Designing subs and aircraft carriers, and other ship types

[Calvitonks]

Hello, I have a question: are there any plans long-term wise, to one day for we to design submarines, aircraft carriers, and even merchant ships? The Merchant ships are already implemented but are designed by the AI. What about more custom designs, like cheaper and faster to build, or is capable of carrying more cargo? About the submarines, you mention that they are going to be implemented, yet more as a "special tool" rather than proper ships. Why not add the capability for one to design the submarines?

And finally, the matter of the aircraft carriers. I've already played it a few times the game, and that helped me realize truly how much of a changer the introduction of these types of vessels to naval warfare. Battleships are cool and all, yet now if given the chance, I would build the entire navy of the nation I'm playing around with the aircraft carriers. They now feel way more useful and attractive, once I realistically tested ship vs ship combat.

Perhaps other people already asked for this, yet there is no problem confirming my doubts. I hope you find these inquiries interesting.

[Tycondero]

As the game seems to stand now, I believe that none of these assets will be designable by the player. For one, aircraft carriers are likely not going to be in this game for the foreseeable future. Submarines will be in the game, but should only affect campaign gameplay by sinking transports and occasionally naval ships in transit. Transports seem unlikely to be intended to be designable, as they are not really naval control assets anyway and represent the civilian merchant fleet of a nation. 

I think the only asset that is going to be in the game and would warrant design by the player could be submarines. Some basic aspects such as range, number of torpedoes, number of torpedo tubes, deck guns, speed, battery life/range, and maximum depth could be interesting to be defined by the player as this might affect their mission efficiency, role and cost.

[Calvitonks]

Well, the subs are understandable: we're going to use them already, so the idea of designing custom classes of subs is not so far behind. I would love to be capable of designing submarine classes like the french Surcouf or the Japanese I-400 class.

And the carrier not being implemented soon? Sure, as the game stands that sure would be a great undertaking (perhaps worth a DLC). For those reasons, I don't mind waiting, so long as they announce to one day implement them.

[Iuvenalis]

Designing subs to use in battle would be kind of pointless for the purposes of this game since the battles represent surface actions. A "fleet submarine" was a real thing, intended to operate as part of a battle fleet. In practice, it didn't work and the idea was mostly abandoned. While submarines might coordinate with the battle fleet, their engagements were really separate from surface actions. They're an important strategic weapon which is why the devs are going to work them into the campaign but they have little tactical value in a fleet vs fleet surface action, unless they happened to get REALLY lucky and end up being in just the right place at the right time.

Carriers obviously did engage other fleets but carriers were the end of the armored ship combat the game depicts. Having them in game would be less fun than you think. The very LAST thing a carrier wants to do is get in a gun battle. While sometimes cruisers and other surface combatants did engage carriers, it was generally a case of the carrier simply getting caught with its pants down. The battle off Samar is an example, which would have been a turkey shoot if the Japanese didn't incorrectly identify the escort carriers as fleet carriers and were thus WAY off with their range estimates. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar) If you didn't like when they AI used to just run away and you'd spend 70% of your battles just chasing them, well, that would be a ship vs. carrier engagement. It just doesn't lend well to this game.

Designing transports could be MILDLY useful, but ultimately, I don't think it would add that much.

 

[Pizzafighter]

28 minutes ago, Iuvenalis said:

Designing subs to use in battle would be kind of pointless for the purposes of this game since the battles represent surface actions. A "fleet submarine" was a real thing, intended to operate as part of a battle fleet. In practice, it didn't work and the idea was mostly abandoned. While submarines might coordinate with the battle fleet, their engagements were really separate from surface actions. They're an important strategic weapon which is why the devs are going to work them into the campaign but they have little tactical value in a fleet vs fleet surface action, unless they happened to get REALLY lucky and end up being in just the right place at the right time.

