Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Naval War: Arctic Circle - Frequently Asked Questions

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Will the BAE UXV combatant be included for the Royal Navy? While it is only in a research and development stage it is planned for post 2020 and an inservice date of 2025-2030 (though with Britains politicians that probably means 2040 when it is obsolete :p)?

I assume you will change the Queen Elizabeth class to a CATOBAR design for your model, if you have already done anything for that model at the moment will you leave the STOVL design in the database for modders? I ask because I can't remember if you have even started on the Royal Naval models for the game yet and if you haven't the answer will obviously be no.

Now for an important question, in the Order of Battle, will players have the opportunity to vary aircraft complement for more than just carriers?

For instance the Type 45 destroyer can carry 2 lynx or 2 Lynx Wildcat or 1 Merlin. I can think of a good many scenarios where 2 Lynx wildcat would be a much better choice.
This was a major failing with fleet command. The database had to have a different entry for each ship when you changed the aircraft loadout, one entry with a variable hanger loadout would be much easier for skirmishes, your own scenarios etc.
 
We do have different possible loadouts (that is, weapons) for ships. It is the same mechanism we use for loadouts on aircraft, except obviously you can't change ship loadouts in-game. This makes it possible to have e.g. Burke's with a predominance of land attack or anti-ship missiles.

We have total flexibility on which aircraft can be loaded on ships. There is a default, and then you can just go with a completely custom specification down to specific aircraft and loadouts.

For example, you may have an aircraft carrier with a full loadout in one scenario, while another simulates the situation after some attrition and losses.

We're unlikely to include the BAE UXV for initial launch. I also doubt we'll have all helicopter options for the British ships. We simply have to draw the line somewhere, and we're pretty close to finalizing the unit list now. Obviously, additional units may be made available for download after launch.
 
JanH said:
We do have different possible loadouts (that is, weapons) for ships. It is the same mechanism we use for loadouts on aircraft, except obviously you can't change ship loadouts in-game. This makes it possible to have e.g. Burke's with a predominance of land attack or anti-ship missiles.

We have total flexibility on which aircraft can be loaded on ships. There is a default, and then you can just go with a completely custom specification down to specific aircraft and loadouts.

For example, you may have an aircraft carrier with a full loadout in one scenario, while another simulates the situation after some attrition and losses.

We're unlikely to include the BAE UXV for initial launch. I also doubt we'll have all helicopter options for the British ships. We simply have to draw the line somewhere, and we're pretty close to finalizing the unit list now. Obviously, additional units may be made available for download after launch.
Click to expand...

I'll respond in order.

The way you have handled loadouts for both ships and aircraft sounds excellent. Something that has long been missing in multiple naval games.
The ability to also have flexibility in the number of aircraft on a ship when doing a mission is excellent, it's a pain the backside to have to create a new DB entry for fleet command anytime you want to try a different number of aircraft on a carrier.

I can totally understand the decision for the BAE UXV at launch, obviously you have to draw the line somewhere.

As for British Helicopters, past 2020 there should only be the Lynx WIldcat and Merlin HM.2 operating on Royal Naval warships for non amphibious operations. Merlin Commando, Apache and Chinook are all attachments from the Army Air corps or RAF for amphibious operations and so not something that would be present in a non-amphibious centred task force.

You sound like you have done your homework but given my ongoing application to the RN as an officer I have to understand quite a bit about the direction the Royal Navy is taking as well as the ships it has or will have. I doubt you will need any help as the information isn't to hard to find but the offer is there should you like any information on the likely force structure of the Royal Navy post 2020.

In the end I understand that as a games designer the line must be drawn somewhere. So far the line looks exceptionally reasonable in any event :D
 
Are you likely to have the fire shadow loitering munition in the game? It is scheduled for deployment by the British Army in 2012 and can fit in a variety of Vertical launch platforms on ships. I suspect that the T26 which will be capable of surface action is a very likely competitor for deployment of the Fire shadow in support of any TLAM or SCALP missiles it operates.

Will Sea Skua 2 [FASGW(H)] be featured? It is the intended upgrade to Sea Skua and will be widely utilised by all the Royal Navys future helicopters that are not intended for pure transport role. So the Merlin HM.2 and Lynx Wildcat.
 
JanH said:
Fire shadow: We'll see how important it will be for navy based operations and assets. It looks like it may require a change to the engine, which is definitely a non-starter at this stage.

Sea Skua 2: Sounds likely.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, yeah a missile that acts like a UAV to provide on call support is certainly cool, however for naval operations it would perhaps not be a massive requirement.
 
Let me just say, it is wonderful to see someone doing an advanced remake of Harpoon.

