SmedBlog: Seamless Continents/Naval Units - Page 4

RoninOni · 2012-08-11, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Satyxis

There are a lot of places this could go wrong... we're talking about potentially adding a LOT of geography (playable real estate) to the game world... would there be a way to "up" the population to maintain a playable density? It could get boring really quick if you were just running around in your ship looking for other boats to sink between your continent and others...

I am afraid it will end up similar to the caverns that turned me off of PS the first time around (I did eventually come back, but still despise the caverns).

I don't think you'd just mindlessly patrol waters looking for kills....

There'd be some few resource platforms in the water to contest over,

and you'd be able to use Naval units to assist in coastal territory battles, even providing a close Air Fighter spawn in the form of a Naval Carrier, as well as some serious bombardment options.

the REAL advantage IMO is that it would allow the warp gates to be 'shut off', forcing a faction forced off a continent to make a DDay landing to regain presence.

Blackwolf · 2012-08-11, 04:40 PM

And let's face it. It wouldn't be a bad idea. If you could locate and engage a fleet in the ocean, more power to you. But the fleet's ability to launch an all out surprise attack from any direction on a continent would be it's biggest advantage. An organized outfit could cause some serious havoc on enemy forces by deploying a fleet to it's flank.

The fact that ships would function as destroyable vehicles would keep things balanced.

RSphil · 2012-08-11, 12:55 PM

Water based combat would be cool. If aces high 2 can have massive battles over a very very big area I'd say planetside 2 could have the tech to do this in the future. All aces high 2 was missing was infantry combat.

XxAxMayxX · 2012-08-11, 01:03 PM

sounds like it may allow for more of a smooth travel system and the whole naval thing sounds fun. However performance is allways a concern of coarse.

Ruffdog · 2012-08-11, 01:08 PM

Sounds interesting!
Make parts of the water into resource tiles so there's a meta game and something to fight over, not just a line between A and B?

Sledgecrushr · 2012-08-11, 01:16 PM

Umm its just my opinion but i think water navy is a dumb idea when your air power can literally fly forever. Why float at boating speeds when you can fly at jet speeds. Interesting idea for modern battlefield 4, not so good for sc fi ps2.

Stardouser · 2012-08-11, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Umm its just my opinion but i think water navy is a dumb idea when your air power can literally fly forever. Why float at boating speeds when you can fly at jet speeds. Interesting idea for modern battlefield 4, not so good for sc fi ps2.

Why would you drive an tank on the ground? why would you drive a Skyguard on the ground? Those can't drive on the water, so for surface based AA, you need ships.

That's only a sample.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-08-11, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Why would you drive an tank on the ground? why would you drive a Skyguard on the ground? Those can't drive on the water, so for surface based AA, you need ships.

That's only a sample.

Wtf? Why would air assets engage against naval units in the middle of the ocean? If you put a platoon on a ship and sent it out into the ocean thats a platoon that is going to be lost to you for a long while as it floats along. Navy is great for projecting force, except when there are no fuel constraints and then navy is just a waste of manpower and resources best spent on air power.

Stardouser · 2012-08-11, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Wtf? Why would air assets engage against naval units in the middle of the ocean? If you put a platoon on a ship and sent it out into the ocean thats a platoon that is going to be lost to you for a long while as it floats along. Navy is great for projecting force, except when there are no fuel constraints and then navy is just a waste of manpower and resources best spent on air power.

Why would air assets engage anything on the ground in the middle of nowhere? Why would they engage anything? Enemies have to be destroyed or they will come and capture your bases. Those ships will be coming to land on your beaches and capture your coastal hexes.

Also, I think you're overestimating the time constraints here. Do you really think the size of the ocean between two continents is going to be significantly larger than 64km square? A naval ship crossing a 10km wide body of water isn't going to take THAT long. Sure, it might take 10 minutes instead of a 2 minute flight, but they will bring things to the battle that air doesn't.

Blackwolf · 2012-08-11, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by ComerEste

My first thought of this was something like BF1942/1943 in the Pacific, was always fun to jump in a Destroyer and shell an island. Knowing how SOE designed the look of all the vehicles and aircraft, it would be interesting to see how they would do "futuristic" naval ships. VS would probably all be hover ships, NC probably be like space ships that have been re-purposed into being naval ships, TR probably be close to real life modern navies from like US or Russia.

Should they work on the idea? Hell yes. Even if takes a while for them to do and they tell the teams that they can work on it at their leisure. Would be cool if they designed a whole new set of bases specifically for the water, like an oil rig or something.

I don't think VS ships would hover. Wouldn't make sense if they did, and yet couldn't travel across land.

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Wtf? Why would air assets engage against naval units in the middle of the ocean? If you put a platoon on a ship and sent it out into the ocean thats a platoon that is going to be lost to you for a long while as it floats along. Navy is great for projecting force, except when there are no fuel constraints and then navy is just a waste of manpower and resources best spent on air power.

Because resources such as ammo and repair facilities don't fly along with you. No matter how fuel efficient aircraft become, they will always need a place to land for one reason or another. And no matter how effective aircraft are in controlling the war, no battle in history was ever won by air superiority alone. Naval forces have the potential to press in with ground forces, and supply long range bombardment for easier beach heads and landings. If a fleet could act as a fully functional base (that is destroyable) then why WOULDN'T aircraft head out to attack it?

p0intman · 2012-08-11, 01:48 PM

pretty much the only decent idea in his entire blog outside of outfit bases. i have more to say in this thread

Noctis · 2012-08-11, 01:45 PM

Why would somebody fight for ocean?

Simply, Oil (resource) Stations.

RSphil · 2012-08-11, 02:41 PM

navel battle was good in aces high 2. you had aircraft carriers and destroyers. though the maps are alot bigger then planetside 2. ( takes an hour to fly one side to the other in a spitfire ) while your landing craft headed to the beach head to capture the town or base air assets from the carrier would cover them and destroy key facilities to make tha capture easier.
while all this was going the destroyers where shelling gun emplacements and nailing the town and airbase. also guys would need to man the AA to defend the fleet from the enemy.

was great fun and i think it would be a good addition to planetside 2 in the future. a navy is alot handier then an air drop. a navel force can bring the entire army, vehicles and all. air drop just brings troops atm and air cover.

Tzitzimitl · 2012-08-11, 02:51 PM

It seems like a concern is why take boats when you can just fly over with galaxies. I possible solution could be the addition of fuel to aircraft so as to limit their range.

Stardouser · 2012-08-11, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Tzitzimitl

It seems like a concern is why take boats when you can just fly over with galaxies. I possible solution could be the addition of fuel to aircraft so as to limit their range.

In order to have a seamless planet, they would pretty much be forced to adopt the system of only being able to capture adjacent hexes(or beach hexes/hexes right outside of warpgates). For the current continent I was not in favor of the adjacent hex capture only mechanic, but for this it would become mandatory.

And that, in turn, answers the question of why people would take ships instead of Galaxies - since, indeed, you will only be able to attack a continent you don't have a presence on by attacking either warpgate adjacent hexes, or coastal hexes, the enemy could set up a ton of Skyguards on the coast. So in order to bust through those Skyguards, you take naval ships(which might also be able to land tanks). That will force the enemy to defend with vehicles other than just AA vehicles.