Planning of next updates

[Illya von Einzbern]

You know.
It is really rough trying to balance things when there are things still missing.
Planes, AA, Crew impact, Commander traits and proficiency, Officers? ect.
Sure we can balance ship hulls and base stats that can be improved or negatively effected depending on situation.
We would need to test the whole package from almost start when we have more meat and immersion.
Sure now we have some what good base secondaries but and this is major one. We can't really test what would be the impact of max upgraded secondaries (there are mks and research bonus and the research bonus is scenario dependent). We have no idea how the crew will affect ship stats or will they only be additional HP which decreases the ships performance.

What we can test 100% is that the ship hulls looks good and does not clip, base stats of ships are decent, missions are doable and small minor details works.
We simply don't have the bigger picture to say yay or nay. All we can say that things seems to work from technical point but from that... dunno?
When we have crew, AA, planes ect and test the whole package then we can really say what needs buff what ruins the game and so on.
 

We know that the campaign is supposed to have submarines and ships would have ASW equipment and those will need to be place on ships in modest proportions...
Before we start picking pitchforks against CVs and other nice ideas we would need more meat.

the few next patches would really need to be having a crew and commander(s) as well ASW equipment.
After that spotter planes and AA mounts and lastly whole package in camping (few scenarios or turns)
Then we can balance secondaries, AA, ASW, Submarines, missions, CVs ect and minor details...

Music and some crew voices or chatter among ships (what ever) would be needed....
Just listening to few salvo sounds or the incoming shell sounds really makes me sleepy. To be really fair. I genuinely fall a sleep not because it's boring it's just too heavy with out some stimulants.
(praise spotify for music). All in all don't beat the living (insert word) out of CVs and planes. Add more fire works ^^

[jimsmith1]

Anyone having trouble with the game accessing your details?? I've reset my password and I still receive an error  message stating "could not get your game access details. Please try again". Anyone else having this issue?

[arkhangelsk]

45 minutes ago, SiWi said:

Everyone acknowledges that implementing Planes isn't easy (thou terms of Spotter planes they fairly are), the only difference is that some people view the Devs as cable enough to overcome this, like many Dev's before them.

Actually, RamJB has a rather nice post over at the other thread about how even adding one spotter plane isn't as easy as it looks (I confess. I did not think of every point he wrote). 

On the more general point, thinking about logistics is not saying "I know it's hard, but please do it anyway." That's lip service and ignoring logistics. Thinking about logistics involves making hard choices - what comes first, what comes second, what can you give up. And a half-arsed air system put in just so that UA:D can brag to have an air system is about Priority 10 at best.

Edited January 15, 2020 by arkhangelsk
Let's shorten it

[SiWi]

12 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

Actually, RamJB has a rather nice post over at the other thread about how even adding one spotter plane isn't as easy as it looks (I confess. I did not think of every point he wrote). 

On the more general point, thinking about logistics is not saying "I know it's hard, but please do it anyway." That's lip service and ignoring logistics. Thinking about logistics involves making hard choices - what comes first, what comes second, what can you give up. And a half-arsed air system put in just so that UA:D can brag to have an air system is about Priority 10 at best.

I don't remember reading it but what exactly would be hard?

 

Here: object on the ship.

Press button object on the ship goes into the air.

Object stays for X time in the air and improves view range to such and such degree.

 

Here you don't even need AA to make this work because when close enough for AA the spotter plane wouldn't matter too much anyway. So again. have you so little trust in the ability of the devs to do anything with the game?

 

As for your general point: if the general point is always "do and try nothing" then there is no point to anything, Seriously why do you even play this game? why don't you play "Battleship"?

It has all the "features" you are seem to satisfy with and since trying more you seem is impossible, despite many other games having it.

And yeah i don't need right away planes, but when the game is "finished" aka it get no more contend updates or DLC's for that matter and it wouldn't have planes it would be a real miss opportunity and an appeasement for the medcore with no ambition of a game above "battleship".

