|
Post by dorn on Oct 5, 2019 3:56:19 GMT -6
I look at some videos from playthrough. Look nice but damage model seems more detailed on one way but certainly much less realistic. Looking at fight from around 1000 metres and almost all shells that hit are blocked. Belt armour is just very small part of side of any ship so most hits should be on structure, turrets etc.
And it seems that there is just calculation for hitting armour to just penetrate (partially, full, over) or not. No edge hits or something similar.
|
|
|
Post by BathTubAdmiral on Oct 5, 2019 5:39:16 GMT -6
I just played the new UA Dreadnoughts,... . I did not find it arcadey ... Bloody hell it is - it looks like the unholy child of RtW2 and World of Warships.
So much, actually, that I wonder if the most of the "research" the devs did was stealing ideas from both games. They even copied the torps tracks and glowing shells and (smoke) tracers from WoWs !!! And ships appear to be 2x the real size (like in WoWs), at least guesstimating from game footage on YT. And hit chances appear incredibly high (like WoWs), again from YT.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Oct 5, 2019 5:55:59 GMT -6
I just played the new UA Dreadnoughts,... . I did not find it arcadey ... Bloody hell it is - it looks like the unholy child of RtW2 and World of Warships.
So much, actually, that I wonder if the most of the "research" the devs did was stealing ideas from both games. They even copied the torps tracks and glowing shells and (smoke) tracers from WoWs !!! And ships appear to be 2x the real size (like in WoWs), at least guesstimating from game footage on YT. And hit chances appear incredibly high (like WoWs), again from YT.
Hit chance are actually quite low, while being incredibly high in essentially point blank situation. The game's realism have some issues, but Hit chance are not a big concern for me(although multiple ship firing on one target does not seem to interfere with spotting.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 5, 2019 6:07:25 GMT -6
I just played the new UA Dreadnoughts, and I think it's very interesting and definitely promising! For being Alpha-1, the game is extremely polished. I did not find it arcadey -- in some ways, not many, it's offers more options than RtW. For example, you can vary bulkhead quality (something which is I guess abstracted into Damage Control tech here). Anyway, the jury's still out on how great it will be. There won't be carriers from everything I've read, so RtW2 isn't going anywhere. But it *IS* bloody awesome to just sit and watch UA:D combat like a movie. I have looked at your video, you mentioned there is a lot of things you can choose from. But it just give you an illusion as if game is done well you will never choose harvey steel over krupp. If you look on history, it goes to better and seldom ships were (except mainly treaties) designed with worse abilities (eg. R class battleship). And all better techs were usually answer to some issue eg. how to protect ships against better torpedo, how to make torpedoes more deadly against better torpedo protection etc. 3D looks nice but 2D give you much better overview.
So it is more like arcade which they try to do more seriously to look more historic.
Relating to balancing fore and aft weight. They just calculated added weight from mainly turrets but main weight is lower, the engines, hull, armour and you can make more adjustment to balanced that. So this balance is a little odd.
I do not tell it is bad game, I think it will become quite good game after it is finished but realistic seems more on top not inside. And it is quite reasonable it is focused on wide audience which does not care how accurate it is. It is just enough they do not see difference.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 5, 2019 6:19:21 GMT -6
AI tend to be trashy in most EA games so I’m less bothered by that. Shame to hear that UA went for a more Arcady route with the battles however, does not stop it from being pretty and fun, but seems more like an alternative than competition at this point. from what i have seen it does not seem to be any more arcadey than rtw and the shipbuilding seems far more in depth combine this with the beutiful visuals which makes you marvel at the ships you build AND THE FACT THAT I GET ALL THE INFORMATION I COULD WANT such as torpedo speed rate of fire armor penetration and so on this game looks like a godsend which gives you more information has more depth in shipbuilding and the combat looks absolutely amazing combine this with the fact that its a 3d game and with good graphics at that that makes it both visually fun to play and gameplay wise fun to play the only and i mean singular only problem i have is lack of carriers late game everything else looks amazing
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 5, 2019 6:25:50 GMT -6
I just played the new UA Dreadnoughts, and I think it's very interesting and definitely promising! For being Alpha-1, the game is extremely polished. I did not find it arcadey -- in some ways, not many, it's offers more options than RtW. For example, you can vary bulkhead quality (something which is I guess abstracted into Damage Control tech here). Anyway, the jury's still out on how great it will be. There won't be carriers from everything I've read, so RtW2 isn't going anywhere. But it *IS* bloody awesome to just sit and watch UA:D combat like a movie. I have looked at your video, you mentioned there is a lot of things you can choose from. But it just give you an illusion as if game is done well you will never choose harvey steel over krupp. If you look on history, it goes to better and seldom ships were (except mainly treaties) designed with worse abilities (eg. R class battleship). And all better techs were usually answer to some issue eg. how to protect ships against better torpedo, how to make torpedoes more deadly against better torpedo protection etc. 3D looks nice but 2D give you much better overview.
So it is more like arcade which they try to do more seriously to look more historic.
