https://steamcommunity.com/games/541210/announcements/detail/2086797029134440266
QuoteWar on the Sea puts you in command of warship task forces, supply convoys and submarines as well as tactical use of aircraft to secure the South Pacific during World War II. Heavily inspired by the classic computer games "Great Naval Battles" and "Task Force 1942", War on the Sea is coming soon to PC and Mac.
1942: The world is at war
The Japanese Empire expands throughout the Pacific where Allied forces attempt to halt its spread. A desperate struggle for control of the Solomon Islands is now underway.
How will you protect your transports as they deliver troops and supplies in the South Pacific? Will you deploy precious aircraft carriers to provide air cover? Do you screen the area with submarines? Or attempt to lure the enemy navy into a decisive surface engagement?
Features
Real-time naval combat
Theatrical external-view game play
Play as Allied Forces or Imperial Japan
Over 50 classes of playable ships
Dynamic campaign
Tactical control of aircraft (not a flight simulator)
Fight fires, counter flood compartments and repair ships
Sink ships using realistic buoyancy physics
Historical missions based on actual naval engagements
Historical ships, aircraft and weapons
:D
:smitten:
GNB and TF42 are a couple of really fine games that only need a graphical upgrade and the addition of air-ship combat--both of which it appears we are getting. So I'm jacked by the little film.
But the description of controlling convoys and subs in the blurb kind of hint at a strategic layer. There wasn't any strategic layer in the GNB games I've played, nor do I recollect one in TF 42 but I understand there have been supply bases to attack in some of the games? Can anybody shed light on that?
I'll play this game for the battles, but if there's a decent strategic layer I might obsess on it. . . .
Amazing news thank you.
Quote from: glen55 on April 03, 2020, 05:49:45 PM
GNB and TF42 are a couple of really fine games that only need a graphical upgrade and the addition of air-ship combat--both of which it appears we are getting. So I'm jacked by the little film.
But the description of controlling convoys and subs in the blurb kind of hint at a strategic layer. There wasn't any strategic layer in the GNB games I've played, nor do I recollect one in TF 42 but I understand there have been supply bases to attack in some of the games? Can anybody shed light on that?
I'll play this game for the battles, but if there's a decent strategic layer I might obsess on it. . . .
Task Force 42 was a fantastic game. This one should be at least as good. It's nice that the south pacific in 1942 has been getting more attention lately.
Quote from: glen55 on April 03, 2020, 05:49:45 PM
There wasn't any strategic layer in the GNB games I've played, nor do I recollect one in TF 42 but I understand there have been supply bases to attack in some of the games? Can anybody shed light on that?
There was! The TF1942 strategic layer was very decent - although relatively affected by the buggy state of affairs overall. I played that to death. KF using that as a canvas for its own strategic module is a safe bet that cannot go wrong, gameplay-wise.
Naturally the GNB2 mention is also there to imply that unlike TF1942 it will be a 3-dimensional affair. TF1942 completely gave up on subs & carrier planes, and then 1942:PAW gave up on surface combat & subs all the same - I suppose back then you couldn't have them all sweets in the same package :P
Anyway, the strat layer was somewhat centered on the actual struggle for Henderson Field, as the two players (the human & the AI) had to send supplies and troops, while the local commander would try regularly to assault his counterpart. A force ratio affair would occur and the result would mean victory, stalemate or defeat. Although it was convincing enough an affair for my 10 years-old safe, obviously in retrospect Guadalcanal without carriers, and carriers without subs make the whole affair sound very weak an offering originally. I am happy to see a game address these weaknesses without betraying the legacy one bit.
Of course I am personally very excited at the prospect of this game, and all the more at ease to know that KF is making it. :hug:
We had no plans to do that before another couple years, so I am all eyes & ears, good luck to them :)
I'm excited for both of your projects anyway! :bd:
It's alright, everybody is entitled to an open relationship every now and then :-" ^-^
You need to make your better by making it multiplayer admiral. I am betting based on killerfish's last real time release that theirs will not be.
The South Pacific in late '42 was about the only period in the war where the US Army fought on vaguely equal terms to the enemy, in terms of logistics and equipment. For that reason alone, I'm surprised that it hasn't seen more wargaming.
I suspect that the emphasis on land AND sea combat is hard to balance. Most games can do a good job of one or the other, but getting both right, and then balancing them correctly so it plays into a good experience for the gamer, has been an elusive target. It's complicated further by the fact that, to really get the naval piece right, you need to master all 3 dimensions (surface-to-surface, air attacks, and submarine attacks).
I suspect that's one reason why so many WW II games focus on the Eastern Front. The two forces often fought on vaguely equal terms, even if their strengths came from very different specific sources.
Quote from: Destraex on April 04, 2020, 12:31:39 AM
You need to make your better by making it multiplayer admiral. I am betting based on killerfish's last real time release that theirs will not be.
It's planned. It will happen. Just not in vol.1 - we had to focus on something deliverable rather than something too ambitious, and fail at making it. :pullhair:
Same thing with the Japanese. Not going to deliver the ultimate USN game and copy paste the content for the Japanese side. It would be too easy and really rewarding from my own perspective. I am a DNA patchwork myself, I can't come to terms with the idea that one size fits them all. Impossibru! :hide:
You gotta have to suffer with us for the moment, alas. Although I've seen worse suffering, I can tell you that :coolsmiley:
Our recent publisher deal makes us more secure, but not to the point we might suddenly make a strategic layer happen, or MP works. This is very specific set of skills required. Cold Waters itself kinda showcased it by not going for the original Redstorm Rising replay system. It requires much more work than what meets the eyes. By putting together a replay system of our own we are laying the groundwork for MP. Same with savegames. We're getting there, one step at a time with a pit stop - aka the release of Vol.1 - along the way. Stick with us, and we'll do right by you, or so I hope! :dreamer:
So only one question ...
W H E N !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on April 04, 2020, 12:40:22 AM
I suspect that's one reason why so many WW II games focus on the Eastern Front. The two forces often fought on vaguely equal terms, even if their strengths came from very different specific sources.
I'd say any part of WWII is very hard to model. There are actually huge technical differences in how the different forces operated. For example, the US and UK could read most of their foe's highest level, most (supposedly) totally secure communications for most of the war. How on earth do you "model" that in a form that is "fun for both players"...cuz from day one, the Axis was on a one-way death ride to nowhere (in reality). So that generally doesn't get modeled at all. AND -- if you did model it, what would be the point? Almost no other aspect of signals intelligence (hold on here while I admit my father was a cryptanalyst/signals intelligence guy in the early Cold War) ever gets modelled at all. So from the top down most of WWII never comes close to being well modelled. I think games are getting closer to good models on the tactical level and that's pretty interesting BUT how do you get something like the Japanese master-stroke at Savo Island in August 1942 into a game in a workable way given the amazing foul-ups by both sides on all sides of that one fine slice of brillance?
So...hmmm...Okay...the South Pacific in 1942 is probably a lot harder to model than say Little Saturn (but there are almost no models of Little Saturn anyway so...it's not entirely a matter of difficulty that skews WWII modeling into murky territory)
On the other hand, if something gets modelled often enough (such as ground fighting in Normandy) there does seem to be some kind of steady improvement against all the odds.
I'm pretty sure I'm gonna be a happy camper as long as I don't see the words "StormPowered" associated with any of these upcoming offerings. ;)
I've been eyeballing Victory At Sea Pacific for some time, hoping to see more positive reviews. WotS may sink any chance of me grabbing VaSP outside of a major sale now.
This could be good, but was hoping for playable surface ships in cold waters before it got dropped into abandonware. It was nice having a dangerous waters lite to mess around with.
Quote from: Skoop on April 04, 2020, 04:51:52 PM
This could be good, but was hoping for playable surface ships in cold waters before it got dropped into abandonware. It was nice having a dangerous waters lite to mess around with.
I don't see how it was abandoned. They finished the game, did everything they said they were going to do, and gave us an entire new theater for free on top of that.
I got the impression somehow that they're still planning on playable surface ships. Just in a future separate release (sort of like Dangerous Waters itself, since the comparison has been made. ;) That started out as a sub simulator -- through two iterations of that first? Can't recall if 688 Hunter had two distinct sub games before DW...)
Nah Cold Waters is done. The team split.
One man stayed behind at Killerfish, making War on the Sea, this will be pure PTO with a mix of GNB2 & TF1942 influences. The others founded Triassic Games to make Sea Power, it will be a mix of Fleet Command & Cold Waters. Let's say you now have the "classics" and the "moderns".
And Sonalysts did indeed make Sub Command after 688i H/K & before DW - but also Fleet Command ;)
Okay, Sea Power is what I was thinking of as the "Dangerous Waters"-ish successor to Cold Waters.
Quote from: The_Admiral on April 05, 2020, 10:00:45 AM
Nah Cold Waters is done. The team split.
One man stayed behind at Killerfish, making War on the Sea, this will be pure PTO with a mix of GNB2 & TF1942 influences. The others founded Triassic Games to make Sea Power, it will be a mix of Fleet Command & Cold Waters. Let's say you now have the "classics" and the "moderns".
And Sonalysts did indeed make Sub Command after 688i H/K & before DW - but also Fleet Command ;)
Well, in that case it seems it will be an even better with both a modern and WWII project running. Hope both are completed, it will be nice to have options for naval warfare.
Quote from: The_Admiral on April 05, 2020, 10:00:45 AM
Nah Cold Waters is done. The team split.
One man stayed behind at Killerfish, making War on the Sea, this will be pure PTO with a mix of GNB2 & TF1942 influences. The others founded Triassic Games to make Sea Power, it will be a mix of Fleet Command & Cold Waters. Let's say you now have the "classics" and the "moderns".
And Sonalysts did indeed make Sub Command after 688i H/K & before DW - but also Fleet Command ;)
Speaking of, how is that coming along? Haven't seen any updates in awhile.
Doing fine! Our teams are pretty close and we often chat with each other. I get to see special stuff :coolsmiley:
(no worry, nothing NSFW though)
They're working a lot but they don't enjoy our luxury of having a very efficient tech team on one side, and a producer with no actual talent on the other, hence with much time on his hands to post around the clock. :))
They will certainly hype it up a bit more during the upcoming weeks. If you like modern stuff, people you're gonna be blessed!
Jeez, I wondered what threw that virusy-looking re-title up! Apparently the ad/mods have caught him/it already and zorched.
Now to get the title back to normal. O0
Release date announced as Feb. 2021 with a new trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co3KBUp2gd4&feature=emb_logo
:D
Nice.
This is good news, but much more interested in Sea Power.
^
Absolutely!
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 27, 2021, 03:06:56 PM
This is good news, but much more interested in Sea Power.
Completely agree. Sea Power is at the top of my most anticipated list by far. Followed by Task force Admiral.
I'm cautiously optimistic about War On The Sea, though I'm still not sure if it will be a day one purchase from me. I'll probably give it a little time to see how the gameplay is and get a feel for if I would actually enjoy it.
Yeah, I'm gonna wait on this to see if there are any issues that need to be ironed out at release. Also, the KFG games just don't look as good without their old graphics team.
I more than got my money's worth out of Cold Waters so I'm sure this game will please me. You can definitely see the Cold Waters DNA in that video (IMO).
I'm far more excited about Seapower and TF:A, but this is still going to be a pleasant filler while we await those two games.
Quote from: Toonces on January 27, 2021, 06:31:24 PM
I more than got my money's worth out of Cold Waters so I'm sure this game will please me. You can definitely see the Cold Waters DNA in that video (IMO).
I'm far more excited about Seapower and TF:A, but this is still going to be a pleasant filler while we await those two games.
I looooooved Cold Waters and I'm right there with you - best bang-for-buck I've ever spent on a game.
It reminded me of the sims in the 90s I used to play that struck the perfect balance between accessible, simple sim-like mechanics with amazingly deep gameplay. Cold Waters is like crack for me, I can't even count the number of nights I've stayed up past 2am going "just one more engagement".
There are some interesting mods to Cold Waters on Subsim that are worth checking out. It always amazes me how far modders can push a game, even if it wasn't intended to be modded exactly. There are new subs, new campaigns, realism tweaks, and all sorts of under-the-hood changes that really change the dynamics of the game.
I get it (I think) that Killerfish likely had to move on to something else to keep the revenue coming in, but I can't help but believe that they really missed an opportunity to push Cold Waters much, much further. Are the Seapower guys part of the old Cold Waters team? If so, that would make sense, because there was oh so much more to pull from that engine.
I'm not complaining like many others on Steam. I got my $30 worth and then some with the content in Cold Waters. I had hoped for more, only because I see the potential of something a bit lighter than CMO, but with enough meat to make it worthwhile as a sim rather than a pure game. I certainly would have paid plenty more for DLCs.
The optimism doesn't have to be too cautious IMHO - this is the sort of game which most certainly cannot go wrong. Tactical layer is Great Naval Battles, Strategic layer is Task Force 1942, that's one of these games where you know in advance if it's your deal. I'll be among the first ones to buy & install it, for research of course, but also because I am a great fan of its precursors & the theater. I wouldn't wait too long on a discount though, Cold Waters waited one full year before getting a -30%, and another six months for its first -50% foray. If you want it while saving a few extra cents, I am going to say that the release discount on Steam is going to be by far your best bet.