[arkhangelsk]

1 hour ago, SiWi said:

I don't remember reading it but what exactly would be hard? Here: object on the ship. Press button object on the ship goes into the air. Object stays for X time in the air and improves view range to such and such degree. Here you don't even need AA to make this work because when close enough for AA the spotter plane wouldn't matter too much anyway. So again. have you so little trust in the ability of the devs to do anything with the game?

OK, I'll do your homework for you:

4 hours ago, RAMJB said:

To get to the point of that "basic implementation" you need a lot more things beforehand. First you'd need some kind of flight mechanics for the planes, and damage model for them too. Then you'd need some kind of structural pieces to be used in the designer (catapults: both on turrets and separate ones - fixed and turntable ones, etc... And then floatplane hangars, recovery cranes, etc) to give ships the ability to launch, operate, and recover, those vehicles. Then you'd have to teach the AI how to incorporate all those needed pieces in it's designs. Then you'd need to model the planes themselves, several models of them to represent the several nations there are in game, and in different evolutionary models per nation to represent their visual and performance progression across the very long period of time those floatplanes existed - from the mid 10s down to the end of the game. Then you'd need some kind of UI mechanic to launch them, operate them, give them orders, recover them...

(Snip AA part, though it is actually not as skippable as some may think).

And then, only then, is where the mechanics by which those things would work in battle (of which yours is a suggestion) would matter. After which you have to implement the proper routines for the AI to properly use those things too.

What you have described is less a spotter plane system than a magic button you can push to mysteriously get more view range. Now that's really mediocre.

1 hour ago, SiWi said:

As for your general point: if the general point is always "do and try nothing" then there is no point to anything, Seriously why do you even play this game? why don't you play "Battleship"? It has all the "features" you are seem to satisfy with and since trying more you seem is impossible, despite many other games having it.

Like? And how many developers did those games have? RTW didn't have it until its version 2, and the fact it is all so simple and 2D graphically means it can get away with things that UA:D would not be able to. There, a simple cross can represent a plane, and because no one really sees it you won't have to model it changing altitude or anything. You can just have it "spawn" on the launch button, but UA:D being 3-D and all graphical means it has to portray more.

As for the ability of the devs, here are some objective realities. First, AFAIK they are four people. Second, we are maybe 28 weeks away from their planned launch date. Since these things are always late, 28 planned weeks means >42 real weeks. As for the Early Access, as of today they are still promising it for "first half of 2020". Well, before June 30 then, at the very very latest. That's under 24 weeks before all the basics had better be there and no disastrous bugs are left.

Given the ratio between real and planned weeks, they can only plan a maximum of 3.5 months of work and hope they can actually get to Early Access readiness by June.

Third, beyond the revamps to the damage model, the turning of the accuracy model, AI work ... etc, we hadn't even seen a first draft of the campaign.

Fourth, to get the Early Access we now have, we all paid the equivalent of a full game price ($50) - one can infer the developers have a genuine need for mullah, and we can't count on them being amenable or even able to repeatedly extend the schedule as much as some posters seem to feel they can. If we expand the scope too much and they can't finish, instead of a Master Up we'll have a Give Up. Maybe I'm projecting my own weaknesses on altruistic devs, but I recommend planning for realism while hoping for more.

Fifth, players are generally more able to accept a game having limited scope than game with expanded scope but a clear drop in quality in a part of the game.

Given these realities, don't you think focusing on the core parts of the mechanics is the safest bet? Even with Early Access, I'm not sure how much you expect out of Early Access, but here are mine. I am a casual player who doesn't challenge the game's limits and plays conservatively. It's OK if those in the know are finding flaws left and right, but at first glance, the Early Access game had better look finished to me, Casual Player. Somehow I don't think it's going to do that if it had a really crappy, sub-placeholder level air model like some are suggesting.

