Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 4/24/2021 at 6:36 AM, Cptbarney said:

Very nice, it shows we need more hulls for each time period, but especially hulls from 1880-1910 mostly.

Granted the database is a WIP but it does show where things are going astray and where there are some inconsistencies. 

E.g. 

  • Big gap for new CA hulls 1900-1920.
  • No new CA hulls after 1925.
  • CA, Heavy Cruiser II available date after Heavy Cruiser III.   
  • Big gap for new CL hulls 1903-1920.
  • No new CL hulls after 1920.
  • CL, Light Cruiser II  available date before Semi- Armored Cruiser I. 
  • Last 3 BCs hull all available at the same time.
  • BC Large Cruiser hull seems out of place (or needs another name).

And IMO too many hulls are made unavailable before the next available hull, each hull should overlap the next by a couple of years, i.e. there should be a minimum of 2 available hulls for every year, at least for the Custom Battles database.

I don't know if this is the same database that the campaign is using but if so then this needs some work else there'll be confusion.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Another take from this data, if the campaign is using this database.

WW1, Jutland, British side. If this is the game targeted era then you would think that there would be a large available stock to design from, and development for this stock should be available a few years earlier since it takes awhile to built, say 5 years to build a Jutland sized naval force, 1910+.

BBs
Dreadnought I, 1906. 
Dreadnought II, 1912.
BC:
Battlecruiser I, 1907.
Battlecruiser II, 1912.
CA:
Armored Cruiser V, 1900. 
CL:
Semi- Armored Cruiser III, 1903.
DD:
Destroyer II, 1909.
Destroyer III, 1913.

Well that's it.

That's all the available 'new' hulls to design a fleet to lead into Jutland. CAs/CLs are in a poor state, only 2 BBs and that's include 1906 hull, BCs & DDs seems better with 2 (compared with the rest, that is). Do note that Dreadnought II hull has 4 main and 3 aft towers assigned to it but these are all very similar in shape and would still produce carbon copies of each other, not so many variations but this is an area where variety could occur i.e. more with superstructures etc, ditto for other hulls. 

Also I'm alittle curious about ‘Modern Battleship II’ entrée date as 1939, since it is going to take at least 40-48 months to build such a ship, 4 years. If the campaign is going to surpassed 1943 + another year of waring then this entrée date is workable but if the campaign is designed to mop up roundabout 1940 then no one will be able to build this thing in time. Could be a thing!  Addressed in Alpha 12 v85. 

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, now remember that it's a game, and Britain isn't the only navy that may happen to build a Jutland-size fleet eventually... and you see why building a ship designer around a set of few big, highly integrated, individually handcrafted predefined parts was a bad idea in it's very core.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

... you see why building a ship designer around a set of few big, highly integrated, individually handcrafted predefined parts was a bad idea in it's very core.

No, I don't agree that it's a "bad idea", I appreciate designer tool and auto-designer 100%.

x1 dreadnought hull x3 main towers x3 aft towers x3 main gun choices x3 secondaries choices (we won't add up the tech nor include all possible gun variations, we'll just use 3). 81 ship variations from 13 modeled components verse 81 modeled ships, now do you see why "individually handcrafted predefined parts" is a good idea.

All I've highlighted is that the dreadnought era needs a few more superstructures and/or a couple of hulls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  Now read carefully, problem is not handcrafted parts themselves, it's that there is small number of big parts, each of which combines many aspects and elements of a ship in one unit.
  This leads to "carbon copies" syndrome that you yourself point at. Also seriously limits flexibility, and it only can be fixed by adding huge amount of variants for each part. Where it becomes almost as work intensive for devs as if they made full ships instead.
  They in fact have to make huge number of full ships now, but also split each of them into separate parts and adapt those for better fit with other ships parts. Even more work than just making ship models.

  Right way to do a slap-together editor is more, less integrated parts. Think of Lego and why it's ton of little bricks and not a set of hulls and cabins.
 You need to find that balance point, a level of, err, granulation, where you have as much of the important elements as possible  in their own parts, ready to be mixed and matched with every other variant of all other elements, but overall number of parts is low enough to not confuse the player. Current system went way too far in appealing to mentally challenged players, and created itself a problem now.

Perfect flexibility and variance will be achieved at literally building rivet by rivet, but quite obviously this won't work in a videogame.

Edited by Cpt.Hissy
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/25/2021 at 12:45 AM, Cpt.Hissy said:

  Now read carefully, problem is not handcrafted parts themselves, it's that there is small number of big parts, each of which combines many aspects and elements of a ship in one unit.
  This leads to "carbon copies" syndrome that you yourself point at. Also seriously limits flexibility, and it only can be fixed by adding huge amount of variants for each part. Where it becomes almost as work intensive for devs as if they made full ships instead.
  They in fact have to make huge number of full ships now, but also split each of them into separate parts and adapt those for better fit with other ships parts. Even more work than just making ship models.

