Work in progress: Dreadnoughts

[Maachlan]

Stumbled across this game while watching one of Drachinifel's videos on youtube. Next recommendation was the Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts Teaser and my jaw hit the floor. As someone who plays every WW1-WW2 era naval game I can get my hands on this looks like a dream game. I'm eager to see where this game goes and will definitely be getting in to Early Access when it's available.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Nick Thomadis]

Playable pre-order version will soon become available. We will surprise you with a sudden announcement!

[Fleet_Of_Oceans]

I am how do you say, more than a tiny bit excited by all this, can you give any hints nick. Like is it going to be available oh sometime next week mayhaps?

[fremen]

19 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Playable pre-order version will soon become available. We will surprise you with a sudden announcement!

Great news. I hope this "soon" not will be the same "soon" normally used in the Naval Action updates. 

[Tréville]

I've watched some gameplay videos from the alpha and I'm wondering if the full game will have hull building like shown in the teaser with slotting different, modular hull section types in and out?

In the current alpha you have to select pre-build hulls.

[Niomedes]

On 10/5/2019 at 12:41 PM, Tréville said:

I've watched some gameplay videos from the alpha and I'm wondering if the full game will have hull building like shown in the teaser with slotting different, modular hull section types in and out?

In the current alpha you have to select pre-build hulls.

Probably not. The Devs said it was to complicated to implement.

[ironduke99]

Will this game allow one to build historical warships (built and designed) and to face enemy historical ships? I don't have all that much interest in designing my own fantasy warships,  and none at all in battles between fantasy fleets, but if I can build actual ships including stuff like the G3 and N3 Royal Navy designs of C.1920  and fight two KGV's against a Yamato I certainly would buy it. Any info from the admin, etc appreciated.

Edited October 12, 2019 by ironduke99

[Jon 1000]

Wouldn't a view from the bridge or crows nest be better than from above, more realistic with realistic telescopic views we've seen all this before?

[Cptbarney]

16 hours ago, Jon 1000 said:

Wouldn't a view from the bridge or crows nest be better than from above, more realistic with realistic telescopic views we've seen all this before?

Why would you have that as the main view when your the admiral and not the captain? Besides for cinematic reasons and immersion, gameplay wise would just be a pain plus you don't get to have good angles of your ships or the enemies.

RTW's doesnt have it so i dont see why this game needs to the current view is fine.

[DougToss]

If that's the case you should have a chartroom with plotting table, a la Task Force Admiral.

Neither Distant Guns nor Jutland worried too much about having an immersive camera. I think the rationale is that the information presented to the player compensates for not having training or a staff. It seems reasonable to me. Sure, real commanders did not have a bird's eye view, but they also had plenty of help in getting information about the tactical situation, and had the training to interpret that information. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by DougToss

[Cptbarney]

Game has come quite some distance, from the first post. Be interesting too see how it develops in the next year.

[Antean]

I can't seem to find any topics for a new player (maybe I'm dense), however, I have some questions ....

What year does this game begin in? 1890?

What classes of ship are you able to build & play?

If you successfully design a vessel, is it saved? I see these references to building a ship for some battle mode then it disappears? (& you have to re-build same?)

How are these ships named?

Is there a mode to play a single vessel? Or do you have to always play in a 'squadron' of some sort?

What kind of multi-player mode is available?

I'm sure I have many other questions which have not come to my mind yet. 

I do see some player names here that are also from WoWS. I prefer 'historical' & as realistic as possible computer ship simulation game (as opposed to too much 'arcade'). 

I'm asking some questions because I have not yet invested in this game. I need some information before I come aboard.

 I trust some 'mariner' here will assist me. I await a reply (or 2 or 3, etc). Cheers.

[madham82]

16 hours ago, Antean said:

I can't seem to find any topics for a new player (maybe I'm dense), however, I have some questions ....

What year does this game begin in? 1890?  Yes

What classes of ship are you able to build & play? BB, BC, CA, CL, DD, and TB

If you successfully design a vessel, is it saved? I see these references to building a ship for some battle mode then it disappears? (& you have to re-build same?) Currently the Random Battle mode does not have an option to save your design. So each time you have to design a ship from scratch. The Naval Academy missions do save your designs. 

How are these ships named? Not sure what you mean. You can change the "name" of the class.

Is there a mode to play a single vessel? Or do you have to always play in a 'squadron' of some sort? Yes, you can play as a single ship in Random Battle. The missions may or may not have multiple ships under your command.

What kind of multi-player mode is available? None, and none planned for the release yet. 

I'm sure I have many other questions which have not come to my mind yet. 

I do see some player names here that are also from WoWS. I prefer 'historical' & as realistic as possible computer ship simulation game (as opposed to too much 'arcade'). 

I'm asking some questions because I have not yet invested in this game. I need some information before I come aboard.

 I trust some 'mariner' here will assist me. I await a reply (or 2 or 3, etc). Cheers.

See my answer in red above. 

As for realistic vs arcade, there are some things done well and some far to arcade like. The game's audience on here seems to be roughly split. The game's realism is still very much an open subject to the devs. 

[Antean]

3 hours ago, madham82 said:

See my answer in red above. 

As for realistic vs arcade, there are some things done well and some far to arcade like. The game's audience on here seems to be roughly split. The game's realism is still very much an open subject to the devs. 

Hmmm. Well, it would appear to me UA:D should be more towards some realism as opposed to pure arcade. We already have a more arcade version in another now, cough*, cough*, farce of an entry well known to most of us.

