Idgi, put it on steam and they will make way more than that shitty 1997 website even with more pirated copys
Autistic strategy game boomer devs are all like this. Aurora 4X, this game, and particular mods across games have their devs being extremely possessive of their work and having a deathly fear of pirates or people ripping code/assets from the games to the point they'd rather completely ruin the game with bizarre anti-piracy schemes in the game or delete it all than have someone else touch it without going through their channels first.
What part of this simple, easy to understand sentence confuses you?
Modding communities are always getting overrun by human filth like gays, trannies and furries so its only logical that some creators dont allow/want to limit modding to not taint their creation by association.
With the state of dreadnoughts, I don't doubt that it will be better.
Dreadnoughts is way better. I will take the good graphics over the literal spreadsheets anyway. No excuse for rule the waves to have trash UI in 2020s.
the only thing saving the trash ultimate admiral devs is that half of em are probably dead and another half receives like 2-hour state regulate electricity window
even then why wont you frickin leave the country with the money youre making with this buggy unfinished game
people are getting frustrated over the year of no significant improvements in quality and its UI looks like an indie Unity project some bumfrick 5 year old made
i would play rule the waves but its way too autistic and gatekeeping, only time will tell if this boomer frickin dies and his son or grandson finally releases the game from consumer hell or ukies get their shit right and move the frick away from kiev or kyiv or whatever
Dreadnoughts is way better. I will take the good graphics over the literal spreadsheets anyway. No excuse for rule the waves to have trash UI in 2020s.
no one actually knows. One of the critical problems now is that the military is usually a hiding hole for people too incompetent to survive in the corporate world. For example, that big finding a couple years back there was severe deficiencies in US naval officers navigational ability and abilities in correctly using radar systems. So the first year or two of any serious naval conflict would be watching horrific mistakes unfold time and time again as the incompetent are slowly killed off/replaced by the competent
Anyone who isn't a total moron gets out of the military, so only morons move up into command positions.
Lol the coast guard just lowered asvab standards to army levels, gonna be wild dealing with a with a jo named laquisha who's iq is the same as a cardboard box and a inferiority complex.
I think a major problem with modern naval warfare is nobody actually knows what it will look like, it's all theoretical.
Like no simulation would have a flagship cruiser off on its own, but look at the Moscow. No simulation would have you fielding a rusted out scrapheap, but look at Admiral Kuznetsov. I'm not trying to start a political debate, there are problems on the NATO side too, but my point is that there is what we imagine modern naval war to look like and then there is the cold reality.
>nobody actually knows what it will look like
We didn't know for sure what modern peer-to-peer ground warfare would like either until the last year. Every country with a functioning navy conducts exercises to figure out tactics. >no simulation would have a flagship cruiser off on its own >No simulation would have you fielding a rusted out scrapheap, but look at Admiral Kuznetsov.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You can do it in CMO, you could do it in Dangerous Waters. Hell, you could do it in Harpoon. Why are you trying to debate what sims can or cannot do if you have never played a single post-WW2 naval sim in your life?
You can use sims to conduct exercises on your own, with whatever rules you deem necessary. This is literally how simulators are used by professionals. The goal of sims is to simulate physics and capabilities, the tactics are up to users.
You really need to play some sims before you try to judge what they can or can't do. Start with Dangerous Waters if CMO seems to expensive and complicated to you.
Wargames don't exist to create perfect representations of real military conflicts for fun, they exist as serious attempts to discover and work out problems - and thus are usually stacked against BLUFOR.
no one actually knows. One of the critical problems now is that the military is usually a hiding hole for people too incompetent to survive in the corporate world. For example, that big finding a couple years back there was severe deficiencies in US naval officers navigational ability and abilities in correctly using radar systems. So the first year or two of any serious naval conflict would be watching horrific mistakes unfold time and time again as the incompetent are slowly killed off/replaced by the competent
Anyone who isn't a total moron gets out of the military, so only morons move up into command positions.
There is a old as dirt military saying where I am from that goes like this: >Those that god did not give brains, he gave stars and bars.
There have always been idiots in high and low command, and as anyone who has served as a grunt can tell you, there are a lot of them among the grunts too, you just hope that the other side's idiots are bigger frick ups than yours.
