11. Faction for Campaign?

[darthxeion]

I read there 10 factions in the Campaign to play, but i really miss here the Ottoman Empire which would be a great addition as 11. Faction, it makes much more sense to put them inside instead of the Chinese Empire, which didnt had even the number of Battleships the Ottoman had during the late Victorian Age.

Sure they are a great power in decline without a doubt, but still compared to the Chinese Navy, they were still a powerhouse.

So my question to the developers, is there a future chance to get them?

[Fuems]

I'd definitely like to see a few additional nations/factions/variations added for the final version as well. The Ottoman Empire would be a fantastic addition, and I'd suggest throwing in the big three participants of the lesser-known (but quite fascinating) South American naval race - Brazil, Argentina, and Chili. Greece, though minor, could also arguably deserve a spot.

Variations on existing countries could be interesting as well. Austria-Hungary would be a great addition that could be switched over to Austria after 1918 (unless alternate history is a factor) In addition, Russia could change into the Soviet Union post-1917, and the Qing Dynasty could change into China in 1912.

Not to come across like "HEY DEVS ADD ALL THE THINGS", but I imagine these details could be implemented just by throwing in some more flags. It's already established that there are many more hulls, towers, guns, funnels, etc. models currently in the works, so there should be plenty of material to make at least relatively-accurate Ottoman, Brazilian, Soviet or Qing warships.

Pictured: The Brazilian dreadnought Minas Geraes (1910) and the Chilean super dreadnought Almirante Latorre (1915)

Edited April 27, 2020 by Fuems

[Aceituna]

I agree it would be great to have as much nations as possible but I also think that It's better to rather have those 10 promised nations while each other is different to play than have bunch of countries while they would be all generic.

13 minutes ago, Fuems said:

Austria-Hungary would be a great addition that could be switched over to Austria after 1918

Austria-Hungary is among these 10 promised nations (and im very thankful to devs for that).

But it wouldn't make sense to switch to Austria in 1918 because Austria didn't have access to sea and their navy was transfered to Yugoslavia.

[Norbert Sattler]

The problem with the Ottomons is that, as far as I know they didn't build any ships of their own after the age of sails had ended. I don't know how well buying ships from foreign shipyards (and then having some of them not delivered due to the outbreak of war) would work with the campaign.

The same goes for the South American nations.

[darthxeion]

8 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

The problem with the Ottomons is that, as far as I know they didn't build any ships of their own after the age of sails had ended. I don't know how well buying ships from foreign shipyards (and then having some of them not delivered due to the outbreak of war) would work with the campaign.

The same goes for the South American nations.

If you really use this argument than there is no way to have a Chinese Empire in the game which bought all of its early modern battleships by foreign powers, so i think its at least not an argument for the developers. Its true the late Ottoman Empire didnt build Dreadnoughts or bigger Warships by itself, but there were few frigates and corvettes build by the Ottoman Empire, also even when they bought their big ships from Britain and Germany, they still modified those Warships for their own tactics and strategy. Also the Ottoman Empire were in a finance crisis but unlike the Chinese Empire, they still were far superior in technology and knowledge, in the late era they also reformed their Naval Academy by british standarts, they had highly educated Officers and Admirals, which were qualified and able to handle modern warships, those arguments in my opinion should counts for something. Finally the question has to be asked, is this a Grand Strategy Simulation or a history based strategy game with an open outcome?

[Aceituna]

7 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

The problem with the Ottomons is that, as far as I know they didn't build any ships of their own after the age of sails had ended. I don't know how well buying ships from foreign shipyards (and then having some of them not delivered due to the outbreak of war) would work with the campaign.

The same goes for the South American nations.

In fact  Ottomans built quite a lot of ships on their own after age of sails (even predreadnought)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_battleship_Abdül_Kadir

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

Yes they ordered most of their capital ships from foreing shipyards but they werent the only country that did this. For example most of the japanese capital ships at the end of 19th century were constructed abroad too.

Campaing will not aim to be historical. And in that case I don't see reason why these nations shouldn't construct theis ships themselves.

                                                                                                                                                                     

[Aceituna]

7 minutes ago, darthxeion said:

Finally the question has to be asked, is this a Grand Strategy Simulation or a history based strategy game with an open outcome?

(https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/the-playing-modes) 

As I understand explanation on the official website: Game will start historically (historicall accurate territories etc.) in the year that you choose (1890, 1900, 1910, 1920 or 1930) and than it depends on you. You can continue historically but you don't have to. Anyway it's not stated if AI will try to act historically.

[Norbert Sattler]

Would be nice if they had a toggle switch for AI historical behaviour like in Hearts of Iron IV.