QuoteI get it (I think) that Killerfish likely had to move on to something else to keep the revenue coming in, but I can't help but believe that they really missed an opportunity to push Cold Waters much, much further. Are the Seapower guys part of the old Cold Waters team? If so, that would make sense, because there was oh so much more to pull from that engine.
Let's say that some creative disagreements stemmed from this indeed and now brings them to the current situation. But well, won't complain, everybody gets to make what he wanted to make in the first place and you get two games made by passionate guys instead of one. Good deal in my book!
Strange... Double post! :pullhair:
For something like this, honestly saving $10-20 isn't worth waiting for, for me.
I'm really curious to see how this compares to what TF:A ends up being. Superficially they seem to be very similar in concept.
I'd say, the background is definitely similar - mostly SOPAC in 1942 - the design philosophy & the expected result not so much.
Naturally I'll say so while being acutely aware that KF has a name & a game and we have none, so let's put to rest any sort of competition-related comment & the rest - I do respect heir work, I will happily enjoy it as a player, and there cannot be competition if there's nothing to be compared as of yet (aka an existing product on one hand, and a fleeting dream in the making on the other hand). But long story short, we do not focus on the same mechanics, the same scope, nor the same historical standards either. I'd summarize that as KF's tendency for bending the historical realism around reasonable expectations of the code in the service of good gameplay, while we are going for the opposite, that is (sometimes unreasonably) bending our code so that it answers as many challenges posed by historical realism as possible, and expect good gameplay to naturally derive from it. I deem these to be two rather different approaches at heart. One is more viable on the short term to produce a game using an immediately available range of techs and assets. The other is more akin dipping one's toe in cold, troubled, unknown waters that look familiar from afar, but bring their fair share of complications up-close (and believe me, being right now busy with the AI logic I can experience this feeling all the more!). To me, both designs are relevant, and all the more so considering they don't compete with each other so much as they complement each other in scope & time both.
Both our projects are being built with the expectation to last nonetheless, but I know already that whatever we are making is different enough to - hopefully - stand as a product of its own. For the very same reasons WotS will be a successful design, it is also a well-delimited one that still leaves us much room to play with, and we certainly intend to do very much that.
Quote from: Toonces on January 27, 2021, 07:59:33 PM
There are some interesting mods to Cold Waters on Subsim that are worth checking out. It always amazes me how far modders can push a game, even if it wasn't intended to be modded exactly. There are new subs, new campaigns, realism tweaks, and all sorts of under-the-hood changes that really change the dynamics of the game.
I get it (I think) that Killerfish likely had to move on to something else to keep the revenue coming in, but I can't help but believe that they really missed an opportunity to push Cold Waters much, much further. Are the Seapower guys part of the old Cold Waters team? If so, that would make sense, because there was oh so much more to pull from that engine.
I'm not complaining like many others on Steam. I got my $30 worth and then some with the content in Cold Waters. I had hoped for more, only because I see the potential of something a bit lighter than CMO, but with enough meat to make it worthwhile as a sim rather than a pure game. I certainly would have paid plenty more for DLCs.
If you haven't already, check out the Cold Waters Epic Mod and it will definitely give the game some legs since we unfortunately won't get any DLC or official content. I'm not sure what the latest Epic Mod release is, but at the time I played it was mostly in Russian so your mileage may vary.
It made a good game great for me, especially after fixing the annoyingly and unrealistically accurate sonobuoys that helos would deploy in vanilla (rigged for silent running at 900 feet, all ahead slow @ 4 knots and somehow they'd always hear me from 10 miles away) :pullhair:
Yes, Epic Mod is what I was referring.
I hear you, Admiral.
I'm really, really looking forward to what your sim brings. I don't see these two games as mutually exclusive. I will admit to wondering just how far you can push 1942 carrier combat gameplay, beyond what has been done, but I'm certainly looking forward to it. You already have my money, friend.
Quote from: IICptMillerII on January 27, 2021, 05:19:56 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on January 27, 2021, 03:06:56 PM
This is good news, but much more interested in Sea Power.
Completely agree. Sea Power is at the top of my most anticipated list by far.
I have to admit Sea Power seems like the idea game for me at the moment. I mean Ideal GAME (not "idea game") But hey, I'm stuck in OCS (series mind you not system) where the little cardboard supply things can barely be transported by the little cardboard donkeys up the little cardboard hills to help the little cardboard people kill other little cardboard people...well you get the picture.
Released $39.99
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1280780/War_on_the_Sea/
You just beat me to the punch. My trigger finger is starting to twitch. It looks good.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 02, 2021, 05:34:18 PM
You just beat me to the punch. My trigger finger is starting to twitch. It looks good.
Looks too good...so I am a little concerned spending $40 on a chance:)
Hmmmmm...interesting. :)
Who is taking one for the team?
Lemme check it out on the Steam page, but I'm pretty sure I'm taking this bullet. BRB.
Bought.
Next up, SDR's review.... just send him $40. ^-^
There are a couple of gameplay videos on Twitch. It looks like a blend of all of Killerfish's older games. Not exactly what I'm looking for, but there seems to be a lot of potential.
https://www.twitch.tv/noname117spore/video/898601644
https://www.twitch.tv/thefannon/video/898562618
As always, you kinda have to tune out the guys narrating the gameplay.
Quote from: Toonces on February 02, 2021, 07:40:04 PM
There are a couple of gameplay videos on Twitch. It looks like a blend of all of Killerfish's older games. Not exactly what I'm looking for, but there seems to be a lot of potential.
https://www.twitch.tv/noname117spore/video/898601644
https://www.twitch.tv/thefannon/video/898562618
As always, you kinda have to tune out the guys narrating the gameplay.
I hate when these guys make videos and have no idea how to play the game. The first video has a torpedo run at about 1:15 in that looks spectacular. It might have sold me. Some of the screenshots that can come out of this game will be extremely impressive. Flak, explosions, water impacts...all very immersive.
Looking at this right now on Steam. Uncanny timing!
I'm still working my way through the tutorials. Very early impressions here so take it with a grain of salt. So far it feels like they've taken bits and pieces from a lot of different naval games and smooshed them all together.
Ship controls, movement, orders, and gunnery remind me of a mix of Atlantic Fleet and PT Boats: Knights of the Sea. Tactical view and cameras are reminiscent of Cold Waters. The operational layer is somewhat similar to Victory at Sea: Pacific. The tactical map is very similar to PT Boats.
It's all pretty intuitive so far and it looks quite nice. I like the fact that they have two different default key bindings to choose from. One for normies (WASD setup) and one for lefties using the NUMPAD.
The camera controls have a few idiosyncrasies to them. Looking up to spot planes requires you to hold down the DOWN arrow key and I think camera pan speed on this feature is a bit slow. Tapping the middle mouse button key swaps between surface and underwater view, even if you're using binoculars (although it does cancel binoc view when underwater). This threw me a bit as I had the binoc view toggle mapped to the middle mouse button in a different naval game so unlearning this is going to take a bit of time.
I haven't had a chance to see how the AI performs yet. I hope it's good. The wonky AI is what ultimately kept me from really getting into Victory at Sea: Pacific.
It's single only right?
Yes.
Now I want to re-enact the actions of HMCS Oakville.
(start at approx 23:00 in this video)
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on February 02, 2021, 08:06:29 PM
I'm still working my way through the tutorials. Very early impressions here so take it with a grain of salt. So far it feels like they've taken bits and pieces from a lot of different naval games and smooshed them all together.
Ship controls, movement, orders, and gunnery remind me of a mix of Atlantic Fleet and PT Boats: Knights of the Sea. Tactical view and cameras are reminiscent of Cold Waters. The operational layer is somewhat similar to Victory at Sea: Pacific. The tactical map is very similar to PT Boats.
It's all pretty intuitive so far and it looks quite nice. I like the fact that they have two different default key bindings to choose from. One for normies (WASD setup) and one for lefties using the NUMPAD.
The camera controls have a few idiosyncrasies to them. Looking up to spot planes requires you to hold down the DOWN arrow key and I think camera pan speed on this feature is a bit slow. Tapping the middle mouse button key swaps between surface and underwater view, even if you're using binoculars (although it does cancel binoc view when underwater). This threw me a bit as I had the binoc view toggle mapped to the middle mouse button in a different naval game so unlearning this is going to take a bit of time.
I haven't had a chance to see how the AI performs yet. I hope it's good. The wonky AI is what ultimately kept me from really getting into Victory at Sea: Pacific.
I'm looking at it. I tried to set up the classic "Meat cleaver and a bottle of asprin" scenario raid off New Guinea in the Spring of '42...but not having read the manual things came out pretty crudely even for that sort of thing and instead I ended up flying over the Tenyru (one of my favorite light cruisers) and then shooting her with your basic naval guns which worked well but was somehow disappointing. Here's the cruiser and that's Guadalcanal in the background standing in for New Guinea:
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on February 02, 2021, 09:10:29 PM
Now I want to re-enact the actions of HMCS Oakville.
Marvelous! I watched the whole thing!
'Sinking you, but politely' HAHA
****EDIT**** This game has some MAJOR issues, and I will not be playing until they are fixed or modders can get at the game.
I cannot in good faith recommend this game after having a few more hours under my belt. Below are some of my gripes:
1. AI Autonomy - the AI is stupid AF in this game. You have to micromanage EVERYTHING. If you have a convoy of 12 ships and want them to attack, there is no general "Target Enemy" state that you can assign to the group and have them automatically engage. Instead, you have to manually select EACH ship, press "T" to put it into target mode, and then click the enemy ship you want it to fire at. You do this for every. Single. Ship. Individually. It's a major pain in the ass
2. Carrier tactics are non-existent that have come to light while I was playing the campaign. Not realistic at all, I can't send out a screen to search for enemy fleets. I had a squadron of Wildcats fly RIGHT over some Kates on their way to bomb my Carrier....like, passed 500 foot directly above them. The Wildcats did jack shit and continued on their merry way, dumb fat and happy. I had to again select each individual Wildcat, press T, choose one of the Kates, and THEN click a button called "Attack" before it finally peeled away from formation. By the time I did this for each Wildcat, the Kates had already had their way with my carrier.
3. My expectations for the Campaign were seriously wrong - I was hoping that I could choose to be a single sub (a la Cold Waters), or Carrier, or Destroyer and take control of it in a Dynamic Campaign while the war raged on around me. This is not the case. While you CAN operate individual ships in the Campaign, you have to do everything - from purchasing units to creating fleets, assigning them waypoints and orders and targets to attack and locations to patrol, etc. Too much micromanagement.
Bought it and the game is awesome, but take that with a grain of salt because I LOVED their previous Cold Waters/Atlantic/Pacific Fleet games. It's a little rough and has some recycled effects, but it's basically Cold Waters in WW2 Pacific. I think I'm in :smitten:
The UI is a bit wonky and as another poster said, feels like a mix-up of a bunch of different games. But if you're a fan of the Pacific, I can definitely see you getting your money's worth out of it.
Yeah, Jarhead, same here.
What I really, really liked in that first twitch video was how he set up that torpedo plane attack. I read through a bunch of the game's FAQ on Steam and it seems you can control the airgroups individually and set up things like anvil attacks and such.
There is a part of me that is tempted to pick it up for that aspect alone. I wasn't completely sold on what campaign play I saw; I'm not a fan at all of games where you buy units based on earning "points" (or gold, or money, or renown, or whatever). The FAQ described the gameplay as sort-of Total War-like, and I can see that. You have a certain number of "slots" for units that you can buy and move on the campaign map (10 for ships I think) and so you're not going to get those monster fleet actions...at least in campaign. Same with air unit "slots." I'm not sure about single mission limitations.
There seems to be a lot to like, but it's very much a game from what I can tell. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but I had hoped for a more historically matched campaign.
I'm holding off at the moment, but this seems like something I'll get sooner rather than later. Controlling those airstrikes looks pretty damn tasty.
Historical Gamer's live stream from earlier. His voice isn't ear-destroying and he works through quite a few of the gameplay mechanics. I just bounced through it.
Alright, I went ahead and bought it. I'm a big fan of Cold Waters so I figure it's worth $40 to support the devs.
I was a little hesitant about this game. Pretty sure I've made one or two posts about that hesitance here actually.
But after watching a bit of gameplay from the release build, I've essentially done a 180. I'm now very intrigued. The gameplay looks realistic and interesting, there are a ton of units to choose from, and the campaign looks like it has a lot of replay value to it. Plus, it would appear from looking through the game menus that they are in fact planning on expanding the game in the future with more content, which I sincerely hope for.
My only real concern (besides if/when they will add more content, P-40 pls) is how micro intensive it ends up being. At first glance it looks like you can give formations basic orders and the ai will take care of things for you. But I am worried that in order to get the best out of your units, you might have to give all of them very specific orders. In a large battle spanning naval and air forces that could very quickly become tedious and overwhelming. Just an impression though, I have not seen nearly enough gameplay to think this could be a real concern yet.
