Upcoming Alpha-5

[uwu]

9 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

Yeah, no. In a naval simulation why would you expect there not to be any sort of moral or crew condition systems?  I'm seeing a lot of "Less simulation, more arcade" in a lot of posts as of late. And why would you want that? I don't want this to be an arcade game, I know many other people don't want this to be an arcade game. It would be "just DUMB!" to turn this into an arcade mess. Truth be told I'm hopeful for more tiring systems, such as managing fuel and ship conditions, not less. Last I checked this game isn't being advertised as an arcade boat battle, and I for one would be disgusted if it went down that path. 

it's because you want to maintain a healthy balance between game play and BORING, we already speed up the game at 2 time speed or 5 time speed when ships just do nothing but shelling each others that's not fun adding all that fatigue and moral mechanic would just slow down the game even further, it's already way too slow most of the time and not enough interesting actions. 

[Fishyfish]

Just now, uwu said:

it's because you want to maintain a healthy balance between game play and BORING, we already speed up the game at 2 time speed or 5 time speed when ships just do nothing but shelling each others that's not fun adding all that fatigue and moral mechanic would just slow down the game even further, it's already way too slow most of the time and not enough interesting actions. 

Your arcade mechanics are BORING to me, so then what? I would have zero interest in playing a casual arcade warship game, thus why I don't play WoWS and do play RtW2. Have you considered this sort of game isn't what you're looking for? Maybe you should go play Battle Stations: Midway or Pacific. Both of which are really great warship games in a more action and arcade kinda vein. I highly recommend them. 

[Danvanthevacuumman]

16 minutes ago, uwu said:

it's because you want to maintain a healthy balance between game play and BORING, we already speed up the game at 2 time speed or 5 time speed when ships just do nothing but shelling each others that's not fun adding all that fatigue and moral mechanic would just slow down the game even further, it's already way too slow most of the time and not enough interesting actions. 

Then go play another game, mate. This game isnt for you, I for one hope they add crew and moral system. There hardly are games like this.

[Dedlike]

16 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

Your arcade mechanics are BORING to me, so then what? I would have zero interest in playing a casual arcade warship game, thus why I don't play WoWS and do play RtW2. Have you considered this sort of game isn't what you're looking for? Maybe you should go play Battle Stations: Midway or Pacific. Both of which are really great warship games in a more action and arcade kinda vein. I highly recommend them. 

i was just about to say the same thing, i hope for this to be a RTW like game but in 3d, and i hope this game isnt going to become simpler and turn into a  Battle stations:Whatever , great games but not what im looking for here

[Brandon L]

Telling someone that bought and paid for this game to go play something else? Really?

 

[ThatOneBounced]

What I fear with crew is the fact that I could have the upper hand on a battle, but because the battle could be going on for too long all the sudden my entire fleet mutinies or abandons ship even in 6v2 scenarios. Someone mentioned a scuttle as well, what if the crew straight up decides to scuttle mid battle because they were too scared of 2 ships. I hope crew will have a bit more mental durability which can last a few battles instead of pissing themselves after the opening salvos. 

[Fishyfish]

Just now, Brandon L said:

Telling someone that bought and paid for this game to go play something else? Really?

 

Not at all reading what the game was advertised as, then coming on and wanting it to be something else all together? Really?

 

Let me quote from the promotional page. 

 

"Crew Importance (*)

Crew is another factor that must be considered for your ships, especially in campaign play where you will have to keep your fleet frequently trained in order to fight efficiently. A well-trained crew may compensate for the lack of advanced technology or the opposite, a poorly-trained crew may seriously limit the capabilities of even the most state-of-the-art ship.

 

Crew will greatly affect ship accuracy and other combat factors. Shell and torpedo hits can kill crew and if losses are great, the ship’s overall effectiveness can deteriorate significantly. After a battle, depending on ship performance, the ship’s crew experience level may rise or fall. In this way you can create veteran-ships that have legendary performance in battle, or… end up with ships that should better hide than fight."

