Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Sir R. Calder of Southwick

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sir R. Calder of Southwick last won the day on February 22 2017

Sir R. Calder of Southwick had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

391 Excellent

About Sir R. Calder of Southwick

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant
  • Birthday 08/02/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,220 profile views
  1. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    No Orcs, Elves, Dwarfes, or Trolls

    Truer words were never spoken. The game should have launched "as is" in mid 2017. That was the peak of realism vs enjoyment. It's been all down hill since, with an occasional QOL improvement or nudge to sailing mechanics.
  2. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Work in progress: Dreadnoughts

    Is there anything more that @Nick Thomadis or @admin can provide at this time? I, surely like many others, am very excited and eager to see how development is coming along for this. Like I said before, if there is any kind of campaign overlay then alternate history immediately kicks in. Just because historically there weren't great dreadnought clashes doesn't mean there couldn't have been.
  3. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Book: Naval Strategy by Captain A.T. Mahan

    Like many great military thinkers, Mahan didn't necessarily "create" an idea or discover a new application. He rather codified and identified something that good generals or admirals had been doing instinctively, and then presented it in a way that was easier to grasp not just for mediocre officers but the public at large (and those often most ignorant of all, the politicians). But, despite being a name most who play games like these are familiar with, it is shocking how many people who play both Naval Action and World of Warships completely disassociate themselves from Mahanian reality. I mean, how much more common sense can you get with "force concentration"? As with Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, and Jomini, despite sometimes having different practical and philosophical outlooks on war, the general theories are just as valid today as they were when written. I frequently shake my head in frustration at what some people playing these sorts of games think is a "good idea".
  4. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Work in progress: Dreadnoughts

    The first aerial takeoff from a surface ship happened in 1910 from an anchored ship. It wasn't done on an underway ship until 1912. Seaplane carriers came into being (in the French, British, US, and Japanese navies in that order) at about the same time. Aerial spotting in WWI did exist, but was not nearly as effective as, for example, WOWS would make it seem. @Norfolk nChance is completely correct in pointing out the various meta-flaws of fleet composition that appear in both NA and WOWS (I play both so am quite familiar). WWI also saw the first rudimentary carrier attacks but their damage was generally minor. One thing I will say about WOWS as it pertains to carriers, is that while at higher tiers the carrier is quite effective at striking targets with planes, the whole disposition of the carrier as it relates to the rest of the fleet is exactly what you would expect if you have a pre- or early-WW2 admiral the ability to design such a game: a carrier which scouts for the battlefleet and provides aerial support. It completely ignores the power of massed aerial strikes. Granted, I would imagine it does so for gameplay reasons (which in this case are valid - even as is there are frequent complaints about carriers being "OP") but it still shows a poor approximation of what carriers were ultimately used for in conjunction with the ships that they accompany. If we take at face value that the timeframe of Ultimate Admiral will be about 1890-1930, then yes carriers come in at the end. However, given that any "scenario" or "campaign" shortly becomes, as it were, alternate history, it is not a great stretch to leave much of the evolution of naval aviation out of it for both gameplay and the fact that the name of the game is "Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnouhgt", not "Ultimate Admiral: Naval Evolution from 1890-1930". Consider that at Jutland in 1916, the fleets actually saw each other - while spotting aircraft in some form might have existed, they certainly played no significant role in the battle. I would therefore argue that, if the game consists of a type of "campaign map" that spotting aircraft whether as fixed wing, balloon, zeppelin, etc should do no more than increase your ability to detect an enemy fleet at an appropriate range. I.e., a range greater than that of a lookout on the ships themselves. Spotting aircraft should have no role in tactical fleet combat, like it does in WOWS. Since part of this game looks to be the designing of your own warships, then certainly there will come a time when it becomes an option, perhaps even a desirable one, to put a float plane on your ships. But that plane should do no more than provide greater detectability range for your fleet. Finally, while acknowledging as I did earlier that any sort of open campaign creates an alternate history path, it's important to remember the history of the aircraft carrier as well as it relates to the time period. While the first aircraft carrier in anything approaching the modern sense came into being with the HMS Ark Royal in 1914, the first purpose built carrier (which was the tiny Hosho) was commissioned in 1922. The first large carriers that we think of were not built as carriers at all: the Lexingtons, the Akagi and Kaga, and the Glorious and Courageous were not laid down as carriers, but were converted from large capital ships in the case of the former four, and cruisers in the latter two into carriers. Without the Washington Naval Conference of 1922 to have sparked this, these carriers never would have existed. Considering the Lexington and Saratoga were the first ones finished (in about 1927) we are rapidly getting to the end of our 1890-1930 timeframe. So while @Destraex raises valid points, I think that they can safely be discounted as it was not well into the 1930s that ships began equipping any significant AA defenses. Consider as an example the last pre-WW2 US and British battleships, the Colorado class and Nelson class respectively, and the pre-London Treaty of 1930 US cruisers (Pensacola class). None carried significant AA defenses untli 1930s era reconstructions. The same goes for the Japanese warships. Therefore, TL:DR: carriers - and by extension significant naval airpower - as we know them do not become relevant to the very end of the timeframe in question so as a factor in gameplay for a game focused on dreadnoughts (and time appropriate smaller ships) to begin with, can safely be discounted as a game mechanic. Edit: for some specific examples, pursue the Wikipedia pages of the classes of battleships and cruisers of the late WW1 and immediate interwar period. Their AA complement in the as built configurations is almost laughable.
  5. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Work in progress: Dreadnoughts

