Some thoughts from a Pacific General fan

[MrFancypants]

Hi guys, I figured I'd share some opinions on this game from the perspective of someone who really liked the General series games. First of, I really like the efficiency and supply system you came up with. It definitely has a lot of potential, but maybe it could be fine-tuned a little. In my opinion, villages create too much supply of their own, which makes it difficult to actually use the feature to your advantage as you are often fighting small groups of units grouped around a village or city. In my opinion supply should originate mostly from exit-hexes at the edge of maps and from major military bases/supply dumps, when supply ships are not an option. Given the importance of submarines in the Pacific theatre it might also be nice to be able to attack supply routes from off the map. This would also increase the importance of air superiority, which seems to play a marginal role in this game.

As for naval combat: in my opinion this needs an overhaul. It seems to me that the most important aspect of naval combat in this game is the number of fields you move. The faster you go, the less damage you deal. There is also some effect from course changes (or perhaps this is supposed to reflect the effect of broadside firing angles). In my opinion this does not reflect WWII naval combat. You probably know this just as well as everyone else who plays this sort of game, but battleships were pretty accurate, even over long distances when both targets were moving quickly. A DD should not be able to survive a point blank range attack from a BB, regardless of the speed of either unit. Conversely, a DD's torpedo attack against a battleship from point blank range should be very dangerous to the battleship. For reference, read about the battle of Matapan or look at the fate of the Kirishima.

In Pacific General there was also a critical damage system, which is another factor in why the current system in OoB:P does not work well. For example, a bomb hit from a dive bomber seems to mostly produce a very small amount of damage, whereas torpedo bombers deal a lot of damage. In reality, there were cases of single bombs destroying battleships and multiple bombs failing to sink a destroyer. A critical damage system allows to model this kind of behavior. As for torpedo bombers, it is true that they were generally more dangerous, but they also had pretty bad loss rates when they were attacking capital ships with unsurpressed aa-guns, which limited their effectiveness.

The next point is air combat. It seems that the feature of multiple fighters getting a bonus vs a single fighter was removed, which is unfortunate. The idea of low-strength units being more difficult to kill seems a bit strange to me as well. It does make sense that a dispersed unit is more difficult to intercept, but that should only apply when the low strength unit is fleeing. A low strength fighter that remains in combat should be easy to destroy. The way this is modeled now there is a big risk of the attacker losing units when engaging a vastly inferior unit. Maybe this could be resolved by implementing a morale-based dispersal feature. Something similar to the retreat-mechanic of ground units giving aircraft the option to escape towards the nearest airfield.

But I mostly like the way ground combat works and have a lot of fun with the scripted campaign events!

Anyway, I'm curious what you guys think.

[TDefender]

As for naval combat: in my opinion this needs an overhaul. It seems to me that the most important aspect of naval combat in this game is the number of fields you move. The faster you go, the less damage you deal. There is also some effect from course changes (or perhaps this is supposed to reflect the effect of broadside firing angles). In my opinion this does not reflect WWII naval combat. You probably know this just as well as everyone else who plays this sort of game, but battleships were pretty accurate, even over long distances when both targets were moving quickly.

Although I also think naval combat needs a little overhaul (for ex subs should do more damage imho) I don't agree about battleships, all scenarios during WWII (Pacific, Mediterranean, European North Sea) told us that the very suggestive and terrific BBs were quite worthless, If I were a fleet commander I would never trade off the best BB with 4 fast destroyers or a couple of modern cruisers... moreover I think bbs damage in game is quite good, maybe they are even more effective than their historical counterparts

[MrFancypants]

As for naval combat: in my opinion this needs an overhaul. It seems to me that the most important aspect of naval combat in this game is the number of fields you move. The faster you go, the less damage you deal. There is also some effect from course changes (or perhaps this is supposed to reflect the effect of broadside firing angles). In my opinion this does not reflect WWII naval combat. You probably know this just as well as everyone else who plays this sort of game, but battleships were pretty accurate, even over long distances when both targets were moving quickly.

