It looks like I need to add another entry to the THC Wargames Top 50. While lumping together the Ultimate Generals (Gettysburg and Civil War) for voting purposes doesn’t offend my sense of taxonomic propriety unduly, putting Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts under the same umbrella feels like a flying bridge too far. Just about all UAD has in common with its landlubbing predecessors is good looks, decent AI, and an intuitive UI. In terms of theme, features, and approach, its natural hammockfellow is the series currently ranked at #10, Rule the Waves.
If you’re a Rule the Waves fan or have a strong dislike of coattail riders, expect to embark on Early Access Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts with mixed emotions. The newcomer’s elevator pitch – pauseable late 19th/early 20th Century naval scraps spliced with ship design, and unscripted turnbased campaigning – is too similar to have been conceived by someone completely unaware of RTW.
How long any censorious coolness lasts will depend on the extent of your disapproval and your weakness for fine naval wargames. Personally, I managed to remain sniffy for about sixty minutes. By the end of hour one, having designed my first warship, orchestrated my first torpedo boat attack, and slain my first cruiser, my qualms had mysteriously vanished. Engrossed and impressed, I was having too much fun to tut or hand-wring.
UAD’s Early Access release has been a long time coming. The three years of hard work Game-Labs put in prior to this month’s Steam slipway ceremony shows in the depth of the simulation, the degree of polish, and the amount of content your 25 smackers purchases.
I knew my screenshot key would see a fair bit of action this week – what I hadn’t fully anticipated was that the shell exchanges and dreadnought demises that cried out for capture would feel so realistic. Wisely, Nick Thomadis and chums have resisted playing to the gallery. UAD might look and handle like a chart-topping RTS, but beneath the game’s stout belt armour lurks the soul and science of a serious wargame.
Assuming you’ve got the ‘Damage’, ‘Report’ and ‘Shoot Info’ GUI panels open during a clash, that science is flaunted every time a gun expectorates*, or a speeding shell or torpedo ploughs headlong into something ferrous.
*Actually it’s evident before that. Spotting, including misidentification, is nicely simmed.
Before choosing a trajectory for a projectile, the game considers things like crew experience, weapon characteristics, range-finding tech, sea state, wind direction, smoke and light levels, ship stability and damage (Oddly, list angle and friendly obstructions seem to be ignored).
To determine what happens when the projectile lands, munition weight, velocity, and impact angle, along with armour thickness and quality are fed into a version of…
T/D = (1728.04)*(W/D^3)*[(V/F)*Cos(Ob)]^3
Devoid of cover and contours, the best naval wargames have always relied heavily on intricate damage models for tactical texture. Game-Labs seems to grasp this. While UAD doesn’t let you manage damage control or examine warships GHPC-style postbellum, there’s enough detail and dynamism to destruction to ensure the colour-coded damage diagrams in the top-right of the screen get frequent glances. At times those diagrams showing as they do invisible repair teams battling to contain spreading fires, plug holes in colandered hulls, and pump out flooded compartments, are just as compelling as the 3D spectacles unfolding centre stage.
Do the unseen catastrophe averters with their fire hoses and wooden wedges sometimes feel too efficient? Yes, but overall I think the devs get ship survivability about right. Anyone who knows their naval history will note the way some vessels take incredible punishment and, because of the timing and distribution of that punishment, endure, while others less fortunate perish with Indefatigable-like suddenness, and nod approvingly.
Although my enthusiasm for the AI has been slightly dented by collisions I’ve witnessed during recent random skirmishes, overall I remain impressed by the way silicon bridge pacers handle their fleets. More often than not ersatz Jellicos, Scheers, and Tōgōs use assets appropriately. Destroyers generally scout, screen, and harry, while cruisers and battleships attempt to pummel from afar. Particularly pleasing is the way foes employ torpedo boats. Heaven help the admiral who allows enemy TBs to infiltrate his flock.
Rarely is it necessary to issue manual targeting instructions. Not only are individual captains competent risk assessors, they understand that sometimes it’s sage to engage multiple targets simultaneously rather than concentrate fire. A small selection of role assignment and behaviour modifier buttons together with the ability to hand over ships entirely to a friendly AI should allow the micro-management averse to orchestrate large ding-dongs without swooning.
