CVs - Ye, Nah, Maybe, Could careless.

[Tousansons]

The best strategy with them in RTW2:

You just take some prestige loss here and there when the minister is mad at you for not having any cruisers.

[prreich]

If the main focus of the game was 1860s-1920s then no, but as of now there seems to be a heavier emphasis on ww2 era and beyond super battleships more than the dreadnought and before era. If you're going to focus on late game then yes I think you need subs and cvs to balance, but at the rate things are going.... well 

[Captain Basilone]

CVs. No. It pushes away from battleships to air combat. If we must include aircraft I could be take up the argument on floatplanes or seaplane tenders.

[Jatzi]

On 8/30/2021 at 1:44 AM, ThatZenoGuy said:

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.

We've had different experiences with RTW 2 lol. I mean sure sometimes, very rarely stuff like that happens to me. But mostly I get CL v CL fights, or BC vs BC or CA vs CA. Sometimes CAs or BCs show up against my CLs or CLs show up against my CA but very rarely and usually I can run. Sometimes not but so what? I read on the forums about people complaining about battles not going their way and like yeah that's probably the point. The game would be pretty boring if you always won. And A BC running up against CA's and CL's isn't like a bad thing, that's who theyre supposed to fight. BB's show up sometimes as a support force in cruiser actions, on both sides. Usually not hard to avoid so it's whatever to me.

[ThatZenoGuy]

7 hours ago, Jatzi said:

We've had different experiences with RTW 2 lol. I mean sure sometimes, very rarely stuff like that happens to me. But mostly I get CL v CL fights, or BC vs BC or CA vs CA. Sometimes CAs or BCs show up against my CLs or CLs show up against my CA but very rarely and usually I can run. Sometimes not but so what? I read on the forums about people complaining about battles not going their way and like yeah that's probably the point. The game would be pretty boring if you always won. And A BC running up against CA's and CL's isn't like a bad thing, that's who theyre supposed to fight. BB's show up sometimes as a support force in cruiser actions, on both sides. Usually not hard to avoid so it's whatever to me.

The problem is that murphy's law exists, if something can go wrong, it WILL go wrong.

Why build CL's when inevitably they will cost you more money over the long run than CA's or BC's?

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

4 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

The problem is that murphy's law exists, if something can go wrong, it WILL go wrong.

Why build CL's when inevitably they will cost you more money over the long run than CA's or BC's?

Agreed. 

I currently have a "no CL" policy in RTW2 and it works great with the AI quickly running out of CLs, since my CAs turn them into artificial reefs rather quickly.

[ThatZenoGuy]

3 hours ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

Agreed. 

I currently have a "no CL" policy in RTW2 and it works great with the AI quickly running out of CLs, since my CAs turn them into artificial reefs rather quickly.

Yeah my best successes are by building ships that explicitly beat CL's. Because the AI will continue to build 5000 ton CL's well into the 30's IIRC, which you can trivially crush with larger ships.

[Hangar18]

On 8/24/2021 at 12:55 PM, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

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.

 

thats exactly how rule the waves did it. thats a fantastic game.

[AurumCorvus]

20 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

thats exactly how rule the waves did it. thats a fantastic game.

And RTW2 had carriers and it's also a great game. UAD would have to make a few jumps to get it working, but getting CVs as an optional expansion would not be an unworkable option. In fact, with how super battleships and 20in guns are shaping up to be unbeatable (have you seen the deck penetration values for a 20in gun?), CVs might eventually even be necessary for balance purposes.

But, still, I would not want CVs as a baseline mandatory thing. UAD has great potential as a fun alternate history sim, and a part of it should be going down the insane super battleship route.

[Hangar18]

On 9/3/2021 at 9:57 PM, AurumCorvus said:

And RTW2 had carriers and it's also a great game. UAD would have to make a few jumps to get it working, but getting CVs as an optional expansion would not be an unworkable option. In fact, with how super battleships and 20in guns are shaping up to be unbeatable (have you seen the deck penetration values for a 20in gun?), CVs might eventually even be necessary for balance purposes.

But, still, I would not want CVs as a baseline mandatory thing. UAD has great potential as a fun alternate history sim, and a part of it should be going down the insane super battleship route.

Its crazy to me that WG has goofed their game so bad it has people afraid for other entirely different types of game to be afraid of CVS

[Tousansons]

3 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Its crazy to me that WG has goofed their game so bad it has people afraid for other entirely different types of game to be afraid of CVS

I don't know if it's WG fault. But like RTW 2 compared to RTW 1, World of Warships have shown that CV gameplay is an entirely different beast than the standard sweaty BB's brawl. When they're in the equation, ships turn into targets or glorified AA's plate-form while planes range and first strike is the defining factor. UA:D is not anywhere ready to show that kind of gameplay, in my opinion.

On the other hand you are right, there's a "fear" of CV's. The impression that their implementation will change Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnought into Ultimate: Dive Bombers. That a game about the Dreadnoughts era will end up in a course for the first operational CV task force. If you bought the game because you want to build a better Bismarck, you probably don't want to end up building Graf Zeppelin.

