CVs - Ye, Nah, Maybe, Could careless.

[Cptbarney]

Hello lads.

So, i've been looking on the official discord for UA:D and see a lot of back and forth from the community there regarding CV's in-general. However i'd like to see what the forumites think of all of this too be fair, so we can get a clearer idea of what peeps would like.

I would say myself, i'd rather they focus solely on fleet combat and that if they want to add in CV's either when the game is fully developed or in a sequel like RTW's did. (Devs would have more experience then.

Also if they do go down said route a no CV's button will be needed or basically mandatory so people can choose (always the best thing). 

I know this has been brought up a lot, but interesting too see how it does all the time when the game is focused more towards surface combat than anything else (At the moment anyways).

Also, moar old boags pls.

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

CVs?

No.

 

No wait, let me rephrase that: HELL NO!

 

 

As for why, that's rather easy.

Implementing CVs in a way that is fun for the player would essentially mean to create a 2nd game within the game already there - as much as it pains me to admit it, Wargambling _did_ recognize the fact that CV player played a completely different game than BB/CA/DD player in WoWs and tried (in their own, completely boneheaded way) to address that.

The same would be true for UA:D.

You'd had one game where you command your surface action group and a second game, where you command your air-wing - unless that is automated (kind of like in RTW 2), which makes CV play pretty boring.

 

[Commander Reed]

I mean, it'd be a great new toy to play with I guess. But I'd only fully agree until after the game is fully complete. 

(PS: Designing an aircraft carrier would be mad.)

Edited August 24, 2021 by Commander-Alexander-Reed

[Fishyfish]

If CVs then SSs, and MTBs and especially AMCs. 

 

I personally don't want carriers because I can't imagine any way to implement them without having a cascade effect of having to implement various aircraft mechanics and would want to at least influence aircraft design. Once I was hard no aganist CVs, these days I'm mostly meh towards them. Its a no, but a I don't really care anymore no. 

I'd really rather have 1860s+ warships. Ironclads, center battery ships, turret ships, rams, and really, submarines and auxiliary cruisers above anything else. 

 

As it stands the super battleship trend seems.. odd, without aircraft in game. It plays weird imo, as if something is missing. To me at least, it would be easier and more logical to go older, put in more older warship technologies and really heavly load the peak of the Dreadnought era (ergo WW1) than end load the super battleship era of the end of WW2. In doing so the devs wouldn't have to dev CVs and airpower to a huge extreme, save for perhaps some float plane scouts which are desperately needed. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by Fishyfish
Bloop

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

Implementing CVs as a playable/buildable ship class I don't really like or agree with.

HOWEVER...if they were to implement them in more of a "strategic weapon" sort of thing I might be okay with them (i.e. you don't ever build/design or see them, they're just "there"). Allow me to explain my thinking...

Before an engagement starts, if you have a carrier in the area/with your fleet, you can choose from the following options before the actual battle starts:
Aerial Recon
Airstrike
Both/Mixed

Now, how I envision each of these options would work...
Aerial Recon-greatly speeds up the identification of enemy ships or some enemy ships start battle already identified, but deals no damage
Airstrike-A random ship (or multiple ships, like max of 2 or 3) have varying levels of damage/debuffs applied (the more ships attacked, the less damage dealt and vice versa) and this damage could range from the basic "tower damaged" or minor flooding to the more serious "turret/torpedo launcher destroyed" and moderate heavy flooding, but does little to aid in ship identification
Both/Mixed-slightly speeds up identification of enemy ships, and can only deal light/moderate damage to a single ship

I also feel like submarines (if added) could be utilized in a similar way with a "recon" option to speed up the ID of enemy ships and "strike" option to slightly damage enemy ships.

Basically, as a fully designable and controllable unit, no...please don't add them. If they will be implemented in a way similar to what I described above, I might be okay with them since the above options aren't overpowered or completely game breaking (in my opinion). Because while carriers and submarines were definitely there, the main focus of the game is on ship to ship combat...I don't want the game to turn into an arms race that is decided by who makes the best carrier first.

I'd be interested in hearing your feedback on what you think, but I want to emphasize that I am NOT advocating for carriers to be added.

TL;DR   I've got some ideas/thoughts on the topic of carriers...but not everyone thinks alike. I don't want them to be implemented as a fully designable and playable unit, but it ultimately isn't up to me to decide. Also...please add more unique cruisers.

Forgot to ask...does anyone have a link/invite to the official UA:D Discord?

Edited August 24, 2021 by HistoricalAccuracyMan

[Tousansons]

No.

I'm not confident in the engine/dev to pull off a decent carrier game. Also, we are still waiting for a first pass on the decent dreadnoughts game.

[Speglord]

I'm mostly in the same camp with everyone here, apparently.

