Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts

Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
633
Location
Vindobona
Really interested in this, but the last time I saw a review it basically said the Campaign is more or less unplayable because of bugs and while the ship designer is fun, I would suggest waiting for the devs to finish this before buying (provided the Russians didnt nuke them yet.)
 

Luka-boy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
1,681
Location
Asspain
Global campaign mode with all the factions is out!

Major Update v1.09​


Hello Admirals, We are very happy to announce the next large patch for Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. The game now includes the full global map and all playable major nations for the campaign. The campaign has been enriched with many new features, including submarines, minefields, the finalization of the main technology tree, and various new aspects which aim to make the gameplay deeper and more realistic. Please read below in detail what v1.09 has to offer.



6e0282_4deb096e4a3849b3b09671c8981de22f~mv2.png



The new global map covers all regions of earth (Province Borders are not complete)

========================================

MAJOR CAMPAIGN FEATURES

  • Full Global Map: The map is expanded in its maximum size scale and it includes the whole world. You will be able to travel with your fleets everywhere and now the strategic importance of Task Forces and other new technologies become a necessity.
  • All Major Nations added: All 10x major Nations become available to play. The previous nations were:- British Empire - French Empire - German Empire - Italian Empire - Austro-Hungarian Empire and the new are: - United States - Russian Empire - Empire of Japan - Spanish Empire - Chinese Empire Note: For starters, their initial starting provinces will not differ according to the start year of the campaign.
6e0282_51ca47fb0ed44da7b073d5df2bafeae1~mv2.png




6e0282_cb65b34ffbc543fe8f99bb714c3b7eb4~mv2.png




6e0282_4d23ebb8334d44eba6daa99fed8fa2fb~mv2.png




Various regions of the new map

  • All necessary technology aspects become available: All previous not functional “To-Do” which you were seeing in the technology tree will be now fully operational, and many more. The most important to mention are the following: Submarines & ASW: The technology tree is enriched with the submarines which you can fully use in the campaign map. ASW new techs will help in the countermeasures against submarines. Fleets with no ASW and light ship escorts will be very vulnerable against submarines. The submarines will only be playable on the campaign map and will execute autoresolved missions against convoys and enemy fleets. Special mine submarines could sink enemies with their mines without engaging them. Mines: The technology tree includes a full set of mines and minefield options which can be used in the campaign map. DD and CL will have the ability to deploy mines with special components around the ports. Fleets will be able to clean them up faster if they have DD or TB with dedicated minesweeping equipment. Ports that are protected by mines can heavily damage enemies that attempt to close in for Port Strike missions. Ship Construction Flaws: Only for the campaign, the ships may have various minor or major defects when building them which you can overcome if you invest in construction technologies. Some complex components may increase the chance of defects, so overpowering your ship with the latest technology may result in defective ships if you haven’t invested sufficiently in the ship construction technologies. The “Overweight” and “Underweight” type of defects are permanent, while the extra “Hull Defects”, “Weapon Defects” can be gradually repaired with refits. New “Recon” rating for ships: The *Recon* rating represents the reconnaissance capability of the ship, its ability to report enemy movements without being detected, and greatly improves the strategic power of the fleet to gain initiative on offensive missions or get away from trouble before the enemy comes too close. “Recon” is affected mainly by the respective technology as well as spotting, detectability and speed attributes of the ship. Large and slow ships such as battleships are expected to have a smaller “Recon” rating than small cruisers and destroyers. Radio and Radar equipment greatly increase the reconnaissance capability surpassing inherited disadvantages of larger ships.
  • Various strategic technologies: Technologies that speed up the crew training, raise the maximum training level without combat, enhance the power projection/invade/protect capabilities or even reinforce transports with more armament (and torpedoes). All in all, the technology aspects have been rebalanced and enriched so that they matter significantly and require careful planning on which one to focus on.


6e0282_1b3d749dc9c8413b9df51bbb0179fbe4~mv2.png



The submarines can be built and upgraded but will not participate in 3D battles

6e0282_ce0b1c68bbd14df1a4622537d2dd2092~mv2.png



Ships of the same class can contain flaws which can be repaired with consecutive refits

EXTRA MAJOR FEATURES

  • Updated Shipyard graphics: New graphical improvements for the shipyard, according to the size of the designed ships. These shipyards will fit all ships, even the largest super battleships.
  • Campaign Ammunition: Spending ammunition in combat is no longer free, but has a cost which is added in the fleet maintenance. Ships will gradually regain ammo according to the weight of their requited ammo, the free port capacity and their distance from it. So ships that are in Task Forces must not waste ammunition, especially if they are far away from a large friendly port, as they will be in danger of ammunition shortages.
  • Detailed ship map movement and fuel: Ships travel at sea according to their cruising speed which is dependent from the designed top speed and the engine type (for example, Diesel Engines provide a higher cruising speed). According to their operational range, they spend fuel, in map or during combat (maximizing consumption at full speed). If they reach a “Low Fuel” state their maintenance becomes more expensive (simulating the necessity to refuel with supply convoys), they slow down the fleet with their lower cruising speed and in combat they cannot use the full engine throttle, so they are severely more vulnerable. Ships will gradually refuel according to their distance from a friendly port and its free capacity and the refueling cost will be dependent from the designed operational range and its cost. So now, chasing for hours withdrawing enemies may result in excessive fuel costs and shortages which will negatively affect your fleet in the next turns.
6e0282_33ef58f1674042128df3146515bb96a3~mv2.png



