dusti
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by dusti on Jan 29, 2023 6:55:14 GMT -6
Using shortened names to avoid Google just in case but... its a badly implemented buggy 1:0.99 copy of RTW2 without many important features. The 3D is there. But almost every other detail is the same, including basic mechanisms. This is so bad that it gets into the scope of actual copyright infringement which is tricky for games but this game takes the biscuit (I'm an IP lawyer in Europe).
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jan 29, 2023 10:41:21 GMT -6
I actually do not own/have not played that game, so I cannot make any informed judgement on it. If you want to discuss any additional details feel free to PM me.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Jan 31, 2023 21:13:49 GMT -6
Using shortened names to avoid Google just in case but... its a badly implemented buggy 1:0.99 copy of RTW2 without many important features. The 3D is there. But almost every other detail is the same, including basic mechanisms. This is so bad that it gets into the scope of actual copyright infringement which is tricky for games but this game takes the biscuit (I'm an IP lawyer in Europe). I don't own the game, and I certainly don't know enough about copyright infringement to say if the design is too close. However while they are certainly trying to fulfill the same niche, they go about it in fairly different ways, and I'd hesitate to say that it's a ripoff of RTW. Directly competing and trying to improve upon RTW, sure, but isn't that how competition works? With how long UAD has been in development, its more aiming at the original RTW with no carriers then at the newer games. The competition seems good to me, so I don't know why people might have issues with it.
|
|
|
Post by dia on Jan 31, 2023 22:43:41 GMT -6
Don't own the game myself but I've watched a lot of videos of others playing it from it's very early conception until now (and I'm glad I did that instead of paying for it lol). It was a warship designer set in more or less the same period as RtW1. And that's about where the similarities end. Graphics aside, the way both games go about designing ships is very different. UAD also focuses on designing ships in general while RtW1/2/3 focuses on designing ships for a campaign. There are no standalone scenarios or custom battles in RtW2. Plus the campaign didn't even exist in the beginning of UAD and even now it isn't very similar except maybe the UAD campaign having an ASW value mechanic. That being said I do like how the UAD campaign has minor nations just saying...
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Feb 1, 2023 7:34:44 GMT -6
Don't own the game myself but I've watched a lot of videos of others playing it from it's very early conception until now (and I'm glad I did that instead of paying for it lol). It was a warship designer set in more or less the same period as RtW1. And that's about where the similarities end. Graphics aside, the way both games go about designing ships is very different. UAD also focuses on designing ships in general while RtW1/2/3 focuses on designing ships for a campaign. There are no standalone scenarios or custom battles in RtW2. Plus the campaign didn't even exist in the beginning of UAD and even now it isn't very similar except maybe the UAD campaign having an ASW value mechanic. That being said I do like how the UAD campaign has minor nations just saying... I prefer a few things about UAD, but if they don't fix some of the massive realism issues, I don't see myself buying it.
|
|
|
Post by nagat0 on Feb 1, 2023 9:59:45 GMT -6
UAD and RTW are quite different in many ways.I do enjoy the ship designer somewhat more than rtw,and the 3D battles are pretty fun to play too,but apart from that,RTW is superior in most ways.UAD is very buggy and the devs don't seem to care at all,the UI is rubbish compared to rtw and the campaign is horrible too.The devs keep adding new stuff instead of fixing bugs,and now for some reason they removed the ability to manually steer ships. I prefer the ship designer in UAD for multiple reasons,such as the ability to change the type of rudders,engines,torpedo size,gun caliber and barrel length,etc.,where as in rtw you simply click on replace machinery to upgrade the engines.The combat is cool because of the graphics,of course,but apart from that the battles are also pretty inferior to the RTW ones,they are buggy and the ai is retarded,another important thing is the map,in UAD it's just infinite water,in RTW the entire globe is generated,with coastal guns and random ships too.