I haven't picked up the game yet but I certainly plan on it!
I'm in two minds with Task Force Admiral on the horizon.
After reviewing some of the impressions of the game, implies a ton of micromanagement of individual units and that's something that easily overwhelms me so going to pass for now. Mentions can give some basic orders but ai just follows the order without really reacting. Others implied even when engaging with aircraft you control them all and what they target, which becomes a pause fest.
Whether all that is accurate or not, I guess we'll see as more impressions come in but the micromanagement alone will keep me away although I know others might like it.
Quote from: rustyshackleford on February 02, 2021, 10:13:53 PM
Bought it and the game is awesome, but take that with a grain of salt because I LOVED their previous Cold Waters/Atlantic/Pacific Fleet games. It's a little rough and has some recycled effects, but it's basically Cold Waters in WW2 Pacific. I think I'm in :smitten:
The UI is a bit wonky and as another poster said, feels like a mix-up of a bunch of different games. But if you're a fan of the Pacific, I can definitely see you getting your money's worth out of it.
I agree. There are some odd things about this game, but Cold Waters is great so I'm pretty sure this one will have its good moments. And the problem with the fleet games was they were pretty limited and you had to micromanage even more than in War in the Sea. In War on the Sea you set your targets and Ammo type (AP, SAP or star shells for example). Your secondaries can hit a different target and so on. And the maps are promising. I haven't gone submarining to see how the depths are mapped, but that might be pretty neato too.
Quote from: Destraex on February 03, 2021, 05:57:13 AM
I'm in two minds with Task Force Admiral on the horizon.
There's good visibility today Des, so whatever you see on the horizon might not be that close, so better not wait for us :arr:
Buy it, try it - if you like it keep it, if you don't refund it - but at least if it's a winner for you it will keep your properly entertained until we finally look a bit closer :coolsmiley:
Cheers!
Is it true that aircraft carriers don't actually carry any aircraft? I've seen some reviews, which are fairy mixed overall, mention this issue. If true, very bizarre.
They don't. You have to "buy" them at sea.
Can't use search patterns either. In that regard as in others, it is a big regression compared to, say, the strategic map in Task Force 1942 which had all that. I was personally very enthusiastic about WotS because I expected a remake of that part, even 1:1 wouldn't have bothered me. But it wasn't to be :-\
Quote from: The_Admiral on February 03, 2021, 09:25:49 AM
They don't. You have to "buy" them at sea.
Can't use search patterns either. In that regard as in others, it is a big regression compared to, say, the strategic map in Task Force 1942 which had all that. I was personally very enthusiastic about WotS because I expected a remake of that part, even 1:1 wouldn't have bothered me. But it wasn't to be :-\
Ouch. What a peculiar design decision.
Quote from: Toonces on February 02, 2021, 07:40:04 PM
There are a couple of gameplay videos on Twitch. It looks like a blend of all of Killerfish's older games. Not exactly what I'm looking for, but there seems to be a lot of potential.
https://www.twitch.tv/noname117spore/video/898601644
https://www.twitch.tv/thefannon/video/898562618
As always, you kinda have to tune out the guys narrating the gameplay.
I haven't purchased WoS, but some of the elements in these twitch videos is giving me some pause. For instance, in https://www.twitch.tv/noname117spore/video/898601644 at 01:22:10 the Kate TBs make an unsupported (ie, no divebombers or TB from a different angle) torpedo drop on the starboard side of a US cruiser, which then proceeds to blithely continue to sail in a line ahead formation, without taking any evasive action that I can see. Consequentially, 4 out of 4 torpedoes hit, which is an very high hit percentage. Similarly, the US force doesn't seem to react to having its "T" crossed during the daytime surface engagement. This behavior causes me to question how robust the AI is. Given it is a single person game, IMHO
the possible weak AI is an important shortcoming. While visually attractive, for a $40 price tag, I need to see more before I personally would buy it. To be fair, it may be that the person who posted the Twitch stream may have set the AI on a low level, so possibly it can be improved via the player settings. The game is visually attractive, and certainly a easy "shoot em up" can be fun and relaxing. Additionally, the damage control model with individual compartments receiving damage is nice addition, and an important one that is (IMHO) too infrequently included in naval wargames. Consequentially, I may still purchase it, but for now I'm taking a "Wait and see" approach..
I would just like to say that I am finding this thread super-informative, and I am going to wait to buy until I hear more from this very spot.
It's threads like this that make this the best site for computer wargamers.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 03, 2021, 09:26:34 AM
Quote from: The_Admiral on February 03, 2021, 09:25:49 AM
They don't. You have to "buy" them at sea.
Can't use search patterns either. In that regard as in others, it is a big regression compared to, say, the strategic map in Task Force 1942 which had all that. I was personally very enthusiastic about WotS because I expected a remake of that part, even 1:1 wouldn't have bothered me. But it wasn't to be :-\
Ouch. What a peculiar design decision.
My mistake tough, "buy" is not really the right word for that. They are on your carrier, but there's a strange mechanism that forces a 3h pause between each air ops. That means that either you send the kitchen sink in the air or not - if you send scouts first, you will not be able to launch another group before another 3h. Loads of posts about this in the forum, might be changed soon enough I guess.
Ships have to be bought so, that's a positive.
A lot of videos online though, it should be easy to get a better picture overall :)
Steam not usually my go to place for reviews but they seem fairly sensible at the moment for this game.
https://steamcommunity.com/id/realBattleSheep/recommended/1280780/
This one seems to explain in detail why its a no buy from me at this stage - a pacific games that doesn't at least get carriers to some extent right - even from a beer and pretzels point of view doesnt float.
Disappointing would be the word.
Ouch.
I'm thinking I may just go ahead and refund without even opening the game. Those types of features are going to annoy me instantly.
Like show-stopping annoying.
I'll wait until the modders fix this stuff.
Was looking forward to this one, but I think I'm going to let it season some. I'll "circle back" to it sometime in the future.
Yeah. Submitted my refund request but my playtime is right at 2 hours so it might be denied.
I almost never buy newly released games anymore. This is a good reminder as to why.
Quote from: rustyshackleford on February 02, 2021, 10:13:53 PM
****EDIT**** This game has some MAJOR issues, and I will not be playing until they are fixed or modders can get at the game.
I cannot in good faith recommend this game after having a few more hours under my belt. Below are some of my gripes:
1. AI Autonomy - the AI is stupid AF in this game. You have to micromanage EVERYTHING. If you have a convoy of 12 ships and want them to attack, there is no general "Target Enemy" state that you can assign to the group and have them automatically engage. Instead, you have to manually select EACH ship, press "T" to put it into target mode, and then click the enemy ship you want it to fire at. You do this for every. Single. Ship. Individually. It's a major pain in the ass
2. Carrier tactics are non-existent that have come to light while I was playing the campaign. Not realistic at all, I can't send out a screen to search for enemy fleets. I had a squadron of Wildcats fly RIGHT over some Kates on their way to bomb my Carrier....like, passed 500 foot directly above them. The Wildcats did jack shit and continued on their merry way, dumb fat and happy. I had to again select each individual Wildcat, press T, choose one of the Kates, and THEN click a button called "Attack" before it finally peeled away from formation. By the time I did this for each Wildcat, the Kates had already had their way with my carrier.
3. My expectations for the Campaign were seriously wrong - I was hoping that I could choose to be a single sub (a la Cold Waters), or Carrier, or Destroyer and take control of it in a Dynamic Campaign while the war raged on around me. This is not the case. While you CAN operate individual ships in the Campaign, you have to do everything - from purchasing units to creating fleets, assigning them waypoints and orders and targets to attack and locations to patrol, etc. Too much micromanagement.
Bought it and the game is awesome, but take that with a grain of salt because I LOVED their previous Cold Waters/Atlantic/Pacific Fleet games. It's a little rough and has some recycled effects, but it's basically Cold Waters in WW2 Pacific. I think I'm in :smitten:
The UI is a bit wonky and as another poster said, feels like a mix-up of a bunch of different games. But if you're a fan of the Pacific, I can definitely see you getting your money's worth out of it.
I've amended my previous post in the hopes that others won't read my initial comments and purchase the game without knowing what they are getting. I still think there is a GOOD game somewhere in there, but it's not there yet. Fortunately, Steam allows refunds. I think I'll hold on to my purchase to support the devs since Pacific games like this are few and far between, but I won't be playing until some MAJOR problems have been resolved and/or/if modders can fundamentally change some of the core gameplay mechanics.
Got my refund thankfully.
Shame about the design decisions regarding carrier ops. Here's hoping Task Force Admiral is as good as it's shaping up to be.
A big THANKS for all you brave Grogs that gave this one a first-class recon for the rest of us. O0 Grogheads does it again!
Well done SDR and Rusty, saving the rest of us some money.
Quote from: rustyshackleford on February 03, 2021, 02:25:30 PM
Quote from: rustyshackleford on February 02, 2021, 10:13:53 PM
****EDIT**** This game has some MAJOR issues, and I will not be playing until they are fixed or modders can get at the game.
I cannot in good faith recommend this game after having a few more hours under my belt. Below are some of my gripes:
1. AI Autonomy - the AI is stupid AF in this game. You have to micromanage EVERYTHING. If you have a convoy of 12 ships and want them to attack, there is no general "Target Enemy" state that you can assign to the group and have them automatically engage. Instead, you have to manually select EACH ship, press "T" to put it into target mode, and then click the enemy ship you want it to fire at. You do this for every. Single. Ship. Individually. It's a major pain in the ass
2. Carrier tactics are non-existent that have come to light while I was playing the campaign. Not realistic at all, I can't send out a screen to search for enemy fleets. I had a squadron of Wildcats fly RIGHT over some Kates on their way to bomb my Carrier....like, passed 500 foot directly above them. The Wildcats did jack shit and continued on their merry way, dumb fat and happy. I had to again select each individual Wildcat, press T, choose one of the Kates, and THEN click a button called "Attack" before it finally peeled away from formation. By the time I did this for each Wildcat, the Kates had already had their way with my carrier.
3. My expectations for the Campaign were seriously wrong - I was hoping that I could choose to be a single sub (a la Cold Waters), or Carrier, or Destroyer and take control of it in a Dynamic Campaign while the war raged on around me. This is not the case. While you CAN operate individual ships in the Campaign, you have to do everything - from purchasing units to creating fleets, assigning them waypoints and orders and targets to attack and locations to patrol, etc. Too much micromanagement.
Bought it and the game is awesome, but take that with a grain of salt because I LOVED their previous Cold Waters/Atlantic/Pacific Fleet games. It's a little rough and has some recycled effects, but it's basically Cold Waters in WW2 Pacific. I think I'm in :smitten:
The UI is a bit wonky and as another poster said, feels like a mix-up of a bunch of different games. But if you're a fan of the Pacific, I can definitely see you getting your money's worth out of it.
I've amended my previous post in the hopes that others won't read my initial comments and purchase the game without knowing what they are getting. I still think there is a GOOD game somewhere in there, but it's not there yet. Fortunately, Steam allows refunds. I think I'll hold on to my purchase to support the devs since Pacific games like this are few and far between, but I won't be playing until some MAJOR problems have been resolved and/or/if modders can fundamentally change some of the core gameplay mechanics.
I was a bit wary of this game and obviously it has MAJOR PROBLEMS, but I'm happy with a lot of things about it. It tend to play games in the editor anyway and there are interesting things to be done. The hydrology in the game is the best I've seen for the South Pacific, the weather and wave states and clouds and lighting and island topography are good. Here's a US sub off Florida Island north of Guadalcanal:
Quote from: MengJiao on February 03, 2021, 04:02:08 PM
I was a bit wary of this game and obviously it has MAJOR PROBLEMS, but I'm happy with a lot of things about it.
I've been looking into a lot of the more nautical stuff about the game. The visibility logic works very well and the manual even mentions it:
- Light level: Time of day determines lighting conditions.
- Weather: Heavier cloud cover reduces visibility while rain or snow dramatically decreases visibility to about 50%.
- Sea state: Rougher seas make it harder to detect a contact and strong winds whip up spray.
Base visibility is displayed as a percentage on the Menu panel and is applied to ALL visual detections outlined below.
SEA
Visual detection of a sea unit is modified by the following factors:
- Conditions: base visibility as determined by lighting, weather and sea state as mentioned above.
- Height of observer: Larger ships are higher can see farther than small ones. This is shown by the visual horizon value. High flying aircraft can see further.
- Size of contact: Large contacts can be seen more easily than small stealthy ones. Visibility is modified by the visual detection modifier of the contact.
- Contact Speed: Ships at high speed produce more funnel smoke and a larger wake, while stationary ships are harder to spot.
- Land: terrain within visual range behind a contact obscures it making it harder to detect
- Illumination: a contact on fire, firing guns which produce muzzle flashes or illuminated by star shells are easier to spot
I wonder if this game is worth it just for the editor and the surface battles. Kind of like an offline World of Warships.
