PDA

View Full Version : Opinions On Naval Combat


Darth Andrew
11-04-2005, 06:06 PM
I've been deliberating if this game would ever include water-bound ship-to-ship combat. Would it just seem too cheesy, like as in Galactic Battlegrounds where there are tons of unrealistic ships, or would add another layer of depth to combat? Does the game even need it, with all of the other vehicles that make naval engagements inferior? Or maybe only civilian populations would use navies instead? To me it would be a bit unecessary and redundant, what with space engagements and all. But I can see some advantages, such as suprise attacks. Since I haven't seen this discussed before, what do y'all think?

Darth Windu
11-04-2005, 10:52 PM
It's not in Star Wars.
It shouldn't be in Star Wars.
It's not in the game.

WxDude
11-04-2005, 10:57 PM
I don't know...I think the Battle of Mon Calamari would have had naval warfare...so why not? I think it'd be a nice surprise.

artisen12
11-05-2005, 12:08 AM
every seen the clone wars cartoon how the did water battle with star destroyers landing on the water

Jeff
11-05-2005, 12:58 AM
I'm pretty sure there won't be any naval combat in EaW. Why would they include it if there is no sign whatsoever of this in any of the movies?

cardif
11-05-2005, 03:12 AM
wondering if an army needs ships and stuff, when they have hover/antigrav vehicels :D

Admiral Sith
11-05-2005, 06:11 AM
But in BFII they had Capture the Flag, which sounds really wierd IE: "The Republic "Meatbags" have captured the flag". Who need naval combat when you can just fry the oceans with a planetary bombardment

Darth Windu
11-05-2005, 07:46 AM
The problem with water combat is that logistically, it doesnt make sense. Why create a craft that can only go over one type of terrain that cannot be held, while you can build Aircraft and Ground vehicles? Especially speeder which can go over water anyway.

THEredGERBAL
11-05-2005, 08:02 AM
I agree - the only reason we currently have navies is because it's not possible to patrol the areas with bombers and fighters, if we could then why risk having a zavy which can be sunk? Simply put because currently aircraft cannot haul enough cargo compared with ships, if we could, then ships would soon be abandoned as a slow and risky means of transportation of good during wartime.

Jan Gaarni
11-05-2005, 08:21 AM
I kinda agree to this.

The only thing that would make sense water-wise, would be submarine like ships, for underwater combat (don't mention the AT-AT sub, please, I beg you :D )

Juggernaut1985
11-05-2005, 08:22 AM
Naval combat doesn't have to be ships, you could use repulsor units yo do the same job. Also how would you fight on Mon Calamari if you didn't have some sort of map specific unit?

WxDude
11-05-2005, 09:07 AM
I don't know...I think the Battle of Mon Calamari would have had naval warfare...so why not? I think it'd be a nice surprise.

Also how would you fight on Mon Calamari if you didn't have some sort of map specific unit?

Like I said.

Darth Windu
11-05-2005, 10:47 PM
Ok.

1. To control an area, you need troops on the ground. Considering the Moc Cal live in big cities, not hard to do.

2. Fighting a battle would be easy. As we see on Utapau, it's not hard to get Armour into small spaces. Also, with units like the Republic Swamp speeder (Rebels have it in this game) they could go over the water. In addition, aircraft/spacecraft would take the slack.

Overall, water-specific units still neither needed nor wanted.

Juggernaut1985
11-05-2005, 11:09 PM
"Overall, water-specific units still neither needed nor wanted." -Windu

You're the only one who doesn't want them.

Jeff
11-05-2005, 11:49 PM
I don't think we need water-specific units. They are never mentioned anywhere in the Star Wars universe, or at least I have never heard of them, so I don't know why they would include them in this game. So I guess I don't want them either.

WxDude
11-06-2005, 07:51 AM
I don't think we need water-specific units. They are never mentioned anywhere in the Star Wars universe, or at least I have never heard of them, so I don't know why they would include them in this game. So I guess I don't want them either.

The Battle of Mon Calamari in the N64 Rogue Squardon game had water units on the Imperial side.

Also, Windu, those cities are for the Quarren...not the Mon Calamari. How could you defend the Mon Calamari Cities that are on and under water?

And...did I see you write "Mon Cal"? That's an abbrivation.

lukeiamyourdad
11-06-2005, 11:02 AM
Meh, it would be useless to make water-specific units (and their respective research) just for a one planet or two.

So no, no naval is necessary.

WxDude
11-06-2005, 01:27 PM
Meh, it would be useless to make water-specific units (and their respective research) just for a one planet or two.

I still don't agree. Many planets have oceans and other sizeable bodies of water. Jedi Starfighter shows Naboo with Federation Naval Warships and the N64 Rogue Squadron has an amphibous landing of Imperial Troops in Cornet City before Madine is rescued.

