Why are there no boat games?
Last one I can remember, aside from indie tech demos sold for 10$ is this one (it's very restrictive in terms of boat design and should have been instead like sprocket) and another one from the same dev about sail boats (it's mid) and battlestations pacific which was released really long ago and is unplayable on modern pc.
>inb4 WoWs
Too grindy and is pvp, so there is meta to literally every action you can take. Midlevel French BBs are fun, THOUGH.
Warship Gunner series. They're the definition of mediocre, but damn if they didn't scratch an itch back in the day. And while the gameplay was mid as frick, it had one of the best editors I've seen in a naval game.
It is odd that there are a good number of submarine games but very few surface ship games. Are battleships that much more complicated to simulate or are they just not as popular with people as Uboats?
Probably because there were no big boat-centric movies. U boots had the boot but aside from boat and boat 2: the lesser weevil I can't remember much of a boat centered media and it really isn't that popular compared to the underwater boat one.
Also, there were not much conflicts involving boats in 1850-1930 period aside from Russo-Japanese war and WW1 and something like Russo-Japanese war is not interesting to the consumers because they can't self insert as japs or russians and in WW1 there weren't many battles involving big amounts of big boats like in WW2.
>WW1 there weren't many battles involving big amounts of big boats like in WW2.
Jutland moron
Also, a movie about Maximilian von Spee would be kino as well
That's a good point I can't think of any movies about WWII era battleships. There are plenty about the age of sail but afaik nothing about Ironclad tier ships duking it out. Well except Battleship but that is literally a meme movie.
If you wanted to make a simulator about actual naval combat circa WW2, it would make look stuff like GWX look like a trivial bullshit.
Yes, aiming would be incredibly hard, especially in analogue. It also lacks the typical fanfare, since the distance of a regular naval engagement was about 10-15 nautical miles. Your goal was to spot a stack of smoke, check your logs if there should be any stack of smoke there, and if none, align all your guns and fire everything you've got, calculating each turret separately. Normally that's a job for an entire GROUP of officers managing this shit, and a whole lot of equipment. Doing it solo is a fricking nightmare, unless you would be able to pause for like 20 minutes and then apply all your calculations to the turrets you want to fire. The end result is hitting or not some target that you can't even see, and pursue for next 3-5 hours (assuming you are faster than they are).
tl;dr it's a mess to program and also to represent in gameplay, and would lead to particularly boring game; there is a reason why WoS is a such arcadey experience.
[...] >moron going full moron
Another good point unless it's dramatically simplified it wouldn't be fun to anyone except the biggest ship autists on Earth.
>Also, there were not much conflicts involving boats in 1850-1930 period aside from Russo-Japanese war and WW1 and something like Russo-Japanese war is not interesting to the consumers because they can't self insert as japs or russians and in WW1 there weren't many battles involving big amounts of big boats like in WW2.
There were dozens of actions during the American civil war, and they maintenance of the blockade on the south was crucial to winning the war.
You mean American movies, or movies in general?
And more importantly: do they need to be good and/or historically accurate?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Not him, but presumably movies that anyone relevant would actually have seen(i.e. movies that made their way outside their no-name country of origin) and thus made their way into popular knowledge enough that it would make boats interesting.
>There was one with Tom Hanks on a destroyer
You mean that one almost completely focused on fighting submarines?
Midway is 100% focused on planes vs. ships
If you wanted to make a simulator about actual naval combat circa WW2, it would make look stuff like GWX look like a trivial bullshit.
Yes, aiming would be incredibly hard, especially in analogue. It also lacks the typical fanfare, since the distance of a regular naval engagement was about 10-15 nautical miles. Your goal was to spot a stack of smoke, check your logs if there should be any stack of smoke there, and if none, align all your guns and fire everything you've got, calculating each turret separately. Normally that's a job for an entire GROUP of officers managing this shit, and a whole lot of equipment. Doing it solo is a fricking nightmare, unless you would be able to pause for like 20 minutes and then apply all your calculations to the turrets you want to fire. The end result is hitting or not some target that you can't even see, and pursue for next 3-5 hours (assuming you are faster than they are).
tl;dr it's a mess to program and also to represent in gameplay, and would lead to particularly boring game; there is a reason why WoS is a such arcadey experience.