Carriers obviously did engage other fleets but carriers were the end of the armored ship combat the game depicts. Having them in game would be less fun than you think. The very LAST thing a carrier wants to do is get in a gun battle. While sometimes cruisers and other surface combatants did engage carriers, it was generally a case of the carrier simply getting caught with its pants down. The battle off Samar is an example, which would have been a turkey shoot if the Japanese didn't incorrectly identify the escort carriers as fleet carriers and were thus WAY off with their range estimates. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar) If you didn't like when they AI used to just run away and you'd spend 70% of your battles just chasing them, well, that would be a ship vs. carrier engagement. It just doesn't lend well to this game.

Designing transports could be MILDLY useful, but ultimately, I don't think it would add that much.

 

well, due it is mentioned in the research-tree, I guess submarines will come sooner or later

[Iuvenalis]

8 minutes ago, Pizzafighter said:

well, due it is mentioned in the research-tree, I guess submarines will come sooner or later

Right, I said that. They're going to be included on a strategic level in the campaign, but not as a unit to deploy and fight in battle.

[AurumCorvus]

On 7/15/2022 at 12:45 PM, Iuvenalis said:

Carriers obviously did engage other fleets but carriers were the end of the armored ship combat the game depicts. Having them in game would be less fun than you think. The very LAST thing a carrier wants to do is get in a gun battle. While sometimes cruisers and other surface combatants did engage carriers, it was generally a case of the carrier simply getting caught with its pants down. The battle off Samar is an example, which would have been a turkey shoot if the Japanese didn't incorrectly identify the escort carriers as fleet carriers and were thus WAY off with their range estimates. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar) If you didn't like when they AI used to just run away and you'd spend 70% of your battles just chasing them, well, that would be a ship vs. carrier engagement. It just doesn't lend well to this game.

 

To add to your point: I highly encourage people to explore Rule the Waves 2 (and/or its sequel RtW3 which will be on Steam... soon-ish) to show the difference between gun-based warfare and plane-based warfare. War on the Sea also is a good game to show the difference, though it's nowhere near complete.

Guns and battleships are what UAD is currently built for. It's all about maneuvering on a very tactical level, masking/unmasking guns, and picking the correct targets. It's also a very pressed action, as once combat is engaged, the majority of the battle happens right now.

Carrier-based gameplay is wildly different. First, the range is huge. A gun shooting out 20km is extreme range for battleships. For carriers, that's not knife-fighting range; that's like being so close that you can't even properly punch the other person. As a corollary to the range, a huge part of carrier-based warfare is just sitting around and waiting for your scouts to report back and try to decipher their reports (which may be garbled, incorrectly coded, or just flat-out wrong). RtW does a great job of showing this; in the pre-dread era, the sea is huge. In the battleship era, the sea is still big. In the carrier era? The sea is downright tiny. For example, in the Med, you have no room to maneuver your carriers effectively, while just the Adriatic Sea is big enough to have an entire pre-dread war.

When you finally think you know where the enemy is, you put together one attack. It's not a gun battle where you lob hundreds of shells while slowly adjusting yourself. You send out one attack and hope that it finds the enemy. If you fail, you're vulnerable until they come back. It also takes time to put together this one attack. Hiryu during the Battle of Midway was able to put two attacks against Yorktown with a gap of two hours in between (launch times of 11:00 and 13:31). This is one of the best Japanese carrier crews working under tremendous pressure as the sole surviving carrier. Carrier battles just work on an entirely different time scale than battleships.

So, yeah. UAD is not built for an appropriate scale yet. Would I like to see it eventually? Yes. Actually putting graphics to carrier battles would be awesome, and the design-your-ship element of AA and aviation would be awesome. But it's not likely to bring the game any closer to completion (rather, it's more like opening an entirely new can), so it should be a DLC at the very least.

[Skeksis]

1 hour ago, AurumCorvus said:

I highly encourage people to explore Rule the Waves 2

Lol, why would anyone go back to 2D turn based battles cast in spreadsheet formats. RTW2 was inspirational but that's as far as it goes, it could never surpass 3D designer tool and 3D battles in real time.

I would say RTW2 falls in the 'nostalgic' category, along side Red Alert, Doom and such. 
 

[o Barão]

49 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Lol, why would anyone go back to 2D turn based battles cast in spreadsheet formats. RTW2 was inspirational but that's as far as it goes, it could never surpass 3D designer tool and 3D battles in real time.

