An Unorthodox Commander Idea

My idea is an Orbital Commander, here is what i mean in more depth:





So what do you think? Is it a good idea that could allow for fun game play or a silly one thats unbalanced and flawed?

While I like your basic concept, I feel that the execution is sooort of lacking. I'll dwell on it a bit.

Though it being stationary it's real vulnerable to STA rockets and missiles.

I added a thing saying it can destroy STA missile in the paint. I would assume a critical mass would score hits.

Again its a base idea, improvement is definitely needed. I think if executed properly it could add an interesting game element.

If this is implemented there would also need to be a naval commander, so before game start you choose either a land commander, an orbital commander or a naval commander. This chose could also influence your starting position, like an orbital increase your proximity to a gas giant, a naval to an ocean world and land to a metal (or something planet).

An interesting idea there, could add a new balance

"Early commander snipeing[sic] rushes" are a valid tactic (as long as they're not so good that they're the only tactic), but this would actually encourage rushing, not reduce it.

If your commander is in space, and your opponent's commander decides to rush your base with his commander and some T1, you're bound to lose because your commander isn't there to counter your opponent's commander.

Possibly, perhaps the Orbital Commander could fire down, but only directly below him?

Into your base alone? To prevent that?

The main issue with this is that it gives an insane head start to the orbital commander, if he can change what body he orbits he could create asteroid and moon bases much quicker.

I'm against orbital units with ranges limited by anything other than which side of the planet they can see or lack of units to spot for them, on the grounds that it doesn't make any sense.

They were not going for realism, they are going for awesome.

Who cares if it makes sense.

As a more die-hard Strategy Gamer (despite being a casual), I am against this. Severely.

Okay, so here's the scenario I see in my head:

*Game starts, 1 Commander is Land, one is Orbital*

*Land Commander decides to do a mixed force assault, focuses on Land*
*Orbital Commander decides to focus on teching up early on*

*Land Commander rolls out some harassment squads, takes out Orbital Commander's Mexes*

*Orbital Commander responds with a cobbled together force of Gunships, Bombers and Interceptors, ends up getting his force smashed by the Land Commander's reserve Interceptors*

*Land Commander moves his land force up to the enemy base, begins to punch through the heavy defenses resulting from the Orbital Commander's teching up*

*Orbital Commander looses the battle completely, ends up getting smashed by the Land Commander's shiny new Naval Bombardment force*

*Orbital Commander lingers in space, eventually builds thrusters and flies off to asteroid*

*Land Commander begins to work on Interplanetary Tech*

*Orbital Commander finds mass-rich asteroid, mines the **** out of it in impunity*

*Orbital Commander finishes mining asteroid completely, packs up his stuff and flings spent Asteroid at Land Commander's base*

*Land Commander's Energy Eco and Tech Eco is decimated by Asteroid, planet is slightly terraformed and PGens are less efficient because of the heat*

*Orbital Commander repeats what he did before, smashes another asteroid into the Land Commander*

*Land Commander finally gets off the ground and finds that the Orbital Commander has created an interstellar empire rivaling WH40k's Imperium of Man. Orbital Commander has giant laser defense-cannons floating around his capital planet, all other sources of mass have been compromised*

*Land Commander flings his planet at the Orbital Commander's capital planet, ragequits as the game draws*

In all seriousness, this is just speculation, but an Orbital Commander which would be 100% invincible at the start of a game would be ******* stupid. If you roflsmash in a game because your enemy didn't build any defenses, and decided to boost all his Mass Extractors efficiency so he could have a better late game force, and it's a 1v1, and it's on a small world, he DESERVES swift and unconditional death.

"We're going for awesome." is not a carte blanche to put in whatever arbitrary restrictions you want because your idea is almost impossible to balance as it is. Acceptable breaks from reality are one thing, but a unit that's in space, yet is unable to move or fire anywhere but straight down isn't awesome, it's just making units unable to do things they should logically be able to do for no good reason.

Making a unit incapable of some things for the sake of balance is not a new idea. Your ideas are a it Utopian here, i am just trying to make an idea work, also objects in GEO orbit are basically immobile.

Using thalidomide to treat morning sickness isn't a new idea either, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Your idea requires dodgy hacks to balance but doesn't add anything to the game. SupCom and TA stood out because they managed to mostly avoid putting in any obvious arbitrary restrictions for the sake of balance. And the ones they did have were a lot more believable than someone putting a military satellite in orbit without any engines whatsoever, incapable even of simple rotation.

Gravity bombardment.

Oh look, all of a sudden you can't shoot anywhere but down!


“Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” - George Bernard Shaw

A wise quote to keep in mind. Basically, instead of trying to shoot down (lol) ideas, why not come up with ways they would make sense?

Geostationary orbits do not work that way. I'll leave you to figure out why dropping a projectile out of a unit that's in orbit doesn't work, since if you can't, it's probably not worth trying to explain it.

Because I don't want a commander that isn't on the battlefield. It defeats the point of the game, and decreases tactical depth. Why should I try and justify someone else's chocolate teapot?

Dropping? who said anything about dropping? How about "throwing"? Well, not precisely throwing, because you can get a lot of range quickly for your momentum, but you get the point.

Because, to be frank, you're coming across as a downer who wants to insult people's opinions and poke holes in ideas more than actually discuss things.

Bad ideas should have holes poked in them. If an idea can't stand up to robust scrutiny it's a bad idea.

Or, you know, the idea could be made better...

By poking holes in them, flaws are revealed, and the idea can be made better...

What is it you don't understand about how debate works.