Monitors, Casemate ships, Coastal defense ships, Seagoing ships

[Marshall99]

Hello Admirals! After this epic ironclad update I hope that other ships will come also. First of all, I want to say, that this is not priority, absolutely not priority thing. There are much more important things, but in my opinion later these old ships should be in the game.

For example, the Austro-Hungarian Navy had a monitor called SMS Leitha (1871). She was very modern monitor at her time. You can also visit Her in Budapest.

For the Royal Navy the HMS Inflexible would be a cool starter ship (HMS Warrior would be cool too), becase she was constructed at 1876. (But on the other hand there is a huge problem implementing these ships into the game: most ironclads have masts, it can be difficult to model these)

So I think implementing ironclads into the game would be fun, but, not only fun. There aren't a lot of games out there in the market where you can play with ironclas and pre-dreadnoughts. So in my opinion, implementing these ironclads, and pre-dreadnoughts into the game will boost the potential, and also great for marketing. 

Secondly, these early ships would be great for coastal defense. Why? Constructing monitors are cheaper, faster. They have low freeboard, so hitting them is not that easy. Good concealment. 

What do you think about these points Admirals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Marshall99

[Cptbarney]

Yeah starting from 1865 or 1870-75 would be fine in my books for using and playing with these ships or just have them in missions and custom battles only (or all modes with toggable options).

Love to see cerebus, thunderer, devastation, ocean, dreadnought and others. The masts are actually pretty easy to model just some cylinder primitives a few line splines or very thin box primitives for the wires, plus whatever modifiers and operations are needed.

Either way at somepoint i dont see why these cant be added in.

[Purgato]

I really do hope this is less of a simple joke of an update and more testing the waters for having a type of ironclad ships within the game.

Even if it's purely the last ones to act as a mostly outdated class before pre-dreadnoughts, it could add a bit of fun insanity with heavily armored short ranged ships brawling it out right at the start. Maybe an 1870 or 1875 start could give these ships just enough time in the sun to give the player a real feeling of progress purely from gaining pre-dreadnoughts, let alone what may come after.

Or hell maybe have a few starting options for those who don't want it and start right at 1890. It would be lovely to see.

[Marshall99]

Seagoing Ironclads around 1860

Royal Navy: HMS Warrior (1860)

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warrior_(1860)

French Navy: Gloire (1859)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ironclad_Gloire

Austro-Hungarian Navy: Kaiser Max class (1862)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Max-class_ironclad_(1862)

Italian Navy: Formidabile-class (1862)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formidabile-class_ironclad

German Navy: SMS Arminius (1864)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Arminius

Japanese Navy: Kotetsu (CSS Stonewall) (1864)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ironclad_Kōtetsu

Russian Navy:  

• Monitors: Uragan-class monitor  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uragan-class_monitor
• Floating batteries: Pervenets-class ironclad  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervenets-class_ironclad
• Coast-defence ship: Novgorod (monitor)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_monitor_Novgorod
• Seagoing ironclads: Sevastopol (1864)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_ironclad_Sevastopol

Sevastopol:

Chinese Empire: Tien-sing (1875)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_ironclad_Tien-sing

Spanish Navy: Méndez Núnez (1862)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ironclad_Méndez_Núñez

 

 

So as you can see, almost every nation can start the campaign around 1860. The only problem is with the chinese ironclad, she was completed in 1875. So I think the Chinese Empire will give you a harder game experience.

I don't particularly like Wikipedia but for easier transparency I copied the URLs.

Secondly, please note that these early ships are only suggestions. But in my opinion they can be the optional starter ships.

What do you guys think?

 

 

                     

[Cptbarney]

@Marshall99 I think we could make some generic 1860 ironclad hulls for all nations, some with slightly better tech than others or bonuses to other areas. Could do like 3-4 hulls per nation, then more hulls at 1875, then more at 1885, moar at 1905 and so on.

But yeah i like the idea, i mean i doubt the devs will do this anytime soon since they have other prioties atm. But i would love if the game started in 1860-1865 to 1940-1945 or something would make for a nice long campaign, plus with all the options to allow peeps to remove or add certain elements in each campaign run.