 

https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/deep-battle-system

[Danvanthevacuumman]

1 minute ago, Brandon L said:

Telling someone that bought and paid for this game to go play something else? Really?

 

Well they dont have to. They can stick around but dont expect the game to be lacking in depth and allot of 1:1 action. It is not a simulation but its going to be pretty detailed and wouldnt shy away from these mechanics.

[Skeksis]

28 minutes ago, uwu said:

it's because you want to maintain a healthy balance between game play and BORING, we already speed up the game at 2 time speed or 5 time speed when ships just do nothing but shelling each others that's not fun adding all that fatigue and moral mechanic would just slow down the game even further, it's already way too slow most of the time and not enough interesting actions. 

I’m playing AoS and there’s a reasonable amount of micromanagement with ship to ship battles, definitely not boring, very enjoyable game to play.

Already Dev’s have added secondary and torpedo independent targeting as per quested by the community and this ‘micromanagement’ has added to the game immersion, not take it away as you are suggesting. 

You got it all back to front, It's having nothing to do in the first place that causes players to speed up battles. UAD would do well if to add more micromanagement, in fact a whole lot more such as crew based damage control or anything, something to reduce players ‘need’ to “speed up” the game.

[Bluishdoor76]

make it a crew system like NavyField :3

[uwu]

28 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

Your arcade mechanics are BORING to me, so then what? I would have zero interest in playing a casual arcade warship game, thus why I don't play WoWS and do play RtW2. Have you considered this sort of game isn't what you're looking for? Maybe you should go play Battle Stations: Midway or Pacific. Both of which are really great warship games in a more action and arcade kinda vein. I highly recommend them. 

 

I don't think you are understanding, this isn't about arcade, it's about maintaining GAMEPLAY, not a lot of people would want to play a game where they are reading excel sheets and reading over a ton of technical paper work.there is no practical  benefit in adding it into the gameplay beside slowing down the game even further it's already super slow, there is a reason why the game default at the closet distance so we can get into action quick, imagine if you have to spend half an hours to just find the enemies with barely any interaction from the player, and then see them get tired and just sit there doing nothing were you can't interact with the ships and can't move them around and just have to sit there and watch. there is no GAMEPLAY. 

[Skeksis]

1 hour ago, Hangar18 said:

the devs the past week:

Nick is 'Rico', he'll win the day too!

[madham82]

Where in the world did morale and fatigue get thrown in as part of modeling ships to actually having crew casualties? For one, battles frequently lasted several hours. Did crews give up in real battles after a few hours due to fatigue, no. So why in the world would someone expect that to be issue. The number of crew on ships is already modeled. Just need to model casualties from incoming fire to it. Pretty simple and not at all micromanaging to me. You don't have unlimited ammo do you? So we already past arcade. Glad the devs have already made it a stated goal of crew modeling. 

Next someone will start complaining about the fact the ships have maintenance costs and build time values in the campaign.  

 

Edited March 15, 2020 by madham82

[Fishyfish]

1 minute ago, uwu said:

 

I don't think you are understanding, this isn't about arcade, it's about maintaining GAMEPLAY, not a lot of people would want to play a game where they are reading excel sheets and reading over a ton of technical paper work.there is no practical  benefit in adding it into the gameplay beside slowing down the game even further it's already super slow, there is a reason why the game default at the closet distance so we can get into action quick, imagine if you have to spend half an hours to just find the enemies with barely any interaction from the player, and then see them get tired and just sit there doing nothing were you can't interact with the ships and can't move them around and just have to sit there and watch. there is no GAMEPLAY. 

Okay hold up. Just a second. I need a hearty laugh. "Not a lot of people would want to play a game where they are reading excel sheets and technical paper work?"

Uh, who here loves Rule the Waves 1/2? Because those are warship excel sheet and technical paperwork simulators. 

