|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 7, 2019 17:51:21 GMT -6
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"? For my own part, I'm not saying that UA:D should be like RTW, I'm just saying there are good reasons for RTW not grow a 3D engine, as some are suggesting. 3D doesn't so much "lose" information as hide it in a bunch of clutter. Now, if that clutter is part of the gameplay, I don't so much mind. But if a game is fully playable in 2D, I'd prefer to keep it 2D just to keep the eye strain down and to reserve brainpower for gameplay.
|
|
|
Post by aetreus on Oct 7, 2019 18:58:15 GMT -6
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"? For my own part, I'm not saying that UA:D should be like RTW, I'm just saying there are good reasons for RTW not grow a 3D engine, as some are suggesting. 3D doesn't so much "lose" information as hide it in a bunch of clutter. Now, if that clutter is part of the gameplay, I don't so much mind. But if a game is fully playable in 2D, I'd prefer to keep it 2D just to keep the eye strain down and to reserve brainpower for gameplay. I would strongly oppose this in any case where its practical to get enough development resources to go 3D. Humans are much better at evaluating information from a 3D scene than a 2D presentation, and it allows for better use of effects and detail changes to convey information. Now in practical terms RTW should absolutely not do this, but this is more reflective of the limitations in resources and the amount of work invested in the 2D engine.
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 7, 2019 21:31:42 GMT -6
Even though it is mechanical and has flaws that can be exploited, RtW's AI is extremely good - it beats all previous games by a wide margin in terms of keeping formations, conducting DD charges, etc and so forth. It does make 'mistakes' but it plays a good, solid game and can be tactically tough.
If UAD has a superior AI, I'm interested. But AI is far harder to do than 3D graphics... so at the moment, color me skeptical. 3D is wonderful if the underlying mechanics are good - but it is too often in game design used to disguise the lack of good underlying mechanics. You can drop a Ferrari body on a go-cart and it may look amazing (you may have to use a go-cart after you pay for the Ferrari body) but it drives like a go-cart, not a Ferrari. Time will tell what's under the UAD hood.
I'm with tortugapower in avoiding WoW. It may be fun to play but from what I can tell it bears little resemblance to actual naval combat. RtW is not perfect, but it is a lot closer.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 8, 2019 1:38:30 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. thats the only diffrence between them if you put a 1910s dreadnought against a 1940s battleship at 25-30km optics only the 1910s dreadnought cant see you because it dosent have the optics neccesary to see at such distances the 1940s battleship does in rtw a 1899 destroyer sees just as well as a 1970s battleship (optics only) which makes about as much sense as me being able to see a ship at 20km with a 10x zoom scope and even if said ships (like the 1910s dreadnought) can see you it cant neccesarily fire on you due to the fact it does not have the neccesary rangefinders and thus it would basically be quessing the range above 15km as the rangefinders just cannot do that
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Oct 8, 2019 1:51:22 GMT -6
if you put a 1910s dreadnought against a 1940s battleship at 25-30km optics only the 1910s dreadnought cant see you because it dosent have the optics neccesary to see at such distances Christian, you do not need 1940's optics to "see" (i.e. visually detect) even a ship's mast/top at 30km, 1800's optics suffice. If you can see someone at sea (directly via eyeball+optics) you can be seen in turn. There is some difference in whether you are noticed (that's where age of sail tactics like taking in the royals to reduce mast visual signature come in), but in the UA:D game gunfire would be able to be heard from the direction of the enemy and even if only the slimmest part of the "towers" is above the visual horizon they would be seen and noticed, even if the sailor in question uses his great-greta-grandfathers 1770 telescope.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 8, 2019 3:25:46 GMT -6