As a final thought I'll repeat myself by saying that UA:D made the mistake of expanding it's time period well after the 1930.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Stormnet]

On 9/12/2021 at 8:45 AM, Skeksis said:

I've come to realize that earlier hulls are very limited in choices. Even if you could have the equivalent in hull numbers it wouldn't matter, they're small sized with low free deck space for options. These older historical ships have bulky superstructures with little or no room for options and mostly all would have fixed placeholders. And early tech is just as limiting. 

Yeah, they are a bit limiting. But people want them, so we want at least visual variety on them. They are 2 thirds of the early game content after all, and people still want to make these forgotten casemated things.

On 9/12/2021 at 8:45 AM, Skeksis said:

From dreadnoughts onwards the options for customization grows, it builds variety, it builds immersion, it builds the value of 'Designer Tool'.

And that's the key right there, designing ships, everything passes through here, it's where the focus is and therefore it's got to have the premium features and the best way to do that is with maximizing options, i.e. with free deck space. Including supers with there supersized deck space. Like it's the very nature of 'Designer Tool' that force out modern hulls.

Yeah, people like big ships they can customize. The issue is, we dont want just big ships. Variety and immersion dont come in just seeing diverse (and unlrealistic) modern big ships. We also want the tiny ones, the old ones, etc. If you just fought large modern BBs and BCs for the entire game, you would be bored no matter how diverse their design was. 
The issue is not big ships being a thing. Without aircraft becoming dominant, SBBs are the mandatory end-game content. We want big ships. But they are still end-game content. You have 4 decades (in-game) of gameplay before you can start building these (and assuming you even have the resources), early, mid, and late game are still a thing, and you wont play throught an entire undeveloped game mode just to get to the last part where things get interesting. The issue is not modern big ships being a thing, the issue is them having so much attention in neglect of other classes and eras.

On 9/12/2021 at 8:45 AM, Skeksis said:

How many post were there of "give us more placement options", well Dev's answered them and they answered some of it with modern hulls and there free deck space (including freeing up dreadnought placeholders too). And there are no more posts of such either.

Yes we want "more placement options", but not really in the sence of large deck space. We wanted modular hulls, custom superstructures, turret designer, more actually unique hulls. We dont want a laundry list of copypasted big ships with the same parts because muh deck space. Yes, it helps, but it only goes so far before it just becomes tedious and repetitive.

On 9/12/2021 at 8:45 AM, Skeksis said:

This too has seemed like another reason(s) for late era ships to thrive. Post dreadnought hulls was inevitable. Maybe not a "mistake"!

Yes, late era ships were more likely to thrive. And I agree, post dreadnought hulls were inevitable. The major issue is that now large post dreadnought hulls seem to be the only meta, and its clear they are getting far more attention from the devs. Other classes, sizes, and eras have been neglected.

As said, I dissagree with Tousansons.  Personally, I want big and even huge ships to exist. But I also want pre-dreadnoughts, semi-dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts, DDs, CLs, CAs, TPs (maybe even transports?), small battleships, and such. Big modern ships are cool and awesome, but they are not the entire game. This is not another WW2 naval kombat game. This is a game inspired in RTW, and thus must develop all eras from the late 1800s/early 1900s till the end of WW2.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Stormnet

[Commander Reed]

100% Agree with what has been said above.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[AurumCorvus]

19 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Its crazy to me that WG has goofed their game so bad it has people afraid for other entirely different types of game to be afraid of CVS

No. Just no.

I love RTW2 b/c of the CVs. The aspect of managing air strikes, CAP, and recon, all while maneuvering a traditional line of battle is pure ecstasy. Pure. Ecstasy.

However, there are sometimes that I just want a game where I have 89k ton BBs duking it out with each other with 20" guns, while 30-40k ton "BCs" act as screening forces, with traditional CAs being vaporized like puny destroyers in the face of ultimate broadside firepower. And RTW2 has the ability to "slow" aircraft dev down, but that's still not enough sometimes to honestly scratch that itch, especially in the late game where there are still aircraft, and they are fairly decent even on 'slow'.

I just want an option to turn off aircraft and carriers and let the big-guns settle things in an honorable duel on the high seas! Sometimes. Sometimes I just want to sink the bastard with a 200 dive bomber airstrike without him ever seeing me. The potential for variety is key.

[Spitfire109]

On 8/24/2021 at 10:28 AM, Fishyfish said:

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. 

I like what the Moray said. As much as I adore CVs and Carrier warfare. (Enterprise, its a sin they didn't save you.) but they need to finish the battleship piece of this puzzle. That being said I wont be mad if they add them, but I want more ships for the ww1 and below eras first and AMCs are a must.
Id be okay if Cargo ship refit carriers were really the full extent.

