SmedBlog: Seamless Continents/Naval Units - Page 11

Sledgecrushr · 2012-08-12, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by RoninOni

I covered this in another post....

carrier type vessels can't fly in low orbit. They're too massive and the energy expenditure is simply too massive to maintain it for any extended period of time.

They stay in orbit. They'd prolly even be built in space to save the energy of takeoff, though they would likely be capable of take/landing and even a short flight where they enter into the atmosphere and then exit back out maybe 30 min later.

The water on the other hand is great because you can have GREAT BIG MASSIVE objects and if they're designed right, THEY FLOAT! Then all you need to do is push that massive sucker.

I would love for space carriers to be added but that would require a low orbit system (and then maybe multiple 'worlds' could be connected into a system

) to be added, which very well could also be possible with Forgelight... I don't know but it could make for some awesome potential.

For example, the squad beacon drop pod spawning system is using said orbital platform, in theory, they just aren't physically in the game. Those bases which would cover a region of the world, could be attacked and factions could remove another factions ability to use drop pods in that region for a period of time, which could make the difference by in the ground fight by crippling a tactical option of the enemies.

With the recent invention of anti gravity, creating a very large airborne vessel has just become more practical. The trick is the initial input of energy has to offset the mass of the object that you are levitating and then it is a permanently levitated object. (idea created by Robert Heinlein in his book The Doorway into Summer, 1957)

Masterr · 2012-08-12, 06:31 PM

If the devs want to make AAA water than we should utilize this water with naval units. A reason for ships?

-Mobile spawn point

-Heavily fortified floating fortress (has a shield, takes lots of damage, dishes out lots of damage)

-Far reaching missle bombardment. (open your map, select target, launch missle)

-If they add a fuel mechanic to aircraft, that would limit your flight time. Fly through a nanite regeneration ring (which is made slightly above the carrier, away from the aircraft spawns on flight deck, nanites will be your fuel) this will refuel and resupply your aircraft. If you fly from continent to continent you won't have much fuel to move around when you get there.

More about fuel. If your over land, this will not be an issue. We can make up some story that you are actively using the lands resources while your over land because nanites are working like waves/energy beams. Over land your actively being fueled. Over the water....these beams can't reach you, your too far from the warp gates and other bases that utilizes nanite. You need to be fueled, hence....warships with onboard nanite generators. boo ya!!

-Ships will have an advantage of heat seeking missles and lots of AA turrets

-Aircraft can be accompanied with warships to help protect it.

-Enemy Galaxies can do Gal Drops and take over the Aircraft carrier, essentially the aircraft carrier is a mobile base that can be destroyed. Think of it like taking over a mobile/destructible outpost.

Now if those features are put into naval combat.....yes, there is a reason for a navy.

Different types of ships....

Aircraft carrier - aircraft spawn/mobile spawn/aircraft resupply
GV carrier - Ground vehicle carrier, transports tanks, mobile spawn point (just like aircraft carrier in terms of scale and weaponry)
Warship - All offense, helps out the carriers (Empire Specific Naval Units)
Patrol boats - Boats for a squad, could board a carrier in the night and attempt to take it over, stealthy option.

Ivam Akorahil · 2012-08-12, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

With the recent invention of anti gravity,

i certainly hope you mean that - in-game lore

the most realistic version of anti-gravity is magnetic levitation and not practical for hovering a titan in the air.

even tho theoretically possible to create anti gravity by negative mass and thus allow for negative space time geometry - which is normally excluded by gravitational formulas
It theoretically could create a repulsive effect .however the amount of energy necessary are equal to creating a gravitational field of the same size, ergo the amount of energy you have to provide to life an object into the air would be equal to the energy stored in the mass of the object in order to achieve a repulsive gravitational field that counters planetary gravity.

or in layman terms astronomical amounts of energy
(ill run it down for you)

e=m(c)squared

energy = mass x (lightspeed x lightspeed)

weight of the USS nimitz ~ 100 000 tons

energy (in joules) = mass (in kg) x (lightspeed x lightspeed ) (in m/s)

E = 100 000 000 x ( 299 792 458 x 299 792 458 )

E = 8.987551787368176 000 000 00

E ~ 898 755 178 736 817 600 000 000 Joules

to give you an idea how much that is :

The barrel of oil equivalent (BOE) is a unit of energy based on the approximate energy released by burning one barrel (42 US gallons or 158.9873 litres) of crude oil.
5.8 × 106 BTU59 °F equals 6.1178632 × 109 J, about 6.1 GJ (HHV), or 1.7 MWh.