Among the various new realistic modifiers, the smoke now affects properly the gun accuracy, according to its source and direction

  • New “Defend” Role: During wartime players can switch to “Defend Port'' when they wish their ships to not participate in any other mission than port strike defense. This was many times asked by players as a way to manage the economy without trying to exploit the mothball options.
  • New “Commission Time”: When ships are constructed or are removed from mothball status, they need some time to become fully operational. Note: This new essential feature replaces the temporary very large “Repair” time when ships returned from mothball status.
  • New “Repair Priority” for ports: Previously all ships in ports received immediate repairs even for minor damages. Additionally, if you moved damaged ships from a task force to a port they would not be repaired unless they participated in a battle and survived. These problems are now addressed by having a “Repair Priority” button which appears when you click to a port which works similarly as for the Task Forces.
  • Detailed Refit Time: After popular player request, the refit time became more detailed, utilizing the amount of objects and tonnage changed on the ship. The refit time shows up during the refit design, so the player is well informed of his design actions.
6e0282_ff6b69b895b14700944a36845fadff31~mv2.png



New components: Mines, Mine Sweeping Kit, Depth Charges

  • Undo Action in Ship Design process: Players can undo a certain number of previous actions if they make a mistake. This new feature is a work in progress and may not be fully working.
  • Multiple Saves for campaign: A simple way of having different campaign save slots. We will try to include save capability during campaign battles.
  • Engine Vibrations: According to engine type or technologies, the ship may have excessive engine vibrations which negatively affect the ship’s accuracy. By lowering the ship’s throttle, the vibrations become reduced.
  • Shell Splashes accuracy effect: When firing at a target and other guns of your own or friendlies also fire at the target, there is a temporary accuracy penalty, simulating the difficulty to distinguish different splashes of multiple gun calibers. Rangefinders (especially the Radar) and some new techs lessen this negative effect. This new feature also enhances the ships of uniform gun caliber because shell splashes from minor secondaries is very small.
  • Gun recoil accuracy effect: You will now notice a realistic recoil accuracy effect when firing guns which will be significant if your hull is too small for those guns. This effect will dissipate over a short time but can greatly affect ships which are equipped with super velocity guns, too large for the displacement of the hull.
  • Updated ship physics: Ships interact with the waves more realistically. You will notice the acceleration to increase not linearly according to the size of the waves.
  • Engine efficiency is more important: The engine efficiency benefits are enhanced, since the engine efficiency level can increase further to 100%. Ships with low engine efficiency will be drastically slower at sea and have less operational range, making them strategically less important.
  • “Funnel smoke” and “smoke screen” new functionality: Smoke obstruction from funnels no longer causes a permanent accuracy penalty but this penalty is applied according to the direction of the smoke in relation to the target. Furthermore, this smoke obstruction affects other ships which will target with accuracy penalty when their targets are obstructed by the funnel smoke. The same functionality enriches the smoke screen which will now reduce the accuracy for targets that reside behind the smoke screen (not only inside the smoke, as before).
  • Armor plate damage affects shell penetration: As armor plates become damaged their resistance against incoming shells becomes reduced. So you will notice that even the most heavily armored ship can gain weaknesses after a prolonged combat and the hazard of a catastrophic detonation increases significantly when the ship is almost a wreck.
  • Flooding increases according to section damage: Various ship design aspects, crew and amount of damage received affect the flooding effects. Now the ship’s structure integrity affects them further. As a result, ships with increased damage have much difficulty to control flooding and so ships with maximum bulkheads will not feel “invulnerable” and so hard to sink as before.
  • Gun length settings depended on technology: The maximum gun length caliber is now researchable in “Turret Mechanisms” (and can be increased a little further than before), simulating the needed metallurgy developments to allow durable large caliber naval rifles which previously were unrealistically available too early in the technology era.
  • (POSTPONED for the next update) - New hulls: The USS Maine (1889) and several ship variants of early technology will enrich the roster of available hulls.


