|
Post by christian on Oct 11, 2019 1:29:47 GMT -6
I think the biggest reason UA:D would never replace RtW for me, only supplement it, is the lack of true creative freedom in UA:D. In RtW, you can make some really strange and unique ships, but the preset hulls you have in UA:D means you’re shoehorned into certain layouts. do keep in mind you are getting 80+ diffrent hulls in the full game i dont think there is gonna be a lack of ship shapes or turret layouts or so on alpha is currently VERY VERY VERY limited compared to what the full game will be
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Oct 13, 2019 5:15:28 GMT -6
It's a bit out there from the Sims that have been mentioned so far but I always enjoyed the 2.5D style of naval ops commander, it was basic but still accommodated a huge array of ship builds and options.
The ship builder was also nice and easy while allowing a lot of tweaking.
Although while it's a great game it is hard to find now and the story goes pretty weird!
|
|
|
Post by marcorossolini on Oct 16, 2019 5:51:14 GMT -6
Been watching a bit of this on youtube. Pretty as the graphics are and gorgeous as the ships are, I'm not tempted to buy. I play RtW2 because I can hop in and be pretty confident that 1 out of 2 sessions I can guarantee a Jutland sized (or equivalent, dependent on what navy I am) battle with a navy that I have built and nurtured. Pretty and detailed that the damage modelling and graphics are, I believe there's a greater realism in scale and scope. YMMV. Plus, whilst the remarks about apples and oranges have been made, I'd go further that whilst RtW2 and UAD are different beasts, the fact is that RtW2's capabilities are simply greater all in all (it's a whole different game by 1935).
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 16, 2019 9:36:41 GMT -6
(it's a whole different game by 1935). Can't say I'm surprised, since UAD ends in 1930.
On a more serious note, a better comparison would probably be to compare UAD against RTW1; They both cover pretty much the same time period (the first quarter of the 20th century, give or take), whereas RTW2 is more into the '40s and early '50s, with things like carriers and radar. From what I've seen, while UAD does have radar, it's usefulness is limited (although maybe that will change in the campaign mode), and aircraft are nowhere to be seen, much like RTW1.
I personally think that they both have their places. RTW has the depth and scale. UAD has the pretty graphics and detailed damage model. I already have both RTW1 and 2, and I'm fully intending to buy UAD as soon as I have the money. As satisfying as it is to see something like this:
BB Huge F***ing Ship fires 50 20in guns at CL Target Practice CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit CL Target Practice hit
Sometimes, that just can't beat actually seeing the shells come flying in and smash into the side of the ship, or watching a fire reach the magazines, or hearing the enemy's puny 2" guns bouncing off your armour.
EDIT: Of course, it's probably worth noting that UAD simulates the weight distribution on your ship, presumably with penalties if it isn't perfectly balanced. RTW doesn't do that. Saying "RTW is more detailed" isn't necessarily correct.
|
|
|
Post by zardoz on Oct 16, 2019 10:07:41 GMT -6
I saw some advertising and I had from that also the impression that it is more arcade-style.
To be honest I would love to see my ships in an 3D environment.
However, if I get the question whether I prefer a nice looking 3D game with high costs and a weak AI OR 2D-style with acceptable AI and moderate costs I would always prefger option 2.
|
|
|
Post by aetreus on Oct 16, 2019 14:10:07 GMT -6
It's a bit out there from the Sims that have been mentioned so far but I always enjoyed the 2.5D style of naval ops commander, it was basic but still accommodated a huge array of ship builds and options. The ship builder was also nice and easy while allowing a lot of tweaking. Although while it's a great game it is hard to find now and the story goes pretty weird! Naval Ops could be weirdly realistic despite being a generally fairly silly arcade game with laser beams and wave guns. I'm pretty certain that they were using a fairly realistic power function for ship speeds, along with the way the game figured armor tonnage for ships. Certainly using terms like fire delay system makes me certain that somebody on the development team had a non-trivial level of knowledge in naval history.
|
|
|
Post by barrybull on Oct 17, 2019 3:39:26 GMT -6
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. Indeed, RTW1 and 2 belong to the very rare breed of grand strategy games that present info in an abstract but complex manner that allows player to look at scenario with a cold and detached way, just as how strategists work.
