Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: should some type of water vehicle be added to halo
  • Subject: should some type of water vehicle be added to halo
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: should some type of water vehicle be added to halo

Posted by: Burninhell647
Posted by: Nicke Sw3
Posted by: ROF Inferno
Posted by: Nicke Sw3
yes, I've wanted a water-based MP map since Halo CE


so you think swimming will be a must, though the only problem i see is a 4.5 ton spartan trying to swim

I dont mean a map with nothing else than water, just so that you can go from one base to another in a boat. and with a couple of vehicles on the ground.


Actually, there could be a map where we are at sea and have two bases, which are elephant type vehicles, but built for the sea. I shall call these 'Whales'. Whales would contain your speed boats and dinghys. There would be mounted turrets for people to get on and shoot and missiles that shoot from under the water.


Yeah I agree with what your saying, also you can have air vehicles on the "Whales" for air combat and also to get to an area above the map the "Whales" would be on to you get to ground so you can fight on foot. this map could be huge and it could be the next sandbox.

  • 10.28.2009 1:52 PM PDT

the rouge fox

Posted by: EldritchWarlord
Posted by: z0rgy
in a practical way, air vehicle > water vehicles.
in a realistic point of view, air > water.

since reach is totally under UNSC control, they don't need submarines to ambush enemy water vehicles.
and when invading a planet, why bother using water based vehicles when you can just drop from orbit or use dropships?

no matter what angle you look at this problem from, it's just not realistic or even a good idea...


You see, the thing about "why bother?" is that you often are unable or find it inadvisable to do the "clearly superior" alternative.

Example: Why bother with infantry when you can just blast things from orbit?

Or for a more relevant example: Why do Navy Seals use assault boats when they could get there quicker by helicopter?
i can answer that last question i think stealth reasons and AA turrets suck if you think about it

  • 10.28.2009 2:22 PM PDT

Wherever you roam
so far from home
you'll be safe from peril
life threatening and terrible
if you avoid David Powel
and keep track of your towel.

Posted by: sword of end
Posted by: EldritchWarlord

You see, the thing about "why bother?" is that you often are unable or find it inadvisable to do the "clearly superior" alternative.

Example: Why bother with infantry when you can just blast things from orbit?

Or for a more relevant example: Why do Navy Seals use assault boats when they could get there quicker by helicopter?
i can answer that last question i think stealth reasons and AA turrets suck if you think about it


Yeah, I'm just pointing out to z0rgy that he should think about this a little more than the infinitesimal amount he seems to be. There are many advantages to watercraft over aircraft, the most obvious being stealth.

  • 10.28.2009 2:39 PM PDT

if thats your idea war games would sux y have infantry we can just blast everyone from outer space. If bungie had that attitude their be no halo.


Posted by: z0rgy
in a practical way, air vehicle > water vehicles.
in a realistic point of view, air > water.

since reach is totally under UNSC control, they don't need submarines to ambush enemy water vehicles.
and when invading a planet, why bother using water based vehicles when you can just drop from orbit or use dropships?

no matter what angle you look at this problem from, it's just not realistic or even a good idea...

  • 10.29.2009 10:19 AM PDT

Posted by: z0rgy
in a practical way, air vehicle > water vehicles.
in a realistic point of view, air > water.

since reach is totally under UNSC control, they don't need submarines to ambush enemy water vehicles.
and when invading a planet, why bother using water based vehicles when you can just drop from orbit or use dropships?

no matter what angle you look at this problem from, it's just not realistic or even a good idea...

This.

Posted by: ROF Inferno
if thats your idea war games would sux y have infantry we can just blast everyone from outer space. If bungie had that attitude their be no halo.

If you read the books this is what the Covenant do in most cases. They only send their infantry to the surface to capture / control any forerunner artifacts.

[Edited on 10.29.2009 10:32 AM PDT]

  • 10.29.2009 10:30 AM PDT

Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: z0rgy
in a practical way, air vehicle > water vehicles.
in a realistic point of view, air > water.

since reach is totally under UNSC control, they don't need submarines to ambush enemy water vehicles.
and when invading a planet, why bother using water based vehicles when you can just drop from orbit or use dropships?

no matter what angle you look at this problem from, it's just not realistic or even a good idea...

This.

Posted by: ROF Inferno
if thats your idea war games would sux y have infantry we can just blast everyone from outer space. If bungie had that attitude their be no halo.

If you read the books this is what the Covenant do in most cases. They only send their infantry to the surface to capture / control any forerunner artifacts.


they didnt do it on Earth, Reach, or harvest and those are the only planets that matter the rest are insignificant and my point was that if we took that into consderation their would be no halo

  • 11.05.2009 10:21 AM PDT

Posted by: ROF Inferno
Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: z0rgy
in a practical way, air vehicle > water vehicles.
in a realistic point of view, air > water.

since reach is totally under UNSC control, they don't need submarines to ambush enemy water vehicles.
and when invading a planet, why bother using water based vehicles when you can just drop from orbit or use dropships?

no matter what angle you look at this problem from, it's just not realistic or even a good idea...

This.

Posted by: ROF Inferno
if thats your idea war games would sux y have infantry we can just blast everyone from outer space. If bungie had that attitude their be no halo.

If you read the books this is what the Covenant do in most cases. They only send their infantry to the surface to capture / control any forerunner artifacts.


they didnt do it on Earth, Reach, or harvest and those are the only planets that matter the rest are insignificant and my point was that if we took that into consderation their would be no halo



Thats because those planets all had forerunner stuff that the covenant knew about and wanted.

  • 11.05.2009 10:38 AM PDT

Yes we finally need water type vehicles would be awesome! this means cool water effects and graphics with the triple AAA engine.

  • 11.05.2009 10:52 AM PDT

Maybe a mongoose style jetski or a warthog style hoverboat.

Lol, maybe a floating elephant!

  • 11.05.2009 11:05 AM PDT

Posted by: sgtpanda6
Maybe a mongoose style jetski or a warthog style hoverboat.

Lol, maybe a floating elephant!


no, just no

  • 11.06.2009 1:40 PM PDT

i would like something along the lines of a sub, but not something any noob can drive. more along the lines as a campagn scene inside a sub.

a small water vehicle would work okay, but make sure it wont sink with the spartans 2ton weigh.

  • 11.06.2009 1:46 PM PDT

Yes. Jetski, we need a mongoose but for water purposes!

  • 11.06.2009 2:30 PM PDT

Well this depends on how large and how many people will be on the maps. If the maps are HUGE and there are 32 people in the game then yes but if it's 16 people on let's say a map like the size of sandtrap then no

  • 11.06.2009 2:42 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2