I would say RTW2 falls in the 'nostalgic' category, along side Red Alert, Doom and such. 
 

Is rtw turn based?

[Skeksis]

50 minutes ago, o Barão said:

Is rtw turn based?

In both campaign and battles. Battles you press the spacebar for units to move, a turn, or you can auto-move x amount of turns or go continuous turns until enemy contact is made, then it's back to the spacebar.

I'm referring to move via timer-ticks as RT, and move to executing point as TB.

Edited July 16, 2022 by Skeksis

[UncleAi]

Obviously there will be SS, probably like RTW.  Small/Medium/Long range. They can attack merchant ships and capital ships without good escort.

Carriers, probably not. It will severely change the rule of war and it is not the game's name. But I do hope there will be observation floatplane. They can scout enemy and directing battleship fire. I think a alternative way for CV is like SS in RTW. Ships has an anti-air capacity number based on their weapon, radar, and training. CV have an air superiority number based on  their fighter number, quality and pilot exp; a ship attack number based on their dive and torpedo bomber. No real CV or shipboard aircraft model.

The main usage of CL and DD is: 1. Scout 2. Torpedo attack 3. Stop enemy torpedo attack 4. Anti submarine 5. Anti air. But now without SS and CV many small ships and small calibre weapons are not that useful.

Merchant ships is used by civilian and peace time. Even in WW2 most merchant ships is just 8-12 kn. Only very modern merchant ships can reach 15-18 kn. Only a few cruise liner can reach 20+ kn. And a fleet's speed is decided by the slowest ship. Japanese Navy invested several high speed liner designed to be converted to an aircraft carrier in the event of war. (Izumo Maru to Hiyo; Kashiwara Maru to Junyo). It is unrealistic to make all your merchant ships to high speed. But it is possible to add some small calibre weapons (4 inch) on the deck.

[AurumCorvus]

4 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Lol, why would anyone go back to 2D turn based battles cast in spreadsheet formats. RTW2 was inspirational but that's as far as it goes, it could never surpass 3D designer tool and 3D battles in real time.

I would say RTW2 falls in the 'nostalgic' category, along side Red Alert, Doom and such. 
 

But sadly nobody has made a good enough 3D counterpart; even UAD is struggling to reach the scope and breadth of RtW2, let alone what has been confirmed for RtW3.

So, yes, I will continue to promote RtW2, until we get something near there.

[Vanhal]

Please no, there is enough of that everywhere. Let us enjoy just one single game without those pests.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Vanhal

[Wowzery]

No to carriers.  It just wouldn't work in the current battle format.

Personally, I dislike carriers in RtW2.  Its a great game until aircraft come along then it bogs down.

[Lastreaumont]

Please put submarine design into Ultimate admiral: Submarines and carriers design into Ultimate admiral: Carriers. Please do not polluate this game with these (censored) ships. Don't do the same mistake as Wargaming with World of Warships. 

[Lakel]

9 hours ago, Lastreaumont said:

Please put submarine design into Ultimate admiral: Submarines and carriers design into Ultimate admiral: Carriers. Please do not polluate this game with these (censored) ships. Don't do the same mistake as Wargaming with World of Warships. 

Even in the case of subs being in this game as a tactical unit, they would be very different from the catastrophe of "submarine" that WG managed to dream up. Even your 20 knot Dreadnaughts would leave them in the dust  when you turn and run. Among other changes.

[LeoA]

Ultimately it's up to the devs to decide whether or not CVs fit the scope of the game, but I'm favorable to their addition. No matter how you look at it, CVs were the most important (and expensive) type of ship and were responsible for single-handedly winning and losing wars in the time period. The objective of whole (sea) campaigns over WW2 has been to locate and destroy the enemy CVs with no regard for any other class of ship, particularly in the Pacific. The decimation of the Kido Butai at Midway was decisive for the IJN campaign and arguably heavier than losing any other ship, including their Yamato class BBs.