Though I do see your point. Maybe they can compromise somehow.

popcorn2008
11-06-2005, 03:54 PM
I dont think that naval units belong in Star Wars, it just isnt what star wars is.

lukeiamyourdad
11-06-2005, 05:24 PM
I dont think that naval units belong in Star Wars, it just isnt what star wars is.


TPM's Gungan Bongo submarine. They do belong.

I'm just unsure of the usefulness of having a actual naval force in the game for few planets. It just seems like a waste of time and ressource just to build and upgrade a few boats so that you can use them in a handful of battles.

Jeff
11-06-2005, 07:01 PM
TPM's Gungan Bongo submarine. They do belong.Ahh yes, I did forget about this. Still, I don't think that Mon Calamari and the Gungans are enough to make naval warfare on top of land and space fighting.

WxDude
11-06-2005, 09:06 PM
But it is more than Naboo and Mon Calamari. Corellia, Yavin 5, and others have large bodies of water. I would like to see something.

Darth Windu
11-06-2005, 09:35 PM
Dude - you evidently don't understand much amilitary control. Thing is, sure, Naval craft might be useful on some planets but in the grand scheme of things, they aren't essential and their usefullness is well below that of Aircraft and Ground Forces. In the modern world, Naval and Air power are great, but at the end of the day if you can't put a soldier on a piece of land you don't control it, and the whole point of this game is conquering planets to control them.

Overall, water units are irrelevant because they are restricted to a single type of medium in which they can travel. Aicraft/Spacecraft can obviously travel in space and atmosphere, making them very valuable while infantry can fight inside starships in space and on the ground, and have the advantage of being able to control property.

Water units are not needed. We never see a water combat unit in SW and the only naval unit we do see is the Bongo. Also, we have already seen that units like the Republic Swamp Speeder and Confederacy Tank Droid can go over water, while the Dwarf Spider Droid could go under it. I'm sure that if these units can do that, some Imperial and Rebel units can as well. As for planets having bodies of water, we only see that on Kamino and Naboo. Coruscant, Yavin IV, Hoth, Geonosis, Tatooine etc are never shown to have any water (except for Hoth but thats all frosty anyway). Therefore there is no evidence to show Naval combat could be used on even half of the planets.

Remember that they're not making Galactic Battlegrounds 2 here, it's a different game.

Also, the Mon Calamari do live in above-water cities. Go and read the Jedi Academy books.

lukeiamyourdad
11-06-2005, 10:35 PM
For once I agree with Windu. It simply isn't practical when your aircrafts can go from space ship to atmosphere easily, the need of naval transports and aircraft carriers doesn't exist anymore. Like Jan said, the only ship that would fit would be submarines but it simply isn't practical to build a navy and then deploy it on such a small amount of planets.

Most planets, including those with large bodies of waters, have their cities on solid ground. They could have an underwater base, but that's quite a stretch.

Juggernaut1985
11-06-2005, 11:09 PM
I think you guys are forgetting that most naval units in SW are simply repulsor vehicles and can go on land or sea.

Dagobahn Eagle
11-07-2005, 08:20 AM
Yes to naval battles.

I don't think we need water-specific units. They are never mentioned anywhere in the Star Wars universe, or at least I have never heard of them, so I don't know why they
would include them in this game. So I guess I don't want them either.
Yes, they are mentioned. The ones I can think of are:


The Imperial Waveskimmer.
The Alliance Amphibian.
The Imperial World Devastator.
The Coral Wanda (a submarine).
The Gungan boat (My God, watch Episode I! No, wait... Don't:p).


Fighters, bombers, and air transports can't replace boats and ships. If they can, then it's funny that so many countries are developing new boats and ships in reality when we have state-of-the-art helicopters, fighters, and other aircraft like AWACS planes.

Star Destroyers that land on water? What's wrong with comic book authors these days? Victory-class ships can enter a planet's atmosphere, but are not amphibious. Imperator-class ships (the ones in the movies) are certainly not capable of atmospheric entry.

Logain
11-07-2005, 12:54 PM
I'll put it this way, its fine for planetary forces to have naval units, but its not really feasible for a galactic miliatary to have them on a large scale, mostly for logistics, it how do they move them, how do they get them into the water from space without damaging them

WxDude
11-07-2005, 02:25 PM
I'll put it this way, its fine for planetary forces to have naval units, but its not really feasible for a galactic miliatary to have them on a large scale, mostly for logistics, it how do they move them, how do they get them into the water from space without damaging them


The same way they move the V - Wing and the Walkers. Drop Ships or already established bases.


And Windu - tell that to the Trade Federation on Naboo and the Imperials on Mon Calamari and Corellia.

nightmarenny
11-07-2005, 03:27 PM
Yes to naval battles.


Yes, they are mentioned. The ones I can think of are:


The Imperial Waveskimmer.
The Alliance Amphibian.
The Imperial World Devastator.
The Coral Wanda (a submarine).
The Gungan boat (My God, watch Episode I! No, wait... Don't:p).


