Steam & Iron

[Nefaro]

I had forgot that Herman had made some video AARs.   8)

There has been more updates since the versions he ran in those, but there are few noticeable features added since most of it was under the hood (and the campaign beta).

[Toonces]

Gus, just play what you have, bro.   ::)

[Gusington]

^Never! What is the ETA for the campaign?

[panzerde]

If you only get one game of WWI naval combat, there's no question in my mind that it should be Steam & Iron - and this is from a guy that was up until 2AM this morning playing Jutland. 

I'll second the comments about the easy-to-use UI.  In fact, I found it so simple to use that initially I thought the game lacked depth.  To me, it *isn't* work to play this game at all,  at least not in terms of dealing with the UI.  It can be "work" in that it nicely models some of the C3 issues a WWI admiral would have had to deal with, but that's part of the appeal of the game for me.

I've yet to play a really large engagement in Jutland, but I'd agree with Nefaro that the UI in that game doesn't lend itself nearly as well to giving division orders as SAI does.  Herman's videos are actually quite nice at illustrating the differences in the various levels of command, too (his Harpoon tutorials are great as well, if you want to pick up that game).

I guess the best thing I can say about SAI is that if you want to fight a WWI dreadnought battle and concentrate on the battle, SAI is the gold standard.  There are also a huge number of scenarios, many, many ships, and it looks like the campaign is just going to be icing on the cake.

One thing I really am enjoying if fighting an engagement in SAI and then doing the same in Jutland.  Really helps in understanding what went on.  Off to do exactly this for Coronel right now...

[Gusington]

^Thanks panzerde.

[Sir Slash]

ETA For the campaign is Feb. or March. I hope Feb.

[panzerde]

I've posted an AAR of the Steam and Iron Coronel scenario at my blog.  Hopefully it shows a bit about what makes this game such a gem.

https://cryhavoc.squarespace.com/blog/2013/2/17/coronel-aar-1-steam-and-iron

[Herman Hum]

It can be "work" in that it nicely models some of the C3 issues a WWI admiral would have had to deal with, but that's part of the appeal of the game for me.

It is a real shame that there is not MP for SaI.  It would be great to play Jutland co-operatively as either Jellicoe or Beatty and have another player be the other Admiral.  Jutland is not too difficult (even in Admiral mode) if you can still control the actions of the BC squadron as well as the Grand Fleet.

The inability to instantaneous share a situation map would be marvelous as both groups would be pretty much out of contact with one another.  :)

[Nefaro]

One thing that has always bothered me about Jutland's mechanics, despite being quite deep with a lot of modelling under the hood, is that they pretty much make Light Cruiser vs Light Cruiser battles ineffective.  Claiming that CLs didn't have the capability to penetrate the armor of other CLs, and modelling it so, always rubs me the wrong way especially since there are cases of WWI CLs causing heavy damage against others of their like, in the historical record.  As modelled in-game, they just shoot away at each other with HE shells and do practically nothing until they're out of ammo.  ::) 

I could complain a bit about how S&I has a bit too much German-centric crew quality rankings in it's scenarios when their fleet's advantageous differences lie elsewhere (faster straddling due to their fire control and some damage control advantages).  It just strikes me as wrong that they're given a universal crew quality advantage over the Brits when the German battle fleet sat in harbor, and sailed much less, than the British one.  I'd expect crew quality to be purely crew experience & training so not being out on the sea surely restricted both of those.  I'm not sure how much Jutland suffers from this but it obviously has the poor British shells and powder handling factored in (and somewhat adjustable) although I believe their powder handling penalty for catastrophic hits were kinda skewed towards the exceptionally high rate of the British Battlecruiser magazine explosions as opposed to the fleet as a whole (and it is applied to the fleet as a whole, unfortunately).   So.. there are things I'd like to make adjustments to on both, I suppose.

[Martok]

I'm still not clear on something:  Does SAI have any sort of "grand campaign" and/or sandbox-style map?  Or is it mostly a number of missions/battles? 

[Grim.Reaper]

I'm still not clear on something:  Does SAI have any sort of "grand campaign" and/or sandbox-style map?  Or is it mostly a number of missions/battles?