  Right way to do a slap-together editor is more, less integrated parts. Think of Lego and why it's ton of little bricks and not a set of hulls and cabins.
 You need to find that balance point, a level of, err, granulation, where you have as much of the important elements as possible  in their own parts, ready to be mixed and matched with every other variant of all other elements, but overall number of parts is low enough to not confuse the player. Current system went way too far in appealing to mentally challenged players, and created itself a problem now.

Perfect flexibility and variance will be achieved at literally building rivet by rivet, but quite obviously this won't work in a videogame.

I would have thought they recreated ship components, using a reference, and then see how many hulls those parts would work on, tweaking accordingly along the way, not one ship at a time and then dismantle.

Other than that and the fact we agree we need more parts, the rest of your spin is unlikely to materialize.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"Enemy smoke spotted to the ..." doesn't allow for a withdraw condition.

This mechanic has no range limit, it's constantly active. And while it's active the AI uses it to follow you, forever, like a stalemate. While we can just end Custom Battles and call that as the withdraw, it actually isn't going to show a successful retreat result, via a victory based on points that would be shown in a post battle screen.

So to include scenarios that has victories via withdraw we'll probably need:

  • Ability to set "Enemy smoke spotted to the ....." range limit.
  • Withdraw or full retreat menu option that allows for a victory. 

Added to main post.

And with this smoke detection mechanic there's no allowance for tactics of changing course to evade contact. Stealth tactics are seriously affected by this, target signature is pointless as a design feature - for the tactic of stealth avoidance. If a withdraw/retreat mechanic was add it could lead to new Academy Missions. 

RTW2 has a "no contact" after 400 minutes mechanic that allows for the player to be victorious via withdraw, also they don't have this enemy detection mechanic (cheat!). I wonder how the UAD campaign is going to handle this using the current mechanic or will Dev's drop it? 

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Skeksis said:

"Enemy smoke spotted to the ..." doesn't allow for a withdraw condition.

This mechanic that has no range limit, it's constantly active. And while it's active the AI uses it to follow you, forever, like a stalemate. While we can just end Custom Battles and call that as the withdraw, it actually isn't going to show a successful retreat result, via a victory based on points that would be shown in a post battle screen.

So to include scenarios that has victories via withdraw we'll probably need:

  • Ability to set "Enemy smoke spotted to the ....." range limit.
  • Withdraw or full retreat menu option that allows for a victory. 

Added to main post.

And with this smoke detection mechanic there's no allowance for tactics of changing course to evade contact. Stealth tactics are seriously affected by this, target signature is pointless as a design feature - for the tactic of stealth avoidance. If a withdraw/retreat mechanic was add it could lead to new Academy Missions. 

RTW2 has a "no contact" after 400 minutes mechanic that allows for the player to be victorious via withdraw, also they don't have this enemy detection mechanic (cheat!). I wonder how the UAD campaign is going to handle this using the current mechanic or will Dev's drop it? 

I would suggest a slight alteration. Withdraw could result in loss or win based on combat/mission objective.

If in a custom battle/campaign, withdraw means a loss as you do not control the "battlefield". This would have to have a supporting mechanic to allow the AI to utilize. Here I think your idea about the "smoke range limit" could help. In addition, the AI would have to be coded to fight up to a point that would be natural to flee (unlike we have today). If the AI/player is able to break contact, then withdraw becomes an option. In custom battle, this would just mean a win for the side that didn't withdraw since we just have "sink all enemy ships" as the objective. 

In campaign, this would result in loss of control of that grid/sector as it was given to the enemy, but the successful withdraw of ships would allow them to fight another day. This would go perfectly with convoy raiding. 

The Naval Academy missions could have more complex objectives were withdraw was actually the objective. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, madham82 said:

based on combat/mission objective

I guess that’s going to be the major change from RTW2.

In RTW2 you can sink one ship and then do a runner and win on points or win without completing any objectives (objectives are bonuses). Is UAD going to be all objective base battles? Is this how the campaign is going work from battle to battle.

As objective based, withdrawing/retreating wouldn’t be an thing, only the objectives.

I’m not sure I like where this is heading, since it would diminish open world somewhat, like you would never be able to withdraw to fight another day, come back with a larger/better force etc. you can only fight the objective and nothing else, less tactical options and strategies etc. And I like keeping my ships afloat but with objective gameplay it will probably mean required losses. Everything could be controlled via carefully (descriptive) crafted objectives, this would remove induvial playthroughs, in a sense “linear”, and from a certain point of view, a "linear campaign".

