Rivers and river combat

[Stardouser]

Now, I know, naval combat is something people want AND it's something within the realm of possibilities.

But what do you guys think of some continents having navegable rivers, and river gunboats that can patrol them? Part of the strategy of the map could include capturing the specific base and tech plant on the river necessary to spawn them, both to use it for yourself, or to take it away from the enemy.

This is actually separate from the naval combat idea, because these could be done independently of full size naval ships. There could be overlap I suppose, though, if there are naval ships for the oceans, I suppose they could go into rivers of the continents as well. Or vice versa, even if there are no full size naval ships, the river gunboats could (to the extent the rivers connect to the ocean) go out and circle around the shore.

[Goku]

I would think this would be a good addition, but I think it to make worthwhile there would need to be a benefit to at least fighter over.

Cyssor in PS1 would of been perfect for river battles due to how much of it was broken up by water. Shame SOE never put in actual harbor type facility even just for Cyssor back then. Would of made Cyssor side a lot more enjoyable.

[Stardouser]

Wow, you're right. I actually started this thread because I had looked up photos of Esamir and saw some water inside the continent...seeing photos of Cyssor, that would be THE continent for this.

[Skitrel]

Going on previous gaming history, what would be the purpose of them? What's the motivations for players to use them? What's their role in the overall strategy of the game?

As we've seen from numerous other fps games over the years, boats barely get used for anything other than getting from A to B.

Not to mention, even if they had a role to play in bridge battles in particular, that's a pretty small aspect of the big picture and they'd barely get used otherwise no?

I can see them getting used if they were VERY fast and there's some excellent rivers to use on the continent to travel deep into enemy territory fast, otherwise I'm just not sure, other than perhaps a map like Cyssor.

[Zulthus]

Absolutely no harm in adding them. Many players would enjoy using them and could provide tactical advantages over other players. It'd definitely mix up gameplay.

[Stardouser]

Well, I imagine they would principally be used for defending bridge crossings, though I suppose they could be used, if possible, to go out on the out shoreline of the continent and take a raider squad behind enemy lines.

The biggest question would be, how many of them can there be? I'm guessing they would have a pilot/driver, and 3 weapon platforms: one front and one rear cannon, each about as powerful as a regular tank's weapon, and a modest AA/anti-infantry gun that, by itself, could probably only stand up to lighter aircraft.

I'm assuming that people who would ride on it, by the way, would literally be standing on it, and not locked into a position like they are in say, a Galaxy.

Just out of curiosity, were there any PS1 vehicles that people could ride on by standing on?

[EVILPIG]

Now, I know, naval combat is something people want

I disagree.

[Zulthus]

Just out of curiosity, were there any PS1 vehicles that people could ride on by standing on?


The most the game allowed you to do was stand on top of an aircraft as it elevated straight up. Moving in any direction caused you to fall off.

[Goku]

Wow, you're right. I actually started this thread because I had looked up photos of Esamir and saw some water inside the continent...seeing photos of Cyssor, that would be THE continent for this.

Yeah Cyssor is a perfect candidate for such types of battles due to being able to navigate through much of the cont if you had the proper transport.

Going on previous gaming history, what would be the purpose of them? What's the motivations for players to use them? What's their role in the overall strategy of the game?

As we've seen from numerous other fps games over the years, boats barely get used for anything other than getting from A to B.

Not to mention, even if they had a role to play in bridge battles in particular, that's a pretty small aspect of the big picture and they'd barely get used otherwise no?

I can see them getting used if they were VERY fast and there's some excellent rivers to use on the continent to travel deep into enemy territory fast, otherwise I'm just not sure, other than perhaps a map like Cyssor.

Well that is the problem as you said. If Cyssor ever makes a comeback in this game perhaps the devs could make the cont for more river based combat. This could be a frontier area, so there isn't any or as many bridges for transport compared to others. Causing people to use the river to cross and for transport due to the majority of ground vehicles being useless to get to the other areas. Only major problem I see with this is the VS having a advantage due to their Magrider. Although a anti-tank type of weapon on the gunboat could always just down those with no problem. That would at least change up the game play methods a bit for this map. Even Hossin would be a bad idea if there was actual huge swamps making it hard for any land vehicle to get around. Good for infantry battles and making use of the boats.

[Mechzz]

Well, there have already been boats in this game for years.

They're called .... Magriders.....

