Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
The_Big_Red_1

New RTS WW2 Naval Game suggestions?

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

164
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,526 posts
3,480 battles

with the brand new carrier rework on the horizon and having tested it several times i have to be honest here: WG should have stuck with RTS for carriers instead it's pathetic really and something tells me I will initially like it at first but then it's going to be a real disappointment long term. To that end I want to start looking for WW2 naval games that have the RTS element in there. are there any good ones out there? i would like to know. 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
558
[P-V-E]
Members
1,525 posts
25 minutes ago, The_Big_Red_1 said:

To that end I want to start looking for WW2 naval games that have the RTS element in there. are there any good ones out there? i would like to know.

pic288374.jpg

 

:Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 7
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
164
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,526 posts
3,480 battles
10 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

victory at sea : pacific

i have heard of that one pity that the in-game physics are questionable at best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
11 minutes ago, The_Big_Red_1 said:

i have heard of that one pity that the in-game physics are questionable at best

graphics and UI are not very good (to say the least), but if you are after a quality in depth RTS, that covers naval warfare. There are better naval sims (Cold Waters for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
164
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,526 posts
3,480 battles
2 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

graphics and UI are not very good (to say the least), but if you are after a quality in depth RTS, that covers naval warfare. There are better naval sims (Cold Waters for example).

does it have use of carrier combat? since i am primarily a carrier skipper.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,222
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
28,223 posts
24,627 battles
55 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

victory at sea : pacific

I was looking at that in Steam and apparently there's some major balance issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
28 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I was looking at that in Steam and apparently there's some major balance issues.

It is very far from being "polished", but, it has incredible scope, and is fairly cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[VIKES]
[VIKES]
Members
586 posts
17,261 battles
2 hours ago, b101uk said:

pic288374.jpg

 

:Smile_trollface:

I used to work for the guy that invented Electronic Battleship, Andy Rifkin.   He created a couple of Barbie games that were huge too.  Genius at electronic gaming, but deficient elsewhere.

Edited by nagasakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
289
[RLGN]
Members
857 posts
6,721 battles

In my opinion both Battlestations games still hold up, but if you want something newer and more focused on the strategy aspect there is a game called Strategic Mind: The Pacific coming out in a couple months you may wish to check out.  That said if what you most miss is going to be playing RTS carriers I really recommend the Battlestations games - their carrier gameplay is a deeper version of what exists now where you choose type of planes and squadrons sizes to launch as such in the moment.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[WOLFB]
Members
3,158 posts
7,381 battles

victory at sea : pacific is good 

 

Also Matrix games has some games that tale place in the pacific. and they have one of just carrier battles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,252
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,166 posts
14,749 battles

It is amazing how many people refuse to see that CV's are broken and have been from the beginning. The rework may not be what a lot of people wanted but it needed to be done just from the low CV player participation alone but there are other factors.

  • Cool 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,235
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
16,471 posts
29 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

It is amazing how many people refuse to see that CV's are broken and have been from the beginning. The rework may not be what a lot of people wanted but it needed to be done just from the low CV player participation alone but there are other factors.

Problem is, nothing about the rework fixes anything that's broken about them, while adding other problems and screwing up the AA mechanics.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,252
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,166 posts
14,749 battles
1 hour ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Problem is, nothing about the rework fixes anything that's broken about them, while adding other problems and screwing up the AA mechanics.

 

How about accessibility? The current CV's are only accessible to a tiny fraction of the player base. How about the out sized impact they have on a match? I know, I know, all they had to do was some minor tweaks and all would have been good but they have been making those minor tweaks since alpha and they haven't magically fixed them and in fact made them even less accessible to the player base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,235
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
16,471 posts
1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

How about accessibility? The current CV's are only accessible to a tiny fraction of the player base. How about the out sized impact they have on a match? I know, I know, all they had to do was some minor tweaks and all would have been good but they have been making those minor tweaks since alpha and they haven't magically fixed them and in fact made them even less accessible to the player base.