I’m alittle skeptical about this, hopefully I'm just off on a tangent!

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

I guess that’s going to be the major change from RTW2.

In RTW2 you can sink one ship and then do a runner and win on points or win without completing any objectives (objectives are bonuses). Is UAD going to be all objective base battles? Is this how the campaign is going work from battle to battle.

As objective based, withdrawing/retreating wouldn’t be an thing, only the objectives.

I’m not sure I like where this is heading, since it would diminishes open world somewhat, like you would never be able to withdraw to fight another day, come back with a large/better force etc. you can only fight the objective and nothing else, less tactical options and strategies etc. And I like keeping my ships afloat but with objective gameplay it will probably mean required losses. Everything could be controlled via carefully (descriptive) crafted objectives, this would remove induvial playthroughs, in a sense “linear”, and from a certain point of view, a "linear campaign".

I’m alittle skeptical about this, hopefully I'm just off on a tangent!

Yea the points system I think would be a good addition. It would make outcomes easier to understand. 

As for the objectives, what I was thinking was you could have a mission where your goal is to sink X convoy ships, then successfully withdraw (using your smoke distance limit). Instead of the current, sink X ship and keep your ship alive in X time limit. Would just add more variety IMO. I personally hate time limits on battles. 

I agree. I do not want something that is purely "kill all ships in the time limit" as the only objective for custom and campaign. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't think the campaign needs battle objectives at all.  It seems simple enough to have tooltips, basically, in the campaign as to how to help your nation win a conflict, but the only goal that the campaign should have I think is to get favorable peace terms.  How you do that should be up to you, but of course there are only so many ways a navy can influence a land war. 

    How you could influence the war overall, of course depends on the nations that are fighting.  In the first campaign, for example, Germany could convoy raid out in the atlantic, and try to slowly starve the British war effort that way, but you should also be able to intercept/prevent reinforcements headed for the BEF, and that should be able to end the war much faster (but would require effectively total naval dominance).  

    There should be battle objectives you can select from in custom battles, but I don't think there should be battle objectives in the campaign.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gregervich said:

To be honest, I don't think the campaign needs battle objectives at all.  It seems simple enough to have tooltips, basically, in the campaign as to how to help your nation win a conflict, but the only goal that the campaign should have I think is to get favorable peace terms.  How you do that should be up to you, but of course there are only so many ways a navy can influence a land war. 

    How you could influence the war overall, of course depends on the nations that are fighting.  In the first campaign, for example, Germany could convoy raid out in the atlantic, and try to slowly starve the British war effort that way, but you should also be able to intercept/prevent reinforcements headed for the BEF, and that should be able to end the war much faster (but would require effectively total naval dominance).  

    There should be battle objectives you can select from in custom battles, but I don't think there should be battle objectives in the campaign.

From what has been shared, the campaign will be turn based. So the map will likely be grid based. You could get away with a simple rule that says whoever has the most ships at the end of the battle, maintains control of that grid square (assuming withdraw options aren't given). This wouldn't interfere with convoy raiding in that sense, since the damage done to the convoy is what will impact the campaign, not control of that grid square.  But you definitely need some way to establish who controls that grid square for things like harbor/shipping lane defense. What we don't want is "kill all enemy ships" to be the only way that gets decided. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Custom Battles Database Tech Year Guide (Germany based).

OP: Alpha 11 v84.
Updated to: Alpha 12 v85.

Tech                                      Availability

Coal                           1890-1911
Semi-Coal                 1907
Oil I                            1912
Oil II                           1925
Oil III                          1935

Natural (boilers)       1890
Induced                     1893
Forced                       1906
Balanced                   1919

Basic Steam              1890-1905
Steam 3-Exp             1895-1905
Steam M-Exp            1900-1913
Turbines                    1906
G. Turbines                1914
G. Turbines II             1925
Diesel                         1930
Diesel II                      1935

Aux I                           1903
Aux II                          1909
Aux III                         1916
Aux IV                        1925

Iron Plate                   1890-1899
Compound                1890-1902
Nickel-Steel              1891-1908
Harvey                       1892-1919
Krupp I                       1900
Krupp II                      1903
Krupp III                     1909
Krupp IV                    1920

Barbette I                  1890
Barbette II                 1896
Barbette III                1903
Barbette IV                1915

AntiTorp I                   1893
AntiTorp II                  1901
AntiTorp III                 1909
AntiTorp IV                1921
AntiTorp V                 1930

Single (hull)                1890
Double                        1895
Triple                           1916