|
|
|
Post by barrybull on Oct 17, 2019 3:43:09 GMT -6
I would not compare it to HoI. Strategic layer of HoI seems very nice, but AI is completely incopetent. Just play several years as UK than switch to eg. Germany and you will find that AI is lacking quite a lot. So if you play against AI it ruins the game completely as there is no challange when you get so advanced. Strategic layer in RTW is quite abstracted but make the point and AI is still quite competent even if certainly cannot be as good as player. Just think a little if you would like to do strategic layer more in depth what you need to start to simulate. You will find that you need take into considaration another and another things, make them work well together and on top of that you need to make AI competitive but as the choices increased, so the complexity and making AI competent in similar way starts to be impossible. Just look at chess and go and compare how well AI is compared to human player. More options means it is much more difficult for AI. We can wait and see what UA:D will offer in this aspect. Yes, the HOI AI is terrible, but we still haven't really worked out how to build a decent AI. Make RTW as complex as HOI and the AI would probably do even worse than HOI's AI. But I wasn't comparing the AIs, I was comparing the strategy. In RTW, there are only about a dozen places where your ships can be at any given time, and time passes on a monthly basis; in HOI, there are hundreds of locations on the sea alone, and time passes an hour at a time.
Basically, my "impossible dream" is to have HOI with RTW ship design and tactical battles.
Actually, HOI is not "grand strategic" at all, as real life national security establishments work in a much more abstract manner and leave operational and tactical decisions to field officers. RTW present the perspective of a Sea Lord much better then HOI.
|
|
|
Post by warspite1995 on Oct 17, 2019 13:09:36 GMT -6
Personally, I like the strategic-level "shell" of the game much better than I like the tactical-level combat scenarios. Indeed, RTW1 and 2 belong to the very rare breed of grand strategy games that present info in an abstract but complex manner that allows player to look at scenario with a cold and detached way, just as how strategists work. Agreed, much like in the total war game series, i much prefer the overall grand strategy and planning rather than the tactical fighting parts of the game. I think RTW2's major weakness is the battle generator, but there isnt much i can think of that could be done to improve it at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by barrybull on Oct 18, 2019 19:33:27 GMT -6
Indeed, RTW1 and 2 belong to the very rare breed of grand strategy games that present info in an abstract but complex manner that allows player to look at scenario with a cold and detached way, just as how strategists work. Agreed, much like in the total war game series, i much prefer the overall grand strategy and planning rather than the tactical fighting parts of the game. I think RTW2's major weakness is the battle generator, but there isnt much i can think of that could be done to improve it at the moment. The Total War series is mostly tactical focused. For truly grand strategic game, try Gary Grigsby's War in the West. Even Paradox Games feel somewhat arcadey, esp. with the latest products. A Sea Lord look at documents and budget estimation, long term planning is intellectually challenging but not visually exciting.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 19, 2019 3:20:58 GMT -6
What if the battle generator offered TWO missions side by side? I think more mission choices would give more satisfaction. Is there a battle generator thread? It should be discussed in greater detail...
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 19, 2019 4:01:25 GMT -6
What if the battle generator offered TWO missions side by side? I think more mission choices would give more satisfaction. Is there a battle generator thread? It should be discussed in greater detail... This has been already discussed, it is not realistic. Look at number of battles in any war, you will find that RTW has already more battles than was in history.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Oct 19, 2019 4:41:11 GMT -6
It is not clear to me if there is any reason to prefer RTW2 to RTW (or vice versa) for the period going from around 1900 to 1920.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 19, 2019 4:55:41 GMT -6
It is not clear to me if there is any reason to prefer RTW2 to RTW (or vice versa) for the period going from around 1900 to 1920. You cannot transfer save from RTW1 to RTW2. RTW2 has better solved penetration vs. armour and accuracy around 1920. RTW2 has different model for invasion. You can manually choose where you want invade but you have some limitations. I would call it different but till all issues are solved I would be caution to name it better. RTW1 is much matured and better balance. It is especially true about battle generator. In RTW2 you are offered repeated battles even if you denied one. RTW2 has design process, it increases realismus. RTW2 has still bugs that effects even this period. Overal I think it is draw now.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 19, 2019 5:54:19 GMT -6
What if the battle generator offered TWO missions side by side? I think more mission choices would give more satisfaction. Is there a battle generator thread? It should be discussed in greater detail... This has been already discussed, it is not realistic. Look at number of battles in any war, you will find that RTW has already more battles than was in history. True. But my idea still has the same number of battles. You're just getting more choices. Maybe I didnt explain it well. Ok, so if the Battle Generator generates 2 missions after you End Turn, Both of which you could decline, and then no other mission is offered, then my way you'd still get the same deal, but you'd have 2 choices and either pick one or decline them both and then you'd get 2 more mission choices and accept one or decline them both. So in the end, same number of missions, just more choice in the matter. You don't think that's a good idea?
|
|