|
Post by dizzy on Oct 5, 2019 13:20:53 GMT -6
UA:D needs a space ship sequel.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Oct 5, 2019 13:26:07 GMT -6
I just read UA:D articles on the site after watching Tortuga's stream. UA:D seems to be a very awesome RTW1 3D remake. But as someone who loves carrier warfare more than line tactics battles, this isn't my cup of coffee. Visuals look superb, and the level of simulation is amazing. But I wonder if/how campaign can be different. One of the current RtW issues I see on campaign/world map gameplay loop, is small amount of leverage/impact/influence you have over what is going to happen next. Massing/removing ships in regions and targeting bases as invasion targets are pretty much the only moves you have. Well, apart from being able to accept and decline missions you are offered and the way you act in missions you can't decline. Warfare doctrines, strategic/operational priorities - things that are lacking in RtW, and UA:D blog entries don't mention as well. So it would be interesting to see if they'd be able to come up with something more in this area. Another thing to note is that the UA:D ship editor, while gives more options and granularity, makes you fight more with the UI (part placement) rather than play with actual stats/capabilities. I may have gotten a wrong impression on this because I only saw one video, but from having played many games with ship designers, I see greater value in RtW's ship designer focus on tweaking numbers that matter and change capabilities instead of having to play with individual element placement (a UI issue). Not to say that being able to play with actual 3d models/ship parts isn't fun in itself. It is fun, but sets a different goal and feel. And is differently important for various types of demographics. Overall, I think competition is always great. Hope to see UA:D game sequel with carrier warfare in the future ;D If the devs end up making the base code/mod changes Tortuga's been asking for it might be possible to create an entirely separate battle generator or strategic campaign system We know they're making changes to allow more modding but we don't know what they are yet
|
|
|
Post by nordlys on Oct 5, 2019 14:48:49 GMT -6
3D I couldn't care less about, but I'd love RTW combat and shipbuilding mechanics being paired with a proper grand strategy game like Hearts of Iron.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Oct 5, 2019 15:29:29 GMT -6
^ This is why I was so, so enthusiastic about Victory at Sea: Pacific, but then it promptly fell flat on it's face.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Oct 5, 2019 16:52:38 GMT -6
Some of the vids I saw were demonstrating lag problems with less than a dozen ships. I'd be interested to see Jutland attempted in that game.
|
|
|
Post by orkel on Oct 6, 2019 7:27:49 GMT -6
RTW2 is still the king when it comes to realism. If you want a game that simulates naval combat, you go RTW2.
I bought and played UA:D yesterday. UA:D looks promising and the alpha version is of high quality, but it's a very different game. I wouldn't call it "3D RTW" at all. Still, I can't wait to see how it will develop over the months and years. I strongly believe it'll become one of the best naval combat games out there.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 6, 2019 11:27:48 GMT -6
I think people here are making a similar argument to Star Wars vs Star Trek arguments: this strange idea that the 2 are mutually exclusive. I enjoy both Wars and Trek, because they are different things. Yes, they are similar, but only superficially.
This is the same. There are 2 sides; the ones who think RTW should be 3D, and the ones who think it should be made feature-complete and bug-free. Like Wars vs Trek, these are not mutually exclusive. If there isn't the budget to do both, do one and then the other. There is no reason why they can't both be done, given time.
Incidentally, I'd be quite happy to pay extra to get a 3D RTW game. I'd be quite happy to pay, say, £10 extra, even if it was just for 3D replays rather than live gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Oct 6, 2019 11:37:37 GMT -6
To build a game like UA:D probably required a 20 to 30 person team working over 18 to 24 months. RTW2 was programmed, and the vast majority of graphics were produced, by one man. One man that listens very closely to what you guys want and tries very hared to provide that. Unfortunately, 3D graphics are just not on the table.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Oct 6, 2019 12:26:34 GMT -6
To build a game like UA:D probably required a 20 to 30 person team working over 18 to 24 months. RTW2 was programmed, and the vast majority of graphics were produced, by one man. One man that listens very closely to what you guys want and tries very hared to provide that. Unfortunately, 3D graphics are just not on the table. ^ The above is very true, for all that may be said about the lack of flashy graphics and similar, I have rarely seen a developer that listens to the players as much as in RTW, nor one as willing to explain when someone asks a question, or has a problem. That more than makes up for any differences or minor faults.
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Oct 6, 2019 12:42:37 GMT -6
People keep saying that, but how expensive? Can we put a number on it? (Even a rough one would do). If ultimate admiral is anything to go by, $25 US basic pre-order, $50 for immediate early access. Edit: So about the same as RTW itself, or less than a AAA title on average. That's not what I meant (sorry if i was unclear). I meant: how much extra would it cost to make a game with 3D graphics?
Looking at video games of Kickstarter, on is Everspace 2 who are asking for £400,000, so that's a data point.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 6, 2019 13:42:29 GMT -6
If ultimate admiral is anything to go by, $25 US basic pre-order, $50 for immediate early access. Edit: So about the same as RTW itself, or less than a AAA title on average. That's not what I meant (sorry if i was unclear). I meant: how much extra would it cost to make a game with 3D graphics?
Looking at video games of Kickstarter, on is Everspace 2 who are asking for £400,000, so that's a data point.
Issue with 3D graphic is that you get something nice for your eyes but you loose some information. Top view is for human braind the best for orientation.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 6, 2019 13:44:48 GMT -6
Some of the vids I saw were demonstrating lag problems with less than a dozen ships. I'd be interested to see Jutland attempted in that game. It is quite interesting as there are several ships, shells, some explosions, smoke and sea. And as you do not need to zoom in totally very high details on ships are not something to be quite needed. And with usual zoom out to sea battle you see ships very very small.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Oct 6, 2019 14:44:29 GMT -6
3D graphics discussion aside, I definitely feel UA:D and RTW are complementary games and not mutually exclusive. While there are many similarities and overlaps I can see both being enjoyed in their own rights. UA seems like it will be great to demonstrate individual engagements as part of a larger operation once the current number imbalance are hammered out. RTW feels far more convenient if we are dealing with a larger, potentially day long operation with scouting, engagement, pursuing and the like.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 6, 2019 15:10:38 GMT -6
At the moment there are still many arcade elements in UA:D, like the frankly ludicrous visual spotting system or the way gunfire works, with every gun mount essentially firing individually in local control and any fire control providing an individual hit percentage bonus on each shot. The appearance of salvo fire is coincidental. Especially with secondaries this become clear very quickly.
Those in this thread claiming UA:D is more "realistic" than RTW/RTW2 are caught in a perception trap. RTW/RTW2 does smart abstraction where direct simulation does hit limits. UA:D has hundreds of individual rounds modelled ("simulated") in 3D but the basis for their trajectories is further removed from "realism" than the minute by minute statistical abstraction of hit and firing rates in RTW/RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 6, 2019 15:56:00 GMT -6
If you're doing barebones 3D, you're probably hiring an extra programmer, or licensing a 3D engine, or both, plus hiring someone to do the modeling. So you're paying about 2 extra salaries at bare minimum. And if you're doing really good 3D, you're talking something more like what jwsmith26 was saying. But the big thing is that the extra cost is going to be measured in numbers of people hired, which is going to be tens of thousands of dollars at least.
|
|