Would it be awesome to have? Yeah. Workable at the game's current state? No. 

It would be a monster of new mechanics and content to add that would all but halt development progress on the reason why we bought this game in the first place (designing surface combat ships in a dynamic campaign spanning decades). Maybe if main development on the campaign and other assets is finished, but not now.

[Masonator]

 I'd love to see carriers, but not in any capacity where you control the planes themselves.

 Treat them like the rest of the existing weaponry - ie, select your carrier, dispatch an air wing to scout X coordinates or attack Y target, similar to the way battleship guns are already targeted in-game, and the squadron flies off and does its thing on its own.

[Danvanthevacuumman]

i would say yes but hope they handleing the game so far nope.

[admiralsnackbar]

At the speed that the UAD team has been operating to get the core patch out, they can't handle the work load.

You would need systems in place for the flight animations for the aircraft, air to air combat, strikes, and anti-air fire. That is effectively like creating a new game. Then you have to figure out what the player can and cannot control. Not to mention this is another thing that the AI has to juggle. 

I would prefer to see submarines in the game in some capacity, because without submarines, there's little reason to use destroyers over light cruisers for convoy escort, at least if surface detection rules are made more realistic. Also, carrier strikes are really a late game thing if we're starting at, say, 1880-1890 and ending 1940-1945. 

If UAD wants to dabble in naval aircraft, see if you can't make spotter aircraft work without air to air combat or naval air strike capability, simply use individual catapult launched planes for detecting enemy warships at long distances. 


 

[Commander Reed]

The only use I see for destroyers are that they are cheaper over light cruisers, or taking on a transport hunter role. 
Or - if added, Submarines.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no naval expert.

[Cpt.Hissy]

Only thing this game needs right now - is to actually start existing. Before that, we all should not care about anything else but this, good sirs.
Frak carriers, frak submarines, frak that one particular very niche turret design that's so important because you personally like it.
Give us the damn game at last. Everything else waits.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Cpt.Hissy]

Destroyers are when you need "a warship" but not necessarily too strong one. Why would you take expenses of building a whole cruiser when you want it just to litter mines around or deliver your tea. You can have two of them destroyers instead.
 

Also there surely will be some artificial limitations that will force you to use destroyers, it's a game after all, an contrary to someone's claims not a very smoothly designed one.

Edited August 26, 2021 by Cpt.Hissy

[killjoy1941]

On 8/24/2021 at 11:29 AM, Cptbarney said:

Hello lads.

So, i've been looking on the official discord for UA:D and see a lot of back and forth from the community there regarding CV's in-general. However i'd like to see what the forumites think of all of this too be fair, so we can get a clearer idea of what peeps would like.

If they already have a design in place/in mind for submarine and mine warfare to be abstracted into the strategic layer, then it's not much of a stretch to do it with army and naval aviation too. There needs to be an effective late-game counter to sonar and radar-equipped, 20in-armed, 120,000t super-battleships that doesn't require reciprocal designs. Unlike submarines, you'd obviously have to add them as fleet assets so you could occasionally catch them on the surface, but you don't actually have to model aircraft and aircraft AI. It'd provide a nice justification for the continued existence of 2-4in guns on larger ships too. Even with that, it's still probably DLC territory.

So yes. I'd like to eventually see CVs in the game.

[Fishyfish]

On 8/26/2021 at 9:13 AM, Commander-Alexander-Reed said:

The only use I see for destroyers are that they are cheaper over light cruisers, or taking on a transport hunter role. 
Or - if added, Submarines.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no naval expert.

 

On 8/26/2021 at 3:28 PM, Skeksis said:

I have wondered what role destroyers will play in the campaign too, bigger is better so DD or CL?

Everyone can tag destroyers along for the ride, to be historical and all, but what going to stop us 'gaming' the battle and ignoring destroyers altogether.

If the battle generator creates a DD vs DD battle but you don't have any, will it pull a CL?

Many questions, all soon to be answered. 
 

 

Remember, Destroyers were originally developed as TBDs, Torpedo Boat Destroyers. In short, bigger torpedo boats whose primary function was to screen aganist and chase down torpedo boats. I'd wager they'd have much the same role in the campaign. A light screening craft designed to chase down other light craft but have enough bite the form of torpedos to hamper heavier warships. 

Light/protected cruisers have a different traditional role, that of scouting and commerce raiding and showing the flag. "Crusing warships" with range as their primary attribute. 

Both are fast in comparison to BBs, but destroyers are faster shorter ranged ships. CLs just need to catch transports. 

When pondering the campaign reflect on ship range, a function currently ignored and only used to get more available weight in the custom battle generator. And also consider costs, building, fueling and maintenance as well as need/role requirements. 