But I don't think you understand. I'm perfectly fine with the gameplay as it is, slow, methodical and determined. More micromanagement of crew would be more things to do when searching for and closing in on the enemy fleet. There is gameplay there, just not the kind of game play you want. Naval combat is a lot of hunting, waiting, hunting, shadowing, hunting, waiting, oh god hurl everything we got at them, miss a lot, break off and run away. What you want is to cut out what you see as excessive and unfun, to distill down the simulation aspects into pure action and that's not what has been advertised, or what the devs have discussed doing on any of their main features pages. I don't know why they'd about face all of a sudden and dive right into doing that. There is plenty of gameplay, and adding more micromanagement is only adding more gameplay. The game isn't 100% about battlez and shootan boatz an blowin stuff up! You the player are suppose to be your nations equivalent to lord of the admiralty, from what the devs posted last year a lot of the game is going to be fleet management, budget management, facilities management, giving political advice to your nations ruling party, posturing and positioning globally, with combat interspersed in between. 

 

If you read up on what's advertised for the games campaign the following has been stated by the devs. 

"Being the chief admiral of your nation gives you complete power over naval construction programs and policies. It will be your responsibility to manage the naval budget and allocate it wisely between technological research, crew training, shipyard development and ship building. You will also move your fleets across the global map and decide which sea regions to reinforce. Global tension may rise dangerously and cause wars that will involve your country. So you must make sure that your fleet is always ready for combat and in maximum efficiency."

 

To me, you don't seem to understand the type of game you've bought into. And I don't know why that is. Either you've willfully or ignorantly ignored the details of what the game has been advertised as, you didn't do your research or you misunderstood what the game was going to become as a result of seeing youtubers fighting various battles. I don't really know what to tell you. Once the Campaign is launched, one could only expect gameplay to get more intricate and detailed, and step even further away from in your face action. 

 

[uwu]

20 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

Okay hold up. Just a second. I need a hearty laugh. "Not a lot of people would want to play a game where they are reading excel sheets and technical paper work?"

Uh, who here loves Rule the Waves 1/2? Because those are warship excel sheet and technical paperwork simulators. 

But I don't think you understand. I'm perfectly fine with the gameplay as it is, slow, methodical and determined. More micromanagement of crew would be more things to do when searching for and closing in on the enemy fleet. There is gameplay there, just not the kind of game play you want. Naval combat is a lot of hunting, waiting, hunting, shadowing, hunting, waiting, oh god hurl everything we got at them, miss a lot, break off and run away. What you want is to cut out what you see as excessive and unfun, to distill down the simulation aspects into pure action and that's not what has been advertised, or what the devs have discussed doing on any of their main features pages. I don't know why they'd about face all of a sudden and dive right into doing that. There is plenty of gameplay, and adding more micromanagement is only adding more gameplay. The game isn't 100% about battlez and shootan boatz an blowin stuff up! You the player are suppose to be your nations equivalent to lord of the admiralty, from what the devs posted last year a lot of the game is going to be fleet management, budget management, facilities management, giving political advice to your nations ruling party, posturing and positioning globally, with combat interspersed in between. 

 

If you read up on what's advertised for the games campaign the following has been stated by the devs. 

"Being the chief admiral of your nation gives you complete power over naval construction programs and policies. It will be your responsibility to manage the naval budget and allocate it wisely between technological research, crew training, shipyard development and ship building. You will also move your fleets across the global map and decide which sea regions to reinforce. Global tension may rise dangerously and cause wars that will involve your country. So you must make sure that your fleet is always ready for combat and in maximum efficiency."

 

To me, you don't seem to understand the type of game you've bought into. And I don't know why that is. Either you've willfully or ignorantly ignored the details of what the game has been advertised as, you didn't do your research or you misunderstood what the game was going to become as a result of seeing youtubers fighting various battles. I don't really know what to tell you. Once the Campaign is launched, one could only expect gameplay to get more intricate and detailed, and step even further away from in your face action. 