Standard (bulkhead)  1890
Reinf. Bulk. I                1892
Reinf. Bulk. II               1915

Anti-Flood I                 1893
Anti-Flood II                1896
Anti-Flood III               1912

Citadel I                       1890-1911
Citadel II                      1899-1915
Citadel III                      1912
Citadel IV                     1916
Citadel V                      1920

Light (Shells)               1890 
Standard                      1890
Heavy                           1890
Super Heavy                1920

Hydraulic                     1890 
Adv. Hydraulic             1895 
Electrical                      1896
Elector-Hydro              1905

Standard (Reloading)  1890 
Enhanced                     1890 
Semi-Auto                    1920
Auto                              1925

Standard (T. Speed)   1890
Fast                              1893
Electric                         1927
Oxygen                         1931 

15" (Torpedo)               1890-1898 
16"                                 1892-1898
17"                                 1895-1908
18"                                1899
19"                                1909
20"                                1917
21"                                 1921
22"                                1925
23"                                1935
24"                                1939

Black Powder               1890-1899 
Guncotton                    1892-1902
Ballistite                       1895-1905
Lyddite I                       1900-1913
Lyddite II                      1903
White Powder              1904
Cordite I                       1906
Cordite II                      1911
Tube Powder               1912
TNT                              1914
High TNT                     1920

Rng-C I                         1897-1916
Rng-S I                         1899-1916
RNG-C II                      1905
Rng-S II                        1907
RNG-C III                      1911
Rng-S III                       1913
RNG-C IV                     1917
Rng-S IV                       1919
RNG-C V                      1923
Rng-S V                       1925

Hydro I                         1911-1924
Hydro II                        1916
Hydro III                       1919
Sonar I                         1921
Sonar II                        1925
Sonar III                       1930

Advanced (Radio)       1905
RDF                              1917

Gen I (Radar)               1927
Gen II                            1929

Note: originally base on alpha 11, I've checked some alpha 12 dates but not all. Posted so players can design based on the year of thee.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Hull Timelines - Custom Battles Database (unlock: off).

OP: Alpha 12 v86.

Japanese BB hulls.

Battleship I                              1890-----1898
Battleship II                                    1899-----1905
Battleship III                                   1899-----1905
Dreadnought I                                                        1906---------1917
Dreadnought II                                                                1912-------------------1926
Dreadnought III                                                                      1914---------------1926
Dreadnought IV                                                                              1914----------1926
Modernized Dreadnought I                                                                           1924---------------------1940
Modernized Dreadnought II                                                                          1924---------------------1940    
Modernized Dreadnought III                                                                         1924---------------------1940         IJN Fuso    
Modern Battleship I                                                                                                         1927----------1940    
Modern Battleship II                                                                                                        1927----------1940         IJN Yamato, A-150 (1929 for 508 (20")) 
Experimental Battleship                                                                                                              1929---1940             
Super Battleship I                                                                                                                        1929---1940

Japanese BC hulls.

Battlecruiser I                                                            1907------1916
Battlecruiser II                                                                   1912-----------1918
Battlecruiser III                                                                                     1917-------1928
Large Cruiser                                                                                                                    1929---1940    
Modern Battlecruiser                                                                                                        1929---1940

Japanese CA hulls.

Armored Cruiser I                     1890---1893    
Armored Cruiser III                                         1894---------1914        
Armored Cruiser IV                                                  1897---------1919
Heavy Cruiser I                                                                                     1920------------------------1940
Heavy Cruiser II                                                                                                1923-----------------1940
Experimental Heavy Cruiser                                                                                                   1934---1940           Tone-class          

Japanese CL Hulls.

Light Cruiser I                            1890------------------------1908
Light Cruiser II                                           1893----------------------------1919
Light Cruiser III                                                                                        1915------------------1940
Semi-Armored Cruiser I                   1892--------------------1908
Semi-Armored Cruiser II                                         1902--------------------1919
Semi-Armored Cruiser III                                                1903---------------1919
Experimental Cruiser                                                                                               1920-------1940
Modern Light Cruiser                                                                                               1920-------1940

Japanese DD Hulls.

Destroyer I                                          1899-----1908
Destroyer II                                                                 1909---1912
Destroyer III                                                                                     1913-----------------------------1940
Destroyer IV                                                                                           1916-------------------------1940
Modern Destroyer I                                                                                                         1922---------1940
Modern Destroyer II                                                                                         1920------------------1940
Modern Destroyer III                                                                                                1921--------------1940
Experimental Destroyer                                                                                                         1924-----1940

Japanese TB Hulls.

Torpedo Boat                          1890------------1908
Torpedo Boat Destroyer                 1898-------1908

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...