Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Tousansons

  1. No. The more you progress, the less you design different ships and the more you end up with one "super" with "super" guns, "super" armor, "super" radar, torpedoes, torpedo protection and so on. Powercreep is the bane of any diversity. it promote the need to reach one "super" goal that beat all the others. It eliminate any opposition that is not "super". And how do you beat "super"? With "hyper", added some time later. That one will also be beaten with "omegasuper" and so on. Now. Will the campaign allow to dominate the playfield with "super" or will it balance it is another ques
  2. I don't know if it's WG fault. But like RTW 2 compared to RTW 1, World of Warships have shown that CV gameplay is an entirely different beast than the standard sweaty BB's brawl. When they're in the equation, ships turn into targets or glorified AA's plate-form while planes range and first strike is the defining factor. UA:D is not anywhere ready to show that kind of gameplay, in my opinion. On the other hand you are right, there's a "fear" of CV's. The impression that their implementation will change Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnought into Ultimate: Dive Bombers. That a game about the Dreadno
  3. Bad for your mood, addictive and with dubious individuals banking on that to gain money. Pretty much like alcohol and cigarettes. But it doesn't work on me. I can stop any day, any time. Like when patch hit. No pressure devs.
  4. Herr.. No? Have you played Rule the waves? Battles are real time with pause. Ship designer is pretty in depth. While abstracted, mechanics are realistics. Is it "old school" and "played entirely through text" because the visuals and UI are basics? I suggest you inform yourself a bit more about Rule the waves 1 and 2 and you'll see why there is so much comparisons (good or bad) between these two games and Ultimate admiral: Dreadnoughts.
  5. If we take all games released with the same engine, it s way more than UA:D. And that s counting the 5 dollars discount for RTW 1 owners when they bought the second game. But that wasn t my point. If RTW need 8 years to spawn carriers and soon missiles, we can assume UA:D will have a long dev process too. Does it excuse the absence of communication and overconfidence? No, but it s an issue with game lab, not with the fact that RTW is a superior game.
  6. While your criticism is valid. Let's not forget that RTW game system is around 8 years in constant development.
  7. Please. Let it be noticeable this time. I want to believe. Other than that, the long awaited saves and crew. What a time.
  8. There's more chance that they cancel it than turn it into some micro-transaction hell. The base of the game is not even good as a f2p model. Assets on the other hand..
  9. Better to cite nothing and hope being taken seriously, like true internet trolls. Wikipedia is fine. For exemple the article linked by Tatkom as an extensive bibliography at the end.
  10. Hopefully not because as you say, it will drag. There's not enough diversity in gameplay with the whole technology>shipdesign/build>battle to keep it engaging for more than 40 years. Unless we have some real surprises with the unknown factors like politics or some quircks in how technologies are unlocked. And why build a Bismarck when you can build better alternatives in a game about alt history? Don't repeat mistakes because they look somewhat "cool". And seriously it's not, Bismarck is just an oversized and undergunned ugly duck è_é
  11. The best strategy with them in RTW2: You just take some prestige loss here and there when the minister is mad at you for not having any cruisers.
  12. I want one thing in a naval game of these periods. Uncertainty. You know something is out there. You dont know what, how and when. Let s see how well the campaign handle that. But if I just move a big blob of ships against another one i will be disappointed, regardless of deployment restrictions.
  13. No. I'm not confident in the engine/dev to pull off a decent carrier game. Also, we are still waiting for a first pass on the decent dreadnoughts game.
  14. There was several attempt at driving the developpment towards this road (including me) Of course there was concern about the percieved added replayability of random designs and the more grounded issue of designing these fixed ships and incorporating them properly in the campaign. With costs in terms of money, time and technology that the AI need to be able to handle which will ultimately lead to "a lots" of designs. Of course there's still the middle ground used by Rule the waves with template of decent to good designs that the AI fill with whatever tech and money available. The
  15. Fratelli d'Italia is blasting in the background. While the usual lack of image is still disappointing, I'm glad the dev team is still alive and working.
  16. What? You just can't read, but that's all right I'm used to it and it honestly could very well be my frenglish. I write about "they care about money, not games/players" and you're all on "oh but look, they care about money, not games/players, you obviously don't know what you are talking about." Why thank you. I'm humbled. I didn't knew.
  17. By being in the age of "free" information. Even if this information is debatable.
  18. Ah yes, the thrill of watching AA guns fire at spotter planes. The heart pounding decisions of watching DD's run towards the location of submarine fired torpedoes with sonar on. The critical thinking needed when your battle line pound the enemy one with 90+ solution for 5 minutes. "plenty" to consider, in these moments I agree Like I said, gameplay is fine but it drags on for way too long, especially with the subpar AI that never surprise you and the fact that you fairly quickly run into the same battles during the campaign. I think Wots is one of the better naval game out
  19. Clunky UI, decent/good visuals, lackluster audio and repetitive campaign. Gameplay is fine, but it's still a naval game that fail to understand that staring at ships firing for 20 minutes with little interactions is not okay.
  20. That I can agree. I firmly believe that in France we must say pain au chocolat and not chocolatine.
  • Create New...