 

I don't think you do understand! there is NO MICROMANAGE! THERE IS BARELY ANY GAME PLAY AT ALL RIGHT NOW! 90% game right now is filled with idle time where the player are not doing anything, not manage anything not setting anything no targeting nothing!  you get to build a ship and sent them out to fight and that's it,the game right now is completely lack of an interactivity from the player input, you just set a course and once in a while you change some thing and let it play at X5 speed by itself 80% of the time, it's fine if this is a mobile game, but this is a PC game,  there are no micromanage in the battle itself, there are not a lot of input the player can do at the moment bedside watch the ship fight  and once in a while give a few input. Thus adding a fatigue and whatever other 'realistic" system just going to create more idle time where you are literally doing nothing. 

[roachbeef]

56 minutes ago, uwu said:

Thus adding a fatigue and whatever other 'realistic" system just going to create more idle time where you are literally doing nothing. 

Quote

The missions progress in difficulty and complexity and are intended not only to entertain but also teach, in practical terms, the various ship design aspects and their effects in combat.

Quote

In the campaign you participate in an ongoing naval arms race and try to overwhelm your opponents by maintaining economic and technological superiority. You fully manage the fleets and naval construction programmes

Quote

Significant political events can include rebellions and the change of a government

Quote

It will be your responsibility to manage the naval budget and allocate it wisely between technological research, crew training, shipyard development and ship building.

Quote

REALISTIC
COMBAT

Quote

Crew Importance

Crew is another factor that must be considered for your ships, especially in campaign play where you will have to keep your fleet frequently trained in order to fight efficiently. A well-trained crew may compensate for the lack of advanced technology or the opposite, a poorly-trained crew may seriously limit the capabilities of even the most state-of-the-art ship.

 

Crew will greatly affect ship accuracy and other combat factors. Shell and torpedo hits can kill crew and if losses are great, the ship’s overall effectiveness can deteriorate significantly. After a battle, depending on ship performance, the ship’s crew experience level may rise or fall. In this way you can create veteran-ships that have legendary performance in battle, or… end up with ships that should better hide than fight.

 

1) Why did you buy this game?

2) Did you look at the game's homepage before buying the game?

3) What makes you feel entitled to change a game that, from the start, and very clearly on its homepage, stated that it aimed to have a high degree of realism and the specific mechanic you want to get rid of? You're just trampling over the people who bought the game specifically for that purpose.

[Reaper Jack]

As for saying crew morale/fatigue should not be modeled, all navies had crews that at some point or other decided that abandoning ship was the best course of action. I mean heck, all four IJN CV's at Midway were scuttled afterbecoming operational losses. Even the frankly fanatical Japanese turned around at a point and said 'our crews lives are more worthwhile than trying to keep the ships under control.' 

Combat isn't a video game or some walk in the park, it is brutal in every aspect of the word, seeing your fellow men dying around you, potentially in very gruesome ways, seeing your officers shouting that repairs need to be made, the ships is liable to sink or be destroyed otherwise etc. That will affect the average joe poor sod that's manning these vessels. Since the game is aiming to be realistic, it absolutely should be modeled. 

[Hangar18]

4 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

Yeah, no. In a naval simulation why would you expect there not to be any sort of moral or crew condition systems?  I'm seeing a lot of "Less simulation, more arcade" in a lot of posts as of late. And why would you want that? I don't want this to be an arcade game, I know many other people don't want this to be an arcade game. It would be "just DUMB!" to turn this into an arcade mess. Truth be told I'm hopeful for more tiring systems, such as managing fuel and ship conditions, not less. Last I checked this game isn't being advertised as an arcade boat battle, and I for one would be disgusted if it went down that path. 

RTW2 is a great game, but this has more potential. I don't think the devs have really taken a misstep yet. I think once things are more ironed out we'll see the time line grow a little, and we'll see CVs in the very late game. CVs in RTW arent the game killer they are in WOWS.