Probably because there were no big boat-centric movies. U boots had the boot but aside from boat and boat 2: the lesser weevil I can't remember much of a boat centered media and it really isn't that popular compared to the underwater boat one.
Also, there were not much conflicts involving boats in 1850-1930 period aside from Russo-Japanese war and WW1 and something like Russo-Japanese war is not interesting to the consumers because they can't self insert as japs or russians and in WW1 there weren't many battles involving big amounts of big boats like in WW2.
Well submarine games are less of a hassle/it works better when it comes to the gameplay loop.
Unlike subs surface ships act in formations which means more work when it comes to the friendly AI.
Subs work independently, often have to avoid engagements and are at a disadvantage, have only a limited choice of armaments, a small crew which allows more detail etc.
Surface ship games are just not as easy to do if it isn't a tactic/strategy game.
The cult status of boot, like
Probably because there were no big boat-centric movies. U boots had the boot but aside from boat and boat 2: the lesser weevil I can't remember much of a boat centered media and it really isn't that popular compared to the underwater boat one.
Also, there were not much conflicts involving boats in 1850-1930 period aside from Russo-Japanese war and WW1 and something like Russo-Japanese war is not interesting to the consumers because they can't self insert as japs or russians and in WW1 there weren't many battles involving big amounts of big boats like in WW2.
Ships move slow and tactics consist of circling each other and gradually changing speed. Once you've played through these battles a couple times it gets old fast.
>Half a dozen destroyers dash in from behind the cruiser screen >Stay dangerously close for only a few minutes >Immediate disarray and panic in your own lines as you perform evasive maneuvers
I think it can get pretty intense. Just wish I wasn't filtered so hard by carrier warfare
Boats and sea warfare are boring. You might like it, but it is boring. The only mass appeal cool aspect would be in archaic ages where you could ram and board the enemy vessel, so something like a pirate game could work although it's more fun to be a pirate than command pirates. In terms of fleet management, maneuvering, and firing at barely visible shit or shit you can't even see with missiles, that niche is covered by space based games already which at least have the interesting feature of being sci fi and not yet another WW2 rehash.
Only normies think this. Grognards like me love it.
Boats and sea warfare are boring. You might like it, but it is boring. The only mass appeal cool aspect would be in archaic ages where you could ram and board the enemy vessel, so something like a pirate game could work although it's more fun to be a pirate than command pirates. In terms of fleet management, maneuvering, and firing at barely visible shit or shit you can't even see with missiles, that niche is covered by space based games already which at least have the interesting feature of being sci fi and not yet another WW2 rehash.
This. The key thing is that space as a setting lets you literally just reconstruct any given era of historical naval warfare if you want, but also lets you combine them, embellish them, or just outright make shit up for the sake of gameplay. It lets you do everything an actual naval ship game does, but means you as a game designer aren't restricted by things like history or realism.
The only reason to bother making a game specifically about historical surface warfare is to appeal to people that specifically like the ships and their history, in which case you're necessarily restricted by historical reality.
The only problem is that submarines only work in water. Although, I am curious if any space game has anything like a submarine. Subspace? Subspacemarine?
I would imagine a space submarine as a small vessel that can cloak/somehow evade detection and deal a lot of damage very fast before escaping. Subspace idea can work for the cloaking.
In practice a submarine is just a vessel that's very hard to detect and you could easily just model that with stealth mechanics. It's not even all that important to have subs modelled well in a space game, because they were rarely major contributors to pitched fleet battles and were largely just relegated to scouting and skirmishing roles.
