+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Comments after playing through NATO campaign

  1. #1

    Comments after playing through NATO campaign

    I've played a few paradox games in the past, Hearts of Iron series in particular, and I've been playing Wargame:EE recently, which is about cold war land warfare, more RTS than simulation. So I was very excited when I saw a paradox game about simulating naval warfare in the future, and on the whole it didn't disappoint.

    After almost completing the NATO campaign (the last mission lags way too much, it's just frustrating) there are a few things I want to point out though. Firstly, from the GAME point of view:

    1) All of the fighter planes are the same. Really, there is little difference between F-35, F-22, Eurofighter, F-18 and Gripen. They all carry AMRAM missiles and are all equally capable of killing anything in the air. I just set all of my fighters to long range air superiority + some on air refueling, and they do a brilliant job.

    2) ASW buoy pattern is not useful The random complex circle where the helicopters drop buoys is useless for detecting subs, it should be possible to just tell them to make a rectangular grid.

    3) More in game information would be nice It would do a lot to differentiate between units. Why should I choose JSM over Harpoon? Why should I choose F-22 over F-35? There is just no information in game about their in-game stats (NOT wikipedia stats).

    4) Map editor pls

    5) B-1B Lancer is massively overpowered It carries 24 strike missiles which go at 1050kph with range of 500nm. That's just click and win really.

    6) The last mission is unrealistic. Charging head on into the unknown against two fully operational airbases at very short range. That's very stupid. Rewind the clock 24 hours, give me a squadron of B-1Bs, time to position carriers and do some ASW and recon, then you are talking.

    Now, from a SIMULATION / REAL LIFE point of view:

    1) After playing this game, I totally understood why the F-35 costs so much and is always delayed and hugely over-budget. It can do absolutely everything (except ASW). Simply amazing. I think it makes all other fighters obsolete.

    2) Forget about China, India will be a military superpower. T-50 PAK FA + P-8 Poseidon + Carrier, that's a very good force.

    3) Missiles are more important than platforms. There is a lot of press given to whether Royal Navy will get F-35B or F-35C, and about whether US will sell F-22, and things like T-50 and J-20. However, their ability to kill stuff is almost entirely based on the missiles they carry. If a missile with better range / speed / anti jamming can be made, then that is the game changer, not F-35B or C.

  2. #2
    Some pretty good points.

    4. Has been announced officially its being developed and will get released for free when its done.

  3. #3
    Turbo Tape Games Dev JanH's Avatar
    Naval War: Arctic Circle

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Bergen, Hordaland, Norway, 106562399381316, Bergen, Hordaland
    Posts
    2,408
    Thanks for your feedback, Goodman,

    1. The fighters are very similar, especially all the Amraam-carrying ones. Stealth makes a difference, range is nice, and missile count is obviously important but, yes, you are right. The evasive abilities/turn rate/speed would be a huge difference if the air battle was done with gunfire, but not with LR AA missiles. I wonder if you could just make a 747 stuffed with Amraams and that would rule the air. I am disappointed that this is how it turns out, but I am not convinced it is so far from reality.

    2. Needs a tweak, I agree.

    3. Agreed.

    4. Announced

    5. This is why you don't see it very much in the game We may tweak the last Nato mission in several ways, also because it now contains a bit too many units for most computers.

    6. Well, yes. Kinda crazy operation, I agree. But fun.

    1. If we are close to the mark of what it will be in RL, is a darned flying swiss army knife.

    2. Oh yes

    3. Not far from the truth, indeed. I read an article many, many years ago by some retired general who said small/medium sized countries should just forget about the expensive tanks, ships and aircraft and use all that money to build an all-missile based defense system. Want to attack a country with 1000s of LR missiles to target any threat? Don't think so.

    Thanks again!

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by goodman528 View Post
    Now, from a SIMULATION / REAL LIFE point of view:

    3) Missiles are more important than platforms. There is a lot of press given to whether Royal Navy will get F-35B or F-35C, and about whether US will sell F-22, and things like T-50 and J-20. However, their ability to kill stuff is almost entirely based on the missiles they carry. If a missile with better range / speed / anti jamming can be made, then that is the game changer, not F-35B or C.
    While there is some truth to the statement. Sometimes you also have to look beyond that and see how a certain platform will affect the big picture.

    Stealth is a big factor. Given the same offensive loadout. The ability to get off the first shot is very important as the defender will either have to try to evade (which may force them to abort) or try to bore in hoping to get a lock for their own launch (risking being bolted out of the sky before you get your missile off). Even if both side manage to fire at the same time, the stealthier platform have a better chance to survive.

    In the case of F-35 B/C while performance is about the same. The shorter range of the B will have a fairly large impact. It means the carrier task force will have to be that much closer to the target which increase the risk level of all units involved (given the weaker AAW ability of most British DDG).

    In the case of the F-22. Being able to supercruise (supersonic without afterburner). It give the unit a lot more operational flexibility. It can basically react to threats faster and further away or attack from an unexpected direction. I have done this in Harpoon, I set my F22 off to the side of the threat axis. Light up my AWAC so enemy fighter will try to close and kill it and then vector in the F-22 behind the enemy fighter and take them out with minimal risk.
    Last edited by Wiz33; 19-04-2012 at 00:09.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by goodman528 View Post
    1) After playing this game, I totally understood why the F-35 costs so much and is always delayed and hugely over-budget. It can do absolutely everything (except ASW). Simply amazing. I think it makes all other fighters obsolete.
    Wee the tier one production line can only hold 2 amraams OR 2 AIM-9 internally(not 8+2 as in the game)(source wikipedia... sry). This of course makes it a lot less usefull in the air superiority role.

