Naval Action Update

[Comte de Brueys]

Question is: How much fun is the cooperative gaming?

I play War Thunder and each time I start in a B-17 the other bombers split up and we're easy targets for single fighters. The chance to survive in a bomber box or (naval) line of ships is much higher.

Is there a kind of fleet management in this game. Maybe an virtual arrow that points at the direction the Admiral want you to sail? Otherwise you have a big melee of ships.

[Nightmoss]

Question is: How much fun is the cooperative gaming?

I play War Thunder and each time I start in a B-17 the other bombers split up and we're easy targets for single fighters. The chance to survive in a bomber box or (naval) line of ships is much higher.

Is there a kind of fleet management in this game. Maybe an virtual arrow that points at the direction the Admiral want you to sail? Otherwise you have a big melee of ships.

I haven't had a chance to sail in the game that much, but the few 'missions' I've been in someone (usually the player with the larger ship) tries to organize a line of battle. It never seems to last long once the shooting starts. The very first time I play someone broke off and sailed to a fort where they anchored their ship manned the fort and proceeded to pummel the other side.

Fleet commanders and simulated signaling would increase the immersion. I'm just not sure your 'average' gamer is going to play the way the game's designers intend it to be played? I really hope it gets a nice number of serious players.

[fredmiracle]

I play War Thunder and each time I start in a B-17 the other bombers split up and we're easy targets for single fighters. The chance to survive in a bomber box or (naval) line of ships is much higher.

I know, isn't that weird? I'm not a veteran WT player, but my experience has been the same. I've never seen any effective cooperation, even though when you read about WW2 aerial combat the team-tactics seem to be absolutely crucial. I find the free-for-all random melee a letdown...

[Kentop]

I know, isn't that weird? I'm not a veteran WT player, but my experience has been the same. I've never seen any effective cooperation, even though when you read about WW2 aerial combat the team-tactics seem to be absolutely crucial. I find the free-for-all random melee a letdown...

Memoir '44 dictates, by a stack of cards, when and where you will attack the enemy. You have no choice but to obey commands. That's "cooperation" in the military.

[7eat51]

And thats my 2000th post

Hip-hip-hooray -

And what a post it was.

Memoir '44 dictates, by a stack of cards, when and where you will attack the enemy. You have no choice but to obey commands. That's "cooperation" in the military.

This is my next major game purchase (unless GMT hurries up with many of their new titles).

[csadn]

Memoir '44 dictates, by a stack of cards, when and where you will attack the enemy. You have no choice but to obey commands. That's "cooperation" in the military.

And that is why that particular system sucks out loud -- read any account of any major campaign, and it will be rife with generals ignoring, misinterpreting, or otherwise handling orders in ways guaranteed to leave a battle plan in tatters. Letting actual players control units is far more realistic... for good or ill. >:)

[DeRuyter]

And that is why that particular system sucks out loud -- read any account of any major campaign, and it will be rife with generals ignoring, misinterpreting, or otherwise handling orders in ways guaranteed to leave a battle plan in tatters. Letting actual players control units is far more realistic... for good or ill. >:)

Many people seem to differ since the system is quite popular, more so the Commands & Colors line; Ancients and Napoleonics or Battle Cry for ACW. Look at the system in a different way and it simulates exactly what you are saying. So as the player you have 3 cards in your hand, playing one and drawing a new one in each turn. Most of the cards specify what actions you can take in a sector of the battlefield, like Skirmish Left Flank which allows you to perform actions with one unit in that sector. Now if your plan as the player is to commit major forces to an attack on the left flank a skirmish card doesn't help, nor does it help if you don't have any left flank cards in your hand. Hence you can say that this is the general in command of that wing/flank, etc, ignoring or misinterpreting your orders.

Not quite "realistic" to have a player as the omniscient 100 foot tall general to have all their units do exactly as they wish is it?

Mind you I am not saying one design philosophy is better, some people like games with FOW, others don't, doesn't mean that the game "sucks" though.

[csadn]

Not quite "realistic" to have a player as the omniscient 100 foot tall general to have all their units do exactly as they wish is it?

I have a hard-enough time getting them to shoot straight....

A related problem: I have never been in a C&C game where I felt like I was *actually playing the game* -- I feel more like the game designer is calling me every couple minutes and saying "OK, move that piece there, and that piece there; no, no, don't move that one...." Bored me to tears.

Oh, and The SO IDed another catastrophic fault: The victory conditions and combat system give the victory to whoever can shoot the most Infantry (Infantry are easiest to hit; and victory is purely a result of "killing [x] units first"); couple that to the completely-random nature of unit activation, and victory goes to whoever gets the best activation-card draws.

No, it's a rubbish system, and I cannot for the life of me fathom its popularity save for the graybeards who didn't have any alternatives back-when. Give me _BattleTech_'s initiative system any day.

[DeRuyter]

I have a hard-enough time getting them to shoot straight....

Oh, and The SO IDed another catastrophic fault: The victory conditions and combat system give the victory to whoever can shoot the most Infantry (Infantry are easiest to hit; and victory is purely a result of "killing [x] units first"); couple that to the completely-random nature of unit activation, and victory goes to whoever gets the best activation-card draws.

No, it's a rubbish system, and I cannot for the life of me fathom its popularity save for the graybeards who didn't have any alternatives back-when. Give me _BattleTech_'s initiative system any day.

Not so, there are plenty of scenarios in the C&CN where you collect victory banners for capturing objective hexes. Maybe it is popular because it is a good/fun game, despite your objections to it.

Keeping in mind that unit activation in an IGO/UGO game is a different concept than an initiative system, just what is so good about Battle Tech? (caveat - we may actually agree!).