There is this really cool company that makes mini-subs for people whom have stupid money. Now just imagine one of those subs except with ground effect capabilities.
I imagine this new sub would be slightly slower than a Seamoth underwater, but faster than the Cyclops. Basically, it would fill a niche roll between the two existing subs. The Seamoth's small size makes it good for use in cave exploration, and the Cyclops has its utility as a mobile base. This new craft would have the advantage of being able to soar across the surface at extreme speed, or slow down and boat around. Quite possible the craft would have auxillary storage, but no more than 3 - 5 lockers worth.
Because the craft is slightly larger than the Seamoth it doesn't have the small craft's nimbleness, or ability to dock with the Cyclops. Right now there is no way to efficiently and quickly transport bulk materials. The Roc (named after the mythological bird) would have unparalleled speed on the surface, balanced by its slower speed underwater and reduced maneuverability (not great at pinpoint turns like the Seamoth).
The Seamoth is an exploratory vessel, whereas the Cyclops extends the range of the Seamoth. I imagine the Roc would be used for closing distanced between bases - something neither existing sub excels at. Of course, the Roc's surface speed mode would need to have less range than the Cyclops for balance reasons, but the Roc would still have longer subsurface range than the Seamoth (basically the Seamoth is an integral part of the Cyclops and they have a codependent advantage when used in conjunction).
Here is a new craft that fills the speed role without imposing on the roles of existing vehicles.
Tell me what you guys think.
For some reason I get the impression you are a bit enamored with ground effect Lemon.
I've seen those subs before, and well the seamoth does all the same stuff. Plus, frankly I don't think mixing ground effect vehicles into the game would work all that well. For one, the ground effect that video points to left out a large handicap of the 'boats'...the surface. Choppy water reduces the effectiveness and stormy water that might not be to much for a boat would ground the plane since the effect would be disrupted to much. Never mind having to deal with crosswinds and the like. But since stormy weather and thus waves last I checked were going to be put in, this is a consideration. There is a reason that as efficient as the designs can be, they haven't come anywhere near to replacing aircraft or boats as major sources of transportation.
For two, to have the subs you would need to give them wings. If you thought some of the areas on the map were tight before, try giving our subs 'big hips' to deal with. Now you could solve that problem by having the sub 'transform'...but then you run the risk of having the sub transform at the wrong depth thus getting the sub stuck or damaged on terrain. This could be bound to a key, but at this point the whole thing is looking rather complicated just to give a cool effect. Remember the old 'KISS' principle when it comes to engineering...well life in general really.
I like the idea that vehicles might travel better on the surface then in the water, and it actually reflects today's subs. The iconic u-boat look actually performs more efficiently on the surface then submerged. In the reverse, modern military subs perform better submerged then on the surface. So having an upgrade path that lets the Cyclops be more efficient on the surface and in shallow depths isn't such an out there concept. It would even make sense, as water becomes more dense as you go deeper. So having a sub for the deeper stuff and one for the not so deep isn't really out there either.
The only reason I see for a boat, IMO, is neither for speed nor for exploration. As @Captain_Pyro said, exploration is 99% underwater anyway.
As for travel, assuming we don't eventually end up with warpers, the cyclops is quite fast already for my needs (if only it could suck less energy though).
What I could see a need for is a vehicle that won't get STUCK in the shallow like the Cyclops; i.e, that can float.
No kidding - in my latest game I got stuck so BAD with the cyclops i could no longer drive it in any direction and had barely enough space to leave. And there is no way to deconstruct it. Nasty.
Ok, now this is a perspective a haven't had before. Good to take that into consideration as well. I could image with the twisty bridges and the glaciers coming up there could be even more need for maneuverability
I originally liked the idea of a boat, but in order to justify one, a boat would infringe upon the roles of existing game mechanics, or be utterly useless - destroy balance, or defeat the purpose.
What I mentioned above is an attempt to fill a role void without bastardizing existing vehicles.
Well, we have many opinions here on what a boat should be able to do and what not. Small, speedy ones for travel and huge, stable ones for carrying big weight. The surface is a safer place where you can travel fast and won't get stuck, and a boat has limits that could justify it being large and packed with utility.
I think there are many good reasons for implementing a boat or sub-hybrid, the balance is what concerns me.
Why would it make the bases obsolete? Far as I know there are plans for base only upgrades, and even not, bases have so much more room to build then a Cyclops. Not to mention that there probably will be things (hopefully) soon that could threaten the cyclops and actually sink them. So putting all your eggs in one basket such as a Cyclops probably won't end well. That said I'm not against upgrading the moth either, and hopefully it gets some different forms/functions too.
Yeah, i got stuck on one thought train there.
You changed my mind. I guess i'm kinda on board with the whole Boat-Sub hybrid thing.
