Comments on: Addressing the issue of naval imbalance

By: Twinkie Doomcaster

Twinkie Doomcaster — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 03:57:15 +0000

Personally, PT boats and Subs to T2 sounds really nice to me. The idea of a shore-based launcher doesn’t sit well with me, probably because we already have water torpedo systems. You are, in essence, creating a whole new building just to deal with one unit we have already established to need a rebalance.

Also, torp bombers reeeally need a buff. Give it to em :) And from the moment I saw torp bombers, I always wanted a T3 Heavy Torpedo Bomber that dropped them into the water, THEN they activate the propulsion and travel to their target. The plane can go faster because accuracy isn’t an issue, helping them to avoid AA, and even if they die, the torps still reach their target. Plus, as you said, a unit already uses the animation, it isnt much harder to put the air-to-water torps on the bottom of a plane

By: amanasleep

amanasleep — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:12:38 +0000

@Johnny Cage: I wasn’t making the suggestion for realism, considering that subs in SupCom travel at ~180 knots(!)

However, keeping with SC’s WW2 unit balance precepts, reducing the underwater speed and increasing the surface speed of subs would add a lot to gameplay.

The T3 Strategic Missile Sub could be exempt from this consideration.

By: Johnny Cage

Johnny Cage — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:47:18 +0000

@amanasleep: Nowadays submarines are WAY faster underwater than surfaced…also, (nuclear) subs usually do not surface for weeks/months at a time, as they are supposed to keep hidden…

By: Gryphyn

Gryphyn — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:24:50 +0000

Good idea. Me like.

By: amanasleep

amanasleep — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:07:57 +0000

There’s an easy reason for subs to surface. Just reduce the sub’s speed underwater to 3 and increase it’s speed when surfaced to 5 or so. This is both realistic (even for future tech) and improves gameplay by providing a strong motivation to have your subs surfaced.

By: Gryphyn

Gryphyn — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:45:02 +0000

to Roberto: Thanks…I was thinking that it probably didn’t hold true with todays nuclear technology anymore, but wasn’t 100% sure. In the space-age tech that SupCom has, the subs probably wouldn’t need to surface at all…we need to come up with a reason. :)

By: RobertoBuckgnini

RobertoBuckgnini — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:59:15 +0000

Wouldn’t a land-based torpedo launcher still need a sonar unit in the water to detect the submarines for it to shoot at?

Gryphyn, diesel-electric submarines need to surface to run their engines and recharge their batteries, but nuclear submarines can stay submerged for much longer periods of time. Not sure what type of technology Supreme Commander submarines would be powered by, but probably not diesel-electric.

By: 54pikachus

54pikachus — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:09:41 +0000

all these ideas are good…hmm a land based torp launcher sounds good and making subs T2 sounds very good hmm…i think thats the most feasable (not sure if i spelt that rite) adding a T1 PT boat and making subs T2 oh yes..

By: Gryphyn

Gryphyn — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:53:38 +0000

Another aspect to submarines that is not currently modeled into the game is that they need to surface from time to time to freshen their air, etc. Put a fuel capacity on the subs that forces them to surface from time to time, thus making them more vulnerable during their recharge time. Now, logistically, it becomes more difficult to control the seas via sub spamming, because at some point they may need to withdraw from battle/patrol to a (preferrably more safe) location where they can surface and recharge.

This kinda follows my idea of using fuel logistics to balance a more powerful (aka fixed) ASF (earlier post), adding another dimension rather than just damage and mass. The idea is that some units are just more powerful on a mass to mass basis…but as in real life there is always a trade off.

To reduce micro management, you’d need the ability to set a “safe surface” point for your subs that they would attempt to return to when they hit say 10% of their fuel. Perhaps with a naval buoy unit you could set up multiple ones. Of course, a buoy would tell your enemies where you were headed, if they found it. On the other hand, if you could set the buoy to decoy mode, they might be looking in the wrong place…

I still mantain that subs should be shifted to T2. Tub technology always comes before Sub technology.

By: Total_Inhalation

Total_Inhalation — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 04:44:23 +0000

I agree that nerfing subs directly via the amount of damage they do would be the most simple and easy to implement solution. However imho: It would not make much sense because subs are supposed to be pure anti-naval weapons, and nerfing them would give sea battles more of a meatgrinder “my 50 ships beats your 40 ships” aspect. More strategy is required if a unit is very powerful at what it was meant to do (subs killing ships) but very vulnerable to some kind of counter.
So Torp bombers should be buffed, and a shore based torpedo launchers would be a good idea also. And if there is a way to make them less vulnerable to intys but more vulnerable to ships with AA, that would further promote having a mixed naval force.