Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Planning of next updates


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, ston5883 said:

If I so choose to make a battleship with nothing but 6in guns all over it then let me be able to make it. Is it practical, No it's not but if I so choose to make that poor design then I should be able to and it's on me for wasting funds and time in my campaign for a bad design.


Within certain limits, sure. Beyond those certain limits... allowing for that would totally break immersion of the campaign. You're supposed to take the role of the CiC of the fleet, and decide on designs, build programs, etc (within the given funds). But even powerful men in such a powerful position were limited in what they could or not get away with.

A big warship, a battleship, is a capital ship. Is both a machine of war and an iconic image of the prestige and power of a nation. There's a lot that goes into building one of those things, money, resources, man hours of tremendously skilled and specialist labor, spent on a machine of war that's intended to be the incarnation of your power, and the means of telling the world you're an important part of it.

You obviously decide what you build but if you go completely mindf*ck with ships that size, you're not getting away with it. Guaranteed. Just think of the kind of jokes your nation and fleet would be the target of if you go with ships with guns that small. It'd be the laughingstock of d*ck jokes in the international scene. "mine's bigger than yours". "if those are the biggest guns they can put on a warship guess the size of the ones in their pants"... You get the idea.
And no, that kind of stuff would not fly. At all. Neither with the politicians in power, nor with the normal regular guys on the street whose taxes, after all, are paying for a ship worth a fortune that's only good for ridiculizing his own nation.

The same way Fisher couldn't get rid of battleships and go with a battlecruiser only fleet (what he really wanted to), you're also going to have certain limits because of prevalent doctrine, public opinion, parlament if any, dictator if not. Those in power will fire you on spot if you try to spend millions on a battleship with 6'' guns because that's literally "pullin a Joker" on a mountain of bills. You might aswell burn that mountain of money. And the powers that be won't let you do it.  Like it or not there's a certain responsability attached to being given a role of that nature...

So TL:DR: one thing is getting creative with your designs, which of course the game should let you do. Another is just putting out dumb worthless stuff wasting fortunes in both money and resources, and expecting the taxpayer not to demand you to be immediately removed from your seat if you order exceedingly dumb warships. Game should let you get away for the former...certainly should not with the later ;).

 

Edited by RAMJB
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, ston5883 said:

I've seen the talks about realism in here and I'm just going to weigh in real quick. I want it but I don't want them to go overboard with it. What I am talking about is more dealing with the campaign side of it. I don't want to repeat history exactly. If they put in naval treaties then put them in to where they can happen and the bases of them are more random. I don't want it to be the exact Washington or London treaty word for word or necessarily at the exact dates. Randomize it to make me think and throw me off my game a little. When it comes to ships I don't want to see missiles and lasers but I do want a bit more freedom in how I build a ship. If I so choose to make a battleship with nothing but 6in guns all over it then let me be able to make it. Is it practical, No it's not but if I so choose to make that poor design then I should be able to and it's on me for wasting funds and time in my campaign for a bad design. So with things like this the game could stay historical but also dynamic enough to add that replay value of each campaign playing out differently. I already think wars will be dynamic so no worry there of having to repeat and it might be great to have WWI as Russia vs China. :)

Eh some people still think you need to play the game their way, regardless if its a singleplayer or not. I've said it many times before give people the option to go as historical or unhistorical as they like within the bounds of scope and time (in terms of developing this game). If it's gonna be like rule the waves then i think people can quickly forget about historical engagements unless theres an actual historical mode for that purpose.

I think you should be to design werid ships even if they may not be practical, i mean the game might punish you for it (either economically or militarily), but that depends on the ship and what else you have avaliable.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RAMJB said:

You're supposed to take the role of the CiC of the fleet, and decide on designs, build programs, etc (within the given funds).