if you put a 1910s dreadnought against a 1940s battleship at 25-30km optics only the 1910s dreadnought cant see you because it dosent have the optics neccesary to see at such distances Christian, you do not need 1940's optics to "see" (i.e. visually detect) even a ship's mast/top at 30km, 1800's optics suffice. If you can see someone at sea (directly via eyeball+optics) you can be seen in turn. There is some difference in whether you are noticed (that's where age of sail tactics like taking in the royals to reduce mast visual signature come in), but in the UA:D game gunfire would be able to be heard from the direction of the enemy and even if only the slimmest part of the "towers" is above the visual horizon they would be seen and noticed, even if the sailor in question uses his great-greta-grandfathers 1770 telescope. if you can visually see masts at 30km distance with a 20 times zoom scope i applaud you www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/British_Gunsightaccording to this 20 power zoom is being generous you were more likely to end up with 15 or sub power an object 30 meters tall will appear to be 1.9 milimeters tall at 15km (no zoom) the mast are not wide enough to be physically seen even if you saw the full hull of the ship (150 meter long dreadnought) it would only appear as 9.8 milimeters in size through a 20 times zoom scope thats 19,6 centimers for a 200 meter long ship a mast at 15km no zoom is 0.065 mm wide and through 20 times zoom 1,3 mm assuming 1 meter width at 30km halve these numbers the 19cm long ship becomes 10cm and the 1.3mm wide mast becomes basically invisible if you dont have acces to a 20 times zoom scope bad luck also just because you can see the enemy dosent mean you can fire on them i gaurantee you dreadnoughts are not able to open fire at 30km distance for one due to limited elevation and for second due to pretty much not being able to fire at such distances "even a ship's mast/top at 30km, 1800's optics suffice"yeah noin 1800 there was no naval optics for the guns and if you had optics they werent more than 5x power also they arent stabalized so hand held and with high zoom good luck finding ships with such scope instability at 30km a ships mast at 30km assuming its 1 meter wide (around the usual width) you would be looking for a 0.033mm sized line good luck if you can visually see a 0.03 mm line i congratulate you most people cannot do that sizecalc.com/#distance=30kilometers&physical-size=1meters&perceived-size-units=dmmused to find object size www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_135-45_mk5.phpthis gun from 1912 has a maximum elevation of 20 degrees which allows 20km range the dreadnought with its 12 inch guns has 17km firing range at max elevation even if the dreadnought could see iowa at 30km it would still be outranged by 13km even if iowa werent using anything but optics a modern battleship being outranged by several thousand km is not unrealistic however a 1910s dreadnought against a 1940s ship is rather unrealistic
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 8, 2019 3:51:09 GMT -6
in rtw a 1899 destroyer sees just as well as a 1970s battleship (optics only) which makes about as much sense as me being able to see a ship at 20km with a 10x zoom scope HMS Swift (1884) was a 130 ton torpedo boat. As the game does tonnage in increments of 100 tons, it's pretty much the smallest ship that could be built in game. It was 150 ft long. Arcsin (150 ft / 20 km) comes out to 0.13 degrees. This is about a quarter the angular size of the sun or moon. The angular resolution of the human eyeball is about 0.02 degrees, so you could see HMS Swift at 20 km with the naked eye, assuming daytime lighting conditions and good weather. It might take you a while to notice it, you could definitely see it. With 10x zoom, it would be easy to spot. USS Iowa is nearly 900 ft long, which comes out to about .77 degrees at 20km. For comparison, your pinky finger, held at arm's length, is about 1 degree. Your pointer, middle, and ring fingers held together at arm's length are about 5 degrees . With 10x zoom, Iowa would almost 8 degrees long. In other words *cavemen* have sufficient optical technology to spot a 20th century warship in daylight and clear weather at 20km.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Oct 8, 2019 5:42:59 GMT -6
I will also note that at Jutland, the German BC force sighted the British at 24 km. Of course, neither side was capable of engaging the other at that range, but once you've spotted an enemy you can start maneuvering to engage him, so having historically accurate spotting ranges is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on Oct 8, 2019 12:15:56 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. I also like the strategic-level better. I like strategy games, and for me the detailed tactical simulator is a plus, but usually not my driving motivation to play the game. If you were to remove the tactical option (e.g. replaced with an Auto-Resolve summary), I think it would become apparent that the strategic level is clunky and not very deep, asides from ship design. That was the point I wanted to make: that the strategic shell of the game, if it were a game all to itself, would deserve more attention to polish and depth. The fact that we spend much of our time there, yet have to click through two menus and click about ten buttons to cancel the movement of a ship, shows that the strategic level was not the end-product, but a derivative of the same engine used to implement the tactical combat. For my part, this is fine (as I said, it does just enough to get out of its own away) because the ship design is so compelling, and the tactical combat engine is so well-developed and potent.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 8, 2019 13:25:12 GMT -6
