Building on water?

Why is water going to be a major obstacle? Nature has been living in the water for billions of years. Surely a killer robot can figure it out.

Other then by planes, who fly over lava very well.

And underwater bases would be hard to sport and hard to attack.

Bombers and gunships can't attack them there unless they sport weaponry that can travel under the surface of the water.

LOL you'll change your tune when you try to use air units against structures under water. Same with anything on land or on the water surface that doesn't have torpedos

The water barrier allows for completely new classes of weapons. New weapon classes mean new potential units. New pathing layers means new potential units.

Torpedoes(water missiles) and depth charges(water bombs) are the bare minimum. As a medium water allows for alternate lethal options like sonic(water laser), gripping(capture/reclaim), or weapons that can only be fired from water(exotic, high temperature stuff). Using cavitation a boat can be dropped straight to the ocean floor, helpless. Using refrigeration a boat can be made 10 times larger and self heal when compared to standard armor.

Go nuts. The only limit is what you can think up.

I would like to see underwater buildings and how submarines effects base building on water. Before you ask why build underwater. Artillery.

Also, nukes (should) only hit the water surface

Underwater buildings, if/when we get them, will hopefully add some of the complexity you're looking for.

Not being able to build Holkins is already a massive restriction, and the differences between Torpedo Launchers and lasers may become more apparent as time goes on; in particular, a massable amphibious unit (*cough cough tank*) that overwhelms the slow-firing, single-target damage of Torpedoes would be interesting.

If there were one unit I'd agree with removing to diversify naval, it'd be walls. Shoreline walls are fine, but in the deep sea it's patently silly. - unless they were snapped onto (presumably deeper-rooted) naval structures, which we won't be seeing for a number of reasons involving the build grid.

I think underwater walls for barricading amphibious units would be sensible, but floating walls and floating T2 Power Gens look daft.

I think a lot of on water structures should be replaced by units. Instead of floating air factories, we could have aircraft carriers.

the floating walls should drag down to the bottom, it would be silly to have 2 units with the same purpose and have them in the same place.

Nah. You couldn't have a wall from the seafloor to the sea surface, it'd look really weird for a start. Just don't try to stop ships with walls. Have mines or something instead.

So the walls should explode when a boat touches them.

@eroticburrito ... TA afaik had both waterwalls and tidalenergygenerators and as weird as it may look to you it works ..
To me personaly their is nothing weird in building walls in water .. you can build dams and bridges in water in rl so why not walls in a game too

I just think an underwater base would look kinda awesome when it's all lit up and stuff. Obviously some things like Air Facs/Torps need to be on the surface but it would certainly help differentiate a land from a naval base if the bulk of structures were underwater. It might also be a novel means of acquiring natural Line of Sight stealth, requiring sonar rather than a roaming 50 Scout planes to discover.

We have to see if uber can build that propperly in ... i dont mint it

As for holkins and nukes as some complained ..... nukesubs and leviathans anyone?

I totally disagree there. This would discourage naval gameplay and would go against one of their sort of stretch goals which is allow 100% naval planets.

I don't think it would discourage it, just keep the land gameplay on land.

But why do that? What's wrong with water. It should be as important as land and wir and orbital, especially since 50% of mex can spawn there.

.......that's not how nukes work.