Map View is needed or some kind of wargame zoom out feature

[Danvanthevacuumman]

I know i said this before but a naval strategy game needs a feature like this.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Scorpion]

Yes! You need a map, with an overhead view, where you can plot waypoints for your fleet to follow!

You need that map to have a sense of the relative positions of combatants, to plan ahead how to engage the enemy fleet, to engage on diversionary tactics, to flank, etc...

Just because you make something harder and more confusing to accomplish, it doesn't mean it takes more "skill" to do it.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[SonicB]

14 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Players will be simulating what it's like to be an Admiral too, at the surface level, in the chaos at surface level (or at least some of it).

Historical admirals on larger ships often had plotting tables showing every hostile and friendly ship in the battle, and an entire staff keeping it updated with reports from lookouts and other friendly ships. In other words, exactly like a minimap.

What we are doing right now is playing as a lookout, the admiral's staff, and the admiral himself.

Great layman's article here, and I quote: "Admiral John Jellicoe, commanding the British Grand Fleet from the HMS Iron Duke, had at his disposal not only superior numbers but also tactical plots showing the relative positions of both the ships in his fleet and the positions of German ships."

[SiWi]

yeah i don't really get why we shouldn't have a map with the courses of our ships, enemy ships and even spotted torpedoes.

Or are you trying to tell me that they didn't use maps on warships during 1890-1950?

Edited June 24, 2021 by SiWi

[Scorpion]

17 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Ah yes it does. Skill is exactly what overcomes failure (something that's to hard to start with), this actually equals content, lots of it.

I know I’m against the trend on this one but reducing this game to 2D battles would defeat the team's development energy for their 3D visual aspirations of this project.

The "skill" in naval battles consists of planning your movement, considering the enemy's position and motions, maneuvering to get them into a trap, and target selection. Not wondering where the hell are my cruisers and having to wander around with the camera trying to find them for 5 minutes. The first one measures skill. The other is just makes gameplay more annoying.

How many times has the second scenario happened after spending some time micromanaging a few battleships in the middle of a torpedo ballet? What excuse is there, in the year of our lord of 2021, to make the player spend precious time searching for it's own ships in a 3D POV instead of having a quick, easy mode to recall its position? Do you think ships didn't report their own position to the fleet? Or that maps and plotting boards are just fanciful myths and legends?

To make an analogy, think of a football game. You could make a team play against a more skilled opponent. Or you could make them play against a regular team only with some yobs lobbing stones at them from the sidelines. The first makes them use their skill, the second just makes it harder.

Adding an overhead map doesn't diminish you skill as a commander. It just makes book-keeping less annoying.

And while we're at it, if we were to really go for the Admiral experience, shouldn't the 3D camera be anchored around the player's ships, sort of like in Atlantic fleet? They didn't have a bird's eye view of the enemy fleet at will in the XIXth century either. And I'm not saying this rhetorically, it could be a good idea so you dont know immediately what the enemy ships' class or what guns they are armed with is before they are even identified...

Edited June 24, 2021 by Scorpion
Spelling!

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[madham82]

My suggestion is the hybrid approach. Look at how Supreme Commander used a roll out zoom to give you the classic 2D map. Then you can seamlessly zoom between 3D and 2D.

I see good points on both sides, so I always defer to player choice in cases like this. Can both be satisfied by my suggestion. I think yes, but the real question is what the Devs think anyway.  

[Danvanthevacuumman]

On 6/23/2021 at 7:43 PM, Skeksis said:

I know I said this before too, NO.

TBH, I have lost my bearing alittle bit at times too. E.g. when the fleet splits up into two, transports head south, you set your warships to vector away to bring broadsides to bear, some of the enemy heads straight for the transport undetected, at this point, detection of the breakaway enemy, I realize I’m not in between the enemy and the transports. A map would have been handy to keep my compass bearing on track.

But this is due to my lack of skill, not a lack of a map.

Games need skills to learn, to practice, to master.

The skill of 'surface command' (in 3D), will be one of those skills and it will give the player the emotion of accomplishment once learned and put into practice. When that happens the game has done what it designed to do, to be satisfying/fulfilling. Players will be simulating what it's like to be an Admiral too, at the surface level, in the chaos at surface level (or at least some of it). Also we don’t want to remove anything from the battle instance, at all, actively is alittle sparse as is, command in 3D is about all there is, don't removed it. 

And this is why I believe this skill/actively should remain and not be removed nor pushed aside in favour of QOL maps.
 

Thats not skill thats poor mechanics. skill is positioning you rships strategy and the lot. Not dragging your cursor across your table playing hide and go seek for selecting your ships.

[Danvanthevacuumman]

1 hour ago, madham82 said:

My suggestion is the hybrid approach. Look at how Supreme Commander used a roll out zoom to give you the classic 2D map. Then you can seamlessly zoom between 3D and 2D.