I have yet to purchase it but I'm watching a friend of mine play. He knows what he is doing which is a big plus. I still haven't seen anything that indicates its nearly as bad as some of the reviews claim. That said, I also still haven't seen very much of the game, so there could be large issues that I just have not witnessed yet.
Also, I would hope it goes without saying, but Steam reviews should almost always be disregarded for a multitude of reasons.
I tried the first scenario offered in the single battle settings. I can't remember what it was called but it had the player controlling a US cruiser and a destroyer and going up against a Japanese cruiser, destroyer and a transport or an oiler (can't remember) at dusk.
The first time I tried it, the Japanese destroyer was quite aggressive. It pulled off some high speed zig-zag manoeuvres to throw off my gunners and nailed my cruiser with a spread of torpedoes. I didn't spot the wakes until the last second and it was too late to try to turn in and comb them. At first I was actually quite happy and impressed with the AI. But then I started wondering why I never heard or saw any alerts regarding incoming torpedoes. I set up a custom mission with destroyers and torpedo bombers and experimented. Your ships never react to torpedoes at all so you have to take over manual control in order to try to avoid them. In larger scenarios, it'd be almost impossible to be able to constantly jump around and try to spot incoming fish.
I played around a bit more in order to test the AI and came away very disappointed. Simply put, there really is no AI at all. Unless you give a unit specific orders, it won't do anything in terms of avoiding attack, changing course, or switching targets.
It needs more work. There might be a good game in there somewhere but the brain-dead AI and the weird design decisions regarding carrier behaviour were more than enough to kill my interest at this point.
:'(
If the Steam reviews are hard to use, the forums are even worse. Man alive, it's like the whole world took a stupid pill and decided to post on the forums. Are they speaking English, because I can't understand what the hell they're saying.
Quote from: MengJiao on February 03, 2021, 05:52:01 PM
In some ways the AI isn't so bad. I assembled a battle off Rendova in April 1943...4 AM, floatplanes on both sides, 4 old Imperial Destroyers versus 3 more modern USN destroyers. The Jakes spotted the US DDs and the Imperial DDs dropped starshells. I switched on the radars as the Imperial forces manoeuvered reasonably well, I thought. Both sides closed and torpedoes went all over the place. One hit a USN DD and put it out of action. The other Two US DDs had to charge in to cover the withdrawal of the damaged ship. Eventually radar and gunfire prevailed and all four Imperial DDs were sunk. I'll play it from the other side and see what I can do with the Jakes. Here's an image. You can see (mountains right to left on the horizon): Rendova, Munda and Kolombangara:
Quote from: MengJiao on February 03, 2021, 10:13:24 PM
You can see (mountains right to left on the horizon): Rendova, Munda and Kolombangara:
Rendova:
Hi folks, 'been a long time.
I tested it for a couple of hours.
There's two big issues in my opinion.
1. UX is awful.
I really mean the UX. Not the UI. The UI works fine but the controls are inherited from Cold Waters. Meaning they've been adapted to surface ships, planes, lone units and groups.
In addition, it is all very sequential.
You have click this, then click that, then click again elsewhere.
For example, I haven't been able to move ships before doing the tutorial. It does not work by "click the ship right in the middle of the 3D view screen" to select it and "point it somewhere by a right/left click". No, no, no #:-) You select it either by the unit roster, either by the tactical/mini map, you can direct it by sliders (sliders... :hide:)or key controls, you can plot a waypoint and if you want to move a group of units, you can't select them with a nice rectangle. You select them one by one or using the "select all" button, you need a formation or to indicate which unit to follow. That's overly complex. By a lot.
Same thing to fire at a unit. You have to press T(or click the "target" button), click the target (not me please) on the tactical/mini map, open the gun batteries screen (main or secondary), choose the fire dispersal, the ammo eventually, "manual" or "spot" firing eventually too and , finally, click "fire". Well.
Why can't I simply right click on the 3D model and attack it? May be a contextual menu could help me to choose the ammo? Then if i want to refine, I'll go into the guns interfaces. No, you'll follow each step of the firing procedure, Admiral, even if it means cleaning the deck with a toothbrush. :D
Same thing on the campaign. You need to do the tutorial to figure how to move task forces. Hopefully the tutorial seems to cover everything but when someone really need a tutorial to move units, it means there's something wrong on one end (or both :uglystupid2: )
Grasping the game is a true battle against the machine. The real game is this. It really gives the feeling to milk a cow with boxing gloves.
2. Units' AI
They have some but the game seems designed to force the player to babysit each unit. If you have one sub or one surface ship or one plane, yeah, it works. When you have a task force to control, it becomes easily overwhelming and it really comes down to the player's hability to multitask and to keep track of details. It makes the player being the fleet's Admiral, the captain of each ship, the lookout on each surface ship, plane or sub. I guess we're lucky to not check the oil levels.
The game doesn't put the player in the Pacha's role. I really enjoy being able to control everything (almost). I don't enjoy to be forced to control everything(almost).
That's really the two main issues with the game for me. I haven't assessed enemy units' AI.
However there is also some real good things. Planes' dogfights or ship attacks are really cool once you get used a bit on how manouver units. Ship impunity zone is modelled through the use of armors and angles, damage model is really interesting, formations are a really cool feature(and a necessity tbh) and varied, you can control from a single plane or sub to a carrier task force, there is single missions, campaigns, rooms for expansions in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, you can select planes' loadout, be very accurate in what you do (at the expanse of one space bar per week), there's a battle editor, the tutorial really holds the player's hand... Well, the list can be pretty long.
I won't say that's a bad game, it is not even botched, but there are some very peculiar choices in the game design that may raise the bar for a lot of people. Needlessly. A game doesn't get more complex or interesting by requesting the player to babysit every unit or to follow a task plan to go from A to B. I'm unsure people buy this kind of game to have a "clunky starcraft on water".
Quote from: t4rget on February 04, 2021, 06:36:15 AM
A game doesn't get more complex or interesting by requesting the player to babysit every unit or to follow a task plan to go from A to B.
I've only played the USN, but I think the game accurately shows a lot of actual, real problems that the USN had in the Solomons. Fire distribution being one. Formations being another. In the recent action I contrived, I had to stay in line ahead essentially to reduce the command load. That is an easier way of showing the command problem than forcing you to send and interpret every signal -- that is abstracted very well in that you stay in line ahead so that you have time to deal with other things. When things went wrong (torpedo hit on the rear DD -- which was a little close to the enemy during the turn-away), I had to break up the formation and do some wild manouevering....but by then I'd distributed targets and things worked out -- just barely.
So (and you do sort of have to change the oil when you work on damage control)...I'm pretty happy with the level and type of decisions the game allows -- again after all you don't have to do any signaling (that would be a nightmare level of problems) and yet you do feel that formations are valuable and fire distribution is tricky. and float planes are pretty neato and functional in the game and you can pick any place in the Solomons and have actual terrain and hydrology.
So how is it stability-wise? And can you save anytime you want?
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 04, 2021, 10:52:00 AM
So how is it stability-wise? And can you save anytime you want?
Very stable. Loads fast. I think you can save, but I've been running in the editor so people should check the manual (which is good and right there on the training menu). The editor is excellent and you can have your battles anywhere in the Solomons (or maybe the whole Pacific ? I've only seen Guadalcanal, Savo, the Florida Islands, Rennell, Kolombangara, Munda and Rendova) which is great. I've only worked with floatplanes, destroyers and cruisers in combat, but those seem to work fine...as does the weather and lighting. I'd like more floatplanes, plus PT boats and barges, but the main aspects of naval battles in the Solomons (mostly gun and torpedo battles within the chain and around the slot) are well covered from what I've seen. So I've mostly been pleasantly surprised with how the game works.
Besides, I'd like to point out in addition to my earlier comment that it is actually possible to place CAP above your CV - you can still use the air tab when en engagement is waiting to be resolved on the main map. That's a bit undocumented, but it's there, no fret!
How does this compare to the older Victory at Sea: Pacific by Evil Twin Artworks?
I noticed that subsim afficiando Wolfpack has a new video up, playing the game as a destroyer pair vs a Japanese sub.
Quote from: MengJiao on February 04, 2021, 08:01:04 AM
and float planes are pretty neato and functional in the game and you can pick any place in the Solomons and have actual terrain and hydrology.
I tried my Rendova Scenario from the Imperial Side (adding the Light Cruiser Sendai to the Imperialists and a DD to the US side so 4 modern DDs versus 4 old DDs and an old Light cruiser) BUT the USN AI just ran away.
So I says to myself -- that can't be right -- 4 modern USN DDs in 1943 should be able to beat 4 old Jap DDs and an old light Cruiser. Well so I tried for the USN. Things were kind of worrisome for a while -- the Japs fired their torps and I dodged and then the light cruiser came straight in as if to show how aggressive the AI could be with a light cruiser. So I switched the guns to AP and fired all torps and well...3 Torps hit the Sendai and down she went.
Then I ran for it cuz two of my DDs were a bit shot up. In the end I think all but one Jap DD went down burning.
And there was a floatplane dog fight:
Quote from: MengJiao on February 04, 2021, 04:46:46 PM
And there was a floatplane dog fight:
Floatplane off the north coast of New Guinea:
Hard to believe this one is a pass for now. It looks so damn good.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 05, 2021, 09:32:59 AM
Hard to believe this one is a pass for now. It looks so damn good.
It's pretty atmospheric. I'm sure Sea Power and Admiral Command Byzantium 1908 carrier battles will have lots of visual interest as well.
^Wow there's a blast from the past.
Quote from: MengJiao on February 05, 2021, 10:38:13 AM
Admiral Command Byzantium 1908 carrier battles
Hum... Rebel phone keyboard I guess? :arr:
Or is there a Da Vinci code-level enigma in there ^-^
Quote from: The_Admiral on February 05, 2021, 12:06:12 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on February 05, 2021, 10:38:13 AM
Admiral Command Byzantium 1908 carrier battles
Hum... Rebel phone keyboard I guess? :arr:
Or is there a Da Vinci code-level enigma in there ^-^
Long ago CMANO needed a name. For some reason they picked "Command" (ya-da-Operations-ya-da). I had suggested
Byzantium 1908 , but no, it had to be Command (ya-da-Operations-ya-da). The obviously were secretly unhappy with CMANO cuz CMANO II is called something else ever-so-slightly different.
Anyway...when I can't quite remember what a game is actually supposed to be called, but I know it has words along the lines of "command" or "Task Force" or "operations" in it...I substitute the not-all-that-ancient term "Byzantium 1908"...just to keep the iconoclastic (or icondulic?) flame buring.
That's right...what the hell is incodulism? Apparently it is a compromise position (like not calling CMANO II CMANO II):
Kissing and respected worship (Greek: «ἀσπασμόν καί τιμητικήν προσκύνησιν»; Latin: «osculum et honorariam adorationem»), incense and candles[5][6][7] for icons was established by the Second Council of Nicaea (Seventh Ecumenical Council) in 787. The Council decided that icons should not be destroyed, as was advocated and practiced by the iconoclasts, nor veritable (full) worshiped or adored [8] (Greek: «ἀληθινήν λατρείαν»; Latin: «veram latriam»), as was practiced by iconolatrists, but they needed to be kissed and they needed respectful worship as symbolic representations of God, angels or saints.[9] Such a position was approved by Pope Adrian I, but due to mis-translations of conciliar acts from Greek into Latin, a controversy arose in the Frankish kingdom, resulting in the creation of Libri Carolini.[10] The last outburst of iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire was overcome at the Council of Constantinople in 843, which reaffirmed the adoration of icons in an event celebrated as the Feast of Orthodoxy.[11]
The Council of Trent (XIX Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church) in 1563 confirmed iconodulism. But this council, unlike the Council of Nicaea, used a different expression in relation to icons: "honur and veneration" (Latin: honorem et venerationem). Its decree reads: "we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear" (Latin: «ita ut per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus, et procumbimus, Christum adoremus, et Sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneremur»
I've been playing around with it. Not enough to have a good, well-informed opinion yet.
I am focusing on the campaign...it sort of reminds me of the Pacific Storm campaign, not necessarily historically accurate, but really there to generate some good gun fights.
I think once the devs get some more campaign content (the system is screaming for a German early war convoy raider campaign), spruce up air operations (particularly with carriers), the game will be a contender.
Quote from: MengJiao on February 05, 2021, 09:10:02 AM
I ran the Devastator torpedo attack on March 10...the Lae-Salamaua raid. The damage on the Imperial shipping was about right. Three big hits out of 10 ships attacked by torpedoes. Here a Devastator turns for a better look at the damage:
.
Meng can be a little bit challenging to interpret sometimes. I don't think he's malicious in any way, though.
Let's carry on in love and respect. :smitten:
What's so funny 'bout Peace, Love and Understanding?
Pratt, thank you for the video. I really enjoyed that Wolfpack guys commentary and watched a few other of his videos. Good stuff right there!