[SiWi]

32 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

OK, I'll do your homework for you:

What you have described is less a spotter plane system than a magic button you can push to mysteriously get more view range. Now that's really mediocre.

Like? And how many developers did those games have? RTW didn't have it until its version 2, and the fact it is all so simple and 2D graphically means it can get away with things that UA:D would not be able to. There, a simple cross can represent a plane, and because no one really sees it you won't have to model it changing altitude or anything. You can just have it "spawn" on the launch button, but UA:D being 3-D and all graphical means it has to portray more.

As for the ability of the devs, here are some objective realities. First, AFAIK they are four people. Second, we are maybe 28 weeks away from their planned launch date. Since these things are always late, 28 planned weeks means >42 real weeks. As for the Early Access, as of today they are still promising it for "first half of 2020". Well, before June 30 then, at the very very latest. That's under 24 weeks before all the basics had better be there and no disastrous bugs are left.

Given the ratio between real and planned weeks, they can only plan a maximum of 3.5 months of work and hope they can actually get to Early Access readiness by June.

Third, beyond the revamps to the damage model, the turning of the accuracy model, AI work ... etc, we hadn't even seen a first draft of the campaign.

Fourth, to get the Early Access we now have, we all paid the equivalent of a full game price ($50) - one can infer the developers have a genuine need for mullah, and we can't count on them being amenable or even able to repeatedly extend the schedule as much as some posters seem to feel they can. If we expand the scope too much and they can't finish, instead of a Master Up we'll have a Give Up. Maybe I'm projecting my own weaknesses on altruistic devs, but I recommend planning for realism while hoping for more.

Fifth, players are generally more able to accept a game having limited scope than game with expanded scope but a clear drop in quality in a part of the game.

Given these realities, don't you think focusing on the core parts of the mechanics is the safest bet? Even with Early Access, I'm not sure how much you expect out of Early Access, but here are mine. I am a casual player who doesn't challenge the game's limits and plays conservatively. It's OK if those in the know are finding flaws left and right, but at first glance, the Early Access game had better look finished to me, Casual Player. Somehow I don't think it's going to do that if it had a really crappy, sub-placeholder level air model like some are suggesting.

implementing the spotter airplane as "magic" (do you think the game simulates the fuel running into the engine and then exploding and then moving the partsor is that also "magic"?) would be the first step of a game IN DEVELOPMENT.

Also there isn't anything "mystical" about having a plane above you telling you what it sees. 

Pretty much everything being the "big obstacle" for the implementation is the same problem facing any new gun type. Minus that the gun actually need the penetration and ballistic mechanic what a spotter plane doesn't need. Unless you very dishonestly act as if they would. And unless you assume that the devs are uncable of creating new models (how do you think they make anything in this game?)

Also notice how the game doesn't have different designs of guns ect. for different nations? Doing one typ for all would be absolutely workable, as is it with all other things in the game. You fake up the requirements in order to make something look impossibler what is pretty mundane. The same with your pretentious quote:

yeah they need to make new UI buttons oh no what a huge obstacle nothing can be done about it

oh no this 3D game will need new 3D models

Oh no the Ai will have to learn to use a new mechanic to help them spot.

Seriously how do guys like you anything gets done?

 

I don't know how many people work on Pacific Storm Victory or such but are you really telling me that you assume that things that have been done a DOZEN if not hundreds of times in game history, aka planes in game or naval games, can't be done in UA:D? Really?

 

Also when talking about "realities" you forgot to mention that the post said "4 in full time" aka there are additional resources the game gets from time to time.Making your whole "calculations" useless.

But besides you are still missing the point: pretty much no one but you as a strawmen, says planes need to get in right away in a instant. Or even that they have to come before the campaign or even before the game is officially released. What people are saying that making a game which claims to simulate shipbuilding from 1890 to the 1940 (or 1950 defactor) without planes would be a huge miss. 

