what about building on the ocean bottom as opposed to pontoons?

Discussion in 'Support!' started by rogersmithbigo, October 20, 2013.

  1. rogersmithbigo

    rogersmithbigo New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    6
    building on the ocean bottom would bring another element to the battlefield. being that scouts, torpedo bombers and subs would need to sweep the area. i understand point d and aa but for things like mass and energy storage, i think underwater buildings would add a level of depth.
    Last edited: October 20, 2013
  2. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    Again, this is the most lazy way of starting a topic I have ever seen that I don't understand why anybody would take it seriously.
  3. gedomaru

    gedomaru New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    agreed.
  4. rogersmithbigo

    rogersmithbigo New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    6
  5. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    The problem with that kind of depth is that it completely removes the structures form an attackable element that can be used on every other targeting in the game, as now suddenly tanks, bombers, battleships are unable to attack such targets and the job is left to specialists who are not designed for the job.

    Torpedo bombers and subs are designed to attack big units like battleships and are unsuited to hitting small buildings without enormous amounts of overkill and time between shots.

    It does add a layer of natural stealth to the structures and it would require the use of a wider list of subs to fill most of the combat roles that are usually not present at that level, but it is very unlike to actually happen.
  6. jurgenvonjurgensen

    jurgenvonjurgensen Active Member

    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    65
    You say that, but currently, T1 metal extractors (1000 hp) are almost as tough as battleships (1150 hp).
  7. lapsedpacifist

    lapsedpacifist Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    877
    Also, not that realism matters, but it's much MUCH easier to build structures on the surface so you don't have to worry about complete waterproofing against high pressures. There's a reason oil rigs aren't on the ocean floor.
    Getting things to float/stand on struts is very easy. Building under massive pressure is not, and that's true in the future too.
  8. rogersmithbigo

    rogersmithbigo New Member

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    6
    where is the problem?
    torpedo bombers and subs are for attacking water based units.
    there's 3 types of fighting subs that i know of. attack subs, missile subs, and special operations mini subs. don't get cray.
    on the dev team?
  9. lollybomb

    lollybomb Member

    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    8
    I for one have an intense hatred for seabed structures. This stems back to TA where I'd prefer the "Total Annihilation" setting because it forced me to do a bit more than commander snipe. Unfortunately the AI loved to build things underwater, and only torpedoes/depth charges could hit them, so endgame always ground to a halt looking for that one little group of units and then slowly chipping away at them.

    It's also one of the reason I really liked that they added the "Supremacy" setting in SupCom.
  10. warrenkc

    warrenkc Active Member

    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    191
    I think it would be nice. Nothing like a nuke coming from a sleeper sub at the bottom. Having resources/buildings on the bottom sounds nice to me. If not now, later.

Share This Page