On the matter of gameplay, adding CVs adds another layer of depth to the battles and I think that's pretty interesting. Ships now have to be designed with their AA complement in mind, having to sacrifice elsewhere to fit this kind of armament, or simply not doing so and relying on other escorts for AA cover. Also opens up other interesting design options, such as the Ise-class 1942 refit, and floatplanes/catapults in general. CVs themselves offer several design choices, such as having a decent secondary/AA complement or armor/safety for the planes in the hangars within, or to focus solely on aircraft output/power projection at the risk of catastrophe when struck. All that is good for gameplay IMO and makes the game much more interesting. By having CVs you'd have war deciding ships that you'd better protect at all cost because they're irreplaceable. This, coupled with potent AI, makes the game a whole different beast on the strategic level. 

With all that being said, I don't see why subs would be in the game if CVs wouldn't. Not that subs weren't important, but they weren't exactly the combat ships many people seem to think they were, as has already been pointed out. 

[Lakel]

3 hours ago, LeoA said:

No matter how you look at it, CVs were the most important (and expensive) type of ship and were responsible for single-handedly winning and losing wars in the time period.

Literally the reason people do not want CVs in the game. Let the BB have its fictional  timeline where the wright brothers crashed and burned along with every other attempt.

[Lastreaumont]

On 8/2/2022 at 1:39 AM, Lakel said:

Literally the reason people do not want CVs in the game. Let the BB have its fictional  timeline where the wright brothers crashed and burned along with every other attempt.

Yes, that's it!

Including CV also means including planes operating from ground (not the main force in Pacific, but important in Mediterranean sea or North sea and English Channel). And planes will become the focus of the game instead of ships. 
Another thing to take into account is the knowledge of history. We know CV will become the kings of sea, most of the other ships types will become obsolete, and what will become the most important and useful. So, as soon as the CV become available, you know you can scrap the majority of your fleet, to build only small ships (up to CA maybe) with as many AA as possible, and CV with as many planes as possible. Because this is all you need for CV battles. 
Sorry, but this gameplay does not appeal to me. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by Lastreaumont
Translation mistakes corrections

[o Barão]

9 hours ago, Lakel said:

 Let the BB have its fictional  timeline where the wright brothers crashed and burned along with every other attempt.

Let's not forget Santos Dumont. But you make a good point. It is a fictional timeline. A sandbox game from 1890 to 1950. So if it is a sandbox game, and we don't have WWI, then we could argue the plane technology advances would be slower to what we had IRL.

Of course, this is just a simple excuse to why we don't need carriers in game. 😁

[Sphere]

This game should probably just stick to "dreadnought" battles. Get that right and get the campaign into good place and be content.

That being said, the threat of aircraft brought a lot tension into warship design at the end of the games timespan. It might be interesting to introduce this late in the game as a third threat (the first two being shells, and torpedo's) that you have to balance your designs/fleet around. It's not obvious how you'd do this without ruining the core aspects of the game. I don't think CV's on the battle map would ever be a good idea, but you could maybe abstract them in someway. No need for it to be historically accurate, just a way to make the late game more interesting, because right now once you hit the dreadnought hull, designs get a little monotonous.  

[Faolind]

You could add CVs the same way you add Submarines- Simply an invisible strategic resource that deals attrition.

If Sonar and Torpedo blisters help you deter submarine attrition, then AA and your own CVs helps deter CV attrition. Airbases are simply cheap immobile CVs per the system.

Add generic Submarine and CV tech levels, Airplane tech levels (similar to Torpedo tech levels) and you're done!

This way our battles don't get screwed up but we still get to take AA design into account and get beautiful AA hedgehog ships per WW2 design.

Slowly towards the end of the timeline, Aircraft and Submarine techs may begin to deal significant attrition (your whole fleet in 2-3 years, or so), and thus showcase the end of the dreadnought without EVER taking away gameplay.

[Hibbidyhai]

Aircraft carriers were such a paradigm shift in real life that adding them in only a tangential way as a campaign asset actually feels less realistic than having it be an alternate timeline where airplanes don't exist. Because if they had aircraft they'd be using them to devastate enemy battleships, and not just deal attrition damage.