E oil = 6 117 863 200 J / barrel

E oil = 38 501 341 J/litre

Or in short to amass the energy necessary for levitating the USS nimitz constantly youd need to burn
23 343 477 276 202 343 ( 23.3 quadtrillion) litres of oil per second

this does not take into account ony form of heat or energy lost in the process

But even this idea does not work in practic, while theoreticaly you could levitate the object, the bent space time gravity itself still gets pulled and affected by other gravity, Yes the ship would levitate, but the new gravitational heavy spot that it levitates from gets attracte ditself by the planets gravity, so inevitably the ship would be pulled along its own gravity pocket towards the centre of the higher gravity and thus it would fall down again

not to mentiont hat the technology for transforming energy into punctual gravity is far beyond what we can imagine

:*(

TL;DR ships are alot more efficient for their purpose than replacing them with enormous hovering aircraft.

RoninOni · 2012-08-12, 06:45 PM

If we can float massive carriers... why are the NC and TR still using tracked tanks?

Why is the VS tank so small?

Also, VS tank could maybe be less maneuverable or fast on water to prevent VS from having a terrible advantage as Naval Vehicles would be a better purchase.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-08-12, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Masterr

If the devs want to make AAA water than we should utilize this water with naval units. A reason for ships?

-Mobile spawn point

-Heavily fortified floating fortress (has a shield, takes lots of damage, dishes out lots of damage)

-Far reaching missle bombardment. (open your map, select target, launch missle)

-If they add a fuel mechanic to aircraft, that would limit your flight time. Fly through a nanite regeneration ring (which is made slightly above the carrier, away from the aircraft spawns on flight deck, nanites will be your fuel) this will refuel and resupply your aircraft. If you fly from continent to continent you won't have much fuel to move around when you get there.

More about fuel. If your over land, this will not be an issue. We can make up some story that you are actively using the lands resources while your over land because nanites are working like waves/energy beams. Over land your actively being fueled. Over the water....these beams can't reach you, your too far from the warp gates and other bases that utilizes nanite. You need to be fueled, hence....warships with onboard nanite generators. boo ya!!

-Ships will have an advantage of heat seeking missles and lots of AA turrets

-Aircraft can be accompanied with warships to help protect it.

-Enemy Galaxies can do Gal Drops and take over the Aircraft carrier, essentially the aircraft carrier is a mobile base that can be destroyed. Think of it like taking over a mobile/destructible outpost.

Now if those features are put into naval combat.....yes, there is a reason for a navy.

Different types of ships....

Aircraft carrier - aircraft spawn/mobile spawn/aircraft resupply
GV carrier - Ground vehicle carrier, transports tanks, mobile spawn point (just like aircraft carrier in terms of scale and weaponry)
Warship - All offense, helps out the carriers (Empire Specific Naval Units)
Patrol boats - Boats for a squad, could board a carrier in the night and attempt to take it over, stealthy option.

The one thing that would make water navy work and be relevant would be limited fuel for aircraft.

Originally Posted by Ivam Akorahil

i certainly hope you mean that - in-game lore

the most realistic version of anti-gravity is magnetic levitation and not practical for hovering a titan in the air.

even tho theoretically possible to create anti gravity by negative mass and thus allow for negative space time geometry - which is normally excluded by gravitational formulas
It theoretically could create a repulsive effect .however the amount of energy necessary are equal to creating a gravitational field of the same size, ergo the amount of energy you have to provide to life an object into the air would be equal to the energy stored in the mass of the object in order to achieve a repulsive gravitational field that counters planetary gravity.

or in layman terms astronomical amounts of energy

TL;DR ships are alot more efficient for their purpose than replacing them with enormous hovering aircraft.

Ive worked 27 days in a row now and my brain is mushified so I apologise for throwing out a half developed concept.

RoninOni · 2012-08-12, 07:26 PM

I'll vote yes on limited fuel on aircraft.

