Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Why Carriers will probably never be added


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Googled it.. Well, setting - maybe, game design - fattest NOPE you can imagine. ^^

Lol its from a different time. I loved it when it came out, the crazy armed airships and flying aircraft carriers.. heh, but that was a long time ago.

 

7 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Battlestations: Pacific, yes?

VQDvNfZ.jpg

That was a great game but I liked midway a little better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Aceituna said:

Well, I quote the Steam descryption: “Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts aims to be the first game of its kind, a naval game which offers a unique opportunity to design and build countless variations of realistic looking warships combined with extremely in depth realistic combat model.

I don't see a single word about dreadnoughts (besides the name of course). Also the game takes place in 1890-1940+. We are allowed to build dreadnoughts since 1905. I wouldn't expect to not have dreadnoughts for one third of game time in the game about dreadnoughts. 

Majority of content is dedicated to them? I don't think that the ,,aboslute majority of content'' is focused on dreadnoughts. But even if it would be truth there is still a lot of promised unreleased content while a lot of it is not about dreadnoughts at all (such as submarines or mines).

and i quote what we actually see in the game........... which is like i said mostly dreadnought focused content.  sure there is attention for the other shiptypes as well. but they clearly take a secondary role compared to the dreadnoughts again look at the amount of hulls and the fact that alot of updates are hyped on things primarly used by Dreadnoughts. 4 gun turrets come to mind.

we both don't know what will happen in the future. but what there is right now cleary shows the developers want the game to be focused around them. and the other ships taking a secondary role. 

anyway. adding carriers would interfere to much with the balance as they are basicly a counter to every ship type. subrarines on the other hand would be interesting to use. as they could be countered by both destroyers and cruisers using depth charges, or even torpedoboats which could also be equiped with depth charges. but on their turn could also counter every other ship type by the use of timing and stealth.

 what is the counter to a carrier? another carrier. making the late gameplay a boring measuring contest on who has the strongest carrier with the best planes making most other ship types irrelevant.

 

19 hours ago, Aceituna said:

I think there are two main problems with this: 1. I think that even bigger problem than making the controllable submarines would be making ASW and sonar in-battle. 2. Could you imagine if you would apply unrestricted submarine warfare with hundreds of submarines? It would be do dozens of little engagements every single turn. 

 on your first point,more trouble then developing advanced flight models for every single plane you could possibly put on a carrier? i don't think so. the biggest issue i think will be the addition of an underwater area to the maps. but this is still lightyears more easier then plane physics and an accurate representation of them.

on your second point. this would be easely solved by an Autoresolve function for the smaller engagements. like attacking purely convoys protected by a few DD,s would be autoresloveable. but at the same time having the option to control submarines if they are part of a bigger fleet of units.

Edited by ReefKip
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ReefKip said:

the biggest issue i think will be the addition of an underwater area to the maps. but this is still lightyears more easier then plane physics and an accurate representation of them

On this I think you have a problem here, that is the Dev’s have excluded land and islands for the time being, so without land meshes it means that there’ll be no chance of seabed meshes. Only at the first hint of terra firma (which leads to seabed’s) is when there could ever be any sub command inclusion. 

There’s so many games with aircraft now that all the “physics” are pretty much perfected, so not really a problem there.

 

As for carriers.

It’s the scope/timeframe that is the potential that everyone else sees here. People recognize that designing carriers would be a major asset to the game. Not only dreadnoughts but the entire golden age of warships could be put through the ‘Designer Tool’, that’s exciting. Satisfying to speculate it too.

The game is more about an naval arms race from 1890 to 1930+, design ships and commanding fleets, with that as the description carriers can be included. Also carriers isn't the menace to dreadnoughts but the longevity to the game popularity.  

 

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest way to implement CVs is by AI strikes in assumed sea zones where CVs exist. AI strikes relevant to the game period could come in predetermined packages and outside player control, as they should. I'd love to see them in a well-considered DLC, where they deserve to be. 🙂

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...