Fighters, bombers, and air transports can't replace boats and ships. If they can, then it's funny that so many countries are developing new boats and ships in reality when we have state-of-the-art helicopters, fighters, and other aircraft like AWACS planes.

Star Destroyers that land on water? What's wrong with comic book authors these days? Victory-class ships can enter a planet's atmosphere, but are not amphibious. Imperator-class ships (the ones in the movies) are certainly not capable of atmospheric entry.
It wasn't a Star destroyer. It was an Acclamator. Smaller then any and very possibly anphibious

Logain
11-07-2005, 11:50 PM
vwings and walkers are different, land and air units are much easier to move around than large battleships

Darth Windu
11-07-2005, 11:55 PM
Juggernaut - then they aren't Naval units are they? They're just Land units that can go over water, which funnily enough I already pointed out.

Eagle - aside from the Bongo, those are all PEU (Pure EU). As for replacing ships with aircraft in the modern world you are right, it can't be done (yet). However, we're not talking about the modern world, we're talking about Star Wars where space is also a combat theatre. You also have to remember that Aircraft/Spacecraft in SW have a massive cargo capacity, unlike Earth's current air transport vehicles. I mean, even as big as it is, an An-225 can only carry a few MBT's, yet a Republic Assault Ship can carry a full load of troops, armour and artillery.

Logain - not a bad idea actually. Also makes sense that single-planet forces would have Naval units while Galactic forces don't.

Dude - there is nothing in the films about the Imperals on Corellia or 'Mon Calamari' (still sounds like a seafood-buffet planet...). As fothe Trade Federation, they didn't need Naval units. As we see in RotS, some droid units can go under water so if they have that capability, why spend credits on limited-use Naval units?

Logain
11-08-2005, 03:29 AM
galactic forces dont need a navy, hence why the imperial starforce is called the imperial navy, it takes the place of a normal planetbound navy

Dagobahn Eagle
11-08-2005, 05:43 AM
I'll put it this way, its fine for planetary forces to have naval units, but its not really feasible for a galactic miliatary to have them on a large scale, mostly for logistics, it how do they move them, how do they get them into the water from space without damaging them.
Yeah, I wonder about that every time I see a photo of the Bismarck. How the Hell did the Germans get her down from orbit:rolleyes:?!

Maybe they build them on the planet/moon? In planetary shipyards? Like we do today?

Hence why the imperial starforce is called the imperial navy
The Imperial Navy is called such because it's the navy of Imperial space. It's got nothing to do with Maritime Navies. Don't jump to conclusions.

galactic forces dont need a navy
Then it's very odd that they build them.
Rebels have amphibian patrol boats, Imperials have massive World Devastators, and so on.

As for walkers taking the place of ships: Nope. Ships can patrol the open seas, walkers can't.

Besides, there are way too few RTS games with naval combat out there.

Logain
11-08-2005, 06:16 AM
why would you need to patrol the sea when you can blast anythnig in it from orbit?

also since i've never read any of the books that have the World Devastators in it, i've always thought of them as space ships capable of entering the atmosphere

and you bismarck comment makes no sense to me

WxDude
11-08-2005, 09:33 AM
VSDIIs (the most common bombardment warship) don't have the precision to attack vessels on an ocean or other body of water. And the bigger you get (starship wise) the harder it is to target objects on the Planet's surface.

Logain
11-08-2005, 09:57 AM
....we can currently target something less than a metre wide from space with our current technology, and your trying to tell me that with their incredibly advanced tech they cant hit a ship from space.......right

Darth_Extas
11-08-2005, 10:33 AM
There Very much might be naval-craft, There is possible proof from the Episode III, So who knows, there may be some new craft shown in this game

gamefreak
11-08-2005, 10:32 PM
why would you need to patrol the sea when you can blast anythnig in it from orbit?

Heres a thought! Maybe you dont want to blast everything!

Darth Windu
11-08-2005, 10:42 PM
Yeah, I wonder about that every time I see a photo of the Bismarck. How the Hell did the Germans get her down from orbit:rolleyes:?!

...huh? I'm sure this makes sense to someone, but not to me. Since Bismark was built in a drydock and not orbit I fail to see how it relates to the argument.

Then it's very odd that they build them.
Rebels have amphibian patrol boats, Imperials have massive World Devastators, and so on.

Prove that they build/built them. If Naval units are so common, why do we see only one, non-combat naval unit?

As for walkers taking the place of ships: Nope. Ships can patrol the open seas, walkers can't.

Irrelevant. Walkers can control territory, ships cannot. As long as you control the land it doesn't matter if your enemy has a Navy. After all, ships have to resupply and refuel every now and then and if they have no docks, they will fall without you having to do anything. Also, if there are any floating bases or whatnot, Aircraft can easily take care of them without the need for a Navy.

Besides, there are way too few RTS games with naval combat out there.

So because other RTS' have ignored Naval combat, this un-StarWarsy concept should be forced onto the game? I think not.