Distant Guns 1.5 Now On Sale!

[Lempereur1]

http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/html/dg_1_5/se_DG_1_5_v2.html
http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/Downloads/DG_1_5_Resources/DG_1_5_Brochure/DG_1_5_Brochure_Screen.jpg

[MichaelSpencer]

This is an enormous upgrade - not only are the graphics much improved, but the included scenario editor makes this an entirely new game in terms of flexibility and replay value. Highly recommended! :yeah:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Under the hood stuff like AI and damage modeling also seems to be greatly tweaked. Well worth the $35 I paid to upgrade.

PD

[Bullethead]

Yup, there are a lot of under-the-hood changes in 1.5, not only in the damage system but some ship stats, too. You'll find that the relative value of the ships has changed somewhat, so that you'll have to alter some of your long-standing tactics.

[LobsterBoy]

I've had DG since it was released and enjoy it. I want to upgrade it, but I want to know the procedure first. Do I download the full 1.5 game and then activate it like a new product?

[Lempereur1]

Yes, download the DG 1.5 and install it.

http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/html/dg_1_5/se_DG_1_5_v2.html

You will have to uninstall DG 1.0

Go to the Website and buy the special upgrade from DG 1.0 to DG 1.5

A new License will be emailed to you. Activate as normal!

Enjoy!

Jim Rose
Stormeaglestudios.com

[LobsterBoy]

Is it necessary to send the original license back or not (since I'd be getting a new license) through the SHIFT-F12 feature?

[Lempereur1]

Yes, you must surrender your 1.0 License to get the special upgrade price. Use the Shift F-12

[LobsterBoy]

It's now working as advertised. Thanks! My first impressions from a quick battle of Ulsan game are the improved lighting effects from gunfire and hits (I stopped playing for a bit and stared at the flickering guns), and it seemed as though the Japanese were better than when I previously played the same battle. I must investigate further....

I hope my support also helps you create more fine products in the future.

[alexsmith]

Doubt about "Entirely new game" - but some improvements have been made as some disadvantages also!

If anyone of Storm Eagle could read this - would be very appreciate if they could answer a few questions!

What about 6-inch guns in 1.5? Looks like they lost most of the power they had in prior version - which is sad! Those days 6" were much more common cannons to strip them out - I think. Is it because of Jutland engine?

Next - the camera control options are STILL UGLY! Please think about implementing predefined views on selected ship: "On course" - to quickly appear just above ship to draw a course line, "To enemy" - to see in direction ship fires, "Fleet" - to view entire fleet or division from high. Switching between these modes manually makes my head ache!

Also camera has unpredictable behavior too often - I click "Binoculars view" - and when I return back - camera often jumps to random direction - and like that.

Also, too hard to track down damages to enemy - you may spend an hour kicking enemy battleship - and it's still "light" - you see absolutely no progress! When it became moderate - it's about complete, but before it looks like your ships are beeing damaged quickly and enemy is undamaged. I understand - enemy's damage is invisible - but there are lots of things that may be seen from my own ships which could indicate enemy's damage.
Draw something like "Visible fires" or "Visiible damages" - it also may be made to enemy's guns - I can see that heavy metals don't fire to long - so I can assume - these guns are damaged. Which would be a great help!

Also it is not absolutely clear - why Japanese ships are SO powerfull than Russian? One Japanese battleship is worth at least(!) TWO of Russian's which is not quite correct. What does ship "armor level" means? It confuses! You may think about cruiser with armor 6 as about the same as enemy's with 7th armor - but in battle you see it's not!

Also :) when you play against computer - it looks like enemy ship's hit two or even three times often than yours! THIS IS ANNOYING! This happens no matter which side you play for. Computer advantage - I convinced - must be not so apparent.

And at the end I would like to THANK Storm Eagle's team for the REALLY GREAT GAME! Which could be even more better - if they would do what I've written here:salute:

Best regards,
Alex Smith, Russia :)

[alexsmith]

Sorry, me again ;) Forgot to mention - what I think, game REALLY requires something like "difficulty level tuner" - when you are green - it may seems too difficult for you, when you got experience - you need even more tough enemy. Because standard campaing is boring - when you play several times: almoust the same strategy for every side, almost the same tactics. Because we can not decline main historic line - player need some changes he could bring in game process. Best would be if there would be a land battles also - but these are dreams ;)

[Bullethead]

Sorry to be lagged.

What about 6-inch guns in 1.5? Looks like they lost most of the power they had in prior version

Nope, the RJW's 6" gun stats are exactly the same as before, so each hit still does the same damage it did before.

What HAS changed, however, is that their firing arcs have been made more realistic, which for most BBs and ACs means that fewer 2ndary guns will now bear in any given direction. Thus, fewer shots at a target than before in the same amount of time.

This had more of an impact on the IJN ships. Originally, most of them had 180^ arcs for all their 2ndary guns on each side, so all the guns on each side could shoot at any target on that side, which was of course ridiculous. Now the guns have realistic arcs so only a few guns on a side can shoot at a target on that side, depending on where it is.

