Slitherine

So far, I like the land combat, especially the efficiency&supply. Its a simple but effective mechanic to simulate weariness, supply etc.

So far I dislike the naval system though. First and foremost while the land forces unit roster includes everything down to hypotethical and prototype units, the naval unit list is severly lacking, including bital ships that were present in the battles depicted in the game. Akagi CV (Midway) and the Kongo Class BB (Guadalcanal) are just two blaring examples. Very few naval unit types overall.

The fleet movement and gunfire mechanics are gimmicky and don't feel right. Battleship fire on smaller vessels seems to be pretty low, I spent some time in the Yamato hunting allied destroyers and crusier in the Java sea and frankly did little damage, espeiclaly in compariuson to my my own destroyers. :/

No critical hits on ships? Downgrade over the older Pacific Gernal.

Shore batteries of different calibers would be cool as well.

For a game centerted on the Pacific, the naval aspects really need more attention. So far the land war is fun and interesting, naval warfare is not.

Sabratha wrote: The fleet movement and gunfire mechanics are gimmicky and don't feel right. Battleship fire on smaller vessels seems to be pretty low, I spent some time in the Yamato hunting allied destroyers and crusier in the Java sea and frankly did little damage, espeiclaly in compariuson to my my own destroyers. :/

2 Nagatos is enough to wipe a destroyer or CL off the map, the challenge is putting them in the correct position.

So I will disagree with that point - naval combat is actually quite fun!

I do second your point about the Akagi etc. however

- BNC

Sabratha wrote:So far, I like the land combat, especially the efficiency&supply. Its a simple but effective mechanic to simulate weariness, supply etc.

So far I dislike the naval system though. First and foremost while the land forces unit roster includes everything down to hypotethical and prototype units, the naval unit list is severly lacking, including bital ships that were present in the battles depicted in the game. Akagi CV (Midway) and the Kongo Class BB (Guadalcanal) are just two blaring examples. Very few naval unit types overall.

The fleet movement and gunfire mechanics are gimmicky and don't feel right. Battleship fire on smaller vessels seems to be pretty low, I spent some time in the Yamato hunting allied destroyers and crusier in the Java sea and frankly did little damage, espeiclaly in compariuson to my my own destroyers. :/

No critical hits on ships? Downgrade over the older Pacific Gernal.

Shore batteries of different calibers would be cool as well.


For a game centerted on the Pacific, the naval aspects really need more attention. So far the land war is fun and interesting, naval warfare is not.

Megamod working... viewtopic.php?f=374&t=66031&p=560225#p560225

Sabratha wrote:So far, I like the land combat, especially the efficiency&supply.

I especially like this efficiency & supply mechanic. If there is no efficiency low lethal outcomes of combat would be frustrating but with efficiency modeled even if attacks do not take lot of opponents strength player can have some sense of progression. Also in offensive, constant combat and movement penalties are forcing units to be pulled out of combat for some time so no super units effect here.

What makes a force is its position combined with strength. I really really really wanted tactical game where movement counts. Cutting off from supply and making sure encirclement will last and not overstretching your own troops in the process provides lot of fun. Supply lines would be great even with simple hex ownership model but this supply source - supply requirement model added new level of complexity in such an elegant and easy to use way.

All in all slow pace of the game is not a hindrance here but it facilitates thinking process.

When it comes to naval component of the game I am still struggling with it but I am aware there are some rules I am not using to its full potential so no final verdict from me on that part. More complex modeling of naval or air warfare is not so common for many players. Land combat is like a second nature to many players and I am under impression if any complexity about air or naval combat is introduced it requires proper learning curve to be fully understood and evaluated.

uran21 wrote:When it comes to naval component of the game I am still struggling with it but I am aware there are some rules I am not using to its full potential so no final verdict from me on that part. More complex modeling of naval or air warfare is not so common for many players. Land combat is like a second nature to many players and I am under impression if any complexity about air or naval combat is introduced it requires proper learning curve to be fully understood and evaluated.

I read the manual and have a good grasp on the rules, ship positioning etc. I just don't like said rules, as they feel very gimmicky and out of place at this sort of scale, moreover they fail to provide realistic combat results.

My views on this:

1) In particular destroyer/small craft cooperation with crusiers and battleships is lacking. Destroyer torpedo attacks on capital ships without escort should be more severe, but such torpedo attacks on capital ships adjacent to destroyers should be less effective.

2) Capital ships that suffered a torpedo attack in a turn should be more vulnerable to gunfire at that turn (they are busy making evasive actions to avoid torpedoes, so cannot keep a cohesive battle line etc - see Guadalcanal, Surigao or Jutland for RL examples).

3) At the same time, long range fire of unengaged capital ships (especially battleships) on destroyers and light crusiers should be more effective.

4) Ships should have a separate attack value against "soft" naval targets (destroyers, CLs) and "hard targets" BBs, well armored CAs). Example: an Atlanta class crusier should be very devastating for japanese DDs in a gun battle, but entirely useless against a Nagato.

5) Coastal guns of different calibers.

6) Having a single "CL" unit for all ligth crusiers could pass ina game about the European WW2, but in a pacific game its a cardinal sin. Both sides had some CL types specifically tailored to certain functions (Kuma - torpedo&DD support, Atlanta -AA role) and not having this in the game is a poor decision. Sorry to say that. The comparison with the wide selection of Land units (hypotethical US heavy tanks and whatnot) is particlarly jarring.

Sabratha what you say makes a lot of sense to me but if I understood it correctly you do not have a problem with how naval aspect is dealt with in its basic way, you would just like that existing model is upgraded even more? How about submarines and the way they are presented? I'll need to dive more in naval aspect myself.