Slitherine

...don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing the OoB and I think it is a great game with a great potential, despite being somewhat difficult to mod (compared to Panzer Corps).

AI on player's own side - why ?

I am sure this has been mentioned before... the AI does never ever any good, in any game, unless it is prescripted, and one usually does not replay any scenario with too many scripts, etc. In singleplayer there is no other chance but to face the AI one must live with that. But why the hell, and with this quite long "thinking" time the AI takes, do we have the AI troops on our own side ? "Fixed" (undermanned for example) units are ok, but why do I have to sit here and watch my 'stupid' computer playing my game for me ?

There are not many units under player's contol during the first missions anyway, and their movement-combat options are quite restricted compared to the Panzer Corps ; which is ok, it's a different game, I take it. The problem is that it may be difficult for the player to get back to these missions again and again, because with the lack of possibilities, the initial scenarios turn into the same long thing again, with mostly the same results, where you influence little and you spend your time watching the computer "thinking" and doing ridiculous things.

Like during the Pearl Harbor mission. Is it supposed to be fun, during most of the AI turns, to watch a unit of Kate bombers loaded with 1,760lb bombs, trying to hit a US supply truck which is sitting in the same hex all the time doing nothing, not even trying to get away... and attacking some fuel depot the other turn, especially when it's mostly -1 damage each turn ? "Let's try the trucks, BANZAI"... "ok, we did not hit them, let's go for the depot, BANZAI"... "did not work better, let's see if we can hit a truck this time, BANZAI" (only the initial production version B5N1 had machine guns in the wings btw, none was present at the Pearl Harbor attack I think, so no straffing by the torpedo carrying Kates, please; straffing which would never do any serious damage with just two 7.7mm machine guns anyway, much less would they damage a fuel depot or a hangar, and I should not even mention a battleship... where Val does -2 or -3 damage with it's 250kg bombs, the Kate is able to do -1 with it's (non-existant) machineguns.

Unexpected combat (in)efficiency

With the Japanese you have the little submarine there, which is nice, yet it is soooo easy to sneak into the harbor... where you can do nothing. You get there, you fire your torpedo, you hit *hit, 0 damage. There is no naval attack for this toy. It is perfectly historical perhaps, but where's the fun in a game to have it ? I mean historical... they did not get a real chance to fire their torpedos. It would be fun if it was tricky to sneak in, and if you actually had some chance to hit an enemy ship... The attack animations are nice, but regardless the result, they show hit and explosion. So the little sumbarine hits the battleship with it's torpedo, the torpedo explodes, but the ship is not damaged at all. It's kind of pointless than to have this high level of art, as what it actually does is to confuse the player. And to waste his time once he already gets familiar with the beauty of the game art.

On the other hand the rear gunners of the bombers are very efficient. I would not expect a unit of Wildcats or Warhawks to loose any plane when they attack such ducks as the Vals or Kates. But it's mostly 3:1... So the fighters do not kill the unit of bombers in three turns, and they loose 3 points, which makes them even less efficient for any other attack. On the other hand, over Pearl Harbor, and over the Philipines, the A6M2 should rule the skies... they do not. It's 3:2 against the US fighters, perhaps because the Kido Butai veteran pilots are all green in this game ; they did not see the action over China. With a little help of the AA artillery, the US fighters are soon masters of the sky over Oahu, 1) because there is too many of them, 2) because the A6M2 with the inexperienced pilots of the Kido Butai are not good enough to even try to protect the bombers from them... they often choose to strafe a fuel depot instead of chasing the enemy planes, 3) because of the super-AA artillery... while a bomber which throws a bomb or a torpedo can't move anymore and has to stay over it's target to receive another volley of the AA artillery, the towed AA artillery units can move over several hexes and shoot at the planes in the same turn. It makes them very efficient ground fighters who travel at a speed 120-500 km/h compared to the planes they chase. A Val bomber arrives, throws a bomb on a battleship, and the AA fires. In the next turn, it throws another bomb, it can't move more than one hex away, the AA fires again. And another AA unit arrives from 2 or 3 hexes and attacks the bomber too. The result is that a squadron of dive bombers caused some -3 damage to the fixed and undermanned battleship, and is depleted by the light 37mm AA cannons.