But,ignoring these things,there is no reason to call uad a copy of rtw.They are similar in that they are both ship designing games,but the mechanics and many other things are different.Say someone made a tank designer game for example,are you gonna come here and say it's a complete copy of RTW because both games give you ability to change the thickness of your vehicle's armour?
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Feb 1, 2023 12:35:27 GMT -6
UAD and RTW are quite different in many ways.I do enjoy the ship designer somewhat more than rtw,and the 3D battles are pretty fun to play too,but apart from that,RTW is superior in most ways.UAD is very buggy and the devs don't seem to care at all,the UI is rubbish compared to rtw and the campaign is horrible too.The devs keep adding new stuff instead of fixing bugs,and now for some reason they removed the ability to manually steer ships. I prefer the ship designer in UAD for multiple reasons,such as the ability to change the type of rudders,engines,torpedo size,gun caliber and barrel length,etc.,where as in rtw you simply click on replace machinery to upgrade the engines.The combat is cool because of the graphics,of course,but apart from that the battles are also pretty inferior to the RTW ones,they are buggy and the ai is retarded,another important thing is the map,in UAD it's just infinite water,in RTW the entire globe is generated,with coastal guns and random ships too. But,ignoring these things,there is no reason to call uad a copy of rtw.They are similar in that they are both ship designing games,but the mechanics and many other things are different.Say someone made a tank designer game for example,are you gonna come here and say it's a complete copy of RTW because both games give you ability to change the thickness of your vehicle's armour? I concur on the ship designer, it looks quite good. I think UAD's world map is better than RTW 2, and its not close. The inclusion of minor nations is a nice touch as well. The gun design flexibility is also something RTW lacks, but other than that, I think RTW is better. Way less bugs, general design is better, and I absolutely hate UAD's UI. The refit system is also really bad as well, and very unrealistic. They might improve it up to a level where it is a decent option overall, but best used for the ship design and custom battles rather than campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by nickthenuker on Feb 18, 2023 9:13:02 GMT -6
Say someone made a tank designer game for example I know you're making a hypothetical but there is a recent game about that, Sprocket, and it's pretty good
|
|
ironduke666
New Member
Forum residential Furry
Posts: 27
|
Post by ironduke666 on Mar 11, 2023 9:04:58 GMT -6
Well, both of the games do things well, and fail at other things. Leaving aside the load of bugs in UAD, since it's still in early access I would tally up UAD vs. RtW like follows:
+ visuals; UADs use of a polished 3D-engine simply looks awesome + campaign; right now, building ships for minor nations, gaining said minors as partners and a rudimentary simulation of the economy is more enjoyable + ship-designer; it looks stunning and has some amazing flexibility
- tactical battles; right now UADs battles happen in a foggy piece of nowhere. Battles feel like a slugging match in a phone-booth. RtWs use of a large scale map with distinct objectives feel more realistic. You strike land-targets, patrol the seas, intercept enemy strikes ect. - emergent gameplay; a day-night-cycle, terrain and a large playing-field allows for some riveting situations: hunting down a stricken enemy fleet with your light forces or escaping a loosing battle into the night - base-building; you can construct shore-batteries, larger bases and airbases - air-warfare; a glaring omission in UAD, I see no way how this can work in the constricted environment of UAD
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Mar 11, 2023 9:54:04 GMT -6
If RTW had an improved version UAD's campaign map, and perhaps a 2d version of the ship designer, it would be near perfect in my mind.