We don't know what the plan is for the surface yet.. for example, they might have someone thinking maybe..
There's no land mass.. why not? Erosion? Severe Storms?
If the latter.. surface vehicles would be pointless. The small islands look to be supported by some type of jellyfish.. maybe giant floaters. ie the islands are actually just lumps of seabed that are now floating on surface.
As for subs not moving faster than surface boats... actually. Surface boats need to expand a lot more energy to cross the water, esp in rougher weather than subs do. On an equal level both surface and subsurface boats move about the same speed. (with singular exception to boats designed for speed/hydrofoils etc) In fact, many "real life" subs actually go a lot faster than most surface craft.
More importantly, regarding usefulness.. this shouldn't be a relation to what we have now or what is real life. It's the far flung future, they have space ships.. real spaceships.. not rechargeables. So who's to say what future subs will be like.. or surface boats..
I think, we should be able to build a sub, at a modular level. Just like a seabase. One segment at a time.
When it's complete, you can move it around, depending on it's size depends how much power it uses. The current seabase structure is not far off what you could use, just needs some propulsion systems and steering.
We could have bases that we can move around. That way when we wreak one environment we can move on and destroy another.. without having to continuously make new bases.
There is this really cool company that makes mini-subs for people whom have stupid money. Now just imagine one of those subs except with ground effect capabilities.
I imagine this new sub would be slightly slower than a Seamoth underwater, but faster than the Cyclops. Basically, it would fill a niche roll between the two existing subs. The Seamoth's small size makes it good for use in cave exploration, and the Cyclops has its utility as a mobile base. This new craft would have the advantage of being able to soar across the surface at extreme speed, or slow down and boat around. Quite possible the craft would have auxillary storage, but no more than 3 - 5 lockers worth.
Because the craft is slightly larger than the Seamoth it doesn't have the small craft's nimbleness, or ability to dock with the Cyclops. Right now there is no way to efficiently and quickly transport bulk materials. The Roc (named after the mythological bird) would have unparalleled speed on the surface, balanced by its slower speed underwater and reduced maneuverability (not great at pinpoint turns like the Seamoth).
The Seamoth is an exploratory vessel, whereas the Cyclops extends the range of the Seamoth. I imagine the Roc would be used for closing distanced between bases - something neither existing sub excels at. Of course, the Roc's surface speed mode would need to have less range than the Cyclops for balance reasons, but the Roc would still have longer subsurface range than the Seamoth (basically the Seamoth is an integral part of the Cyclops and they have a codependent advantage when used in conjunction).
Here is a new craft that fills the speed role without imposing on the roles of existing vehicles.
Tell me what you guys think.
For some reason I get the impression you are a bit enamored with ground effect Lemon.
I've seen those subs before, and well the seamoth does all the same stuff. Plus, frankly I don't think mixing ground effect vehicles into the game would work all that well. For one, the ground effect that video points to left out a large handicap of the 'boats'...the surface. Choppy water reduces the effectiveness and stormy water that might not be to much for a boat would ground the plane since the effect would be disrupted to much. Never mind having to deal with crosswinds and the like. But since stormy weather and thus waves last I checked were going to be put in, this is a consideration. There is a reason that as efficient as the designs can be, they haven't come anywhere near to replacing aircraft or boats as major sources of transportation.
For two, to have the subs you would need to give them wings. If you thought some of the areas on the map were tight before, try giving our subs 'big hips' to deal with. Now you could solve that problem by having the sub 'transform'...but then you run the risk of having the sub transform at the wrong depth thus getting the sub stuck or damaged on terrain. This could be bound to a key, but at this point the whole thing is looking rather complicated just to give a cool effect. Remember the old 'KISS' principle when it comes to engineering...well life in general really.
I like the idea that vehicles might travel better on the surface then in the water, and it actually reflects today's subs. The iconic u-boat look actually performs more efficiently on the surface then submerged. In the reverse, modern military subs perform better submerged then on the surface. So having an upgrade path that lets the Cyclops be more efficient on the surface and in shallow depths isn't such an out there concept. It would even make sense, as water becomes more dense as you go deeper. So having a sub for the deeper stuff and one for the not so deep isn't really out there either.
That first presumption is entirely dependent on existing technology. The Roc could have future lift jet technology, and besides, some examples of Russian ekranoplan could take off in high degree waves. My admiration for WIG craft comes from the fact that the Lun-class ekranoplan has the highest power to weight ratio and lifting capacity of any vehicle ever constructed.
Also, the worry about it transforming underwater is void. Any transformation would be automated like the Cyclops docking procedure... players don't worry about the Cyclops bay doors accidentally opening, do they? Besides, let's indulge in some more future technology. What about morphing wing technology?
It would allow the wings to flawlessly transition from surface to subsurface conditions and vice versa. No worry about complex animations.
