Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Naval combat

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Naval combat Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Naval combat - 2/3/2003 4:21:49 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		While there has been a lot of discussion about idiosyncrasies in Naval combat and couple of possible bugs, the consensus appears to be that the majority are happy with it pretty much as is and there is not a pressing need to change it in any significant way.

How do you feel about it? Please amplify what you think needs to be changed.
Post #: 1
- 2/3/2003 4:44:19 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		Once upon a time, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, before the fat lady started singing and all that, I suggested that the UV surface combat system reminded me of junior high school dances in the sixties (I suspect that things are a lot racier now): the girls line up along one wall, the boys line up against the other wall, the music plays, and nobody dances. The results are not too bad, in my estimation, after the various patches (although I know that some are still unhappy with the "repetitive hit" phenomenon).

If we are going to have a graphic presentation of surface battles, let's make it look like a real surface battle and make it reflect what's actually going on in the code beyond just the text messages at the bottom. Otherwise, let's just go to the results. Personally, I just go to the results the way things are. I don't really care, as theater commander, who crossed whose T or who spotted whom.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 2
- 2/3/2003 8:42:06 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline 		The only combat animations I watch are aircraft attacking ships. Surface ship and air-to-air animations take too long for me and I don't see any value to the animations for bases being bombed (other than it looks cool and sounds great!).

If removing some of these animations will simplify things than as far as I'm concerned that's fine for a strategic game. However, if they're important to others, they certainly don't bother me.

As far as what's going on "under the hood" with surface combat, I'd like to see less of a penalty for large task forces and greater value for having screening ships.

Thanks for inviting feedback. I really look forward to this one. No pressure, but I expect it to be the best wargame ever. :)

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 3
- 2/3/2003 1:04:09 PM   
tri71669

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Milwaukee
Status: offline 		happy as is really...
But it would be nice to have a more isometric view or maybe even topdown where you saw manuevers and fire/torps.... doing what the reports reflected.
Then it seems you are watching a battle in realtime.
I know historically you would have had a scrap of paper handed to you with just some info... but I like watching the battle unfold in all its nailbiting anticipation.

_____________________________

- See you at the Fire...

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 4
- 2/3/2003 5:09:37 PM   
Veer


Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline 		Well, surface combat is OK in UV as it now stands, but could do with some imporvement.

Cosmetics: Animations could be speeded up, or improved somewhat. Maybe the screen should be darked out for night combat, torpedo's can have wakes, etc.

Actuals:
The UV combat engine has very little in the way of 'Fleets', instead the emphasis is on task forces. This works well for UV because historically most surface combat in the solomons took place between individual TFs. Yet in WITP the concept of having multiple task forces acting together and in coordination, i.e: Fleets, becomes important. Some system needs to be put in place whereby individual TF's can be grouped togther under the overall control of a Fleet Admiral.

I assume the 15+ ship in a TF penalty will remain.

'Crossing the T' - how important is this? I've never had it offer decisive results. Conversely, is it always a good thing? Crossing the T of a line of IJN destroyers armed with forward torpedo tubes would be a reciepe for disaster don't you think?

If a destroyer TF finds itself in the same hex as a BB TF, they should not attempt to fight a surface battle, but should try closein for a torpedo strike or use their superior speed to get out of there. I've never seen this happen in UV, but it should be incorporated into WITP.

Some sort of fleet doctrine needs to be put in place. Both the IJN and USN had differing fleet doctrines, which reflected itself in their battles.

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 5
- 2/3/2003 5:15:36 PM   
caine

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/13/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline 		It would be good to see the battle from the top, seeing ship positions.If not, the mesages that appear at the bottom seem unreal.Anyway, I think that there are other more important problems.
In naval combat you can determine which ships are to fight because all ships are in a task force.Then the results could be determined by machine.
But in air attack, you do not control the number of aircraft assigned to a specific mission.Better to do something about that than have a nice picture of naval combat.But if both things could be accomplished great!

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 6
- 2/3/2003 11:26:57 PM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		Make it possible for surface combat groups to intercept ships at sea if they are set for 'reaction allowed'. It shouldn't be automatic, but at least have a chance. Let it be the same as the chance to intercept a task force that attacks your port in UV.

Also, you should be able to set the maximum reaction range for a fleet from zero up to the max speed.