The combination of the glass cannon aspect and the stealthy craft is what makes a submarine a submarine, though. It's what conceptually differentiate a klingon bird of prey from a torpedo boat.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Until you realize that most WW1 submarines didn't even have torpedos and had to surface to attack, and during WW2 torpedos were abundant and widely used on surface vessels like PT boats, destroyers and cruisers. Plus by the 2nd World War, ASW had progressed to the point where deploying submarines in actual combat roles was just impractical. The fact majority of submarine action was convoy interdiction or sniping targets of oppourtunity when they were being transported with limited escorts. In fleet engagements they were essentially just forward scouts. Even modern submarines rely more on launching cruise missiles than torpedos to combat hostile ships.
The defining element of a submarine is its stealthiness, which is fairly easy to model in any kind of gameplay in a vacuum. But trying to design gameplay around the myth of hunter-killer submarines penetrating a fleet cordon to one-shot the capital ship at its center just isn't very fun to actually play out.
>but liberals get big as soon as you get into the 20th century
the trick is to not industrialize too much and basically just keep to the first main pm. that way, the buildings are owned by guilds who are primarily petite bourgeoise
It has it's moments. The campaign is terrible and so are large battles. Use less legitimate means to get your hands on it. It's a shame though; there's no other game like it but unfortunately it's fundamentally flawed.
What the other anon said already. It's half-baked game that's never gonna be fixed, finished or even good (the sole gameplay model of scenarios with limited turn count makes it bad by itself). The reason why I can't get enough of it is because I wrote first my Bachelor and then Masters about the situation in Shanxi clique and the life of common people under Yan Xishan. If not that, I don't think I would stick to this game after playing the demo. And keep in mind that the demo is ten times more polished than the actual game, deliberately luring people in.
Absolute fricking addicted to sword of the stars 2. It's dogshit abandonware from a defunct studio but it tickles my autism just right and every time I finish a campaign I just poke around the files, mod a few parameters and dive right back in.
its a shame that the devs were leftycel dumbfricks who got absolutely lucky with the first game and let it go into their heads completely leading to the absolutely shitfest of a timetable and missing literally every single deadline the publisher set them forcing them to release half-assed shitpile or get sued
I don't know the full story behind the crash and burn I'm just sad I'll forever be stuck with a 32bit engine and a bunch of important files locked with proprietary encryption.
If I had unfettered file access I would finish this fricking game myself but I'm not about to learn a whole new field just to break the locks on an old, dead game.
backup your steam installation and disable updates, you will still be able to use the library and download games, everything else won't work. Or move to Debian with kde, only linux i could stand >t. former win7 chad
Vicky III
I keep coming back patch after patch, and even if the recent massive update brought alot of good, they overcorrected in many places >Naval Invasion used to be the EZ unstoppable stalemate breaker >now Naval invasions are nerfed so hard it's impossible to land on the continent as the UK (AI keeps sending out a single boat which repairs instantly but also sufficiently 'contest' the naval invasion so it doesn't trigger.)
They literally disabled that in the latest hot fix. AI now doesn't raid convys, and this is a stop-gap measure to figure out what the frick is wrong with naval code, because the effect you described shouldn't happen
My giga autist friend who plays nothing but engineering games used to love FTD but got completely fricking filtered when they added strategy elements, which still gives me a hearty kek
It's basically a shitty 1900-1950s version of knights of honor 1. Sound is great. Graphics are good for the time.
It looks good, but balance? What is balance?
How to play. Step 1. Research armored car. Step 2. Build 1 armored car. Step 3 conquer europe because the infantry have only grenades that can't hit the armored car if you micro semi-compitently. It's worse when you get access to light tanks, but by then the enemy probably has them as well.
Artillery is very overpowered, but also requires micro so you don't spam artillery unless you can really micro. Only way to deal with armored cars early on, and even then you just flank them with your 1 armored car.