[Marshall99]

3 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

@Marshall99 I think we could make some generic 1860 ironclad hulls for all nations, some with slightly better tech than others or bonuses to other areas. Could do like 3-4 hulls per nation, then more hulls at 1875, then more at 1885, moar at 1905 and so on.

But yeah i like the idea, i mean i doubt the devs will do this anytime soon since they have other prioties atm. But i would love if the game started in 1860-1865 to 1940-1945 or something would make for a nice long campaign, plus with all the options to allow peeps to remove or add certain elements in each campaign run.

I agree. This is not a priority thing. But I can imagine implemnting these old hulls into the game. If this will be a DLC, then for me it's okey  (shut up and take my money XD) I am realy interested in this cool naval era. In wows I am just fed up with those late paperships, and power creep. I can't enjoy that game anymore. 

[Rak1445]

Bump! Great ideas in this thread. I'd LOVE to see the game expand into this unknown time period. It would mean the game covers the entire period of transition from sailing tall ships into just before missile warfare era. I think 1860-1890s were full of extremely interesting and unorthodox design solutions (such as torpedoe on a stick), which would be amazing to see and develop in a campaign. I wouldn't mind seeing this as an expansion after launch!

[DougToss]

Wouldn't the introduction of sail, unrifled guns, muzzleloaders and so on greatly increase the work required to get the game to launch? 

I think Ultimate Admiral: Ironclads would be great, but that seems like a different title entirely. 

[Marshall99]

39 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Wouldn't the introduction of sail, unrifled guns, muzzleloaders and so on greatly increase the work required to get the game to launch? 

I think Ultimate Admiral: Ironclads would be great, but that seems like a different title entirely. 

Then in a game called Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts, why CVs that important. I see your points and I understand them. But then this is a game about dreadnoughts. If CVs can or will come into this game, ironclads should too. And don't forget that we already have two pioneer ironclads with muzzle loading rifles. And I think they are well balanced. The devs made a great job with them. And also don't forget the financial points too. There aren't lots of games covering ironclad age out there. And if the devs implement them this can be a good selling point too. 

[SiWi]

Personal I think there is a less resources intensive compromise.

 

The starting fleets at the start of the game or the fleets of minor nations, could contain a number of those ships base on a couple of hulls.

[IronKaputt]

1 hour ago, Marshall99 said:

Then in a game called Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts, why CVs that important.

Well, by this logic we should also ban subs 🤔

1 hour ago, Marshall99 said:

And if the devs implement them this can be a good selling point too.

I'm fine with galleys, if it help the game to succeed, though I hope for some 50s stuff first.

[Rak1445]

I think it's fair if the ironclads came as an after-launch expansion, as the technology development from 1860-1890 easily rivals the 1890-1940 period the game covers, and would require a lot of research. Obviously, perfecting the game mechanics as it stands comes first. Besides, the devs have stated that the game will come with 'certain ships' to facilitate players' starting fleets in 1890, so we're likely to get some late ironclads.

Now, imagine if UA: Dreadnoughts and UA: Ironclads and UA: Age of Missiles (?) came as three, separate, stand-alone games, that would merge into one if you owned them all, allowing you to fight such crazy engagements as 10 Popoffka batteries against an Aegis cruiser Wishful thinking, but one can hope...

[DougToss]

The problem with not demarking limits on the timeline, is that all history is connected. If you say, "well ironclads lead to pre-dreadnoughts" and don't set a stopping point, eventually you will have to say "the ships of the Crimean War evolved into those of the American Civil War" "and Crimean War ships of course were an evolution of those of Nelson's day" until you are deciding if the Cog or Carrack is the starting point for the Age of Sail. 

1890 is as good a point as any, and a Ironclad game between 1850-1890 probably deserves its own treatment. If you want to really navel gaze, how could a campaign even work over an extended period? Italy did not exist during the start point of an ironclad campaign, nor did the Austro-Hungarian Empire or a united Germany, so your little naval game now needs to include incredibly complicated political mechanics just to work. Does Japan have to fight the Boshin War? 