Lowering standards, shit pay, and having failing upwards being a very real thing doesn't help though.
I think a major problem with modern naval warfare is nobody actually knows what it will look like, it's all theoretical.
Like no simulation would have a flagship cruiser off on its own, but look at the Moscow. No simulation would have you fielding a rusted out scrapheap, but look at Admiral Kuznetsov. I'm not trying to start a political debate, there are problems on the NATO side too, but my point is that there is what we imagine modern naval war to look like and then there is the cold reality.
Modern combat doctrines are extremely theoretical and probably wrong. This is the first conflict with near pear tech (other factors aside), and it's not enough to actually draw conclusions
Before ww1 there were several conflicts that showed lessons which seem obvious in hindsight but military experts of the time missed
A few more Ukraines and maybe we can avoid another version of "gas and aircraft are useless" and "bravery is the main deciding factor in ground combat"
From what’s been seen recently and in the last 50-ish years is that all it takes anymore is one cruise missile and a unprepared/unaware/ignorant crew and a ship of any size or class is pretty much sunk. The only thing that hasn’t been really tested yet are things like modern aircraft super carriers vs. other 1st world countries and modern submarine vs. submarine combat.
There’s the simulations and war game reports claiming a Taiwanese conflict would see a massive bloodbath and loss os ships, carriers, and subs on both sides but that’s all we have to go on currently.
When is it coming out, i loved the 2nd one and the images they have posted look neat.
Also new stuff is confirmed like the AI nations going to war and sinking ships etc
I want to be hopeful....
>Playing the UA:D campaign some more and the way it differs from RtW over the course of a campaign gets really, REALLY stark. In RtW you're a naval secretary whose main goal is to keep your prestige up and try not to get owned too hard in wars, which if won offers some marginal gains but won't fundamentally alter the balance of power too much.
>In UA:D you are a mad imperialist running the shadow government behind the scenes to jockey for ultimate control and power with the most naked and ruthless of imperial expansion against weaker rivals who have fallen by the wayside. I conquered all of Central Russia as Italy via naval invasion for heaven's sake, while France was steadily eating Central Europe in repeated wars. I feel like I can't slow down either, if I don't absorb as many provinces as I can through wars my erstwhile allies will and then I'll never have the budget to challenge them, or an army that can hold them back. I'm seriously contemplating the invasion and total destruction of Spain in 1914.
I thought the Japanese loved submarine aircraft carriers.
1 year ago
Anonymous
The Japanese are also moronic.
The fact is you absolutely do not need to worry about custom building submarines because practically they are all designed very similarly.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Frick practicality.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>design ships >cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships and torpedo boats >even destroyers >but not submarines for some reason >only get tech that says (Coastal, Ocean, Mine-Laying) and a barebones description of what it consists of (Engine, Max torpedoes, Speed etc. )
its a tube, its literally a tube how can you not let us design the simplest frickin iron tube, its like >choose the hull type >choose the propeller type >choose the torpedo tubes >place the diesel exhaust >select auxiliaries
its that frickin easy its a frickin piece of iron were not gonna be playing silent hunter each engagement ffs
1 year ago
Anonymous
the hull type
the propeller type
the torpedo tubes
the diesel exhaust
auxiliaries
But how will these actually affect it because all subs do is take out ships outside of battle?
i think the current treaty system works just fine
I had this one game where I was playing as Russia and a naval treaty was signed in 1905 or so, and there were a string of naval treaties until the 1920s, they were such low tonnage that battleships didn't even develop until the 1930s most nations had 1 or 2 dreadnoughts less than 5 BC's and a shit load of pre dreadnoughts until the treaties ended.
It was something no other game will ever even come close to simulating
I know it will have a different treaty system than RtW2, already had it when it was just blanned as DLC. Aside from tonnage and main gun caliber limits there is also an overall tonnage limit for each nation and a percentage limit for capital ships. Furthermore the negatioations are a bit more drawn out with the player being able to support changes to the treaty.
Yeah what an absolute idiot, in fact we should just make the game entirely text-based with command lines for maximum performance and the most efficient use of budget
2D graphics don't inflate the budget. 3D does. Now frick off, graphicsgay. Go play your shitty toy boat simulator with huge restrictions on how many ships can be on screen at any one time.
