|
Post by jwsmith26 on Oct 6, 2019 16:53:12 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. In my experience, this in turn means that you will likely lose some measure of creative control, ceded to whichever entity advances the money to hire the additional staff. The financial backer will not be happy about making corrections after the new game is released - money spent for no apparent gain in profit. It's a whole different ballgame when you go bigger.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 7, 2019 2:23:36 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. the spotting system is exactly similair to rtw you get within x range enemy ship appears on map you get closer and you get information on said ship the ranges are even similair it looks and feels identical its like wows spotting system except instead of having a ship be spotted at x distance theres the visibility modifer in UAD which shows at which range it get spotted no idea how rtw determines the base spotting range of ships (i know weather effects spotting range just like typhoons in wows but we are talking base spotting range for simplification) "with every gun mount essentially firing individually in local control and any fire control providing an individual hit percentage bonus on each shot."as far as i have seen only triples will fire individually while a full double gun turret layout will fire a full broadside salvo also as far as i know hit percentage is calculated just the same as rtw a better firecontrol unit gives better hit chances if i remember right the following is true for rtw2 advanced director +30 hit chance electro optical director +50 hit chance we dont know if its % or not we just know that its a number in the exact same way UA:D has accuracy modifiers on its rangefinders again exactly the same in both games "The appearance of salvo fire is coincidental."a complete broadside salvo appears to happend if you use twin guns while triples will fire individually unless one twin and multiple triples are present then the twin will fire independantly but wont lock onto the target and its accuracy significantly reduced this is also why if a twin gun in front is reloading and you turn to bring a second gun into firing arc and its twin barreled it wont fire also salvo fire for secondaries is not a thing in UA:D as far as i know they fire as fast as they reload which means it looks like salvo fire but because each gun does not get into firing angle of the enemy ship at the same time a slight delay will occur also PS UAD is in early early alpha on top of the fact the campaign is far from done the ship designer is still missing alot of things which they have shown currently we are limited in hull customisation but in the future we get 80 diffrent hulls on each of which we can modify how its built currently its pointless to compare RTW2 to UAD one has been released for almost half a year now (if not more) the other just came out in alpha i hope to see both games improve as they are pretty much competitors for the naval warship genre of 1900-1940 and i hope this will push both games to become the best competition for us players only mean they will try and make better games to attract the players hopefully leading to better game quality which im all for
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Oct 7, 2019 6:20:09 GMT -6
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. I agree. I'm not a big fan of the way UA:D does battles. What the player should be able to see is the view from the bridge of the flagship, (and not 500 meters above it). I'd like to be able to refight Jutland and be able to see what Jellicoe/Scheer saw, and have the information they had, when they had it.
One **big** aspect of warfare is the fog of war, and this is often not well portrayed in wargames. There's a YouTube video about Midway from the Japanese point of view that demonstrates the sort of thing I mean: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Oct 7, 2019 8:17:46 GMT -6
One important factor that seems to be getting overlooked by a few is that UA:D is very much not complete at the moment, it is still in a fairly early Alpha state with a full release date 6-12 months away, so a lot is likely to change before the proper release.
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Oct 7, 2019 8:35:58 GMT -6
I wrote a fairly long comment, but I'll restrict myself to my main points. I believe the "accuracy" of the game, which is dependent on the underlying mathematical structure, has nothing to do with the visualization - the latter "just" makes the deficiencies more obvious. RtW very wisely choose a tool that fits its resources and more importantly handles its chosen level of abstraction in a believable manner. As such, just as I don't think that the lack of 3D is any sort of problem, nor do I think that the problems with UA:D can be traced back simply to its 3D nature, or and especially implying that it's a hindrance (though caveat, I do not own that game [yet?], only watched videos). Even the comments above in some cases feel like looking for excuses, on one hand 3D is "losing information", but on the other hand "losing information is preferable"? Oh well, not that I have hard feelings either way. One thing is for certain, regardless of UA:D turning out good or bad, I am very happy that the market senses an opportunity in the genre and it encourages development.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 7, 2019 11:21:12 GMT -6
the spotting system is exactly similair to rtw you get within x range enemy ship appears on map you get closer and you get information on said ship the ranges are even similair it looks and feels identical No it is not. Ships in the current alpha of UA:D have two values a "signature" value and a "detection value". The former is raised for hull size and every piece of kit on the ships, the latter has a base and gets additional "boni" from the selected "towers". That can result in a BB being visually (NOT radar!) spotted and under fire in daylight at clear weather by another BB at more than 22000m which it itself cannot see (let alone take under fire) until the distance shrinks to 12000m or so. Please show me where an optical 10km detection advantage can be seen in RTW/RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Oct 7, 2019 11:26:50 GMT -6
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 One of the weaknesses in RtW is the strategic/career mode: the strategic shell around the tactical engine. Just as surely as UA:D has learned from RtW's combat, I'm interested in learning about UA:D's campaign mode.
I hope we are provided the means to mod things (like I and others have already tried to do). It'd be nice to have some interaction with the EXE without having to hexedit it (which NWS doesn't want us to do) or without having to open/close the game every month to force this through the save/load mechanic.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Oct 7, 2019 11:27:35 GMT -6
But that's minor, the main thing here is this:
I think everyone will benefit from having UA:D. NWS games has poor market reach; most people are unaware of Rule the Waves' existence. UA:D is much more visible, and may lead some of those people to RtW. It's pretty unlikely that someone who didn't buy RtW by this point will not buy it because of UA:D.
