new amphibious ship

[amx_50B]

i have the idea of a new type of ship for tech 2 and/or 3 called the amphibious ships that could go on land and sea. Because of their size no land factories would be able to construct them. Let's start with the eda ship :
Ordinance
A tech 3 hover ship with 4 rocket launcher on a turret capable to deal great damage and quite good aoe on big range. His launchers can shoot in a more direct fire the furether what he is trying to shoot his target. The ship is sadly slow and lack any armor making it vulnerable to planes and big ships and any unit that sneak close to him. He would act as a long range artillery unit

 

[Random Guy]

A tech 3 hover ship

I don't think hover is right tech to go with since, there is no reason for it to not work as one in water, which would logically make it invulnerable to torpedoes from naval point defense and torpedo bombers, which is not good.
And I don't really think game needs many amphibious ships. Only one faction should have it(especially if we count possibility of adding naval transport exclusively to one of other factions)in my opinion and maybe only on one unit as it was done in supcom. If you want to do something more, make land units with transports, it really isn't hard

 

[amx_50B]

I don't think hover is right tech to go with since, there is no reason for it to not work as one in water, which would logically make it invulnerable to torpedoes from naval point defense and torpedo bombers, which is not good.

that s why it has low hp (for tech 3 Standard)
for why the other should have other amphibious ships well for balance and not unfair things (because i would then only post for chosen)

 

[Random Guy]

that s why it has low hp (for tech 3 Standard)
for why the other should have other amphibious ships well for balance and not unfair things (because i would then only post for chosen)

Balance is not an issue, you can see that in supcom other factions play just fine without amphibious ship, they don't need it. It is a cool bonus mechanic. Also, a t3 ship with little Hp would die somewhat fast to t2 static arty if we go with supcom example(the HP part can be ignored, since we don't know the balance that much)

 

[amx_50B]

Balance is not an issue, you can see that in supcom other factions play just fine without amphibious ship, they don't need it. It is a cool bonus mechanic. Also, a t3 ship with little Hp would die somewhat fast to t2 static arty if we go with supcom example(the HP part can be ignored, since we don't know the balance that much)

1) for the hp ship it is low for tech 3 ship Standard
2) i want at least another ship that can do that since with only one i feel it is wasted

 

[Random Guy]

1) for the hp ship it is low for tech 3 ship Standard
2) i want at least another ship that can do that since with only one i feel it is wasted

Even for t3 standard it could be fast. In Supcom Neptune is only 25k HP
And no, opportunity would not be wasted. The uniqueness of it would be wasted if you just give it to everybody. Cybran Salem would not be unique if every faction had an amphibious ship. Novax which is unique in every sense is not a wasted idea. Amphibious ships is not mandatory for balance, you can easily leave it one to one faction.

 

[amx_50B]

Even for t3 standard it could be fast. In Supcom Neptune is only 25k HP
And no, opportunity would not be wasted. The uniqueness of it would be wasted if you just give it to everybody. Cybran Salem would not be unique if every faction had an amphibious ship. Novax which is unique in every sense is not a wasted idea. Amphibious ships is not mandatory for balance, you can easily leave it one to one faction.

well if so WHY IS A LOT OF EDA UNIT AMPHIBIOUS !?

 

[Random Guy]

well if so WHY IS A LOT OF EDA UNIT AMPHIBIOUS !?

Such amount of amphibious land units seems to be unique to EDA. Those units go underwater, and they do not interfere with navy. And Navy is not balanced against against land units well, at least I doubt it really will. Having such an amphibious ship by itself is fine as you said, since it could be killed by air, but this is the reason AA cruisers should not be amphibious.