And see that's where I don't see history being the big factor. If I am the CiC and I'm deciding this then who says I have to have 10 CLs to cover my true capital ships with the large guns when I can throw a couple of other large ships in there with the same amount or more guns as the CLs would carry. I only used the battleship hull as an example because of space but anything with enough deck space be it BB, BC, or a very large CA could get the same effects. The design is not going to be historical in any means but it may be an alternative solution that still works to a degree. I'm sure many would snub their noses at the thought but think about a large ship with center lined barbetts and a turret placed to each side of those for 3 turrets in total across the deck. Now think that each of those turrets are triple barreled. So now we have something like 3 sets of 3 on the bow and 3 sets of 3 on the stern for a whopping total of 54 barrels. Of which at most you could bring  36 to bear on a target at once and that's not even including any secondary or casemate guns. Like I said not historical in any means and probably not fully practical for the money but it's these chances to really think outside the box that can really draw people in. In UGCW they allowed you to build your army they way you seen fit and there was multiple builds that came from it. From skirmisher heavy, to arty heavy, to plain old zerg rush infantry builds. It made it so there was no one way that things had to be done to win and multiple tactics was valid, it was just up to the player to figure out what worked for them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RAMJB said:

And no, that kind of stuff would not fly. At all. Neither with the politicians in power, nor with the normal regular guys on the street whose taxes, after all, are paying for a ship worth a fortune that's only good for ridiculizing his own nation.

I sure hope that has no bearing on the game...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fsp said:

Especially strange that some of the people that push for realism all the time are cool with omitting planes and CVs. 

That's probably because the people that push for realism also have a greater appreciation of how much effort it takes to get the ships right. If it is between having a really good ship game and any chance of a mediocre ship game because we chose to expend valuable and limited time to cram planes in, we'll play the ship game. If I am really OK with low fidelity planes and ships than I'll go play Victory at Sea Pacific and struggle with their clunky UI.

Besides, maybe it is just me but this game is already looking a little bit at the direction of "squeezing the planes out". Notice how early you get radar right now. That's not historical. On the other hand, it may be the pre-requisite to making the game world Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts right up to the very end, because it implies in this world, a greater weight was placed on good fire control technologies, and with greater efforts in this area one can make a successful air attack on a fleet prohibitively costly - think of late war American AA going up against 1930s biplanes.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

That's probably because the people that push for realism also have a greater appreciation of how much effort it takes to get the ships right. If it is between having a really good ship game and any chance of a mediocre ship game because we chose to expend valuable and limited time to cram planes in, we'll play the ship game. If I am really OK with low fidelity planes and ships than I'll go play Victory at Sea Pacific and struggle with their clunky UI.

Besides, maybe it is just me but this game is already looking a little bit at the direction of "squeezing the planes out". Notice how early you get radar right now. That's not historical. On the other hand, it may be the pre-requisite to making the game world Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts right up to the very end, because it implies in this world, a greater weight was placed on good fire control technologies, and with greater efforts in this area one can make a successful air attack on a fleet prohibitively costly - think of late war American AA going up against 1930s biplanes.

If planes are too be added in it should be either well after release or in the second iteration of the game depending on how well this version does in general. That way the devs don't need to add another really complex feature on top of the already complex mechanics in place.

But i think even they would agree that attempting to add planes now or before release would bonkers. dont get me wrong i like cvs and want plans but id rather other things be finished first before we can decide whether adding them would be a good idea or not.

and if they are, they should start of with recon biplanes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quite a few will complain about the lack of planes when the Iowa class hulls exist in the game....
So much for ending in 1942 as some say.... More like 1944.
In the end the game is not called "the battleship only club" It is ultimate admiral.
What does the admirals do? Build navy. What is navy? It is states sea defense force.
How does a navy work? They keep constantly developing new equipment, doctrines, approaches of warfare and gunry practice. Aviation on sea is perhaps the best recon unit you can have to keep nations seas safe. (Catapult spotters, Fighters and flying boats). From air you can cover much larger area than a fleet of destroyers or cruisers. It is more cost effective and serves the nations interest and this is what admiralty tires to do.

The game is Ultimate admiral and not Ultimate Battleship.
Aviation did prove that air warfare is much more important than sheer numbers boats on the water.
Fire control systems kept getting better and better yet still planes were needed for finding targets. Why one may ask. Well it is just simply the fact that from high elevation you can see farther away of horizon and planes are much much faster than a ship.