3d isn't a big deal for me, and I think it has hindered UAD's development, although it probably wouldn't exist without it.
|
|
|
Post by dia on Mar 11, 2023 16:06:44 GMT -6
Well, both of the games do things well, and fail at other things. Leaving aside the load of bugs in UAD, since it's still in early access I would tally up UAD vs. RtW like follows: + visuals; UADs use of a polished 3D-engine simply looks awesome + campaign; right now, building ships for minor nations, gaining said minors as partners and a rudimentary simulation of the economy is more enjoyable + ship-designer; it looks stunning and has some amazing flexibility - tactical battles; right now UADs battles happen in a foggy piece of nowhere. Battles feel like a slugging match in a phone-booth. RtWs use of a large scale map with distinct objectives feel more realistic. You strike land-targets, patrol the seas, intercept enemy strikes ect. - emergent gameplay; a day-night-cycle, terrain and a large playing-field allows for some riveting situations: hunting down a stricken enemy fleet with your light forces or escaping a loosing battle into the night - base-building; you can construct shore-batteries, larger bases and airbases - air-warfare; a glaring omission in UAD, I see no way how this can work in the constricted environment of UAD UAD left early access back in January and iirc the devs only promised 6 months of support. I've been following a youtuber play a Japan 2010 campaign recently. The war system (victory conditions, invasions, etc) and diplomacy are embarrassingly buggy from what I've been seeing and there's not much interaction with minor nations. It seems they've taken a lot of features I've wished for for RtW (minor nations, AI wars, deployable subs, dynamic territorial changes, finer ship placement on campaign map, simulated land warfare, etc) and implemented them in the worst possible ways imaginable. The campaign map looks great though.
That said I stumbled into a reddit thread that was complaining about UAD and someone mentioned RtW2 and it seemed like most of the complaints they had about RtW2 was being resolved in RtW3 - the biggest being AI wars. Edit: I have to correct myself about UAD's implementation of minor nations. Not sure if this was a recent feature or something I only just saw for the first time, but minor nation ships can appear in battles alongside your own (under the players control). That to me is awesome though I think the minor nations only get them from buying off of major powers.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Mar 11, 2023 20:54:23 GMT -6
It is worth emphasizing that fancy features are only useful if implemented properly, and that isn't something UAD does well.
|
|
|
Post by dia on Mar 11, 2023 22:58:17 GMT -6
It is worth emphasizing that fancy features are only useful if implemented properly, and that isn't something UAD does well. Case in point land warfare. Aside from a few random victory points now and then, land wars essentially don't exist in RtW. As such it doesn't impact the gameplay and isn't intrusive but is at least in my opinion somewhat immersion breaking. I had put up some suggestions in the past about land warfare and my main goal of the suggestions was something that wasn't intrusive but provided some level of immersion.
UAD's implementation of land warfare went far beyond immersion. Population sizes, army sizes, and army losses were implemented in too much detail for a naval game and worst of all allowing misguided AI led invasions to completely tank a player's war. Realistic but not something you do for a naval game like UAD or RtW. Though one can argue the realism of materializing hundreds of thousands of troops out of thin air that seems to happen in that game.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Mar 23, 2023 16:55:30 GMT -6
UAD's designers do not understand abstraction. Thie leads them to "simulate" things on the one hand and try to generate "balance" on the other. The biggest issue is sighting ranges, but also ballistics (a weird mix of "simulated balisstics" and abstracted "to hit" probability calculations), economies, technology effects etc.
UAD's designer understood RTW on a surface level only. The biggest and best thing Fredrik did was to realize he needed to abstract in order to approximate reality, never forgetting he is abstracting. The gun quality system is a case in point, when I first played a SAI demo I was put off by the rendition of SMS von der Tann, coming off Distant Guns Jutland where von der Tann's increased elevation was very impactful. I also missed the difference between high MV and "mid" MV guns etc. But when RTW came out I understood. Detailed "simulation" of all the different gun aspects would have been a rabbit hole leading to complexity and imbalance. UAD went down about a dozen of such rabbit holes and is deeply flawed by it.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Mar 24, 2023 11:11:28 GMT -6
I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say that the game is deeply flawed. It does have some really odd quirks and realism issues, but at the end of the day, it is a "mostly" playable game that does do some things well. Even if the refit system is a joke reality wise, at least you have the option to change armor thickness. It provides some competition for Rtw, and while it certainly isn't as good, it provides impetus for further development in this game and an alternative for those who need 3d graphics.
|
|