Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Suggestion: more unadded armaments, extend the timespan, and more

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Diabolic_Wave said:

Implementing multiplayer might be relatively easy, but that isn't all you have to do for multiplayer. You also have to make sure it actually works, make sure that it is balanced and fun, make sure there's actually something to do in it.

UA:D will probably have lots to do with friends, if you each play as different countries in a campaign, but Balance is going to be worrying, as might making multiplayer actually work. For two examples, look to War Thunder and From the depths.
War Thunder has a pretty horrible time trying to balance historical elements against gameplay elements because, in theory, each country has to be balanced against the others to be fair to the players of each nation. There isn't supposed to be any ludicrously overpowered things at any particular tier. I am personally pretty sure that they haven't achieved this. It's an extreme example and isn't anywhere near a 100% perfect analogy, but it makes me somewhat nervous for anything historical or pseudohistorical trying to balance multiplayer.

From the Depths Has had multiplayer since relatively early alpha. However, since there are no servers and it isn't particularly polished (which seems to be quite a likely scenario for UA:D), there are very many glitches such as things not being in the same place for both players and frequent crashes.

I have no grandiose expectations for multiplayer. As far as I'm concerned a skirmish battle mode with the host setting a limit to finances, year, number of ships, environment and perhaps an allowed technology selector would be more than sufficient. I hope a similar function becomes available in SP. Don't know how the campaign will play in SP so have no expectations for it to be MP compatible at this time. The balance is in the actual performance and cost of the equipment of that era, so no additional time is needed to be spent on that.

War Thunder is a free to play/pay to win mmo. I don't see how it relates to UAD multiplayer unless the devs decide to make a free to play standalone version of the game. I know next to nothing about From the Depths but from a quick glance it looks like a sandboxy block building game that doesn't appear to have almost anything to do with a historical strategy/simulation game.

16 hours ago, Diabolic_Wave said:

I think that it's probably a lot easier to simulate WWII era naval technology. A lot of it might have to be abstracted away and folded into tangentially related technologies, but let's use an example.

If we have carriers on the field of battle,

  • we need another hull.
  • Aircraft would have to have a finite amount.
  • The aircraft weapons would have to be ammunition.
  • Aircraft would have to somehow be recovered after attacking.

I've certainly missed a few things out, but these few points only seem to have one major problem with them, which might be solved by treating aircraft as vehicles from a mothership and Carriers as being aircraft ports; Perhaps abstract this as embarking new aircraft at sea when close enough to friendly ports?

This seems a lot easier than trying to make multiplayer work and be balanced to me.

The most major problem is developing basic flight physics, AI and weapon systems for these aircraft. And corresponding anti-aircraft weapons. And 3d models. And damage models. And how the player will use them (will require additional UI functions). And how the strategic and tactical AI manages them. But that's just the "major" problem for WW2 carriers. Then there's the minor problems, like how about flight deck animations? Or are aircraft going to magically pop out of empty, flightcrew-less carriers? And this is just WW2 carriers, not talking about the plethora of other WW2 tech. The amount of development time required to implement all that is immense.

Basic multiplayer's major problem is synchronizing game state. Compared to the above I think it's a minuscule amount of effort in comparison. Not that I’m advocating MP at the expense of SP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how you keep saying ww2 carriers. Purpuse built carriers were being laid down by 1918."  This evolution was well underway by the early to mid-1920s, resulting in the commissioning of ships such as Hōshō (1922), HMS Hermes (1924),[1] Béarn (1927), and the Lexington-class aircraft carriers (1927)."

So no they werent just ww2. Another thing people need to remember that one of the start date is 1930. Would be pretty stupid to have a game end in only a few turns of starting

Edited by DarkTerren
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehh you had planes in the mid 20s that could deliver their cargo. Now how effective to say would be hard dont know of many wars between ww1 and 2 that could have tested them ww2 was the first time carriers did get a real chance ti shine but cant say wether they could have earlier just becuse there was no real war to test in before it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually agree with you and I think they would have been effective. But as you say we don't know for sure and it's debatable hence why I used the word arguably. That's why I think that, at least for a surface combat focused game set in the game's official timeframe, I think you can probably get away with not having in-battle air attacks while still being reasonably historically plausible. Admittedly it does get worse the further into the 20s and 30s you go... And that's why I'd be perfectly happy if the base game was to end in the 20s and for the devs to focus on getting the surface combat of that era right instead of trying to do everything all at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to see maybe some anti aircraft armament such as the Bofors "Pom-Poms", and or some light/heavy machine guns. I know dreadnoughts were made as "Big Gun" Ships but some smaller guns for torpedo boat defense could be helpful.


TL:DR Add anti aircraft guns or small caliber weapons

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...