If it were just battleships then why design cruisers?
Destroyers, Torpedo boats, Heavy cruisers?
Should those classes be called ultimate admiral armored ships? or ult admiral speed boats?

It is a story of naval warfare from the begin of big ships to the fall or so i see it.
Not including all the some parts of history of naval warfare is just giving us shit. no offence but this aint world of warcrap and because of this the carriers can't be that shit.
Silent hunters for trade raids? or is it going to be a battleship?
Naval patrol of 32km sea? Battleships and crap ton of DDs? oh wait smaller battleships?
Heck the oil consumption of having many battleships quickly makes it less economical to have.
There is a saying of have right tools for right job and BBs are not right tools for every job even if you would leave out screwdriver  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could of course argue, that it is called UA: dreadnoughts. Which could basically be interpreted in a way, that dreadnoughts are the pinnacle in this game. Aircraft and especially carriers would definitely lead to a different result. 
On the other hand the word „realistic“ is more than even the word „game“ overstretched and overinterpreted for it but still suggests that actual history lays the foundation to this game. That is why i agree.

We get so much 1940 + techs and imaginary stuff even further ahead (H-class was announced), that leaving out carriers would make no sense. As far as im concerned.

I both love and hate carriers in game, i would love to essex class any opposing force and i just can not think of any result other than my beloved big battleships being utterly useless in late game, as they were in real life in the end. I would not like. Though i would like it. Sorry. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2020 at 2:45 PM, RAMJB said:


It's what we're supposed to do here. Give feedback. Said feedback includes stating opinions about other people's proposals. If someone thinks your ideas are less urgent that other stuff, then why is it rude for them to state as much?.


I came onto the forum to provide some quick game feedback after having some 'moments' with the design UI. If my points had been met with community counter-argument and triggered reasonable debate, fair enough. I see someone has now done so, and if I get time I might make counterpoints where it is not a subjective view (although I only really came to the forum to quickly post feedback and didn't really want to make a 'thing' of visiting these forums. I only scribbled a few notes when I played, and don't really want to have to spend an hour dissecting them). However, that's not the response I initially received, which was a quote of the entire post and "The building UI works perfectly imho and most of this suggestions are really not needed" - nothing more than a dismissal, not a discussion.  

I am now somewhat less inclined provide future QA feedback if I'm going to be berated for it. I simply don't have time to sit on here and defend every observation I've made in playing, at length. I'm also feeling a bit less enthused about the project, seeing as a lot of QoL suggestions are getting eclipsed by volume of fire on the subject of CVs. Perhaps a clear dev statement on the subject of airpower in the game would clarify if this is bandwidth we should be investing time into exploring or not.

Likewise discussions on the mechanics could be clarified by being provided a bit more detail about the mechanics. Naval warfare has an awful lot of aspects about it which are not intuitive, and a better understanding of the system and maths behind the scenes. ie: Is sea-state relevant to 'to hit', and does the rolling of a vessel actually change the shell's angle of impact? Do multiple vessels firing on one affect accuracy, et al?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Teckelmaster said:

We get so much 1940 + techs and imaginary stuff even further ahead (H-class was announced), that leaving out carriers would make no sense. As far as im concerned.

I both love and hate carriers in game, i would love to essex class any opposing force and i just can not think of any result other than my beloved big battleships being utterly useless in late game, as they were in real life in the end. I would not like. Though i would like it. Sorry. 

Well, maybe not.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/qeqonXCqNtcSLF5G6

Basically the destroyers are equipped with 15 torpedoes each for a total of 150 18 inch torpedo tubes to simulate an air strike. I think the battleship would make it - in UA:D at least. Maximum bulkheads are absorbent of measly airborne torpedoes :)

Look, OK? I don't mind air. Eventually. But there's that old story about 2 hares and all that.

But really, anyone that complains about the lack of air clearly had not read the bold-print. It promises ships, it promises a little bit of subs. Planes? Not a mention. If you don't get the hint well...