This game, hopefully, (well, not hopefully, I know you guys will do this game justice :p ) a dream come true.

A few questions.

Firstly, will this be a campaign driven RTS, aka, where you have to play a Campaign.

Secondly, will their be a sort of mission creator where we can design a custom scenario?

And thirdly, will one play as a faction, such as NATO or the CIS or will one play as a country such as the United States or Norway?

Thank you for your efforts in creating this game!
 
Hello Osprey,

Glad you like our ideas, and thank you for the encouragment.

1. We'll have two campaigns, and we hope you like to play them, but we can't force you :) We'll also have many different single missions, you can play skirmishes against the AI, and you can play your friends and enemies online. Plenty of fun for everyone.

2. We haven't promised to give you a nice user-friendly mission editor at launch. All campaign/mission/unit/weapon/sensor data is available in xml files, so you can certainly change and make your own. Hopefully some nice tools will be made available by us or third parties at an early stage.

3. We haven't fully decided the details yet. The campaigns will be one as "the west" and one as (primarily) Russia. We want to be able to mix and choose a bit here, for example by having the Nordic countries + the UK as a faction with and without the US, and so on.
 
JanH said:
Hello Osprey,

3. We haven't fully decided the details yet. The campaigns will be one as "the west" and one as (primarily) Russia. We want to be able to mix and choose a bit here, for example by having the Nordic countries + the UK as a faction with and without the US, and so on.
Click to expand...


It kinda makes sense that the Nordic countries and the UK would begin to act as a seperate faction to the US. Mainly because if the US tried to push into the resource reserves in territory deemed European I doubt they would be too chuffed with it.

I could see NATO/UN versus Russia if Russia just went after the resources but if it is kinda of a 3 way split then I can really see USA, Russia and then Commonwealth/Nordic countries.

That would also have the advantage of giving 3 very different play styles and suit your game I think?

1) Russian with independent ships, heavy submarine use and lots of land based air cover.
2) USA with battlegroups focused around Carriers, largest number of naval aircraft with ships focused on defence of the carrier
3) Nordic/Commonwealth battlegroups, coalition of forces, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts due to more specialised vessels.

Might not be really really true to how something would happen, but so long as you kept the units relatively realistic as you plan to do it would present 3 very different factions using different tactics and playstyles... Something that is good for an RTS... though horrible for you to balance :p
 
JanH said:
Hello Osprey,

Glad you like our ideas, and thank you for the encouragment.

1. We'll have two campaigns, and we hope you like to play them, but we can't force you :) We'll also have many different single missions, you can play skirmishes against the AI, and you can play your friends and enemies online. Plenty of fun for everyone.

2. We haven't promised to give you a nice user-friendly mission editor at launch. All campaign/mission/unit/weapon/sensor data is available in xml files, so you can certainly change and make your own. Hopefully some nice tools will be made available by us or third parties at an early stage.

3. We haven't fully decided the details yet. The campaigns will be one as "the west" and one as (primarily) Russia. We want to be able to mix and choose a bit here, for example by having the Nordic countries + the UK as a faction with and without the US, and so on.
Click to expand...

JanH,

Thank you very much for your prompt responses! I am looking forward to Naval War Arctic Circle.

Any timeline as yet on release dates/beta dates?

Thanks,

Osprey
 
Brutoni said:
It kinda makes sense that the Nordic countries and the UK would begin to act as a seperate faction to the US. Mainly because if the US tried to push into the resource reserves in territory deemed European I doubt they would be too chuffed with it.


3) Nordic/Commonwealth battlegroups, coalition of forces, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts due to more specialised vessels.
Click to expand...

True. Scandinavian and British relations are pretty high. We can see that in the danish-british cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq amongst other things.

Also the Danish navy is pretty much designed to be used in coordination with larger surface forces from other countries, can only imagine the same applies to my fellow scandinavians and their navies.
 
Andcus said:
True. Scandinavian and British relations are pretty high. We can see that in the danish-british cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq amongst other things.

Also the Danish navy is pretty much designed to be used in coordination with larger surface forces from other countries, can only imagine the same applies to my fellow scandinavians and their navies.
Click to expand...

Indeed, quite frankly I really do think Britain messed up focusing on America as an ally over the Commonwealth/Europe. Europe has a lot of very powerful nations and relations with a lot of them are very high. Setting aside Political blundering when we make kit we make it really well. Typhoon is a brilliant aircraft, very capable. It's just a political failure.

I'm all for a strong Europe quite frankly, not sure how best to go about it but I do think a strong coalition of Military alliances with European nations would really benefit us all.
 
I believe you have mentioned german units. UK, Nordics & Germany on one team could be quite interesting to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back