Relating to balancing fore and aft weight. They just calculated added weight from mainly turrets but main weight is lower, the engines, hull, armour and you can make more adjustment to balanced that. So this balance is a little odd.
I do not tell it is bad game, I think it will become quite good game after it is finished but realistic seems more on top not inside. And it is quite reasonable it is focused on wide audience which does not care how accurate it is. It is just enough they do not see difference.
do keep in mind for most of tortugas game he was zoomed in as far as i know zooming completely out basically gives you a top down picture "So it is more like arcade which they try to do more seriously to look more historic."in what way the game is just as historical as RTW but the shipbuilding has more options and its harder to properly make a ship there are things like stability and so on which DO NOT exist in rtw you need to choose secondary turret placement which is not a thing in rtw you need to place superstructure and thunnels and so on the game seems to be alot more in depth in ship building and combat also looks more in depth as there are more options to what you can do (although some options like manual torpedo launch would be liked) also dreadnought ultimate is FAR FAR FAR more realistic than rule the waves rule the waves has problems such as armor weights around 1.5 times too much deck armor weights 2x as much as it should the hp required for speed curve is fucked (and mods have fixed it to some extent) this leads to fast cruisers costing 2x as much Horsepower as they should guns have actual proper scaling in penetration in dreadnoughts armor effectiveness scales mostly properly to tech (in dreadnoughts) (in rtw 1899 armor is equivelant to 1945 american armor and 1945 armor in game is equivelant to armor with 1.3 times the effectiveness of 1945 armor) this also means armor penetration is FAR more realistic in dreadnought ultimate in short rtw has severe problems with weight and the weight of diffrent things and information such as rate of fire and so on is still not given in game and torpedo performance is also not given we lack INFORMATION if anything the most realistic game even when its in early alpha is dreadnought ultimate
also for us european bois we have metric measurements in addition to that dreadnoughts ultimate has much more accurate parameters which means you can adjust armor by 1/10th of an inch instead of 1/5th (as it looks right now if dreadnoughts has a far supperior builder and combat system the only advantage rtw has is the campaign and carriers if dreadnoughts comes up with an equally good campaign i believe rtw will have been assentially replaced unless major developements are made) oh also dreadnoughts will be 10 dollars cheaper when it comes out
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Oct 5, 2019 8:13:51 GMT -6
People keep saying that, but how expensive? Can we put a number on it? (Even a rough one would do).
|
|
|
Post by antonin on Oct 5, 2019 8:21:11 GMT -6
I would prefer not to see 3D graphics. That's just my personal preference, based on my experience with 3D games. For me, realistic ship capabilities and realistic outcomes in the pretend naval battles we fight are far, far more important than eye candy. I'm quite happy with my top-down view of my little warships, belching their smoke. I use my imagination where the game graphics do not supply enough eye candy. SAI and RJW load quickly, run smoothly and are easy on my computer system, and I like that.
I remember years ago I mentioned here that I was reading "Jutland: An Analysis of the Fighting," by John Campbell. Someone official, maybe designer Fredrik Wallin, responded that that book was an important source book for SAI. That fact impressed me immensely, much much more than any possibility of 3D graphics.
|
|
|
Post by trenton59 on Oct 5, 2019 8:45:55 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.
|
|
|
Post by BathTubAdmiral on Oct 5, 2019 9:53:44 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.
To clarify - it's not "about the same", UA:D is 43% more expensive:
$35 Rule the Waves 2
$25 Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts (preorder, playable on "steam early access" =beta ... maybe 2020) $50 Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts (early access, alpha, a bit playable now - no campaign) $50 Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts (Steam release - my estimation of the final price)
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Oct 5, 2019 10:11:47 GMT -6
It is impossible to say how much 3D graphics would add to the price of the game without knowing how much it would increase sales volume. I suspect it wouldn't be enough increase to spread the cost out enough to justify the increase in price, at least in my mind. Not that I am against paying more for a better quality product (I paid $80 for Command:MANO which doesn't have 3D), I just don't think 3D adds much to the quality. I would pay more for an expanded development team to improve the core mechanics, paying for a new paint job on a Pinto with a blown motor doesn't interest me.
|
|
|
Post by lukasdietrich on Oct 5, 2019 11:08:43 GMT -6
Game-Labs do not exactly inspire confidence. Ultimate General Gettysburg and Civil War were finished. Naval Action however was shoved out in June of this year out of Early Access and called finished. It was not.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 5, 2019 12:34:26 GMT -6
Yeah, it looks good. RTW2 has carriers, tho. UA:D would have to have 3D damage modeling and add aircraft carriers for me to want to try it. Looks like I'm staying put for now.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Oct 5, 2019 12:54:34 GMT -6
I guess my problem is that I refuse to play WoWS, so I can't make a comparison with that game. Apparently the "WoWS vs. grognards" warzone has opened up in my video's comments section. I have to say, I'm thankful that RtW is too spreadsheet to attract the WoWS crowd. My channel's damage control cannot put out all these fires...
|
|
|
Post by L0ckAndL0ad on Oct 5, 2019 12:56:14 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
|
|