Idea: New unit type, amphibious

I've seen loads of people wanting amphibious vehicles, but I've found one major flaw in it: Working it into the pre-existing vehicle type would shift the focus of the game to vehicles, which I don't feel is correct. I think a new type of unit specifically for amphibious vehicles would be best.
Tier 1 units:

1. Amphibious Fabricator
   1. Note: Has less build options than a normal fabricator; can only build structures that can be placed both on land and on water. Cost is roughly that of airplanes and efficiency is similar (rather than using more energy, amphibious fabricators use more metal)
2. Amphibious Tank
   1. Have less health than a T1 tank, and shorter range, but have the added bonus of travelling faster than naval units when on water and faster than T1 tanks on land. Roughly similar price to T1 tank. Looks similar to an M4 Sherman used in the Normandy beach landing.
   2. Possible names
      1. Normandy (refrence to WWII Normandy landing)
      2. Riptide
3. Amphibious "Inferno" vehicle.
   1. Even slower than the inferno, but has slightly more range. Cannot fire on the water. Does not use "rhomboid" tank design; has tread design similar to T1 tank. Identical cost to Inferno.
   2. Possible names
      1. Firestorm
      2. Fire Tide
4. Amphibious anti-air.
   1. Slightly more range than the spinner; projectiles do not track. Fires quickly.
   2. Possible names
      1. Thunderbolt (reference to A-10 "Thunderbolt" gatling gun)
5. Amphibious units do not possess a scout.

Tier 2 units:

1. Advanced Fabricator
   1. Has econ similar to advanced air fabber (uses more metal than energy however), can build all structures that an advanced fabber can build (sans land-only units), however they still can build catalysts.
2. Advanced tank
   1. Design appears similar to the T-34 medium tank. Even faster than the T1 unit, the T2 unit has roughly similar health, but has a high turret traverse. Vehicle itself turns slowly. More tuned to hit and run tactics.
   2. Possible names
      1. Kursk (reference to Battle of Kursk, largest tank battle in history)
      2. Steel Wave
      3. Shark
      4. Baracuda
3. Artillery vehicle
   1. Has stats roughly similar to the land-based T2 artillery vehicle. Cannot fire on water. Can fire on the move, but is less accurate. Slightly shorter range than T2 artillery.
   2. Possible names
      1. Bertha (reference to the aptly named "Big Bertha" howitzer)
      2. Hurricane

All ideas are open to criticism. I know it's quite a big post, but an idea this big requires big explanations.

+1

Hm.. Stuart's thought of the same thing for Statera (A whole new unit group based around being amphibious)

And I dunno', I'm still skeptical of it, here as well.

Dox/slammers walking through water is an interesting approach, but it needs some work; dox can fire so long as their torsos are above the water, and since the shallow puddles make up a lot of water terrain, there's a disproportionate amount of Dox firing from within the water - which breaks the mechanic for the most part.

If any vehicle were to be made amphibious, it would encroach on the role of navy... navy already needs a significant boost to be effective.

Specific bots and a couple of vehicles should be made amphibious. A specialized fabricator or two, your duck type bot (torps underater/anti-land above water), maybe a heavy amphibious tank. And then you should have a couple of hover tanks. A raider, an anti-air, etc.

I miss the Salem destroyers

personaly i would want a t2 hovercraft factory ... or do you mean actualy that by amphibius?amphibius to me sounds like only traversing through water ... those however like the dox or slammer wouldnt be able through travers trough lava ...

you just suggested bots, under the current balance *slow clap*

I think if the dox had floaties it would be the best thing ever.

Amphibious research.

Ohhhhhhh goooooood I mentioned research asjdfsajfsa that can of worms.

But more seriously, I'm sure people will quite simply mod researches into the game - especially for something like this. Could even be a server rule to tick - "if ticked all vehicles are now amphibious". Would make for some interesting alternate playstyles.

The problem with introducing an amphibious unit type is that it supercedes naval entirely - or is entirely redundant because naval is superior. There isn't much of a middle ground.

to be honest i don´t see any true strategic decision in upgrades (which is for the most part simply just making your units better in some way) or research ... to me that seems like slowing down pace for the most part ...
but if you seriously want strategic techprogression in some sort of way then a better solution imho is to not add research or techbuildings but instead go and have unittypes be unlocked in the unittypefacilitites at least in PA´s case ...
another way how i would do it if i could is to lock unittypefacilities and its core counters to specific fabbers and have also a dedicated fabber factory that instead of the unitype facilities builds the fabbers ... like a commandcenter/hq/towncenter (as an neat extra let the fabberfacility be transformable to be its own mobile fabber .. would make it a nice replacement for a commander) ... that would also add some more strategic value to the factories and fabbers imo

Research is a choice. Everything you do in a game revolves around a concept of choice. I could probably write a small essay on this, but those first two lines are key.

Yes, research can be used as a pacing tool. Yes, research can be used to introduce players to core gameplay and faction-specific concepts. Yes, research is used to reduce the initial burden of knowledge on the player.

None of these are bad things.

Unit redundancy is a bad thing - unequivocally.

Well amphibious doesn't necessarily mean combat-capable.

Which means all people desire are amphibious transports, which in that event supercede air transports (and/or necessitate ground-based defenses . . . which are already in place vs. a naval assault because you have standard defenses and AA defensese).

It's redundant. That is, probably, vast generalisation and assumption, why research was even introduced in the first place, to any such game. To provide flavoursome upgrades that lock in economic decisions (and thus consequences) without dramatically increasing player burden wrt. unit count and also preventing redundancy.

These units are way different from bots. Not all bots are amphibious. These units would be available from the start just like any other unit, no research required.

Amphibious or naval transports for ground would be great if not for teleporters... and round planets.

A whole separate amphibious factory would be largely redundant, is the majot consensus I think.

A separate amphibious factory is needed because otherwise naval still won't be able to attack non-coastal land.

And it still wouldn't, the factory doesn't really change anything. :S

I'm referring to naval as a player in the water, not as the factory.

Air is too easily shut down to be the only method for naval to attack land with.

An amphib factory allows naval to construct units that can be used in land.

The amphibious vehicle factory, when built on water, appears similar to the naval factory. When it is built on land, it is similar to the vehicle factory.