Don't you have anything better to do with your life than be wrong and moronic?
1 year ago
Anonymous
I don’t know if it’s just me but that UI is hideous and it looks like using less ships doesn’t make it better. It has that “Steam shovelware” aesthetic.
UA:D at its current state is inferior even to RtW2.
Naval combat is atrocious. AI just piles ships randomly completely disregarding weapon range and distance between ships. There's nothing even remotely resembling formations. You need steel nerves to not uninstall the game in disgust after a single battle.
Ship designs in UA:D allow some Narnia fleet level of fantasy frickery. Which is probably a plus if you're a little kid who has no idea how ships work, but will disappoint anyone with even basic knowledge who wants some depth and complexity.
Despite the aforementioned, UA:D actually offers less roleplay features.
Basically the choice between UA:D and RtW boils down to: "Do you want a good game or a game that looks decent?"
Rear Admiral or whatever. You just have to accept that your captains are going to do moronic things and your destroyers aren't going to shoot torps exactly when you tell them to.
I hope it will be possible to mod in alternative map.
Firstly, the Earth’s topography means for most powers, navy will always be a secondary concern.
Secondly, real people died in conflicts this game featurs so it leaves me with a bad aftertaste of misery tourism and stolen valor. I don’t care that much about made up Goblinoids on fictional Archipelago Platet.
>Secondly, real people died in conflicts this game featurs so it leaves me with a bad aftertaste of misery tourism and stolen valor.
What a strange complaint to have.
>Be Usa >Transport something like 20 ship in the japanese territory >Make a battle >I have only 1 ship the enemy have something like 3 (but in the same territory i have something like 20 ships) >Make another battle the enemy have something like 2 ships i have one ship
What i am doing wrong?
Just why?
If you don’t have enough bases in a region to support your fleet (you can see the bases/support in tons by clicking the region) you won’t be able to bring as many ships to battle, but he is able to use the full weight of his fleet because it is his home region.
The solution is either to >Pull back most of your fleet from the region save for a couple raiders to harass his shipping because it will be destroyed piecemeal keeping it all there >Invade/occupy a territory in his home region and develop the bases to the point where you can station a sizable fleet
I hope they make air scouting easier, I fricking hate battles after 1936 or so. I never find anything, even with autistic air search plans, and then get fricked by the ai which seemingly homes in on my carriers
Why does it remind of windows 95 and 98?
If i'm not wrong this is programmed in Basic
It’s like one 60 year old doing all the programming too.
>gets even more butthurt about "ebil pirates" and limits people to a one use only activation key
Idgi, put it on steam and they will make way more than that shitty 1997 website even with more pirated copys
I think it’s going on Steam, don’t know exactly. It’s on the Matrix store though for sure which is a huge improvement.
This one will be on Steam, the original boomer died.
Autistic strategy game boomer devs are all like this. Aurora 4X, this game, and particular mods across games have their devs being extremely possessive of their work and having a deathly fear of pirates or people ripping code/assets from the games to the point they'd rather completely ruin the game with bizarre anti-piracy schemes in the game or delete it all than have someone else touch it without going through their channels first.
good, frick valve drones and steamhomosexuals like you, it's their game they can do whatever the hell they want with it
It goes both ways, we can b***h as much as we want.
The freedom of choosing your distribution platform goes hand in hand with the freedom of bankruptcy :^)
And that approach has a merit given how modding communities are always in the end overrun by homosexuals, furries, commies and trannies.
I’m sorry, what?
What part of this simple, easy to understand sentence confuses you?
Modding communities are always getting overrun by human filth like gays, trannies and furries so its only logical that some creators dont allow/want to limit modding to not taint their creation by association.
Please play something other than paradox slop, I beg you.
>Starsector
>Civilization
>Red Alert
>Rimworld
>Skyrim
>Sims
>Oblivion
>Morrowing
>Secretly Paradox products
You clearly have no idea how modding scene looks for most of the games.
>basedjacks
>look mom i used that word i heard even when it doesnt fit at all
have a nice day.
weird almost like they're more common than basedjacks like you
With the state of dreadnoughts, I don't doubt that it will be better.