6e0282_66171889b4284c14aace4ed0ab3f1da4~mv2.png



The expanded dockyard graphics can fit the largest super battleship

6e0282_b80be96e3c18448e95119d2779c6f673~mv2.png






6e0282_8324aaab81a24bbd99648129c3e5e8da~mv2.png






BALANCES / FIXES

  • Battle AI improvements to follow the new changes.
  • Auto-Design improvements to follow the new features. It should also now not produce ships with zero superstructure armor (unless it produces a very special rare armor layout).
  • Various balances in ship weights.
  • HE armor penetration capacity is reduced. Overpowered large caliber HE shells should not exist anymore.
  • Shell ballistics improvements affecting penetration mechanics. Shell dispersion should be noticeably improved.
  • Various balances in many components and techs.
  • Fixes of various campaign bugs (too many to mention) .
  • Fixed the turret rotation stalling when angle is not sufficient (WIP).
  • Various minor hull improvements.
  • Fixed issue of overpowered player technology when he started a campaign with “Own Fleet”. Previously the AI ships would be behind at least 3 or 4 years while the player would have ships of the present start year (for example 1910 instead of 1906 ships). This fix addresses one of the main reasons that AI was weaker in battles because it always started with lower tech ships than the player.
========================================

We kindly thank everyone who participated in the beta procedure of update v1.09 with reports in forums or within the game interface. The update now became available for everyone but we will continue to check your feedback and bug reports to deploy a quick hotfix, if needed.



Thank you all for your continuous support! Please keep sharing your feedback in our forums: Official Forum

Steam Forum



The Game-Labs Team
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
633
Location
Vindobona
Game is overall okay now, the hotfixes fixed the worst campaign bugs introduced with v1.09. The Mechanics are still wonky and im not sure they will every really work them out, as they tend to add new stuff instead of properly balancing older features. Still fairly enjoyable now, finally I dont have to boot up the PS2 anymore for that Shipbuilding itch.
 

Victor1234

Educated
Joined
Dec 17, 2022
Messages
255
I'm quite curious how successfull this game has been commercially.
Seems to be ok based on counting numbers of Steam reviews. These guys had their biggest success with their first game (Ultimate General: Civil War), Age of Sail bombed and the rest have been middling. Not bad for the guys who used to try and salvage Total War's battle AI back in the day.

Incidentally if you like the sort of game that this game (Dreadnoughts) is going for but don't mind having worse graphics, Rule the Waves is the superior gameplay choice.
 

AwesomeButton

Proud owner of BG 3: Day of Swen's Tentacle
Patron
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
16,731
Location
At large
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
I'm still befuddled why wouldn't they just reskin/rebalance Civil War into a Napoleonics game, produce continuous missions to cover all major campaigns, and just roll in cash.
 

Victor1234

Educated
Joined
Dec 17, 2022
Messages
255
I'm still befuddled why wouldn't they just reskin/rebalance Civil War into a Napoleonics game, produce continuous missions to cover all major campaigns, and just roll in cash.
Hard to say if that would work out, the rolling in cash part. Armchair Historian youtube channel tried that with the Fire & Manoeuvre DLC model where the base game was free to get people in but not many of the 1.8 million subs of the channel ended up buying any DLC or even downloading the free game at all.

To be fair, it didn't help the base game was buggy and arguably not very good.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
Hard to say if that would work out, the rolling in cash part. Armchair Historian youtube channel tried that with the Fire & Manoeuvre DLC model where the base game was free to get people in but not many of the 1.8 million subs of the channel ended up buying any DLC or even downloading the free game at all.
It also doesn't help that, as a user seeing that, I see "crippleware game demo", and frankly, have better things to spend my download bandwidth on than what is clearly an attempt to bait me into losing money. Plus I just categorically tune out any of a channel creator's attempts to shill some product. At best, it becomes "meme shitty product I will never touch" when it gets shilled so many times that it starts to smell like desperation. You know what game I'm talking about here.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
34,179
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I'm still befuddled why wouldn't they just reskin/rebalance Civil War into a Napoleonics game, produce continuous missions to cover all major campaigns, and just roll in cash.
It would be the logical choice after they finish their American Revolutionary War game.
https://www.ug1775.com/
I think they're trying to get closer to the Total War model with each release.

The naval games implemented naval combat, Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail combined 18th century naval and land combat in one game, so battle-wise it's already more interesting than the latest TW games. Rome 2 was the only game with land battles where navies can appear at the coast.

Their revolutionary war game is gonna add a proper overworld map for dynamic campaigns, so you can recruit armies and send them across the map to do battle wherever they meet.

So the way they've been going at it was:
1. Implement TW style land battles
2. Implement TW style sea battles
3. Combine our battle systems with a strategic map like in TW
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
633
Location
Vindobona
Very short pro/contra.