All the global map crap doesn't matter, just spam armored cars with maybe a couple artillery pieces and maybe some infantry.
Why does this shit get more bugs with every patch?I tried it a few months ago and the battles were decent.Now i constantly get the stuck turret bug and AI designs seem to be worse as well.
The AI is comically inept, on the highest difficulty as the worst nation you will wipe out ships 10:1 at the very least.
Naval invasions are bizarre: in order to invade a small island requiring 4K tons of ships to perform, you need 100K tons of ships in the area before you can order the invasion. Not to mention that these invasions, taking ~6 turns to pull off, sometimes have a % success chance as low as 10%, so you either save-scum or spend years clicking next turn
Research sucks, you have three research focuses available, but if you use them your overall research rate decreases massively so there's always never a scenario in which it's worth specialising your research.
There is no way to organize how your ships will enter the battle, they just arrive as a blob.
You have very little to do outside of battles. All funding sliders will always be set to max, so you just build ships, move them, and end turn. There are "events", but they have little meaningful choice. Alliances are near-useless.
The AI somtimes build something decent, but yeah player builds are way stronger. A bb I made in 1920 as Japan was only outmatched by a Chinese bb in 1932.
One of the main problems the AI has is they suck at specializing and also prefer quantity over quality. Your ships might be 5 times more expensive than theirs but since they're purpose built a single one outmatches multiple mass produced general purpose ships.
Research focus can be useful though. One focus can cut 20-30 months off a research, if it's something like a hull or new towers that can allow you to get out something disgustingly strong earlier than you should've been able to. But your overall research slows down so it's bad to use it often. If the AI was an actual threat this could be incredibly useful.
You have 3 research priorities that can be placed to speed up a specific research category by what seems to be roughly 400-500%. This, however, reduces ALL OTHER research (including OTHER PRIORITIES) by roughly 25-30%. It's always a net loss.
By not placing priorities at all you are able to out-tech even significantly bigger countries with much higher GDP in just a few years. The AI makes judicious use of priorities, and so are laughably behind.
Not all tech is equal though, so while it does cut into other tech, if you're about to build a new generation of ships and can focus to get a new hull/tower it's well worth it for the great bonuses they give.
Or it would be if you ever needed that edge. 10 year old ships can still fight fairly well as long as it's not the dreadnought era stuff going into interim ships because the ai is bad at making good ships, so you don't ever need that fantastic new battleship hull that will make your battleships 40% better due to stats&layout twoish years early.
>it's well worth it
It's not and never was.
Ship need
New hull
New armor
New engine
New towers
New guns
New shells
New rangefinder
Not just new hull or new towers.
5 months ago
Anonymous
you just need to rush double torp early to spam TBs, then rush dreadnought, steam turbine, 2x superfiring and you can start bullying other nation while you wait for all the other stuff.
Damn that sucks, the game sounded cool but if its without challenge I wont get it, I need that too have fun these days, surely this would be easy to fix though? Couldn't the devs just use a big library of dev made/player submitted ship designs for the AI to use? is there mods for the game that improve the AI?
I recall someone mentioning they came up with hundreds of historical ships for the AI to use, but updates often wipe out save games and designs so the effort just isn't worth it
i frickin hate how they fricked it all up
they have a perfect combo of ideas and implementations. literally just patch it up and fix the UI. DONE
People that get mad about the campaign miss the point that youre not a president/emperor/high ruler but instead the chief of navy. Your job is your ships. Nothing more nothing less. I tried playing RtW3 and my god it is jank. literally gamedesign from the 80s jank.
theres nothing more in life i want than a good throughout-the-ages game. Like civilization but you start as a grunting caveman and work your way to space age
Thats what Distant Worlds did, thats what Aurora 4x did, thats what Rimworld is about. Old paradox games with save exports do that. Any game that nails that concept well will sell or receive cult status in their niche so why didnt they do it properly and just pulled the plug instead I will forever be mad just how much of a frick up this game is
It's not even that bad. 3D battleships slugging it out is so cool bros
The battles are OK, the campaign is pretty bad
I don't really care about the campaign.I just like making ships.