[TAKTCOM]

I would like to see additional options for balancing weight on the line  fore-aft.  Perhaps adding keel / ballast? Now I solve this issue mainly by moving the main caliber turrets closer to fore-aft, which is clearly not a good idea in terms of protection.

[roachbeef]

4 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

It sometimes seem like the only players on this forum who even consider the logistics of improvements a little bit are RamJB and me. Otherwise, it seems to be continuous wish lists with little regard to prioritization or the basic fact they don't come free.

Plenty of users have suggested things with the caveat that they be added after Steam EA, and it seems to be implicit that they won't come until after. Even the devs have mentioned that this thread is for long-term suggestions. Let's at least try to act like adults and stop derailing the thread.

[RAMJB]

1 hour ago, SiWi said:

I don't know how many people work on Pacific Storm Victory or such but are you really telling me that you assume that things that have been done a DOZEN if not hundreds of times in game history, aka planes in game or naval games, can't be done in UA:D? Really?

Nobody has said that. What people are saying is that air power is a very complex thing to add on top of an already complex game. And that focus should be given first and foresmost to complete the foundations of the game and make sure they work fine, before adding the whole lot of new stuff air power would imply.

"hundreds of times in game history" is quite the notable overstatement, btw. I don't think there are enough naval games to reach a hundred, to begin with. And certainly, ones that intend to seriously portray reality in the way UA:D does (instead of just popping ships and planes in your screen for the sake of "OH look, Ships and planes!!!!" yet later on perform and act as nothing like they did in history) can be counted with the fingers in my hand.

So I guess is understandable people are insisting in that things that are terribly complex are left alone. At least until a time when the other things that we already have in the game and still are either placeholders or not yet working as they shoud (there's a long list of both) are sorted out and working properly.

You know the saying: "one thing at a time". Well, same should apply here.
 

[Chris Hale]

Greetings, i am an avid strategy gamer since the 80's. I have only been playing UA:D for a few days; but so far, the game is great.

On the topic of airpower:

The game is called "Dreadnoughts", not "Flattops". Air power ended the age of big ships and relegated BB's to shore bombardment and AA platforms. I think adding anything more than spotter planes would be counterintuitive and detrimental to the very core of the game.

Just my 2c.

Thanks, Chris.

[WiselessOwl]

7 hours ago, jimsmith1 said:

Anyone having trouble with the game accessing your details?? I've reset my password and I still receive an error  message stating "could not get your game access details. Please try again". Anyone else having this issue?

I suggest you posting this in tech supprot thread. Devs answer to such problems there, and quite rapidly - and here you might get buried😉

[Hangar18]

1 hour ago, Chris Hale said:

Greetings, i am an avid strategy gamer since the 80's. I have only been playing UA:D for a few days; but so far, the game is great.

On the topic of airpower:

The game is called "Dreadnoughts", not "Flattops". Air power ended the age of big ships and relegated BB's to shore bombardment and AA platforms. I think adding anything more than spotter planes would be counterintuitive and detrimental to the very core of the game.

Just my 2c.

Thanks, Chris.

the convo is about spotter planes.

But I must agree that its way too soon

[Elroy2323]

Maybe someone can guide me in the correct direction.... How do I stop the change of targeted ships? Is there a reason for this that I am missing, or a mistake being made on my part? Its very frustrating when the guns have found range on a target, and then change just to start a new process of range finding.

[Marshall99]

1 hour ago, Elroy2323 said:

Maybe someone can guide me in the correct direction.... How do I stop the change of targeted ships? Is there a reason for this that I am missing, or a mistake being made on my part? Its very frustrating when the guns have found range on a target, and then change just to start a new process of range finding.

Known "bug"

Devs working on this.

[arkhangelsk]

8 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

Known "bug" Devs working on this.