Pro
  • YUGE amount of ship models from 1890-1940 (Monitors and Ironclads are not in the campaign, but are playable in the naval academy). Apart from Subs and Carriers, everything is available.
  • The Ship Builder is fantastic. Tons of options, every possible detail can be changed, lots of guns, torpedoes, funnels etc. Minor con: No aircraft, so no AA.
  • Nations play somewhat differently, ship models and research progress is different, i.e. Russian "Battleship III" is different than French "Battleship III", despite having the same name. Most BB models are unique.
  • I personally quite like the graphics, non penetrating shells can be seen bouncing off, flash fires look good, etc.
  • So far the Devs are reliably updating the game every month or so.

Contra
  • Many mechanics are not explained at all ingame. Some mechanics are present, but dont do anything right now.
  • Performance is a bit spotty. Large battles can get very choppy (somewhat fixed with the changes in the full release that make it impossible to have a Task Force of 200 ships in 1900).
  • AI is cheating rather obviously. Not talking about money here, but torpedoes. AI will instaspot and evade your torpedoes, even if it did not actually spot them (can be checked in battle log). Conversely the AI will always perfectly aim their own torpedoes at max distance, unless you are able to spot them and evade. Makes fighting lategame fleets of destroyers with super speed and 5x deck torpedoes a chore.
  • Turn times can get loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.
  • Devs do update the game regularly, but mostly add new, unnecessary stuff instead of fixing the core gameplay. I dont know anyone who wanted land invasions in a fucking naval game, but here we go, they were added.
  • Some Naval Academy missions are among the most hair pulling, bullshit difficulty stuff I have seen in 25 years of gaming. Just wow.

In conclusion: If you are a Warship autist like myself and enjoy an excellent ship builder, get it. If you liked Koei's Naval Ops series on the PS 2, get it. If you like polished and fully working games...probably still get it, but fap cautiously.
 

Victor1234

Educated
Joined
Dec 17, 2022
Messages
255
Very short pro/contra.

Pro
  • YUGE amount of ship models from 1890-1940 (Monitors and Ironclads are not in the campaign, but are playable in the naval academy). Apart from Subs and Carriers, everything is available.
  • The Ship Builder is fantastic. Tons of options, every possible detail can be changed, lots of guns, torpedoes, funnels etc. Minor con: No aircraft, so no AA.
  • Nations play somewhat differently, ship models and research progress is different, i.e. Russian "Battleship III" is different than French "Battleship III", despite having the same name. Most BB models are unique.
  • I personally quite like the graphics, non penetrating shells can be seen bouncing off, flash fires look good, etc.
  • So far the Devs are reliably updating the game every month or so.

Contra
  • Many mechanics are not explained at all ingame. Some mechanics are present, but dont do anything right now.
  • Performance is a bit spotty. Large battles can get very choppy (somewhat fixed with the changes in the full release that make it impossible to have a Task Force of 200 ships in 1900).
  • AI is cheating rather obviously. Not talking about money here, but torpedoes. AI will instaspot and evade your torpedoes, even if it did not actually spot them (can be checked in battle log). Conversely the AI will always perfectly aim their own torpedoes at max distance, unless you are able to spot them and evade. Makes fighting lategame fleets of destroyers with super speed and 5x deck torpedoes a chore.
  • Turn times can get loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.
  • Devs do update the game regularly, but mostly add new, unnecessary stuff instead of fixing the core gameplay. I dont know anyone who wanted land invasions in a fucking naval game, but here we go, they were added.
  • Some Naval Academy missions are among the most hair pulling, bullshit difficulty stuff I have seen in 25 years of gaming. Just wow.

In conclusion: If you are a Warship autist like myself and enjoy an excellent ship builder, get it. If you liked Koei's Naval Ops series on the PS 2, get it. If you like polished and fully working games...probably still get it, but fap cautiously.
The real question is, do you play your naval game for graphics or mechanics? If graphics, this is likely the better choice, if not...

https://www.wargamer.com/rule-the-waves-2/review

With the third installment on the way:

https://www.matrixgames.com/game/rule-the-waves-3
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
633
Location
Vindobona
Very short pro/contra.

Pro
  • YUGE amount of ship models from 1890-1940 (Monitors and Ironclads are not in the campaign, but are playable in the naval academy). Apart from Subs and Carriers, everything is available.
  • The Ship Builder is fantastic. Tons of options, every possible detail can be changed, lots of guns, torpedoes, funnels etc. Minor con: No aircraft, so no AA.
  • Nations play somewhat differently, ship models and research progress is different, i.e. Russian "Battleship III" is different than French "Battleship III", despite having the same name. Most BB models are unique.
  • I personally quite like the graphics, non penetrating shells can be seen bouncing off, flash fires look good, etc.
  • So far the Devs are reliably updating the game every month or so.