There are three ways to play at the moment: campaigning, customisable skirmishes, and the Naval Academy. Only in the latter mode is ship design mandatory. Elsewhere the computer will shipwright on your behalf if asked.
I suspect some may find UAD’s shipyards a little restrictive. Although you’re free to tinker with weaponry, armour thicknesses, funnels, towers and the like, sculpting hulls, reshaping decks, and meddling with internal configuration isn’t permitted. The advantage of the template approach is speed. Pretty soon you’ll be blueprinting new BBs in the time it takes to boil a kettle.
Thankfully, the vast majority of the 56* Naval Academy missions are Sprocket-style design/tactical challenges rather than traditional tutorials. You’re presented with a situation and a budget and expected to fashion a vessel or flotilla that will get the job done. Solving tough puzzles such as “Armed Convoy Attack” and “Battlecruiser vs. Dreadnought” is perfect prep for campaigning and large custom engagements.
* More are on the way.
The most immature and poorly documented element of the game at present, the WIP campaign is politics-free (you start at war), exclusively Anglo-German, limited to an 1890 start date, and played on a fairly small and irrelevant North European map, at the moment. Despite these shortcomings, and the fact that you don’t plan distinct operations (battles are the randomly generated result of relative fleet sizes, compositions, and dispositions) I was quickly drawn in.
Essentially you’re thrown straight into a ‘hot’ naval arms race with either Britannia or Germania. Fall behind and friendly freighter losses mount and the abstracted blockade that will eventually bring your country to its knees tightens. Naturally there’s a research tree and a few financial levers at your disposal, and you can automate or attempt to flee from lopsided clashes.
By the end of next year campaigning should feel very different. A globe-encompassing map that allows US, Japanese, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, French, Italian, Spanish and Chinese navies to cross swords is on the stocks.
Unless Game-Labs changes its plans dramatically, UAD’s 3D spectaculars will never involve U-boats, flat tops, or aircraft. Although a submarine branch on the R&D tree suggests it will be possible to purchase periscoped prowlers at some point, I suspect their contribution will be purely statistical.
Conscious that Early Access UAD already offers wet wargamers both quality and quantity (There are weeks of entertainment in the Naval Academy and skirmish generator alone) I’m not going to conclude with petty grumbles about oversized waves (the gunboat in this image is in no danger) AWOL coastlines, and the strange lack of capsizing. What I will do is use the Tally-Ho Corner soapbox (“Foxo – For Cunningly Clean Combinations!”) to politely request a selection of historical battles. Tsushima, Dogger Bank, Coronel, The Falkland Islands… I reckon Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts could bring fascinating engagements like these to life in a way no wargame has yet managed.
So glad to see this preview. This game caught my eye and snagged a wishlist spot as soon as I first saw it. Glad to hear it is already so promising, I think it may be a Christmas present to myself.
“Engrossed and impressed, I was having too much fun to tut or hand-wring.”
This summarizes exactly my feelings about the game. I’ve had it in early access directly from GL for a while, and man have I had fun with it. There is an unbelievable amount of negativity over on the GL forums, I assume primarily people upset that development has taken longer than planned, but I just have an absolute blast every time I load this up. The combination of gorgeous graphics, realistic physics, and the uniqueness of the time period drive it higher and higher on my list every time I play it, and it will only get more feature-filled and compelling as the campaign gets fleshed out. Seconding your call for Tsushima, other Russo-Japanese war battles (Yellow Sea anyone?), Dogger Bank, and of course Jutland.
I agree , it is very good and yes, development has been very slow 🙂
I’ve always swooned at large ding dongs.
I am not sure the game needs (or wants) submarines or aerial operations… I think it is an excellent tactical simulator that is very easy to get into. The campaign is essentially a skirmish generator with strategic context, which is simple yet effective.
Sometimes I would say that there is too little to do, sometimes too much is happening. I would like to have a 2d map (or a “grand tactical level” zoom out) for the bigger, longer range battles. Situational awareness becomes complicated when you have several engagements happening in parallel.