These are all things you could do in Ultimate Admiral: Ironclads, but the research, mechanics and work devoted to making that happen are far too much to include in the same game that includes radars. 

You see how setting limits makes the whole process easier? 

e: seconding what @Rak1445 said. I would certainly buy all three. Totem makes incredibly geographically and temporally limited naval games and they are a lot of fun. Look at them during the expected upcoming Steam Sale.  I would certainly buy an Ultimate Admiral: Ironclads, and a missile age one would be a dream. 

However, I would not expect to find Harpoons and roundshot in the same game. I'd like each game to have fleshed out and detailed research, mechanics and to get the details right. Just imagine trying to get through a manual that includes boarding actions and submarine launched, nuclear armed anti-submarine missiles.  Imagine the code base to say no boarding after 1870 or determining the radar signature of a third rate frigate. Best to have distinct games, for the Devs and for us.

Edited June 9, 2020 by DougToss

[Marshall99]

I hope the devs will make some dlcs. I could give 20-25$ for a good ironclad dlc. 

The game starts in 1890, but you should start with a basic fleet with older ships. You have to start somewhere. And then your job is to design better ships. But you have to start with something. For example for the US navy USS Maine would be a cool starter ship. You could use her as a 2nd class battleship. Also in the current state of the game we can't designe the USS BB-1 (Indiana) because we don't have such a hull. So first of all they have to add more pre-dreadnought hull. I think I am not the only one here who wants to recreate actually existed battleships and other ships. And please note. These are not priority things. But in my opinion this game needs more pre-dreadnought hulls. 

[DougToss]

I'm just saying that mechanically the leap from Ironclads to Pre-, Semi-, and Dreadnoughts was so large as to make a treatment of them worth its own title. I agree that the starting fleets should be as close as possible to those afloat when the period begins, and by nature that includes a lot of vessels that were, or were about to be, obsolete. That's understandable, reasonable, and necessary.  When you start Empire Total War, there are some units of pikemen and older fashioned cannons. The game includes them without going back to include the 17th Century. A similar approach here would do the same - portray the situation when the clock starts, don't worry about the prologue. 

There were so many changes politically, and so many features that would have to be accounted for in game, like smoothbore and muzzle loading guns, that a full price game covering the period would be worthwhile. In terms of conservation of resources, it allows for a concerted effort on the period we have. It makes research simpler for the community and the devs. It allows for mechanics designed to cover as much of the period as possible. A torpedo in 1939 was similar to one in 1909, but totally alien from a spar torpedo. 

The engine would carry over, as the Total War games do. The work on the wind and waves, displacement, buoyancy and so on would carry over and save a tremendous amount of work. The sea is the sea, no matter what floats on it. It's putting Nuclear Submarines or Caravels in the sea that calls for a different game. Think of the Combat Mission games to see this design philosophy at work.

I agree that pre-dreadnoughts are pretty sparse right now, and there are more features that should be done to depict common shells, odd gunnery arrangements and so on. I'm also saying a Cog and Trireme are both technically ancestors of the dreadnought, and rather than worry about DLC to include them, building up the game we have "tall" with detailed features will be better than building it "wide" and trying to do everything at once. 

Finally, I don't like the idea of asking for DLC when the game is not even feature complete yet. The Devs need feedback now, not a branding or marketing strategy to sell us more content in a year. 

[Skoggatt]

With the start date being 1890 ironclads have to be included. The first "pre-dreadnought" was launched by the UK in 1889, and other nations were further behind. Every country, UK included, will have fleets consisting primarily of breastwork monitors, turret ships, or even broadside ironclads. I don't think a huge number of hulls need to be added to represent these ships since the focus will be on replacing them with true battleships and later dreadnoughts, but at least one or two models for each type of ironclad. Ships like HMS Devastation and the US costal defence monitors would be easy to add, but many ironclads and cruisers of this era had sails as well as steam power, so that would need to be accounted for. Cruisers especially in the 1870s and 80s relied on sail to give them the necessary range to operate far from home waters, so sails will need to be implemented at least for strategic movement.