    I think @Norfolk raises some good points above. I love Naval Action. But the development decisions have been..."questionable" at times. I don't say that to judge or point fingers, but I don't think controversy helps in these situations. Like Naval Action, this has a tendency to be more niche than a lot of mainstream games out there. But certain design decisions aside, no one can argue with the quality and love of work that went into both Naval Action and Ultimate General (both iterations). I think that's the strength to continue to build on. I also don't know much about game development, in full disclosure. But what I do know about is naval history, armament, and tactics and strategy (I am a real naval officer and marine engineer/architect after all). So, like I said at the beginning when I posted a picture of a piece of my library on naval information, I am happy to help.
  6. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Work in progress: Dreadnoughts

    Ah-ha! So I hit the time frame perfectly!
  7. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Work in progress: Dreadnoughts

    With the title being "Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnought" I would wonder if there will also be inclusion of other ships apart from the evolutionary battleships. From 1880 onwards there was also significant evolution of cruisers, from the first ironclads to protected cruisers to armored cruisers to the modern heavy and light cruisers that we are most familiar with. This also represents fertile ground for such a game - especially if in playing one must juggle financial and political concerns as well.
  8. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Work in progress: Dreadnoughts

    I too would certainly hope it would cover a large bulk of the pre-dreadnought period. 1890-1930 or so would be good. I also would wonder if some form of international relations will play a role, specifically regarding treaties. A naval treaty like Washington or London (or Versailles if you lose a war) would add interesting options for warship design and combat.
  9. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Work in progress: Dreadnoughts

    Add an easier UI, and that very succinctly describes exactly what I am hoping for also. Although I will say that from the standpoint of basically being numbers and spreadsheet type information, Rule the Waves is a pretty good approximation of being a Navy minister!
  10. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Work in progress: Dreadnoughts

    I referenced Storm Eagle's Jutland at one point earlier as well. As @Nick Thomadis points out, one of the chief problems these games had was a terribly complex and unfriendly interface. The mechanics were detailed but inaccessible due to the game design. I compare that to, say, Koei's P.T.O. II which I played decades ago on a SNES which had the opposite problem - very simple interface, but likewise very simple mechanics underneath. All mechanics discussions aside, I'm very excited for this project. As a ship's engineer and naval architect I sometimes curse that I was born too late to take part in designing during what I suspect we would all consider the golden age of steel ships.
  11. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Let's see how 400 players look in NA world

