• 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.
1, 2: We ruled that out for now, mostly because we need to give players something to do :) We have aircraft groups with formations, but you'll have to set up escorts yourself. All those things like automatic scheduling is neat in theory, but it is a user interface nightmare. In an RTS, some micromanagement should be rewarded.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. We have a bit of the same problems, since we don't model a lot on land. But yes, some land targets you will have to find and identify.

6. Yes, but we don't model carefully which sensors, missiles and weapons can actually communicate in real life. So in NWAC, the systems will be even more "plug and play" than they are in reality. Otherwise, it would - again - be a nightmare to present all those details to the players in the user interface. In an RTS, we can't have big tables of numbers and nested menus without making a UI mess and turning off by far most gamers.
 
Do we keep the same fleet from mission to mission? So, for example, losing a carrier early means later we have to make it work without it?
 
will the sm-3 and sm-6 missiles be in this game? i mean they are just coming into service now so i imagine there will be an large amount of them in 10-15+ years
Probably.

Sheesh.

It is hard enough to hit anything with cruise missiles as it is. SAMs are so overpowered in this game. Yesterday I fired 56 AGM harpoons at a single Kirov with no air support (the rest of the group had been taken out by a sub). One - 1 - went through and did damage.
 
Can you spill the beans about the multiplayer some more? How many people can play at once? Is this a custom battle where everyone picks ships and then tries to sink the other guy? Can two players fight using the same fleet (Russia vs Russia for example)?
 
Here's a hardball. The main "meh" response when I tell people (and I tell quite a few ) about how hopeful I am for this game is that it looks like it's "one of those games", games which you play through once or twice and never get back to. They might be fun, and you might appreciate them a lot, but they just lack replay value able to encourage you to come back to them once you've seen what they have to offer.

How would you respond to such concerns?
 
Hey Delra,

We really appreciate you evangelizing the game!

My original vision for the game was to recreate the experience I had with Harpoon (not the game itself), and combine it with some of the greatly improved UIs of more modern RTSs like Starcraft. Harpoon (and Starcraft) had a great longevity. For me at least, good RTS games always have great replay value, since very small variations in what you do (and some random events) can produce a wildly different outcome. Also, you may find a winning strategy through, say, using your bombers, but is it also possible to win using your subs?

Add to that simple modding, new official units, weapons, missions and campaigns (DLC), and I think this is a game that will live for a long time.

Also: multiplayer always have a lot of replay value. The people you play will keep getting better, and come up with new strategies and tactics all the time.
 
Jan, will a sort of skirmish mode be available? You can select the region of the game map, the sides involved and which ships will face off etc? I can imagine spending hours a week doing that.
 
It is hard enough to hit anything with cruise missiles as it is. SAMs are so overpowered in this game. Yesterday I fired 56 AGM harpoons at a single Kirov with no air support (the rest of the group had been taken out by a sub). One - 1 - went through and did damage.

About that, how high were the harpoons? If the harpoons were at sea skimming level, that should give the Kirov about 1.5 minutes to respond. (15 nm to horizon, 600 nm / hour). At that rate, 56 missiles in 1.5 minutes, the Kirov may not have enough fire directors to engage all the missiles. Are engagement rates modeled?
 
Whew... I just read this entire thread and the dev diaries. So far the game looks great guys and I'm definitely looking forward to playing it and supporting you. Your interaction with the community means a lot. I can't say much more because I have no knowledge of navies past ww2 and all of my questions have been answered so... Good Luck! :laugh:.
 
Last edited:
Jan, will a sort of skirmish mode be available? You can select the region of the game map, the sides involved and which ships will face off etc? I can imagine spending hours a week doing that.

b to the ump! :p
 
Oh, didn't know that. Thought that radar horizon was on the order of 15 - 30 nm for a surface ship against a sea skimmer?

It's not quite as simple as that. Depends on the mast height of the radar and directors (one of the reasons the Type 45 is so capable of engaging agile sea skimmers is the extra height over something like Aegis). Furthermore if you have AWACS or something similar then you can vector in an attack using the radar picture from the AWACS to get the missiles *close* to the incoming sea skimmer. If the missile then has a semi-active or active seeker that should do the rest of the work.

I don't understand peoples obsession with missiles, they are just fast explosives... They don't hit below the water line, they don't damage the keel, they can be shot down as it's just an object flying on a path. You want to kill something dead, spearfish at 40+ knots detonating underneath the keel of a warship is going to kill it dead.
 
Hello guys,

Just back from PIC in Stockholm where we showed off the game to a lot of people and had a chance to meet a lot of game fans.

Thanks for keeping the forum going in the meantime :)

renegade765: Hi and welcome, and thanks.

imperialman: you can definitely do that (set up your own thing). We will add all sorts of skirmishes around the map area, but you can't pick a place at random (though it is a good thought), since the game would have to know a bit more geography than it does. But it can possibly be done...

DrRansom: Visible light doesn't bend that much in the atmosphere, so for intents and purposes you visual distance to the horizon is a straight line (even that isn't strictly true). Radio-waves, on the other hand, are reflected and refracted in pretty complex ways. The rule of thumb is to assume the earth radius is 4/3rds of what it really is. We do something like this in the game simulator.
 
What is the most advanced ship and equipment in the game? Did you make some stuff up, to cover for the most futuristic unconventional technologies that aren't even thought of by the military at this time? Is there anything like "I WIN" weapon for each faction?
 
What is the most advanced ship and equipment in the game?
That is very difficult to say, since units and weapons are so specialised.

The F-22 is probably the most powerful air superiority fighter, but it can't really do much against a ship, and nothing against a sub. And, when it runs out of fuel and/or missiles, it is out of action for quite some time...

The SM-2 (and -3 and so on) are extremely powerful anti-air weapons, and so are the s-300 forts on the other side.

Supersonic ASMs are also pretty brutal, like the BrahMos or 3M-54E Klub. LRASM will certainly be in that league, too.

As you can guess, this totally depends on what you want to do!

Did you make some stuff up, to cover for the most futuristic unconventional technologies that aren't even thought of by the military at this time?
No. The "worst" we've done is making some educated guesses about equipment that exists. It's a bit hard for us to know how, say, a SPY1D stacks up to a MR800 in real life.

Is there anything like "I WIN" weapon for each faction?
No.

The closest is if you get a sub within torp range of the enemy battle group, but that is not exactly trivial to do.