View Full Version : Sea Warfare...
Does anyone use sea units? Oh, besides the trawlers? I think that it is so much easier and more effective to go air. What improvements could be made to warships to make them a more viable option for the casual and the experienced player? I've got ideas, but I want to what you guys think first.
P.S. Can anyone name one RTS where sea units were worthwhile?
06-18-2002, 10:16 PM
Warcraft 2 emphasised sea warfare. I use sea units as support of to lighten up some defenses on bases. Especailly in some games like C&C.
06-18-2002, 10:43 PM
It depends, of course, on the maps you're playing. It can be advantageous to use sea units on maps with a lot of water, especially since many people won't use water units even on maps with a lot of water. If this is the case, you can prevent them from even getting a foothold in the water (destroying any attempts to build docks). A few AA cruisers work rather well to down air units, and the cruisers work a lot like cannons (good damage, excellent range) without the need to deploy/undeploy. If you back them with some air and some frigates, you can usually keep them alive. This is handy if you're trying to use a ground/air assault but pesky turrets, fortresses, shield generators, power cores, or whatnot are causing problems. What might not be approachable (without a heavy cost) from the land may be rather vulnerable from the sea (toss in the fact that a single sea transport can carry 10-15 units...)
Oh, and if you're playing gungans, your frigates can dive to avoid attacks (and work pretty well as scouts if you have them set on "no-attack") and a couple healers and Fambaa generators carried along in a transport for quick deployment can increase your sea units formidability significantly.
06-18-2002, 10:45 PM
On water maps, I usually build an ubernavy. Since transports can haul twice as many units as an air transport and are heartier, most people use them to attack you. I start by taking out the other guy's navy and then build massive amounts of cruisers and anti-air destroyers. I can then shell him off the coast with impunity and defend against any air attacks he may have. Then its just a matter of holding off his air transports (w/ AADDs and some fighters) and fight an attrition war. I've won 8 of the 9 games I've played using that strategy. The only hard part is rushing to get to tech 4 to get the cruisers. If the other guy can land a sizeable force, you might as well fly the white flag...
06-19-2002, 01:54 AM
I agree, on island maps navies are a must. Use frigates/destroyers to beat his navy, cruisers to push him off the shore, aa to keep him their and transports to invade is unprotected shoreline. But on anything else, navies are too expensive/weak to use effectively.
In AoK, any map that had water meant you needed a navy and on island maps thats about all you had. Navies in that game where practically unconquerable without other navies.
But what about a map like rivers, where it is easy to simply build a ground and air force? Then I think that the sea game doesn't seem profitable anymore. Here are some changes I think could be made to make sea warfare more popular on map with more land than water:
LOWER PRICES: my biggest beef with sea warfare is than it cost too much. Mabye you don't think that the ships cost too much, but the techs are definately overpriced. They were brought down in CC, but I think that they should be cheaper.
STRONGER SHIPS: Besides cruisers, if you're on the shoreline, you should have nothing to fear. That should change. Frigates should have a stronger attack so that less of them can do more damage and so you'll need a navy to beat a navy.
BUILD ANYWHERE: it so annoying when you have to build a shipyard miles from you base because you can only build on shore water. You can't build on deep water and some games there is no shore water near my base.
When I play Command the base, I chose a water map so the base is it's own island. Then ships are the only way to get to it (besides air). That can be fun, but I don't use navies only unless I absolutely need them otherwise.
06-19-2002, 10:06 PM
I agree J-5. On maps like Rivers, navies are useless and are massacred by much cheaper land units. I think your ideas are great, but also giving ships more hps will help a lot. All Lucasarts did was copy the ship concept from AoK, when 165 hp was a lot. Now almost anything has more hps than ships, or they cost a lot less (like troops).
06-19-2002, 11:03 PM
I agree that in many river maps (ones where all the water is fairly narrow) that many civs don't excell at the using water. I wouldn't include the gungans in the view though. Remember that they can be regened and protected by Fambaas, and their frigates are adept at stealth strikes. If nothing else, their cruisers make decent alternatives to the use of cannons.
vBulletin®, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.