How will the factions feel different?

[OutsiderSubtype]

One of the most important parts of any good RTS is having factions that feel different but are fairly balanced gameplay-wise.

What can we expect in this game? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the real-world nature of the naval forces involved to make anything more than sweeping guesses.

U.S. - Big carrier battle groups? Dangerous attack subs?

Russia - So-so ships but dangerous land-based air a la Harpoon?

Nordic Alliance - High tech frigates and patrol boats? Maybe some cool frogmen special operations forces?

U.K. - Nifty new aircraft carriers and planes?

How do you think the forces will feel different to players in game?

 

[imperialman]

One of the most important parts of any good RTS is having factions that feel different but are fairly balanced gameplay-wise.

What can we expect in this game? I'm afraid I don't know enough about the real-world nature of the naval forces involved to make anything more than sweeping guesses.

U.S. - Big carrier battle groups? Dangerous attack subs?

Russia - So-so ships but dangerous land-based air a la Harpoon?

Nordic Alliance - High tech frigates and patrol boats? Maybe some cool frogmen special operations forces?

U.K. - Nifty new aircraft carriers and planes?

How do you think the forces will feel different to players in game?

I think the UK forces, as they will have a relatively small fleet (compared to the US) but a very advanced and high tech fleet (especially the Astute class SNN's), will feel very easy and smooth to conduct operations with.

 

[unmerged(255172)]

OutsiderSubtype,

That is a good question, and depends a lot on the unit composition we'll put in the game. It is clearly our goal that the factions should play differently, and that you'll normally have different tactics when you play different countries.

I think your breakdown is pretty much what we imagine ourselves, currently.

The US should depend a lot on force projection with supercarriers. Russia will have to compensate for lack of such carriers with land based bombers and their escorts. The UK will have to rely on fewer, but very specialized and capable units. The Nordic alliance's strength will have to be its brown water capabilities.

 

[Wave]

This sound pretty good.. However I think that especially nordic alliance would rely on subs (like Sweden now does) and UK airforces aren't maybe as über as they were (during WWI & WWII) but carriers and aircraft are probably logical as they have AFAIK fallen a bit behind in a submarine race.

 

[imperialman]

This sound pretty good.. However I think that especially nordic alliance would rely on subs (like Sweden now does) and UK airforces aren't maybe as über as they were (during WWI & WWII) but carriers and aircraft are probably logical as they have AFAIK fallen a bit behind in a submarine race.

I wouldn't say fallen behind at all, the UK will have 7 of of the most advanced SSN's in the world (today anyway), around the same number regularly deployed by Russia. All of this is dwarfed by the US and their 50 or so SSN's though. The British navy is a major player in submarine operations.

 

[unmerged(255172)]

The new Astute appears extremely powerful indeed. Should be good, as long as no more of them run aground. Or crash with tug boats. Or crash into French counterparts mid-seas.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

This should certainly be a factor

Russia's Almaz-Antei design bureau is planning to complete the development of the advanced S-500 air defense system by 2015-2016, the company's deputy general director Yury Solovyev said Friday.

The S-500, a long-range missile system, is expected to become the backbone of a unified aerospace defense system being formed in Russia.

"Our design bureau is working to complete the development of the S-500 system by 2015-2016," Solovyev said.

He said the designers were facing a number of problems, including a lack of reliable and efficient electronic components.

"But we will be able to resolve them," the official said.

The S-500 is expected to have an extended range of up to 600 km (over 370 miles) and simultaneously engage up to 10 targets.

Russia's Defense Ministry has demanded that the system must be capable of intercepting ballistic missiles and hypersonic cruise missiles.

 

[safferli]

The new Astute appears extremely powerful indeed. Should be good, as long as no more of them run aground. Or crash with tug boats. Or crash into French counterparts mid-seas.

Cheeky!

 

[unmerged(255172)]

This should certainly be a factor

A 600 km range AA on missiles, with anti-ballistic capability, certainty denies a lot of airspace.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

A 600 km range AA on missiles, with anti-ballistic capability, certainty denies a lot of airspace.

Seems to be the Russians' forte alright...

 

[imperialman]

The new Astute appears extremely powerful indeed. Should be good, as long as no more of them run aground. Or crash with tug boats. Or crash into French counterparts mid-seas.

It was a Vanguard, not an Astute, which crashed into a French sub.

 

[unmerged(255172)]

It was a Vanguard, not an Astute, which crashed into a French sub.

I know. I just had to put it in there. Most unlikely sub accident ever.

 

[Brutoni]

As someone going through the recuitment phase of becoming a Royal Naval officer and a degree in Physics I'd like to point out that the Vangaurd crash was highly unlikely.

Also to be fair, it proved the point that she is very unlikely to be detected.

As for arguments that the Royal Navy is behind in the Submarine race. I'd bet on an Astute class any day of the week within a years time. The year is for time to iron out kinks and also to get used to using her many inovative features.

If you want to get an idea of just how powerful she is the Seaworth World Naval review 2011 has an article in it on the Astute class. They are exceptionally capable nuclear submarines.

Although the Americans will probably claim the Virginia class is as good I'm not so sure.... Of course the Americans have almost 10 times the number of subs as we do.


Obviously as a game you will have to make sure it is balanced and fun for all , however from what I know about the Royal Navy, as well as intentions for 2020-2030 I would say the Royal Navy should play the following way.

1) Your looking at a select number of ships, deployed in a very small, compact but highly networked fleet.
2) Royal Navy vessels tend to be specialised with the majority of them relying on the ships helicopter(s) to provide general purpose.
3) Royal Naval vessels have always relied on the belief that strong sensors are far more important than any number of weapons.... if you can't see your enemy you can't kill your enemy.
4) Come 2030 the Royal Navy should have a formidable carrier capability. The QE class will be in service and given that their peacetime aircraft layout is 40 Aircraft you can BET that in wartime it would be closer to 56-60 based on the size and height of her hangers and the deck space available to her.
5) Numbers is where the royal navy should be hit hard. Something that is even harder to plan for when each ship is likely to be more specialised than many other navies based on previous RN history.
6) The Royal Navy KNOW ASW and Submarine operations inside out. The current fleet structure is designed for it. The battle of the Atlantic, The cold war and even the Falklands demonstrated a clear ability in both fighting and using our submarines. There is a reason we call the course you train to become a submarineer "perisher". Those who do fail it are the ASW officers on our ships quite often.

That said, it is of course a game

On that note... how are you balancing the US? She is huge.