Vanu technology allows our vehicles to float on water. Some of the common pool vehicles were also given the ability to float I think, so there has been limited water-based combat for some time.

Here's a thought on naval combat to make it not just "A to B", which I agree is all it tends to be.

We're on a planet, Auraxis, right?

So if your faction dominates the "ocean" between Cyssor and Esamir for example, then no resources for other empires can cross the ocean. Resources are too bulky and dangerous to be used with warp technology, so they need to be transported by sea.

This would, of course, need to be implemented with one-man battleships so we could all drive and guns these behemoths of the seas on our own, right?

[Furber]

Cool idea, but I wonder if it's a bit too late. Maybe post launch? I'm all for this idea

[Lonehunter]

Rivers would be a great stepping stone towards real naval combat in oceans.

[Canaris]

Well, there have already been boats in this game for years.

They're called .... Magriders.....

Vanu technology allows our vehicles to float on water. Some of the common pool vehicles were also given the ability to float I think, so there has been limited water-based combat for some time.


Not to mention and all it's variants
https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQL0dqLO-VNPg0i82YIrH9KqVMphnrMtqjGxNBtXVG8YxX-xuR0kw

A week or so ago we had a full platoon in Raiders and we ran the Magriders out of the Sea.

TR NAVY RAIDERS RULE THE WAVES! :D

[noxious]

Absolutely no harm in adding them. Many players would enjoy using them and could provide tactical advantages over other players. It'd definitely mix up gameplay.
The harm would be in diverting resources from more meaningful additions. Realistically, boats in rivers just won't be used for anything but transport. They're not very useful in real combat. They're not very useful in video game combat. There are much more important things that can be added to the game.

[Mechzz]

[/IMG]
A week or so ago we had a full platoon in Raiders and we ran the Magriders out of the Sea.


Wow! I would have paid to be even on the losing side in that one!
Once it becomes easier to find awesome incidents like this again, rather than playing for a month and getting maybe one or two, this game (PS2) will be where it belongs - at the top of the list and GOTY.

[FastAndFree]

Vanu technology allows our vehicles to float on water. Some of the common pool vehicles were also given the ability to float I think, so there has been limited water-based combat for some time.


This is where the problems start though, which common pool vehicle would that be? Surely not the Sunderer that weighs several times more than a tank... And there is nothing else that could plausibly replace the Deliverers, leaving us with the only "navy"

[Sledgecrushr]

Really you would just have to consider rivers and seas as a valuable land resource. If these bodies hold some value then people will fight over them.

[kaffis]

My idea of river combat is lobbing tank shells from one side to the other in support of bridge battles.

Anything beyond that is probably not necessary, because I can't see a compelling way to make nautical vessels advantageous over doing this. Tanks are already pretty quick, and if you need to go faster, you'll use air vehicles. Neither of these are restricted to the water, so why invest (resources and certs) in a water vehicle?

[Stardouser]

The harm would be in diverting resources from more meaningful additions. Realistically, boats in rivers just won't be used for anything but transport. They're not very useful in real combat. They're not very useful in video game combat. There are much more important things that can be added to the game.
There are pretty much two form letter responses against adding anything that's different:
1. It's overpowered, we don't need BFR equivalents
2. It's a waste of dev resources

Who says it will only be used for transport? And even if so, that could be useful in and of itself. I say add them for transport purposes alone. Nevertheless, make them powerful enough, design the continent so that they present an advantage to repulsing river crossings, they will get used.

The only viable argument here is that they might only be able to be used on such continents as actually have rivers and that for that reason it may be a waste, however, I don't really think we have an "order of battle", so to speak, on what dev resources are available. What if the vehicle team has room in its schedule to work on this? What if they've already been working on boats/ships to test the idea of naval combat, and a river gunboat simply means a smaller one, or maybe even they already have an appropriate boat model and making it a river gunboat simply means slapping on the appropriate guns? The same exact size and model of a river gunboat could be used as a light escort for larger ships in the event there's ever full naval combat.

People say making custom maps is a very time consuming and tedious and expensive. If they've already got a continent planned that's got a lot of rivers, they might as well make the best of it.

[ItsTheSheppy]

In order for naval combat to have any meaning, people would want to control the waters. The problem is, I imagine bridges will not be destructible, and it's not like troops are supplies need to be ferried across water, so there is no tactical advantage of controlling water.

Also, if you really wanna pilot vehicles over rivers and be a riverman, hop in a magrider. You don't even need to get wet.