I want to see a game where a surface fleet might actually have a chance to catch a CV fleet at sea. Perhaps the CV fleet should get a chance to launch a strike at the surface group, after it reacts to range zero, before the surface combat occurs. I think I saw that system in a board game I played a long time ago.

Subs and surface combat groups should be able to attack targets moving through their hex. This one is REALLY important if the above reaction idea isn't implemented.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 7
More ideas - 2/4/2003 12:37:56 AM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline 		Agree with most of what's been mentioned already in terms of tweaks. One thing that was brought up a while back in the UV forum was the idea of task forces being kept together or else suffer a 'not used to working together' penalty. This might help encourage realistic behaviour such as keeping DD divisions together, under a consistent commander. This might also keep every engagement from being a Lee/Tanaka affair (though I personally don't always use the best commander). Anyway, if there was an incentive to keep groups working as a unit I think we would see much more realistic behaviour. Also I like all of Nikadamus (sp?) suggestions he had about creating more shell absorbing, fire creating upperworks hits.

As a second piece I would like to see the subs stop making suicidal surface attacks. I've seen instances of them taking large caliber shells from warships they're attacking. I've even had an S boat sunk by a barge.

That all said I'll take the existing system if it gets me WITP 6 months sooner.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 8
- 2/4/2003 1:59:40 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I've already made my suggestions for enhancing the naval combat engine well known. :) As such, my vote was squarly in the fix a few minor things catagory.

Adding to that....i agree with the suggestion for a limited "reaction" ability for surface TF's based on the speed diferential between the two and direction of the TF's (and appropriate randoms of course), making sure the focus on one ship repetition bug is squashed and to take a long hard look at the EXP and RADAR coding in ships.

Unlike Cap n Gown, I've not seen EXP playing "enough" of a factor in battles i've set up and observed and rarely see for example a high EXP IJN ship outshoot a low EXP USN ship. (or vice verca) RADAR's blanket effectivness continues to concern me as well.

The above are suggestions and concerns only....my major campaign point remains firmly wedded into providing an improved ship damage model that more properly represents the aspects of fire aboard ships, small caliber shellfire, a ship's ability to take multiple hits (even in penetration or lack of armor) and the proper characteristics of HE shells and Bombs

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 9
- 2/4/2003 6:13:32 AM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]Once upon a time, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, before the fat lady started singing and all that, I suggested that the UV surface combat system reminded me of junior high school dances in the sixties (I suspect that things are a lot racier now): the girls line up along one wall, the boys line up against the other wall, the music plays, and nobody dances. The results are not too bad, in my estimation, after the various patches (although I know that some are still unhappy with the "repetitive hit" phenomenon).

If we are going to have a graphic presentation of surface battles, let's make it look like a real surface battle and make it reflect what's actually going on in the code beyond just the text messages at the bottom. Otherwise, let's just go to the results. Personally, I just go to the results the way things are. I don't really care, as theater commander, who crossed whose T or who spotted whom. [/B][/QUOTE]

Here, Here! I couldn't agree more. [SIZE=3]IT IS BORING![/SIZE]

_____________________________

SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 10
- 2/4/2003 6:26:43 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		not me.

I like the blow by blow presented as i like to see how the ships are fought and how well their weapons and armor systems preform in the test of combat (or at least in theory as gamed out ;) )

if a particular battle is uninteresting, or if i'm pressed for time, then i'll go straight to the results but as with most things, having the option to view or skip is better than either/or

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 11
- 2/4/2003 6:49:44 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		Wow! Major News Flash! 17% of the people think we got it just right. I find that an amazing thing given how incredibly complicated the code is, and how many things it simplifies. Even I wouldn't say it was just right, but hopefully it was good enough. :)

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 12
- 2/4/2003 8:06:51 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		I think you guys are dreaming if you think UV or WitP would ever have a top-down view of the naval battles. I'm sure the AI does not create a mini-battle that could be portrayed. That is, the AI does not say to itself, "In the next phase, I'm going to have the Amatsukaze turn hard to port, increase speed to 30 knots, cut between the New Orleans and the Atlanta, and then spray the Washington with my starboard guns."

Instead, I'm sure the combat system is much more abstract. Ranges open and close, destroyers are kept closer to the enemy fleet than the capital ships. There may be some kind of target aspect that either randomly or somewhat realistically determines whether you're shooting at someone's flank or end for torpedo purposes. There are targeting priorities, which may be someone sophisticated. But that's going to be about it. The visuals having the two fleets on either side of the screen is probably an accurate representation of what the computer is doing.