As for the previous matter, I don't know anything about the Chinese Navy, so I can't say anything about them, but while Japan started out buying ships from mostly Britain, they did eventually make a lot of their own of all classes. Some of them even revolutionary, like the Fubuki which was kind of the destroyer equivalent of the HMS Dreadnought and then there was of course the iconic Yamato.

As for frigates and corvettes... those aren't even in the game (at least not yet), so they don't make a particularly good argument for the game. The Pre-Dreadnoughts are a good argument for getting them into the game though... at least in the earliest of the scenarios.

I wonder if they'd start with a debuff of "poor maintanance" that they have to invest to get rid of. ^^

[monbvol]

As future DLC or something I have no problem with new nations being added later.

Indeed I would not argue against three other nations being added that way that even built their own ships during this era: Denmark, Holland, and Sweden.

[chaotic55]

When I read that the game had China, but not the Ottomans I was a little confused. I think the Ottomans would be an excellent faction for the game. I am curious as to the reason why they weren't chosen in the first place.

[Fishyfish]

The ottoman navy was never big or modern in any way shape or form, I can understand why they didn't put them in the game. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see the Ottomans but they just seem too ancient and too er.. terrible, to be a feasible faction in the campaign. 

During the scope of the game the ottoman navy is a shell of it's former self having peaked in the 18th century and decayed ever since. During WWI they had one modern German battle cruiser, two very obsolete German predreadnoughts, one center battery ironclad from 1875, two protected cruisers, one modern light cruiser which again was German, one torpedo boat and a scant few destroyers. Thats all folks, that's the complete extent to the delivered and owned Ottoman Navy, and truth be told the German Battlecruise Goeben and it's lil buddy the modern light cruiser Breslau were never truly Ottoman warships during the war, but more fully independent German warships flying the Turkish flag for political and military convince. I mean heck, they were both still fully manned and crewed by the Germans till the end of the war!

By comparison the Chinese navy leading up to the first Sino Japanese war was actually a pretty powerful force, it was the largest fleet in Asia and in tonnage it was the 8th largest in the world.  Granted corruption and gross mismanagement saw that it never amounted to anything. In the 1880s and 1890s the Befyang fleet consisted of about 30 warships with two modern and proper (for the era) ironclad battleships, eight or so armored and protected cruisers and a plethora of other smaller craft ranging from a torpedo boat fleet to destroyers and gunboats. It should be noted that most of their capital ship fleet was made in Germany, AG Vulcan producing almost all of their major warships if I'm not mistaken.

But I think the most important fact to consider when taken into the context of this game is that.. 

The Chinese fleet saw actually combat. Sure, they got soundly beaten, but unlike the ottoman navy which never put to sea only to rust away in port and get picked at by British submarines, the Chinese fleet actually participated in several historical engagements. Unfortunately the Ottoman navy never really amounted to anything again after they were defeated by the Russians in the Battle of Cesme in the 1770s.. 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Fishyfish

[Reaper Jack]

In South America, Argentina and Brazil deserve their own spots. Chile less so as their dreadnought (Latorre?) was the only major warship they ever had, while Argentina and Brazil had numerous cruisers and destroyers as well, with Argentina even having modern Treaty Heavy Cruisers built for them by Italy. 

In Europe, Greece, Sweden and the Netherlands all deserve their own player controlled spots as well. Greece would present a very difficult campaign setting where your maximum displacement was severely limited but you had few commitments, they would be all about how to bog down other navies with a small ship doctrine. The Netherlands was one of precious few nations outside of the Great Powers to design and consider true capital ships, and Dutch politicians sought to recapture the Nether;and's naval glory days during the in game time period. Sweden produced a unique and most importantly, modern navy through the WW1, interwar and WW2 period that like Greece's, was small, but in Sweden's case entirely home built and actually powerful enough to prevent invasion of their country (declassified German documents have proven this) and introduces the coastal battleship concept to the game, something I've always wanted to be able to test in UA:D; Sweden also had the industrial capacity to produce heavier units had they chosen to go that route, though they did not irl. (also, re-unifying Scandinavia and the Low Countries for Sweden and the Netherlands would be a fun early game mission and would give you enough industry to compete with the other Great naval powers in game.) 

I do also think however, that almost all nations that had merchants and light escorts/light destroyers should be represented as at least AI's, for your navies to gain experience during times of minor wars and to represent the naval war effort versus smaller naval powers that were still forces to be reckoned with on land (like Poland or Yugoslavia) and also to prevent the game being just about warring the other Great Powers. This would also be fun I think, if one of these minor navies actually manged to strike a valiant blow to your fleet in some way, making your prestige take a bigger hit that it would by losing to say, the UK. There are dozens of countries like this, with not enough ships or capacity to really be player nations but still enough to be represented. 