Dreadnoughts isn't a BAD game
the only thing saving the trash ultimate admiral devs is that half of em are probably dead and another half receives like 2-hour state regulate electricity window
even then why wont you frickin leave the country with the money youre making with this buggy unfinished game
people are getting frustrated over the year of no significant improvements in quality and its UI looks like an indie Unity project some bumfrick 5 year old made
i would play rule the waves but its way too autistic and gatekeeping, only time will tell if this boomer frickin dies and his son or grandson finally releases the game from consumer hell or ukies get their shit right and move the frick away from kiev or kyiv or whatever
Dreadnoughts is way better. I will take the good graphics over the literal spreadsheets anyway. No excuse for rule the waves to have trash UI in 2020s.
I'm glad that dumb Black person boomer in charge of their web store is dead.
Shill thread
I can’t wait to see what a 100,000 ton super Yamato with ASMs could do.
Why not go for a normal 50k ton Bismarck, but with the maximum amount of 18 inch rifles and 17 inch secondaries and with minimal protection?
20 inch or bust.
>what could possibly go wrong
Lol the coast guard just lowered asvab standards to army levels, gonna be wild dealing with a with a jo named laquisha who's iq is the same as a cardboard box and a inferiority complex.
>easily going to be GOTY 2023
not a high bar sadly...
It's only February you dumb pessimist
how is there already a third one, lol?
II was released 4 years ago
Will you be able to autoresolve?
What would a game like this simulating current-day naval warfare look like? Command Modern Operations?
I think a major problem with modern naval warfare is nobody actually knows what it will look like, it's all theoretical.
Like no simulation would have a flagship cruiser off on its own, but look at the Moscow. No simulation would have you fielding a rusted out scrapheap, but look at Admiral Kuznetsov. I'm not trying to start a political debate, there are problems on the NATO side too, but my point is that there is what we imagine modern naval war to look like and then there is the cold reality.
>nobody actually knows what it will look like
We didn't know for sure what modern peer-to-peer ground warfare would like either until the last year. Every country with a functioning navy conducts exercises to figure out tactics.
>no simulation would have a flagship cruiser off on its own
>No simulation would have you fielding a rusted out scrapheap, but look at Admiral Kuznetsov.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You can do it in CMO, you could do it in Dangerous Waters. Hell, you could do it in Harpoon. Why are you trying to debate what sims can or cannot do if you have never played a single post-WW2 naval sim in your life?
>Every country with a functioning navy conducts exercises to figure out tactics
According to self fulfilling and self propagating rules. Wargames only take you so far, every naval war in history shows that.
You can use sims to conduct exercises on your own, with whatever rules you deem necessary. This is literally how simulators are used by professionals. The goal of sims is to simulate physics and capabilities, the tactics are up to users.
You really need to play some sims before you try to judge what they can or can't do. Start with Dangerous Waters if CMO seems to expensive and complicated to you.
Wargames don't exist to create perfect representations of real military conflicts for fun, they exist as serious attempts to discover and work out problems - and thus are usually stacked against BLUFOR.
no one actually knows. One of the critical problems now is that the military is usually a hiding hole for people too incompetent to survive in the corporate world. For example, that big finding a couple years back there was severe deficiencies in US naval officers navigational ability and abilities in correctly using radar systems. So the first year or two of any serious naval conflict would be watching horrific mistakes unfold time and time again as the incompetent are slowly killed off/replaced by the competent
Anyone who isn't a total moron gets out of the military, so only morons move up into command positions.
Why is the military high command full of morons?
There is a old as dirt military saying where I am from that goes like this:
>Those that god did not give brains, he gave stars and bars.
There have always been idiots in high and low command, and as anyone who has served as a grunt can tell you, there are a lot of them among the grunts too, you just hope that the other side's idiots are bigger frick ups than yours.
Lowering standards, shit pay, and having failing upwards being a very real thing doesn't help though.
Design
>as the incompetent are slowly killed off/replaced by the competent
That's very glass half full.
You know they could be replaced with glory hounds. 🙂
>Why is humanity* full of morons?
Some people make you question if we're sapient.
