That is a complex answer that I might tackle in depth at some point and actually Raevn hit some some of the very points I was thinking of, in particular the moving of certain roles to units, either added to existing units or creating a new unit, why build a Floating Nuk Launcher when you can just have a Nuck Ship? Obviously theres more to it than that. Other random things off the top of my head; Instead of say Power Generators being the same thing with some attached floaties make it look like it belongs, even go so far as to call it a 'Tidal' generator even if it shares all the same functional characteristics(hp, cost ect ect) Change up the economy slightly, maybe something akin to my old RIG idea(first bit of the post, the rest is general balance stuff) but I want to take a second pass on it. Admittedly it tends to be a little of little stuff but it can go a long way to tweaking things. Mike
Yeah, I think what you are saying makes sense and there are certainly places we could do stuff like this. The nuke ship vs nuke launcher is a good example. They don't all have to be "identical" and it's nice to add some texture to the game.
Thanks Mike and Raevn.. That's what I was trying to get at. My current changes are primarily about getting naval more useful, and water planets playable. But this is mostly data. As we learn what would make naval a more unique experience (which I or design can't generally do totally in a vaccum) that's more about my question.. what those small things are you'd like to see. There are a number of things I'd love to see done with naval that may take time, because they rely on an engineer building new support for them. In the meantime, changes like the ones I described simply act as a bridge to get us there. And neutrino beat me to the punch.
having naval structures be treated more like floating platforms is a good idea. Why have them anchored to one place, when they could be treated like massive barge platforms or floating oil derricks? Especially in favour of unit-based solutions for missile defence, it's more true-to-life
While we're talking about ideas, some an Anti Sub Weapons, Obviously Torpedoes fulfill such a role(whether a turret or ship mounted) but some variety is nice as well so if you guys can figure out a way to get this Hedgehog on steroids in-game it'd be pretty cool; I did a bit of a write up actually but I can't remember for the life of me where. Mike
Define TA-stye, realistically Depth Charges are a pretty lousy weapon once it's all said and done. Mike
Isn't a homing depth charge just a torpedo? A torpedo can even do severe damage if it detonates without a direct impact and if you are using a torpedo against submarines, you are usually making use of that feature. A direct hit would be nice and preferable, but an indirect one works just as well if you miss. Historical torpedos would always detonate after a certain distance, modern ones detonate upon approach, but they will still set of after an predetermined distance if not triggered. The "movie torpedo" which follows you forever does not exist. (Unless it is tracking you.)
They had different dynamics in TA though - Torpedos were typically high damage non-seeking weapons (a low damage seeking variant was also present in the anti-sub subs), and surface ships didn't use them. Depth charges were low damage, seeking weapons fired from above the waterline. They "felt" different, even if conceptually they were similar. It's the same thing as how only slight, often cosmetic (conceptually the same) changes in the naval layer vs the land layer can make it feel different.
That makes sense.. The TA I played, I almost never went naval, so the distinction was a little lost on me, I'll admit.
I gotta say functionally it's akin to a different type of torpedo. ;p There is definitely room for doing different things, in a way TA's implementation is similar to the Hedgehog type weapon with only 1 projectile and tracking. Mike
Just saying - what I'd love to see (whether it's do-able or fun or not, who knows) is modular floating platforms on naval planets. I'd love to pull my huge floating base up next to the enemy's floating base, Bertha's blazing like battleship cannons the whole time, and land a whole fleet of tanks and Pee Wees onto the enemy platforms. I'd like to risk the whole damn thing in naval battle by using it as a huge custom ship.
I like the idea of the BottleBlue being made into an anti-sub unit to complement the Narwhal's anti-air ability. They would both have small cannons for anti-ship and anti-ground combat, but the Narwhal would have small radar and anti-air missiles and the Bottleblue would have small radar and Torpedoes or depth charges or Hedgehogs. At T2 they would be necessary to protect the more expensive Leviathans and Stingrays from getting sniped by subs or bombers, as T2 naval units would be more powerful, but lack the fancy features that T1 naval units have.
I notice in the Planet Editor when you have Water at 100 and Height at 100 there is no Polar Cap? I know this is a Pure Water Planet but Some feature would be nice like icebergs, seaweed, coral and etc... Perhaps make a planet biome called "Ice" like "Lava/Metal" has but it can be more dedicated to Water planet as Ice melt it turn into Water Because atm trying to create a full Ice planet now is hard, as you always get a band around the planet with tropic/desert not a fully cover Ice planet anymore... As it was in early alpha...
It's not difficult to create a new selectable "Ice" planet type that would solve this, even now (although it wouldn't be playable yet). If I get some time I'll whip something up. No argument from me on this . It's one of those "functionally similar, but thematically nice" differences.
This is with the Value set at zero for Temperature in Planet Editor, When you try to create a Planet above the size of 5 Radius you always get a Tropic/Desert Band around the planet. I would like to see a planet radius of 30 that can be completely cover in Ice.