Why are there no boat games?
Last one I can remember, aside from indie tech demos sold for 10$ is this one (it's very restrictive in terms of boat design and should have been instead like sprocket) and another one from the same dev about sail boats (it's mid) and battlestations pacific which was released really long ago and is unplayable on modern pc.
>inb4 WoWs
Too grindy and is pvp, so there is meta to literally every action you can take. Midlevel French BBs are fun, THOUGH.
not a very wide appeal
Warship Gunner series. They're the definition of mediocre, but damn if they didn't scratch an itch back in the day. And while the gameplay was mid as frick, it had one of the best editors I've seen in a naval game.
Ultimate admirals does at least have a very good warship editor
It is odd that there are a good number of submarine games but very few surface ship games. Are battleships that much more complicated to simulate or are they just not as popular with people as Uboats?
Probably because there were no big boat-centric movies. U boots had the boot but aside from boat and boat 2: the lesser weevil I can't remember much of a boat centered media and it really isn't that popular compared to the underwater boat one.
Also, there were not much conflicts involving boats in 1850-1930 period aside from Russo-Japanese war and WW1 and something like Russo-Japanese war is not interesting to the consumers because they can't self insert as japs or russians and in WW1 there weren't many battles involving big amounts of big boats like in WW2.
>WW1 there weren't many battles involving big amounts of big boats like in WW2.
Jutland moron
Also, a movie about Maximilian von Spee would be kino as well
>Anon points out lack of multiple battles
>moron homosexual confirms his moronation and the point the anon was making
It's like pottery, it rhymes.
That's a good point I can't think of any movies about WWII era battleships. There are plenty about the age of sail but afaik nothing about Ironclad tier ships duking it out. Well except Battleship but that is literally a meme movie.
Another good point unless it's dramatically simplified it wouldn't be fun to anyone except the biggest ship autists on Earth.
Saka no Ue no Kumo
>Also, there were not much conflicts involving boats in 1850-1930 period aside from Russo-Japanese war and WW1 and something like Russo-Japanese war is not interesting to the consumers because they can't self insert as japs or russians and in WW1 there weren't many battles involving big amounts of big boats like in WW2.
There were dozens of actions during the American civil war, and they maintenance of the blockade on the south was crucial to winning the war.
Literally outside of Sahara, what modern movie heavily features Ironclads as a central plot point?
You mean American movies, or movies in general?
And more importantly: do they need to be good and/or historically accurate?
Not him, but presumably movies that anyone relevant would actually have seen(i.e. movies that made their way outside their no-name country of origin) and thus made their way into popular knowledge enough that it would make boats interesting.
>there were no big boat-centric movies
There was one with Tom Hanks on a destroyer. Also Midway.
>There was one with Tom Hanks on a destroyer
You mean that one almost completely focused on fighting submarines?
Midway is 100% focused on planes vs. ships
There's the first movie about the 'mutiny of the caine'
second movie is a legal retelling of the event with Jack Bauer.
If you wanted to make a simulator about actual naval combat circa WW2, it would make look stuff like GWX look like a trivial bullshit.
Yes, aiming would be incredibly hard, especially in analogue. It also lacks the typical fanfare, since the distance of a regular naval engagement was about 10-15 nautical miles. Your goal was to spot a stack of smoke, check your logs if there should be any stack of smoke there, and if none, align all your guns and fire everything you've got, calculating each turret separately. Normally that's a job for an entire GROUP of officers managing this shit, and a whole lot of equipment. Doing it solo is a fricking nightmare, unless you would be able to pause for like 20 minutes and then apply all your calculations to the turrets you want to fire. The end result is hitting or not some target that you can't even see, and pursue for next 3-5 hours (assuming you are faster than they are).
tl;dr it's a mess to program and also to represent in gameplay, and would lead to particularly boring game; there is a reason why WoS is a such arcadey experience.