Contra
  • Many mechanics are not explained at all ingame. Some mechanics are present, but dont do anything right now.
  • Performance is a bit spotty. Large battles can get very choppy (somewhat fixed with the changes in the full release that make it impossible to have a Task Force of 200 ships in 1900).
  • AI is cheating rather obviously. Not talking about money here, but torpedoes. AI will instaspot and evade your torpedoes, even if it did not actually spot them (can be checked in battle log). Conversely the AI will always perfectly aim their own torpedoes at max distance, unless you are able to spot them and evade. Makes fighting lategame fleets of destroyers with super speed and 5x deck torpedoes a chore.
  • Turn times can get loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.
  • Devs do update the game regularly, but mostly add new, unnecessary stuff instead of fixing the core gameplay. I dont know anyone who wanted land invasions in a fucking naval game, but here we go, they were added.
  • Some Naval Academy missions are among the most hair pulling, bullshit difficulty stuff I have seen in 25 years of gaming. Just wow.

In conclusion: If you are a Warship autist like myself and enjoy an excellent ship builder, get it. If you liked Koei's Naval Ops series on the PS 2, get it. If you like polished and fully working games...probably still get it, but fap cautiously.
The real question is, do you play your naval game for graphics or mechanics? If graphics, this is likely the better choice, if not...

https://www.wargamer.com/rule-the-waves-2/review

With the third installment on the way:

https://www.matrixgames.com/game/rule-the-waves-3
I remember watching a Lets play of the second one and thinking to myself "This looks like the kind of autistic game I could sink some months into". Not sure if I still have the focus to really get into it though.
 

Luka-boy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
1,681
Location
Asspain
I dont know anyone who wanted land invasions in a fucking naval game, but here we go, they were added.
I think what happened is that since they're copying Rule the Waves and RtW has those, they had to have it too.

Thing is, in RtW land invasions are almost completely RNG bullshit and here you can influence things a tiny bit more and at least you can see some numbers (Land forces budget, number of soldiers in the front, attacker's progress percentage) so while technically an improvement because it's somewhat less obscure, it's still mostly the same RNG bullshit that might be better completely removed.
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,856
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
Very short pro/contra.

Pro
  • YUGE amount of ship models from 1890-1940 (Monitors and Ironclads are not in the campaign, but are playable in the naval academy). Apart from Subs and Carriers, everything is available.
  • The Ship Builder is fantastic. Tons of options, every possible detail can be changed, lots of guns, torpedoes, funnels etc. Minor con: No aircraft, so no AA.
  • Nations play somewhat differently, ship models and research progress is different, i.e. Russian "Battleship III" is different than French "Battleship III", despite having the same name. Most BB models are unique.
  • I personally quite like the graphics, non penetrating shells can be seen bouncing off, flash fires look good, etc.
  • So far the Devs are reliably updating the game every month or so.

Contra
  • Many mechanics are not explained at all ingame. Some mechanics are present, but dont do anything right now.
  • Performance is a bit spotty. Large battles can get very choppy (somewhat fixed with the changes in the full release that make it impossible to have a Task Force of 200 ships in 1900).
  • AI is cheating rather obviously. Not talking about money here, but torpedoes. AI will instaspot and evade your torpedoes, even if it did not actually spot them (can be checked in battle log). Conversely the AI will always perfectly aim their own torpedoes at max distance, unless you are able to spot them and evade. Makes fighting lategame fleets of destroyers with super speed and 5x deck torpedoes a chore.
  • Turn times can get loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.
  • Devs do update the game regularly, but mostly add new, unnecessary stuff instead of fixing the core gameplay. I dont know anyone who wanted land invasions in a fucking naval game, but here we go, they were added.
  • Some Naval Academy missions are among the most hair pulling, bullshit difficulty stuff I have seen in 25 years of gaming. Just wow.

In conclusion: If you are a Warship autist like myself and enjoy an excellent ship builder, get it. If you liked Koei's Naval Ops series on the PS 2, get it. If you like polished and fully working games...probably still get it, but fap cautiously.
The real question is, do you play your naval game for graphics or mechanics? If graphics, this is likely the better choice, if not...

https://www.wargamer.com/rule-the-waves-2/review

With the third installment on the way:

https://www.matrixgames.com/game/rule-the-waves-3
I remember the first game of the rtw series. Didn't know it got a sequel and another is in works. Is the 2nd substantially better than the first one?
 

Dayyālu

Arcane
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
4,621
Location
Shaper Crypt
I remember the first game of the rtw series. Didn't know it got a sequel and another is in works. Is the 2nd substantially better than the first one?

We have a LP here, but it's... incremental. Air is somewhat realistic and it makes surface combat essentially obsolete if approached "properly" - so with WW2 tech is pretty much impossible to have fun old-style battles because planes are everywhere. It's nonetheless fun to follow their development and deployment, but it's not such a GREAT revolution from RTW1. Thankfully you can purposefully slow air development to let you play more with your Yamato Super Battleships pew-pew battles.