The Russians originally had most 2ndary guns with 90^ broadside arcs. OT1H, this let them shoot too many guns on those bearings, but OTOH they had no 2ndary end-on fire. So now they're like the IJN, with some guns only able to shoot on the bows and quarters, and some able to shoot only amidships. Thus, they also have fewer 2ndary guns firing on the broadside now.

Also camera has unpredictable behavior too often - I click "Binoculars view" - and when I return back - camera often jumps to random direction - and like that.

Yup, that's something we need to fix.

I understand - enemy's damage is invisible - but there are lots of things that may be seen from my own ships which could indicate enemy's damage.
Draw something like "Visible fires" or "Visiible damages" - it also may be made to enemy's guns - I can see that heavy metals don't fire to long - so I can assume - these guns are damaged. Which would be a great help!

You can see fires and smoke, plus shell holes, on the enemy ships, at least if your display options are turned up high enough. You can also see which guns are working and which aren't by whether they're firing at you or not. Damaged guns usually still track you but just don't fire, whereas destroyed guns don't move and either have holes in them (turrets/casemates) or no crew figures (open mounts).

Also it is not absolutely clear - why Japanese ships are SO powerfull than Russian? One Japanese battleship is worth at least(!) TWO of Russian's which is not quite correct. What does ship "armor level" means? It confuses! You may think about cruiser with armor 6 as about the same as enemy's with 7th armor - but in battle you see it's not!

The main reason for the higher IJN BB and AC ship values, and the fact that they usually win 1-on-1 matchups with their opposite numbers, is that the IJN guns usually shoot much faster. Also, most of the IJN ships are newer than most of the Russian ships, so have a more effective type of armor.

The "armor value" shown on the telescope pop-up view when you mouse over a ship isn't used in the game. It's just an abstracted average value put there to give you a general guideline as to how well armored 1 ship is compared to another.

What matters in the game, however, is hit location and the armor at the location hit. Various parts of the ship have different amounts of armor. For instance, protected cruiser have no actual side armor at all, just a sloped lower deck. This protects buoyancy and the engines pretty well but nothing stops the whole hull above water from being riddled and set on fire.

Also :) when you play against computer - it looks like enemy ship's hit two or even three times often than yours! THIS IS ANNOYING! This happens no matter which side you play for. Computer advantage - I convinced - must be not so apparent.

There's no computer advantage. Both sides have the same accuracy, because both sides use the same AI gunners.

And at the end I would like to THANK Storm Eagle's team for the REALLY GREAT GAME!

Thanks ;).

[alexsmith]

Thank God - you're here, Bullethead! :)
I'm very appreciate for your answers but - as you could expect - there are a lot of still remains ;) If you please...


Nope, the RJW's 6" gun stats are exactly the same as before, so each hit still does the same damage it did before.
While playing 1.0 I used to drown Asama and Izumo with 9 cruisers - 4 AC from Vladivostok with Bayan and 5 PC. My AC stayed in first line accumulating all the enemy's wrath while PC from second line - completely unharmed - threw their 6" shells at enemy's cruisers and drowned they easily.
Trying to repeat that success in 1.5 I found that PC seems to make no harm to enemy at all - only 8" guns were worth a bit - no matter from what distance. I spent a lot of time trying to overbeat enemy's 2 AC - and it was much more harder than before - like my PCs played no role at all! So I assumed that 6" guns are degraded in 1.5...


There's no computer advantage. Both sides have the same accuracy, because both sides use the same AI gunners.
Today I had an experience fighting Togo with Russian BB fleet: wide line of my BB (side to side) againts IJN keel line - not closer than 11km (running away to Port Authur) - so almost all my seven BB and 3 AC had the ability to shoot Mikasa at the same time while Japanese shoot from greater distances (hope my English is understandable enough ;)

As a result of about an hour of battle Retvizan is burned up while Mikasa is still light and didn't lost a knot of speed. From the game log I calculated that my ships took about 16 12" (305mm) shells and more than 70 6" (152mm) - those are cumulative numbers, cause Japanese targeted different ships from time to time. I only targeted Mikasa during the whole battle.

Either my gunners didn't shoot Mikasa about the same or it's damage control is quite better than my - having no possibility to track down hit's of computer I may only assume, that computer is cheating ;) In that case I only have chance to defeat enemy loading game over and over again - trying to overrun Random number generator. This means no pleasure from game at all :(

There is another example: Yellow Sea battle. 7 Russian BB + 3 AC against 4 IJN AC - 10 minutes, 6 km - head BB is moderate almoust heavy, Asama is mostly unharmed... Tell me it's not cheating!!! :)

Maybe I'm not a very experienced player: I only have won two companies in 1.0 - both for Russia and Japan. But in 1.5 - despite fire management is quite better now - computer became much more difficult to beat in the comparable circumstances...