[laelgon]

While I think the use of boats would be cool, I can't really see them being useful in a game where anyone can hop into an aircraft pretty much at will. A galaxy can bring an entire squad to anywhere on the continent, while a boat would be severely limited. Now if there was a map that was pretty much just small islands with bases and the rest was open water, I could see boats actually being useful.

[Masahiko]

I dont think river combat would be as interesting as a more open Archipelago set up. Where transports and boats were more necessary for creating beach heads While rivers do play a big part what happens after the river? I dont think well find people just sitting in the boats waiting for a fight to happen that may never come.

A naval battle is going to take more thought, mostly because its a particular setup that is going to be against the usual game play (which is mostly on dry land). What does infantry do while they are crossing the water? What do naval captains do on land? What kind of ships will we have in the navy? Does an aircraft carrier spawn planes? How many people would you need to run one of these ships? Are there subs, if so do we need sonar and Depth charges? Do we need to attack torpedo/depth charges to Air Cav?

[noxious]

There are pretty much two form letter responses against adding anything that's different:
1. It's overpowered, we don't need BFR equivalents
2. It's a waste of dev resources

Who says it will only be used for transport? And even if so, that could be useful in and of itself. I say add them for transport purposes alone. Nevertheless, make them powerful enough, design the continent so that they present an advantage to repulsing river crossings, they will get used.
Alas, in the real world, the latter of your form letter responses governs every decision we make, time and money being the finite resources that they are. It's obvious that the idea is important to you, but any rational, objective analysis will ultimately arrive at the resource argument. There are few compelling reasons to add river-based watercraft (coolness factor aside) and when the idea must compete against every other idea for development, it's just not likely to come out a winner.

[Stardouser]

Alas, in the real world, the latter of your form letter responses governs every decision we make, time and money being the finite resources that they are. It's obvious that the idea is important to you, but any rational, objective analysis will ultimately arrive at the resource argument. There are few compelling reasons to add river-based watercraft (coolness factor aside) and when the idea must compete against every other idea for development, it's just not likely to come out a winner.
OK, what is an example of a rational, objective analysis that will take us to the resource argument and not only take us there, but show that the projected usage of the riverboats would be insufficient to justify the resource expenditure to design them?

For example, can you cite an example of another MMOFPS that had such a thing and no one used it enough to justify that viewpoint?

I can go ahead and tell you about World War 2 Online, they have riverboats(although they also, quite efficiently, double as light patrol boats for ocean combat) and they aren't very fun to use. But I already know why they aren't fun to use, and that's because WW2OL is a huge, 1/2 scale model of Europe supercontinent and the chances of you encountering people at rivers was so low as to not be fun.

Is there another MMOFPS out there with river boats, that doesn't have the "never see anyone to fight because the game world is too large" problem, and yet nevertheless, no one used them?

Another way to ensure that these get used is to, on the continent that has rivers, give all empires access to the waterways, perhaps even letting them spawn their riverboats at the footholds. I'd personally rather have the bases be capturable(even if they are deep behind the lines and thus hard to capture) but if giving all factions unimpeded access is what it takes to make them get used, so be it.

There's also another possibility. They've probably already planned to make boat models for testing purposes of water combat. A pre-allocated resource expenditure, in other words. If, as a completely separate resource expenditure, they make a river dominated, or perhaps even archipelago continent, where is the resource waste in just making one of those boat models available to use on that continent? It's possible, therefore, that both of these things are already in process, in which case this thread serves to make the devs think "hey, we already did this part, and we already did this part, why don't we just combine the two?"

[Lonehunter]

A good place to make river combat more important is Hossin, our swampy home. What if the trees where so thick the only place to drive a ground vech easily is roads? Then all the sudden those waterways become another route to an outpost.

Damn I miss the Deliverer all ready

[Dir]

2. It's a waste of dev resources


You have to admit whenever someone says this you can actually feel your amygdala swell and pulsate followed shortly by a loss of will to communicate.

[noxious]

I cannot cite another MMOFPS with boats where said boats were under-utilized because the genre is a blip on the radar in which few titles exist.

We can instead look at both the real world and at all video games (we base the latter at least loosely on the former), regardless of genre. In either case, river boats have never played an interesting role in combat, because they are plagued by a number of problems that prevent them from being viable.