Ah, and sea state does affect to hit - refer to the Accuracy Penalties for sea waves which you can see when you roll the cursor over the Pitch and Roll values.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a game right now in development trying to get carrier battles right and the amount of work going into just air operations is staggering. They've said they won't even be trying to do big gun surface combat. It makes sense to me then, that the opposite should be true. I'd rather UA:D get say Jutland exactly right rather than try to do a complex air system as well.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NoZaku said:

I think it's safe to say that the main game systems will be finished or at least in the final polishing stages before development of air operations would be even in the planning stage from the developer end.

I think that they have a plan in a drawer somewhere, even if only to have a rough estimate of how much work would be required. It would probably be too vague to put things in motion without further thought, but I am convinced that they have at least an outline of what they want with carriers and what kind of work needs to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DougToss said:

There is a game right now in development trying to get carrier battles right and the amount of work going into just air operations is staggering. They've said they won't even be trying to do big gun surface combat. It makes sense to me then, that the opposite should be true. I'd rather UA:D get say Jutland exactly right rather than try to do a complex air system as well.

Beatty had a seaplane carrier HMS Engadine at Jutland, Type 184 seaplane spotted the German fleet first.

How can you deny this from history or from the game realism doctrine, since as you are an advocate of realism.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Beatty had a sea plane carrier HMS Engadine at Jutland, Type 184 seaplane spotted the German fleet first.

How can you deny this from history or from the game realism doctrine, since as you are an advocate of realism.

Excellent comeback, sir. Naval aviators of this forum salute you. o7

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

Beatty had a seaplane carrier HMS Engadine at Jutland, Type 184 seaplane spotted the German fleet first.

That plane spotted the german II Scouting Squadron only. Not the battlecruisers. Not the battlefleet. But a couple light cruisers and a handful of destroyers.

And it did so at 15:30pm. The british 1st Light Cruiser Squadron had spotted them and had been duking it out with them since one hour before (first hit of Jutland was a german light cruiser from II Scouting Squadron scoring a hit on HMS Galatea at 14:36pm).

And almost at the same time Beatty's battlecruisers were spotting the german battlecruisers themselves. Yes, the BCs that floatplane had not seen at all, Beatty himself visually detected at 15:30pm. And the first shots between the battlecruiser forces were traded at 15:48pm. 

To top it off the seaplane developed engine trouble and couldn't fly it's way back to Engadine. Engadine had to sail her way up to the side of the floatplane and hoist it aboard, which couldn't be done until well past 16:00pm. By that time the Run of the South portion of the battle was under way, with both battlecruiser squadrons having been duking it out for 20 minutes already, and having been in contact for almost 45 minutes.

And to make it even more fun, Engadine's wireless malfunctioned and the seaplane report (As outdated and useless as it was by that time) could not be passed to Beatty anyway. Not that it would've made any good, as by that time the british battlecruisers were already blowing up like firecrackers.

So much for "spotted the german fleet first". No, it didn't spot the german fleet (seeing a few light cruisers is not spotting the german fleet when the whole High Seas Fleet and Hipper's battlecruisers were at sea), no it wasn't "first" at spotting anything at all (the british cruisers had done it already more than an hour before), no, whatever that seaplane spotted didn't make any difference, and no it would've have made exactly the same no difference even if the plane engine would've not cut out and Engadine's wireless had functioned perfectly:

For all practical purposes, had Engadine not been at Jutland, nobody would've noticed. 



Now, I'd strongly suggest that, if you want to cite history, please do so accurately, not incorrectly so it seems to back whatever you want it to back, when it actually doesn't at all.

Edited by RAMJB
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

Now, I'd strongly suggest that, if you want to cite history, please do so accurately

Unlike you I do not have to post a recital!  Brief highlights are very acceptable and accurate.

It doesn’t matter about the failure or the action, only the ‘existent’, or do you deny this too?

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if that's a problem, but if I have to give a "recital" to correct someone using blatantly wrong and misguiding information trying to pass it as "history" to prove a point that history (The real one, not the made-up version they give) doesn't prove, I'll do it without a blink :).

 

14 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Unlike you I do not have to post a recital!  Brief highlights are very acceptable and accurate.

It doesn’t matter about the failure or the action, only the ‘existent’, or do you deny this too?