[Tousansons]

On 9/12/2021 at 9:45 AM, Skeksis said:

From dreadnoughts onwards the options for customization grows, it builds variety, it builds immersion, it builds the value of 'Designer Tool'.

No.

The more you progress, the less you design different ships and the more you end up with one "super" with "super" guns, "super" armor, "super" radar, torpedoes, torpedo protection and so on. Powercreep is the bane of any diversity. it promote the need to reach one "super" goal that beat all the others. It eliminate any opposition that is not "super".

And how do you beat "super"? With "hyper", added some time later. That one will also be beaten with "omegasuper" and so on.

Now. Will the campaign allow to dominate the playfield with "super" or will it balance it is another question that we can't answer yet.

To conclude: I don't know how my comment about carriers have been twisted to such extent but I won't budge. Past 1930+ in UA:D make no sense. It's a fantasy world of bigger ships (which isn't bad in itself) that somehow retain dual purpose guns, AA nest and modern superstructures designed to maximize AA concentration (really immersive by the way). It's a mistake. Be it due to the absence of carriers or the fact that "bigger numbers" doesn't mean "more content". And as much as I love some WW2 designs, I have more fun watching 2 pre-dreadnought firing at 8 km than waiting for my Yamato shells to plunge towards some Iowa knockoff.

 

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Tousansons]

3 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Doesn't sound so bad!

Yes, all style and no substance.

[Draco]

Would be nice to have, but like you say cap, no reason implementing it anytime soon when there are so many issues for the devs to fix already. I'd almost prefer it be a DLC just so stuff like campaign, AI improvements and more realism for the ship designer can be addressed.

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

While I still think carriers are a long ways off, if they are even implemented at all (It doesn't matter to me), the big question besides implementation is "how do we counter them?" It's something I've put a lot of thought into since my first post in this thread.

As it stands right now, UA:D doesn't have any AA guns or Dual Purpose guns. I'm well aware that one could make the case that AA and DP guns "do technically" exist and could point to the US 5 inch main/secondary guns, the German 3-4 inch secondary guns, the French 2" and 4" quadruple secondary guns, and many of the Japanese secondary options since they resemble the high-angle mounts that were common place among many dual purpose guns. Those guns in question however, are merely modeled  after their real-life counterparts (such as the 5"/38 caliber DP secondary for the US or the 40mm Quad-Bofors gun). The the designation "Dual Purpose" implies that the gun has two intended purposes, but in the current build of UA:D...every gun only has one purpose: anit-shipping. So I would argue that despite the models being there, the game currently has NO AA or DP guns, as the other half of their "purpose" doesn't exist yet and likely won't for some time.

Now, onto superstructures that are basically built to allow for the heavy concentration of AA guns. I feel like the big culprits here are the US Navy and Japanese Navy. Now, obviously that makes sense as the Pacific War was basically defined by Aircraft Carriers, but even to that point, I feel like until you get to the Modern Battleship hulls and superstructures...that isn't really an issue as up until Pearl Harbor happened, most ship's (which were overwhelmingly dreadnought style designs) AA defenses, regardless of nationality, can best be described by "machine guns or autocannons and a small complement of bigger guns ranging in size from 3 to 5 inches."

I wouldn't go so far as to say that UA:D past the year 1930 is a mistake, though. I feel like it's just the fact that once you get to the 1940s, knowing how WWII went and looking at what every other WWII Naval game has basically done, people just expect that carriers will be there along with DP and AA guns, and how you feel about those said carriers will vary widely based on past experiences. While I don't care either way about carriers, the question of carriers in a "semi-realistic" game that goes up to the 1940s or beyond will always have those who want carriers because of "well, you added historical ships such as X, Y, and Z...where are the carriers?" and those who don't want carriers because of literally any reason (though I suspect that WG is probably a big component of that and people don't want another WoWs).

 

TL;DR   Dual Purpose and AA guns don't technically exist, but their models are there and even though some superstructures seem to be designed around maximizing AA concentration...would it really do anything productive to remove them on the premise of "Aircraft aren't in the game, so why do we need ships with superstructures that can accommodate mass amounts of AA guns?" While I agree with much of what @Tousansons said above, particularly about liking to watch pre-dreadnoughts slug it out from point blank range more than I do waiting for my roided out KGV to finally hit and sink an equally roided out Russain BB from 25 km away...I am also perfectly fine with using all those "AA Gun" spots on the Iowa Class superstructure for mounting 2 and 3 inch guns for ripping apart destroyers that come to close. In the end, they'll do what they want to regarding carriers and all that entails...but if they do implement them, so long as they don't wind up like WoWs or worse or become the main focus of the game, I probably still won't care.

Edited September 17, 2021 by HistoricalAccuracyMan

[Commander Reed]

Yeah, I agree with Zeno. I'd love to design an aircraft carrier - However I cannot see that happening whatsoever, even if they were implemented, they'd probably not be designable and would just be pre-made for you to use. 

However, after the game is finished, or close to completion, should this even be considered.