...

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 10, 2021 by Skeksis

[Danvanthevacuumman]

Yes, I agree.

[Bluishdoor76]

Scout aircraft could also just give you something to do while both fleets are beyond their own range heading towards each other  and unspotted lol

[liaxelot]

exactly !!!

I M AGREE

[liaxelot]

or soluce  is to limited the period !!

1870-80 to 1920.... even  during the WW1  the aicraft  apears as a great war machine !

and the sub-marine ?  in fact to be realiste the game as to move to war at sea, not only with the dreadnought but whis the all war machine of the 2 WW

yes what a job !!! but to be realist.... it s  my opinion,  not easy yes but the best way i think

Edited December 13, 2020 by liaxelot

[madham82]

Just a thought, the campaign map is going to be turn based from what has been shared/seen. So the "spotting" done by search aircraft can easily be just factored in the "range" each fleet can see an opposing fleet. Basically there would be no changes on the battle map, since we have seen nothing to suggest there will be more than one fleet on each side. And with the game during battle currently giving you the bearing to enemy ships regardless of range or tech, big changes would be needed to implement aircraft there. 

Considering there are no search ranges on the current ship designer that apply to the campaign map, there will have to be something added to grant "X" search range there. My guess would be a catapult module, then with researchable tiers for search plane radius on campaign map. 

Point of clarification, the Devs have officially axed any implementation of aircraft carriers until after the game releases. So we should stick to spotting aircraft as possibly the only thing they might implement before the game is released. 

[disc]

I think a catapult item is essential to have in the designer, even if all it does is increase accuracy at long range and give better campaign scouting.

[HusariuS]

If they will implement, first they should start with scout planes launched from cruisers/battleships catapults and give us basic short (7mm-30mm), medium (31mm-77mm) and long range (78mm-155mm) AA armament and considering that we will usually command multiple number of ships which will include Battleships and Cruisers who were USUALLY carrying with them from 1 to 3 scout planes, we could basically make full squadron of planes with just few ships.

By launching from 1 to even basically full squadron of scout planes we could test how effective is certain type of AA against various number of planes at various distance.

Later Devs could implement simple bombs for the scout planes and see how effective is AA at defending their own and allied ships against enemy attack squadrons (which in this case would be a scout planes) that instead of circling around or nearby the formation would directly attack the ships.

If those tests would be positive, we could move on into the Carriers themself.

And I always said that devs should add option to disable Carriers and/or Scout Planes if players doesn't want them in the game.

Edited December 13, 2020 by HusariuS

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 8, 2021 by Skeksis

[Fishyfish]

I don't really care, I just don't want to see aircraft carriers and subsequent aircraft becoming an obnoxious pain in the fin that doesn't do anything more than diminish game play. I can see aircraft being an enjoyable element of the game, I can also see them being godawful irritating torpedo spewing bullshit. But eh. I want airships, blimps and zeppelins in a perfect world. 

Keep in mind that I think there's a grand total of three people who are doing all the coding and work on this game full time and about 6 people helping part time. Fully functional airpower in any way shape or form is a tall order for a handful of people who are very much clearly struggling with their current work load. 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Fishyfish

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 8, 2021 by Skeksis

[Fishyfish]

8 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

My point is the exact opposite, without aircraft might diminish gameplay.

You said it yourself...

After the dreadnoughts, after the Iowa's, after true and test designs, a standard shape/design emerges. And that's the same for all classes. This is what I found in RTW2 too, you seem to evolve into standard warship designs and then you just basically upgrade components thereafter. 

Carriers, airpower, anti-aircraft gunnery etc. is a way to keep the game fresh from 1930+, to change/mix it up abit. Imagine playing the whole game's time frame with the standard basic shape/design for every ship!

Don't twist my words to suit your needs.

Oh boy, now everything looks and is built the same but has the inclusion of 400,000+ AA guns, and a catapult recon plane. How exciting, fresh and new.

But in all seriousness, please explain to me how the inclusion of aircraft are going to keep the game fresh and interesting post 1930? If after the dreadnoughts, Iowa's and the true and tested designs a standard shape and design emerges as you say, and if this is the same for all classes how is that not going to be the same for the aircraft carrier and air power and how to deal with airpower? You're not selling the idea to me, in fact you're telling me it's going to be more of the same. Now I'm going to have to ploink down a barge load of AAA, now I'm going to have to ploink down a scout plane. What function does a scout plane do that radar doesn't do? Now don't get me wrong, yes it would be amusing to see a little float plane put-putting about hunting the Bismarck so to speak, but is it going to radicalize and change game play as massively as you seem to imply? I don't think so. Now I'm building an aircraft carrier, so what's the goal? Maximize strike aircraft swarm capabilities. Great, now what?

Yes, airpower and aircraft carriers changed the name of the game in naval power world wide to the same degree, if not more than the dreadnought did. I'll never argue against that point. But how is building aircraft carriers going to be any different than building dreadnoughts? What came of the rise of naval airpower? If you look at it from a construction point of view all that really happened is naval yards shifting from spaming one type of boat, to spamming another. Case in point the US navy building 87 aircraft carriers of all types during WW2 and only 8 new fast battleships. 

