-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What about the Slava class?Yeah, I'd like to know that, too
Well, we haven't finalized the list. But I think the Russian navy looks pretty good, in fact, numbers aside.
Provisionally: We have Kuznetsov, Kirov, Udaloy II, Gorshkov, Matka (hydrofoil patrol boat). On our list of maybe now/maybe later: Mistral, Steregushchy, the new carrier.
Subs: Akula, Lada, and maybe Yasen.
Don't ask about aircraft. Oh please don't ask about aircraft
It's getting old, so I thought it was about to be stricken, but that was wrong. Three (maybe four) appears to be available for the Russians in the timeframe of the game, so maybe we'll throw it in...
How about a reward system with renown/trust?
For pvp depending on units/apposing player renown you could have a value of how much the battle is worth in fame.
So if you are low level and have few units but win/lose to a lesser degree to a high renown player you renown goes up.
High level crushing low renown gives barley any(maybe even reduces) renown.
So basically a way of giving persistent points based off of the 2 players point difference.
Then renown works as a players supply like in a rts (real generals don't manage raw resources and money they get what that country wants do give and gets the job done!) so I don't think you need any more restrictions on units that this.
Also for multiple pvp you can have the sum of one faction's players and renown vs the others. And you could make the lower player count side get more renown for realism or for the more players with less renown each to help lower players and reward teamwork and larger battles.
Hope you can decipher my rambling that only makes sense in my head!
-This has been Admiral Snackbar "Eat Squid and watch for the Traps!"
For pvp depending on units/apposing player renown you could have a value of how much the battle is worth in fame.
So if you are low level and have few units but win/lose to a lesser degree to a high renown player you renown goes up.
High level crushing low renown gives barley any(maybe even reduces) renown.
So basically a way of giving persistent points based off of the 2 players point difference.
Then renown works as a players supply like in a rts (real generals don't manage raw resources and money they get what that country wants do give and gets the job done!) so I don't think you need any more restrictions on units that this.
Also for multiple pvp you can have the sum of one faction's players and renown vs the others. And you could make the lower player count side get more renown for realism or for the more players with less renown each to help lower players and reward teamwork and larger battles.
Hope you can decipher my rambling that only makes sense in my head!
-This has been Admiral Snackbar "Eat Squid and watch for the Traps!"
Hello and welcome AdmiralSnackbar,
Now that's a good nickname!
We haven't ironed out the server/matchmaking architecture yet. We'll probably go quite simple at first and rather extend functionality later, rather than guessing what players want before launch.
It's a good idea to have sensible matchmaking at some point, yes, and also to give renown or bonus points based on the quality of the opposition. We are not, however, going to base the resources/units available to the player in competitive online games on leveling. Each competitive game will be on a perfectly even footing.
Now that's a good nickname!
We haven't ironed out the server/matchmaking architecture yet. We'll probably go quite simple at first and rather extend functionality later, rather than guessing what players want before launch.
It's a good idea to have sensible matchmaking at some point, yes, and also to give renown or bonus points based on the quality of the opposition. We are not, however, going to base the resources/units available to the player in competitive online games on leveling. Each competitive game will be on a perfectly even footing.
Makes sense!
My idea is really for a persistent world faction focus fighting were wining is about conquering everything then server restart anyway.
My idea is really for a persistent world faction focus fighting were wining is about conquering everything then server restart anyway.
I just want to ask you to please keep NWAC as a simple RTS, with no cheesy cut scenes, old men explaining how to play the game, (HoI3) or crewmen screaming bad language when their ship gets blown sky high. Things like this, in my opinion, ruin many potentially good games. When explaining the storyline, please do it through text.
Again on the articles, you simply can NOT ignore what this guy has to say. I would be EXTREMELY happy if you could consider including the Udaloy I, Krivak IV, and improved Kilo in the game, or at least in DLC, as suggested by the articles.
We'll probably go with its successor the Lada. We simply have to draw the line somewhere for budget and time reasons, and units with very similar functionality are unlikely to both be included. I mentioned the thinking behind this in Dev Diary 2. Sorry.
Just in case you didn't know, the Admiral Ushakov Kirov class cruiser has been reverted back to its original name, Kirov.
Hmm. I thought that article gave a fair amount of info, or at least enough to build a game model. Top speed, weapons, sensors, appearance. In numbers I'd say around ten, and just wing it with the names.