Pearl Harbor btw

There is no strategy nor tactics in here, you can decide to go for a battleship or for a fuel depot, you can destroy the battleships, you can destroy the fuel depots, but it's about it; you can't even prevent the US fighters from taking off, because the damage your bombers or fighters can cause to the airfields in a few first turns is not important enough - as Japanese you are being urged to shoot down some Kingfishers taking off here or there over Oahu like if these were any threat to anything; as American you watch the hidden movements of your AI opponent who is trying to find anything it might throw a bomb at, and instead of attacking valuable targets it keeps loosing points by attacking one of the radar stations, the only one defended by AA. It rarely destroys the station, with 5 or 6 raids of -1 and -2 results... it's boring and it's very boring if you play the mission for the 5th time. The radars are great, but with the current game system, number of units and their stats it gets simply too long to take them out, and it has no real effect, it does not help you...

I have played the mission many times for both sides, and it gets annoying very fast, there is no real objective, except for the three battleships, and the mission is always the very same. It would be much more fun if you could position all your units before it starts. It would be more fun without the unnecessary parts which are not nice and have no meaning, like the AI Kate attacking the AI supply truck. Give the supply truck to the player, so that he can use it to transport pilots to an airfield, or something like that...

...

My first impressions are good. Yet the game, in my opinion, is too much based on the ancient concept of the Panzer General (brought nearly to a perfection by the Panzer Corps) to ignore so much of what these games did and offered regarding the basic rules and ingame tactics. I mean: you try to be different, and you really are different (I like the supply system for instance), but some things should still be in use - like the attack-movement rules.

You have some good points. Initially I liked OOB: Pacific and took it as great improvement for Panzer Corps. But I switched back to Panzer Corps. There are some very good ideas in OOB, but there are some game mechanics that are very annoying. A lot of them involve all kind of combat with planes. The most annoying thing is for me that Tac Bombers barely do damage to tanks making the latter kind of owerpowered especially in the early game. While the sea battles are fun enough, the land battles, especially the later ones,are very, very slow. I could live with that if you had tons of units like in Talonsofts Pacific front but its just the game rules that prevent you to play it fast. I did not play it through fully yet and maybe give another shot to it, but at some point I got bored.

True, and I especially agree with Pearl Harbor and the AI. Like, what is even Pearl Harbor? You just choose targets practically, and those targets affect the outcome of the game. But then again.. It is the first mission of the Japanese Campaign.

Well, listen. I don't have the experience to be commenting on the AI too much but I do have some impressions.

First of all, I do see the AI making some questionable moves, like moving a damaged aircraft carrier toward the enemy fleet. However, having just been whupped by the Japanese in the Coral Sea (middle difficulty setting, which setting should be taken into account when discussing the AI, perhaps), I'd say the AI does a good job overall. At one point, it sent a cruiser around the backside of an island in FOW and was upon my isolated battleship and aircraft carrier pairing (they had lagged behind to pick up the planes coming back from the Tulagi raid). My battleship sent the cruiser to the bottom but not before it damaged my carrier. That was dumb of me and smart of the AI.

Speaking of Pearl Harbor, I played it as the US. All I can say is, perhaps the Japanese version of the scenario is different because I found Pearl Harbor to be very exciting and challenging. For one thing, you are supposed to figure out that the way to wake up the various installations and bases is to send that stupid medical jeep flying all over the island! And, in the end, when I was left with ONE battleship with only ONE strength point left, well, that was pretty darned draining and satisfying for a PC game experience. By the way, that battleship showed up in the Coral Sea scenario, I was pleased to see.

I'm a Panzer General and Panzer Corps veteran and when I started playing Order of Battle: Pacific I really hated the mechanics. The problem was that I tried to play it with Panzer Corps mindset and it didn't really work out because Order of Battle: Pacific is a very different game. The best example is that in Panzer Corps you can have insane powerful units that can do a lot of damage on their own. In Order of Battle: Pacific it's much more about group of units fighting group of units and frontlines, flanking. I also really like the retreat mechanic that allows you to preserve units much better compared to Panzer Corps.