I guess this thread is titled such a way as to target comparisons between the two, but I welcome both and I only see the upside for everyone related to RtW (customers and dev/publishers).
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Oct 7, 2019 11:43:44 GMT -6
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 One of the weaknesses in RtW is the strategic/career mode: the strategic shell around the tactical engine. Just as surely as UA:D has learned from RtW's combat, I'm interested in learning about UA:D's campaign mode.
I hope we are provided the means to mod things (like I and others have already tried to do). It'd be nice to have some interaction with the EXE without having to hexedit it (which NWS doesn't want us to do) or without having to open/close the game every month to force this through the save/load mechanic.
tortugapower, let me fix this for you: One of the weaknesses strengths in RtW is the strategic/career mode: the strategic shell around the tactical engine. All better now.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Oct 7, 2019 15:40:54 GMT -6
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 One of the weaknesses in RtW is the strategic/career mode: the strategic shell around the tactical engine. Just as surely as UA:D has learned from RtW's combat, I'm interested in learning about UA:D's campaign mode.
I hope we are provided the means to mod things (like I and others have already tried to do). It'd be nice to have some interaction with the EXE without having to hexedit it (which NWS doesn't want us to do) or without having to open/close the game every month to force this through the save/load mechanic.
Unfortunately reading through the description it just sounds like another autogenerator
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Oct 7, 2019 15:42:17 GMT -6
One of the weaknesses in RtW is the strategic/career mode: the strategic shell around the tactical engine. Just as surely as UA:D has learned from RtW's combat, I'm interested in learning about UA:D's campaign mode.
I hope we are provided the means to mod things (like I and others have already tried to do). It'd be nice to have some interaction with the EXE without having to hexedit it (which NWS doesn't want us to do) or without having to open/close the game every month to force this through the save/load mechanic.
tortugapower , let me fix this for you: One of the weaknesses strengths in RtW is the strategic/career mode: the strategic shell around the tactical engine. All better now. I think he means the lack of strategic organization a la Steam and Iron. Organizing your ships and their bases, planning entire operations against the enemy fleet
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Oct 7, 2019 16:39:14 GMT -6
Having some additional control over the types of roles to which ships can be assigned would definitely be nice. The roles currently in the game are very reflective of battles in the early 1900s. There are roles that came into existence after the introduction of aircraft that are currently unavailable, such as those handled by CLAAs or picket destroyers. There are also tactical formations that were developed in the 20s and 30s specifically to reduce the impact of aerial attacks. It would be nice to see those in the game. I think giving the player the ability to plan entire operations would seriously disadvantage the AI, which already has a hard time dealing with a human player. Currently neither the AI or the player can execute complicated plans. Instead, you fight the battles that would have resulted from the culmination of those plans. Sometimes it's pretty obvious those implied plans have gone badly awry, which many admirals had to deal with when they met the enemy in a disadvantaged position. I think if you could carefully create exactly the divisions you want you would dominate the AI even more completely that is currently possible. The way it is now you are playing on the same field as the AI, which operates under the same somewhat chaotic organizational structure as the player. But I'm not sure that's what tortugapower was referring to in his post. He specifically mentions "career" for instance. tortugapower , could you elaborate on your ideas for improvement of the strategic layer or perhaps describe the issues you find weak. Maybe some of your ideas for improvement could be incorporated into the game.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Oct 7, 2019 17:40:11 GMT -6
One of the weaknesses in RtW is the strategic/career mode: the strategic shell around the tactical engine. Just as surely as UA:D has learned from RtW's combat, I'm interested in learning about UA:D's campaign mode.
I hope we are provided the means to mod things (like I and others have already tried to do). It'd be nice to have some interaction with the EXE without having to hexedit it (which NWS doesn't want us to do) or without having to open/close the game every month to force this through the save/load mechanic.
tortugapower , let me fix this for you: One of the weaknesses strengths in RtW is the strategic/career mode: the strategic shell around the tactical engine. All better now. I feel like the strategy-level shell of the game only does enough to get out of its own way to keep ship design and tactical battles compelling. I wouldn't call it a strength.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Oct 7, 2019 17:44:10 GMT -6
tortugapower , let me fix this for you: One of the weaknesses strengths in RtW is the strategic/career mode: the strategic shell around the tactical engine. All better now. I think he means the lack of strategic organization a la Steam and Iron. Organizing your ships and their bases, planning entire operations against the enemy fleet But I'm not sure that's what tortugapower was referring to in his post. He specifically mentions "career" for instance. tortugapower , could you elaborate on your ideas for improvement of the strategic layer or perhaps describe the issues you find weak. Maybe some of your ideas for improvement could be incorporated into the game. Yes, I think the fleet organization stuff within the SAI tactical setting could be improved for RtW overall. No, that wasn't what I was referring to, I was thinking of things such as: - the tedium of ship management (and general GUI woes) - the lack of AI vs. AI wars - the lack of auto-resolve for combat
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 7, 2019 17:44:57 GMT -6
tortugapower , let me fix this for you: One of the weaknesses strengths in RtW is the strategic/career mode: the strategic shell around the tactical engine. All better now. I feel like the strategy-level shell of the game only does enough to get out of its own way to keep ship design and tactical battles compelling. I wouldn't call it a strength. Personally, I like the strategic-level "shell" of the game much better than I like the tactical-level combat scenarios.
|
|