Why isn't there a Navy??!!

[LockednLoaded]

Cost VS Return

Navy is something that can be added one day maybe if there is not already.
Micro Transaction maps
want the map? pay a little coin.
there is A LOT of possibility

[Critical Fumble]

Given the shopping mall sized tank that the Order of Nations has, I could see swinging a naval map - aboard an island sized vessel.

But the player factions use air transport, which is faster and opens more angles of attack than naval transports would (just because it doesn't float doesn't mean it can't drop its load on a beach).
Also, in the face of the industrial and technological superiority of the ON, both factions use guerrilla tactics. I could see swinging the heavy tanks, they're still small enough to be carried under slung by a cargo chopper, but how do you bug out or hide a battleship or aircraft carrier? Without turning every naval vessel in the game into a sub, that is.

More directly in gameplay (I'm fairly certain I'm reiterating things others have said):

On mixed naval/ground maps, how do create a map where the two are both useful, but one can't kite (attack from a place where you can't be attacked) the other?
On pure naval maps, how do you not bias the match against those who only have a few naval and air units?

I'm not against having a navy, but it wouldn't disappoint me if they never showed up. Also, really, I'm more interested in the core game than more bells and whistles at this point.

Edit: You can add Shattered Galaxy and the Mech Commander games to TimmyTheNerd's list of good non-navy RTSs

[TaxiixaT]

Maybe to settle nerves they could create units with skimmer ability or amphibious units with a few maps with water volume in them.... This way it could hold a tactical value as well, be it a small one.

what ya reakon?

[Einharjar]

Given the shopping mall sized tank that the Order of Nations has, I could see swinging a naval map - aboard an island sized vessel.

But the player factions use air transport, which is faster and opens more angles of attack than naval transports would (just because it doesn't float doesn't mean it can't drop its load on a beach).
Also, in the face of the industrial and technological superiority of the ON, both factions use guerrilla tactics. I could see swinging the heavy tanks, they're still small enough to be carried under slung by a cargo chopper, but how do you bug out or hide a battleship or aircraft carrier? Without turning every naval vessel in the game into a sub, that is.

The ON bosses is what inspired be to think Naval vessels could be possible to use in the engine already. Those bosses are obviously using hard points, which thus means, Modifications can still be applied, just in a different them. There are plenty of sims out there where one can customize their ship. most of those are space sims too. This is generally how I see a naval fight going untill a beach head map is encountered, which requires a few differences.

While the LF and SR might be smaller compared to the ON, it certainly doesn't look like they are hiding very well. They have their own economies, research and development and industrial capabilities. They are not buying research from some one else, they are making things on their own. This means means they are not entirely guerrilla factions. More like, 2nd world powers versus a 1st world power. They simply use guerrilla tactics, but I don't see them really fighting a guerrilla war. With this said, the idea that they have a navy is still very plausible. Such things are easily obtainable by lore. What if most of earth's satellite are unusable at this point in time? That would push things back quite a bit on Recon and Intelligence. Suddenly, you can open station large navies like you could in WW2 no problem. Recon air craft and heavy duty UAV become your next generation scouts in this world where Satellites become limited due to the unrest below them.

[Critical Fumble]

Real world:
Ship to ship combat really isn't all that good idea nowadays, with or without satellite coverage. The only cover in the middle of the ocean is the curvature of the earth; and if you get close enough to an island to use it as cover you would likely run aground, supposing you're not in something smaller than a destroyer. Survival is mostly contingent on spotting and killing the enemy before he does the same. Which means good spotting and accurate, long range weapons are a must. Sure, a battleship can launch (read: throw) small UAVs to spot, but they have to get inside gun range to dispose of the enemy. Whereas an aircraft carrier can launch all kinds of scout craft, and their strike distance is their planes' range plus the planes' weapon range. The tactic worked well in WWII, and even more so with modern tech. Now that we have extremely long range strike planes, the mobile airstrip that a carrier is is becoming less useful for projecting air superiority, and relatively more useful as an airstrip that is harder to find and bombard.

Sure, you could produce ships in the game world; but with that kind of investment why wouldn't you just make more strike planes?

Oh, and how does what's going on planetside effect satellite coverage? All you need is a transmission dish and a way to log in securely.

Annnnnnnnd~ back to game mechanics.
I can see making units that can bypass certain choke points, whether they be amphibious or jump jet pack units a la Dawn of War/Battletech. But even that would be tactically redundant with air units in many ways, if not balance breaking depending on what class unit they were.