    This. The PVP reward zones that used to exist got people in a certain area. Treasure fleets that briefly appeared got players in a certain area (briefly). There NEEDS to be more content than just sail and fight for the hell of it. There should be CONTINUOUS DAILY events that draw people to certain areas and they should not be some mysterious thing that magically appears at the whim of the developers/programmers/administrators of the game without warning or explanation of any unique mechanics. Here are some suggestions: AI trade Fleet that needs to be escorted from one port to another. IT LEAVES AT A SPECIFIC TIME! No more "it might be in this area sometime during the day". The defending nation gets rewards for the trade ships making it safely to destination. Attacking nation(s) get rewards for capturing the traders - meaning that they need players to both fight the defenders and capture the merchants. Those attackers who only fight off the escorts would need suitable rewards at all for participating so as not to only reward those who capture. AI blockade fleet that surrounds a national port. As long as it is in place, defending nation suffers a malus to various incomes. It must be broken to restore proper income levels. Other nations might receive various prize monies from blockade if they assist in maintaining it against the defenders' attempt to dislodge it. Overall leaderboard of PVP with massive rewards for sinking those who are high on it. This helps alleviate seal clubbing and directs PVP to those who want it the most. Historically accurate too, as famed captains were desirable targets of enemies for both national prestige and to stop their reign of terror against friendly shipping. The ability for players to send out AI trade ships. It would put a lot of possibly BIG rewards out there on the seas if a player in for example South Carolina can "send" his trade ship to the coast of South America with a load of cargo and have it return. The player directs which cargo it is to return with for maximum profit. This allows him to make money trading without devoting 16 hours to sailing there and back. The catch is that this ship is perfectly visible in the OW and under AI control and therefore completely vulnerable. However, allow the player to set (in advance) the course the ship is to take. He will get a message when one of two things happens: the ship returns safely to its original port with lots of cargo and money...or a message that it has been sunk or captured. If it is captured by another player, then the capturing player receives everything that was on the ship (cargo, money, etc = payday!) These are all ways to get players out on the seas exploring and being drawn to certain areas. Finally it's worth noting that there has never been a successful MMO of any kind (which ultimately is what Naval Action really is) that doesn't have continuous content provided in many areas simultaneously to engage and occupy player base.
  12. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Battle Instance Improvements

    I've been asking for variable wind speed since I first started playing the game in January 2016.
  13. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    1st rates + economy/crafting

    That is unfortunately too true for many.
  14. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    1st rates + economy/crafting

    One of the things that could possibly be enacted to solve some of these problems is a real bounty system in game, tied to actual player stats. As it stands now, apart from the moral and long term game health implication (which many people through their toxic actions and speech don't care about, but that is another issue) there is no incentive NOT to go seal-clubbing. You get the same economic reward for sinking someone who is new or terrible than you do sinking one of the best players in the game. Yes, I know that you get more reward for damage, etc but the risk is also tremendously greater. Battle someone you have a 90% chance of beating for 70% of the possible reward, or battle someone you have a 30% chance of beating for 100% of the possible reward? It is a no-brainer for most people. However, if the game kept track your victories, there becomes a tangible and quantified way to know who the "good players" are. This is also historically accurate, as a captain who defeated a well known and highly successful enemy was rewarded appropriately. Thus, the PVP rewards for sinking PVP leaders would be far higher than sinking some brand new frigate captain. This MIGHT....just MIGHT....encourage the hard core players to fight the other hard core players more often and not go seal-clubbing, which is one of the things that drives new players away.
  15. Sir R. Calder of Southwick

    Players Take a Look at Yourselves

    Thank you, I agree completely - and one of the reasons why when I was playing Naval Action for 6 hours a day I still couldn't stand to be in TS. There's too much ridiculousness that goes on with it, and key communications can be relayed with chat. People just don't like to admit it most of the time. I've had this argument to great lengths with folks here on the forum, including Grundgemonkey. They are simply not willing or able to accept that their way is not the most superior, and they have a vested interest in ensuring that things are never "their fault". As @VonVolks said so well: "It is just a game".