Subs

If not subs, what about amphibious units?

I'm not sure if I'm taking this statement too literally, but I really like the idea of subs as an option, and I think naval combat will be far less dull if they are re-introduced. Bobucles' signature comes to mind here.

#Bring_back_the_Sub

No but honestly. I can see why subs don't seem fun since it seems to turn into who can spam more game.

I however always liked the Cruise missile subs or nuclear missile ones. Hiding in the deep blue sea.

At least put those bad boys in the game

Torpedo bots.
Gunships/bombers (torpedo variant, or just let them shoot underwater).
Use more claustrophobia type units like melee range bots, more stealth/cloakers, or even lethal reclaimers(nom nom).

So while everything on the surface is an artillery weapon for some reason, everything underwater is a lethal close range sneaky killer.

bots and tanks arent grouped together.......

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


please we can haz

But think of the torpedo launchers!

Yes, but they're quite different in terms of roles. Subs, not so much. Not right now anyway.

Well they could be, but they were always done a bit shoddily.

what's not different about undetectable without sonar, stealth ship slayers??? Also good for that comm hiding underwater. You must not have played TA??? Subs are entirely different my friend. Albeit in TA they were invisible without sonar and were under water, but TA was limited by technology of the time and units couldn't pass directly over top of them due to the2d nature of the game. Now though imagine sneaking subs into your enemies ship yard all because they didn't build sonar and wrecking his naval economy

If there are completely water covered biomes (giving the impression that full scale naval battles are a thing that the game wants to go with) it just seems backwards that subs aren't included. If the game is going to give the option of naval battles then subs should be in as they provide a tactical/strategic advantage to the navy that uses them, otherwise you may as well just put floaties on the bots or call it blue dirt.

Honestly naval should just be removed and more spacey things thrown in, its a game about conquering planetary systems, not establishing naval dominance. In the end the naval dominance can be wiped out by a MOON FALLING INTO YOUR PLANET, making the whole naval side a distraction at best but more likely a complete waste of resources since no naval structure leads to space/system domination.

Water looks cool on planets and helps with the aesthetics of the game; gravy, excellent, gotcha. Now, slap a max limit on that ****, trash 'all water' planets as a theater of war and lets get on with blowing up space things.

Very bad news...
I don't like this "aren't needed" idea.
You can made a game do sub. layer or dont sub. layer. sure.
But i think +1layer -1layer ratio no good.
(planets only "3d" islands in the ocean)
Undervater units/buildings the best anty orbital constructions.
We have orbital layer but we haven't got sub layer is strange.
Water worlds are important in this game. naval and sub constructions are very useful(eco/teleporter).
Because we has liquid planets and solar systems.

yes I think no water something diferent material. You know: beer or something else.
CO2

Yes, I agree. I don't even get their uses. Please, I don't supports subs and can you please not add them and work on something else. To me, they feel like a waste of time. You should just work on a radar jammer or something instead.

Some people are actually more opposed to something sneaking in killing their stuff because they forgot to build something than the idea of subs, if arguments in the for/against stealth units/radar jammer threads are any indication. But i'm with you, this is part of warfare (and TA, SupCom, FA, and SupCom2) imo, and should be in.

Didn't a great man once say:
"What's the point in having bots and tanks? What's the point in having naval? Why air? What's the point in doing anything at all?"

What typically happens is subs are strong vs battleships, frigates/ cruisers are strong vs subs (and detect them), battleships strong vs cruisers.

Plus aircraft.

That's the naval trinity.

Now it's Battleships are strong vs frigates, hard counter for battleships are more battleships.

Maybe the antidote for battleships would be the T2 bombers? Not sure I like where that's headed.

The naval trinity. This is the real argument for subs here.

Air already fills too many roles in this game - I agree that there should be a specialist unit designed to kill shis (torpedo bombers), but making T2 bombers also take this role puts too much emphasis on the air game.

Subs are very well needed for the already mentioned trinity and to prevent situations such as "the counter to battleships are more battleships".
Subs could also be a way to defend yourself vs. amphibious units like tanks which are able to go under water.
The more options we have the better this will become and not turn into stupid spamfest.