Why Carriers will probably never be added

[Tybor56]

As much as it pains me to say it carriers will never be added for one simple reason, range. even earlier carriers will be able to launch planes carrying the equivalent of battleship shells from a range of more than 100 miles and proceed to drop them relatively accurately. This makes battleships, and battlecruisers functionally obsolete. Adding carriers will completely change the game possibly even more than real life as players will have the benefit of hindsight and build more carriers earlier.

[Maachlan]

As a counterpoint and potential balancing consideration, early carriers would have severe limitation including limited number of planes, bad plane and torpedo/bomb performance (duds), and low accuracy

[HusariuS]

Not really, while Carriers have much bigger "effective" range, planes aren't immune to AA fire and Battleships/Battlecruisers are perfect AA platforms due to how much space they usually have for AA armament and not to even mention their survivability compared to destroyers and cruisers.

And Battleships/Battlecruisers usually are not sailing alone, you know... they are kinda expensive.

[DeadlyWalrus]

In addition to the points already mentioned, early aircraft were very limited in both their ability to carry a sufficiently heavy payload to damage a large ship and in effective range.  Furthermore, aircraft in this time period had very limited ability to operate at night or in bad weather, so surface warships still had a role to play even once aircraft were a real threat.  As a result, you really should have to assess the capabilities of your current technology rather than just building as many carriers as soon as possible.

Really, the interface and gameplay systems are a much bigger impediment to carrier implementation.  "Realistic" carrier operations are a very hands-off, map based affair at the fleet command level.  You're mostly sitting around, waiting for contact reports, then you prepare your strike package, send it off in the general direction of where you think the enemy is and wait for them to come back to find out what actually happened.  I'm not sure that's something a lot of people are interested in playing, and even if it is, you need to change the way the game handles spotting reports and the ability to direct actions at very long range.  Alternatively, you could make the gameplay more involving for the player, but that means making entirely new systems to control aircraft and the like and that's probably more work than they have time for.

[madham82]

Just adding to the existing points, the game's timeframe is the best reason to forgo it. It really wasn't until the 40s (or at best late 30s) carrier based planes had all the factors mentioned above to make them effective. During the 20s-early 30s, the main doctrine behind carriers was to act as support for the fleet, mainly in a scouting/harassment role. 

[arekP64]

In my opinion it makes sense to make carriers as a end tech to unlock it as in pop-culture its widely accepted that carriers killed battleships, just like it would make sense for end tech of the torpedo boats to be submarines as they and destroyers effectively replaced them, however it is worth noting there were some torpedo boats designs which did made it to and past 40's but that's more of a minority.
Just a small off topic which potentially kinda faces the same issue, fleet submarines I don't care they were a failed concept from the 30/40's I want them as part of my main fleets.

[Skeksis]

13 minutes ago, arekP64 said:

In my opinion it makes sense to make carriers as a end tech to unlock it as in pop-culture its widely accepted that carriers killed battleships, just like it would make sense

Yeah, to truly celebrate the battleship you must include its demise! 😎

[goodsoohe]

On 1/11/2021 at 3:20 PM, HusariuS said:

Not really, while Carriers have much bigger "effective" range, planes aren't immune to AA fire and Battleships/Battlecruisers are perfect AA platforms due to how much space they usually have for AA armament and not to even mention their survivability compared to destroyers and cruisers.

And Battleships/Battlecruisers usually are not sailing alone, you know... they are kinda expensive.

*cough* Bismarck *cough*

😆

[Cdodders]

I would like aircraft carriers as that means AA guns, so I can cover my ships in AA!

 

[Cpt.Hissy]

Why Carriers are far from being any kind of priority anyway.

[ReefKip]

while the addition of carriers would be realistic from a historical standpoint, it would make no sense in a game revolving around dreadnoughts. it would be kind of strange to see Dreadnoughts getting outclassed in a game literally named after them.

I would much rather see submarines added into the game. like carriers they would add another layer of strategy. especially where convoy raiding is concerned. but they would not challenge the dominance of the dreadnough ship type like carriers would. we already have transport ships so adding the main counter to transport ships AKA submarines makes sense.

 

[Aceituna]

26 minutes ago, ReefKip said:

while the addition of carriers would be realistic from a historical standpoint, it would make no sense in a game revolving around dreadnoughts. it would be kind of strange to see Dreadnoughts getting outclassed in a game literally named after them.

I would much rather see submarines added into the game. like carriers they would add another layer of strategy. especially where convoy raiding is concerned. but they would not challenge the dominance of the dreadnough ship type like carriers would. we already have transport ships so adding the main counter to transport ships AKA submarines makes sense.