The AI in games designed to be tactical/manuever naval games can't get it right - and their AI was designed solely to represent combat at the ship v. ship level. WitP's AI is focused elsewhere. Bottom line: You're dreaming.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 13
- 2/4/2003 9:29:03 AM   
tri71669

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Milwaukee
Status: offline 		I think we were asked for opinions and suggestions... and a smart, dilligent coder could accomplish exactly what suggestions have been mentioned. It's more a matter of priorites and time... I would like to see a bug free version before anything like eye-candy... but industrious creativity should never be torpedoed by the idea that something is "just dreaming". We probably wouldn't have lightbulbs and airplanes if that was the case.

If the combat animations reflect stats after results, then any interface would do... in fact to be historicaly accurate, a theatre commander would have been handed a paper report probably some time after the battle was well finished. But I would hate to see WitP just put a battle rep on screen... The way it stands, a good compramise has been reached with battles unfolding ship fighting ship until turns end.

I would like to see the combat take an isometric view only because it would be great PR for the game to draw in some extra newbies who otherwise might not take a look at what was "boring". When I showed UV to a few freinds, I skipped through battle animations to the results and they were bored... we happened to let a naval battle unfold and suddenly everyone was glued to the edges of thier seats with interest in who the winner would be and the damages.

My .02

_____________________________

- See you at the Fire...

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 14
- 2/4/2003 2:20:37 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Suface Combat, things I'd like to see.

1. Like ships lined up in a row across the top and bottom of the screen, instead of the left/right column.

2. I would like to see damaged ships try to leave the battle. Maybe move them from the front to second line.

3. Smoke screens to hide the second line of ships or help make an escape.

4. Night combat where you don't always receive correct info on enemy ships number/types.

Things after combat:

4. Tranfer of TF leader to another ship.

6. Possible rescue of ship leaders when ships are sunk.

7. An escort TF type to escort damaged ships, where escorts won't leave damaged ships. I would like to see this added to UV.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 15
- 2/4/2003 3:26:08 PM   
Philwd

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 3/19/2002
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		Some things that come to mind. Overall I rate these as minor.

mine combat is way too intense.

SC radar seems too effective. Maybe have a penalty that decreases every 6 mos or so to reflect better interpretation.

have flagships. if flag officer is not on ship with best radar have communications check.

somehow I would like to see time based improvements in squadron sizes, carrier capacities etc. For example it wasn't until after both Coral Sea and Midway that USN increased fighter sqn size to 36.

add some random events in at a low percentage chance. ie like South Dakota's radar failing in middle of night battle(I don't remember which one off the top)

I think IJN damage control is too poor while USN is too good(for the time period of UV for example). Again maybe here have the sides same at start and give USN improvements every 6 mo or so.

Phil

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 16
- 2/4/2003 6:38:04 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Joel Billings
[QUOTE]Wow! Major News Flash! 17% of the people think we got it just right. I find that an amazing thing given how incredibly complicated the code is, and how many things it simplifies. Even I wouldn't say it was just right, but hopefully it was good enough.[/QUOTE]

Good enough for a game centered around airpower and logistics.

I do still feel the surface combat system is flawed (as is) by the fact that a decisive defeat (max gain, min cost) of one side by another is near impossible due to the "slugging match" flow of the battle.

Whatever early advantage in naval combat may be gained, either by tactical position or some good initial shooting, soon gets overturned by the fact that the battle keeps going and going and going....

You can watch the progress of a UV surface naval campaign by the large numbers of damaged ships, flowing back to Truk and Noumea.

I'd push for a system that gives more short, sharp and decisive engagements where, if one side gets an advantage, they can get a clearer benefit.

This doesn't mean every battle should go that way.

As to other posted suggestions,
I feel TF experience (or lack of) did have a big impact on US naval combat performance during the Solomons campaign. I would favour some recognition should be given to the advantage of using ships that have operated/trained together before (for both sides).

I would like mid-ocean intercepts to occur but it should be rare unless both TFs are seeking combat (ie both surface combat TFs, both with aggressive commanders and they still have to find each other).

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 17
- 2/5/2003 7:28:44 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		Lots of good ideas here. My pet peeve (maybe it's a dead horse) may not, strictly speaking, fall into the "surface combat" category, but here it is: Japanese ASW now seems to weak to me.

