My question: Is the naval game a "decent/ vaguely realistic" simulation of naval warfare now?
How does it differ?
How does it differ?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Mowers said:
1)Screening effect is taken in account. Having only unescorted big ships is way to go to feed the fishes.
2)There is a distance between fleets. Depending on the composition of the fleets, admirals will try to find their own optimal firing distance. Subs will try to get closer before shooting, while carriers will try to be as far as possible to bomb enemy ships without retaliation.
In other words, it rocks. IMHO, would have been perfect if the carrier air groups had their own stength&org, but it's already excellent.
I must say I am impressed how the fleets do battle.. it is a little quick and you cant really see whats going on but in general the battles itself make sense and give you the sense of power of the CV's..
The missions themselves are hard to get used too - there are quite a few of them. All in all good job.
I have also looked at the planes (seems there are no stack limits in 1.00?) and I really am lost as to how to use them at the moment.
F
The missions themselves are hard to get used too - there are quite a few of them. All in all good job.
I have also looked at the planes (seems there are no stack limits in 1.00?) and I really am lost as to how to use them at the moment.
F
How so? Do the missions not seem to make sense to you? What's the problem? You are correct that limits on stacking planes into larger formations is currently not in the game.Fiendix said:
Kriegspieler said:
Choas - I have planes flying all around on air sup missions and they look like a flying circus. Maybe I need time to get used to it.. I will find a scenario that has a lot of planes to see if I can handle it.
F
Well, I don't want to hikjack a thread about the naval game to discuss this too much, but the way that missions are handled means that the planes DO look hyperactive. This is especially true for interceptors, which "patrol" their zones by moving from one province to the other. So the effect can indeed be a little disorienting.Fiendix said:
Maybe you just built too big an air force?
The battle overview is what matters - you are in command of a nation so don't worry about where your air units are (that's a HoI 1 habit) but rather just look at the battle overview to see what battles are going on.
Yeah, get less tactical and more strategic. Or maybe to say, move your tactical prespective up a couple of notches.
If you have thought out your strategic goals for your air units and have assigned them the right type of mission, then it is 'fly and forget' mode.
If you have thought out your strategic goals for your air units and have assigned them the right type of mission, then it is 'fly and forget' mode.
"Fly and forget"--that is exactly what I want to hear. In HOI-1 I did not enjoy playing America or Japan because it was too much trouble trying to micromanage all those ships and planes every single turn, especially on a 2-front war.
A common complaint that. Practice using the missions ASAP. They are really powerful tools.
By the way -- just to restore this thread to a naval discussion -- the same holds for naval missions. Set them up, pay attention to the battle overview, (to see if your subs have been caught, for example) and then let the missions play themselves out.
Is weather taken into consideration for carrier groups? IIRC there was various bad weather in the pacific and north sea making it difficult if not impossible to launch aircraft...
If your carriers are fighting at night while it is raining.... Let us just say that 1% attack efficiency is not all that unlikely.Cossack said:
Outside of the convoy raiding role, is there room for a submarine-based navy?
It sounds like carriers are kings of the sea (for some good reasons), but with an equivalent tech and industrial base, could a sub-centric navy face-off effectively with a carrier-based one? Maybe a number of small wolfpacks ambushing a carrier fleet?
It sounds like carriers are kings of the sea (for some good reasons), but with an equivalent tech and industrial base, could a sub-centric navy face-off effectively with a carrier-based one? Maybe a number of small wolfpacks ambushing a carrier fleet?
Brasidias said:
if the carrier is unescorted yes otherwise not likely. Will the ai protect its CV's? of course it will
If ships stay at optimal range during combat do say, destroyers from the same stack close on the enemy fleet or stay close to the carrier to protect it?
Fiendix said:
What speed are you playing on? Even at above normal I get a decent show during naval battles, and you can aways pause to get more details. For example, the tooltip from the little turret icon that shows if a ship is in firing range or not also shows you which ship it is firing on.