To be more accurate, the AI selecting targets is supposed to be a feature. Like all AI decisions, sometimes it's wrong and other times it is defensible but the player disagrees. As long as it isn't zigzagging between targets, instead of instinctively vetoing its choice you might want to let it run. It could be right, you know - humans have a tendency towards target fixation and don't always shift targets though there is an argument about Battleship A being substantively weakened and it really being time to try putting a few smacks into Battleship B, or shifting fire to a destroyer to quickly put it out of the game.

14 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

I would like to see additional options for balancing weight on the line  fore-aft.  Perhaps adding keel / ballast? Now I solve this issue mainly by moving the main caliber turrets closer to fore-aft, which is clearly not a good idea in terms of protection.

I agree with the general point - I've taken to installing torpedo tubes I don't plan to use on battleships to help balance them out. I think there might be an argument for an "auto-balance" feature, where after you've done everything within the flexibility of the game and gotten the imbalance down to 1%, you can just click the button and the computer would just neuter it because in real life the problem would be solved by slightly shuffling internal components - that's what Detailed Design is for.

15 hours ago, SiWi said:

I don't know how many people work on Pacific Storm Victory or such but are you really telling me that you assume that things that have been done a DOZEN if not hundreds of times in game history, aka planes in game or naval games, can't be done in UA:D? Really?

I assume you mean Victory At Sea Pacific, and I think of that as a cautionary tale. You see, I've forgotten all about it, even though on recheck I find I actually bought it off Steam! 😱

Now that the memories are coming back, I understand why I forgot. Because it had a very wide scope, it was superficially attractive and I purchased it when it came out (not Early Access). Half the game (the Japanese campaign) was blatantly not installed and as for the other half, the UI for instance was extremely clunky to the point I never got to really checking AI or balances or other possible flaws. In terms of overall polish, UA:D Alpha 2 felt like a finished product compared to that piece of ... anyway, I put it back on the shelf planning to come back in a few months when hopefully the campaign is installed, the bugs fixed, more optimization done ... and then I forgot all about it.

Since I've bought it, I might as well install it again and see if there are improvements, but it is an object lesson of the inverse relationship between scope and quality of the parts that are there.

[Ruan]

14 hours ago, Chris Hale said:

Greetings, i am an avid strategy gamer since the 80's. I have only been playing UA:D for a few days; but so far, the game is great.

On the topic of airpower:

The game is called "Dreadnoughts", not "Flattops". Air power ended the age of big ships and relegated BB's to shore bombardment and AA platforms. I think adding anything more than spotter planes would be counterintuitive and detrimental to the very core of the game.

Just my 2c.

Thanks, Chris.

Aircraft did end the age of Battleships but Aircraft and Carriers had to come of age first to do it. Early Aircraft and carriers had many problems and it's debatable if they could of changed the course of naval warfare as drastically as later designs and technology did. I wont argue the point in this thread, it's not the place to do it, but aircraft and carriers had a huge impact on ship design that it should be included. The game is about Dreadnoughts after all, why would you leave out one of the most influential aspects?

In terms of the game's timeline, based on selectable years in custom battle, aircraft would start to appear roughly mid game (around 1910ish), carriers wouldn't appear until much later (after WW1 I think) and both would start to become big time near the end of the game. Seems fair to me on that end. 

[Hangar18]

On 1/15/2020 at 8:16 AM, TAKTCOM said:

I would like to see additional options for balancing weight on the line  fore-aft.  Perhaps adding keel / ballast? Now I solve this issue mainly by moving the main caliber turrets closer to fore-aft, which is clearly not a good idea in terms of protection.

in the meantime, lots of options add weight to the hull at the center-line, and that helps a lot. boiler type can help shift weight that way. additional armor in the right places, or less armor in other places.

 

Some of hte hulls imo are just not balanced. like the CC hulls for instance...

Edited January 16, 2020 by Hangar18

[rgreat]

I want this:

Advanced damage control system.

 

Trying to keep your ships afloat and still able to fight was perhaps the most interesting part of old Great Naval Battles series games.