These oceans should be like 3x the width of a continent, so being able to cross a continent and back on 1 tank would be enough.

I also plan on being a pilot, so I'm actually voting for a restriction on myself lol

Greenthy · 2012-08-12, 07:37 PM

BF1942 Midway comes to mind

Stardouser · 2012-08-12, 07:38 PM

Aircraft fuel has little to do with naval ship viability. An aircraft would be highly vulnerable to AA fire and would not be a beach landing tool. And since they would have no choice but to adopt adjacent hex capture only for seamless planets, only a combined arms assault, including navy ships, would be viable for beach assaults.

HOWEVER, I could support fuel for other reasons, so if adding fuel to aircraft makes people feel better about naval ships that's fine.

NewSith · 2012-08-12, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by sagolsun

Did you put the water part there deliberately?

With the option of putting in FLYING aircraft carriers the standard floating variety just seems pointless.

And let me tell you, titans in BF2142 were mind-blowing and absolutely amazing.

I challenge thee:

Outfit Specialization Idea

EDIT: The post is rather dated, but, hell the genral idea is awesome =)

Masterr · 2012-08-12, 08:58 PM

I'm glad people are liking my idea.

@ Stardouser, I agree with you.

@ Sledge, if you go in with just aircraft, you'll be dominated by a navy. The Aircraft Carrier itself...will have HP points around 4x that of a galaxy. Troops can spawn from the Aircraft Carrier and launch aircraft from it. It would also have AA turrets, it will be escorted by faster warships which also have AA turrets. You will get crushed. I would want the Aircraft Carrier and Ground Vehicle Carrier to be a mobile capture point...hence....its viable for capturing or destroying, it is a 50/50 decision. Which is partly why I want the HP of the Carriers to be very high. With my idea I have offered a couple of things to the table people have been asking for.

Naval Warfare
Mobile Capture point (Ground Vehicle Carrier and Aircraft Carrier)
Destructible Capture point (GVC and AC)
Seamless Continents
Beach combat (D-Day)

Also just using aircraft would limit in-game vehicles and customizations. For seamless continents to work, and for navy to work, I find my idea works best. It keeps pilots in the continent happy (they don't have to worry about fuel) and helps add a navy.

Having an Armada adds to the War. Who knows....if harvesting resources becomes integrated in the game...you could essentially cut off seaports...hence...cut their supply lines.

If more people like my idea, I might make my own thread to put all ideas together and grab dev attention.

Duskguy · 2012-08-12, 09:54 PM

aircraft have limited ammo as it is. making limited fuel is not really needed. just make a specific ship able to resupply ammo and repair.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-08-12, 09:57 PM

Why would I want to fight navy? Navy ships would be in the ocean. Im not a fucking fish. I like to fight on land where everything is happening. So whats the point of a navy if youre just trolling around in the ocean?

Masterr · 2012-08-12, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Why would I want to fight navy? Navy ships would be in the ocean. Im not a fucking fish. I like to fight on land where everything is happening. So whats the point of a navy if youre just trolling around in the ocean?

To stop a force going after your base.....is that a real question?

Ruxios · 2012-08-12, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Why would I want to fight navy? Navy ships would be in the ocean. Im not a fucking fish. I like to fight on land where everything is happening. So whats the point of a navy if youre just trolling around in the ocean?

just cause you dont want to be part of a naval force why should that limit others i for one think it would be excessively cool to have different stations on the ship that must have all of them working as 1 in order for the ship to survive but that is just me, speaking for myself i would love to be a guy aiming a coastal bombardment gun and awaiting the order to fire or being given the fire at will command

Ertwin · 2012-08-13, 12:10 AM

For those of you arguing that you don't need naval vehicles because you have aircraft, it's just like saying you don't need land vehicles because you have aircraft. Why bring a tank or a sundie, when you can bring air cav or a galaxy?

As for the mobile spawn point naval vessels, I don't think they should be destroyable. The defenses on them yes, just like any other base. You take it over, and it's yours. This would give people more reason to go after them. If there's a limited number of naval bases, you can bet people will fight over them. Forget continent locking, imagine trying to take control of the entire navy. This in addition to stationary resource well bases would make the ocean just as viable for combat as ground.