 

[amx_50B]

Such amount of amphibious land units seems to be unique to EDA. Those units go underwater, and they do not interfere with navy. And Navy is not balanced against against land units well, at least I doubt it really will. Having such an amphibious ship by itself is fine as you said, since it could be killed by air, but this is the reason AA cruisers should not be amphibious.

well an aa cruiser for only 1 faction that could go on land is not that much of a problem. specially how fragile they are

 

[Random Guy]

well an aa cruiser for only 1 faction that could go on land is not that much of a problem. specially how fragile they are

AA cruiser by itself is not really usefull on land, it can't even do anything usefull against land units itself, land AA can do same work, even if a little worse becauseof lower range, and as you mentioned, land AA doesn't have lack of HP. Giving a faction an amphibious AA cruiser will not really do anything, just wasting the uniqueness of amphibious ship of another faction.

 

[Random Guy]

After thinking a bit, what I like in your first idea is that it is a separate ship, so there is no snowballing effect like with Cybran Salems, because with them, they can deep into land straight after winning navy.

 

[amx_50B]

tech 3 amphibious battlecruiser
name : class halberd
This ship is meant do destroy hordes of ennemies that lack any hp and has enought hp to tank a lot of punishement. Is the 7nd most tanky tech 3 behind other bcs, carriers and battleships.
It s biggest flaw are the lack of dps and slowness, making it vurnerable to arty, planes, anti tech 4 and tech 4
(would be for chosen)

 

[amx_50B]

tech 2 flying submarine
name : XV02
this unit has torpedoes/rockets use for anti ships and anti surface. it cannot resurface, very vurnerable from aas and asfs and while having some hp is not as versatile as other gunships and would loose in a mass equivalent against other non tech 1 gunships. It is more meant to be a support. Also quie clunksy on air

 

[amx_50B]

tech 2 raid boat
name : class exocet
this ship look like a plane but can t fly. it is extremely fast and boast 2-4 anti surface missile. it is fragile and is vurnerable form subs and air units and fast frigate
(would be for eda or guard)

 

[Random Guy]

tech 2 flying submarine
name : XV02
this unit has torpedoes/rockets use for anti ships and anti surface. it cannot resurface, very vurnerable from aas and asfs and while having some hp is not as versatile as other gunships and would loose in a mass equivalent against other non tech 1 gunships. It is more meant to be a support. Also quie clunksy on air

Wtf? It would just instantly die to interceptors. This unit makes no sense. Why would you even need it?

 

[amx_50B]

Wtf? It would just instantly die to interceptors. This unit makes no sense. Why would you even need it?

it s a test
also it would be used to not get damaged by torps bombers and use them when you don t need as subs

 

[amx_50B]

i thought with aa you would think it op

 

[amx_50B]

Ekranoplan — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org

here s the inspi for the non flying aircraft boat

 

[Random Guy]

i thought with aa you would think it op

Subs are not supposed to be a counter to air. Seraphim subs are not supposed to counter air, it is just their bonus, their main role is killing naval units, not air. You can't have an efficient sub that can be a gunship and still be a good submarine. Especialy since they are most likely to die from air units anyway the second they take off to avoid torpedo bombers. Nobody is gonna skip building interceptors when they know you have such a submarine. Submarines move underwater, and their can be killed by torpedoes, and torpedo bombers carry them. IF you want your submarines to not die from torpedo bombers. then you should cover them with your own interceptors. Game is about combining multiple types of units to get the best result, why do you want to build as few types of units as possible by always suggesting multirole units? Sure, they can be convenient sometimes, but they are not gonna be the best at either of their roles.

 

[amx_50B]

Subs are not supposed to be a counter to air. Seraphim subs are not supposed to counter air, it is just their bonus, their main role is killing naval units, not air. You can't have an efficient sub that can be a gunship and still be a good submarine. Especialy since they are most likely to die from air units anyway the second they take off to avoid torpedo bombers. Nobody is gonna skip building interceptors when they know you have such a submarine. Submarines move underwater, and their can be killed by torpedoes, and torpedo bombers carry them. IF you want your submarines to not die from torpedo bombers. then you should cover them with your own interceptors. Game is about combining multiple types of units to get the best result, why do you want to build as few types of units as possible by always suggesting multirole units? Sure, they can be convenient sometimes, but they are not gonna be the best at either of their roles.

it has the aa when it flie
also with the gunship role idea it won t win the game by building them over gunships, they are here to support the gunships