>moron going full moron
Well submarine games are less of a hassle/it works better when it comes to the gameplay loop.
Unlike subs surface ships act in formations which means more work when it comes to the friendly AI.
Subs work independently, often have to avoid engagements and are at a disadvantage, have only a limited choice of armaments, a small crew which allows more detail etc.
Surface ship games are just not as easy to do if it isn't a tactic/strategy game.
The cult status of boot, like
Mentioned does have an influence too.
Ships move slow and tactics consist of circling each other and gradually changing speed. Once you've played through these battles a couple times it gets old fast.
>Half a dozen destroyers dash in from behind the cruiser screen
>Stay dangerously close for only a few minutes
>Immediate disarray and panic in your own lines as you perform evasive maneuvers
I think it can get pretty intense. Just wish I wasn't filtered so hard by carrier warfare
Wish I weren't*
Hypothetical, subjunctive mood
Only normies think this. Grognards like me love it.
Yes, that's basically what I said. It has no mass appeal, so it doesn't get made.
Boats and sea warfare are boring. You might like it, but it is boring. The only mass appeal cool aspect would be in archaic ages where you could ram and board the enemy vessel, so something like a pirate game could work although it's more fun to be a pirate than command pirates. In terms of fleet management, maneuvering, and firing at barely visible shit or shit you can't even see with missiles, that niche is covered by space based games already which at least have the interesting feature of being sci fi and not yet another WW2 rehash.
This. The key thing is that space as a setting lets you literally just reconstruct any given era of historical naval warfare if you want, but also lets you combine them, embellish them, or just outright make shit up for the sake of gameplay. It lets you do everything an actual naval ship game does, but means you as a game designer aren't restricted by things like history or realism.
The only reason to bother making a game specifically about historical surface warfare is to appeal to people that specifically like the ships and their history, in which case you're necessarily restricted by historical reality.
The only problem is that submarines only work in water. Although, I am curious if any space game has anything like a submarine. Subspace? Subspacemarine?
I would imagine a space submarine as a small vessel that can cloak/somehow evade detection and deal a lot of damage very fast before escaping. Subspace idea can work for the cloaking.
In practice a submarine is just a vessel that's very hard to detect and you could easily just model that with stealth mechanics. It's not even all that important to have subs modelled well in a space game, because they were rarely major contributors to pitched fleet battles and were largely just relegated to scouting and skirmishing roles.
The combination of the glass cannon aspect and the stealthy craft is what makes a submarine a submarine, though. It's what conceptually differentiate a klingon bird of prey from a torpedo boat.
Until you realize that most WW1 submarines didn't even have torpedos and had to surface to attack, and during WW2 torpedos were abundant and widely used on surface vessels like PT boats, destroyers and cruisers. Plus by the 2nd World War, ASW had progressed to the point where deploying submarines in actual combat roles was just impractical. The fact majority of submarine action was convoy interdiction or sniping targets of oppourtunity when they were being transported with limited escorts. In fleet engagements they were essentially just forward scouts. Even modern submarines rely more on launching cruise missiles than torpedos to combat hostile ships.
The defining element of a submarine is its stealthiness, which is fairly easy to model in any kind of gameplay in a vacuum. But trying to design gameplay around the myth of hunter-killer submarines penetrating a fleet cordon to one-shot the capital ship at its center just isn't very fun to actually play out.
>YES! Now that the player’s passed fully equal rights in 1836 I can now RAPE WHITE WOMEN WITHOUT IMPUNITY
Idk it was very easy for me to stop playing that
cant relate
i always play as a reactionary and autocratic monarchy
I like to go monarchy or theocracy but liberals get big as soon as you get into the 20th century and they hate crown and altar.
