Naval stuff and Marines

[Carbineer]

I see that if we enlarged the continents with half as much as its actual size is pretty good,why?
Well,the game has an extreme lack of naval stuff so I think there should be varieties of sea vehicles like Jet skis which are like the Flash (ATV) moreover,we can make speedboats and they should be fast like the harrasers in addition to some unique frigates and battleships (AP,AV and AA) and I suggest that they should differ from one faction to another.
If people used these three main elements (Land,sea and air)so I am quiet sure that they won't suffer from long distances due to map enlargement.

As for the sunderer,we can add more systems in it like making it as an amphibious vehicle or even can be deployed in the sea.

Also,to ensure that we have classes for sea battles so how about a seventh one,The Marine.He should be able to swim faster and destroy ships by C4.His weapons might be the Carbines like the light Assault.

[Baneblade]

Every time water navy stuff is suggested, I facepalm. Water based navies can only be one of two things in PlanetSide: Extremely OP or completely useless.

Air Cruisers are now and have always been the answer to naval warfare in PlanetSide.

[nurizeko]

I think more actual water in the game would be nice though and enlarged play areas for flanking.

Water to block zergs and force them to pull transports or fight for bridges, and large play areas so squads and platoons could actually pull off flanks and get behind enemy lines for a surprise attack somewhere.

I agree that 'airships' for lack of a better word (Stratocarriers?) would be better than boats.
As mentioned though could add amphibious certs to some of the transports/vehicles. Give mags their good old hover over water cheese?

Stuff to think about.

[Figment]

Airships would NOT be like naval warfare, because it would bypass land (and its combat), it would be aerial warfare. Every time I see someone say "air cruisers are the solution" (to what problem?), rather than make things worse by devaluating land combat further (see Galaxy AMS in beta) and make terrain only impact against those without air I can only facepalm. Terrain costs time to cross for land units while aerial units ignore it, hills and roads must mean something to slow down an advance. If you can just float around chokepoints and effectively move the field of combat, then you diminish the significance of making a stand at a chokepoint.

Land units can normally not traverse water and would thus be delayed and funneled through choke points like bridges, aircraft ignore water and land choke points. Naval units would allow this avoiding of a chokepoint of a bridge too, but it would require local control of naval facilities and the locations where bypassing is possible are constraint still by terrain: even if they land somewhere else, land would still make an impact.

Air cruisers are NOT naval in the slightest, simply because they're not constrained by rivers or seas, nor land (!), it is really dumb to suggest this is like naval combat and seems to be said mostly because of a personal "I want" agenda rather than reason. The few mountains that would limit them would not make a real impact on them. Which means they can go anywhere and combat between these things would be pretty dull and repetitive with the larger side always winning through volume of fire, etc. We don't need zerg reinforcing units, since zerg already wins through numbers. You need force mitigation, something that makes smaller units able to compete with other size groups (through attrition and not too large power distance between the smallest type of units and the biggest).

Amphibious units AND supportive naval units (transports, light patrol and escort ships which can help control shorelines) are viable. But not sky based units and I would even say anything larger than a patrol boat isn't workable or fun either! It would be too detached from the mainland fight.


Would they have to be OP? No. They would be local means of opening up alternative assault routes, short cuts and creating flanking maneuvres and bridgeheads.

I would be careful about giving the VS extra amphibious transport units in the same way as TR and NC. The VS Aurora (and Deliverer) was hardly used due to the type of weapons on it and one and a half Magrider (one without gunner) having more firepower, strafing ability and hitpoints in two mags than one Deliverer. NC and TR would need more firepower on their transports so they can keep up with Magriders on the water. VS transports may need something that distinguishes them from Magriders in movement and gameplay and makes them attractive to cross the water with.