The crux of the problem is that their movement is confined to a predetermined track; you can go only where the river goes. In a boat, you're stuck in the water. If the engagement moves away from the water, your boat becomes useless.

As a consequence of problem described in the last paragraph, you're almost always the hunted, and seldom the hunter. The enemy, both in the air and on the ground, can engage a river craft selectively. Engagements will always be on the terms of the guys in the air and on land because if they don't want to engage boat, they can simply move away from the river. This makes them undesirable in most combat situations and it makes for a frustrating experience for the guy in the boat who will die whenever the enemy gains the upper hand, but only sometimes get a kill when he gets the upper hand.

The only setting in which the aforementioned problems could be overlooked would be in a setting where water is featured at least as prominently as land, if not more so. I am skeptical that we'll ever see such a setting, but if we do, then sure, there would exist a practical reason to develop boats.

Most combat-based video games eschew boats because they just aren't terribly useful in combat. When they are added to such a game, they're relegated to transport duty, which is the same, limited role they perform in the real world.

[LordReaver]

Too many of you are thinking in terms of real life and PS1. PS2 is neither.

The only gameplay difference between water vehicles and ground vehicles is terrain. Water is just like land, but a flat plane. If a map is designed with emphasis on waterways and lakes, people will use water based vehicles. The question is, is it worth having two similar surfaces to fight upon? Each continent is supposed to be hand crafted to emphasize different kinds of combat. Indar seems to be balanced, Esamir will probably be for tanks, Amerish infantry, and Searhus air. I think those are the conts they are adding anyways. The point is, a cont with emphasis on water combat could be crafted. Even if that cont was the only one that supported water combat, it would make that cont feel very different from the other ones, and thus more fun.

The argument of "if you can't drive, you will fly" doesn't hold up. Why would you drive if you could fly in the first place? The answer is "AA". The more aircraft there are, the more AA there is. Just think about when it happens in PS1, and how it creates no fly zones.

"It's a waste of development time" Not if it's going to add gameplay value....

"People don't want water combat" ..........It's one of the most asked for features. It's right up there with space combat. I don't know how anybody could even try to pretend that it's not wanted. Just because you have a biased view on how it would work, doesn't negate other peoples wishes.

[Soothsayer]

If an engy can deploy a mannable turret with their ace, they should be able to deploy a zodiac from the shore of a river/lake for infantry to gain new approaches for water attack.

I don't see much point in developing a vehicle that is more permanent for than that for use in naval combat aside from something similar to the deliverer (would be what I would want in for the next wave of vehicles that get developed after launch).

I agree with others, there would have to be a real point to generating conflict over water areas.

[Stardouser]

Then the game devs need to make a real point to conflict over water areas. Period.

Thing is, people think that doing that is going to take away precious resources from something else. Why don't we just toss out every idea for that reason?

[Soothsayer]

When they say beta in a couple months, I want that to mean 2 or less... :)

The best concept for why a river would be useful that I can think of would involve the hex capture method that I understand to be in place.

A river or lake could extend farther into enemy hexes which would allow faster capture (due to adjacent friendly territory) of multiple hexes farther in than the ones directly on the front between two factions.

This is going on the assumption that the more adjacent hexes you own the faster your capture rate is. Having a river would allow you to sweep a larger chunk of hexes quicker if you have the numbers to hold all of the additional capture points.

That's my 30 seconds of thinking idea for making combat on water useful...

[MasterChief096]

I honestly don't see a point to naval combat unless its done in the oceans and far away from the continents for resources that are sea-based. Rivers aren't wide, long, or deep enough to substantiate using a naval boat over just a regular old vanguard or reaver. If there were harbor-like facilities on coasts that could provide outlets for naval combat on the high seas then I might be able to see it. Its also important to note that naval combat for a futuristic space-faring society takes place in space, not on the oceans.

[Stardouser]

I honestly don't see a point to naval combat unless its done in the oceans and far away from the continents for resources that are sea-based. Rivers aren't wide, long, or deep enough to substantiate using a naval boat over just a regular old vanguard or reaver. If there were harbor-like facilities on coasts that could provide outlets for naval combat on the high seas then I might be able to see it. Its also important to note that naval combat for a futuristic space-faring society takes place in space, not on the oceans.

On that point, what could be a resource that's that far away yet can affect battles anywhere in the game world?

If naval ships could travel from one continent to another, then naval bases would BE such a resource.

[Stardouser]

Another thing we could have to increase riverboat usage is make the rivers be very wide, and have destructible bridges that can force boat crossings of land troops.