The changes and structure along the way has given us many of the actual problems -- national flavor on air wing makeup giving us the lopsided situation in favor of IJN carriers, the removal of USN fighter builds, the presence of too many TB squads on some carriers, AP bombs, funky torp spreads, off-tier planes, odd squadron sizes, tons of other gimmicks, too-powerful manual drops vs lackluster automatic drops, strafing as a kludge to make fighters more "interactive", etc, etc, etc, etc.

If the old system was inaccessible and unbalancing, it wasn't because of the old interface itself, it was because WG did everything they could every step of the way to screw it up and make it unbalancing and inaccessible.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,424 posts
10,483 battles
2 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Problem is, nothing about the rework fixes anything that's broken about them, while adding other problems and screwing up the AA mechanics.

 

Having played CVs a few times and never touching them again - I disagree with the above 100%.  It WILL get me to try them again and AA is reworked.  No one CV play is perfect but I think it will get more people to play them, including myself.  At least I will give them another try.  Current CV meta is a hot mess for reasons you describe as well as totally different game play and an interface that is nearly the same hot mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,252
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,166 posts
14,749 battles
22 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

The changes and structure along the way has given us many of the actual problems -- national flavor on air wing makeup giving us the lopsided situation in favor of IJN carriers, the removal of USN fighter builds, the presence of too many TB squads on some carriers, AP bombs, funky torp spreads, off-tier planes, odd squadron sizes, tons of other gimmicks, too-powerful manual drops vs lackluster automatic drops, strafing as a kludge to make fighters more "interactive", etc, etc, etc, etc.

If the old system was inaccessible and unbalancing, it wasn't because of the old interface itself, it was because WG did everything they could every step of the way to screw it up and make it unbalancing and inaccessible.  

 

The old interface itself was a problem because of the micromanaging of the units which while not bad in tier 4 got worse and worse as the tiers went up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,235
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
16,471 posts
3 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The old interface itself was a problem because of the micromanaging of the units which while not bad in tier 4 got worse and worse as the tiers went up

I guess you and Wargaming just have a lower opinion of the players than I do, then, because there was nothing about the old interface that most people couldn't do just fine with as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,097
[KNMSU]
Members
7,086 posts
7,766 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

It is amazing how many people refuse to see that CV's are broken and have been from the beginning. The rework may not be what a lot of people wanted but it needed to be done just from the low CV player participation alone but there are other factors.

Most of us want the rework. We just don't want the rework to annihilate AA, provide carriers with infinite planes, and allow them to multi-strike with the same squadron... repeatedly.

You're asking for people to be logical when they are staring down the barrel of completely unfun chaos.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,235
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
16,471 posts
1 minute ago, Battlecruiser_Kongo said:

Most of us want the rework. We just don't want the rework to annihilate AA, provide carriers with infinite planes, and allow them to multi-strike with the same squadron... repeatedly.

You're asking for people to be logical when they are staring down the barrel of completely unfun chaos.

And there's all that too -- as I noted elsewhere, even if you hate the old carrier interface, or hate carriers entirely, this rework isn't going to make you ANY happier about the game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,252
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,166 posts
14,749 battles
8 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_Kongo said:

Most of us want the rework. We just don't want the rework to annihilate AA, provide carriers with infinite planes, and allow them to multi-strike with the same squadron... repeatedly.

You're asking for people to be logical when they are staring down the barrel of completely unfun chaos.

Have you tried the new CV's yet? Even at tier 4 loitering in the vicinity of enemy ships is going to lose planes because AA is a very real factor. Now if you catch a low AA ship out all alone yeah you can take some time making sure the attacks are the best they can be but even then you need to make your strikes and go home.

When the travel time is factored single squadrons with no limit is not unlimited planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,235
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
16,471 posts
3 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Have you tried the new CV's yet? Even at tier 4 loitering in the vicinity of enemy ships is going to lose planes because AA is a very real factor. Now if you catch a low AA ship out all alone yeah you can take some time making sure the attacks are the best they can be but even then you need to make your strikes and go home.

When the travel time is factored single squadrons with no limit is not unlimited planes.

I have. 

So far, aircraft have largely had free reign over the enemy fleets.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,252
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,166 posts
14,749 battles
1 minute ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I have. 

So far, aircraft have largely had free reign over the enemy fleets.

 

 

Then you are finding isolated ships and are not over the main force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×