Edited January 19, 2020 by rgreat

[Kasuga]

Well, i finally buy it and test it.

For me main improvements are:

1-Formations: is a really painfull experience control more than 1 ship... lack formations, lack ability to give same instructions to all ships in a division and kaos is the usual result when you want a division works like an unit.

2-Improve target selection-control: here i only can say one thing... "Fighting Steel", you can select for main battery a list of targets, same for secondary guns and when you want you can remove one target from the list... or simple give the order attack closer target, in combination with point 1 is even possible give a division the order to made every ship in the division attack one ship from enemy division... or focus in leader of enemy division for example... but a first step could be kill AI ability to change targets when it wants.

3-add more buttons to control ship direction and fire orders, i find right click in minimap not very well done because many times when i want select a target i find the ship change direction because i change it by accident.

4-More info in the ship panel... i want see how many guns have the ship active with a simple number... for example, imagine the main battery of Bismark... you can see 8/8 under the gun circle that means you have 8 guns to shot port/starboard, same with secondary guns. Other important info is when you select a ship and you see the red line to actual targer show the distance to enemy ship without need selecting enemy ship.

5-optimization, never is enough.

6-More power in ship edition... now is very limited and things like castles are excesive fixed when you want mount them in a hull... you cant recreate Rodney for example.

7-A ship folder where you can save and upload designs, for me a great thing on this game is the power to create historical ships and play with them... remember me all the NWS marvellous work expanding "Fighting Steel" database.

8-Night battles... star shells...

 

And this is all for now but main improvemens for me now are in the tactical control of a battle line or a fleet and info-control of single ships, over expand things like crews and commanders i think is more critical first have the control of ships ready.

[Harrytheboat]

1st. The ability to tell individual ships to rotate their guns during a turn so they are ready to fire from the opposite side once the turn is complete. Currently they wait until the target is on the opposite side of the ship before turning. The British tactic for example when facing diving shells was to speed towards the enemy firing over the bow with the aft guns ready so when a turn was executed they were on the correct side. Im sure the UI for something like this would be quite simple. 

2nd. To either command ships to fire either individual main guns per turret staggered giving an accuracy bonus,  telling all guns per turret to fire at once and then all guns firing in a single salvo (which they already sync up to do automatically. 

3rd. Weather conditions, even when the sea is "smooth" the rolling swell is still significant enough to cause even a large cruiser to be swamped at the stern. Smooth seas do exist, even in the Atlantic!

 

 

 

On 1/6/2020 at 7:29 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

Happy New Year everybody!
The next update "Alpha 4" is in progress.
Among all the new improvements we are going to offer, there will be new hull designs.
Here is a new ship that you will soon be able to build.
Do you recognize which is it?

Note: Ship visuals are not final and the design is just one variant of the many possible.

Meanwhile, we need your help in understanding what is absolutely important to develop for the game, besides the campaign. Please mention anything you consider critical - more important than campaign - that would make you much happier when playing Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts.
 

 

[Shaftoe]

New Feature: Scout Planes

Of course, I understand that this suggestion may not seem all that important, but I do believe it's critical, and would be a game changer that has real potential of making the game more interesting and enjoyable, opening multiple new avenues for ship and mission development. 

Let's start with some history:

"Scout planes first made their appearances during World War I. Major naval powers, keen on developing the new medium of aerial warfare, converted a number of vessels as seaplane tenders for scouting purpose. Similarly, battleships began to mount short flight decks on top of gun turrets, enabling small fighter-type aircraft to take-off from them; these single-seater "scouts", having no floats to land on and having no landing decks to return to, either had to find dry land for landing, or else had to ditch onto the sea.

After World War I, a more satisfactory (although still clumsy) solution had been found, in which catapults were mounted onto battleships, cruisers and seaplane tenders, used to launch scout planes; these floatplanes or small flying boats would land on water, and then be winched back onto the ships by cranes. Well-known scout planes of these type include the British Supermarine Walrus, the German Arado Ar 196, and the American Curtiss SOC Seagull.