I don't see airpower being a way to keep the game fresh from 1930+ as I see it as being a lateral move at best. Worse case I can see it being really frustrating that you just get dunked on by carrier strike craft with out engaging with the enemy fleet (ala WoWS), and I can see it being really boring if all the game play devolves down into is dunking on the enemy fleet with your own airpower. So instead of striving to make that superdreadnought (which is in it's own right kinda boring) you're just trying to make that supercarrier. Or a billion small escort carriers. What ever, same end result. So if the game play is going to evolve from big gun battles to swarm attacks on fleets it's breaks down into a case of "spam the most aircraft to overwhelm the enemies defenses to win" which, I guess is fresh, but for how long? And hey, what if you the player start cheesing the campaign and doing that as soon as possible? 1930 comes around, the antartic treaty dictates the sizes and quantity of capital ships you can build and that you can't drop colonies on other countries so you, being cheeky just build carriers. How's that really any different? And then what comes next? RTW2 has AShMs if I'm not mistaken. 

 

I dont know man, I'm just seeing the same problem with a different coat of paint on it, but one that could be more frustrating to counter in the long run than be rewarding to control and manipulate. As I said above, I don't care if the devs do implement aircraft in the game, just don't make the game worse by doing so and to me "spamming swarms to overcome the enemy" is bottom tier of game play. KeKeKe Zerg Rush. 

[Skeksis]

....

Edited November 8, 2021 by Skeksis

[Tycondero]

I am a bit in the middle with airpower in naval games, but I agree with @Skeksis that airpower can make things fresh (gameplay wise) again.

I previously always hated carriers in games because carriers never looked as cool as battleships to me. I think most people that are naval enthusiasts share that feeling and that's why battleships are always the main attraction in these kind of games. However, when I watched the movie Midway (please don't beat me for liking this very Hollywood made movie) this feeling for the battleship started to shift with me. I still like battleships, but I also can see the coolness now of the aircraft carrier and the evolution of naval warfare around the carrier task force. Carrier warfare is in many ways much faster paced and more strategical. It does introduce something fresh to the naval combat and strategic gameplay. That is where I can fully understand Skeksis in his RTW2 argument on that carriers/planes provide something new to develop towards after the BBs have evolved to the point that BBs have become a dead end. Also, what is very cool in RTW2 is that you can also specify and develop planes, which adds another layer of design, albeit somewhat abstracted. We have to face the fact that beyond the 1930s, not much BB innovation is happening anymore. Some more broader naval innovations are introduced, such as RADAR and SONAR that apply to potentially all naval vessels, but amour development already reached its peak and perhaps quadruple turrets is the only true innovation that requires a bit more time to mature. All other BB innovations have more to do with bigger is better.

However, we must also take note that IRL the Washington and London naval treaties did mess things up a lot for the BBs. It is not hard to imagine that without these treaties (which do not need to happen/followed in the UAD campaign) the BB would have developed differently and could have driven more innovation. Effectively, the interwar period was kind of dull from a naval point of view as the treaties restricted innovations in some areas (like going beyond 16 inch guns). That's why I think the addition of ahistorical, but realistic assets like 19 and 20 inch guns, is important for the game and perhaps we should have more of these exotic assets that may not have happened historically or were developed even a bit later than within the game's timeframe. Every campaign should and will likely playout very different, making some choices for innovation more important that others. Yet, I do think that even without these treaty restrictions the BBs were a destined to become a dead end once airplanes arrived on the scene. Like (nuclear) submarines, carriers can spike an entire new arms race between the world powers in which new areas of innovation are emphasized more than others.

Then the big question comes how to implement carriers/planes in game. I personally think that it is very possible, but will require a huge time investment. RTW2 has one advantage in that it is a spreadsheet (2D) game and does not need to render everything. This makes the sheer distances by which carrier task force battles occur much more feasible than in for example UAD. I believe that Skeksis has offered a decent middle of a road solution by simulating the effects airplanes, such as scouts, and later perhaps the effects of naval-air warfare from carriers. Perhaps similar to submarine warfare, carrier warfare should be abstracted to affecting the fleets/ships on the campaign map by damaging and sinking ships, which thereby directly impacts the tactical fleet combat part of the game. Not ideal, but less demanding for the devs to implement as a tier 1 feature.

However, that said, I am fine with the devs focusing on getting a proper ship designer model out first and implementing the campaign before adding more stuff like carriers. If the gameplay is stale with fleet battles carriers are not going to save the day either.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 8, 2021 by Skeksis

[GeneralVikus]

Of course aircraft would be nice, but RTW2 came after the original RTW, which didn't have them; and it still released far behind schedule and buggy as hell. It took several years for the game to be developed, and the only major addition on top of the original was the aircraft mechanics. I'd rather have a limited but well implemented game to start off with, then pay for a DLC later to add air power, than a more ambitious but less well implemented product. Adding spotting aircraft would, however, be the logical first step, and these could be implemented before air combat is properly modelled.