[ShockNC]

Going on previous gaming history, what would be the purpose of them? What's the motivations for players to use them? What's their role in the overall strategy of the game?

1. attack, transport, resupply point and that's just off the top of my head.

2. securing resources such as ocean resource platforms, Alien ruins, Island bases, etc. adding new game play beyond the land based one that we already have (oceanic based classes or abilities for oceanic gameplay for all classes).

3. securing resources and allowing a launch point to attack other areas (IE, like the Cave network in planetside 1).

Planetside has always had the need for a decent navy system but it never got put in while some other features got thrown in there which made little sense.

that and given the art style of bases in PS2, i would love to fight on a base styled off of Atlantis off of Star Gate Atlantis. :D

[Timealude]

On that point, what could be a resource that's that far away yet can affect battles anywhere in the game world?

If naval ships could travel from one continent to another, then naval bases would BE such a resource.

This ^ That would add a totally new feel for planetside and would be really excited to see that. Just picture 5 galaxies, the air escort flying above a fleet of futuristic ships to capture water side bases and then later on in the battle have ships provide artillery support from afar. That sound like a pretty fun game to me. Also I can see a ship taking place of a load star in that scenario.

[Stardouser]

This ^ That would add a totally new feel for planetside and would be really excited to see that. Just picture 5 galaxies, the air escort flying above a fleet of futuristic ships to capture water side bases and then later on in the battle have ships provide artillery support from afar. That sound like a pretty fun game to me. Also I can see a ship taking place of a load star in that scenario.

You might catch a couple of flames for mentioning artillery, but I think that if artillery can only come from naval ships, it's balanced. Naval ships can't retreat behind base shields, for one thing. They also can't get any closer than the shore.

I think the ultimate battle scenario would be a naval landing invasion that may or may not be contested depending on scout intelligence. Another thing that would be awesome is, since the naval ships can fire about 1km or so inland, you send in advanced recon infiltrators that can laser designate for them.

[Cosmical]

I think naval battles could work, but in a similar capacity to battlefield. Basically you get a huge incredibly slow moving vehicle, probably funded by an outfit, and one per outfit. And they can be possitioned only in the water, and there job isnt to be an unstoppable sea based bombing machine, just as a relative safe heaven to resupply and deploy from. And being at see, it changes the battle strategy completely. Could essentially have a water base, seiging a ground base to get a foothold onthe cont that you wouldnt otherwise be able to get. But obviously the naval base can be destroyed, at the cost of all the spent resources.


Anything else added to naval combat turns the game into abit of a farse. Lets face it, you have command of the ground and the air already. Sea is actually a hugely limiting factor.

Unless youre into that, in which case. I think you're playing the wrong game. Also, boats mean youre drastically undermining the Vanu's floating over water technology, and theyve had it hard enough as it is. :P

[KrazeyVIII]

I can see how it would appeal to some to have some naval combat in the game in some way. I cannot, however, see it being put into the game in the near future. The core of the game has to be solid and adding naval combat is just something the game doesn't need right now, especially at launch.

I could see it having its uses when there are bridge fights, or bases nearby rivers/lakes so boats can harass the shoreline. The problem here is if I see a boat in a river/lake I will point and laugh and then walk/drive the other direction. If the game does eventually evolve over the next few years to have a naval aspect the boats/ships/whatever put into the game will HAVE to be amphibious. Also, the devs would have to design continents specifically designed around any type of naval combat to force a boats usefulness in fights. Someone had said that Cyssor would have been a great continent, and I agree, the problem is that it was basically the ONLY continent where it would of mattered. Unless you want maps with rivers absolutely fucking everywhere in PS2 then there halfway point must be met with anything that goes in the water can also go on land (amphibious).

Naval combat is NOT for everyone by any stretch of the imagination, I don't care what you say. If it is going to be put in the game then, going by how the game is being designed, the vehicle will need to have options to customize it to be better in the water than on land or decent in the water and decent on land. I don't see how naval combat can be truly implemented when the players that want it are so few.

[Stardouser]

Unless youre into that, in which case. I think you're playing the wrong game. Also, boats mean youre drastically undermining the Vanu's floating over water technology, and theyve had it hard enough as it is. :P

This is part of the problem. Planetside is THE game that these things are worthy of adding to. It's the only true MMOFPS other than WW2 Online. Which it may be worth mentioning, has these things.