Of course, I'm still talking about an entirely new vehicle. A Cyclops upgrade wouldn't be a new vehicle. Upgrade paths that physically change the Cyclops, while really cool, are drastically more far fetched than just adding a single new vehicle.
That first presumption is entirely dependent on existing technology. The Roc could have future lift jet technology, and besides, some examples of Russian ekranoplan could take off in high degree waves. My admiration for WIG craft comes from the fact that the Lun-class ekranoplan has the highest power to weight ratio and lifting capacity of any vehicle ever constructed.
I really hate when people throw out 'but future tech could be magical'. Yes, there have been inventions that have drastically changed the world as we know it. However these applications usually open up new ways to do do things or things to do at all. But usually these 'revolutions' turn out to be impractical over what we have today. Because in fact you are wrong to power to weight lifting being in the WIG's favor. That actually would go to the good old lighter-then-air ships, where new developments are going to see them lifting and moving several tons.
Ground effect craft actually can't turn very quickly, since if they clip the water even a little you risk severe damage at best and total catastrophic failure at worst. In fact most crashes worldwide each year are attributed to pilots driving their planes into the ground. Also keep in mind that the craft must have the ground effect to function, so flying at the upper portion of the effect is actually going to make the craft very unstable to handle. This is on top of the other problems I already mentioned.
That isn't to say that there aren't problems with other craft, but again there is a reason these types of craft are not in major use. Future technology might make it work more efficiently, but it won't change the physics and principles that the craft works under. If any of that changes, then you aren't using a true ground effect craft you are using a hybrid.
Also, the worry about it transforming underwater is void. Any transformation would be automated like the Cyclops docking procedure... players don't worry about the Cyclops bay doors accidentally opening, do they? Besides, let's indulge in some more future technology. What about morphing wing technology?
Take the cyclops, park over land, and then try to use the seamoth. Just make sure you have a wielder ready. The fact the process would be automated would probably cause a heck of a lot more problems then it would solve. I was trying to point that out already. Automated systems activating where there would be a conflict with terrain could cause massive problems, and damage, with the craft employing them.
Finally, the point that an upgrade that changed the look of the Cyclops being far fetched...we call that retro-fitting. Easiest example I know since I served on her, would be the USS Comfort.
Before:
That first presumption is entirely dependent on existing technology. The Roc could have future lift jet technology, and besides, some examples of Russian ekranoplan could take off in high degree waves. My admiration for WIG craft comes from the fact that the Lun-class ekranoplan has the highest power to weight ratio and lifting capacity of any vehicle ever constructed.
I really hate when people throw out 'but future tech could be magical'. Yes, there have been inventions that have drastically changed the world as we know it. However these applications usually open up new ways to do do things or things to do at all. But usually these 'revolutions' turn out to be impractical over what we have today. Because in fact you are wrong to power to weight lifting being in the WIG's favor. That actually would go to the good old lighter-then-air ships, where new developments are going to see them lifting and moving several tons.
Ground effect craft actually can't turn very quickly, since if they clip the water even a little you risk severe damage at best and total catastrophic failure at worst. In fact most crashes worldwide each year are attributed to pilots driving their planes into the ground. Also keep in mind that the craft must have the ground effect to function, so flying at the upper portion of the effect is actually going to make the craft very unstable to handle. This is on top of the other problems I already mentioned.
That isn't to say that there aren't problems with other craft, but again there is a reason these types of craft are not in major use. Future technology might make it work more efficiently, but it won't change the physics and principles that the craft works under. If any of that changes, then you aren't using a true ground effect craft you are using a hybrid.
Also, the worry about it transforming underwater is void. Any transformation would be automated like the Cyclops docking procedure... players don't worry about the Cyclops bay doors accidentally opening, do they? Besides, let's indulge in some more future technology. What about morphing wing technology?
Take the cyclops, park over land, and then try to use the seamoth. Just make sure you have a wielder ready. The fact the process would be automated would probably cause a heck of a lot more problems then it would solve. I was trying to point that out already. Automated systems activating where there would be a conflict with terrain could cause massive problems, and damage, with the craft employing them.
Finally, the point that an upgrade that changed the look of the Cyclops being far fetched...we call that retro-fitting. Easiest example I know since I served on her, would be the USS Comfort.
Before:
Comments
That isn't so much floating as displacement depth...but I know what you mean.
For some reason I get the impression you are a bit enamored with ground effect Lemon.
I've seen those subs before, and well the seamoth does all the same stuff. Plus, frankly I don't think mixing ground effect vehicles into the game would work all that well. For one, the ground effect that video points to left out a large handicap of the 'boats'...the surface. Choppy water reduces the effectiveness and stormy water that might not be to much for a boat would ground the plane since the effect would be disrupted to much. Never mind having to deal with crosswinds and the like. But since stormy weather and thus waves last I checked were going to be put in, this is a consideration. There is a reason that as efficient as the designs can be, they haven't come anywhere near to replacing aircraft or boats as major sources of transportation.