I have finished both campaign in Order of Battle: Pacific, the Japanese campaign is much harder, so I liked it much more. I didn't really mind having a partner AI during the campaign, with the exception of Midway, where I could much better utilize my naval forces if I was in direct control, but I guess it's there for balance reasons.

Regarding the damage. I made some experiments and it seems that Order of Battle: Pacific support decimals, so even if 0 damage is displayed, decimal damage is still possible. These decimals add up, so you're still doing some damage at least (my minisub ended sinking the battleship by doing 1 damage). Bomber planes are weak at the start of the campaign, but they are very strong later, so I don't have any complaints. The best way to destroy US fighters in the Pearl Harbour scenario is to bomb them on the ground and when they lift off they have reduced efficiency, so you can use your fighters to take them out.

I agree that Pearl Harbour is a heavily scripted scenario, so some players may not like that, but it shows that developers have put much effort into making it. Also, many players are not aware that you can configure auxiliary units in the deployment phase. In the case of Pearl Harbour, you can change the first wave between bombers and torpedos as you wish.

I've seen your complaints about not being able to move after attacking. I really liked that feature in the Panzer Corps, but in Order of Battle: Pacific it wouldn't work. This game is much more about positioning as I mentioned earlier. Such feature would completely break the game. I would also like to point out that gameplay has to be more important than realism.

Unit experience is actually strange in this game, because unlike in Panzer Corps, it doesn't give you insane combat benefits. Some players even argue if it is even worth using elite replacements at all, because it costs much more RP. I personally use elite replacements on core forces only, but only because I like to see the fancy stars on my units I really like that they added an option for support units to have an alternative experience intake. For example aircraft carriers gain experience by refueling aircraft. I really like this feature, but it could cover more support units (engineers, paratroopers, support ships...).


I like:

- efficiency system
- group vs group combat instead on focus on single units
- both campaigns (Japanese campaign especially)
- unit supply cost system (weaker units are viable, gain supply points from cities and supply ships)
- more class shifting units (especially anti-air recon)
- paratroopers can attack right after landing
- it takes 3 turns to gain control of a city
- no unit overcharge (you can't have more that 10 HP on a unit)

Dislikes / suggestions:

- naval combat (there is an insane defenders advantage, which makes it easy to deal with AI as they will rush to attack into your well prepared formation)
- upgrades without discount are far too expensive (for example I don't think it's worth it to upgrade the destroyers in the US campaign)
- artillery is too powerful (heavy damage to efficiency and unit with low efficiency can be killed easily with anything)
- heavy tanks are not viable (later supply isn't a problem, but they lack "light thread" perk, they are rather slow moving and their power doesn't matter that much, since the focus is on group of units not on a single unit, also if enemy manages to lower your efficiency it can take out your expensive unit easily and replacements are expensive, basically I mean you are better off with more less powerful units compared to fewer stronger units)
- paratroopers are not supply immune (this makes reinforcing pocket with paratroopers not viable)
- recon planes are not viable (it's better to spend supply on other air units that can be used as recons as well)
- replacements system is not very transparent and rounding is bad when unit cost is low
- heavy anti air guns are not very viable (you will want to shoot down smaller airplanes much more, but they can be used as anti-tank guns at least)
- battleships are not viable (too slow, to vulnerable to air, too expensive, it's better to purchase more less powerful units like cruisers)
- submarines are not viable (too slow, to weak, easily detected, not by sonar, but simply running your destroyers through the hex which contains submarine, it's better to purchase units like destroyers)
- I would really like to see land transport system revised, currently I don't think it's viable to buy better transports and even basic trucks are not very useful (with the exception of towed units like artillery and AA guns) because they add 1 extra supply
- Heavy infantry is not very good, the supply is too big (you will need to buy a transport for this)
- I would like to see Specializations revised (for example the extra supply is really bad, special landing craft is bad, because you don't want to attack at the same turn you disembarked because of the lowered efficiency). I think I saw a thread dedicated to specializations, I will write more there and link the thread here (http://www.slitherine.co.uk/forum/viewt ... 49#p588402).