[Bluishdoor76]

Imagine if the delay was that they realized they were adding 2 French hulls and we still had no quad gun turrets so it would be impossible to even try and replicate a French battleship lol

[Bluishdoor76]

would love to recreate this thing from NavyField

[Steeltrap]

3 hours ago, uwu said:

I don't think you do understand! there is NO MICROMANAGE! THERE IS BARELY ANY GAME PLAY AT ALL RIGHT NOW! 90% game right now is filled with idle time where the player are not doing anything, not manage anything not setting anything no targeting nothing!  you get to build a ship and sent them out to fight and that's it,the game right now is completely lack of an interactivity from the player input, you just set a course and once in a while you change some thing and let it play at X5 speed by itself 80% of the time, it's fine if this is a mobile game, but this is a PC game,  there are no micromanage in the battle itself, there are not a lot of input the player can do at the moment bedside watch the ship fight  and once in a while give a few input. Thus adding a fatigue and whatever other 'realistic" system just going to create more idle time where you are literally doing nothing. 

So your complaint is the game is presenting combat as it was experienced as the Captain of a ship, Commander of a division or Admiral of a fleet? I'm NOT criticising, simply confirming if I'm correct in saying that.

A senior officer, even a captain of a cruiser, didn't have that much to do in most cases. They reacted to available tactical information, gave appropriate orders, then sailed along while their crew acted on those orders. NOTHING was 'micromanaged' in the sense you seem to be expecting.

Which is fine. I have no problem with you raising your issues with the game. I certainly am NOT looking to jump on you for having them.

I suspect, however, that you have paid to get into an Alpha test, where of course large parts of the game aren't even in place yet, and are expecting more of a finished product. That's not what you get from an Alpha.

Furthermore, even were the other systems in place, this game is NOT about 'micromanagement' in battle. As the saying goes, "amateurs study tactics, experts study logistics". The whole point of warfare is to make it as unfair (in your favour) as possible. When it comes to naval warfare that means having the most advanced technology built into the best designed vessels for their intended role and then encountering the enemy where you have superior numbers.

Which means a LOT of this game is NOT about tactics, it's about all those things that lead to combat; research, design, building, economics, crew, logistics and politics.

Combat is there because it's an obvious selling point in terms of 'action', but I suspect it's never going to be "point and click" action.

Even if we imagine you get more of what you're after, I'm curious to know something. If the game DOES have micromanagement that is necessary to get the best performance from your ship, how would you expect to do that if you're commanding a fleet with a BB or two, some Cruisers, and a screen of DDs? How would you micromanage ALL of them, ALL at once?

I don't for a second think you ought not raise your complaints. While the forum is a bit short tempered at the moment due to the newest version's release being delayed, don't take it badly if people are a bit critical of your views as we criticise each other regularly, which is a good thing. I can't help but feel, however, that if you're expecting fast paced active game play you've come to the wrong place, and that the devs are not going to change the pace of things even with a fully built game with all its component design pieces in place. "Fast paced" simply is NOT the experience of command at sea, be it a captain or especially an Admiral, and this game is intended to put you in those roles.

Having said all that, I'm sorry if it's proving a disappointment. It appears you bought into the Alpha test without necessarily understanding what to expect of an Alpha generally, and this game in particular. That must be sad for you if you feel you've wasted your money.

Cheers

[Koogus]

Seeing people arguing  and fighting about this which makes me ask.... how realistic is this game supposed to be? Not what you want it to be but have the devs stated anything?

[Skeksis]

49 minutes ago, Koogus said:

Seeing people arguing  and fighting about this which makes me ask.... how realistic is this game supposed to be? Not what you want it to be but have the devs stated anything?

Dev's have done a wonderful job of "illusionistic likeness", fooling many.

But if you study any aspect of the game nothing is actually that real, lots of compromises.

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Skeksis

[Shaftoe]

3 hours ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

would love to recreate this thing from NavyField

IT LOOKS GLORIOUS!

[lordcmdr]

All of the baguettes!