[SiWi]

Sails do open up a cant of worms thou... wind mechanics.

Right now the game can mostly ignore wind directions, because Warspite, Bismarck, Iwoa, Yamato and so on did not care for wind directions. These ships would.

 

And if that is worth it in context of this game? A new component for the engine to take care off, just that the most obsolete vessels are in?

[Aceituna]

I know it would be quite poor compromise but how about this: We would be able to build ships that use both sails and steam engine while sails would have affect only at strategic map and in battle such ship would remain without sails and use only engine. If we use this solution there wouldn't have to be new mechanic for wind and sails.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Aceituna

[Marshall99]

2 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

I know it would be quite poor compromise but how about this: We would be able to build ships that use both sails and steam engine while sails would have affect only at strategic map and in battle such ship would remain without sails and use only engine. If we use this solution there wouldn't have to be new mechanic for wind and sails.

This is a good idea!

[Rak1445]

On 6/9/2020 at 11:22 PM, DougToss said:

Finally, I don't like the idea of asking for DLC when the game is not even feature complete yet. The Devs need feedback now, not a branding or marketing strategy to sell us more content in a year. 

I likewise don't appreciate the numerous DLCs being released across the game industry in the last years, especially those with features that should have already been included in the game to start with. It really brings the quality of games down, look at Crusader Kings for example.  Let us hope UA:D will follow a different path. Expansions down the line, however, could be interesting to see, as long as their content and its quality justifies it. We shall have to wait and see...

[Shaftoe]

Imagine AI's damage control teams dealing with floodings and fires on old ironclads or even partially wooden tall ships just as quickly and super-efficiently as they do on modern battleships. Crazy stuff.

(Yeah, that's what we have in this game)

[Cptbarney]

38 minutes ago, Rak1445 said:

I likewise don't appreciate the numerous DLCs being released across the game industry in the last years, especially those with features that should have already been included in the game to start with. It really brings the quality of games down, look at Crusader Kings for example.  Let us hope UA:D will follow a different path. Expansions down the line, however, could be interesting to see, as long as their content and its quality justifies it. We shall have to wait and see...

I doubt it, capitlism is all about maximising profits over anything else, so either we get loads of dlc, expansions which require quite a bit of work, or microtransactions for various things, or a higher entry price tag.

I mean if they dont do any of the above i would be surprised but this trend has been going on for 20+ years now in the gaming industry and i dont see it dying any time soon.

Allowing for modding tools should help peeps bring stuff in for the game itself, but like anything this game will go through cycles to meet demands from higher ups. Its like these idiots on youtube being outraged at EA being scummy with starwars (lol really?) and throwing a fit about it while had they actually pulled their heads out of their behinds and looked at EAs track record they wouldn't of bothered with the game in the first place.

[Marshall99]

If we will have workshop on steam, the modding community will do beautiful things. I realy hope that the workshop will be available in the future. Just imagine the lots of ironclad and pre-dreadnought hulls. Oh yeaa

[DougToss]

I don't understand why when this game is in Alpha, people are anticipating workshop content. It would be just as easy to aid in the development here, at this stage. 

Discussion of capitalism notwithstanding, this product has not gone to market. This is a very real time to influence design decisions rather than trying to make up for it after the fact, after decisions are locked in in release, or even Beta.

[Marshall99]

2 minutes ago, DougToss said:

I don't understand why when this game is in Alpha, people are anticipating workshop content. It would be just as easy to aid in the development here, at this stage. 

Discussion of capitalism notwithstanding, this product has not gone to market. This is a very real time to influence design decisions rather than trying to make up for it after the fact, after decisions are locked in in release, or even Beta.

Who mentioned workshop content in Alpha stage?? Of course when the game is finished then yes, workshop should come. And other thing. This is a forum and we are here to discuss everything, I hope you can understand this.