If the presence of a given ship in a given action was testimonial at best, that a game doesn't include it in it's representation of that battle does't make it any less "realistic"
Not that this game intends to specifically replicate jutland anyway. Unless a future "historical battles" mode is included, at least.


But really, that's completely missing the mark anyway. You seem to still miss the main point that I think is being made here, so I'll try to reiterate it again:

Nobody is arguing against the presence of planes in this game (at this stage) based on realism or not-realism reasons. But on pure practical grounds of game development time and effort.

I've already extensively explained that point already, you can refer back to the posts where I explained the reasoning, no need to repeat it here once again.
I **DO** want planes in this game. So do, I think, almost anyone you'd ask to. The difference is that those of us who're arguing "not now" it's because we have seen enough cases of feature creep on enough games already in the past to know that if it's to be done, it should only be done at a stage when it's sensible to add them.

Meaning, when the naval portion of the game (both the battle and campaign parts) is up, running and as flawlessly as possible. Not before. Because if it's tried before, it'll only lead to problems. Potentially game-killing problems, at that. And "Realism" has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Edited by RAMJB
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna risk offering my two cents on the issue of planes. I would LOVE to see planes in this game; seaplanes, catapult launches, carriers, and the whole array. BUT what I want even more than planes is a fully functional surface combat naval game and that should take PRIORITY.

There are lots of adjustments to be made to the standard combat, proper armour modelling alone will be a large task for the devs and as for the campaign I can only imagine the mountain of 'to-dos'.

I would much rather see all of that get done properly before how to add aviation is even considered. It would be a ton of work to pull off and remember this is not exactly being made by a huge team. A focused product that is well done beats something that was rushed and tried to do too much in my opinion.

Edited by AML
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear devs, can we please finally get an faq topic pinned on top, where you answer such simple questions as „are you even thinking about implementing planes?“ and we have a few more put together a while ago, so this kind of debates can be addressed once and for all and we do not fill up every single topic with politically, ideologic and repetitive discussions about planes, secondary guns, submarines and historic facts? It makes things so squeezy, as it happens to repeat itself quite often now. Maybe we can even avoid this forum to become more toxic in the first place?! 
OK, i will give it my all:

Pleeeeeeaaaase! 🥶

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nick Thomadis Sorry to bother you, but @Teckelmaster's post ring's true, if you have the time and ability to do so, would be nice to hear thoughts on that. Obviously i want the game to focus heavily on surface ships, but if planes are going to come im fine with them being after the games release in somekind of DLC or even just a second version of this game.

BTW many thanks for making and developing this game, i truely apperciate it and also the only pre-order i have ever taken part in.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only issue with DLC or waiting for a second game is CVs were a very crucial part of naval warfare and its evolution and I dont know how likely a second installment for UA:D would be. For me the best option is making it be a major major patch release some time way after release. Giving them time to get feedback on the finall product and giving them plenty of time to flesh out the mechanic. Thats my personal opinion of course, the game is shaping out to be great so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know, how often we get reminded, that this game has a small dev team. Since they want to earn money for their living, i guess, that after release work on this game will be significantly reduced, much more balancing, much less developing. The idea of building a major part of the game after release date somehow does not make sense to me. I am not a game developer on the other hand. I only have minor experience in after sales services. But well... yeah.. that leaves the idea for paid dlc, in case of crucial stuff, i find that the most annoying kind of cancer in late gaming industry (applied to crucial stuff - like cv´s in naval games only), right after loot boxes.

Just my personal thoughts though.

And, to make things clear: i do not care, if it comes with or without CV, as i want battleships and guess what, those are already in it :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

I dont know how likely a second installment for UA:D would be.

RTW did very well in sales for a game of this genre. If this one manages to be as good as RTW while solving the major problems RTW has with the battle generation randomness, while adding 3d battles on top of it, it's going to be as much a success, or more, as RTW was because everyone who purchased RTW will purchase this too.

RTW2 (RTW with planes) happened because RTW was a success. I don't see why a similar pattern can't be replicated here, and have a 2nd installment with planes brought in. It's all based on how succesful the original installment is.

Hence- even far more reasons to try to get it as right as possible from the get go.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...