To my knowledge, campaign is in beta mode but will be released this month or march.

[Nefaro]

I'm still not clear on something:  Does SAI have any sort of "grand campaign" and/or sandbox-style map?  Or is it mostly a number of missions/battles?

It currently has historical scenarios, a random battle generator, editors for both ships and scenarios, and a late beta stage campaign covering the Russian and German sparring in the Baltic (free with the original game purchase).  The North Sea campaign will soon be released as an expansion for $15 (?).

From what I've seen of the campaign beta, you will be given regular objectives to accomplish and you can commit whatever units you want to each one, which becomes a scenario you play out in the normal game mode.  Another big advantage of having the rather spartan-looking 2D look is being able to cover a huge amount of space and ships so you can pretty much run all your vessels in the Baltic/North Sea/whatevah at one time since it's quite zoom-friendly.  After the scenario is done, I think you get some points for repairs, purchases, etc and you proceed through the next time period & operation.  One extra advantage of their campaign system is that the missions are varied, but have a purpose at any one time, and you get to make purchasing decisions regarding your command.  It's essentially a scenario generator with a lot of input and continuity.

I forgot to add - another thing S&I does better than the rest:  Fog of War.  It's very important for naval battles and they did a good job with it, especially regarding low visibility situations and some command & control limits.

[besilarius]

Nefaro, with your interest in the dreadnaught era, you would very likely enjoy Norman Friedman's book, Naval Firepower

http://www.amazon.com/Naval-Firepower-Battleship-Gunnery-Dreadnaught/dp/1591145554

He has done some very deep research that is very well presented.  In particular, he has found an instruction from Jellicoe from after Jutland which outlines why the BCs were prone to explosions.  Contrary to regulations, they were storing up to five rounds within the turret.  In this way, they had a faster rate of firepower and hoped this would get them the first hit.
Of course, the problem was that if you had a turret penetration, the stored shells and propellant resulted in a secondary explosion that was more powerful than the shell that penetrated.  This secondary explosion overcame the flashback safeguards, and resulted in the magazine explosions we are so aware of.
This could be used as a game device, wherein the historical BCs might have a higher rate of fire, but greater chance of magazine explosion, or you could choose to follow regulations and have a slower rate of fire, but a much smaller chance of a magazine explosion.

[Gusington]

^I just watched a documentary on Jutland yesterday. The British also left all of their safety doors open between compartments during the battle, which also resulted in the three battecruisers exploding, which would have otherwise not have happened if hit. I did not know how sloppy the British were during Jutland.

[Nefaro]

Nefaro, with your interest in the dreadnaught era, you would very likely enjoy Norman Friedman's book, Naval Firepower

http://www.amazon.com/Naval-Firepower-Battleship-Gunnery-Dreadnaught/dp/1591145554

He has done some very deep research that is very well presented.  In particular, he has found an instruction from Jellicoe from after Jutland which outlines why the BCs were prone to explosions.  Contrary to regulations, they were storing up to five rounds within the turret.  In this way, they had a faster rate of firepower and hoped this would get them the first hit.
Of course, the problem was that if you had a turret penetration, the stored shells and propellant resulted in a secondary explosion that was more powerful than the shell that penetrated.  This secondary explosion overcame the flashback safeguards, and resulted in the magazine explosions we are so aware of.
This could be used as a game device, wherein the historical BCs might have a higher rate of fire, but greater chance of magazine explosion, or you could choose to follow regulations and have a slower rate of fire, but a much smaller chance of a magazine explosion.

Oh, yes, I know of the ammo storage problem with the British BCs and the gun crew training that promoted such catastrophic explosions.  Both of these WWI naval games just blanket the whole British navy with the same very high rate of quick insta-kill critical hits on turrets when it should only be that high for the BC force IMO.  When I play scenarios in Jutland and S&I, I often see Battleships and notably Armored Cruisers just exploding within a very short period of time and with nasty regularity even in smaller scenarios.  It shouldn't be quite that high for the rest of the fleet.  :-\  Mix that super-explody rate with the similarly nationwide blanketed crew quality advantages to the German side, and it's blown a bit out of proportion overall.   I suppose it's often justified due balancing reasons regarding the British superiority in numbers.  ::)