The game graphics wise looks sensational but alas, I shall wait based upon my peers astute observations.
Quote from: Toonces on February 06, 2021, 12:59:26 AM
Meng can be a little bit challenging to interpret sometimes. I don't think he's malicious in any way, though.
Let's carry on in love and respect. :smitten:
No worries, a man like you speaking on his behalf is worth a thousand Synods I presume :notworthy: ^-^
Mengjiao, apologies for the epidermic reaction. Please feel free to call it the way you want, after all it's just a game.
I tried to send you a PM but perhaps the grog has gotten in the way.
Just be cool. Everyone.
Internet forum posts are always tough from which to get tone and attitude.
We're all friends here. We can have dissenting attitudes. If nothing, Grogheads is very, very liberal about free criticism of games; positive or negative.
Carry on.
Yeah!
:peace:
Shall we swap roles, Toonces!
Nice bit of pacifying there, buddy! :clap: :)
Quote from: The_Admiral on February 06, 2021, 02:45:03 AM
Quote from: Toonces on February 06, 2021, 12:59:26 AM
Meng can be a little bit challenging to interpret sometimes. I don't think he's malicious in any way, though.
Let's carry on in love and respect. :smitten:
No worries, a man like you speaking on his behalf is worth a thousand Synods I presume :notworthy: ^-^
Mengjiao, apologies for the epidermic reaction. Please feel free to call it the way you want, after all it's just a game.
Sorry, Admiral -- I missed your reaction. Just so we are clear, I support your efforts on the nautical front and I hope the results for your game are
better than CMANO's -- which seem a bit disappointing. Sea Power is more along the lines I would find enjoyable. What are your plans for New Caledonia? I mean in the game you are working on.
No worries Mengjiao, it's all fine Bud! :peace:
Regarding New Caledonia, that one French territory will unfortunately not feature on-map for vol.1 (that is before we venture into an actual SOPAC campaign someday). The map of the area stops south of Efate for now - a necessary evil I am afraid to make sure we would have all the space we need for a battle like Santa Cruz, up north.
Cheers!
This thread makes me so happy I could cry, if only I could remember how.
Quote from: MengJiao on February 05, 2021, 08:26:41 PM
Lae-Salamaua again, this time with Dauntlesses. More hits, but well within the historical range of not all that many. The AI does react pretty radically to getting bombed as you can see in the image with the freighter heading for the beach:
[message deleted because I'm an idiot]
Quote from: MengJiao on February 05, 2021, 12:34:42 PM
Quote from: The_Admiral on February 05, 2021, 12:06:12 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on February 05, 2021, 10:38:13 AM
Admiral Command Byzantium 1908 carrier battles
Hum... Rebel phone keyboard I guess? :arr:
Or is there a Da Vinci code-level enigma in there ^-^
Long ago CMANO needed a name. For some reason they picked "Command" (ya-da-Operations-ya-da). I had suggested Byzantium 1908 , but no, it had to be Command (ya-da-Operations-ya-da). The obviously were secretly unhappy with CMANO cuz CMANO II is called something else ever-so-slightly different.
Anyway...when I can't quite remember what a game is actually supposed to be called, but I know it has words along the lines of "command" or "Task Force" or "operations" in it...I substitute the not-all-that-ancient term "Byzantium 1908"...just to keep the iconoclastic (or icondulic?) flame buring.
That's right...what the hell is incodulism? Apparently it is a compromise position (like not calling CMANO II CMANO II):
Kissing and respected worship (Greek: «ἀσπασμόν καί τιμητικήν προσκύνησιν»; Latin: «osculum et honorariam adorationem»), incense and candles[5][6][7] for icons was established by the Second Council of Nicaea (Seventh Ecumenical Council) in 787. The Council decided that icons should not be destroyed, as was advocated and practiced by the iconoclasts, nor veritable (full) worshiped or adored [8] (Greek: «ἀληθινήν λατρείαν»; Latin: «veram latriam»), as was practiced by iconolatrists, but they needed to be kissed and they needed respectful worship as symbolic representations of God, angels or saints.[9] Such a position was approved by Pope Adrian I, but due to mis-translations of conciliar acts from Greek into Latin, a controversy arose in the Frankish kingdom, resulting in the creation of Libri Carolini.[10] The last outburst of iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire was overcome at the Council of Constantinople in 843, which reaffirmed the adoration of icons in an event celebrated as the Feast of Orthodoxy.[11]
The Council of Trent (XIX Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church) in 1563 confirmed iconodulism. But this council, unlike the Council of Nicaea, used a different expression in relation to icons: "honur and veneration" (Latin: honorem et venerationem). Its decree reads: "we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear" (Latin: «ita ut per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus, et procumbimus, Christum adoremus, et Sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneremur»
Many years ago (when the world was different), I remember visiting a White Russian monastery in New York during holy week and being given a tour of their icon hoard by one of the brothers. We walked through the door of one of the back rooms and the monk who was walking me around spotted a very small but particularly holy icon at eye level on the far wall. He approached the wall, went into full proskynesis, and kissed his way up the wall until he was face to face with the icon. I'll never forget the look of dissapointment that crossed his face when he finally saw what he had been worshipping. "Oh, that's Saint Dionysius the Areopagite. Even we admit that he didn't exist".
Quote from: Philippe on February 07, 2021, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on February 05, 2021, 12:34:42 PM
Quote from: The_Admiral on February 05, 2021, 12:06:12 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on February 05, 2021, 10:38:13 AM
Admiral Command Byzantium 1908 carrier battles
Hum... Rebel phone keyboard I guess? :arr:
Or is there a Da Vinci code-level enigma in there ^-^
Long ago CMANO needed a name. For some reason they picked "Command" (ya-da-Operations-ya-da). I had suggested Byzantium 1908 , but no, it had to be Command (ya-da-Operations-ya-da). The obviously were secretly unhappy with CMANO cuz CMANO II is called something else ever-so-slightly different.
Anyway...when I can't quite remember what a game is actually supposed to be called, but I know it has words along the lines of "command" or "Task Force" or "operations" in it...I substitute the not-all-that-ancient term "Byzantium 1908"...just to keep the iconoclastic (or icondulic?) flame buring.
That's right...what the hell is incodulism? Apparently it is a compromise position (like not calling CMANO II CMANO II):
Kissing and respected worship (Greek: «ἀσπασμόν καί τιμητικήν προσκύνησιν»; Latin: «osculum et honorariam adorationem»), incense and candles[5][6][7] for icons was established by the Second Council of Nicaea (Seventh Ecumenical Council) in 787. The Council decided that icons should not be destroyed, as was advocated and practiced by the iconoclasts, nor veritable (full) worshiped or adored [8] (Greek: «ἀληθινήν λατρείαν»; Latin: «veram latriam»), as was practiced by iconolatrists, but they needed to be kissed and they needed respectful worship as symbolic representations of God, angels or saints.[9] Such a position was approved by Pope Adrian I, but due to mis-translations of conciliar acts from Greek into Latin, a controversy arose in the Frankish kingdom, resulting in the creation of Libri Carolini.[10] The last outburst of iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire was overcome at the Council of Constantinople in 843, which reaffirmed the adoration of icons in an event celebrated as the Feast of Orthodoxy.[11]
The Council of Trent (XIX Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church) in 1563 confirmed iconodulism. But this council, unlike the Council of Nicaea, used a different expression in relation to icons: "honur and veneration" (Latin: honorem et venerationem). Its decree reads: "we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear" (Latin: «ita ut per imagines, quas osculamur, et coram quibus caput aperimus, et procumbimus, Christum adoremus, et Sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt, veneremur»
Many years ago (when the world was different), I remember visiting a White Russian monastery in New York during holy week and being given a tour of their icon horde by one of the brothers. We walked through the door of one of the back rooms and the monk who was walking me around spotted a very small but particularly holy icon at eye level on the far wall. He approached the wall, went into full proskynesis, and kissed his way up the wall until he was face to face with the icon. I'll never forget the look of dissapointment that crossed his face when he finally saw what he had been worshipping. "Oh, that's Saint Dionysius the Areopagite. Even we admit that he didn't exist".
St. Dionysius is kind of a crucial deal even if he didn't exist. (I think Dionysius the Pseudo-Aeropagite is what he is known as these days) -- Since:
a) the works under his name allowed late neoplatonism ("Proclus" IIRC) to make it into Western Christianity "just in time" (whatever that means...I guess in time to "flesh-out" the metaphysics of the heavenly heirarchy, just in time for the Carolingians to look suitably Byzantine)
b) He was a big deal in the monasteries attached to the Frankish Kings...St. Denys (for obvious reasons) and the Oriflame were some how associated with him
c) okay...I think full proskynesis violates the "icondule" compromise
d) but its nice that even St. Dionysius gets noticed occasionally
e) though maybe only as put up by an icondule prankster
f) though maybe there was a calendrical reason that icon was on the wall there
g) Wkipedia on Proclus is pretty neato: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclus
Quote from: Gusington on February 06, 2021, 12:36:03 PM
This thread makes me so happy I could cry, if only I could remember how.
Reading Proclus made Ralph Waldo Emerson happy. I might cry about that:
Wikipedia says:
His work inspired the New England Transcendentalists, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, who declared in 1843 that, in reading Proclus, "I am filled with hilarity & spring, my heart dances, my sight is quickened, I behold shining relations between all beings, and am impelled to write and almost to sing."
Hmm maybe...
Quote from: MengJiao on February 07, 2021, 10:08:30 AM
Cape Esperance, Imperial Destroyer takes a big hit (and a lot of US shells miss also):
To be clear, a philosopher Dionysius is mentioned (Acts 17:34) as a convert from St. Paul's famous address at the Mars Hill forum in Athens (thus Dionysius the Areopagite), and is traditionally regarded as the first bishop of Athens. So Eastern Orthodoxy, like any conservative/ancient Christian group, does think he exists. (Similarly the female philosopher Damaris!)
However, a set of very popular and influential but very late texts, orthodox (and generally catholic) in theology but purporting to be from this same person, have been decisively rejected in recent centuries as actually being written by him, even by conservative/ancient Christian groups including Eastern Orthodoxy.
None of this explains the original 1908 Byzantine carrier post (I kind of desperately want to know what got typed originally and then autocorrected?!), although I thought Meng's extended joke trying to make it out to be intentional was pretty funny. (And religiously super-geeky, which naturally I approve!)
Also, the alt-fic plotting side of my head wants to see or maybe write a story of an alternate history where Constantinople didn't fall to become Istanbul, and consequently the Eastern Empire survived and recovered so strongly that by 1908 they not only had at least one aircraft carrier but, of course, sanctified it with at least one icon! :smitten:
Quote from: JasonPratt on February 09, 2021, 10:20:09 AM
None of this explains the original 1908 Byzantine carrier post (I kind of desperately want to know what got typed originally and then autocorrected?!), although I thought Meng's extended joke trying to make it out to be intentional was pretty funny. (And religiously super-geeky, which naturally I approve!)
Also, the alt-fic plotting side of my head wants to see or maybe write a story of an alternate history where Constantinople didn't fall to become Istanbul, and consequently the Eastern Empire survived and recovered so strongly that by 1908 they not only had at least one aircraft carrier but, of course, sanctified it with at least one icon! :smitten:
Apparently some US naval vessels have been flying the Byzantine Flag -- cuz (apparently) the Turks have turned the Hagia Sophia back into a Mosque. It was a museum from 1935 to 2020. The place needs a lot of work so if it can be repaired better as a mosque -- so much the better -- apparently the Byzantine themselves regularly scraped the faces off of the various Emperors and such in the mosaics. Anyway -- perhaps the less said about Byzantium the better.
^I disagree. More Byzantium always = more gooder.
Quote from: JasonPratt on February 09, 2021, 10:20:09 AM
...where Constantinople didn't fall to become Istanbul...
One of the explanations for the name Istanbul is that it comes from the Greek 'eis ten polin' which would have been pronounced 'ees teen polin' (that's pretty much how it was pronounced in Roman times, and the modern pronunciation is the same). It means 'into the city', and Manhattanites used to use a similar idiom. So Constantinople may have become Istanbul in the vernacular long before the fall in 1453.
If you need an icon for your alternate history, here's one from the 17th century of St. Stephen and a cynokephalic St. Christopher
(https://i.imgur.com/bDX2xxR.jpg)
I keep coming into this thread to get updated impressions of the game...there are few. :buck2:
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 10, 2021, 10:42:09 AM
I keep coming into this thread to get updated impressions of the game...there are few. :buck2:
Sadly (for me that is, others, I'm sure, see it differently), many a game-specific thread like this one gets lost/diverted/highjacked then abandoned and forgotten. :-\
I'm watching this thread too for opinions. Based on watching some videos by TheHistoricalGamer on YouTube however I'm thinking this is a fun game.
From what he has been showing I think I would like this game even if it does seem to have a weird user interface.