From what we've seen, the game is being designed so that all units, except those that cannot shot air, can engage any other unit. The almost point blank Fury unit can still kill a Cyclops, despite their ranges, because they have the same movement limitations. A ship has totally different movement restrictions though, so unless the battleship commander had a stupid, a Fury wouldn't be able to attack him. So the simplest way to balance it would be those totally separate naval maps.

Bear in mind, units and their upgrades take up your resources in some capacity (oh those wily, secretive devs) so anything you spend on naval units isn't going to your ground units, making it more effective from a cost benefit view to focus on one or the other. You'd likely wind up with most people making either all ground and air armies to get the most out of ground maps, or all navy and air units for the ones who like naval maps. You would, in effect, segregate the focused players from one another.

[Einharjar]

Real world:
Ship to ship combat really isn't all that good idea nowadays, with or without satellite coverage. The only cover in the middle of the ocean is the curvature of the earth; and if you get close enough to an island to use it as cover you would likely run aground, supposing you're not in something smaller than a destroyer. Survival is mostly contingent on spotting and killing the enemy before he does the same. Which means good spotting and accurate, long range weapons are a must. Sure, a battleship can launch (read: throw) small UAVs to spot, but they have to get inside gun range to dispose of the enemy. Whereas an aircraft carrier can launch all kinds of scout craft, and their strike distance is their planes' range plus the planes' weapon range. The tactic worked well in WWII, and even more so with modern tech. Now that we have extremely long range strike planes, the mobile airstrip that a carrier is is becoming less useful for projecting air superiority, and relatively more useful as an airstrip that is harder to find and bombard.

Sure, you could produce ships in the game world; but with that kind of investment why wouldn't you just make more strike planes?

Oh, and how does what's going on planetside effect satellite coverage? All you need is a transmission dish and a way to log in securely.

Annnnnnnnd~ back to game mechanics.
I can see making units that can bypass certain choke points, whether they be amphibious or jump jet pack units a la Dawn of War/Battletech. But even that would be tactically redundant with air units in many ways, if not balance breaking depending on what class unit they were.

From what we've seen, the game is being designed so that all units, except those that cannot shot air, can engage any other unit. The almost point blank Fury unit can still kill a Cyclops, despite their ranges, because they have the same movement limitations. A ship has totally different movement restrictions though, so unless the battleship commander had a stupid, a Fury wouldn't be able to attack him. So the simplest way to balance it would be those totally separate naval maps.

Bear in mind, units and their upgrades take up your resources in some capacity (oh those wily, secretive devs) so anything you spend on naval units isn't going to your ground units, making it more effective from a cost benefit view to focus on one or the other. You'd likely wind up with most people making either all ground and air armies to get the most out of ground maps, or all navy and air units for the ones who like naval maps. You would, in effect, segregate the focused players from one another.

Earlier in this thread, I provided a lore idea as too WHY Naval combat could become a War's focal point for our EoN universe. Running aground on islands is no biggie, because I theorized/created an idea where the ON is hunting for ancient and powerful alien technology entombed within Atlantis. Thus, man made islands, inspired by Oil Rig Platforms, serve as the land mass and terrain variations. Sea Walls, floating turrets, entire battle islands; imagine can open the door here.

Also, Knocking out satellites is some we've done in the past as the USA is concerned and recently, other countries are trying it out as well. It's like the modern world "cold war" where each qualified super power is showing "hey, if you F with us, we can shoot your Satellites down". Every one knows that Orbital SatComs is what we rely on now a days. For EoN, use your imagination even further and assume that since the SR and LF are basically out gunned by the ON, they initiated an objective early in the War to basiaclly blind every one. They simply shot the Satellites down. Doing so would not only blind Intellegence uses for ON Military Forces, but even effect the ONs economy. It'd be a GREAT strategic move, so long as the LF and SR both prepared themselves for lack of SatCom pior to striking them down.

