Slitherine

kverdon wrote:I will agree with Andy that some of the criticism, mine to the forefront, has been harsh but it is borne out of the frustration with the series. It has turned a bit ugly in that the people developing the OOB series appear to be oblivious to any feedback, and as a result, it has gotten more pointed. Each follow on DLC has gotten worse, not better in it's content. What we all seem to be coming back to is that, somewhere in the background there appears to be a good game system in OOB that just needs some kinks worked out of it. That game system gets lost in really, really, poor scenario design. I am not sure why it has to be that way. It could be for 1 of 2 reasons.

1. The scenario designers just don't get how to design scenarios for historical games and the target audience of the series.. Though I am a proponent of historical accuracy, in this type of game what I am really wanting is historical context. What I mean is that individual units should function similar to their historical counterparts in terms of efficacy and the scenarios should reflect a historical context. The idea is not to recreate history but to examine "What if...". Your (Andy2012) ideas for a breakout scenario are JUST what I am talking about. THAT should have been the nature of the game. Neither the scenarios in Blitzkrieg or Kriegsmarine recreate the historical context of "feel" of their subject matter. Often they appear to be parodies of the subject matter, hence the parodies of the names.

2. The scenario design has actually been crafted to hid some glaring deficiencies in the game system. I.E., they tried to put together something that looked right but then found that it fell apart when tested against the game system. They then created odd scenarios with artificial victory conditions in an attempt to make them more challenging. I have this sinking feeling this is the case but then Erik seems to have crafted some pretty good scenarios and even a campaign that is far superior to the original so maybe there is hope.

As to Halder's comments I would first thank you for your service, that does mean a lot. The intent with these games is not to "Play War" but to use them to explore the history of the subject matter. Given a well designed system, it can be used to follow along and understand the decision making used by the commanders of the day and to also see what happens if a different strategy is employed or a mistake not recreated. Does the outcome change? If so how? Yes, these are historical events that are being portrayed that folks of both sides fought and died for, it is thus fitting to try and at least make an effort to recognize that. My only argument with your statement is in that NOT following the historical context, you are actually just "Playing War".

My message to the devs would be: "Study your subject matter and understand the background of the subject you are trying to portray. Then create a series of scenarios that explore that subject matter and allow for the exploration of "what if...." to come to play. Secondary victory conditions should play into that as well as guide the player into meeting historical conditions. Having a game that follows a historical context and is also fun are not mutually exclusive conditions. Panzer Corps did it well, I believe OOB could as well.

bjarmson wrote:I'm fed up with OoB releasing really substandard war scenarios. I've been a reliable customer, buying all of their DLC. This expenditure gives me a right to criticize them when they are as bad as Blitzkrieg and particularly Kriegsmarine are. For those who suggest I become a beta tester or join the army, don't want to be a beta tester (would only be canned) and long ago drafted into the Marines sent to Vietnam where I was wounded in combat. Halder, instead of just destroying your computer upon losing it would be more reality inducing if it explodes resulting in dismemberment or death.

Over the years I've read hundreds of histories, biographies, etc, dealing with WWII, WWI, the American Civil War, Roman warfare, and on and on. I think I know at least a little about war both intellectually and in reality. If you are going to call your main game Order of Battle: WWII, I expect it to model WWII battles. If you want to make up hypothetical or fictitious WWII battles, the DLC should clearly indicate this. To label a DLC as Blitzkrieg and then make the scenarios not remotely close to giving one the experience of the speed of Blitzkrieg warfare is misleading at the very least, at the worse it's .... If some of the above people don't mind that the scenarios have little to do with historical realities, fine, have fun with the fantasy scenarios, but many of us expect some attempt to model the actual battles referred to. We want to experience WWII, not fight imaginary battles that seem increasingly a means for the game developers to release DLC quickly. With Kriegsmarine they've even been able to do away with all that tedious map-making on some scenarios, nothing but ocean on the final one.

