Will we be getting s̶k̶y̶c̶a̶n̶c̶e̶r̶ aircraft carriers at some point?

[lordcmdr]

On 6/6/2020 at 12:42 AM, Cptbarney said:

German cv’s are trash if you want ap bombs try haku or entyfat.

Yeah, I have no plans to play any CV in that game.

[Doveton Sturdee]

So the CV fanbois want to ruin this game like that other dumpster fire before it even gets started? Great.

[DougToss]

I think a lot of people want a lot of things, and are starting to forget the project goals @Nick Thomadis laid out on day one. That's totally natural and is bound to happen. Gamers are not game designers, project managers or publishers. The imagination is infinite, resources and time are very, very finite. 

Personally, I would rather work as a community towards the best possible iteration of the stated design goals, but I know that is not nearly as fun as letting wishes run rampant. It might however, actually make a difference, assuming community feedback here is still appreciated to the degree it was early on.

[Skeksis]

5 hours ago, DougToss said:

I think a lot of people want a lot of things, and are starting to forget the project goals @Nick Thomadis laid out on day one. That's totally natural and is bound to happen. Gamers are not game designers, project managers or publishers. The imagination is infinite, resources and time are very, very finite. 

Personally, I would rather work as a community towards the best possible iteration of the stated design goals, but I know that is not nearly as fun as letting wishes run rampant. It might however, actually make a difference, assuming community feedback here is still appreciated to the degree it was early on.

E.g. UASoS and RNG loot, totally rejected by the community, was the project goal but reversed (while under and within the title of development). And with UAD project goals the term “realistic” is mention alot, so therefore it’s alittle weird to create a realistic game but conveniently leave out one of the most significant and ‘real’ components of history.

No one is forgetting stated goals, but as exampled, everything is up for debate! and while there are some wishes I think most of the feedback is 'genuine' (thus applicable to the forum). 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Skeksis

[SiWi]

21 hours ago, Doveton Sturdee said:

So the CV fanbois want to ruin this game like that other dumpster fire before it even gets started? Great.

so the BB's fanbois need a safe space because they can't accept anything hurting they toys? Better.

[IronKaputt]

1 hour ago, SiWi said:

so the BB's fanbois need a safe space because they can't accept anything hurting they toys? Better.

I want CV exactly because I'm BB fanboy: I'm here to design my perfect shupfus, protected against all odds, and that very much include air strikes.

Say I am more concerned about working magnetic fuzes, but that only means I would need some degaussing devices, making gameplay richer, not ban torpedoes and mines instead.

Edited June 12, 2020 by IronKaputt
never trust a pig in glasses and the autocorrect

[Doveton Sturdee]

On 6/12/2020 at 7:15 AM, SiWi said:

so the BB's fanbois need a safe space because they can't accept anything hurting they toys? Better.

No, it would just be nice to enjoy a rich and complex surface action game, free of flying monkeys and other pests. Best.

If you want what WT and WG already offer, why not stick with them, eh?

[SiWi]

45 minutes ago, Doveton Sturdee said:

No, it would just be nice to enjoy a rich and complex surface action game, free of flying monkeys and other pests. Best.

If you want what WT and WG already offer, why not stick with them, eh?

Well then stop playing before 1910 I suggest. Why not play TW Empire or TW Napoleon by that same token?

 

Neither WG or WT are strategic games with sandbox campaigns.

[DougToss]

Listen, if you want to wait an extra year, at least,  while they develop carriers, an aviation model, deck handling procedures, detailed 3D aircraft for all the nations and time periods in the game, anti-aircraft warfare modelling, etc. etc., just say so and we'll leave it at that. 

It's a huge ask.

[SiWi]

1 hour ago, DougToss said:

Listen, if you want to wait an extra year, at least,  while they develop carriers, an aviation model, deck handling procedures, detailed 3D aircraft for all the nations and time periods in the game, anti-aircraft warfare modelling, etc. etc., just say so and we'll leave it at that. 

