Underground bases!

I think there's enough access to an enemy base already when you're on a spherical map.

I think it would make more sense to have a few units that can tunnel like the Nod APC and the flame tank from Tiberium Sun, this would give you the option of stealth, like getting behind an enemy's defensive line and striking at the heart of their base, or having like bombs or cannons that pop up out of the ground, yell suprise and make your day hell if you didn't scout well. For visuals you could use an outline of the unit in your color, and for orders have a command to burrow and unburrow. On lava planets burrowed units would take damage over time, on water planets you can't build those units etc.

Metal Fatigue was the only game I'm aware of that had full proper underground warfare. In fact it had three levels (orbital, ground and underground) and it was pretty sweet.

The game was far too complicated and difficult to keep track of everything though. I think PA will be complex enough as it is without adding yet another layer of battle.

The suggestion of being able to build structures underground was more intended to those who simply wants the option to have a hidden underground base. As to oppose to using a Cloak generator, well this would require a crap loads of power to cloak the base as simply digging a hole or building a "Gateway" door to teleport above ground units to below ground.

As it was on Earth 2150, I loved how they done there idea of digging up the terrain and contruction of underground area for units to travel.

Like I said, the suggestion is just a "Option" for players who want to build underground, not everyone has to do it.

Some of you are saying by adding underground would just add more complex to PA, well here is an idea, don't build underground. If you are worried about the fact of fighting underground, well there is little something called "Bunker Busting Bombs" something that is used to hit structures deep underground.

or could always Nuke the area once you had cleared the above ground area.

I am sure a Nuke would create a nice massive hole in the ground or should. =)

The complexity is a problem for the developers, not the players.

Besides, I'm not sure what this actually adds to the gameplay, I haven't heard a single argument in favour of it that doesn't boil down to BUT IT WOULD BE COOL!!#@!@1

I do like the idea of being able to camouflage a building this way...I don't know about requiring bunker busters to destroy them. Being hidden is a pretty big benefit without also requiring special units to destroy it.

It's the underground terraforming or the general concept of an underground view that I think people are against.

Then you ignored my post.

Tactical options = more gameplay.

**** sakes.

Yeah your post sounded a lot like WOODEN EAT BEER CAWL.

@sleepwarz your statement was it adds strategic points and value.
Granted, it is a new way to fight, but as far as I can see it's just a way for land structures and units to exist and move and attack in a way that is immune to Air, Navy and Artillery.


In other news, I have an idea to get stealth working. Basically any ground unit can be made invisible by going through a portal to another dimension. They can still move around the map and can reappear at any time but they can only be attacked by people who can see them. The ui will come equipped with a stealth-vision toggle. Toggling it will hide everything except the terrain and "stealthed" units. You can blindly tell your units to attack them by figuring out where they are and telling them to attack.

I figure noone will mind this idea, the fine details are a little different but it's exactly the same as underground.

It doesn't work like that.

It must be true, your explanation why was so in depth.

I really think this might be difficult to balance, a player could always hide underground and wouldn't the bases itself be really tiny? Also the planet being a sphere I don't expect it to work as well as it would on a flat plane.

I'd love this but I don't see it working.

I have read though 4 pages of this and I think I am falling into the "Do Not Want" camp.

This sounds like a lot more trouble than it's worth.

I think it´s way more fun if we can have "floating" bases in high atmosphere instead of underground bases. That kind of floating structures would be usefull and credible in big gaseous planets (since they dont have a "ground")

What I believe is that underground bases are to complicated to use. Underwater bases (aka tunnels and domes) would be better, and easier to use and design. Furthermore underground bases would mean it would take hours to capture planets.

Just thinking how hard would it be to hunt down a commander when every small asteroid is a potential fortress.


But still freaking awesome.

Okay lets understand the picture here. They want a Galactic War kind of action okay so

If you cannot handle long hours of war then this game is not for you. This is not Starcraft nor Warcraft where everything is built around a system of where a game should only last 10 seconds and then start another match. No, this is war my friend and it is about "Surviving" and Divide & Conquer of your enemy's.

That is only one game type.

First you are wrong. If it takes hours to capture a planet because of underground bases, multiply that by how many planetoids in a system (let's say 6), multiply that by how many systems in a Galactic War map (let's say 100) and you are looking at a completely impractical amount of time.

Secondly I doubt that they would make underground bases impenetrable fortresses, its just a little too overpowered.

The big problem with underground bases is visual. It is directly connected to the surface battle, except you can't see it at the same time as everything else. To properly manage it you gotta switch constantly between above ground and underground. That's just nasty.

An orbital layer would work because you can see flying things and all the ground forces at the same time.

Only underground factories could work, with an exit that could only be damaged by heavy ground fire. Should also be more expensive. They would require direct hits from very heavy weapons. For example, heavy artillery, experimental vehicles' cannons or direct hits from a squadron of Strategic Bombers. No simple airstrike should do these in though.These would be expensive factories, and would require a squadron(like 6-8) of expensive strategic bombers to knock out.