Ship to Ship combat I can easily imagine within the game's constraints. This game is no where near realistic, so the arcade like "artistic license" is in effect here. I tell you this because BBs (battle ship class) is no longer operational in most world power navies. They are out classed by simple Cruisers these days; most notably the AEGIS class. Ballistic Missiles are the new cannons, and these suckers can strike at intercontinental distances in some cases; traveling 1,400 miles before depleting itself. These vessels rely entirely on SatCom to operate and their pay load does as well. These missiles cannot fly without GPS. They can still navigate terrain, but it won't know where in the world it is located or its' destination without GPS. Knocking out Satellites entirely means to reset the game to a point where big guns are actually useful again, and long distance missiles need support of UAV or other Areal Recon and advanced ballistics to work without GPS.
It's true that most Naval engagements would also feature air power instead, but there's no harm in limiting this. Air Power in the land battle is already nerfed to high heaven. The LF and SR are not even employing proper modern warfare strategies; including their lack of use of Air Superiority. Keep your Naval Carrier force limited to the CAS styled Air you see in land games, and you won't see Carriers being the automatic "go to" vessel. BBs and Cruisers could have extensive AA options to completely annihilate air strikes; still fitting into the game's Team Focus agenda and allowing players to take on roles of fleet escort; not just assault.

[wayward]

Didn't want to read the whole thread, but here's a thought:

We know that this game is going to feature premade armies: you're bringing your entire force into combat with you.

http://www.gamespot.com/end-of-natio...tions-6367955/

This seems like it'd be difficult to jive with naval units: I mean, not every map would have this terrain type, some would emphasize it much more than others, etc. I think keeping a relatively focused scope just makes more sense in a game like this: I mean, you didn't even see air units in DOW2 (barely had any in 1). In CNC4, you had air and ground units only, as well.

Naval combat is a tricky beast... The additional terrain type, balance between naval/naval, naval/ground and naval/air is hard enough in a game that lets you build 30-40 or more units, like Red Alert. Putting it in a game where players will have (probably) 15-20 units or fewer, and where you're pre-building your armies ahead of time, just seems needlessly complex.

This could be due to my bias against naval combat (tbh I don't like it in RTSes) but I really don't see the added complexity and potential frustration players would face to be worthwhile. If you're building up your army over time out of combat, it seems like there's a lot of potential for you to put yourself in a situation where you have mostly naval army compositions, and can't compete meaningfully on land-only maps, or a mostly land composition and would be unable to compete meaningfully on naval-dominant maps.

[Einharjar]

Didn't want to read the whole thread, but here's a thought:

We know that this game is going to feature premade armies: you're bringing your entire force into combat with you.

http://www.gamespot.com/end-of-natio...tions-6367955/

This seems like it'd be difficult to jive with naval units: I mean, not every map would have this terrain type, some would emphasize it much more than others, etc. I think keeping a relatively focused scope just makes more sense in a game like this: I mean, you didn't even see air units in DOW2 (barely had any in 1). In CNC4, you had air and ground units only, as well.

Naval combat is a tricky beast... The additional terrain type, balance between naval/naval, naval/ground and naval/air is hard enough in a game that lets you build 30-40 or more units, like Red Alert. Putting it in a game where players will have (probably) 15-20 units or fewer, and where you're pre-building your armies ahead of time, just seems needlessly complex.

This could be due to my bias against naval combat (tbh I don't like it in RTSes) but I really don't see the added complexity and potential frustration players would face to be worthwhile. If you're building up your army over time out of combat, it seems like there's a lot of potential for you to put yourself in a situation where you have mostly naval army compositions, and can't compete meaningfully on land-only maps, or a mostly land composition and would be unable to compete meaningfully on naval-dominant maps.

Well, again, I did post actually in this very thread, several times that I support keeping Naval engagements separated from ground engagements as well as explained how utilizing naval combat can still work. The complexity of combat is still there, just focused on separate modes. That's the trick. Melding the two together would be folly, not to mention with such a low unit cap... 1 ship would pretty much sap all of your command points one would think.

Instead of constantly reposting my theories in this thread, however, I'll just make another; so it's far easier to catch up on it. The first post will then give some idea on how Navies can be used in EoN, work, be backed by lore and be successful while not hurting the current game play focus. Besides, I've wanted to go into more detail anyway.

[Darkjolly]

Shame, Prefer navy over air and many times over land. Nothings more satisfiring than a submarine sending a nuke to a base and then submerging away or an aircraft carrier pounding away from 50 clicks. Air battles are nice but planes and especially helicopters go down too fast to be even enjoyable. Its easier to win a match pure navy or pure land than pure air

[comradeDa]

It would be arbitrarily dichotomous and double the amount of work the artists have to do for very little gain.