A good analogy for this game that I heard.

[BobRoss0902]

It's the Kerbal Space Program of shipbuilding. It's meant to get you interested in ships, with modular design, cool looks, and acceptable physics, it's not a true simulator, rather it leans more so on the fun factor, after playing KSP I certianly couldn't go out and build a rocket, but it's a wonderful introduction to rocketry, same for this game.

[lordcmdr]

Indeed. I've used the KSP analogy before.

[draconins]

What I use is a little bit more realistic version of Naval Ops Commander game from Koei, with more frustrating fleet control. The reason I bought this game is basically because I want games like Naval Ops both the commander and the Warship gunner.

[TsAGI]

As someone who builds surface vessels and aircraft carriers in KSP I think this is a pretty good analogy

[Ruan]

I would have to disagree a bit. In KSP we're given a blank slate and told to build a rocket. If it explodes. tips over, collapses, etc. that's fine and we are given the opportunity to learn from that. In UA:D we're given a template that we modify. With all the "safety" checks in place to prevent any "Well that clearly doesn't work".

Now here is the problem with "realism" vs arcade. UA:D is dropped in the middle between these two ideals. It's impossible to have complete realism in a video game, I think we all know and understand that. But some mechanics seem to support "realism" while others are clearly arcade in nature, rate of fire for instance. I personally have no issues if the devs go with an arcade like game or with a "realism" game but they need to choose one and go with it. This in between doesn't work and will continue to not work going forward.