While the "traditional" role of scout planes was to spot enemy fleets, during World War II scout planes were essential for battleships and other surface warships during bombardment of land targets, as it was difficult to see an enemy position, even with binoculars. The scout plane, for the U.S., this was usually the Vought OS2U Kingfisher, which would fly over the position, giving the ship a latitude/longitude destination. The ship would then open fire on that area, thereby indirectly attacking the enemy, and allowing ground troops or fighter/bomber aircraft to access the area." - brief overview of naval scout planes history and development during WW1, throughout interwar period, up to WW2 (Wikipedia). 

While I understand that aircraft carriers and strike planes (and even seaplane tenders) are somewhat out of the scope of the game that is literally called "Dreadnoughts", I do believe that scout planes (specifically, shipborne floatplanes found on interwar/WW2 cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships) would make a fine addition to it. They could be integrated into the game to improve overall gameplay in a way that cannot be achieved by simple adding more hulls. Such improvement could apply to both skirmishes and (especially) the campaign, as it would add another layer of depth to the game.

Of course, no scout plane would be able to win a battle by itself (which is a good thing), they have a number of applications other than long range scouting. For example, such planes could serve to increase guns accuracy, detect incoming torpedoes early, or spot a detached enemy force (or find and keep an eye on fleeing enemies that decided to spread).

And if the game was to offer shore bombardment missions in the future, scout planes would be critical to aiming ships' guns accurately, thus achieving greater results at the cost of fewer shells. Scout planes would make recon easier to conduct. 

In addition to that, plane hangars, models, recovery cranes and launch catapults would present players with wider variety of ship design choices (and thus, strategy choices as well). Let's keep in mind that some of the most iconic warships of the first half of XX century (which I want to recreate) had very prominent aircraft-carrying features on their silhouettes. 

 

[RAMJB]

aaaaaaaaaaaand there we go again.

Ok, let me begin this by saying that yes, planes have a place in a game like this. But the same you don't build a building by the roof but by the basement, you don't build a game about warships by putting planes in before the warship part is covered. And well covered.

If the warship portion of the game (damage model, armor model, gunnery model, designer, battle engine, everything...and then there's the WHOLE campaign to get right too) isn't well built, it doesn't matter if you bring the best ever conceived and implemented aircraft model in the history of wargaming - the game is going to be bad. Like, REALLY, bad.

So, anything plane related should be subservient, secondary, posponed and waited on until EVERYTHING ELSE we already have in the game works as it is supposed to. Given the long list of things that need adressing on what we already have, on top of the whole campaign (which we don't even know too much about yet), compounded by the very limited resources of a small developer team, if you start adding even more complex things that have to be modelled, implemented, tested, re-tested, etc, it's just calling for disaster.

Planes have a place in a game about warships. But a game about warships is a game about warships first. Get those right first and foremost, and THEN, begin with planes. Don't wait until those are right, then you're just asking for trouble on the whole development process and cycle, and for the game to flounder.


Said that, now some historical corrections:
 

50 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

For example, such planes could serve to increase guns accuracy

If actual use of planes for aerial spot-of-shot has to be trusted on (and, well, It's pretty much a must-do, because it's proof of wether the idea worked on practice, or not), such planes could serve actually to massacre guns accuracy. Not improve it.

The only registered use of a scouting plane doing actual sustained fall-of-shot spotting roles against an enemy moving warship in the history of naval warfare engagements is HMS Ajax's Seafox during the battle of the River Plate.

And that Seafox spent half the engagement "correcting" Ajax's gunfire according to the fall of shot of HMS Achilles. Which pretty much ensured Ajax didn't do anything other than startling a lot of fish for that part of the engagement.
And after the problem had been noticed Ajax just kept on firing on her own means and according to her own solutions, pretty much disregarding whatever the plane had to say about it (and I guess at that point, it was understandable).

