Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: tulsaexec

I will tell you how good this game is. It is on my laptop at work!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: VegasOZ

Looks GOOD...
Plays GOOD...
Price is GOOD...

YUP... All is GOOD...

Very entertaining, GREAT JOB by the Devs...

Highly recommended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tulsaexec

Erik,

I've been modding the units.txt file for some interesting combat variations!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

A) You can select unit glow in the options, might help a bit.
Also do a page up or down to move through your units before you hit end turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Texican

While I still favor this game as a purchase, there is a trend I am seeing (and have seen in other operational strategy games in the past decade that I find disturbing. Some scenarios are designed to where they have to play out in a certain linear order. I'm not talking in relation to other scenarios, but rather within the single scenario itself.

Ex. You are supposed to fight and win the offshore naval battle FIRST. THEN escort the supply ships off the map next. THEN repel an eastern attack. THEN repel a southern attack. THEN ... etc....

See, the whole thing as if the battle is orchestrated for you and you MUST follow it in the sequence it was intended to play out. How, can I best describe this? Take the Battle of El Alamein as an example (not related to Pacific stuff, but a good example for what I'm trying to describe). There was the bombardment phase, then the mineclearing, then the initial northern assaults, then the southern feint, then the northern breakthrough, then the pursuit.

That's all fine in how it historically happened, but why not let the player design the strategy? Plop the player into the scenario, give the player some goals, then allow the player to exercise his own ingenuity in coming up with a strategy. There is no need to micromanage strategy for the player. See what I'm getting at?

This Pacific game is a fine addition to the Panzer Corps line, but I think it forces strategy on the player. The game is playing overall commander and you're just carrying out tasks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Templer
• I find the color intensity of the landmass almost too luminous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

quote:

ORIGINAL: Texican

While I still favor this game as a purchase, there is a trend I am seeing (and have seen in other operational strategy games in the past decade that I find disturbing. Some scenarios are designed to where they have to play out in a certain linear order. I'm not talking in relation to other scenarios, but rather within the single scenario itself.

Ex. You are supposed to fight and win the offshore naval battle FIRST. THEN escort the supply ships off the map next. THEN repel an eastern attack. THEN repel a southern attack. THEN ... etc....

See, the whole thing as if the battle is orchestrated for you and you MUST follow it in the sequence it was intended to play out. How, can I best describe this? Take the Battle of El Alamein as an example (not related to Pacific stuff, but a good example for what I'm trying to describe). There was the bombardment phase, then the mineclearing, then the initial northern assaults, then the southern feint, then the northern breakthrough, then the pursuit.

That's all fine in how it historically happened, but why not let the player design the strategy? Plop the player into the scenario, give the player some goals, then allow the player to exercise his own ingenuity in coming up with a strategy. There is no need to micromanage strategy for the player. See what I'm getting at?

This Pacific game is a fine addition to the Panzer Corps line, but I think it forces strategy on the player. The game is playing overall commander and you're just carrying out tasks.

Thanks for that I was almost ready to pull the plug on buying this game but if it's one thing I hate it linear war. Guess I'll have to wait for the next latest and greatest thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Texican

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

quote:

ORIGINAL: Texican

While I still favor this game as a purchase, there is a trend I am seeing (and have seen in other operational strategy games in the past decade that I find disturbing. Some scenarios are designed to where they have to play out in a certain linear order. I'm not talking in relation to other scenarios, but rather within the single scenario itself.

Ex. You are supposed to fight and win the offshore naval battle FIRST. THEN escort the supply ships off the map next. THEN repel an eastern attack. THEN repel a southern attack. THEN ... etc....

See, the whole thing as if the battle is orchestrated for you and you MUST follow it in the sequence it was intended to play out. How, can I best describe this? Take the Battle of El Alamein as an example (not related to Pacific stuff, but a good example for what I'm trying to describe). There was the bombardment phase, then the mineclearing, then the initial northern assaults, then the southern feint, then the northern breakthrough, then the pursuit.

That's all fine in how it historically happened, but why not let the player design the strategy? Plop the player into the scenario, give the player some goals, then allow the player to exercise his own ingenuity in coming up with a strategy. There is no need to micromanage strategy for the player. See what I'm getting at?

This Pacific game is a fine addition to the Panzer Corps line, but I think it forces strategy on the player. The game is playing overall commander and you're just carrying out tasks.

Thanks for that I was almost ready to pull the plug on buying this game but if it's one thing I hate it linear war. Guess I'll have to wait for the next latest and greatest thing.

Please understand, I strongly recommended the game. Also, the linearity is nowhere near to the micromanaged gameplay of Blitzkrieg (if you ever played that). There is some, but not extreme.

The game plays most similarly to the Afrika Korps expansion pack of Panzer Corps. Not quite as free in strategic approach as Panzer Corps itself, but has a few pop-ups when events occur mid-scenario. I guess, different flavors of play between the two.

I do think most will get months of enjoyment out of this game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Notorious Bob

First impressions eh?...

Pros

Very slick and polished presentation
Good gameplay
Scale seems to be effective - i.e. unit size, level of control
Combat system
Absorbing
Tech development track

Cons
It's not Uncommon Valor (or a successor to it)
It's not War in the Pacific (or a successor to it)
I'd prefer to see more historical accuracy e.g. Pearl Harbour's battleship row
Some scenario initial force deployments are "odd" e.g. in the Coral Sea, Port Moresby would never be undefended
That you have to win every scenario to progress - why?
Unrealistic ammunition - Dive bombers with unlimited bombs, subs with unlimited torpedoes etc.


Conclusion
Going to be sticking with it and see how the game develops with future updates. Sadly it hasn't filled the niche that I was expecting - 10 years on I was hoping for a refresh of Uncommon Valor and this isn't it. Is OoB:P trying just a little too hard to appeal to a different demographic by being more "game" than "strategy"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

My first impressions. Well, it's fun! I don't really like that the campaign is not a true campaign it's a collections of small scenarios. I should have researched more before buying. I do not like this sort of liner play. I thought the campaign meant that I would control the Allied or Japanese forces and fight it out.

I thought (incorrectly on my part) it would be more like Strategic Command or Storm Over the Pacific (only way better). So far I think it is a fun beer and pretzel game. I just wish I could fight the war on my own terms.

Oh, BTW, who designed the Oahu map and completely left out the Ko'olau Mountains!