Also: I kinda like watching the naval battles. Fun graphics can help sell games, and we all want WITP to sell well.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 18
My 2 cents - 2/5/2003 9:42:32 AM   
herbieh

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 8/30/2002
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		I think the actual combat is right, hits, damage ect, but I agree, if one side does start to take a pasting, earlier break offs should be attempted. Also the Jap damage control is a bit low, there are some classic cases of jap (cruisers especially) being hammered, only to fight again.

PS Beer is good

PS, Id rate the Aussie Navy now,Dc wise, about the same level of the japs then.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 19
- 2/5/2003 10:09:51 AM   
Bulldog61


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grotius
[B] Japanese ASW now seems to weak to me.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Seems just the opposite to me on D/C sinks a sub. Didn't realize they had homming ASW depth charges. There's lots of work to do before this baby is born! Back to work!

Mike

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 20
- 2/5/2003 5:15:21 PM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline 		I don't think the IJN ASW ability is off - I think the S boats are just too good and this makes IJN look even worse that it was historically. In one of my PBEM I think Yamamoto sank 5 S boats in one turn. Granted they were in shallow water at PM, but it does prove the point that IJN ASW does work....

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 21
Various suggestions - 2/6/2003 1:58:54 AM   
MemoryLeak


Posts: 491
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Woodland, CA USA
Status: offline 		Since a lot of different topics are being covered here, I would like to mention searching again. I would like to see the success rate of spotting everything that moves, toned down a bit. It would be nice to at least have some chance of conducting a surprise naval mission, but the chance of doing that in UV is practically nil.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 22
Re: Various suggestions - 2/6/2003 6:33:14 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by MemoryLeak
[B]Since a lot of different topics are being covered here, I would like to mention searching again. I would like to see the success rate of spotting everything that moves, toned down a bit. It would be nice to at least have some chance of conducting a surprise naval mission, but the chance of doing that in UV is practically nil. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hello, I manage to move a large number of TF's without beng spotted. (and get suprised a bit as well)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 23
- 2/6/2003 10:37:31 PM   
Bax

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 8/9/2002
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline 		I agree with those that complain that UV's surface battles are pretty much slugfests that go on....and on.....and on.

An improvement to me would be that every surface engagement would have a good chance of being very different. Most night battles would be brief, intense fights followed by a breakoff by one or both sides, as the commanders try to regain some form of control over their TF's. Some day fights would be long and bloody, but these should be rare. I can't see any commander throwing caution to the wind and continuing the fight when he's got multiple ships on fire.

The exception to this rule, of course, would be when a TF of warships intercepts an unescorted group of AK's and AP's. These type of encounters should almost always result in the destruction of all the transports.

In a nutshell, I think a greater variety of encounters need to be added. The surface fights shouldn't always end with both sides being in shambles(although occasionally this should happen as well).

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 24
- 2/6/2003 11:23:33 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bax
[B]
The exception to this rule, of course, would be when a TF of warships intercepts an unescorted group of AK's and AP's. These type of encounters should almost always result in the destruction of all the transports.
[/B][/QUOTE]

The two occasions where this happened (that I recall) were Balikapapan and Banten Bay. In both cases, very few of the transports were actually hit and sunk.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 25
- 2/7/2003 12:31:10 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		It's pretty useless to generalize about what happens to unescorted merchant/AP TFs hit by combat vessels. At Balikpapan five or maybe six ships were sunk. The limiting factor was that the USN DDs expended all their torpedoes. Had Marblehead been able to join the action, it is quite likely that more transports would have been sunk. But that's not to say that a TF under way could not have scattered and escape substantial destruction. Didn't this happen a couple times in the Atlantic?

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 26
- 2/7/2003 6:05:37 AM   
2Stepper


Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline 		Here's a thought...

I agree in principle at least with some of the aspects of what's going on, with one major exception. Can anyone HONESTLY remember seeing or hearing of a transport surviving three 16" shell hits from a BB? Some would roll over and sink from one 5" shell let alone a 16" shell. My point is, the AI in combat needs a tweek...