For what it regarded to "gun accuracy improvement" had that Seafox stayed at the catapult, Ajax would've probably fared much better. Now, that plane did a lot of other useful things too (like keeping GS in sight and ensuring she was going into montevideo, to then do even more useful stuff in the later days. That plane's pilot got an Air Cross for his actions during the whole thing, and they didn't gave them away as gifts in 1939), but in what regards to "improving guns accuracy"...eeeeeeeeeeerm...

It was a well noted experience too. No RN formation even bothered with "air gunnery spotting" for the remainder of the war during ship-to-ship naval engagements. Gunnery spotting for land bombardment yes, and a lot, but never again against warships. I don't think I have to say why.

Same with the rest of navies. Floatplanes never really were used by anyone during real naval engagements for gunlaying. And they were rarely used in naval engagements at all. For the most part captains and officers of the time would rather not bother with them at all; exception made of some starshell dropping during the night battles of the Guadalcanal campaign (of pretty questionable effectiveness if any), and a single japanese floatplane on the Komandorski battle (which was launched pretty much to avoid it being blown away from the catapult by her own mothership guns' blast, contributing pretty much nothing for the battle itself).

Fact is that beginning in 1943 a lot of ships with floatplane capability were getting rid of it via refits, in order to save topweight and clear space for bigger crew spaces and/or extra AAA emplacements. Which pretty much points out that floatplanes weren't seen as that incredibly useful or important in the grand scope of things.
 

50 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

While I understand that aircraft carriers and strike planes (and even seaplane tenders) are somewhat out of the scope of the game that is literally called "Dreadnoughts", I do believe that scout planes (specifically, shipborne floatplanes found on interwar/WW2 cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships) would make a fine addition to it. They could be integrated into the game to improve overall gameplay in a way that cannot be achieved by simple adding more hulls. Such improvement could apply to both skirmishes and (especially) the campaign, as it would add another layer of depth to the game.

Air power was a decisive factor in naval design for the last years of the dreadnought (or rather "Big gun ship") era. There's no question about that and there's no need to justify the importance of having planes in a game like this. It's more than justified and it's a given that they DO have a place in a game of this thematic.

But I'll insist once more that planes are subservient to what is the real foundation of the game: warships. Get everything that matters regarding warships right first (which is no small feat given how tremendously complex it is to accomplish it on it's own), and THEN begin figuring out how to add planes to the game.


TLDR: Things are as complex as they can get for the developers to get the foundation of this game right without even bothering with planes. So let them get that right before any planes are thrown into the mix.

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB

[The Fundamentalist]

54 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

 

What are you even arguing right now? Scout planes were present and used during surface engagements for a variety of roles. They ought to be represented in the tactical battle map as such, and there's nothing wrong for pointing that out in the thread specifically created for the purpose of future development. 

Some of you need either a day job or to go for a walk and spend some time outside. This is becoming toxic 

[rgreat]

 

On 1/15/2020 at 7:03 PM, Chris Hale said:

The game is called "Dreadnoughts", not "Flattops". Air power ended the age of big ships and relegated BB's to shore bombardment and AA platforms. I think adding anything more than spotter planes would be counterintuitive and detrimental to the very core of the game.

 

Nothing wrong with adding flattops and air power, as long as you can limit or disable air power in scenarios and campaign settings.

Variety is good.

[RAMJB]

10 minutes ago, The Fundamentalist said:

Scout planes were present and used during surface engagements for a variety of roles

Name them. With specific detail please. Number of planes involved, roles covered, and actual efficiency in each case. And yes, in surface ship-to-ship engagements (meaning, you don't need to list the instances where they were used for land bombardment spotting).

AS for what's becoming toxic, I'll let you decide who or what is. Someone who's just giving historical details to put the game (And suggestions) into perspective, or someone who just comes to dish people in three line degrading answers.

Edited January 17, 2020 by RAMJB