It's a huge ask.

this is your typical rhetorical trick.

you act as if they game would need the most extensive flying simulation and hence it would be massive work and hence "it would take too long".

There are not "detail 3D" ships for each nation in the game, at best a couple of hullls or parts here and there.

Yet we act that in order to do CV's, it can't possible run unless 150 Different models for planes are added.

 

Meanwhile in the real World there are plenty of games that did CV's quite well and weren't AAA titles or whatever the standard would be to make such "huge ask" "possible".

So yeah, you constant attempts of over blowing the needed work for CV's doesn't work.

[BuckleUpBones]

1 hour ago, DougToss said:

if you want to wait an extra year

Yep.

Though I would like to see it set for the endgame, let Jutland battleships rule the waves first, then late 1930s have the aviation model creep in and take over, it would like ‘complete’ the whole naval warfare cycle, like kinda make it a massive grind through battleships to get there.

Bannerlord was 8 years in development and wow what a game that has turn out to be! was worth the wait.

I see some of the models have depth charge racks on them now, didn’t noticed (or recall) them on these ships before, is this a sign that Dev’s are expanding the game! maybe even another year to be tack on.

Edited June 14, 2020 by BuckleUpBones

[HusariuS]

There are people that like CVs and those that dislike CVs, and there is one very simple solution of creating one button in the campaign options that will disable ability of researching CVs and any "CV Technology" for both Players and AI.

Same goes for planes launched from non-CV ships (Disabling both option should also disable ability for researching AA technology for both Players and AI.) like Cruisers or Battleships, if you don't want them, just click this one simple button blocking some technology from researching by AI and Players.

 

[Cptbarney]

2 minutes ago, HusariuS said:

There are people that like CVs and those that dislike CVs, and there is one very simple solution of creating one button in the campaign options that will disable ability of researching CVs and any "CV Technology" for both Players and AI.

Same goes for planes launched from non-CV ships (Disabling both option should also disable ability for researching AA technology for both Players and AI.) like Cruisers or Battleships, if you don't want them, just click this one simple button blocking some technology from researching by AI and Players.

 

Basically this. Its in RTW's so the devs can easily implement it here (i suggest they pair it with the first CV update they do so that those who aren't interested in playing/testing etc. can just ignore them which is fair).

[Doveton Sturdee]

On 6/9/2020 at 11:15 PM, BobRoss0902 said:

A while back a dev said that they want to impliment CV but they would be stratigic map only, so not in battle.

I'd like to hear something definitive on that from the devs before I spend any money. Sky cancer in battle is a deal-breaker for me.

[Steeltrap]

THE DEVS THEMSELVES have said "NO AIRCRAFT BEFORE GAME LAUNCH" (let alone CVs).

Don't you think any of the posters who know that ought to tell the OP?

I'm not for one second saying people ought not discuss the topic because that's neither my responsibility nor intention.

What I AM saying is the OP may well NOT know that's what the Devs have stated, and I don't see anyone else telling them that FACT despite many of you knowing it to be true. I find that a little peculiar.

Cheers

Edited June 15, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Doveton Sturdee]

24 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

THE DEVS THEMSELVES have said "NO AIRCRAFT BEFORE GAME LAUNCH" (let alone CVs).

Thanks for that. I'll probably hold off because "before game launch" smells like a gotcha phrase (or, erm, steel trap..) 😆

[Steeltrap]

14 hours ago, Doveton Sturdee said:

Thanks for that. I'll probably hold off because "before game launch" smells like a gotcha phrase (or, erm, steel trap..) 😆

I see what you did there.....

TL;DR? Done correctly, CVs would render most surface ships to the status of support ships as they did historically. If you could "rush" CV/air tech and accept the price in being behind in normal surface warfare as you did, you'd doubtless rule the waves. It's impossible to deny CVs are essential in naval warfare history. It's not true, however, they're essential to a game that says it's entirely focussed on surface combat. That's why I personally don't think the devs have much stomach for attack planes at all, and thus no CVs, but might implement search planes.