For two, to have the subs you would need to give them wings. If you thought some of the areas on the map were tight before, try giving our subs 'big hips' to deal with. Now you could solve that problem by having the sub 'transform'...but then you run the risk of having the sub transform at the wrong depth thus getting the sub stuck or damaged on terrain. This could be bound to a key, but at this point the whole thing is looking rather complicated just to give a cool effect. Remember the old 'KISS' principle when it comes to engineering...well life in general really.
I like the idea that vehicles might travel better on the surface then in the water, and it actually reflects today's subs. The iconic u-boat look actually performs more efficiently on the surface then submerged. In the reverse, modern military subs perform better submerged then on the surface. So having an upgrade path that lets the Cyclops be more efficient on the surface and in shallow depths isn't such an out there concept. It would even make sense, as water becomes more dense as you go deeper. So having a sub for the deeper stuff and one for the not so deep isn't really out there either.
That's what i initialy wanted a boat for.
Well, we have many opinions here on what a boat should be able to do and what not. Small, speedy ones for travel and huge, stable ones for carrying big weight. The surface is a safer place where you can travel fast and won't get stuck, and a boat has limits that could justify it being large and packed with utility.
I think there are many good reasons for implementing a boat or sub-hybrid, the balance is what concerns me.
Yeah, i got stuck on one thought train there.
You changed my mind. I guess i'm kinda on board with the whole Boat-Sub hybrid thing.
There's no land mass.. why not? Erosion? Severe Storms?
If the latter.. surface vehicles would be pointless. The small islands look to be supported by some type of jellyfish.. maybe giant floaters. ie the islands are actually just lumps of seabed that are now floating on surface.
As for subs not moving faster than surface boats... actually. Surface boats need to expand a lot more energy to cross the water, esp in rougher weather than subs do. On an equal level both surface and subsurface boats move about the same speed. (with singular exception to boats designed for speed/hydrofoils etc) In fact, many "real life" subs actually go a lot faster than most surface craft.
More importantly, regarding usefulness.. this shouldn't be a relation to what we have now or what is real life. It's the far flung future, they have space ships.. real spaceships.. not rechargeables. So who's to say what future subs will be like.. or surface boats..
I think, we should be able to build a sub, at a modular level. Just like a seabase. One segment at a time.
When it's complete, you can move it around, depending on it's size depends how much power it uses. The current seabase structure is not far off what you could use, just needs some propulsion systems and steering.
We could have bases that we can move around. That way when we wreak one environment we can move on and destroy another.. without having to continuously make new bases.
That first presumption is entirely dependent on existing technology. The Roc could have future lift jet technology, and besides, some examples of Russian ekranoplan could take off in high degree waves. My admiration for WIG craft comes from the fact that the Lun-class ekranoplan has the highest power to weight ratio and lifting capacity of any vehicle ever constructed.
Also, the worry about it transforming underwater is void. Any transformation would be automated like the Cyclops docking procedure... players don't worry about the Cyclops bay doors accidentally opening, do they? Besides, let's indulge in some more future technology. What about morphing wing technology?
It would allow the wings to flawlessly transition from surface to subsurface conditions and vice versa. No worry about complex animations.
Of course, I'm still talking about an entirely new vehicle. A Cyclops upgrade wouldn't be a new vehicle. Upgrade paths that physically change the Cyclops, while really cool, are drastically more far fetched than just adding a single new vehicle.
Ground effect craft actually can't turn very quickly, since if they clip the water even a little you risk severe damage at best and total catastrophic failure at worst. In fact most crashes worldwide each year are attributed to pilots driving their planes into the ground. Also keep in mind that the craft must have the ground effect to function, so flying at the upper portion of the effect is actually going to make the craft very unstable to handle. This is on top of the other problems I already mentioned.
That isn't to say that there aren't problems with other craft, but again there is a reason these types of craft are not in major use. Future technology might make it work more efficiently, but it won't change the physics and principles that the craft works under. If any of that changes, then you aren't using a true ground effect craft you are using a hybrid.
Take the cyclops, park over land, and then try to use the seamoth. Just make sure you have a wielder ready. The fact the process would be automated would probably cause a heck of a lot more problems then it would solve. I was trying to point that out already. Automated systems activating where there would be a conflict with terrain could cause massive problems, and damage, with the craft employing them.
Finally, the point that an upgrade that changed the look of the Cyclops being far fetched...we call that retro-fitting. Easiest example I know since I served on her, would be the USS Comfort.
Before:
After:
Cool.