[Norbert Sattler]

Coastal Battleships would have their biggest advantage of real life nullified in the current state of the game though. One of the big advantages of those small ships is that they are able to navigate shallower waters, river entracnes and such where big oceangoing vessels can't follow. But right now the game only had open ocean "maps". A Coastal Battleship would be at a severe disadvantage there, unless it was only put up against cruisers and smaller... though even then their comparably slow speed and not being built for the higher waves in open waters would probably still see them greatly disadvanteged against high-sea ships.

If they bring in battles right next to the coast where big ships actually could damage their hulls or outright get stuck on rocks, riffs and sandbanks it would be very interesting to have the Coastal ships to try to leverage that advantage, but if there are only open ocean maps... less so.

[TAKTCOM]

I think the reason the lack of the Ottoman Empire in the list of fractions is the difficulty of modeling the Black Sea. The Black Sea is the under lock and key called Dardanelles. This means that you can enter and leave the Black Sea without Turkey permission. Well, how do you imagine this will work in the game? As far as I know, the Rule the waves that inspired UA:D never solved this issue.

[Aceituna]

1 hour ago, TAKTCOM said:

I think the reason the lack of the Ottoman Empire in the list of fractions is the difficulty of modeling the Black Sea. The Black Sea is the under lock and key called Dardanelles. This means that you can enter and leave the Black Sea without Turkey permission. Well, how do you imagine this will work in the game? As far as I know, the Rule the waves that inspired UA:D never solved this issue.

According to official website (https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/the-playing-modes)

All historical nations will ve present in the campaing (while only those 10 will be playable) so this issue about straits has to be solved anyway. (Even if Ottoman Empire is not playable)

[TAKTCOM]

5 hours ago, Aceituna said:

According to official website (https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/the-playing-modes)

All historical nations will ve present in the campaing (while only those 10 will be playable) so this issue about straits has to be solved anyway. (Even if Ottoman Empire is not playable)

You want to say that in company we can start war with Greece, occupy Ethiopia, or capture the Dardanelles? Well, that will be interesting.

[Tycondero]

China was probably added as a balance for Japan and please consider that within the timeframe there was a chinese-japanese war that involved naval combat. Same goes for Spain, which fought the US in 1898. I think the devs looked mostly for nations that had some naval combat thoughout this time and that actually built battleships. That said, I have no objections to adding more nations, just want to explain why China is probably in.

 

[darthxeion]

58 minutes ago, Tycondero said:

China was probably added as a balance for Japan and please consider that within the timeframe there was a chinese-japanese war that involved naval combat. Same goes for Spain, which fought the US in 1898. I think the devs looked mostly for nations that had some naval combat thoughout this time and that actually built battleships. That said, I have no objections to adding more nations, just want to explain why China is probably in.

So you are arguing with history, but in History we had far more modern naval battles involved with the Ottoman Empire just here some examples:

Battle of Măcin 1877, Battle of Kaliakra 1912, Battle of Elli 1912, Battle of Beirut 1912, Battle of Kunfuda Bay 1912, Battle of Lemnos 1913, Black Sea Raid 1914, Battle of the Dardanelles 1915, Battle of Kirpen Island 1915, Battle of Imbros 1918.

Its possible the Devs want a balance for Japan but still i feel here a huge gap in the game just to ignore the Ottoman Empire.

Also the Ottomans even developed and build their own Pre-Dreadnought Warship in 1892 the Abdül Kadir in the Imperial Arsenal (main shipyard of Istanbul), due to the financel crisis they couldnt finish the build and stopped with the works on it in 1909.

Considering those facts just feels quite unreasonable to have a Chinese Empire inside the game but not an Ottoman Empire.

[Norbert Sattler]

I think if you have the Ottomons playable you practically NEED the Greeks in the game in some way or the other. Those two are qutie intertwined when it comes to naval battles and war in general.

Maybe they'll make an expansion for the Ottomons and Greco-Turkish wars.

[Fishyfish]

11 hours ago, darthxeion said:

So you are arguing with history, but in History we had far more modern naval battles involved with the Ottoman Empire just here some examples:

Battle of Măcin 1877, Battle of Kaliakra 1912, Battle of Elli 1912, Battle of Beirut 1912, Battle of Kunfuda Bay 1912, Battle of Lemnos 1913, Black Sea Raid 1914, Battle of the Dardanelles 1915, Battle of Kirpen Island 1915, Battle of Imbros 1918.