I'd suggest to wait for the third one at this point, we'll get Cold War tech, I can't say much about the historical basis for that because there have been.... essentially no surface engagements bar the usual ASW missile strike, so I'm kinda curious.
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,856
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
I remember the first game of the rtw series. Didn't know it got a sequel and another is in works. Is the 2nd substantially better than the first one?

We have a LP here, but it's... incremental. Air is somewhat realistic and it makes surface combat essentially obsolete if approached "properly" - so with WW2 tech is pretty much impossible to have fun old-style battles because planes are everywhere. It's nonetheless fun to follow their development and deployment, but it's not such a GREAT revolution from RTW1. Thankfully you can purposefully slow air development to let you play more with your Yamato Super Battleships pew-pew battles.

I'd suggest to wait for the third one at this point, we'll get Cold War tech, I can't say much about the historical basis for that because there have been.... essentially no surface engagements bar the usual ASW missile strike, so I'm kinda curious.
From what i read about the 3rd instalment - the more interesting part for me is the start in 1890 (from 1900) which makes pre-dreadnaught ship design a thing other than them being just obsolete almost from the start. I would really love if they got all the way back to the ~1870*. Me want big ships with big guns doing pew-pew. Me not want air things and ships going <sound of an air-to-ship and ship-to-ship guided rocket>.

*Imagine designing ships with ramming in mind - a semi-common thing in late 1860s and 1870s. They sucked but the fun of it if you manage to sink something! Austrians managed to sink a large Italian armoured warship at Lissa 1866 iirc this way.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
633
Location
Vindobona
I remember the first game of the rtw series. Didn't know it got a sequel and another is in works. Is the 2nd substantially better than the first one?

We have a LP here, but it's... incremental. Air is somewhat realistic and it makes surface combat essentially obsolete if approached "properly" - so with WW2 tech is pretty much impossible to have fun old-style battles because planes are everywhere. It's nonetheless fun to follow their development and deployment, but it's not such a GREAT revolution from RTW1. Thankfully you can purposefully slow air development to let you play more with your Yamato Super Battleships pew-pew battles.

I'd suggest to wait for the third one at this point, we'll get Cold War tech, I can't say much about the historical basis for that because there have been.... essentially no surface engagements bar the usual ASW missile strike, so I'm kinda curious.
From what i read about the 3rd instalment - the more interesting part for me is the start in 1890 (from 1900) which makes pre-dreadnaught ship design a thing other than them being just obsolete almost from the start. I would really love if they got all the way back to the ~1870*. Me want big ships with big guns doing pew-pew. Me not want air things and ships going <sound of an air-to-ship and ship-to-ship guided rocket>.

*Imagine designing ships with ramming in mind - a semi-common thing in late 1860s and 1870s. They sucked but the fun of it if you manage to sink something! Austrians managed to sink a large Italian armoured warship at Lissa 1866 iirc this way.
Pre-Dreadnoughts feature prominently in UA:D, they even added coastal defense ships in the last update. China has some weird turreted ships of the Beiyang fleet. Early battles are a bit weird because you have to move close or risk not hitting anything for hours and that exposes you to torpedoes which can sink a early BB easily.
You are right about the battle of Lissa, it was a time when ship armor had progressed so much that smaller guns were unable to get decisive hits in, so Admiral Tegetthoff went for a ramming maneuver. They even built a fancy ass column to commemorate.
Wien_-_Tegetthoff-Denkmal_%282%29.JPG
 

Dayyālu

Arcane
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
4,621
Location
Shaper Crypt
From what i read about the 3rd installment - the more interesting part for me is the start in 1890 (from 1900) which makes pre-dreadnaught ship design a thing other than them being just obsolete almost from the start. I would really love if they got all the way back to the ~1870*. Me want big ships with big guns doing pew-pew. Me not want air things and ships going <sound of an air-to-ship and ship-to-ship guided rocket>.

I agree entirely, I forgot about the 1890 expansion.

Imagine designing ships with ramming in mind - a semi-common thing in late 1860s and 1870s. They sucked but the fun of it if you manage to sink something! Austrians managed to sink a large Italian armoured warship at Lissa 1866 iirc this way.

Ramming was another typical example of warship building shenanigans: effective combat data was so haphazard and rare that flukes and scatterbrained ideas dominated development and building until obsolescence. The fact that ramming worked once in a specific situation was then extended and wasted a ton of resources, but that's the story of military navy development.

Also, it gave us the coolest scene in The War of the Worlds, so I'm not complaining.

ArXjQj0.jpg
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
6,856
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
From what i read about the 3rd installment - the more interesting part for me is the start in 1890 (from 1900) which makes pre-dreadnaught ship design a thing other than them being just obsolete almost from the start. I would really love if they got all the way back to the ~1870*. Me want big ships with big guns doing pew-pew. Me not want air things and ships going <sound of an air-to-ship and ship-to-ship guided rocket>.

