This or War On The Sea

[✪ STⒶR ✪ ⓭]

I dont have a lot of money but Im currently struggling with a naval itch so Im willing to spend some but I only have for 1 game.

I do have Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts but it seems kind-a empty and unfinished so its not really satisfying.
Im looking for depth and realism and while I do really like RTW3 is the difference against UAD big enough to warrant spending the cash if u already have UAD?
And if not would u recomend War On The Sea instead since its different?

[Andrew Cree]

Depends on what you want from the game.

War on the Sea appears to have a very narrow focus, in the form of the Pacific and presumably 1942-1945. You are limited to the ships in the game and I can't guess what level of control you can exert.

For RtW3, the world is your oyster. You can end up operating anywhere and there are many more nations involved. You also get to design your own warships adding another element to the game and you get a much longer time span (1890 to 1970 at the most extreme).

I would suspect that you would get a lot more time played out of RtW3...if it suits you.

There is a demo for the predecessor, Rule the Waves 2 (available on the NWS Rule The Waves 2 forum) to give you a feel for the game - I would suggest giving that a go to see if the game style suits you.

[✪ STⒶR ✪ ⓭]

Originally posted by Andrew Cree:

Depends on what you want from the game.

War on the Sea appears to have a very narrow focus, in the form of the Pacific and presumably 1942-1945. You are limited to the ships in the game and I can't guess what level of control you can exert.

For RtW3, the world is your oyster. You can end up operating anywhere and there are many more nations involved. You also get to design your own warships adding another element to the game and you get a much longer time span (1890 to 1970 at the most extreme).

I would suspect that you would get a lot more time played out of RtW3...if it suits you.

There is a demo for the predecessor, Rule the Waves 2 (available on the NWS Rule The Waves 2 forum) to give you a feel for the game - I would suggest giving that a go to see if the game style suits you.

Thank you for taking your time

I have to admit that I am already 80% in favor of Rule The Waves (it does not matter the theater or nations I just want as much depth of mechanics and realism as possible).

The only 20% remaining against it is the people saying that you dont really have any control in the strategy side (where ships go, who fights who, etc) because its random generated by a generator and the AI not being that good.
Also I heard the generator does not take into account the ranges of misiles and planes so u can get spawnkilled by misiles making late game unplayable

Would you care to expand a little bit about those things?

[m4rek]

For me the main selling point here is the ship design; so if that's the bit you want then this is the game. If you're after strategy or tactics, this game is a lot less about that, it's more about the macro scale, how you manage the navy and what disposition of ships you equip it with than any given battle, indeed I'd suggest the whole game's shtick is that you have to fight your wars and battles with the ships you have, rather than the ships you want, and sometimes you might have to choose to preserve your ships than prosecute a battle.

[Lucky]

https://i.imgur.com/TEGHJoK.png

About so called lack of control on strategic level.

Look at those rectangles across the map. These are actual combat zones. After you generate a battle your fleet will be spawned inside one of those and all of its area will be accessible to you. Unlike miniscule WotS combat zones. And you can have your entire navy operating together (including base facilities) and not some limited number of ships per force only.

So while in WotS you can freely move all those small forces on the main map its not that you have actual full strategic level control because your ability to employ your forces together is severely limited. You literally is unable to produce a decisive battle because AI forces are template based. And while RtW has RNG based mission generation, in general you will exert much better strategic level control over your fleet.

As for missile spawnkills... Nah. AI is not exactly well suited for missile battles and even if you end up starting right in the missile range AI will just overkills closest ships. So most likely it will be you who will spawn kill the AI.

The real thrill are the pre-radar night battles.

[Deez_Noots]

might as well try this for an hour and if you don't like it then get the refund from steam

[RipoffPingu]

i will state that this game's damage model and ship designer is both significantly more simplistic than UA:D's, as well as having more jank and weird stuff in said damage model and the ship designer (stuff like BE/DE being more important than B/D, 5 inches of B armour being heavier on a 14k ton CA compared to a 15k ton CA (total weight, not relative), the game failing to tell you about exceptions in the rules of the designer, like making brandenburg pre-dreads or matsushima's 13 incher on a CL)

if you want strategic depth, i'd more recommend RTW3, but if you want a good damage model and ship designer, stick to UA:D

[m4rek]

I dunno, I've seen some absolute memes come out of UAD's ship designer, and RTW mostly keeps it reasonable... Then again there is that 18 inch corvette design in the community posts.

[RipoffPingu]

out of all the weird and wacky designs i've both seen and personally done in UA:D (shoutout to the 100+ something torpedo broadside BB i made) its still nowhere near as janky as CA armour becoming magically lighter by ~25% purely from *increasing* tonnage by 1000

[m4rek]

Originally posted by RipoffPingu:

out of all the weird and wacky designs i've both seen and personally done in UA:D (shoutout to the 100+ something torpedo broadside BB i made) its still nowhere near as janky as CA armour becoming magically lighter by ~25% purely from *increasing* tonnage by 1000

That there would be something we disagree on.

Also there's probably a decent reason why increasing the displacement might result in a lighter armour belt; it might result from altering the hull shape in such a way that you can make the citadel shorter. It doesn't help that the ship designer is a little opaque sometimes (why does adding a second AA battery reduce HAA?), but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by RipoffPingu:

out of all the weird and wacky designs i've both seen and personally done in UA:D (shoutout to the 100+ something torpedo broadside BB i made) its still nowhere near as janky as CA armour becoming magically lighter by ~25% purely from *increasing* tonnage by 1000

Not magically. Through internal differencies in machinery layout for different hulls.

Dial down your speed to 5 knots and check the difference.

[Andrew Cree]

Originally posted by m4rek:

It doesn't help that the ship designer is a little opaque sometimes (why does adding a second AA battery reduce HAA?), but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable.

In this case, it's due to the shell sizes (and thus bursting charges) being close enough that it's difficult to distinguish between them at 10,000 yards.

It's the same reason you get 'to hit' penalties for taking 6" secondaries and 4" tertiaries on a vessel.