What about the Naval part of the game, what would we want ?

Re: What about the Naval part of the game, what would we wan

Though a very large orbital layer around the star, maybe with extra-strength orbital solar generators, would be nice.

Re: What about the Naval part of the game, what would we wan

I like the idea of making ships actual floating bases that can move. If it's possible to build units on top of other units, that would open up a lot of possibilities, not only for ships, but for naval bases, orbital structures, and gas planets as well.

The biggest advantage of water based combat is that you can move enormous amounts of tonnage with relative ease compared to rolling or flying. The closer we can get to that concept the better.

Re: What about the Naval part of the game, what would we wan

Agreed, except that a "lighter than air" vessel is indistinguishable from a submarine for practical purposes. Coupled with a variable atmosphere and "ocean" density, this could lead to some interesting effects. For example, Venus has an "atmosphere" with a density near that of water at its surface. You could have "submarines" flying around in the air.

Practically speaking, It would be simplest to have two "levels" or radius values of fluid density on any particular planet, a "flying" level and a "floating" level. For gas giants, these would both exist covering the whole planet. For some rocky planets, they might not have enough atmosphere or surface fluid for either of these anywhere. Or, perhaps there are "lakes" of atmosphere where flying units can operate, but the rest of the planet is a hard enough vacuum that the airplanes are stranded just like boats would be in a lake. Conversely some rocky planets (like Venus) could have very dense atmospheres, enabling both flying and "naval" units to traverse the entire surface, and making the planet effectively a "water planet".

This would give asteroid strikes another significant effect. Atmosphere can ablate the impact, with the tradeoff that the atmosphere gets stripped off the planet. Altering the atmospheric density, and lowering the "sea-level" and "flying-level" of the planet. Getting your planet hit by an asteroid would potentially leave your naval forces grounded as the surface fluid layer (atmosphere or ocean) is blasted away. If the reverse was desired, you could crash comets into the planet to raise the fluid levels, and possibly drown the enemy base.

Re: What about the Naval part of the game, what would we wan

I would want Carriers but with air crafts that have a limited range. So if you launch a plane from a carrier if it is not close enough it might make it to the target but it will not make it back and crash into the water.

Re: What about the Naval part of the game, what would we wan

Ohh, what i would want out of naval in this game:

Hitting the ocean with a small astroid = tsunami.

Re: What about the Naval part of the game, what would we wan

When I read this, all I could think of was "gas giant navy". How else is a commander going to claim all that sweet sweet Helium-3? The only vessels that could conceivably function on a gas giant would be very much like a navy.

You sir, are a genius.

Re: What about the Naval part of the game, what would we wan

I think the sea would make for a very good microcosm of the counters between each unit type (submarines>battleships>destroyers>submarines), meaning the control of the seas would be more reliant on counters than land-based domination. And why would you want to control the sea? Floating nuclear silos, of course. These would be easy to destroy using battleships, meaning a standing navy would have to be used, just in case, and due to the weight wouldn't be able to do as much damage as conventional nukes, but if the ea units are created from a dock on the coastline, it'd be very easy to lock an opponent out of the sea, so they'd have to come up with some other counter.

Re: What about the Naval part of the game, what would we wan

I would love to see torpedoes be split between low damage high range tracking torpedoes , and high damage short range dumb fire torpedoes.

It could also be cool to have submarine warfare expanded into a war of information and catching the enemy unprepared by hitting them on a flank with short range anti-battleship submarines.

Re: What about the Naval part of the game, what would we wan

Well, I want major capital ships with sonar and anti-torpedo point defense that shoots your torpedoes, even if that comes at the cost of a few Big Guns.

In other words, I want a generalist battleship that can fight any naval or air unit, but suffers in capital on capital duels because something has to go, and all those specialized tracking computers for it's many weapons systems cost money. Compare the last of the Predreadnaughts and the Dreadnaughts-not so different in size, but a big difference in killing power against each other.

I think bridges are an awesome idea!!!!
makes for a nice set of strategic maneuvers!!!! i could build a bridge simply to trick my opponent and then flank from the sides with transports!!!!

I sorta asked for this to be necroed by linking to it, didn't I?

Indeed you did sir!!!! Couldn't help myself..... thinking about bridges and what they would bring was pretty cool to me anyways......

Well personally I prefer the necromancers to the cloners.

I want it to have some nice colours, no bland one shade blue, oh and waves are nice @tatsujb

*snickers*

Oh man - great necro! The discussion about the modular floating platforms that can be built upon is by far my #1 wish for this game. SO much could be done with mobile, pathable, pseudo-land like that.

Oh wow. I think those were my first posts on the forums. Dat nostalgia.