    A later tier will probably change this by removing the mount for the big bomb(thus probably the internal JSM ability as well) and replace it with 2 missiles making it a loadout 6 missiles (4AMRAAM + 2 AIM or 6 AMRAAM). Of course you never know, using stealth pods for AIM9 on the wings, and some engieer might find a brilliant solution to fit 8 AIMs int the bay. If so the F35 will be badass as in the game. But right now thats just a fantasy. Unfourtunately its hard for the devs to change this since it would mean rebalancing the entire campaign. But hey I understand we'll just mod ourself out of it .

    Just don't believe that the F35 in reality(as in now) is as capabable as in the game.
    Last edited by Gorduz; 19-04-2012 at 00:00.

  6. #6
    I don't think every plane is the same, not at all.

    B1B lancer is made that way to carry a truckload cruise missiles to hit naval battle group or land targets. It is a strategic weapon platform in a theatre of war.

    Buoy pattern is useful but there tends to be too many of them dropped imo.

    More in game information if u mean encyclopedia well while it would be nice to have but it doesn't reduce the game's enjoyment without. For more real information one could look up the internet anyway or buy a book.

    As for F-35 you may be confusing the game with the real F-35. The game only tries to put them as realistic as they could. More versatile than F-22 maybe but better than F-22 not really.

    Forget China and focus on India?
    Personally China in a Pacific conflict is FAR more interesting and RELEVANT than an Indian conflict and more importantly more viable commercially.

    But China's Pacific naval conflict with involvement by India aswell now that's certainly interesting too.

    I know the Chinese wouldn't like a game with them in it as an adversary or as one of the faction. They don't like it one bit BUT the game is apolitical it is afterall just a game.

    We could have Martian too in game if we knew they existed....

    But anyway I hope we'll see a standalone expansion too (NWAC II) and that it doesn't stop with just this game. That we can agree
    Last edited by Mighty Heart; 19-04-2012 at 09:00.
    "A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man's nature-is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man's survival" -Ayn Rand. Read about the nature of Singapore regime on 'exposingsingapore' blog

  7. #7
    Lord High Admiral General Baker's Avatar
    Cities in MotionCities in Motion 2Crusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasEuropa Universalis 3
    EU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest Hour
    Heir to the ThroneMagickaMarch of the EaglesNaval War: Arctic CircleSemper Fi
    SengokuVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessMount & Blade: Warband
    Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,529
    Surely it'd be Naval War: Pacific Escalation or something sexy like that?

  8. #8
    Turbo Tape Games Dev JanH's Avatar
    Naval War: Arctic Circle

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Bergen, Hordaland, Norway, 106562399381316, Bergen, Hordaland
    Posts
    2,408
    The name is already decided, and it will be even more sexy than that

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by JanH View Post
    The name is already decided, and it will be even more sexy than that
    Already decided? Just the name or with the plan to proceed with it?

    After years of absence of any modern naval warfare game, hope this series will grow.
    "A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man's nature-is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man's survival" -Ayn Rand. Read about the nature of Singapore regime on 'exposingsingapore' blog

  10. #10
    Private
    Commander: Conquest of the AmericasNaval War: Arctic CircleShip Simulator ExtremesSword of the Stars

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by goodman528 View Post
    1) All of the fighter planes are the same. Really, there is little difference between F-35, F-22, Eurofighter, F-18 and Gripen. They all carry AMRAM missiles and are all equally capable of killing anything in the air. I just set all of my fighters to long range air superiority + some on air refueling, and they do a brilliant job.
    There are definitely some pretty big differences in the aircraft, although to be fair part of that IS the weapons they carry.

    As noted, the F-35 has perhaps an unrealistically high (vs 'reality') missile load, but even given that, I'd take the F-22 ANY DAY. The F-22 can carry the JASSM-ER missile, which is I think the "I win" button you mention the B-1B has. That makes F-22s pretty godly in ground/naval strike roles, especially compared to the F-35 that can only manage the JDAM or JSOW (or Konigsberg JSM).

    The other major advantage the F-22 has is range. Even over the F-35A and C (land and carrier-based), the F-22 just has MUCH longer legs. And if you're stuck with the B version of the F-35? *shudders* Better than nothing, I guess, but compared to an F-22? The range just feels...nonexistent.

    One of the other major allied aircraft in the F/A-18 also has to be used quite a bit differently than the F-35 or F-22, in that it has no stealth features, so the enemy seems to detect them and trigger escalation or response MUCH quicker. I find I can't really start putting my Superhornets into the air until the fighting has already started in proper, as any hope of surprise is lost when you are using them in the initial waves.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by xanderf View Post
    I find I can't really start putting my Superhornets into the air until the fighting has already started in proper, as any hope of surprise is lost when you are using them in the initial waves.
    I use my super hornets as supplemental missile defense. Group em and launch em and you save your self a couple dozen sm-2s

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts