonic bombers designed to launch from a spaceship, strike its target in an aerobraking-like maneuver and then go back out like the USAF Dyna Soar from the 1960s. 

 

There could also be CIWS weapons to shoot down projectiles rather then the ships themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key thing is balance! Stand off / long range weapons are cool to use but can also cause unbalance in a game and abuse if the defender does not have equal weapons or counter measures for protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm what other game has this mechanic??!! I'm all for it, and with some of the other responses and ideas just makes me much more excited to see something like that implemented into the game! I mean at first it'd be kinda cool to see the full effect without any prior balancing (you know like one of those old tales to be told i.e. remember back when orbital strikes first got put into the game where you could do this and this? those were mad times man). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, vylqun said:

 the transition between space and atmosphere is seemless, so it wouldnt work to seperate combat for both of them.

It's only physically seamless, it is a gameplay barrier and there has to be a limited combat range.

 

10 hours ago, TheShadowSage said:

Uhm what other game has this mechanic?

Planetside had orbital strikes, but that was an fps, only high rank commanders could use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Haunty said:

It's only physically seamless, it is a gameplay barrier and there has to be a limited combat range.

correct, but how will you limit it? If you create a hard limit then people will just jump between "air" and "space" in battle, dodging shots. If its a soft limit depending on the range of the weaponry then its hard to realize it, because most wepons will work more or less within space and atmosphere. And the range of the weapons can't be really short because space combat wouldn't be feasable then, thus the surface of a planet would be well within striking range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be rather cool to have orbital bombardment. Like in dust 514: special weapons to mark a target. Eve players then could fly to that planet and shoot the mark from space. Very risky but imho pretty neat.

 

It's very hard to balance though as others said already.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎22‎-‎4‎-‎2018 at 6:52 AM, 0something0 said:

USAF Dyna Soar from the 1960s. 

The naming department really didn't get paid enough for that name. Brilliant!

 

But sadly the game engine tech won't aloud us the pleasure and wonders of high velocity impact weaponry that wasn't predesigned.

 

Imagine diving down, eject a very dense and heavy cone shaped projectile and then maneuver away. The explosive energy on impact alone would wake up the neighbors from miles away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to call orbital strikes OP then you are going to have to called high altitude air strikes OP as well. It's essentially the same thing. Unless there is some sort of speed bonus.

 

Before thinking about balancing, take a look at how it would inherently be balanced:

 

There's two types of bombardment you can use: ballistic and laser

 

Ballistic

Advantages:

  • Suppression capability - you can launch a barrage of rounds one after the other and keep ground troops holed up for a while.
  • AOE - you can cover a large zone with explosive rounds
  • Acceleration - falling from tens of kilometres up is going to pack a punch in terms of kinetics

Disadvantages:

  • Timing - If you are launching the round like a projectile, then you have to time it exactly right or park your orbit in a different place. If you are launching them like missiles then they're going to need propellant/ guidance systems. These systems are going to need heat shielding to get through the atmosphere. A thruster covered in heat shielding is going to overheat and burn out if you're not careful. You can turn off the thruster while slowing to terminal velocity but that makes you vulnerable to counter shots. The design to overcome this is a very streamlined and insulating rocket with a fancy thruster. That won't pack much punch unless you've got some good explosives or it's really long. If it's too long you won't be able to dodge counter shots. I don't know if they are going to add actual heating effects in game though. I know you can see the hot air on screen but I don't know if it actually heats up.
  • Collateral - you're going to be destroying a lot. Be it your own ground troops, civilians or valuable enemy infrastructure. If you want to be selective it is very limiting.
  • Delay - anyone can snipe your projectiles out of the sky while they fall. Missiles however could theoretically dodge this.
  • Burning up - unless you're shooting super dense cannonballs, streamlined rods or heat shielded rounds you'll be hitting them with jelly

Laser

Advanatages:

  • Accuracy - low collateral. Very selective
  • Instantaneous - no need to time anything. Just point and click

Disadvantages:

  • Cost - the technology is advanced. The power is demanding. Especially if you want a decent diameter, high energy beam over a large period of time
  • Low suppression - you can't just spam them along. you have to hold a controlled beam.

There's half way types of ammunition like rail gun and plasma but I won't go in to those. They basically combine the best/worst of both worlds.

In general, orbital strikes are good as a last resort in a defending scenario or when you have carefully prepared for an offence

 

With this in mind I think they'd be pretty balanced as they stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the physics and stuff is realistic then a large iron rod (50,000-100,000 tons) dropped from orbit could destroy an area the size of a small town.  We're talking a kilometer wide crater.  That's realism.  Also a bit OP for a game.  It would be cool though. Because physics is cool. ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Korvid Rin said:

Oh gawd.  Imagine if we could affect the orbits of random asteroids...  That's orbital bombardment. But we can't destroy planets.  /sadface.

