Jump to content
0something0

Planetside vs Orbital Balancing

Recommended Posts

Planets (ignoring the wide variety of planets that exist between each other), and outer space are very different environments (though airless worlds are quite similar) and likely will support different styles of gameplay and engineering. However, it might be possible or even desirable that balancing is tilted towards a certain operational environment. Let's look at our universe and physics to analyze certain characteristics and see how that would translate over into gameplay. 

 

It is generally accepted to my knowledge that despite the large costs of proper space-based infrastructure, by taking advantage of Lunar, Near earth, and asteroid belt resources, outer space populations will eventually gain the economic and strategic upper hand. This is due to the massive amounts of natural resources present in space, from common and precious metals to volatile "ices". Self-sufficiency should theoretically be possible, and once that happens, space-sourced goods become far cheaper (in space) than Earth-sourced counterparts due to the massive energy costs associated with space launch. 

 

In Dual Universe, planetside-sourced goods may stay economically competitive as orbital access I imagine will be much easier compared to real life. This however, makes setting up space-based industry much easier in the first place, which may lead to a stable equilibrium where both environments are competitive sources of goods. However, the biggest killer here are the cores. Based on my (probably outdated) non-NDA knowledge, static cores will scale up much bigger in the final game than dynamic cores. If planetside industry can take full advantage of economies of scale that orbital industries cannot, ground-based industry probably will win out.

 

Strategies are important as well. Under real physics, using orbital bombardment until the enemy surrenders (and dealing with potential insurgents later) is certainly a valid strategy. Wars will be won in deep space. However, the lack of WMDs and automated weaponry, even those seen on modern combat systems (e.g. Predator UAV, Tomahawk missiles, Phalanx CIWS) (despite the fact that high tech systems such as engines and nuclear reactors probably will have lots of automation beneath the hood for gameplay reasons) and rather relying on human operators means combat will likely look less like The Expanse and more like Star Wars.  Perhaps some inspiration will be taken from pre-transistor combat spacecraft designs such as Dyna-Soar or Project Orion Space Battleship, but I digress. The lack of weapons automation means human operators will have to play a more active role in space-to-ground combat, shifting the balance towards planetary forces.

 

Overall, I think its likely that Dual Universe will be balanced towards planetary gameplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm gonna say what I feel safe saying, theoretically there are ways to completely lock a player on a planet, for instance, say I don't have an abundance of resources on X planet that I need, I have to travel to Y planet, but if people from Z planet want to completely lock down X planets, idk, fuel supply, then X planet can't do anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is 2 point you should take note:
1. We can build a very big static core outside of space, as in the kickstart video they said you can build that big station they show in the first video, a very enormous one.

2. Link core. Well you can link core together (i dont know for static or dynamic ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2019 at 9:43 PM, 0something0 said:

Planets (ignoring the wide variety of planets that exist between each other), and outer space are very different environments (though airless worlds are quite similar) and likely will support different styles of gameplay and engineering. However, it might be possible or even desirable that balancing is tilted towards a certain operational environment. Let's look at our universe and physics to analyze certain characteristics and see how that would translate over into gameplay. 

 

It is generally accepted to my knowledge that despite the large costs of proper space-based infrastructure, by taking advantage of Lunar, Near earth, and asteroid belt resources, outer space populations will eventually gain the economic and strategic upper hand. This is due to the massive amounts of natural resources present in space, from common and precious metals to volatile "ices". Self-sufficiency should theoretically be possible, and once that happens, space-sourced goods become far cheaper (in space) than Earth-sourced counterparts due to the massive energy costs associated with space launch. 

 

In Dual Universe, planetside-sourced goods may stay economically competitive as orbital access I imagine will be much easier compared to real life. This however, makes setting up space-based industry much easier in the first place, which may lead to a stable equilibrium where both environments are competitive sources of goods. However, the biggest killer here are the cores. Based on my (probably outdated) non-NDA knowledge, static cores will scale up much bigger in the final game than dynamic cores. If planetside industry can take full advantage of economies of scale that orbital industries cannot, ground-based industry probably will win out.

 

Strategies are important as well. Under real physics, using orbital bombardment until the enemy surrenders (and dealing with potential insurgents later) is certainly a valid strategy. Wars will be won in deep space. However, the lack of WMDs and automated weaponry, even those seen on modern combat systems (e.g. Predator UAV, Tomahawk missiles, Phalanx CIWS) (despite the fact that high tech systems such as engines and nuclear reactors probably will have lots of automation beneath the hood for gameplay reasons) and rather relying on human operators means combat will likely look less like The Expanse and more like Star Wars.  Perhaps some inspiration will be taken from pre-transistor combat spacecraft designs such as Dyna-Soar or Project Orion Space Battleship, but I digress. The lack of weapons automation means human operators will have to play a more active role in space-to-ground combat, shifting the balance towards planetary forces.

 

Overall, I think its likely that Dual Universe will be balanced towards planetary gameplay. 

Well even if they don't balance out and space is economically superior to planet side, I think you are misinterpreting the strategic benefits of planets for military. While space is going to be cheaper to produce goods, planets is what I would call "the center of gravity" and here are three reason why.

  1. If we take for example planets is Star Wars, they have shields that prevent orbital bombardment and so it requires sending in a ground force to destroy said buildings. If the studio includes automated defenses of a certain scale, they can make planets more strategically valuable, based off resources needed and the scale (think massive batteries or solar farms etc). Easier to just build a large turret next to building A and connect it with wires over another hardened structure to protect said battery/cpu when it is out in space.
  2. A planet is unlikely to get destroyed compared to a space station no matter how big. So in a war situation it is more sound to stock pile your hardware on a planet that can be in a underground facility. This then makes the situation more like a war of attrition where the defenders goal is to retain their city and wear out the defender. As long as the city has enough resources, it then becomes a matter of who breaks first. This will also make the Han Solo game play more realistic as the attackers, if they are unable to siege the city, will need to have a blockade to prevent additional resources/reinforcements from coming. 
  3. Planets are very important for large organizations as you can just use the factories to reconquer the space you have lost. Unless you destroy that organizations center of gravity which is them being on the planet, they will just take back the territory in space. As another organization you also don't want no hardware on those planets as you push deeper into the organization because they will also threaten your "lines of communication" which is a kiss of death of a campaign.

I don't think it is necessary to balance out either as just the fundamental game design should be enough. Space is going to be economically superior to build a bunch of stuff and that sounds reasonable with no fuel costs like it is to get goods off planet side. But space is very vulnerable and organizations that are totally space dependent with no planet territories or going to be easily destroyed in a war no matter how big.  

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...