Naval combat is NOT for everyone by any stretch of the imagination, I don't care what you say. If it is going to be put in the game then, going by how the game is being designed, the vehicle will need to have options to customize it to be better in the water than on land or decent in the water and decent on land. I don't see how naval combat can be truly implemented when the players that want it are so few.

It doesn't have to be for everyone. How many people don't use tanks or aircraft even though they could? How many people don't use squads and especially outfits, yet we're getting those.

I think there's no proof of it being "few" that want it, though. I can tell you this is something we had in BF1942, and DICE capriciously stopped doing it after that, and a lot of BF players want it.

And, just anticipating objections - no, adding naval combat doesn't make it Battlefield. Nor does it make BF1942 either.

[JHendy]

"I don't see how naval combat can be truly implemented when the players that want it are so few."

Hmm.

I don't think anyone would turn their nose up at naval combat in PS2 if it was properly implemented.

Yes, it's ambitious, but it is by no means infeasible.

Frankly, I think it's pretty damning that a lot of people who are supposedly passionate about gaming will actually go out of their way to discourage people who so much as conceptualise ambitious, innovative features like this one. On one hand, the gaming community complains bitterly about stagnation, and then on the other it picks to pieces any suggestion that is remotely outside the norm.

For the love of god, please chuck your ideas in or help to develop somebody else's, instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that implementing 'X feature' isn't worth the effort because "it might be hard to balance!!!" or "100% of the playerbase can't enjoy or make use of this feature 100% of the time, therefore it sucks"

[Destroyeron]

I'd be fine with gunboats as long as they have the guns from Act of Valor.

[Stormhall]

I understand that Auraxis is a big super continent, right? And around this super continent is a ton of water, right? So you could add naval ships to make tactical insertions on coastal continents and have naval defenses on coasts to stop that from happening and that is where I see naval combat useful also space combat would be awesome but kind of pointless since naval combat would kinda have the same experience anyway.

[cellinaire]

A future continent specifically tailored/designed to accommodate sea/river aspect of warfare (in the same server). Or a specific set of servers that enable naval warfare or space warfare. Any ideas?

(and Higby didn't say naval combat will occur in existing continents, let alone the introduction of naval warfare. He, however, did say that he is fond of this idea. Just for clarification @_@)

And to StormHall : There's still no mega-continent from what I know. ;)

[KrazeyVIII]

I really hope the rest of my post was understood. Even if it is put in, the amount of change the game would have to go through to allow it is ridiculous. Maps need to be tailored to allow naval combat in any form. Giving current vehicles amphibious options would be the best way to implement it, if ever.

[Stardouser]

I understand that Auraxis is a big super continent, right? And around this super continent is a ton of water, right? So you could add naval ships to make tactical insertions on coastal continents and have naval defenses on coasts to stop that from happening and that is where I see naval combat useful also space combat would be awesome but kind of pointless since naval combat would kinda have the same experience anyway.

Well, I was thinking...same experience? That depends! If space combat is going to be more or less on one horizontal plane, that may as well be naval combat.

But space combat doesn't have to be on one plane...in space you can go up, down, any direction, if they modeled it like that, it would be awesome. And I don't just mean so that you superficially travel in any direction but all the important objects in space are on the same plane, but where the stuff is in all directions too.

[cellinaire]

I really hope the rest of my post was understood. Even if it is put in, the amount of change the game would have to go through to allow it is ridiculous. Maps need to be tailored to allow naval combat in any form. Giving current vehicles amphibious options would be the best way to implement it, if ever.

I mean 'future continents'. The continents they'll start to put in at least 1 year after launch. :cool:


Obviously they have many ideas about it already and (possibly can) even make actual plans about it, then on to the production stage / in-house testing phase / public testing, feedback phase and rigorous modification and, finally, introduce it to the game. I know a huge amount of work has to be put in to make them work and, by that time, some people might wonder like "waste of dev time and resources? Or will it actually work?". But it's a bit early to say they're impossible to make or they'll become a game-breaker.

[Stardouser]

I really hope the rest of my post was understood. Even if it is put in, the amount of change the game would have to go through to allow it is ridiculous. Maps need to be tailored to allow naval combat in any form. Giving current vehicles amphibious options would be the best way to implement it, if ever.