Sounds like a Starship Troopers kinda thing. Or that one time in Stargate: SG1. Both very unrealistic in execution but still pretty awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18-4-2018 at 1:34 AM, CoreVamore said:

I would accept this proposal but only if space born weapons have their damage reduced to around 20% of their normal space damage due to the atmospheric interference.

 

ie: (Proposed science/lore)

 

Atmosphere spreading laser beam weapon focus and hence intensity

Projectile weapons 'bullets' burning up as they travel through the air

missiles having to deal with weather (wind) conditions putting them off course - something they are not designed to handle (they are a space based weapon after all )

etc.

 

Naturally I would also assume that ground based weapons would also include anti-orbital options to shoot back at orbital attackers, though with greater damage potential as their weapons will be designed to handle atmospheric issues - to some degree. So lets say 35% of their close quarters (non orbital) damage potential.

I doubt that's the way to go. If a game mechanism were to require arbitrary limitations no amount of lore can realistically cover it plus you create an opening towards pitfalls of iterative development. 

 

At this point it's a dev decision of "no" by default versus "conditional yes". But the conditions are a case of which technologies are available. Weapons are technology paths, a kinetic strike package isn't going to have arbitrary atmospheric interference. A rock however will. 

 

To be perfectly honest I'd favour stepping up core development and in a future consider things like these. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Korvid Rin said:

If the physics and stuff is realistic then a large iron rod (50,000-100,000 tons) dropped from orbit could destroy an area the size of a small town.  We're talking a kilometer wide crater.  That's realism.  Also a bit OP for a game.  It would be cool though. Because physics is cool. ? 

3rd hand information: NQ has said there will be no collision damage

 

7 hours ago, Korvid Rin said:

Oh gawd.  Imagine if we could affect the orbits of random asteroids...  That's orbital bombardment. But we can't destroy planets.  /sadface.

And nothing other than player made constructs actually orbit anything. Too demanding on the engine to move every single voxel about a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2018 at 9:52 PM, 0something0 said:

Even if orbital bombardment weapons aren't added, I can see hypersonic bombers designed to launch from a spaceship, strike its target in an aerobraking-like maneuver and then go back out like the USAF Dyna Soar from the 1960s. 

 

There could also be CIWS weapons to shoot down projectiles rather then the ships themselves.

I bet many things will be tested I guess it will be added to the list

 

On 4/28/2018 at 12:35 PM, Veld said:

If you're going to call orbital strikes OP then you are going to have to called high altitude air strikes OP as well. It's essentially the same thing. Unless there is some sort of speed bonus.

 

Before thinking about balancing, take a look at how it would inherently be balanced:

 

There's two types of bombardment you can use: ballistic and laser

 

Ballistic

Advantages:

  • Suppression capability - you can launch a barrage of rounds one after the other and keep ground troops holed up for a while.
  • AOE - you can cover a large zone with explosive rounds
  • Acceleration - falling from tens of kilometres up is going to pack a punch in terms of kinetics

Disadvantages:

  • Timing - If you are launching the round like a projectile, then you have to time it exactly right or park your orbit in a different place. If you are launching them like missiles then they're going to need propellant/ guidance systems. These systems are going to need heat shielding to get through the atmosphere. A thruster covered in heat shielding is going to overheat and burn out if you're not careful. You can turn off the thruster while slowing to terminal velocity but that makes you vulnerable to counter shots. The design to overcome this is a very streamlined and insulating rocket with a fancy thruster. That won't pack much punch unless you've got some good explosives or it's really long. If it's too long you won't be able to dodge counter shots. I don't know if they are going to add actual heating effects in game though. I know you can see the hot air on screen but I don't know if it actually heats up.
  • Collateral - you're going to be destroying a lot. Be it your own ground troops, civilians or valuable enemy infrastructure. If you want to be selective it is very limiting.
  • Delay - anyone can snipe your projectiles out of the sky while they fall. Missiles however could theoretically dodge this.
  • Burning up - unless you're shooting super dense cannonballs, streamlined rods or heat shielded rounds you'll be hitting them with jelly

Laser

Advanatages:

  • Accuracy - low collateral. Very selective
  • Instantaneous - no need to time anything. Just point and click

Disadvantages:

  • Cost - the technology is advanced. The power is demanding. Especially if you want a decent diameter, high energy beam over a large period of time
  • Low suppression - you can't just spam them along. you have to hold a controlled beam.

There's half way types of ammunition like rail gun and plasma but I won't go in to those. They basically combine the best/worst of both worlds.

In general, orbital strikes are good as a last resort in a defending scenario or when you have carefully prepared for an offence

 

With this in mind I think they'd be pretty balanced as they stand.

I agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...