Modern combat doctrines are extremely theoretical and probably wrong. This is the first conflict with near pear tech (other factors aside), and it's not enough to actually draw conclusions
Before ww1 there were several conflicts that showed lessons which seem obvious in hindsight but military experts of the time missed
A few more Ukraines and maybe we can avoid another version of "gas and aircraft are useless" and "bravery is the main deciding factor in ground combat"
A lot of the realities of WW1 were predicted in advanced, but everyone ignored them because they thought the war would be over quickly.
From what’s been seen recently and in the last 50-ish years is that all it takes anymore is one cruise missile and a unprepared/unaware/ignorant crew and a ship of any size or class is pretty much sunk. The only thing that hasn’t been really tested yet are things like modern aircraft super carriers vs. other 1st world countries and modern submarine vs. submarine combat.
There’s the simulations and war game reports claiming a Taiwanese conflict would see a massive bloodbath and loss os ships, carriers, and subs on both sides but that’s all we have to go on currently.
People seem to have memoryholed the clusterfrick that was the Falklands War.
nebulous: fleet command
When is it coming out, i loved the 2nd one and the images they have posted look neat.
Also new stuff is confirmed like the AI nations going to war and sinking ships etc
I want to be hopeful....
Difference between this and Ultimate Admiral?
The difference is Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts is the better game.
Does the campaign work yet?
>Playing the UA:D campaign some more and the way it differs from RtW over the course of a campaign gets really, REALLY stark. In RtW you're a naval secretary whose main goal is to keep your prestige up and try not to get owned too hard in wars, which if won offers some marginal gains but won't fundamentally alter the balance of power too much.
>In UA:D you are a mad imperialist running the shadow government behind the scenes to jockey for ultimate control and power with the most naked and ruthless of imperial expansion against weaker rivals who have fallen by the wayside. I conquered all of Central Russia as Italy via naval invasion for heaven's sake, while France was steadily eating Central Europe in repeated wars. I feel like I can't slow down either, if I don't absorb as many provinces as I can through wars my erstwhile allies will and then I'll never have the budget to challenge them, or an army that can hold them back. I'm seriously contemplating the invasion and total destruction of Spain in 1914.
Sounds fun tbqh
How so? You must be a child whose small feeble brain claps at the pretty graphics. UA doesn't even simulate planes, carriers or subs.
Do better.
subs pretty much do nothing in RTW and you can’t design or control them
>have subs
>can't control them
whats the point?
And what do you want to do with them? Build a fricking Surcouf abomination against Biblical teachings?
Yes. Also it'd be a carrier.
I thought the Japanese loved submarine aircraft carriers.
The Japanese are also moronic.
The fact is you absolutely do not need to worry about custom building submarines because practically they are all designed very similarly.
Frick practicality.
>design ships
>cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships and torpedo boats
>even destroyers
>but not submarines for some reason
>only get tech that says (Coastal, Ocean, Mine-Laying) and a barebones description of what it consists of (Engine, Max torpedoes, Speed etc. )
its a tube, its literally a tube how can you not let us design the simplest frickin iron tube, its like
>choose the hull type
>choose the propeller type
>choose the torpedo tubes
>place the diesel exhaust
>select auxiliaries
its that frickin easy its a frickin piece of iron were not gonna be playing silent hunter each engagement ffs
the hull type
the propeller type
the torpedo tubes
the diesel exhaust
auxiliaries
But how will these actually affect it because all subs do is take out ships outside of battle?
I wish there were more ways to limit tonnage, or I could Guarantee a treaty in games.
i think the current treaty system works just fine
I had this one game where I was playing as Russia and a naval treaty was signed in 1905 or so, and there were a string of naval treaties until the 1920s, they were such low tonnage that battleships didn't even develop until the 1930s most nations had 1 or 2 dreadnoughts less than 5 BC's and a shit load of pre dreadnoughts until the treaties ended.
It was something no other game will ever even come close to simulating
I know it will have a different treaty system than RtW2, already had it when it was just blanned as DLC. Aside from tonnage and main gun caliber limits there is also an overall tonnage limit for each nation and a percentage limit for capital ships. Furthermore the negatioations are a bit more drawn out with the player being able to support changes to the treaty.
Imagine actually enjoying sound and 3D graphics in a naval warfare game haha what kind of moron would you have to be?
Yeah, what moron would want worse performance and an inflated budget.