Which brings me to the other AI/Graphics tweek I'd like to see... A chance... doesn't matter how small... 5% say IF you had an ammo hit, etc... but a CHANCE of a FLASH/KILL of a ship... One hit.. (BB Arizona for ex), and BOOM! One flash explosion, then nothing but a funeral pyre of smoke as the ship just evaporates and sinks... This would work well too for those hard to kill supply barges that take 10 hits from 5" shells and don't sink right off. LOL! Fix that, and add a lil extra glitz on the sinkings and I think you'll have a winner... Cause I look at the battles themselves like this... If they're important, they're fun to watch... it's like TV, if I don't care what's going on, I can always change the channel! :D UV is a hit, and WiTP is a hit in the making.. :)

_____________________________


"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 27
- 2/7/2003 6:29:07 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by 2Stepper
[B]Here's a thought...

I agree in principle at least with some of the aspects of what's going on, with one major exception. Can anyone HONESTLY remember seeing or hearing of a transport surviving three 16" shell hits from a BB? Some would roll over and sink from one 5" shell let alone a 16" shell. My point is, the AI in combat needs a tweek...

[/B][/QUOTE]

Dont recall any BB-AK interactions off the top of me head. Closest you get is Leyte and Savo (CA's next best thing) :) However i could easily see an AK surviving three such hits, depending on the type of shell (AP or HE) and the Hit location of course. Part of the reason the Japanese didn't do more damage to Taffy 3's CVE's was due to their complete lack of armor coupled with the IJN firing AP shells. Under such conditions, more often than not, the shellfire would pass completely through the hull before exploding causing minimal damage in the process (crew/troop casualties due to splinters is another thing if we're talking a AK packed to the gills with troops)

For a hit to be lethal requires two components. Type, and Hit Location. A 16 inch AP shell alone is not going to gurantee lethality. If it hits along the waterline for example, even if it still passes through the ship before exploding you will have flooding as a result and Merchants are very vulnerable to this kind of damage. Also, midline WL hits will also in most cases damage the engines or boilers. A hit through the superstructure on the other hand will probably do little unless it explodes before passing through the light structure causing a blast effect and starting potentially lethal fires.

An HE shell instead of an AP in this case, would be far more potentially devastating as it would behave like a General Purpose (HE) bomb, create a big blast effect and have a much greater chance to start massive fires.... the shell having a much greater preportion of explosive inside the shell as opposed to an AP shell which would have as little as 4% explosive by total weight...the rest solid metal designed to punch through heavy armor.

I'm hoping WitP's model will incorporate improvements that will better represent HL's and types of weapons.....not just size and effect as it is now.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 28
- 2/7/2003 7:38:11 AM   
2Stepper


Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline 		I think we're generally on the same page... cept for one minor note. The BB vs AK/AP conflict I was referring to was one that occured in a UV game I played. In fact they tend to occur a few times in the course of the single player gameplay I've had. And quite frankly they're unrealistic in the extreme. I have to concede the point about APvsHE shells. I don't know if that's being considered, but in my mind, a 16" shell or even the 18 inchers of the Yamato/Musashi (flying volkswagons) SHOULD blow a transport off the surface of the water. Hence the notion of the FLASH/KILL graphic I was talking about. Either in ship vs ship conflicts, or ESPECIALLY when hit by a bomb from a plane. I've seen MANY graphics of IJN transports just coming apart from critical hits. The shear "cool" value of such a graphic would be a nice gloss to finish off an otherwise effective combat system.

For others, don't get freaky over the idea that I might be saying it's totally "realistic" with the line for line battles left and right, etc... It's not. BUT, in defense of the game, it's also one of the best translations of a great old board style wargame (PACIFIC WAR) to the computer screen. Something I've been looking for, for SOME TIME NOW! Next project in my mind would be bringing RISE AND FALL of the THIRD REICH to the PC... I know it was attempted and failed years ago by Avalon Hill, but in this day and age, a success with that effort should be childs play.

WiTP couldn't come out too soon in my book... even though it's missing an online TCP/IP option, BUT, that's another argument entirely. :D LOL!

_____________________________


"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 29
- 2/10/2003 9:49:23 AM   
Zakhal


Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Status: offline 		I really liekd the UV naval combat, though i think it could use more options, things and special happenings to juice it up. Its a bit sterile and static "slugmatch" now. Little drama would always help.

Im also a fan of football manager games with 2d/3d match engines.

Its just a gameplay aspect i really fancy. Choosing up policies, giving few orders and forming up the "team" and then starting the "match" and watching it go real-time to see whether your tactic was sound.:D

(in reply to Paul Vebber)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Naval combat Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.516