Initial Review

[Bilge_Rat]

"Command" looks interesting and I will probably pick it up as well when it comes out, although as Arclight mentioned, NWAC and Command don't have the same target audience.

[0rpheus]

Originally Posted by stormrider_sp

Im not part of the dev team. Im a member of the forums and share their news.

Fair enough. I've been following Command for a while, but as the chaps have said it's a different audience. For me, the simple lack of a proper 3D unit view, in the manner of NWAC's bottom-of-the-screen viewer, is the single thing preventing any serious interest. Apart from that, it does look like a good game.

[Arclight]

Must admit I rather enjoy 3D view... just wish NWAC had the same attention to detail as Fleet Command. I love just sitting and watching ASM popping from VLS or a carrier conducting launch and retrieval. NWAC resorts to visually "magicking" things into existence a bit too much for my liking, or stuff like misiles that are technically launched vertically always flying out on the platform's course initially. The latter has a negative impact on missile defence as well.

In the end it doesn't really impact gameplay of course... but it's nice.

[Bilge_Rat]

I am sure we will all admit that the big drawing card of NWAC is the 3d view. I have played many 2d games, "War in the Pacific" comes to mind, where I wish I could see the action in 3d. Plotting an intercept on a map is one thing, seeing how it plays out in 3d is something else.

Whether it will hold my long term interest will really depend on how it evolves since currently, certain things are very simplified, for example, being able to find a sub as soon as you drop a sonobuoy..

[XanderF]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

NWAC and Command don't have the same target audience.

I wouldn't say that, exactly.

"Modern Naval Combat" is a pretty small group of people - if you try to split that up even further, you are just shooting yourself in the foot. "Yeah, it's a modern naval combat game, but not for those people that want 3d effects"

Just silly.

FWIW, I've probably spent 3 times as much time in Dangerous Waters as I have in NWAC, and probably 10 times as much time in Silent Hunter III (maybe 5 times as much time in SHIV and twice as much in SH5).

...but I've still put 30 hours into NWAC, and I've hardly started the Russian campaign.

IMHO, I AM pretty much the target audience for 'Command', and also NWAC.

(Although, that said, if the game doesn't come out on Steam, I just don't bother anymore. All my office mates play Left 4 Dead, TF2, IL-2, etc, so my gaming time is entirely on Steam or I'm doing something work related with the PC.)

[0rpheus]

Mission editor confirmed, on the way:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...It-s-happening!

Possibly with Steam Workshop functionality - surprising but could be really good if it turns into a way to share missions

[Sorge]

Follow-Up

I'm now on Ragnarok Armada. Additional observations:

1. Dev Support: been checking on the Paradox forums. I'm pleased that the devs are providing the necessary support to fix and improve on some of the game's biggest shortcomings. As noted elsewhere, this is rare in the gaming industry. Biggest issues seem to be 1) failure to work on some XP systems, 2) overall stability and 3) aircraft fueling system.

2. AI Implementation: I gotta say, the more I play this game and issue orders to my units, the more frustrated and disappointed I get with NWAC. Key examples:
a) Ordering subs and certain other units to fire land attack missiles on min ammo still results in a rather large amount of missiles being launched (in most cases, the only difference is that all weapons are launched in two salvos instead of one).
b) The min/med/max ammo button does NOT seem to stick. Clicking it has no effect on AI-driven launches. It only seems to apply each time I manually select and launch weapons. This results in a ridiculous amount of micromanagement, or otherwise excessive weapons expenditures.
c) Aircraft are inconsistent in following through on launch orders. Ordering a fighter to engage a cruise missile with guns often results in both guns and missiles being used. I might not mind if I didn't need the fighter to save those missiles for an enemy fighter.
d) The game's overall poor stability also creates lag that impacts unit orders. For instance, I order a fighter to engage another fighter - instead the cursor jumps and the fighter turns to patrol at a point several miles distant.

I've found the aircraft selection panel on carriers and airfields to be a bit buggy from time to time. Aircraft that are ready to launch appear darkened (as if they're undergoing refueling/arming), and selecting one aircraft for launch sometimes results in many aircraft being selected.

Realism: it's there in some ways and absent in others. I guess it's difficult to gauge how realistic it is when I don't really know what's going on under the hood. I can see things like incremental contact reports at play, when a subs position updates at time intervals. That's realistic. On the other hand, the fact that DICASS buoys are the only buoy modeled in the game and that subsurface contacts cannot be acoustically identified by class is utterly ridiculous. That the enemy AA ships can effectively engage a large salvo of cruiser missiles also seems realistic; that my own AEGIS-equipped units in auto mode supplemented by micro can't do the same is not (and pretty frickin frustrating too).

There are two positives that I'll throw out there for NWAC:
1) The game gives me a bit of the same arm-chair-admiral feeling that JFC does. At my disposal are billions of dollars worth of ships, aircraft and sensors and there are many factors that impact how I'm going to employ them.
2) The game is challenging. Most of the missions you can actually beat with minimal to acceptable casualties if you just focus on the objectives, but some are difficult and lengthy, and if you take on objectives of your own (such as total annihilation of the enemy), you're pretty hard pressed.

Frankly, I think I'm at a point where I've given this game, in its current state, some time to marinate, and I just come back to my initial views that 1) it has a long way to go before it becomes a good game and 2) it may be worth the $20. Those of you that are excited about it because there aren't many naval games or because the industry as a whole sucks at making quality games, more power to you. But my standards are a bit higher. I enjoy the game overall, but still find it quite lacking.

Hopefully that'll change as the devs continue to patch it, improve it and modders start introducing new functionality and missions.

[Hawk66]

There is a whole podcast episode devoted to this game:

http://flashofsteel.com/index.php/20...arctic-circle/

(interview with one of the developer or project lead)


Also the moderator makes some remarks, that he's not very satisfied with the AI performance (at least that's my impression).

Overall, I am glad that at least there is a further modern naval game out there. But I will not buy it - since it is not hardcore enough for me; I stick to Dangerous Waters and to Command when it gets released.