Although I also think naval combat needs a little overhaul (for ex subs should do more damage imho) I don't agree about battleships, all scenarios during WWII (Pacific, Mediterranean, European North Sea) told us that the very suggestive and terrific BBs were quite worthless, If I were a fleet commander I would never trade off the best BB with 4 fast destroyers or a couple of modern cruisers... moreover I think bbs damage in game is quite good, maybe they are even more effective than their historical counterparts

It is true that they took on a far less important role than anticipated, but that was mostly due to the effectivenes of other weapons, the roles they were used for and the value attached to them. A battleship on convoy escort duty in the north Atlantic obviously didn't achieve very impressive results. But what I'm arguing is not their strategic importance but rather their damage potential in combat and the way it is represented in this game.

[stragen]

Why the title? As a fan of the civilization series i have to say this is a different game. Does that help?

And for your comparison to Pacific General or Panzer General: This is a different game. They have similarities but also different approaches. So there is no reason for "But in that game it was handled this way. You should do it this way." And those games are far away from being WWII simulations. It's only a tactical game with some strategic decisions. They try to be historical exact but sometimes the balance of the game needs some changes/mechanics. And the what if scenario is also artistic freedom.

For me i don't want that OOB: Pacific would be changed to Panzer General or Pacific General. Because then i could play those games (what if have done).

[adherbal]

Thanks for your feedback.

The next point is air combat. It seems that the feature of multiple fighters getting a bonus vs a single fighter was removed, which is unfortunate. The idea of low-strength units being more difficult to kill seems a bit strange to me as well. It does make sense that a dispersed unit is more difficult to intercept, but that should only apply when the low strength unit is fleeing. A low strength fighter that remains in combat should be easy to destroy. The way this is modeled now there is a big risk of the attacker losing units when engaging a vastly inferior unit. Maybe this could be resolved by implementing a morale-based dispersal

To be sure the mechanic is properly understood: both attacker AND defender are affected by the same damage reduction. So proportionally, the attacker does not suffer any more damage by attacking a low strength unit than it would against a full strength opponent.

[MrFancypants]

Thanks for your feedback.
To be sure the mechanic is properly understood: both attacker AND defender are affected by the same damage reduction. So proportionally, the attacker does not suffer any more damage by attacking a low strength unit than it would against a full strength opponent.

That's odd. Especially in the IJN Pearl Harbor scenario I noticed that a predicted 0/0 or 1/0 outcome (in favour of the attacker) when the attacker was at full strength and the defender down to 1 would really turn out to be -1/-1.
Anyway, I hope you are not discouraged by the mostly crticial feedback I posted. I really like the game and your support for the modding community!

Why the title? As a fan of the civilization series i have to say this is a different game. Does that help?

And for your comparison to Pacific General or Panzer General: This is a different game. They have similarities but also different approaches. So there is no reason for "But in that game it was handled this way. You should do it this way." And those games are far away from being WWII simulations. It's only a tactical game with some strategic decisions. They try to be historical exact but sometimes the balance of the game needs some changes/mechanics. And the what if scenario is also artistic freedom.

For me i don't want that OOB: Pacific would be changed to Panzer General or Pacific General. Because then i could play those games (what if have done).

You seem upset. If you like the game I have no problem with that. I like it too, I'd just like it better if naval combat was more in line with what seems plausible to me (which does not mean that it needs to be an exact copy of Pacific General).

If you've ever played Civilization and were surprised when a catapult defeated a tank you may know what I mean.

[simcc]

First off, we all have our opinion and we should respect each other opinion even when we don't agree with it hahaha.

I do not quite agree with the naval overhaul as I think current mechanic is good and incorporating a critical hit is always a good idea (kinda like banzai charge, you nvr know when you get lucky) but having said that no need for complete overhaul

Aircraft I do not agree again that lower strenght must have disadvantage as the last survivors usually is the best pilots, IRL battle green pilot die first and when. A squadron is low strenght means the survivors are the toughest to kill hence it's ok to say you need extra effort in killing them hahaha.

Supply I do agree on that point I mean village and city gives food and ration but not ammo so the supply should reflect that abit. Ammo dump is good idea gives more strategic play in supply cut.

Lastly totally agree on civ5 cats vs tank I was too shock that I keep laughing but end of the day maybe that rock hit the turret or some weak point engine to wreck a tank hahaha