Yeah what an absolute idiot, in fact we should just make the game entirely text-based with command lines for maximum performance and the most efficient use of budget
2D graphics don't inflate the budget. 3D does. Now frick off, graphicsgay. Go play your shitty toy boat simulator with huge restrictions on how many ships can be on screen at any one time.
You can have like at least 100 ships onscreen what are you talking about
lmao, no. You're limited to like 20.
Don't you have anything better to do with your life than be wrong and moronic?
I don’t know if it’s just me but that UI is hideous and it looks like using less ships doesn’t make it better. It has that “Steam shovelware” aesthetic.
UA:D at its current state is inferior even to RtW2.
Naval combat is atrocious. AI just piles ships randomly completely disregarding weapon range and distance between ships. There's nothing even remotely resembling formations. You need steel nerves to not uninstall the game in disgust after a single battle.
Ship designs in UA:D allow some Narnia fleet level of fantasy frickery. Which is probably a plus if you're a little kid who has no idea how ships work, but will disappoint anyone with even basic knowledge who wants some depth and complexity.
Despite the aforementioned, UA:D actually offers less roleplay features.
Basically the choice between UA:D and RtW boils down to: "Do you want a good game or a game that looks decent?"
>Ship designs in UA:D allow some Narnia fleet level of fantasy frickery
>roleplay features
What the frick are “roleplay features” in a game like this?
citation needed
I hope the fleet AI will be less shit, it'd often get stuck in some inlet/estuary which made the rest of the battle just some boring drivebys
they would still manage to nail you with torpedoes
True, but it still felt a bit silly
What will be the main changes from RTW2?
1890s to missile cruisers and war between AI
Has the political map improved or is it still just very basic tard fights over regions?
does it have autoresolve. I'm lazy of playing skirmishes
Which realism mode do you play on?
Rear Admiral or whatever. You just have to accept that your captains are going to do moronic things and your destroyers aren't going to shoot torps exactly when you tell them to.
I hope it will be possible to mod in alternative map.
Firstly, the Earth’s topography means for most powers, navy will always be a secondary concern.
Secondly, real people died in conflicts this game featurs so it leaves me with a bad aftertaste of misery tourism and stolen valor. I don’t care that much about made up Goblinoids on fictional Archipelago Platet.
>Secondly, real people died in conflicts this game featurs so it leaves me with a bad aftertaste of misery tourism and stolen valor.
What a strange complaint to have.
It's something overly-sensitive rich kids say.
>real people died in conflicts this game featurs
You mean like every single historical wargame ever made? What the frick is this post
For a second I tought I was looking at the GUI of Rhinoceros 3D
Will there be steady DLC and new content for this, or is it going to be abandonware like RTW2?
>Muh GAAS
More like Rule the Microsoft Paint
>Be Usa
>Transport something like 20 ship in the japanese territory
>Make a battle
>I have only 1 ship the enemy have something like 3 (but in the same territory i have something like 20 ships)
>Make another battle the enemy have something like 2 ships i have one ship
What i am doing wrong?
Just why?
You don’t have enough base capacity. It’s their home region.
Oh ok thanks but i don't know what are you talking about
If you don’t have enough bases in a region to support your fleet (you can see the bases/support in tons by clicking the region) you won’t be able to bring as many ships to battle, but he is able to use the full weight of his fleet because it is his home region.
The solution is either to
>Pull back most of your fleet from the region save for a couple raiders to harass his shipping because it will be destroyed piecemeal keeping it all there
>Invade/occupy a territory in his home region and develop the bases to the point where you can station a sizable fleet
Thanks i really appreciate.
But to be honest i think it's a little bit forced this mechanics
IT'S OVER.
The UI that filtered millions.
I hope they make air scouting easier, I fricking hate battles after 1936 or so. I never find anything, even with autistic air search plans, and then get fricked by the ai which seemingly homes in on my carriers
just put your fighters on heavy CAP bro
>the new feature for RTW3 is that AI can declare wars on eachother and fite
ngmi
Can I in theory rule the waves by building big a mean fleet so the computer players will rather pick on each other than fight me?
they would in theory just join up and try to bash your face in instead
>build features that were supposed to be in II into II's engine
>release it as III
Based boomers.