If you mean, just give vehicles amphibious capability instead of having real ships, I disagree, naval combat is not just amphibious vehicles. I mean, you can give vehicles, such as APCs and tanks, amphibious capability to get across rivers, OK, no problem. But they should be slow at getting across.

Here's a way we could make this important: If bridges can be blocked or destroyed(they should be repairable just like in BF2), tanks and APCs would then need to cross amphibiously at rivers. I mean, the bridge could be repaired, yes, but are you going to have 30 tanks and APCs sit there and wait under aerial bombardment while that's done? And then, that's where the river gunboats come into play. Armored vehicles will cross slowly, gunboats, being actual watercraft, will travel noticeably faster.

River gunboats could also be used to ferry infantry squads across the river as well. Another thing is that river gunboats could be spec'd out as anti-air platforms or anti-vehicle. Even on continents that aren't river heavy, but nevertheless do have a river and a bridge, if intelligence is gained that allows you to set up a defense against an invasion at a bridge(a great place to do that, by the way, since most will try to cross the bridge which makes them easy to shoot), AA-gunboats can be a great set-up for such a thing. The enemy invasion force might bring air support, a couple of gunboats with 2 AA guns each might help out. And when gunboats aren't needed, no one will use them. When they are they will; and since river gunboats can double as smaller ocean vessels later on, there's no need to be worried about wasting resources just because they aren't used 24/7.

Were there ever large scale invasions that met large scale resistance RIGHT AT a bridge in PS1 that anyone ever saw?

Depending on how they decided to do it, the river gunboat spawning bases could either be 1 per continent that has to be fought over, or, every faction can spawn them on the continent.

Question: Are aircraft expected to have radar capability to see other aircraft at long range? Especially Galaxy transports?

[JHendy]

I really hope the rest of my post was understood. Even if it is put in, the amount of change the game would have to go through to allow it is ridiculous. Maps need to be tailored to allow naval combat in any form. Giving current vehicles amphibious options would be the best way to implement it, if ever.


A new continent would need to be brought into the line-up. One that has been designed from the ground up to make full use of naval units, in conjunction with conventional ones.

No need to overhaul the entire game.

I'm imagining some sort of vast archipelago continent, enabling the use of full-scale ocean-going battleships further out to sea, which would be used to capture off-shore resource hexes (oil rigs perhaps), and smaller units like river boats to be used inland, between islands, contributing to the ground war.

Oh the possibilities :D

Giving current vehicles amphibious options would be the best way to implement it, if ever

No. That's a depressingly drab and unambitious idea, and most definitely not the best one. SOE would have to have a screw loose to implement new continents that were built specifically for the purpose of naval combat -- which is what is being discussed by most proponents of naval combat at this time -- but only allow players to take to the oceans in bastardised land vehicles.

[headcrab13]

I wouldn't mind a river-running vehicle, but I wonder how it would be better than a Magrider or Reaver at getting around.

[Stardouser]

I wouldn't mind a river-running vehicle, but I wonder how it would be better than a Magrider or Reaver at getting around.

Make bridges destructible(AND repairable) but make tanks/APCs amphibious. Then when they are in the water crossing a river because the bridge is down, they have to fight off riverboats.

[headcrab13]

Make bridges destructible(AND repairable) but make tanks/APCs amphibious. Then when they are in the water crossing a river because the bridge is down, they have to fight off riverboats.

Yeah that would be an interesting mechanic. I guess I was envisioning PS1's rivers -- where you could splash through them in a few seconds and be on your way.

If rivers were several hundred yards across, and the rapids slowed down your vehicles significantly, it could make for some harrowing escapes (or fun kills from the shore).

[Stardouser]

Yeah that would be an interesting mechanic. I guess I was envisioning PS1's rivers -- where you could splash through them in a few seconds and be on your way.

If rivers were several hundred yards across, and the rapids slowed down your vehicles significantly, it could make for some harrowing escapes (or fun kills from the shore).

That was my idea, it would be quite slow for tanks and APCs to wade across the river, because, well, tanks and APCs aren't boats. Gunboats are, and would be fast compared to a tank/apc in the water, so if you want to defend a river, blow up the bridge, and have gunboats on patrol. The enemy has at least three choices:
1. Fight to repair the bridge before crossing
2. Fly everyone over the water with Galaxies and Lodestars
3. Cross amphibiously.

Gunboats could also be quite good at defending destroyed bridge sections from people trying to repair them. If no aircraft come to take them out, or tanks to kill them, it won't get repaired.