On topic, I suspect we're not going to see CVs, or at least not for quite a long time after release if so. I think there's far more work to implementing them successfully than people appreciate.

I also think, although this is entirely a guess on my part, they don't necessarily WANT to have aircraft beyond perhaps search planes (which I'd have no problem with) precisely because, as people have said, they DID become the dominant factor in naval warfare. Either you operated under friendly skies or you were potentially in horrendous trouble, which meant either land based fighter cover OR take it with you on a CV.

One of my favourite computer games was the original Carriers at War. It was simple in its graphics (of course, given it was released in 1992) but absolutely BRILLIANT in its grasp of the core mechanics required to capture the nature of carrier warfare. That meant controlling your available aircraft on your CV(s), deciding how many to put on CAP, how many to use for searching and in what directions (if USN; the IJN used float planes), considering weather and especially wind direction, your effective strike range etc etc. Even better, you could play as the campaign that linked all the scenarios together, so there might be times where you decided to run for it and take a tactical loss so as not to get boned strategically. Had loads of fun playing it with a lifelong friend as you could hot seat 2 player, too.

I mention this because the OTHER thing it showed VERY clearly was how every other ship was largely only of value for the various sorts of protections it might offer, namely AA, anti-sub or anti-surface. Sure, you could detach your BB(s), CAs and some DDs and send them off at flank TF speed in the hope of catching any stragglers if you knew they were close and you'd more or less won the air war, but that was it.

In short, it was a great rendition of CV warfare made by someone who knew their subject and gave the mechanics a LOT of thought despite the graphical simplicity available. As an aside, the remake made in the early 2000s was a very lazy thing that LOST the "results of this scenario will carry over to the next" campaign, and that all but destroyed the replayability as far as I (and many others) were concerned.

Plus it made REALLY obvious just how different CV warfare was. It was all about search patterns and aircraft endurance. As with most warfare, whomever gets to shoot first has a far greater chance of winning. thus searching was really crucial (consider how UNLUCKY the IJN was at Midway, where the one search plane that was launched late happened to be the one going where the USN CVs were, and even then it delivered a crappy, inaccurate report; many have wondered just what might have happened had it got there when it ought to and have given an exact report).

The point is what is was NOT was ANYTHING AT ALL to do with SURFACE warfare. Once attack planes of sufficient power arrive, naval warfare changes forever. If you don't recognise it, you die (as did the Italians at Taranto, the USN at Pearl Harbour, and HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse at sea which finalised the particular discussion as to whether alert warships at sea instead of sitting ducks in harbour would prove vulnerable.

And that means CVs change the very nature of the game, period. Nothing wrong with that unless, of course, you don't WANT the game to become a race to air power.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Earl St Vincent]

On 6/9/2020 at 5:45 PM, DougToss said:

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Aviation made big-gun warships obsolete, yes. However, this is a title about big-gun warships, not aviation. 

I would go the route RTW did and end right before aviation became the predominant form of sea power. Since the devs have decided not to, some form of abstracted airpower is required. I say abstracted because unlike RTW this game has large amounts of granular fidelity and is 3D. That means an air system would have to be as complex and detailed as the rest of the game, which is to say, would probably double or trebble the work, cost and time of the project. 

Ideally, the game will be at its strongest during the period between the Russo-Japanese War and around 1925, as that was the time where Dreadnoughts Ruled The Waves. Any time before and after overlaps with periods deserving their own treatment: aviation and missiles on one end, ironclads on the other. 

Exactly this.

I play Naval Action and enjoy the pure "golden age of sail" premise, and would hope UA:D would continue in that vein.

How silly would NA become with French balloonists spotting and Bushnell Turtles bobbing around the ports? Or rowed galleys and steam frigates? I'd say very.