=> This is actually a recurring theme: because of the game mechanics, higher number of weaker more mobile units combined with artillery is in general better than smaller number of strong units

Overall, I really like the game and looking forward to the next expansion

Mojko wrote:- battleships are not viable (too slow, to vulnerable to air, too expensive, it's better to purchase more less powerful units like cruisers)

4 BBs in New Zealand is enough to wipe out the entire enemy navy (with the auxillaries anyway). I haven't seen a cruiser do 6 damage consistantly.

- BNC

Some negative Points should be corrected in this game ASAP:
1.:Flak- Units are much to powerful !!! This shines expecialy in the Pearl Harbor Scenario (Battle of Britain too) were japanese losses are way to high, ruining much off the later american campaign. Flak shoots basically two times (reaction fire plus own turn) while the attacker just ones. Flak Shooting activly scores hits as if the attacking planes are just hanging around to be shoot at. In my oppinion flak should just have reaction fire and that´s it.
2:To an lesser extend this apllyse to PAK- Units also. You can hunt tanks down with unsupported drawn pak in the open. And you can apply just any barreled weapon system like heawy howitzers in this role (historical Mumpitz).
3: Mine laying at sea is a particularly bad game decision because thats creats zones were the AI cant move anymore. Instead of this trait, Sea- Reconplanes should have the ability to spot Subs.
4: Paratroopers should loos Efficiency slower.

BiteNibbleChomp wrote:


4 BBs in New Zealand is enough to wipe out the entire enemy navy (with the auxillaries anyway). I haven't seen a cruiser do 6 damage consistantly.

- BNC

Actually, the New Zealand scenario is good example how poor Battleships are. During my playthrough I pulled my fleet back and engaged them in the far corner of the screen. The 4 Battleships never made it to effective range, because of their slow speed (they can't keep up with the rest of the fleet) and they died of torpedos. If the AI would have 5 cruisers instead (same supply, less RPs), it would have been much more difficult to destroy their fleet.

DirkW wrote:Some negative Points should be corrected in this game ASAP:
4: Paratroopers should loos Efficiency slower.

It's already so. All paratroopers units have "supply resistant" trait. Which does exactly what you described.

Mojko wrote:Actually, the New Zealand scenario is good example how poor Battleships are. During my playthrough I pulled my fleet back and engaged them in the far corner of the screen. The 4 Battleships never made it to effective range, because of their slow speed (they can't keep up with the rest of the fleet) and they died of torpedos. If the AI would have 5 cruisers instead (same supply, less RPs), it would have been much more difficult to destroy their fleet.

If 4 BBs are enough to take out the entire US New Zealand Fleet (without air cover, I might add), then they can't be quite as awful as you try to convince me that they are.

BB attack averages 20 or greater, CA attack <15. (Or at least that's what I remember by not going into the game)

- BNC

My major complaint is the naval battles, specifically the mismatch between range and LOS. The idea that a BB can fire almost twice as far as it's LOS, essentially using other ships as "spotters", is an immersion breaker for me. Not being a naval expert, I looked it up, and it seems only the Brits and U.S. had ANY capability of "firing blind"/via radar, and it was rarely used as it was notoriously inaccurate. "Spotting" via other ships wasn't used at all-- it's not like land arty. Generally, you had to SEE it to HIT it. I modded it to lower the range a couple of points & raised the LOS to match, but it's not really optimal. The whole LOS/range mechanic just doesn't seem to scale to me. Frankly, I haven't been playing it that much anymore although I still like a game now and then.

I am glad the developers invest time to expand this game but before any new expansions are developed I would like them to prioritize an A.I update. I haven´t seen any information about their update plan. I have just finished the Japanese campaign and would like to start the US Campaign but I would not do so before a proper A.I update comes to fix at least the most obvious mistakes and overall passive A.I. Then I would also consider buying Morning Sun.