in rtw a 1899 destroyer sees just as well as a 1970s battleship (optics only) which makes about as much sense as me being able to see a ship at 20km with a 10x zoom scope HMS Swift (1884) was a 130 ton torpedo boat. As the game does tonnage in increments of 100 tons, it's pretty much the smallest ship that could be built in game. It was 150 ft long. Arcsin (150 ft / 20 km) comes out to 0.13 degrees. This is about a quarter the angular size of the sun or moon. The angular resolution of the human eyeball is about 0.02 degrees, so you could see HMS Swift at 20 km with the naked eye, assuming daytime lighting conditions and good weather. It might take you a while to notice it, you could definitely see it. With 10x zoom, it would be easy to spot. USS Iowa is nearly 900 ft long, which comes out to about .77 degrees at 20km. For comparison, your pinky finger, held at arm's length, is about 1 degree. Your pointer, middle, and ring fingers held together at arm's length are about 5 degrees . With 10x zoom, Iowa would almost 8 degrees long. In other words *cavemen* have sufficient optical technology to spot a 20th century warship in daylight and clear weather at 20km. thats assuming you get a full sight lenght picture of the ship from bow to stern full height of the ship seen but due to the earths curvature this is never the case at 15km + first of all the HMS swift could literally not be spotted by anything in dreadnought times at 30km or 20km because it would not be big enough (specifically tall enough) at those ranges what you have is the enemy ships masts and those are not big enough at most you would be seeing smokestacks which are 5-10 meters long AT MOST also while you can see that far in literally perfect weather if even slight disturbance on the horizon appears you cant see anything anymore if its hot weather the horizon will appear wavy due to heat and then you cant see anything properly on the horizon anymore the smaller your ship the harder it is to be spotted but the harder it is to be seen also yeah sure you can see someone at 30km with zoom optics in very good weather but your range is still limited to 20 km at most as your guns cant elevate to get more than that range an iowa will outrange something like the dreadnought every single time by around 13km range ATLEAST using purely optical means and the dreadnought cannot fire until its closer than 17km also again sure you can spot someone but you cant fire on them
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 8, 2019 13:30:04 GMT -6
I will also note that at Jutland, the German BC force sighted the British at 24 km. Of course, neither side was capable of engaging the other at that range, but once you've spotted an enemy you can start maneuvering to engage him, so having historically accurate spotting ranges is necessary. which shouldnt be a surprise capital ships are far easier to spot as they are far taller and in 1916 ship spotting technology had progressed quite alot since early dreadnought times (1906) what im trying to say is that a ship getting outspotted by around 10km is not impossible as its far easier (especially when its not perfect weather) to spot something like a 1906 dreadnought in an iowa the iowa has more and better optics and the optics are of far higher quality and are positioned far better than the 1906 dreadnought
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 8, 2019 13:41:42 GMT -6
Personally, I like the strategic-level "shell" of the game much better than I like the tactical-level combat scenarios. I also like the strategic-level better. I like strategy games, and for me the detailed tactical simulator is a plus, but usually not my driving motivation to play the game. If you were to remove the tactical option (e.g. replaced with an Auto-Resolve summary), I think it would become apparent that the strategic level is clunky and not very deep, asides from ship design. That was the point I wanted to make: that the strategic shell of the game, if it were a game all to itself, would deserve more attention to polish and depth. The fact that we spend much of our time there, yet have to click through two menus and click about ten buttons to cancel the movement of a ship, shows that the strategic level was not the end-product, but a derivative of the same engine used to implement the tactical combat. For my part, this is fine (as I said, it does just enough to get out of its own away) because the ship design is so compelling, and the tactical combat engine is so well-developed and potent. i would agree here unlike the combat and ship designer in rtw i dont feel the strategic factor is as much of a selling point and it would be