I agree entirely, I forgot about the 1890 expansion.

Imagine designing ships with ramming in mind - a semi-common thing in late 1860s and 1870s. They sucked but the fun of it if you manage to sink something! Austrians managed to sink a large Italian armoured warship at Lissa 1866 iirc this way.

Ramming was another typical example of warship building shenanigans: effective combat data was so haphazard and rare that flukes and scatterbrained ideas dominated development and building until obsolescence. The fact that ramming worked once in a specific situation was then extended and wasted a ton of resources, but that's the story of military navy development.

Also, it gave us the coolest scene in The War of the Worlds, so I'm not complaining.

ArXjQj0.jpg
Actually more than once. During American Civil War there were some cases of ramming iirc, though i'm not sure if the ships were built with that purpose in mind. Another example was Peru trying to ram a Chilean warship during Saltpeter war and partially succeeding. Add to that the fact that there were VERY FEW major naval engagements in the 60s and 70s - great powers simply didn't fight much - at least not much on sea. There simply wasn't much opportunity to try ramming in practice. Lissa was the biggest engagement of the era, and it actually worked there. After the 1870s it probably really became a nonsense.
The whole idea was - although not practical - rational in a way. In an era when armour gained almost decisive advantage over firepower (for a short time), you want to look for alternatives. They just didn't consider that unlike galleys, armoured steamships ability to achieve and maintain high speeds - speeds that gave them the ability to ram - also made it easy to avoid ramming. In addition 19th century armoured warships didn't fight in large tight formation like galleys at Actium or Lepanto. Navy people of the era probably read historical accounts of those battles but didn't take that fact into consideration. All that made opportunities to ram very rare. And they didn't think that artillery will catch up so quickly.
I still would to do it in a game - even if it weren't practical! The idea of ramming tactics returning in 2nd half of 19th century always made me laugh but also amazed me by the ability of coming with weird and, in a way, creative ideas. And they say military thinking is rigid.


Edit: I was thinking. Imagine a major naval engagement in 1870s with main forces of great naval powers, say UK vs France and US. In poor weather or in limited space. Whole formations being given order to ram from both sides. Hilarity would ensue. I know, not a very realistic scenario but neither RtW nor UA:D are just about recreating historical engagements. And a major naval battle during the height of "popularity" of ramming would be interesting. But a game needs to properly simulate it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
633
Location
Vindobona
Given that UA:D has ships originating in 1860+ (CSS Virginia:salute:) already, it should not be hard to implement. Ramming damage is already coded (if very wonky at the moment).
I just saw that they hotfixed (hopefully) two of the issues I mentioned earlier, very low early gun Accuracy and turn times. Also, here is the roadmap all the way till summer.
Can some codexian tech priest explain to me how I can link Steam? Neither media nor image seems to work.
 

Luka-boy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
1,681
Location
Asspain
Can some codexian tech priest explain to me how I can link Steam? Neither media nor image seems to work.
I just copypaste everything inside a quote ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hello fellow admirals,

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has been fully released but that does not mean it will not continue to be supported with new content or needed fixes. We already have deployed a considerable amount of hotfixes, addressing issues that you reported. We will still provide similar fixes for as long as it will be necessary and we will also provide new content for the game.

e47c32ee0da719e6f5569a8209cbc6bf626a7f60.png


Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts should be already playable, stable enough and enjoyable but we will continue polishing, so that we can safely move our development team into new game projects that you will surely like. Here is a brief list of the most important things we plan to offer till Summer 2023:
  1. Weather graphics:
    Currently we have a few different sea weather graphics that randomize and do not directly link with the weather modifiers. For example, we have stormy weather accuracy modifiers and the generated graphics show a sunny calm sea. We will soon add to the game a wide range of different weather, wave and daylight conditions that will radically increase the battle immersion. You will be able to play even night battles and any weather modifier will directly correlate with the visual experience.

  2. Spotting distances improvement:
    With the new weather graphics, we will offer a more advanced and realistic visibility mechanic. Now ships that fire remain unspotted and cannot be fired at. We will improve so that even distant ships can be spotted when they start firing and reveal their position, but they will show up as a little faded and there will be an accuracy penalty against them. A realistic fog of war will make ships slowly fade in/out according to their visibility.

  3. New detailed hulls:
    The following ships are scheduled to be offered in the next months:
    • New York Class Battleship (detailed variants of USS Texas 1914-1946).
    • Atlanta Class Cruiser and variants that can produce Cleveland-class and similar cruisers.
    • C-Class cruiser as a generic interwar cruiser variant.
    • Other ships can follow or replace the above depending on your recommendations and the war condition in Ukraine, since our main modeler is situated in Kiev.
  4. Map graphics finalization:
    The map includes all the necessary content to simulate the strategic conditions of the 1890 - 1940 time period and is not “flat” as the pathfinding system estimates the shortest route and generates paths via the pacific edge from one side to the other. A lot of players would like the map to have a horizontal “looping” but that would be only aesthetic as the main functionality is already implemented. This aesthetic aspect could generate various new bugs and broken saves that a lot of players will dislike, but we will review if we can improve it further.