Its possible the Devs want a balance for Japan but still i feel here a huge gap in the game just to ignore the Ottoman Empire.

Also the Ottomans even developed and build their own Pre-Dreadnought Warship in 1892 the Abdül Kadir in the Imperial Arsenal (main shipyard of Istanbul), due to the financel crisis they couldnt finish the build and stopped with the works on it in 1909.

Considering those facts just feels quite unreasonable to have a Chinese Empire inside the game but not an Ottoman Empire 

You want to argue with history? The Battle of Macin falls outside the time frame of the game.

The battle of Kaliakra was four Bulgarian torpedo boats vs one ottoman cruiser. One torpedo hit and 8 Ottoman crewmen were killed. 

The battle of Elli, 1 Greek armored cruiser, 3 Greek ironclads and 4 destroyers vs 2 Ottoman Pre-Dreadnoughts, 2 ironclads, 1 protected cruiser and 4 destroyers. A decisive Greek victory when their armored cruiser, faster than the rest of their fleet took off on its own and crossed the Ottomans T, shot up their flagship a bit which caused the ottoman fleet to rout in a panic. 

Battle of Beirut. Two Italian Armored Cruisers vs one Ottoman corvette and one Torpedo Boat. "All Ottoman naval forces in the region were annihilated"

Battle of Kunfuda Bay. One Italian protected cruiser and two destroyers vs 6 Ottoman gunboats, an armed yacht and an armed tug. Result same as above.

Battle of Lemnos, a battle with some actual Pre-Dreadnought battleship, an almost identical line up to the Battle of Elli, actually involving the same ships, and resulted in a few more casualties and the Ottomans routing again. 

Black sea Raid 1914, A German battlecruiser, a german light cruiser and an Ottoman protected cruiser and a few destroyers let by a German run amok in the black sea and sink a handful of Russian Merchants. 

The battle of the Dardanelles, no Ottoman Warships outside of mine layers were involved. 

The Battle of Kerpin Island. Two Ottoman gunboats vs three Russian Destroyers. 

The battle of Imbros involved the British fighting the Ottomans pet German Battlecruiser and Light cruiser.. 

As for the Abdül Kadir, hold up yo. That was never ever even close to being built. So unclose infact that in over a decade the hull wasn't even fully plated, and because of poor construction conditions her keel supports had shifted and her keel had broken. 

 

Now by comparison lets just look at the Battle of the Yaloo River. The largest naval battle of the first Sino Japanese war, and while the exact composition of the two fleets are still debated its generally accepted that the combatants included; two chinese ironclad battleships, eight protected cruisers, two corvettes and two torpedo boats vs nine Japanese protected cruisers, one corvette and one gunboat.  resulting in 5 Chinese ships sunk and three damaged, vs 4 severely damaged and two lightly damaged japanese warships. 

 

This was the first major fleet battle since the Austrians and Italians has slugged it out during the battle of Lissa in 1866 and it was studied by naval staff around the globe. This battle was so significant that it changed naval doctrine around the world, solidify the notion that a fleet operating in smaller squadrons as the Japanese had done proved to be more tatically flexable that a single amassed force. 

Remember, China was at one point during the period that this game takes place an actual regional naval superpower so to speak, with a considerable navy that as I said above was the largest in Asia and the eight largest in the world. The Ottoman navy, unfortunately was never comparable during the same period. The Ottoman Navy had been in a state of stagnation and decline since the early 18th century, by the 19th century the events of the Ottoman economic crisis of 1875- a result of debt from the Crimean war, coupled with the disaster that was the Russo-Turkish war in 1877 saw that Ottoman Naval production functionally ceased to exist. From then forward the Ottomans would never complete any new warships, and despite modernizing several 30 year old center battery ironclads built in1870s and buying 15 year old German Pre dreadnoughts in 1910 they had ceased to be any sort of naval contender regionally. The Greek Navy, which consisted of a single modren warship and a handful of obsolete ironclads easily trounced the Ottomans at every engagement. And even after the Germans got involved, the bulk of the Ottoman navy never saw any action ever again and rusted away at their moorings (with again, acception of those torpedoed by british submarines) untill the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. 

[Tycondero]

9 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

You want to argue with history? The Battle of Macin falls outside the time frame of the game.

The battle of Kaliakra was four Bulgarian torpedo boats vs one ottoman cruiser. One torpedo hit and 8 Ottoman crewmen were killed. 

The battle of Elli, 1 Greek armored cruiser, 3 Greek ironclads and 4 destroyers vs 2 Ottoman Pre-Dreadnoughts, 2 ironclads, 1 protected cruiser and 4 destroyers. A decisive Greek victory when their armored cruiser, faster than the rest of their fleet took off on its own and crossed the Ottomans T, shot up their flagship a bit which caused the ottoman fleet to rout in a panic. 

Battle of Beirut. Two Italian Armored Cruisers vs one Ottoman corvette and one Torpedo Boat. "All Ottoman naval forces in the region were annihilated"

Battle of Kunfuda Bay. One Italian protected cruiser and two destroyers vs 6 Ottoman gunboats, an armed yacht and an armed tug. Result same as above.

Battle of Lemnos, a battle with some actual Pre-Dreadnought battleship, an almost identical line up to the Battle of Elli, actually involving the same ships, and resulted in a few more casualties and the Ottomans routing again. 

Black sea Raid 1914, A German battlecruiser, a german light cruiser and an Ottoman protected cruiser and a few destroyers let by a German run amok in the black sea and sink a handful of Russian Merchants. 

The battle of the Dardanelles, no Ottoman Warships outside of mine layers were involved. 

The Battle of Kerpin Island. Two Ottoman gunboats vs three Russian Destroyers. 

The battle of Imbros involved the British fighting the Ottomans pet German Battlecruiser and Light cruiser.. 

As for the Abdül Kadir, hold up yo. That was never ever even close to being built. So unclose infact that in over a decade the hull wasn't even fully plated, and because of poor construction conditions her keel supports had shifted and her keel had broken. 

 

Now by comparison lets just look at the Battle of the Yaloo River. The largest naval battle of the first Sino Japanese war, and while the exact composition of the two fleets are still debated its generally accepted that the combatants included; two chinese ironclad battleships, eight protected cruisers, two corvettes and two torpedo boats vs nine Japanese protected cruisers, one corvette and one gunboat.  resulting in 5 Chinese ships sunk and three damaged, vs 4 severely damaged and two lightly damaged japanese warships. 

 

This was the first major fleet battle since the Austrians and Italians has slugged it out during the battle of Lissa in 1866 and it was studied by naval staff around the globe. This battle was so significant that it changed naval doctrine around the world, solidify the notion that a fleet operating in smaller squadrons as the Japanese had done proved to be more tatically flexable that a single amassed force. 

Remember, China was at one point during the period that this game takes place an actual regional naval superpower so to speak, with a considerable navy that as I said above was the largest in Asia and the eight largest in the world. The Ottoman navy, unfortunately was never comparable during the same period. The Ottoman Navy had been in a state of stagnation and decline since the early 18th century, by the 19th century the events of the Ottoman economic crisis of 1875- a result of debt from the Crimean war, coupled with the disaster that was the Russo-Turkish war in 1877 saw that Ottoman Naval production functionally ceased to exist. From then forward the Ottomans would never complete any new warships, and despite modernizing several 30 year old center battery ironclads built in1870s and buying 15 year old German Pre dreadnoughts in 1910 they had ceased to be any sort of naval contender regionally. The Greek Navy, which consisted of a single modren warship and a handful of obsolete ironclads easily trounced the Ottomans at every engagement. And even after the Germans got involved, the bulk of the Ottoman navy never saw any action ever again and rusted away at their moorings (with again, acception of those torpedoed by british submarines) untill the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. 

You are far more knowledgeable than me regarding these engagements. That said, this was exactly my impression as well.

The Ottomans are a nice to have naval minor, but were nowhere near being a significant naval power throughout the timeframe of the game. So it makes sense for them not to be in, while the Chinese where showing a good effort of actually building a naval power base (and have historical examples to back it up). We could have done the game without China and Spain IMO, but if the developers have them in that is excellent. The more the merrier. 

Also if minor naval powers, like the Ottomans, would be included in the game, that would mean a lot of other nations also need to be included (eventually). Nations like the Netherlands, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Greece all had plans or actually ordered battleships or battlecruisers. One could argue that perhaps some of the Nordic (Scandinavian) countries should be in as well. 

In other words a lot of work for the devs, and atm not a priority. Let them first finish what they started. Having DLCs later which would add new nations would be great for them as well if the game truly desires follow up (business wise).

Edited April 30, 2020 by Tycondero

[Fishyfish]

I'd be happy to see minor nations at some point, and with them the Ottomans, the Greeks, the few south American countries that had various ironclad battleships and Pre-Dreadnoughts. I think it would be an interesting angle for game play in the campaign to focus on regional strength, and perhaps if you do well enough as your nations admiralty lord you could see your nation becoming a major power. But if you add the Ottomans, you need the Greeks. Then do you flesh out south America with Brazil, Argentina and the like, so who else?