The graphics are gorgeous imo, and it has been interesting to see the simulation maturing over the past two years. I have never visit the forums, and after checking a couple threads I think I don’t need them.
A big overhead 2D map with the ships being represented by filled in ship shapes and lines trailing out behind them is an idea I thought would improve the game as well.
I find in the bigger battles it’s easy to lose track of what’s happening and a zoomed out map would really help make sense of the chaos in some battles.
Overall though this game really ticks a lot of boxes for me, I’ve always been keen on Dreadnoughts and the history around these ships and the ability to design your own is icing on the cake (although a bit more flexibility on gun placement would be nice).
“The campaign is essentially a skirmish generator with strategic context, which is simple yet effective.”
I want more war games to use this concept of campaign creation.
“I would like to have a 2d map (or a “grand tactical level” zoom out) for the bigger, longer range battles. Situational awareness becomes complicated when you have several engagements happening in parallel.”
Seconded. Over the weekend I began increasing the size and spread of my custom battles, and, at times, following the action was a problem. A chart-style overhead view would be a great solution. At the very least Game-Labs needs to offer ‘ship type’ icons instead of letters (“BB”, “BC”, “CA” etc) and divisional identifiers or colour-coding.
I’m surprised “Hood winked” wasn’t utilised. Thanks for another great article Tim.
Timely stuff, was just eyeing it, perhaps an early xmas present..
Is this like a modern Great Naval Battles meets Kerbal sort of deal?
I’ve been curious about Rules the Waves for a considerable period of time, and reading this UA.
Been a little bit gun shy on this modern generation since I purchased a couple of tedious iPad refugees by Killer Fish. I think exhibit 1 is Atlantic Fleet and exhibit 2 is Colder Waters. Had a very lukewarm reaction to Colder Waters (reminded me of the Doom Slayer when I was expecting something about like SHIV meets Dangerous Waters) and was completely disappointed by Atlantic Fleet.
With the looming vacation perhaps now is the time to have a look at either or both of these titles on the basis they might be a little bit more faithful. As long as I can design something approximating the Nelson class in the editor and then have it fight a plausible fleet action then am totally in.
Nelson-style BBs are possible…
…albeit sans Fairey Flycatchers.
The Steam reviews appear more generally negative than here in the corner. The premise is tempting.
I’d like the editor to be as flexible as Naval Ops on the PS2. Some of the proposed ships of the era are certainly as weird as what I could think up on that game. The boiler/funnel requirement kept the player basically honest while still allowing for bizarre collections of primary and secondary armament.
The screenshot shows a cost in dollars, despite your assertion that the only playable sides are British and German. That kind of minor thing gets my goat. I wonder if they plan a more historical campaign – a hidden rearmament requirement after 1933; cat and mouse during WWI; dealing with the Washington Naval Treaty, Weimar strikes etc. etc.
The campaign is only Anglo-German at present but Custom Battles and Naval Academy feature all ten navies. It sounds as if historical campaign outcomes, while not impossible, may be unlikely in the unmodded game:
“From your position as head of the admiralty you do not have direct control of the national government, but you can influence the course of actions, either by sharing your opinion in random political events or by strengthening the naval power and prestige of your nation. Each nation has its strength and weaknesses. For example, some countries will begin with much stronger naval facilities and greater economic power than others, but the randomization of technological advancements and events in each campaign session ensures that the final dominant power is going to be always unpredictable.”
NWS games (Rule the Waves etc) are unavailable currently. https://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/6208
Due to the death of the owner Christopher Dean.
Hopefully they will return sometime in 2022 ( see above post)
I found the AI in this to be pretty lacking compared to RTW, lots of weird things happening in battles and the AI is very fond of either ramming or just running away leading to a long boring chase. Getting ships to launch torpedoes is pretty frustrating as well.
Also the ship building UI is kinda crap and building ships is pretty finnicky too and some things not explained like do the different funnels actually change anything? Doesn’t seem to. Everything seems pretty restrictive as well.
RTW looks like something out of the early 90’s but I’m sticking with it for now.
Also UA has been in development forbloodyever so I’m not that hopeful on it getting fleshed out in a timely manner. It’ll probably be bare bones for a long time to come.
Comments are closed.