Also, TY for the classes that can be played. Here, I would suggest, maybe, a few more such as;

cv/ce = Corvette (the smaller than DD but bigger than TB naval ship class) or some such traditional name. A convoy escort type ship. I'm not sure Cargo/Transport ships should have any kind of ability to be well armed even with small calibre guns.

ML = Mine Layer. Surely, a game of this type should have 'mines'

ACC/CV = Aircraft Carrier. These have to be and should be included, eventually. We could also see the early other nations aircraft carriers still not represented in that well known 'alternate' arcade naval game.

SS = Submarine. SS, short for 'surface/subsurface ship'. It would, again, be interesting to see the early development of Submarines rather than whatever it is that the well known 'alternate' arcade naval game is going to try to shill/shove.

PS: Are we allowed to mention, by name or by abbreviation, that well known 'alternate' (now farce) game?

[Antean]

TY, Madham82, for your reply. I did not see the part about designing for a Random Battle.

Well, if one can design a ship for a random battle & play it as a single ship then it would appear to me that one should be able to save this design. I mean, why make the player have to do the same thing over & over ( time sink wastage, imho) if a particular design is very usable (or desirable) over multiple battles? This just doesn't make that much sense to me.

[madham82]

17 hours ago, Antean said:

Hmmm. Well, it would appear to me UA:D should be more towards some realism as opposed to pure arcade. We already have a more arcade version in another now, cough*, cough*, farce of an entry well known to most of us.

Also, TY for the classes that can be played. Here, I would suggest, maybe, a few more such as;

cv/ce = Corvette (the smaller than DD but bigger than TB naval ship class) or some such traditional name. A convoy escort type ship. I'm not sure Cargo/Transport ships should have any kind of ability to be well armed even with small calibre guns.

ML = Mine Layer. Surely, a game of this type should have 'mines'

ACC/CV = Aircraft Carrier. These have to be and should be included, eventually. We could also see the early other nations aircraft carriers still not represented in that well known 'alternate' arcade naval game.

SS = Submarine. SS, short for 'surface/subsurface ship'. It would, again, be interesting to see the early development of Submarines rather than whatever it is that the well known 'alternate' arcade naval game is going to try to shill/shove.

PS: Are we allowed to mention, by name or by abbreviation, that well known 'alternate' (now farce) game?

Corvettes exclusive role was sub hunting. They lacked any real armament for surface warfare. Since subs will not be a player controlled unit on the battle map (instead their effects will be calculated on the turn based campaign map), there is no use for the player to build them. They may be included as some kind of generic escort for convoys though, not something the player would design/build however. 

Similar concept for mine layers. Mine themselves may be on the campaign map, but not the battle map. 

Carriers are officially out for the main release. Devs said they could come as DLC in the future.

Subs I covered when talking about the Corvettes. There's some debate over whether we will get an research tiers to invest in better subs. Basically it sounds like there will be a dice roll on the campaign map if a fleet enters a zone with a sub(s) whether any hits/sinkings occur. 

You certainly can, WoWS/WT are frequently referred to here, usually not in a good way 😁

[Cptbarney]

7 minutes ago, madham82 said:

Corvettes exclusive role was sub hunting. They lacked any real armament for surface warfare. Since subs will not be a player controlled unit on the battle map (instead their effects will be calculated on the turn based campaign map), there is no use for the player to build them. They may be included as some kind of generic escort for convoys though, not something the player would design/build however. 

Similar concept for mine layers. Mine themselves may be on the campaign map, but not the battle map. 

Carriers are officially out for the main release. Devs said they could come as DLC in the future.

Subs I covered when talking about the Corvettes. There's some debate over whether we will get an research tiers to invest in better subs. Basically it sounds like there will be a dice roll on the campaign map if a fleet enters a zone with a sub(s) whether any hits/sinkings occur. 

You certainly can, WoWS/WT are frequently referred to here, usually not in a good way 😁

I would say warthunder is mentioned in a more positive light (mainly the armour viewer, internal meshes and that the ships work more closely to real ones) peegees title is however mostly just arcade sillyness and regenerative ships (and planes). Although still has an armour viewer and internal armour meshes (hitboxes, but not even UA:D has that atm).

I hope we get Corvettes and also monitors/coastal battleships too, even if corvettes aren't the most popular ship class.

[1MajorKoenig]

23 hours ago, Antean said:

TY, Madham82, for your reply. I did not see the part about designing for a Random Battle.

Well, if one can design a ship for a random battle & play it as a single ship then it would appear to me that one should be able to save this design. I mean, why make the player have to do the same thing over & over ( time sink wastage, imho) if a particular design is very usable (or desirable) over multiple battles? This just doesn't make that much sense to me.

Hi Antean - found you here 🙂

 

I think saving designs for customs battles is on the list - certainly a frequently requested feature.

 

I think the two big points this game needs though are the Campaign and a vastly enhanced and more flexible ship designer

 

The game has all the potential !

[Antean]

TY Madham, Cptbarney & MajorKoenig for your replies. It looks as though Corvettes & Minelayers aren't likely to have much in the way of alternate designs though some modes of this game could have them. 

I'm so barely into this game as yet - I do see if you win the Naval Academy step your design gets saved. I'm still not used to the way the view pans and how it is controlled - it appears to be quite difficult to get some preferred views.

As to the rudder control - that small horizontal bar - that visual just has to go & be replaced with a proper circular or hemispheric rudder indicator as is on real ships.

Where is the  throttle (speed) control? I have yet to find that (I am just onto 3rd Naval Academy mission).

Overall, the battle(s) is/are 'slow' but I do like the realism (no stinking islands) (no stinking BS RNG) as opposed to the now farce WoWS.