Quote from: Rayfer on February 10, 2021, 10:55:20 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 10, 2021, 10:42:09 AM
I keep coming into this thread to get updated impressions of the game...there are few. :buck2:
Sadly (for me that is, others, I'm sure, see it differently), many a game-specific thread like this one gets lost/diverted/highjacked then abandoned and forgotten. :-\
Sorry. I think the game is quite enjoyable. Let me give some specifics:
1) Tops for me: you can set a custom battle at any location and the islands and depths are reasonably well modelled
2) you can set the time and weather
3) you can include planes and ships as you want
4)And what about the AI? I think it does quite well in gun and torpedo battles and those were the main types of battles that happened right in the Slot.
The carrier battles all happened north or south of the Slot.
5) And what about damage? Well...It'd say it is the best damage modelling I've ever seen. If your ship gets hit, you'd better get it out of the line of fire or its going to be gone soon. BUT if you get your ship pulled back, you can usually at least keep it from sinking.
6) Other promising things: battles in the Med or the Atlantic seem to be future possibilities
7) Things I'd like to see: more ship types
8) overall flow: I've mostly played custom battles so I don't know how the campaign goes or even how well the battleships do, still I expect the battleships will do fine
Quote from: Philippe on February 10, 2021, 10:35:06 AM
If you need an icon for your alternate history, here's one from the 17th century of St. Stephen and a cynokephalic St. Christopher
Doggie-headed people appear to have been discussed by Rabanus Marus (IIRC) or maybe not (actually it was Ratramus also in the first half of the ninth century, though). Anyway! Look! Angels can be useful as in
"Wake up and take the money!":
Maybe a new thread for the ecumenical discussion is in order? I lost the War on the Sea plot somewhere on pg 3.
On reflection I would have to agree that theology, alternative history, and dog-headed icons would be better off in a different thread.
I'd like to see this thread get back on topic for no other reason than that I'm trying to decide if I should get this game.
Wolfpack345 on YouTube has posted two gameplay vids now. I watched both this evening and liked what I saw, both in game terms and the fact that Wolfpack knows what he is doing.
The game still looks to be overall decent to me. I know a few people who are loving it, despite the rapid release of hotfixes that usually require a campaign restart to get the most benefit out of. That said, I have yet to get it myself. Still not sold enough to pull the trigger on this one. Though, I was never planning on getting this day one anyways. I may end up giving this a few weeks to see how it shakes out, and to see if there is any follow up from the devs regarding future content.
I'm still gonna give it a few more weeks. Definitely has promise, though.
I never did refund it. I guess I'll go ahead and invest some time in it and see what I can do with it. I mean, there really isn't anything quite like it out there, and The Admiral has been pretty up front that TF:A isn't coming out any time soon.
I thought Wolfpack had started an actual campaign already, but when I went to go look earlier today nope I must have seen that from someone else.
Came back a few minutes ago, annnnd here's his first campaign episode!
Quote from: JasonPratt on February 11, 2021, 01:16:08 PM
I thought Wolfpack had started an actual campaign already, but when I went to go look earlier today nope I must have seen that from someone else.
War on the Sea: First Look - USA Campaign :
https://www.twitch.tv/thehistoricalgamer/videos
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTGFcT0l8dvCB6g3cBvJW5IuxSet9SmUO
Thanks Pete!
Incidentally, the first ad break in WolfP's video just happened to be for some awesome looking Microprose carrier admiral game of our acquaintance... ^-^ :coolsmiley: :notworthy:
Algorithm is smart then. :notworthy:
(Jason, now, give me back my ad money darn! :arr:)
I broke down after watching some of Wolfpack's campaign videos. Oh well, I held out for a few days at least.
Just now booted it up and screwed around for a bit. Man alive, it sure is a pretty game.
Not sure about the gameplay, yet, but it's quite the cinematic feast to watch.
Quote from: Toonces on February 11, 2021, 08:16:10 PM
Just now booted it up and screwed around for a bit. Man alive, it sure is a pretty game.
Not sure about the gameplay, yet, but it's quite the cinematic feast to watch.
You have a lot of work to do. I'm also waiting for your impressions on the Cold Waters Epic mod.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 11, 2021, 06:39:24 PM
I broke down after watching some of Wolfpack's campaign videos. Oh well, I held out for a few days at least.
I too broke down last night for the same reasons. Played for about an hour and I'm in love, quirks and all.
Quote from: W8taminute on February 12, 2021, 09:25:54 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 11, 2021, 06:39:24 PM
I broke down after watching some of Wolfpack's campaign videos. Oh well, I held out for a few days at least.
I too broke down last night for the same reasons. Played for about an hour and I'm in love, quirks and all.
I enjoyed the tutorials. Haven't gotten any further yet.
I watched Wolf's videos too and was struck by the Japanese destroyers not reacting at all to 8 Avengers on their torpedo run, other than flak of course. I'm saying no evasive maneuvering or breaking formation, just straight ahead in-line. With 8 torps bearing down on them. And later getting shot to hell by U.S. warships and never returning fire once. I hope this game is great but looks like they've got some work to do to me.
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 12, 2021, 10:58:57 AM
I watched Wolf's videos too and was struck by the Japanese destroyers not reacting at all to 8 Avengers on their torpedo run, other than flak of course. I'm saying no evasive maneuvering or breaking formation, just straight ahead in-line. With 8 torps bearing down on them. And later getting shot to hell by U.S. warships and never returning fire once. I hope this game is great but looks like they've got some work to do to me.
Don't know nothin' about no Wolf's videos, but those Jap destroyers will rip you apart at night in my Custom battles (from which no video footage survives). In other news, the game seems well optimized to cover such things as the Imperial Navy (AKA the Japs) destroyers in night actions. My only complaint would be that all Jap warships carry the dreaded Long Lance torpedoes whereas I think in reality, some of the older ships carried earlier types of torpedoes...of course even those were much better than any USN torpedoes.
Also, its worth noting that the Imperial Navy did extremely well in the night cruiser and destroyer actions within the island chains. I think the game covers those well. I haven't looked at the more generic carrier battles were the Imperial Navy did not have any obvious advantages over the USN....though if you look at things in more detail, the Zero seems to have been the best barge-buster in the area, that is when the Japs went so far as to use Zeros for that sort of thing and if you count luggers as barges (actually they might have been more robust than the average barge).
Here are some luggers. Obviously they vary a lot, but the US Army would have been using the larger luggers I would guess.
I don't think it is considered "politically correct" to refer to Japanese as "Japs" anymore.
I know that it is shorthand and no offense was intended. In the 19th century I think it was pretty neutral, but its derogatory use in WWII as a slur changed that. War makes it so we can't have anything simple. :pullhair:
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 12, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
I don't think it is considered "politically correct" to refer to Japanese as "Japs" anymore.
I know that it is shorthand and no offense was intended. In the 19th century I think it was pretty neutral, but its derogatory use in WWII as a slur changed that. War makes it so we can't have anything simple. :pullhair:
Good point. I'll try to stick to "Imperial" or "Japanese" as needed in the future.
Quote from: MengJiao on February 12, 2021, 11:38:26 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 12, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
I don't think it is considered "politically correct" to refer to Japanese as "Japs" anymore.
I know that it is shorthand and no offense was intended. In the 19th century I think it was pretty neutral, but its derogatory use in WWII as a slur changed that. War makes it so we can't have anything simple. :pullhair:
Good point. I'll try to stick to "Imperial" or "Japanese" as needed in the future.
Arigatōgozaimashita
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 12, 2021, 11:39:27 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on February 12, 2021, 11:38:26 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 12, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
I don't think it is considered "politically correct" to refer to Japanese as "Japs" anymore.
I know that it is shorthand and no offense was intended. In the 19th century I think it was pretty neutral, but its derogatory use in WWII as a slur changed that. War makes it so we can't have anything simple. :pullhair:
Good point. I'll try to stick to "Imperial" or "Japanese" as needed in the future.
Arigatōgozaimashita
Sounds good!
And there's always:
Frontispiece from Nan'ō tantei kidan yūreikutsu, a novelized adaptation of an unidentified Italian film.
I was referring to Wolfpack's Japanese Campaign video #1. Haven't watched the second one yet.
Opps. My bad. The video I was referring to was actually Wolfpack's, 'Solomon Sea Skirmish'. Sorry.
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 12, 2021, 01:30:28 PM
Opps. My bad. The video I was referring to was actually Wolfpack's, 'Solomon Sea Skirmish'. Sorry.
I'm just saying, in my experience (actually playing scenarios I set up or the single battles), in the night actions that are typical of most of the
battles in the Solomons campaign, the IJN destroyers do very well (reacting and firing torpedoes and guns appropriately).
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 12, 2021, 09:34:34 AM
Quote from: W8taminute on February 12, 2021, 09:25:54 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 11, 2021, 06:39:24 PM
I broke down after watching some of Wolfpack's campaign videos. Oh well, I held out for a few days at least.
I too broke down last night for the same reasons. Played for about an hour and I'm in love, quirks and all.
I enjoyed the tutorials. Haven't gotten any further yet.
Did the tutorials as well...been doing a lot of playing with the Custom Battles creator. You can pretty much set up any encounter you want. It's a lot of fun and looks great. Those early war Japanese ships are tough to take down and can inflict a lot of damage quite quickly. Haven't touched the campaigns.
Quote from: MengJiao on February 12, 2021, 02:26:06 PM
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 12, 2021, 01:30:28 PM
Opps. My bad. The video I was referring to was actually Wolfpack's, 'Solomon Sea Skirmish'. Sorry.
I'm just saying, in my experience (actually playing scenarios I set up or the single battles), in the night actions that are typical of most of the
battles in the Solomons campaign, the IJN destroyers do very well (reacting and firing torpedoes and guns appropriately).
I found them to be pretty good on offence but totally oblivious to being attacked by torpedoes.
If you have weird behavior (caused by bugs) saving and reloading might fix things as shown in this Historical Gamer stream (around min. 45) : https://www.twitch.tv/videos/910620492
Just created and played my FIRST naval engagement using the Custom Battle Editor. I'll preface this post with my initial thoughts on WOTS. Like many of you I bought this one on day one. All the criticisms of the game posted here and elsewhere are valid and I hope and expect the devs will improve on it as time goes on. The UI is especially problematic in many ways. However, I never considered refunding it because quite frankly there is nothing else on the market right now to compare with WOTS unless I go back and reinstall Battlestations Midway and BS Pacific. I also own Evil Twin's Victory at Sea and VAS Pacific. Played these two quite a bit and never really liked them. Just tried their Ironclad's demo and seems like more of the same. If you want to play Ironclads I'd suggest you get Dreadnoughts as they have some good scenarios with these vessels. I consider WOTS as one of my (FAW) "Fool Around With" games. It's like a study sim that you can relax and spend time with. Some pros I like about WOTS: Beautiful graphics, great music invoking past historical movies: The latest version of Midway comes to mind and best of all many options for gameplay. If they expand on this with future DLC WOTS will really come into it's own.
So getting to the Custom Battle Editor: I got a head start on this by watching YOUTUBER "Iron 7's" post "War on the Sea Custom Battle Editor Tutorial." No link provided because I'm old and lazy. And yes, the editor is as expected not very intuitive. But if you watch the video you will get the basics and can go from there. I started with a basic 4-on-4 Battleship duel. US Ships: North Carolina, Washington, Alabama and South Dakota vs Japan: Kongo, Hiei, Haruna and Kirishima. One thing I don't like is when you're placing your ships waypoints on the grid map you just have x1, x2 etc. but no lines connecting the dots and when you place the enemy waypoints on the map it doesn't show the previous waypoints of the opponents. So you have to remember where your first set was placed. You CAN save each custom battle setup which is a plus. Playing this custom battle was really exciting and controlling only four ships eases the micro-management aspect versus a larger engagement. Once you target each enemy ship with each of you own ships they will continue to follow their course and fire on their assigned targeted ships. Looking through the binoculars and watching your shells hit the enemy battlewagons never gets old. I expect to spend a lot of time with the the Battle Editor as I think this will keep me coming back to WOTS.
Anyway, among the other things previously mentioned the Battle Editor is the number one reason I wanted and decided to keep WOTS. It's like having you're own personal World of Warships study sim. And the possibilities are endless. Besides, I also own Killerfish's other games: Atlantic Fleet and Cold Waters and still play them frequently. Supporting these guys has been personally very rewarding.
Thanks trek....I easily located the iron 7 custom battle tutorial on YouTube and look forward to watching it this afternoon. I've been playing around with the custom battle generator and your post is spot on regarding its strengths and weaknesses. Bottom line is I'm enjoying this game in spite of its warts and areas needing improvement, and I haven't even touched the campaigns yet.
Rayfer, Glad to help. If you feel like it post your impressions after you delve into the Battle Editor. I'm curious to see if you discover anything about using it I haven't as of yet. The more people we can get here to try it the more we can provide tips to help each other progress in gaining knowledge to use it to it's fullest potential.
Here's my assessment of the game so far.
I've played with it for 12 hours now.
The only mode I've been playing is the US Campaign. I've played a couple of tutorials just to better understand what I'm doing in the campaign.
My short review is - This is a fun game!!