I see good points on both sides, so I always defer to player choice in cases like this. Can both be satisfied by my suggestion. I think yes, but the real question is what the Devs think anyway.  

yeah a wargame zoom out view is that.either option would suffice but none at all is foolish and just bad.

[SonicB]

18 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Ah yes the "Grand Fleet" at the Battle of Jutland, 151 British, 99 Germany…. oh wait, game limit total is 100? (50 per side), oh no… and do you think we’ll have 28+ battleships built in 1916? will the game allow it?

While I understand the wish for total realism, it’s just not possible, so back to the reality of pc gaming…

How is that relevant?

I quoted one specific example from a well-known battle. The fact is that an admiral on a battleship of the era had exactly the kind of information and tactical picture that you are claiming they didn't.

Whether or not it's 'useful' in UA:D battles is a completely different point not related to historical accuracy, but many people other than you seem to think it would be.

As for UA:D battles being 'mostly of skirmishes size' - 1) even small-scale actions often involved significant separation between friendly ships or groups where a tactical picture would be useful, 2) what of the larger battles such as those we see in many academy missions, and 3) we have no idea how common large fleet actions will be in the campaign so it's rather pointless to speculate.

[madham82]

Perhaps an even better point, given the state of the AI formation control wouldn't some kind of map help better manage the inevitable wonky behaviors? I mean we all want the AI issues fixed, but I'm not so sure all of them can be really eliminated. 

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[HailCOBRALA]

We do need a map. As people have said, Admirals didn't have to wonder where their fleet was in battles of this age. They knew. Their staff knew. We need a map. 

[Tankaxe]

Also important to keep in mind that since the topic of Jutland was bought up that a major fleet action with Jutland like numbers is unbearable without a minimap. RTW gives you plenty of controls to keep large scale fleet battles from being too overwhelming but in UA:D the lack of a zoom out or minimap can easily have your formations spread apart without the player knowing until its too late.

[Evil4Zerggin]

On 6/25/2021 at 12:19 PM, Skeksis said:

These are the highest, the rest about 20 or under, note I've haven't unlocked the last 5 missions.

So commanding 20 ships at once, the probable max or thereabouts, is within the learnable skill and manageable ability's criteria, i.e. with these numbers, a 2D battle instance map isn't necessary, IMO.  

The second-to-last mission, "Russian fleet in dilemma", allows you to build up to 50 DDs. You get 6 additional allied ships against 17 enemies for a total of up to 73 ships.

However, I find commanding large numbers of ships to result in the fleet being strung out over 20-30 km unless they are continually and individually micromanaged. This is especially troublesome for ships that need to quickly close with the enemy in order to deal damage... such as DDs.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Evil4Zerggin

[Stormnet]

 

On 6/25/2021 at 8:19 PM, Skeksis said:

So commanding 20 ships at once, the probable max or thereabouts, is within the learnable skill and manageable ability's criteria, i.e. with these numbers, a 2D battle instance map isn't necessary, IMO.  

As said above, even small battles can lead to spread in the fleet.

 

When I fought the Tsushima Strait, even with a fleet of just 13 ships they managed to split into 4-5 diferent spread out groups. Whenever I was busy dealing with one, another one risked being torpedoed. Overall this just became a mess of a battle.

Instead of leading this, I just let the AI handle the CLs and DDs groups while I focused about my Battleships. I should be encouraged to watch over them all, but I simply cannot afford to pan from my pre-dread BBs to guide the ligher ships because I need to be wary of torpedo attacks.

Its not just managing our ship. 

 

I mean, its not a nightmare. Im not bumping my head against the table to handle this. Its manageable. But there are also a lot of anoyances in games that are manegeable but should be fixed anyways.

 

Even the simplest and smalest RTS games often have a tactical map. Just because its small scale doesnt mean it shouldn't have one.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Stormnet

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[HailCOBRALA]

How would a 2d map detract from anything? Im genuinely curious. It would actually add something to the game. If it distracts, that's YOUR problem, just as saying 3D is our problem. It goes both ways. 

[Evil4Zerggin]

I'm lukewarm on a minimap. If there was a minimap, it would have to have dynamic center and size because battles don't take place on a fixed area. If something along these lines were to be implemented, I would prefer a zoom-out-to-overhead-view.

However, I don't see the lack of minimap/overhead view as the most pressing issue with regards to managing large fleets. Even though I would prefer it to exist if there were a magic wand, I would hesitate to ask for scarce developer time to be allocated for this purpose.

[killjoy1941]

It doesn't even have to be something complicated - it can be something as simple as Total War-style mini-maps which just enable the player to primarily change their view position with a click.

I don't think skill/no-skill is a real argument. It's more about being able to efficiently transit the map and issue orders where required. Fewer clicks and actions to change the player view means more attention paid to the action, which is where this game will likely excel. That's a net positive and something I would like to see.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Cptbarney]

Something like supreme commander would be great as i consider it one of the best tactical maps to be made, also could be good for raisin pc's that can barely load 2 polys at a time.