>but liberals get big as soon as you get into the 20th century
the trick is to not industrialize too much and basically just keep to the first main pm. that way, the buildings are owned by guilds who are primarily petite bourgeoise
I love CKIII but couldn't get into it.
This game is beyond bad, and it's barely a game in the first place... but I've sunk over 300 hours into it since March.
Is it not good? I wanted to pick it up. Seems pretty interesting
It has it's moments. The campaign is terrible and so are large battles. Use less legitimate means to get your hands on it. It's a shame though; there's no other game like it but unfortunately it's fundamentally flawed.
What the other anon said already. It's half-baked game that's never gonna be fixed, finished or even good (the sole gameplay model of scenarios with limited turn count makes it bad by itself). The reason why I can't get enough of it is because I wrote first my Bachelor and then Masters about the situation in Shanxi clique and the life of common people under Yan Xishan. If not that, I don't think I would stick to this game after playing the demo. And keep in mind that the demo is ten times more polished than the actual game, deliberately luring people in.
Absolute fricking addicted to sword of the stars 2. It's dogshit abandonware from a defunct studio but it tickles my autism just right and every time I finish a campaign I just poke around the files, mod a few parameters and dive right back in.
its a shame that the devs were leftycel dumbfricks who got absolutely lucky with the first game and let it go into their heads completely leading to the absolutely shitfest of a timetable and missing literally every single deadline the publisher set them forcing them to release half-assed shitpile or get sued
same devs have been making card games ever since
I don't know the full story behind the crash and burn I'm just sad I'll forever be stuck with a 32bit engine and a bunch of important files locked with proprietary encryption.
If I had unfettered file access I would finish this fricking game myself but I'm not about to learn a whole new field just to break the locks on an old, dead game.
It was gonna be shit from the time they announced you start with three planets instead of one. What were they thinking?
Gonna have to stop playing pretty soon I guess
Why?
backup your steam installation and disable updates, you will still be able to use the library and download games, everything else won't work. Or move to Debian with kde, only linux i could stand
>t. former win7 chad
Vicky III
I keep coming back patch after patch, and even if the recent massive update brought alot of good, they overcorrected in many places
>Naval Invasion used to be the EZ unstoppable stalemate breaker
>now Naval invasions are nerfed so hard it's impossible to land on the continent as the UK (AI keeps sending out a single boat which repairs instantly but also sufficiently 'contest' the naval invasion so it doesn't trigger.)
They literally disabled that in the latest hot fix. AI now doesn't raid convys, and this is a stop-gap measure to figure out what the frick is wrong with naval code, because the effect you described shouldn't happen
Its fun making autistic ships and the booping shit in the campaign. Its pretty hard and time consuming to make vehicles but for what its worth.
My giga autist friend who plays nothing but engineering games used to love FTD but got completely fricking filtered when they added strategy elements, which still gives me a hearty kek
That, is sad. FTD strategy is literally build a warship that doesn’t die and then sail around killing everything.
Agression: Europe under fire.
It's basically a shitty 1900-1950s version of knights of honor 1. Sound is great. Graphics are good for the time.
It looks good, but balance? What is balance?
How to play. Step 1. Research armored car. Step 2. Build 1 armored car. Step 3 conquer europe because the infantry have only grenades that can't hit the armored car if you micro semi-compitently. It's worse when you get access to light tanks, but by then the enemy probably has them as well.
Artillery is very overpowered, but also requires micro so you don't spam artillery unless you can really micro. Only way to deal with armored cars early on, and even then you just flank them with your 1 armored car.
All the global map crap doesn't matter, just spam armored cars with maybe a couple artillery pieces and maybe some infantry.
Fun to play every so often. Crashes? Guaranteed.
frick I forgot the picture.
Why does this shit get more bugs with every patch?I tried it a few months ago and the battles were decent.Now i constantly get the stuck turret bug and AI designs seem to be worse as well.