If you are the type who insists on absolute historical accuracy when it comes to units, unit behavior during battle, or anything else which requires strict dogmatic adherence to reality as it was in 1942 then War On The Sea is not the game for you. Save your money for something else.
If, on the other hand, you are a historical gamer who loves to have fun (strong emphasis on having fun) playing games set in a time period of his interest please give this game a try. The simple description of this game is a cross between Battle Stations Pacific and Koei's Pacific Theater of Operations 2. The bottom line is that recipe makes for an enjoyable campaign experience.
Aircraft and ships cannot be piloted via first person perspective but you can manually control individual units from a high level viewpoint. What I mean is say for example you have a wing of 4 torpedo bombers. You can issue a general order to the entire wing to attack a ship or you can issue individual orders to each aircraft in that wing.
Likewise for ships you can actually issue individual orders for each of the main guns, or the secondary guns, or the torpedoes, or the depth charges, or a combination of all of the aforementioned. If that seems like too much micromanagement you can simply issue general orders to a ship or group of ships.
Man this game is fun just get it.
The strategic layer consists of capturing bases and building up airfields and ports. Not terribly deep but appropriate for what this game is trying to convey.
I'm more concerned about the micromanagement (ordering individual planes to target other planes, having to control a ship to make sure it avoids torpedoes, etc.) than absolute historical accuracy. If/when that gets cleaned up, then I'm all in until TFA comes out.
My brief experience mirrors trek's.
I had read this in a review, and found it to be true. The first time in a night engagement when, looking through binoculars, I saw a Japanese broadside light up on the horizon and then coming crashing down was absolutely worth the price of admission. I've rarely felt something so visceral, and after reading so much about WW2 naval battles, to get some sense of what it actually looked like - like a History Channel documentary without all the crappy dialogue - was worth the money right there.
I think the key, like Cold Waters, is to not get too caught up in the "accuracy" but remember that at its heart this is a game, with all that implies. If you can keep that perspective, there is a lot to love here I think. And, Killerfish has a pretty solid after release support record.
Overall, I think this is a worthy buy.
Quote from: Toonces on February 14, 2021, 09:47:10 PM
The first time in a night engagement when, looking through binoculars, I saw a Japanese broadside light up on the horizon and then coming crashing down was absolutely worth the price of admission. I've rarely felt something so visceral, and after reading so much about WW2 naval battles, to get some sense of what it actually looked like - like a History Channel documentary without all the crappy dialogue - was worth the money right there.
Now this is the stuff I love to hear! Thanks!
Time for Part 2 of Wolfpack's Japanese campaign!
The TortugaPower campaign series from the US side is a good watch as well O0
Quote from: W8taminute on February 14, 2021, 06:19:59 PM
Here's my assessment of the game so far.
I've played with it for 12 hours now.
The only mode I've been playing is the US Campaign. I've played a couple of tutorials just to better understand what I'm doing in the campaign.
My short review is - This is a fun game!!
If you are the type who insists on absolute historical accuracy when it comes to units, unit behavior during battle, or anything else which requires strict dogmatic adherence to reality as it was in 1942 then War On The Sea is not the game for you. Save your money for something else.
If, on the other hand, you are a historical gamer who loves to have fun (strong emphasis on having fun) playing games set in a time period of his interest please give this game a try. The simple description of this game is a cross between Battle Stations Pacific and Koei's Pacific Theater of Operations 2. The bottom line is that recipe makes for an enjoyable campaign experience.
Aircraft and ships cannot be piloted via first person perspective but you can manually control individual units from a high level viewpoint. What I mean is say for example you have a wing of 4 torpedo bombers. You can issue a general order to the entire wing to attack a ship or you can issue individual orders to each aircraft in that wing.
Likewise for ships you can actually issue individual orders for each of the main guns, or the secondary guns, or the torpedoes, or the depth charges, or a combination of all of the aforementioned. If that seems like too much micromanagement you can simply issue general orders to a ship or group of ships.
Man this game is fun just get it.
The strategic layer consists of capturing bases and building up airfields and ports. Not terribly deep but appropriate for what this game is trying to convey.
Oh man - going to have to buy this now. Successfully resisted up till now :)
Wolfpack's third episode on the Japanese campaign... that was faster!
He has said that currently the subs break the game from being too overpowered, but of course you can just refuse to play many subs on your own side, so... :coolsmiley:
I watched that last night. The subs are very powerful against the AI which doesn't seem to look for them until the torps start hitting. And one sub was able to chase-down an American Cruiser Task Force and catch it after successfully attacking it once, when did THAT ever happen? I mean in a single day/night time period. On the other hand, the surface combat looked delicious. And reasonably authentic I thought.
Hi all. Quick update for you.
I've logged in about 26 hours of gameplay since getting the game. I've played the campaign game exclusively.
My short answer is: This game is fun but you only earn chump change from your weekly income whilst the ai can spam everything at you ad infinitum. Campaign is broken and I'll shelve the game for now. Too bad. It's fun but resource income is way too low to keep up with the ai.
"LUCY! You got some 'splaining to do". :timeout:
Yeah, I'm refunding it. This game might be a good "game" but it's not scratching my itch at all. Really too bad.
Doh!
I'm outside the 14 day window! Doooohhhh!
Well, I requested a refund anyway. Let's see what happens. This would be only the second time in probably 300 games that I've requested a refund.
Quote from: W8taminute on February 22, 2021, 05:00:39 PM
Hi all. Quick update for you.
I've logged in about 26 hours of gameplay since getting the game. I've played the campaign game exclusively.
My short answer is: This game is fun but you only earn chump change from your weekly income whilst the ai can spam everything at you ad infinitum. Campaign is broken and I'll shelve the game for now. Too bad. It's fun but resource income is way too low to keep up with the ai.
I'm having a blast with the Custom Battles, so much so I haven't even looked at the Campaigns yet. In CB's you can pretty much set up any engagement you want. I just wish they would address the way you select ships and planes in setting up a battle, it assumes you know a ships type, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, etc. by a ships historic name. I haven't played in a couple of weeks so maybe it has been fixed?
Quote from: Rayfer on February 23, 2021, 07:04:51 AM
Quote from: W8taminute on February 22, 2021, 05:00:39 PM
Hi all. Quick update for you.
I've logged in about 26 hours of gameplay since getting the game. I've played the campaign game exclusively.
My short answer is: This game is fun but you only earn chump change from your weekly income whilst the ai can spam everything at you ad infinitum. Campaign is broken and I'll shelve the game for now. Too bad. It's fun but resource income is way too low to keep up with the ai.
I'm having a blast with the Custom Battles, so much so I haven't even looked at the Campaigns yet. In CB's you can pretty much set up any engagement you want. I just wish they would address the way you select ships and planes in setting up a battle, it assumes you know a ships type, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, etc. by a ships historic name. I haven't played in a couple of weeks so maybe it has been fixed?
Isn't the class there written on the top margin above the silhouette when you add ships? As in XXX class heavy cruiser? As far as I know it has always been that way.
Quote from: MengJiao on February 23, 2021, 12:25:03 PM
Quote from: Rayfer on February 23, 2021, 07:04:51 AM
Quote from: W8taminute on February 22, 2021, 05:00:39 PM
Hi all. Quick update for you.
I've logged in about 26 hours of gameplay since getting the game. I've played the campaign game exclusively.
My short answer is: This game is fun but you only earn chump change from your weekly income whilst the ai can spam everything at you ad infinitum. Campaign is broken and I'll shelve the game for now. Too bad. It's fun but resource income is way too low to keep up with the ai.
I'm having a blast with the Custom Battles, so much so I haven't even looked at the Campaigns yet. In CB's you can pretty much set up any engagement you want. I just wish they would address the way you select ships and planes in setting up a battle, it assumes you know a ships type, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, etc. by a ships historic name. I haven't played in a couple of weeks so maybe it has been fixed?
Isn't the class there written on the top margin above the silhouette when you add ships? As in XXX class heavy cruiser? As far as I know it has always been that way.
Yes, but what if you thought you were selecting a light cruiser but was in fact a heavy cruiser. You can delete it but the drop-down selection window reverts back to the top so you're left scrolling back down looking for a heavy cruiser again and still not knowing which ones they are....if you get it wrong again it's rinse and repeat. It's minor irritation but something they should fix.
Quote from: Toonces on February 22, 2021, 10:17:20 PM
Yeah, I'm refunding it. This game might be a good "game" but it's not scratching my itch at all. Really too bad.
Well, I did something I've never done before: I re-bought a game I previously refunded (this one).
I read about a Tokyo Express mod on the Steam forums and it sounds fun so I decided to give the game another try. I put in an hour yesterday and...I'm still not really enjoying the game all that much, sadly, but I'm going to stick with it. I'm going to try to re-frame my thinking and enjoy the game as a game - what it is rather than what I want it to be.
I figure there has to be $30 worth of goofing off I can do with the editor and other missions and such.
Update:
It's been several weeks/months since my last update and my last gaming session with this title. Bored to death with the game because campaign mode isn't fun at all. Takes forever to save up enough resources to build anything. Meanwhile the ai stomps all over you with unlimited resources.
Regret buying the game however I will keep it on my hard drive for a time just to see what I feel like in a few months.
Damn. I was hoping THIS would be the Naval Battle game I could finally get into. :'(
The Steam reviews have been significantly improved as of late and the overall consensus is very positive now. I took this as a good sign that the patching was leading somewhere.
W8, have you tried the Tokyo Express mod?
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1280780/discussions/3/5671690972174045737/
There is a LOT in there, too much for me to copy/paste so you'll have to go to the linked thread, but it sounds like it really dramatically changes the campaign gameplay.
Lemme see if this works:
Main features:
Campaign
New ports added. The darker interface. The "Sturmalex's Gridmap". "TTE" mod.
A Screenshot of War on the Sea
By: the Baron
Both imperial and american campaign rework. Special missions added and some reworked to give a bigger challenge for the player. Land battles are more deadly. To keep the supplies coming to the frontline is now more important. A complete AI missions rework with new fleets coming from Pearl Harbor, Australia and Truk. Fleet carriers patrolling key locations to make the campaign more challenging. Much more variety in the fleets number and formation to keep things more interesting. Map reworked with new ports. The player can now recruit ships from Australia. A level 5 airfield is also present on Australia. The ports added are: Cooktown; Cairns; Lae and Buna. The japanese campaign starts at day 7 with american forces already landed and fighting to keep control at Henderson Field. Both campaigns start with Henderson Field already being a level 1 airfield so be very careful. I strongly recommend doing your invasions at night. Start date changed to 5/8/42 to give players enough time to reach Guadalcanal at day 7. (usa campain) BBs TF added to both campaigns. Could take a long time for a player to see a BB, well not anymore. Have fun fighting big guns. Many hours spent in improving AI sea missions, fleets variety, testing, reworking bases to make sure all is working and the players will get a more challenging and fun campaign. Port Moresby is an important objective for both campaigns. In TTE all night battles are deadly, fought in close quarters.
Air Power I (carriers)
Carriers historical loadouts. New 24 planes air formations. "TTE"mod.
A Screenshot of War on the Sea
By: the Baron
- Historical planes loadouts for the carriers.(Shokaku 27/27/18) (Yorktown 37/37/16 July 15 1942 loadout)
New 24 planes squadrons, with air formations reworked to support the new squadron size. Maximum air size per battle is now 72 planes (24 in stock game) CAP following carrier.( Deploy scout with 1km range and select the option clockwise) Scouting ranges increased to 400km
Air Power II (historical loadouts)
Kingfischer squadron attacking sub with mark 17 depth charges. "TTE" mod.
A Screenshot of War on the Sea
By: the Baron
- New loadouts options for all fighters and scouts. Historical depth charge loadout applied to the Avenger. Jake is now a dive bomber scout (*)
* TTE JAKE DIVE BOMBER option to install - NEEDS TTE HISTORICAL LOADOUT option installed to work (enable by default).
Air Power III (airfields)
Zero carrying 2x60kg bombs. "TTE" mod.
A Screenshot of War on the Sea
By: the Baron
4th squadron added to the airfields. Airfields planes loadout reworked with more focus in bombers.
Air Power IV (data)
- Rework stats for all the planes. Historical ranges, maximum speed and climb rates applied to all planes. Dive rate doubled for all planes. Medium/heavy bombers speed nerf 20%; small bombers speed nerf 10% nerf to make them balanced against fighters and to simulate the payload weight. Avenger rockets removed since they were not used in 1942. (Added as an option to install)
*NOTE: scouts and fighters don't get a penalty on the loadout to not penalize the player for using them in auto scouting operations, since is not possible to choose the loadout this way.
New sea formations
New sea formations. "TTE" mod.
A Screenshot of War on the Sea
By: the Baron
Now all fleets will use the new formation system from my previous mod. Expect to see dds scouting , a better convoy system and capital ships well defended. Transport numbers reduced to prevent AI spamming troops. (version 2.0)
Environment rework
TTE. Darker nights v2
A Screenshot of War on the Sea
By: the Baron
Darker nights v2 .Several parameters tweaked to give a more dark atmosphere to the night. Slighty reduced visibillty underwater. Vastly increase the trees number and size.