    The map will receive the following planned improvements:
    • We will fix inconsistencies in all provinces that either do not have borders or they have wrong offsets.
    • We will fix several UI inconsistencies, including tooltips appearing on top of each other.
    • Any needed graphical enhancement will be made according to your recommendations.
  5. Performance optimizations:
    We will Improve further the loading times, we will repair issues that can cause lag in battles, check Unity CPU thread management etc. We have to remind players, when we first launched the campaign with a small map and only 2 nations that the loading times were much higher than now, while having a huge global map, 10 major nations, many minor nations and dozens of new strategic features in the calculation tables. So there is progress and we will keep improving.

  6. General UI and Window interface improvement:
    We will improve the aesthetics of all UI where necessary and will provide better support in window systems so that you can Alt+Tab out of the game in a borderless game window.

  7. Language Localization:
    We currently plan to offer support for the English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Simplified Chinese, Korean, Greek languages.

  8. Fix of all remaining issues or add missing features:

    This is a top priority
    . We have already fixed several reported bugs or inconsistencies. We already continue to fix known problems or things you report to us. We have just created the following threads in our Game-Labs and Steam forums where you can
    mention your biggest concerns, issues that prevent you from fully enjoying the game
    . We will use the feedback gained from these forum threads to fix one by one everything that is possible or a confirmed bug.

    We will also
    try to implement any new feature
    that will be widely requested, if the situation allows it because the majority of the development team is situated in Kiev so we have to prioritize more on fixes.

    Please visit the following links to communicate with us and list your suggestions on further improving the game or ask us to provide a fix for an important issue:

    Steam Forum Link

    Game-Labs Forum Link
Thank you for reading and for the continued support. The game will continue to grow and become better with your help. We hope you really enjoy playing Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. Please continue to share your thoughts and feedback.

The Game-Labs Team
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
732
I'm still befuddled why wouldn't they just reskin/rebalance Civil War into a Napoleonics game, produce continuous missions to cover all major campaigns, and just roll in cash.
Exactly my thoughts. The engine and gameplay in Civil War is just perfect. I'm sure it would be easy to adapt it to Napoleonic times. I'd buy all they threw at me.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
Ramming was another typical example of warship building shenanigans: effective combat data was so haphazard and rare that flukes and scatterbrained ideas dominated development and building until obsolescence. The fact that ramming worked once in a specific situation was then extended and wasted a ton of resources, but that's the story of military navy development.
Just the benefit of the player designing in hindsight tends to provide a lot more powerful designs that actually occurred in real life. Then you have the usual shenanigans, where you build a Spathi Eluder. Because every custom design in every game inevitably boils down to trying to create a Spathi Eluder.

[*]AI is cheating rather obviously. Not talking about money here, but torpedoes. AI will instaspot and evade your torpedoes, even if it did not actually spot them (can be checked in battle log). Conversely the AI will always perfectly aim their own torpedoes at max distance, unless you are able to spot them and evade. Makes fighting lategame fleets of destroyers with super speed and 5x deck torpedoes a chore.
Technically, it's not cheating, the player can do it also: If you spot an enemy ship whose torpedoes just went on cooldown, you have live fish incoming, take evasive action. The AI perfectly aiming their torpedoes is really annoying. Not because the AI has good aim, but because the AI has perfect aim, which means he MISSES EVERY SHOT with yours, because he only aims at where he thinks the enemy will be assuming a standard course, rather than creating a proper Wall of Skill.

Also, the AI has one major flaw in his aim: He can't seem to hit anything that is driving backwards. If you put your ship in reverse and bait him into firing at it, he will fire at it leading the ship as if it was going forwards at the speed it is going at. This, of course, misses wildly, because you are driving backwards. You can pretty much soak every torpboat that way because he will never hit you as he will lead you in exactly the wrong way. This, however, also seems to adversely affect your own torpedoes if you fire them on a ship that is driving backwards. So don't do that.

Also, the AI is a big fan of wasting your time with purposeless battles it doesn't actually intend to fight, and it doesn't understand how a convoy escort is supposed to work.

What you are SUPPOSED to do when faced with a superior force in a convoy defense (because of course it's a superior attacking force, otherwise they wouldn't be attacking!): Charge the enemy, try to confuse, obstruct, and delay him so the transports get away, probably die valiantly. What the AI does: Runs like cheap paint, leaving the transports to their fate undefended. And forcing the player to fight this completely pointless battle instead of just listing it as "transports lost".
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom