Naval Feedback

+1
Ships turn, move or aim so slowly that pelters are way too good against them.

Can you please make naval fun like ta and sup com...add subs, sub nukes, sub missle launchers, add more naval warfare, aircraft carrier that can build planes much faster than regular factory just make it so it doesn't suck lol

Isn't that the whole point? Naval are slow as it is, if you get caught out of position by a naval force, that's your mistake buddy, radar or scouting should have tipped you to their presence ages ago.

If you make everything super fast and able to react to situations far away from where they are, micro becomes infuriatingly demanding, and proper positioning loses importance, I wouldn't want to see that.

On another topic, stingrays need to be made more like they were early on with a bigger range. If you're gonna assault a land base while being stuck in the water, your missiles need to be able to hit inland properly.

aye, my biggest issue with naval balance isn't naval balance, it's that there's too many bodies of water that aren't continuous in randomly generated maps - too many lakes and not enough rivers.

Naval to land (and vice versa) is also kinda, meh as well at T1.

Like, I build in a pond, and you on the land.

It's essentially a air game until you get slammers and kick my ***, assuming I didn't fill the lake up with boats.

Supcom also had issues with this (Not that it had full naval bases), but there was some serious segregation of naval and land going on.

But supcom's navy was like, really fun, and PA's kinda feels really kinda meh, alsmot like the land battles too.

I build more and zerg with land boats and sea tanks.

It's hard to describe, but supcom navy feels really cool and fun (once you took the 17 hoursa to build a navy.).

Yeah, naval mobility and land bombardment were important in supcom, and the bodies of water were really big compared to ship sizes - the little ponds in PA aren't really the same. I actually killed a guy on the world domination map for supcom with a single destroyer, later that same match my fleet of 30 cruiser, 25 destroyers, 4 battleships, and 2 atlantis faced down a group of 30 something soul rippers - my navy was destroyed gloriously.

I have no interest in such an ammunition system, thats what we have the energiebased reload for ...
your response to my question in difference between the airfactory and aircraftcarrier doesnt answer anything ... i see no reason to have a naval carrier yet ...

@websterx01

What diversaty is there when it doesnt add anything different than existing units? to me there is a much more clearer reason to have a orbital carrier than a naval one ...

there is no reason to have it for carrying planes yet because you rather would want your aircraft to fly around all the time ... we dont even have airstagering platforms and those didnt got used in supcom at all ...

so realy to me the naval carrier would be entirely useless

and we have airfactories already

I still think that if the Astraeus can lift ships, it should be able to drop them on land. For the luls.

Make navel with one or all of: Moon boats, leg boats, tread boats, wing boats or hover boats. Make them usfull after the water battle is won.

Also give a reason to build in water.

I'd like to see hovercraft, submarines, sonar stations, underwater bases. That kind of stuff.

Hi there,

New user here, not really played PA, but freakingly interested in this, as a former SupCom player. I've bought the game last week, by the way ...
Also, while I've played a number of RTS games, I really love naval, probably because it's notoriously absent from pretty much any RTS (SupCom and Warcraft 2 being exceptions).

I'll give some thoughts here, based also on Real Life stuff, which is one of my personnal interests.

Naval needs to be usefull and also unique. Air can go everywhere, so is basically the go to way. Ground is limited by ground boundaries, like is Naval. So, Naval boundaries should be on par with ground boundaries in terms of planet generation, which is my understanding is not the case. Why would we ever build warships in RL if all continents were connected via ground (outside of fuel consumption considerations) ??? We wouldn't. So, this would need to be amended in the game.

Then, naval offers one unique thing that has been (and still is) exploited for more than half of century in RL: subs. Yes, you're hidden from air and ground forces, which is unique and has posed a number of problems during WW2 and still today. The only way to get this kind of units is naval. This really needs to be in PA, like was in SupCom. Really. As long as subs will be there, there will be a need to keep a naval force to hunt them down.

Now, onto planes carriers, which is a topic of this thread as well. They exist in RL only because of fuel costs to move planes from one side of the planet to the other. If this dimension is not present in PA (which is my understanding), then carriers are of no need. If logistics is reworked (with range abilities, fuel costs, etc ...), then that would become an entirely different thing (a lot mpore complex, by the way).

Then, we have the topic of mixed units (units that can go earth and naval), like in SupCom. I personnally think, but that's just me, only transport units should go ground/naval or ground/air. This assumes ground is the "natural" playground (therefore, no air/naval). This is mostly the case in RL: you only transport military units to ground via naval or air.

Last comment: keep it up, devs, it seems like really good game dev practise, here. I'll stop here, in order to have time to play the game, finally

They originally had subs, but took them out because the coding for the submerging and emerging was an awkward thing to code. They also were frail. And to give you an idea, we had nuclear, attack, and fabrication subs.

This is especially a problem in maps with pools of water that are not too large in size, but are wide enough to prevent easy and quick access for land units to your enemy's base.

Don't you be trying to critique my awesome 3v3 map and my team's amazing skill!

Ok, I got that, but no sub means naval is just another ground, just different (aka, ground2 is not compatible with ground1).
So, no point going naval except for planet land/water distribution reasons ...

I think going naval should have some better features than being another ground, otherwise it won't be used at all. There has to be some unique feature for naval against ground, like in RL In RL, naval is unique: only way to strike anywhere on earth, without being detected, if you can afford it.

Okay, just played several games on that naval map in the pool. In PTE.

I agree on a makeover for the battleship, they are awesome, but don't look it.

In fact, I would love to see some new models (of the same units) for naval in general


Erm.. the missile cruisers didn't seem too good, could do with a range buff... i guess. That idea about trails would be great. I thought the pathing was okay, they got stuck a couple of times, but that might have been me taking them into the shallows.

I thought the overall balance on T1 was ok, although maybe the anti air boat could do with a little more speed.

The AI needs work on naval, I mean it built it, but not very well. I beat absurd (?) pretty easy, sorry Sorian.

The only other ideas I had while playing was it would be neat for the naval fabs to be hovercraft, kinda circular little doodads, that could go on land too.

Oh, and yes, the aiming seemed a little odd at times.

I'm being super critical here, I did have a lot of fun.

I liked the map, but it was pretty much a case of 'whoever pushed naval hardest wrecked the other base and won'. You did it to us first, and in the second game we focussed naval and beat you the same way. Neither of us managed to repel the naval from the land with any success at all.

Actually, huge things to a limit shouldn't be able to hop, unless for funzies. However, a map with 4 medium lakes is really loaded to play naval on, as a naval investment is localized to the point of uselessness. If they don't connect, your investment is spent wrong. Being able to move between bodies of water would at least allow one naval investment to apply to other bodies of water.

Especially if those other bodies are other planets as well. Imagine playing without land teleporters across 4 non-halleyable planets. Units would be a non-build. That is how naval is. 2 naval worlds or more, cannot be played with massed units because naval is pool-locked. If you could invade another planet with a naval force, you could have 2+ planet naval-orbital games.

The water generated is based on how the terrain generates height right?

So why not make sure that even at a low water setting, all major water sources link up into one ocean?

I would like to see the hovercraft be buildable only with a naval factory. It can take on the harass role for naval and would be immune to torpedoes. It would also give a way to encroach on land with naval. Perhaps add a hovercraft fabber unit.