>Pros
-made for Linux from the start
>Cons
E V E R Y T H I N G !
what's so bad about it? You just know this is the only game of its kind that's ever going to get made (rule the waves is a different tier of autism)
The AI is comically inept, on the highest difficulty as the worst nation you will wipe out ships 10:1 at the very least.
Naval invasions are bizarre: in order to invade a small island requiring 4K tons of ships to perform, you need 100K tons of ships in the area before you can order the invasion. Not to mention that these invasions, taking ~6 turns to pull off, sometimes have a % success chance as low as 10%, so you either save-scum or spend years clicking next turn
Research sucks, you have three research focuses available, but if you use them your overall research rate decreases massively so there's always never a scenario in which it's worth specialising your research.
There is no way to organize how your ships will enter the battle, they just arrive as a blob.
You have very little to do outside of battles. All funding sliders will always be set to max, so you just build ships, move them, and end turn. There are "events", but they have little meaningful choice. Alliances are near-useless.
It's slow, tedious, and offers no challenge.
The AI somtimes build something decent, but yeah player builds are way stronger. A bb I made in 1920 as Japan was only outmatched by a Chinese bb in 1932.
One of the main problems the AI has is they suck at specializing and also prefer quantity over quality. Your ships might be 5 times more expensive than theirs but since they're purpose built a single one outmatches multiple mass produced general purpose ships.
Research focus can be useful though. One focus can cut 20-30 months off a research, if it's something like a hull or new towers that can allow you to get out something disgustingly strong earlier than you should've been able to. But your overall research slows down so it's bad to use it often. If the AI was an actual threat this could be incredibly useful.
You have 3 research priorities that can be placed to speed up a specific research category by what seems to be roughly 400-500%. This, however, reduces ALL OTHER research (including OTHER PRIORITIES) by roughly 25-30%. It's always a net loss.
By not placing priorities at all you are able to out-tech even significantly bigger countries with much higher GDP in just a few years. The AI makes judicious use of priorities, and so are laughably behind.
Not all tech is equal though, so while it does cut into other tech, if you're about to build a new generation of ships and can focus to get a new hull/tower it's well worth it for the great bonuses they give.
Or it would be if you ever needed that edge. 10 year old ships can still fight fairly well as long as it's not the dreadnought era stuff going into interim ships because the ai is bad at making good ships, so you don't ever need that fantastic new battleship hull that will make your battleships 40% better due to stats&layout twoish years early.
>it's well worth it
It's not and never was.
Ship need
New hull
New armor
New engine
New towers
New guns
New shells
New rangefinder
Not just new hull or new towers.
you just need to rush double torp early to spam TBs, then rush dreadnought, steam turbine, 2x superfiring and you can start bullying other nation while you wait for all the other stuff.
>bb
battle bip
Damn that sucks, the game sounded cool but if its without challenge I wont get it, I need that too have fun these days, surely this would be easy to fix though? Couldn't the devs just use a big library of dev made/player submitted ship designs for the AI to use? is there mods for the game that improve the AI?
I recall someone mentioning they came up with hundreds of historical ships for the AI to use, but updates often wipe out save games and designs so the effort just isn't worth it
CK3, unironically.
>inb4 dirty parashill
i frickin hate how they fricked it all up
they have a perfect combo of ideas and implementations. literally just patch it up and fix the UI. DONE
People that get mad about the campaign miss the point that youre not a president/emperor/high ruler but instead the chief of navy. Your job is your ships. Nothing more nothing less. I tried playing RtW3 and my god it is jank. literally gamedesign from the 80s jank.
theres nothing more in life i want than a good throughout-the-ages game. Like civilization but you start as a grunting caveman and work your way to space age
Thats what Distant Worlds did, thats what Aurora 4x did, thats what Rimworld is about. Old paradox games with save exports do that. Any game that nails that concept well will sell or receive cult status in their niche so why didnt they do it properly and just pulled the plug instead I will forever be mad just how much of a frick up this game is