One thing we have no information on in regards to the campaign is our budget. We have an idea of how much every little module is going to cost but how much money will we have to work with? 

Jack of all trade CLs could be a gamer move to fill both needs but whats it going to do to your budget? Will CLs in a screening or domestic water zone of operations be a waste if money?

Ill bet building specifically designed ships to fit specific rolls as econonically as possible may be a better route than gaming the system, unless money is no real issue. 

[Wowzery]

Currently, no to CVs.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Fishyfish]

4 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Well you seem to be full of life lately!

Economic reasons are as good as any to include them but if you also put aside symbolic needs, then what's left is there weapon attribute... 

I can see late era DDs 'going to guns' and pumping out the DPM but with early DD gunnery it just not going to do anything meaningful. As torpedo delivery system, yeah, you could launch multiple torpedo attacks with 1890 DDs and take down something bigger, even a fleet, but as CLs, they can do the same torpedo attack. As for the AI side, it's going to need alot of them just to get past your CLs, but if you try to fight them of with DDs, you not going to do so well, they just don't have the DPM. For the player, it's a win-win all the way with CLs.

For the economical side of the early campaign, DDs are going to have to be as cheap as chips, otherwise, it's going to be hard pressed to include them, I just don't foresee them as viable option, currently! unless it's artificial. 

Anyway we only have to wait a few more days to see all, hopefully they just like give it, we'll take it anyway it comes! 

I can't really argue with you that from a game mechanics perspective as we currently know them there isn't any good reason to take DDs over CLs, I can only guess at campaign features hitherto unknown to us that may force our hand to need them. Maybe some sort of artificial restrictions? Tonnage Treaties? Or something like the convoy protection requirements from RTW in which only destroyers work? Maybe one needs to look at it through the lense of role-playing for role-playings sake? I just dont know. 

 

And I'm always here, I just mostly lurk, read, hide in coral and do fishy things. 

[Cpt.Hissy]

yep with what this game was doing so far, it's easy to forget that evolution of naval forces was a thing. If campaign can simulate that well enough, it'll create the need for everything naturally.

[AurumCorvus]

"Artificial DD inclusion" is definitely a thing RTW2 did (unintentional or not), apart from convoy protection. When it generated "Cruiser actions", it'd throw in CLs with CAs, BCs, and 27kt+ BBs. At that point, the CLs were liability. Hell, even the CAs were liabilities if the other side had a good BC squadron (usually in the Med or the North Sea), or even the "pocket battleship" CAs with 11" guns. So instead of CLs, I'd try to build ships to the upper limit of a DD, and then focus on the 'pocket battleship' CAs or BCs.

 

Especially with CVs, BCs and CAs just completely drown out the CLs, because they can keep up with the CVs as a screening force unlike most BBs, which raises their value far above what they already have from just the Cruiser action mission. Mind you, multiple 6" guns on large DDs does bring them to the very edge of "CL" range.

[Jatzi]

Aircraft should be in the game but they won't be added. The development of this game has been rocky lol. So they won't be added. From the very beginning I've said it should be like Rule the Waves and Rule the Waves 2. Rule the Waves 1 had no aircraft, 2 does. Complete this game then maybe add them or make a new one that has them or whatever. As of right now though aircraft don't even factor into the equation with all the issues the game has, how far it needs to come. 

[Cdodders]

I would like aircraft ingame, because that means AA guns and that makes me happy

[ThatZenoGuy]

Carriers should be in any WW2 naval game end of story. However the game does not seem like it can handle it remotely.

[ThatZenoGuy]

On 8/29/2021 at 3:06 AM, AurumCorvus said:

"Artificial DD inclusion" is definitely a thing RTW2 did (unintentional or not), apart from convoy protection. When it generated "Cruiser actions", it'd throw in CLs with CAs, BCs, and 27kt+ BBs. At that point, the CLs were liability. Hell, even the CAs were liabilities if the other side had a good BC squadron (usually in the Med or the North Sea), or even the "pocket battleship" CAs with 11" guns. So instead of CLs, I'd try to build ships to the upper limit of a DD, and then focus on the 'pocket battleship' CAs or BCs.

 

Especially with CVs, BCs and CAs just completely drown out the CLs, because they can keep up with the CVs as a screening force unlike most BBs, which raises their value far above what they already have from just the Cruiser action mission. Mind you, multiple 6" guns on large DDs does bring them to the very edge of "CL" range.

Jesus don't get me started with RTW2...

CL, CA, and BC are all classified as basically the same thing, meaning you might as well not build anything but huge BC's because then you'll be thrown into battles where your single BC eliminates the entire enemy nations CL force. And if you want a cool cruiser army, good luck because the game will throw your 8000 ton cruisers against a 65 thousand ton battleship (which shouldn't even be in cruiser battles in the first place!????) with predictable results.