 

So to the first part: This is not game about dreadnoughts. This is a game about the era of dreadnoughts. And carriers were part of this era.

We will see the rise of dreadnoughts. So why shouldn't we see their fall? 

And to the second part: There's no point in discussing weather or not to add submarines because they are already promised.(https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/the-playing-modes)

Edited January 13, 2021 by Aceituna

[ReefKip]

11 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

So to the first part: This is not game about dreadnoughts. This is a game about the era of dreadnoughts. And carriers were part of this era.

Highly disagree. This game is definitly focused on the dreadnoughts. Seeing that the absolute majority of content in the game is focused on them, This is easely observed from the amount of hull models dedicated to them alone. Sure the game is not only about them. but they are the primary attraction to the game.

Higly unlikely we will ever see carriers as this would require flight models to be modeled in as well. maybe as a campaign map only feature.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

There's no point in discussing submarines because they are already promised

Yes but they are a campaign map only function. not actual units you can control in battle. which is what i am advocating for. And would much rather see then carriers,





 

Edited January 13, 2021 by ReefKip

[Skeksis]

One thing is for sure is that the aircraft carrier debate isn’t going to go away, in-fact once release on steam a whole new round of steam posts/debates will fill up discussions again, and it will recycle over and over again as it has done here.

It’s the ‘designer tool’, it’s so damn good at assembling your own vision, players are going to want to build their enthusiasms, and one of those is carriers, that much is clear. And assembling aircraft carriers will be just as rewarding as anything else.

Concluding: the interest is there.  

IMO it doesn’t matter how carriers will effect the game since it all can be balanced (and everyone can debate that forever), what matters is two things, the team's passion to create carriers and the boss contemplating its profit!

Edited January 13, 2021 by Skeksis

[Aceituna]

1 hour ago, ReefKip said:

Highly disagree. This game is definitly focused on the dreadnoughts. Seeing that the absolute majority of content in the game is focused on them, This is easely observed from the amount of hull models dedicated to them alone. Sure the game is not only about them. but they are the primary attraction to the game.

Well, I quote the Steam descryption: “Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts aims to be the first game of its kind, a naval game which offers a unique opportunity to design and build countless variations of realistic looking warships combined with extremely in depth realistic combat model.

I don't see a single word about dreadnoughts (besides the name of course). Also the game takes place in 1890-1940+. We are allowed to build dreadnoughts since 1905. I wouldn't expect to not have dreadnoughts for one third of game time in the game about dreadnoughts. 

Majority of content is dedicated to them? I don't think that the ,,aboslute majority of content'' is focused on dreadnoughts. But even if it would be truth there is still a lot of promised unreleased content while a lot of it is not about dreadnoughts at all (such as submarines or mines).

1 hour ago, ReefKip said:

Yes but they are a campaign map only function. not actual units you can control in battle. which is what i am advocating for. And would much rather see then carriers,

I think there are two main problems with this: 1. I think that even bigger problem than making the controllable submarines would be making ASW and sonar in-battle. 2. Could you imagine if you would apply unrestricted submarine warfare with hundreds of submarines? It would be do dozens of little engagements every single turn. 

[Dannavy85]

I would like Battleship spotter planes at the least.

[Cdodders]

BattleCarriers! I want me some BattleCarriers! And ASW Battleships!

[Marshall99]

I want Airship carrier carriers. And Airbattleships, which can carry smaller airships on their seid. So they are carriers too. Ok, I have to drink some tea to cool down.

But can you imagine Airship carriers that carry airbattleships wich carry more smaller airships that carry bombs??

[Aceituna]

1 minute ago, Marshall99 said:

But can you imagine Airship carriers that carry airbattleships wich carry more smaller airships that carry bombs??

Well, there were ships carrying ships, submarines carrying submarines, planes carrying planes so why not airships carrying airships?

[Cdodders]

Battleships with the sides lined with Depth Charge throwers and Hedgehogs!

[Cpt.Hissy]

on that note, i'd like a game like what UA:D supposed to be, but about airships. Airships as in actual armoured steel ships but in the air.

[Fishyfish]

Just now, Cpt.Hissy said:

on that note, i'd like a game like what UA:D supposed to be, but about airships. Airships as in actual armoured steel ships but in the air.

So ... Crimson skies? 

[madham82]

Well this thread was just hijacked lol

[Cpt.Hissy]

25 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

So ... Crimson skies? 

Googled it.. Well, setting - maybe, game design - fattest NOPE you can imagine. ^^

[Skeksis]

27 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

So ... Crimson skies? 

Battlestations: Pacific, yes?