Historical Battles
AI missions created and reworked to give you the opportunity to play the following battles: Battle of Savo Island ;Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands & Battle of the Eastern Solomons and the naval battle of Guadalcanal. (usa campaign)
Silent hunter experience
Reduced water visibility. "TTE" mod.
A Screenshot of War on the Sea
By: the Baron
Sonar reworked to make it easier to detect subs. Dive rate improved a little. Crush depth reworked. Historical test depth. Solo merchant ships added to the campaign. Sub visibiliby reworked. The player should now be able to run on the surface in dark night conditions without being spotted. Careful if around 1500m or less from an enemy. Now you as sub captain will face the same problems they had at ww2 when attacking surface fleets. Sometimes you will find yourself in a difficult position to attack. What you will do? Launch the attack from a long distance or rush in the surface to get into a better position?
Minor features:
Magazine explosion! "TTE" mod.
A Screenshot of War on the Sea
By: the Baron
- Magazine explosion probality increased to 20%. Ships go BOOM!
- All ships main battery gun arcs reworked with much more wider angles of attack. (horizontal gun arcs)
- Historical Japanese torpedo ranges.
New menu. "TTE" mod.
A Screenshot of War on the Sea
By: the Baron
- The mod menu screen.
- Rockets damage reworked. The armor values affects the rockets damage performance.
- No more waiting to disengage from battle. Is your game, play the way you like.
- Cargo rebalanced for warships. Now both DDs and CL can carry supplies. CL carry more in comparison to a DD.
- AA rework. The AA range reworked to historical values. Flak damage improved.
New campaign experience for both usa and japanese. TTE.
A Screenshot of War on the Sea
By: the Baron
- Historical photos added to the campaign.
- Historical troops number at Guadalcanal/Florida in the 6/7 night (japanese campaign)
- A new darker interface implemented.
- Supplies, engineering and fuel values for each week vastly increased.
- More dramatic flooding mechanics implemented.
- Mark 14 & Mark 15 american torpedo dudrate at 50%.
- Base detection range enable on the campaign. (50% the real size)
- Sunset reworked using real data. One air operations hour added.
- TF cruise speed increased.
- Magazine capacity doubled in all destroyers; cruisers; battleships; carriers.
- Sonar ranges reworked.
- Sonar strength reworked.
- Propellers directions fixed in all ships/subs (* Feature implemented in game v1.08d8 )
- Campaign difficulty reworked.
- Battle difficulty reworked.
- Campaign map zoom improved.
- No more radar for the japanese subs.
- SD radar for the Tambor sub class. (9km range/only air search)
- Ferry ranges applied to all planes (courtesy General Douglas)
- Test depth: 91m( Tambor & Gato ) 121m Balao ; 274m Tench (courtesy General Douglas)
- Japanese subs names changed to Type-B (B1) and Type-B Mod.1 (B2) (* Feature implemented in game v1.08d8 )
- New system for lauching planes. Planes without a payload will not give you a cooldown. Launch as many planes you wish. No more waiting because a scout plane was launched. (* Feature implemented in game v1.08 )
And much more...
I want to thank the devs that made modding the game a possibility and all the modders and players who help me with suggestions and add ons to the modification overhaul. All of you are what made this project possible.
I can only wish you guys have an excellent and fun game experience. That was my goal from the beginning. Happy hunting, the Baron.
Download and instructions to install here:
https://app.box.com/s/w5ydv8cs2r35l1a2357g7k6mvbwf88nz
Toonces that Tokyo Express mod looks good. I'm a gonna have to give that a shot.
Also good to hear the latest Steam reviews have been trending positive towards the game.
Please do, brother. I think we're both at the point where we own the game, so let's see what we can do with it.
Quote from: Toonces on June 23, 2021, 08:44:34 PM
Please do, brother. I think we're both at the point where we own the game, so let's see what we can do with it.
Will do. Yup we seem to be stuck with the game now so might as well make the best of it. I think that Tokyo Express mod has a lot of promise to it. Especially with the allowance of forming 24 plane squadrons instead of the vanilla 4 plane units.
I haven't spent any time with War on the Sea since the last post, but I just re-installed it. It seems a very big patch was recently released, and the Tokyo Express mod has also seen quite a few updates. I can't comment on the updated gameplay since I'm just now installing, but it sure sounds like a lot of people are investing a lot of energy to make this game better.
The Tokyo Express Mod looks pretty amazing. Would you recommend the game now with
the Mod or is it not good enough?
I simply haven't spent enough time with it to say one way or the other. I'll be sure to post some feedback once I log some playtime.
Quote from: gregb41352 on September 30, 2021, 06:53:23 PM
The Tokyo Express Mod looks pretty amazing. Would you recommend the game now with
the Mod or is it not good enough?
I can definitely recommend the TEM. I've played a couple of hours of it in the past few weeks. The game is a lot more interesting with this mod than without it. I'm speaking primarily about the sandbox campaign.
It did crash on me a couple of times however. Once during the beginning of a battle and once after exiting a completed battle. Those were the only two issues I saw in about 6 hours of game time.
Quote from: MengJiao on February 12, 2021, 02:26:06 PM
Quote from: Sir Slash on February 12, 2021, 01:30:28 PM
Opps. My bad. The video I was referring to was actually Wolfpack's, 'Solomon Sea Skirmish'. Sorry.
I'm just saying, in my experience (actually playing scenarios I set up or the single battles), in the night actions that are typical of most of the
battles in the Solomons campaign, the IJN destroyers do very well (reacting and firing torpedoes and guns appropriately).
Here's USS Minneapolis using searchlights after surviving a torpedo hit:
Let There Be Light! O0
I booted up the campaign with the TTE mod yesterday and I have to say, I am absolutely struggling to like this game still. I feel like I am investing an awful lot of time trying to force myself to like and enjoy the experience. I'm a big fan of drilling down to the tactical level and having the control over units, but the whole command point system of buying ships and whatnot in the campaign is a complete and utter immersion killer.
I keep hoping it will somehow click at some point, but thus far that has not been the case.
Quote from: Toonces on October 09, 2021, 01:34:27 PM
I booted up the campaign with the TTE mod yesterday and I have to say, I am absolutely struggling to like this game still. I feel like I am investing an awful lot of time trying to force myself to like and enjoy the experience. I'm a big fan of drilling down to the tactical level and having the control over units, but the whole command point system of buying ships and whatnot in the campaign is a complete and utter immersion killer.
I keep hoping it will somehow click at some point, but thus far that has not been the case.
I don't get the campaign mode at all. Still, the night battles are the best I've ever seen. I'm going to try again with the campaigns.
Toonces I'm still struggling to like the campaign game as well for the reasons you mention but the TTE mod does make it a wee bit funner. Still not enough to hold my interest for long.
Quote from: MengJiao on October 09, 2021, 08:29:54 PM
I don't get the campaign mode at all. Still, the night battles are the best I've ever seen. I'm going to try again with the campaigns.
Okay...Campaign mayhem -- ran into the Imperial Navy off Guadalcanal on August 8. Luckily it was daylight and the loses so far appear to be: 1 US DD sunk, one Heavy Cruiser dead in the water...versus
2 Imperial heavy cruisers sunk and 2 imperial DDs sunk...here is the Nashville shooting at Tone early in the battle:
^for all the struggles people seem to be having getting into this game, it sure does look spectacular. Maybe you guys should step away from the strategic aspect of the game that is holding you back and just try to enjoy the tactical battles in all of their glory?
Quote from: MengJiao on October 11, 2021, 10:54:13 AM
I installed the Tokoyo Express Mod. Very nice! And you can get to Guadalcanal before August 7. Here's an early morning air attack off Guadalcanal featuring USS Brooklyn:
^Nice!
Brooklyn never looked so good Meng. :bd:
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 12, 2021, 11:56:32 AM
Brooklyn never looked so good Meng. :bd:
I tried to remember to mention -- it's August 6 in the Tokyo Express Mod. How about that! Maybe I can land the Marines on time, even, maybe.
Quote from: MengJiao on October 12, 2021, 02:02:44 PM
Quote from: Sir Slash on October 12, 2021, 11:56:32 AM
Brooklyn never looked so good Meng. :bd:
I tried to remember to mention -- it's August 6 in the Tokyo Express Mod. How about that! Maybe I can land the Marines on time, even, maybe.
Sendai under fire off Rendova:
Great shot - eerie
^+1 O0
Games on sale on steam but not sure if it's enough to justify it with the impressions here. Still, the tactical part looks fun. It'd be a no brainer, but the other reviews confirm that you have to micro manage the AI and the campaign management is not great.
Last Friday night I re-booted this with the TTE Mod and determined to stick with it for a while in the campaign. I am sort of figuring out how the campaign plays. But at one point I got into a scrap off Guadalcanal with a U.S. surface force vs. an IJN surface force and I tell you, that was some serious fun. Very atmospheric and just plain fun.
But after landing troops on Guadalcanal I was attempting to clear datum with my surface forces and the AI kept spamming aircraft at me. Just flights of 6 or so bombers each time, over and over. From what I can tell there is no way to auto-resolve these attacks so I simply couldn't progress in the campaign without fighting off these flights repeatedly. It got very tiresome, sort of like in Morrowind when you are continually spammed by those birds every 10 steps.
I put any attempt at the game being historical and just tried to enjoy it as a game, and there's almost something appealing here. But for some reason it just keeps feeling like a miss, like there's a great idea lurking in there but I keep just miss finding it.
I'm going to spend some more time with it this week. I'm hoping with some more play that it will resonate with me better than it currently does.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 11, 2021, 10:59:26 AM
^for all the struggles people seem to be having getting into this game, it sure does look spectacular. Maybe you guys should step away from the strategic aspect of the game that is holding you back and just try to enjoy the tactical battles in all of their glory?
There is no "quick battle" option. You have to either play a pre-made single mission or laboriously create your own. The process to create a single battle is not quick, nor intuitive. This game would benefit greatly from a fast battle option because you're right, the tactical battles are pretty cool.
^^I'll echo what you said about this game. It really is good but for some reason it misses the mark on keeping one hooked for "just one more turn".
Contrast that with say Rome Total War: Remastered and Civ6, two games I picked up over the last sale. Both of these games have grabbed hold of me and won't let go.
Quote from: Gusington on February 06, 2021, 12:36:03 PM
This thread makes me so happy I could cry, if only I could remember how.
Well, it was a very messy thread...possibly memorable for other reasons.
Quote from: Toonces on December 20, 2021, 03:50:24 PM
....
I put any attempt at the game being historical and just tried to enjoy it as a game, and there's almost something appealing here. But for some reason it just keeps feeling like a miss, like there's a great idea lurking in there but I keep just miss finding it.
....
I agree the campaign game is a bit off. The campaign game is at once beautiful, fun, but also frustrating and a big tease. As a simulation of the Pacific War, the campaign is a let down. Like you, I just have to think of the campaign as a game.
But the campaign has given me some great moments. Like when the AI spanked one of my troop convoys very hard with a sub attack. My escorts eventually toasted the sub, but I lost a few transports in the process.
Another great moment was when I had an American cruiser group try to bombard a Japanese base. It was dusk and my radar was showing nothing. Suddenly flares appeared in lines above my battle line (I believe they were dropped by floatplanes). Then came the incoming rounds. Radar still picking up nothing. I could somewhat get a bearing by how the Japanese splashes fell. I sent my two DDs off in that direction to find the enemy. When my DDs finally got close enough to spot them, I saw that I was very outnumbered. I decided discretion was the better part of valor, turned and ran. Somehow I got away untouched...but had a great tense moment with the game that had me on the edge of my seat.
But I say the campaign is also a 'tease' because it is missing some basic air war pieces that would really tie the game together for me.
The biggest things that would help would be the ability for aircraft to attack bases, along with more realistic handling of CV based aircraft. For CVs, simple things like putting up CAP and sending out scouts are just laborious and wrong.
Because aircraft can't attack bases, your CAP has no meaning if there are no ships around. If there are no ships, who cares if there are Japanese bombers in the air? They have no targets.
I finally installed the TTE and OM mods, and the mods do add so much to the game. Like a decent number of aircraft types and more ship classes.
However, as you point out, with the mods, the AI now spams air raids. But I have just been ignoring the air to air fights where there are no ships around. The game seems happy to let me move past them, but frustratingly it does stop everytime the aircraft bump into each other.
Despite the warts, I still very much like the game.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on September 25, 2022, 09:48:45 AM
However, as you point out, with the mods, the AI now spams air raids.
TTE mod has an optional submod : (A) TTE Reduced Air attacks. *Reduces the amount of air attacks from airfields*.
Maybe this helps ? I just got the game so I can't tell if it does.
I've noticed they have patched this game a few times in the past 10 months.
Is income the campaign improved? I seem to remember you earn 0.50 dollars every week but to upgrade an airfield costs 100 dollars. I'm exaggerating obviously but you get the idea.