Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts work in progress.

[Destraex]

Meng I have to ask. Are they adding carriers? Because BBs seemed to be fairly late variants.

[Gusington]

Sounds great - like the game is in a really good point in development now.

[MengJiao]

Meng I have to ask. Are they adding carriers? Because BBs seemed to be fairly late variants.

  I haven't seen any carriers...its really more of a naval race to WWI and then a what-if no washington treaty kind of thing, I think.  There are no carriers and not even any floatplanes or planes on cruisers or recon from land.  I'll probably quit soon once I build a few dreadnoughts.

[ArizonaTank]

Meng I have to ask. Are they adding carriers? Because BBs seemed to be fairly late variants.

  I haven't seen any carriers...its really more of a naval race to WWI and then a what-if no washington treaty kind of thing, I think.  There are no carriers and not even any floatplanes or planes on cruisers or recon from land.  I'll probably quit soon once I build a few dreadnoughts.

I confirm, no naval aviation.

The sweet spot of the game is pretty much 1890 to the end of WWI. Campaigns start at 1890, 1900, or 1910.

Although it does let you play campaigns starting in 1920, 1930 or 1940...these are just gunnery games (subs and mines do show up in the strategic game however)

Strangely there is an ironclad era tutorial scenario (a small group of ironclads trading shots) that I found quite interesting, but the game will not let you generate battles before 1890. I would love to see them develop ironclads a bit more...but perhaps because it would open up wooden ships they have decided to leave it be.

The campaigns are only historical in a general sense. They are really just a reason to pit the players carefully crafted guns against the AI's.

The game is pretty much following the path set out by NWS's Rule the Waves I. In fact, many of the campaign elements seem like they come right out of Rule the Waves I. The big difference is that UA:D is 3D, while Rule the Waves is mostly a spreadsheet game.

Rule the Waves II had a pretty good implementation of naval aviation, so lets hope UA:D goes there as well. I'd happily pay for it as DLC.

[Destraex]

Hmmm. I could have sworn I saw some Yamato action there.

[ArizonaTank]

Hmmm. I could have sworn I saw some Yamato action there.

Yes, you can build super battleships

[MengJiao]

Hmmm. I could have sworn I saw some Yamato action there.

Yes, you can build super battleships

  However, in the campaign, it looks like the basic model for a war is the French theory of the guerre de course .  Basically you build fast cruisers and sink all the other side's fast
cruisers and move on to sinking all their merchant ships.  Anyway, as the British Empire in 1890-1900 you have a huge number of advantages as long as you protect your merchant shipping
by building a lot of good light cruisers.  So I've lost a few battleships occasionally when outnumbered by enemy battleships, but by building fewer better, faster battleships and plenty of light
cruisers, I can beat larger enemy fleets most of the time while also wiping out their trade and protecting my trade.
  For the British...well you have to have the French as allies since they could raid you horribly...but with Hong Kong and Singapore Alexandria Gibraltar and Karachi in British hands, China and Russia are doomed against you...oh...in the historical scenario mind you.

[Gusington]

How engaging/fun is the campaign side of the game?

[MengJiao]

How engaging/fun is the campaign side of the game?

  If you are the British, it's all about building ships and the GDP.  The battles are interesting since you have to learn to make sure you have balanced forces everywhere.
Battleships by themselves don't do very well.  So you learn to have packs of torpedo boats and cruisers everywhere.  The Torpedo boats kill the enemy torpedo boats and sometimes some larger
prey while the light cruisers take on everything, the heavy cruisers draw fire and the battleships sometimes are helpful.

  I'd say its moderately engaging for a week or two., but really only covers 1890-1910 or so and I'm at 1901 so I'll be quitting soon.

[Jarhead0331]

How engaging/fun is the campaign side of the game?

  If you are the British, it's all about building ships and the GDP.  The battles are interesting since you have to learn to make sure you have balanced forces everywhere.
Battleships by themselves don't do very well.  So you learn to have packs of torpedo boats and cruisers everywhere.  The Torpedo boats kill the enemy torpedo boats and sometimes some larger
prey while the light cruisers take on everything, the heavy cruisers draw fire and the battleships sometimes are helpful.

  I'd say its moderately engaging for a week or two., but really only covers 1890-1910 or so and I'm at 1901 so I'll be quitting soon.

It seems like the game may have deeper issues than its relatively brief timeline. I mean, an engaging game could be highly worth replaying, even if it only covers 20 years of naval warfare, or so.

Did you ever play Rule the Waves? If so, what are your thoughts on it? It's obviously a very different game in many respects, but I'm curious if it has held your interest over time.

[Gusington]

Thanks Meng...I have been waiting for a game like UA:D for what feels like 100 years, especially a good campaign.

[MengJiao]

How engaging/fun is the campaign side of the game?

  If you are the British, it's all about building ships and the GDP.  The battles are interesting since you have to learn to make sure you have balanced forces everywhere.
Battleships by themselves don't do very well.  So you learn to have packs of torpedo boats and cruisers everywhere.  The Torpedo boats kill the enemy torpedo boats and sometimes some larger
prey while the light cruisers take on everything, the heavy cruisers draw fire and the battleships sometimes are helpful.

  I'd say its moderately engaging for a week or two., but really only covers 1890-1910 or so and I'm at 1901 so I'll be quitting soon.

It seems like the game may have deeper issues than its relatively brief timeline. I mean, an engaging game could be highly worth replaying, even if it only covers 20 years of naval warfare, or so.

Did you ever play Rule the Waves? If so, what are your thoughts on it? It's obviously a very different game in many respects, but I'm curious if it has held your interest over time.

  I played an early version of Rule the waves long ago.  I have to say the graphics and the combat in Ultimate Admiral are fantastic compared to whatever rule the waves had years ago.

  Even after I quit the campaign, I'm sure I'll fight some more custom battles in Ultimate Admiral.

[MengJiao]

Thanks Meng...I have been waiting for a game like UA:D for what feels like 100 years, especially a good campaign.

  I like the campaign, but mind you, it is a very Jackie Fisher view of what a naval war should be like.  You won't see anything like Jutland in the campaign game if you are winning as
Great Britian.

[Gusington]

^That is so damned quotable. As the game evolves I'm hoping (as is everyone else) that the campaign can become more dynamic.

[MengJiao]

^That is so damned quotable. As the game evolves I'm hoping (as is everyone else) that the campaign can become more dynamic.

  Well, surviving the 1890s as the navy of Spain or China might be pretty dynamic.  The French, Russians or Austro-Hungarians might have some dynamic times
in the later parts of the period that the game covers well.  Japan and the USA seem to do okay in the historical campaign.