nicer to have something a bit more in depth (like setting up blockades of certain ports that are not home areas such as saklin or singapore as japan) especially now that air combat is introduced i feel the strategic aspect is lacking due to the increased range of carriers yet they never seem to be within 400-300 nautical miles of the battle despite me having stationed multiple carriers in said sea zone also as tortuga aluded too there are quite a bit of strategic ui things that i would like to be added (such as auto battle button) and making it easier to cancel ship movements from zone to zone setting and so on also i dont really like the whole logistics part of the game is for the most part lacking especially for larger fleets when you wanna do cross sea zone ops (usa vs japan or opposite)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 8, 2019 23:33:54 GMT -6
christianRight now UAD use Basic 1900 technology. And certainly 10 km spotting difference should not be there especially when one ship fires. In RTW it is simulated quite nicely destroyers appearing quite at shorter range than maximum visibility etc. It is true that such small mechanismus for spotting distance through the time could be good but I think that only the first decade would be a little more affected. And I do not think that it change any thing that slightly increasing chance that both fleet (ships) miss each other. This is completely insignificant. However it is good to have such game. Everybody likes something different and according to this lays preferences for any of these games. I like in RTW (RTW2 is still lacking in certain things), its level of abstraction, which means you get reasonable result without need to solve every small point. You are First Lord, you do not design every detail of your ship etc., you make decision about basic characterics which is simulated well. Frankly speaking I do not like where you are overhelmed with much larger number of choices as it usually seems you have more possibilities but in reality sum of chioce is same only distributed into ones with less effects. It has usual implications that it takes more time to go through without adding important decision and more important thing is that it is much difficult for AI to handle it right making AI weaker.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 9, 2019 0:43:36 GMT -6
christian Right now UAD use Basic 1900 technology. And certainly 10 km spotting difference should not be there especially when one ship fires. In RTW it is simulated quite nicely destroyers appearing quite at shorter range than maximum visibility etc. It is true that such small mechanismus for spotting distance through the time could be good but I think that only the first decade would be a little more affected. And I do not think that it change any thing that slightly increasing chance that both fleet (ships) miss each other. This is completely insignificant. However it is good to have such game. Everybody likes something different and according to this lays preferences for any of these games. I like in RTW (RTW2 is still lacking in certain things), its level of abstraction, which means you get reasonable result without need to solve every small point. You are First Lord, you do not design every detail of your ship etc., you make decision about basic characterics which is simulated well. Frankly speaking I do not like where you are overhelmed with much larger number of choices as it usually seems you have more possibilities but in reality sum of chioce is same only distributed into ones with less effects. It has usual implications that it takes more time to go through without adding important decision and more important thing is that it is much difficult for AI to handle it right making AI weaker. UAD non campaign uses a whole mix of tech which is not balanced in any way taking for example focus on guns means your gun tech is far higher than the enemy and than it would realistically be same goes for hulls and so on and there are several missions where you can fight 1940s ships with 1910s ships you can currently acces the campaign by holding down ALT and clicking the campaign button playing in this against the enemy provides a much more balanced and far fight (tech wise) (though currently very unfinished) much like how pre dreads are kept until 1915 or so in RTW 2
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Oct 9, 2019 5:11:38 GMT -6
I agree with tortugapower; the strategic layer of the game is very bare-bones, compared to something like Hearts of Iron. It's good at what it does, it just doesn't do much. For me, a pretty ideal game would be to combine the tactical combat and ship design of RTW with the strategic map of something like Victory at Sea. Even something like the ability to arrange your OOB before a battle would be so much better than having the game randomly assign divisions and then having to deal with that arbitrary, unrealistic handicap.
|
|