SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

JHS · 08-12-15, 07:53 AM

I was awaiting "Atlantic Fleet" with some interest because I thought "Pacific Fleet" was a promising toy, and I thought AF would be something for the more thoughtful naval gamer. Unfortunately, it is just PF on steroids, critically flawed by the premise that naval warfare games have to be dumbed down catastrophically to be salable. Admittedly, the surface naval people are so hard up they take even unbelievable lemons, like "World of Warships" because there never was a second generation of computer surface warship games in the first ten years of the new century like there was for air, land, and undersea games. There still is no second generation. Tank simmers can slum in "World of Tanks", but they do have monsters of detail like "Steel Beasts" if they want realism. AF is not the second generation, it's just another clever tap game for the tablets (by the way, there are great, realistic war games for tablets, the tablet genre is taken seriously by some designers).

What I find most ridiculous is that there are protocols which absolutely ruin the game as a even mildly realistic surface naval warfare game (I am not going to consider the submarine aspect of AF because I do not know enough about ASW to review the game's depiction of it, as for the air game, it is so incredibly stupid, that's the only word for it, it is completely disposable---it clearly is an afterthought, and is only an extension of the toy system in PF). I was not expecting a Naval War College simulator (would have been good), but the protocols of AF were just as inane as PF---and these were overloaded onto a great system which has some very significant advances.

The worst is forcing the players to unrealistically choose between firing main batteries, secondary batteries, and torpedoes. In the middle of a hot battle gunnery officers did not stop firing big guns to give the people in charge of the secondaries and torpedoes a chance to shoot! A giant dreadnought did not cease fire with main batteries to shoot a number of star shells with the secondary guns! This is positively mind-bogglingly ridiculous. Destroyers closed on bigger ships banging away with their main guns to try to knock out directors and, at the same time, fired torpedoes.

Another inanity is to lose your range plot from the last salvo when a target ship starts to make smoke. This makes smoke into a far more effective evasion tool than it was.

Not all ships had radar! The game ought to distinguish between visual sighting and radar plots for ships not clearly visible.

While putting ships right on top of each other instead of using scale sizing creates excitement and visual interest, this really creates a ridiculous image of surface naval warfare. I quit playing with toy ships at the age of eight.

Where are the searchlights!

Before I forget, RENOWN and REPULSE had 9-in belts added in the 1920's. As they stand now, they are fodder for Salmon and Gluckstein.

Be assured, I thought there were many good things about AF. The gun director view is excellent, it is the best thing about AF along with the fine modeling of naval gunfire. Targeting is ingenious. But quit giving the players too much info. Don't tell them exactly which ship they are seeing, don't even give them the class! Let the players figure it out. This is a game, make it a little more challenging. I would like to see a player slip up and shoot one of his own ships, which did happen in night naval battles (SAN FRANCISCO shot ATLANTA to pieces in the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal).

Varieties of shells are excellent. Would be better to have the ability to choose torpedo speeds and ranges. Torpedo targeting is very good.

I have little quarrel with the ship damage modeling. After many many plays ships behave as they should. EXETER will get hammered by GRAF SPEE, HOOD is always in grave danger vs BIS. Fine.

As it stands now, I find AF very frustrating because it is critically flawed. It falls awkwardly between nursery toy and simulator. Even primarily toy games can be founded on a sound basis, they do not need to force players into doing ridiculous things because of a silly game protocol.

08-12-15, 07:53 AM	#1
JHS Watch Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 22 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Miss, no straddle I was awaiting "Atlantic Fleet" with some interest because I thought "Pacific Fleet" was a promising toy, and I thought AF would be something for the more thoughtful naval gamer. Unfortunately, it is just PF on steroids, critically flawed by the premise that naval warfare games have to be dumbed down catastrophically to be salable. Admittedly, the surface naval people are so hard up they take even unbelievable lemons, like "World of Warships" because there never was a second generation of computer surface warship games in the first ten years of the new century like there was for air, land, and undersea games. There still is no second generation. Tank simmers can slum in "World of Tanks", but they do have monsters of detail like "Steel Beasts" if they want realism. AF is not the second generation, it's just another clever tap game for the tablets (by the way, there are great, realistic war games for tablets, the tablet genre is taken seriously by some designers). What I find most ridiculous is that there are protocols which absolutely ruin the game as a even mildly realistic surface naval warfare game (I am not going to consider the submarine aspect of AF because I do not know enough about ASW to review the game's depiction of it, as for the air game, it is so incredibly stupid, that's the only word for it, it is completely disposable---it clearly is an afterthought, and is only an extension of the toy system in PF). I was not expecting a Naval War College simulator (would have been good), but the protocols of AF were just as inane as PF---and these were overloaded onto a great system which has some very significant advances. The worst is forcing the players to unrealistically choose between firing main batteries, secondary batteries, and torpedoes. In the middle of a hot battle gunnery officers did not stop firing big guns to give the people in charge of the secondaries and torpedoes a chance to shoot! A giant dreadnought did not cease fire with main batteries to shoot a number of star shells with the secondary guns! This is positively mind-bogglingly ridiculous. Destroyers closed on bigger ships banging away with their main guns to try to knock out directors and, at the same time, fired torpedoes. Another inanity is to lose your range plot from the last salvo when a target ship starts to make smoke. This makes smoke into a far more effective evasion tool than it was. Not all ships had radar! The game ought to distinguish between visual sighting and radar plots for ships not clearly visible. While putting ships right on top of each other instead of using scale sizing creates excitement and visual interest, this really creates a ridiculous image of surface naval warfare. I quit playing with toy ships at the age of eight. Where are the searchlights! Before I forget, RENOWN and REPULSE had 9-in belts added in the 1920's. As they stand now, they are fodder for Salmon and Gluckstein. Be assured, I thought there were many good things about AF. The gun director view is excellent, it is the best thing about AF along with the fine modeling of naval gunfire. Targeting is ingenious. But quit giving the players too much info. Don't tell them exactly which ship they are seeing, don't even give them the class! Let the players figure it out. This is a game, make it a little more challenging. I would like to see a player slip up and shoot one of his own ships, which did happen in night naval battles (SAN FRANCISCO shot ATLANTA to pieces in the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal). Varieties of shells are excellent. Would be better to have the ability to choose torpedo speeds and ranges. Torpedo targeting is very good. I have little quarrel with the ship damage modeling. After many many plays ships behave as they should. EXETER will get hammered by GRAF SPEE, HOOD is always in grave danger vs BIS. Fine. As it stands now, I find AF very frustrating because it is critically flawed. It falls awkwardly between nursery toy and simulator. Even primarily toy games can be founded on a sound basis, they do not need to force players into doing ridiculous things because of a silly game protocol.