If there is any lesson to be learned from WWII naval combat it was that large-gunned surface ship warfare was obsolete (taking place on only a handful of occasions, mostly at night when WWII aircraft were useless). Aircraft carriers ruled the seas. Kriegsmarine simply ignores this lesson, and insists the Allies would also. You can easily win Kriegsmarine without purchasing a single German carrier (perhaps only in the final scenario). This flouts everything we know about WWII naval combat. Except for submarine warfare this DLC is completely bogus factually. I have no problem with hypothetical scenarios if they can be made to deal with possible alternate outcomes, such as what if the US had lost at Midway, well within the realm of possibilities. Such a loss would have delayed much of what happened subsequently in the Pacific in interesting ways (for instance, without carrier air cover the battle for Guadalcanal almost certainly would not have happened, at least in Aug 42). However, US resource availability, technological superiority, and industrial capacity would have given the US the upper hand by the beginning of 1944, if not earlier. Lots of interesting, plausible scenarios could be developed from this, but OoB ignores this in their post Japanese-victory Midway scenarios by insisting the US would simply throw up its hands in despair and stop trying to win the Pacific war. Nonsense. Hypothetical does not mean stupid, which is what many of the scenarios in Blitzkrieg and virtually all of Kriegsmarine reflect.

Mojko wrote:I must say that the last scenario was really a letdown. It wasn't challenging at all (middle difficulty). Also I was saving RPs to upgrade to O-class cruisers and H-class battleships and the campaign suddenly ended. I did some research in the editor and I found type XXI submarine (German u-boat). It feels like the campaign was supposed to be longer, but was truncated due to time constraints. It's a shame, really. I really prefer bigger DLCs even if they cost more money.

Horst wrote:

Mojko wrote:I must say that the last scenario was really a letdown. It wasn't challenging at all (middle difficulty). Also I was saving RPs to upgrade to O-class cruisers and H-class battleships and the campaign suddenly ended. I did some research in the editor and I found type XXI submarine (German u-boat). It feels like the campaign was supposed to be longer, but was truncated due to time constraints. It's a shame, really. I really prefer bigger DLCs even if they cost more money.

Yes, there is definitely more interesting content lacking with all available units from 44 on. Where is the fun by just getting the aircraft carriers with good planes if you can hardly play with them for a while? The previous campaigns all had about 12 scenarios, but here we only get 9. What happened? 3 more scenarios until a fictional naval invasion of the US East-coast would have been fun!

I have been resisting the dark side, in favor of my loyalty to OOB. But the signs are there, and I cannot ignore them: The latest DLC being roundly trashed in the forum, sloppy stuff (errors and typos) being reported and not addressed, the game manual never being updated, the developers largely in absentia.

People keep comparing OOB to PC, with the one drawback for me about PC having been the wooden animation. If PC2 introduces the animation style of OOB without overwhelming my frames per second, and PC2 continues what I have heard are the best aspects of PC, well . . .

I can no longer look away. Here I am.

kverdon wrote:2. BB/BC Main Gun separation and cool down. Again this fails, you should not have to choose between firing the main battery and secondary batteries. They each historically had their own directors and could engage separate targets. This gets further absurd when you factor in that you cannot fire your AA weapons and your main battery either. Now I COULD see making the player have a choice between firing the secondary batteries at either a surface target or an air target as may ships had dual purpose secondary batteries (the KM, did not but I'd give a pass at that). Having to choose between firing at a BB at range 2 or a Swordfish at range 2 is nuts. Keep the cooldown and allow the BB/BCs to fire both main an secondary batteries in a round.

bru888 wrote:You know what I don't like about this thread? That nobody from the Artistocrats considers it important enough to spend time here defending their game. That either they are so busy or disengaged that they don't have the time or the inclination to do so.

You know something else that bothers me about OOB? That if we did not have Erik developing BETTER content on his own and free of charge, and if we did not have him prodding the developers with his questions and suggestions for the past two years, I think this game would be truly crap by now.

Here, full disclosure. I posted in the PZC2 forum for the first time yesterday. This is what I said:

I have been resisting the dark side, in favor of my loyalty to OOB. But the signs are there, and I cannot ignore them: The latest DLC being roundly trashed in the forum, sloppy stuff (errors and typos) being reported and not addressed, the game manual never being updated, the developers largely in absentia.

People keep comparing OOB to PC, with the one drawback for me about PC having been the wooden animation. If PC2 introduces the animation style of OOB without overwhelming my frames per second, and PC2 continues what I have heard are the best aspects of PC, well . . .

I can no longer look away. Here I am.

Meteor2 wrote:Its not the technical forum here, I know, but as mentioned before:
The game is still unstable on my PC (Windows) and it has not really improved from the base game onwards.
Game crashings 2-3 times in every scenario.