Also the question: the game manual for 1.5 contains no explain of new Simulation options - where the Gunnery Accuracy and Gunnery Damage located. Should I assume that higher settings (slider to right) mean more accuracy/damage for BOTH SIDES while lower (slider to left) mean less? Or there is some other meaning of it because it's absolutely not clear?..

[Bullethead]

While playing 1.0 I used to drown Asama and Izumo with 9 cruisers - 4 AC from Vladivostok with Bayan and 5 PC. My AC stayed in first line accumulating all the enemy's wrath while PC from second line - completely unharmed - threw their 6" shells at enemy's cruisers and drowned they easily. Trying to repeat that success in 1.5 I found that PC seems to make no harm to enemy at all - only 8" guns were worth a bit - no matter from what distance. I spent a lot of time trying to overbeat enemy's 2 AC - and it was much more harder than before - like my PCs played no role at all! So I assumed that 6" guns are degraded in 1.5...

I believe what you're seeing is the reduction in fire damage in 1.5. Folks complained a lot that in 1.0x, fires got too big too fast and quickly killed ships, so we toned that down some. IJN ACs were armored in expectation of being hit by 8" shells, so 6" isn't going to hurt them much. In 1.0x, their main effect was starting fires. With that reduced, they don't contribute much against armored targets.

Today I had an experience fighting Togo with Russian BB fleet: wide line of my BB (side to side) againts IJN keel line - not closer than 11km (running away to Port Authur) - so almost all my seven BB and 3 AC had the ability to shoot Mikasa at the same time while Japanese shoot from greater distances (hope my English is understandable enough ;)

Sometimes the Dark Gods favor the enemy, not you :).

Also the question: the game manual for 1.5 contains no explain of new Simulation options - where the Gunnery Accuracy and Gunnery Damage located. Should I assume that higher settings (slider to right) mean more accuracy/damage for BOTH SIDES while lower (slider to left) mean less? Or there is some other meaning of it because it's absolutely not clear?..

The sliders affect both sides equally. Thus, if you increase gunnery accurace or shell damage from the defaults, you'll have shorter, bloodier battles.

[alexsmith]

The "armor value" shown on the telescope pop-up view when you mouse over a ship isn't used in the game. It's just an abstracted average value put there to give you a general guideline as to how well armored 1 ship is compared to another.
IJN ACs were armored in expectation of being hit by 8" shells, so 6" isn't going to hurt them much.

So what should I expect from armor value of Asama - seven - comparing to armor level of Bayan - six? Especially when six IJN light cruisers having nothing but 6" burned Bayan to dust in minutes! Assume you use some other hidden data not displayed in ship's information - but how am I supposed to play having not such data and no ability to compare ships' values???


Sometimes the Dark Gods favor the enemy, not you :).

You named your RND engine "Dark God", didn't you? ;)

But that's exactly what I'm talking about! Concerning about quite realistic requires that battle is based most upon random events - as were in real those times! But it's a game killer! To avoid "Dark Gods" I should save and load - and thus all the above stuff doesn't matter: armor, hit locations, fires - only random is! That's pitty...

So, I gonna make a complete research - thank's to you included Scenario Editor in 1.5 ;) I gonna create a few scenarios to make comparable results and collect statistics...

Could you please tell me your opinion - what two of Russian BB and Japan ships are closest in battle value? If I put up for example Tsesarevitch vs Asama - should it be "fair" accourding to their techs?

[Bullethead]

So what should I expect from armor value of Asama - seven - comparing to armor level of Bayan - six? Especially when six IJN light cruisers having nothing but 6" burned Bayan to dust in minutes! Assume you use some other hidden data not displayed in ship's information - but how am I supposed to play having not such data and no ability to compare ships' values???

Don't forget that the IJN was using shimose shells that had a noteworthy incendiary effect. Also, the Russian ships often had more flammable stuff exposed to enemy fire. Thus, shipboard fires are usually more of a problem for the Russians than the IJN.

As to the actual armor values used in game calculations, put the mouse over a ship and hit "I" to bring up the Ship Information Screen. This shows the armor values for the belt, hull, deck, and conning tower. Then mouse over one of the green/yellow/red dots on the ship's picture to see the armor value for that particular weapon, as well as the weapon's stats.

The armor for a weapon only affects that weapon. The conning tower armor only affects the conning tower. The belt armor runs the length of the ship, and it may be domed so as to add to the belt armor (this is shown on the info screen if applicable for a given ship). The belt and hull armor values require some explaining, as follows:

Belt Armor:

Vertical Extent: From a bit below the waterline to a point 1/3 of the way up from the waterline to the upper deck.
Horizontal Extent: 1/2 the length of the ship centered amidships, so that there's 1/4 of the ship's length ahead of the belt and 1/4 aft of it.
Hull Armor:

At bow and stern: Runs from the end of the ship to the edge of the belt at the same height. IOW, this represents the thinner belt armor at the bow and stern.
Amidships: The hull armor also represents the upper belt. The area this covers is the same length as the belt armor and also centered amidships. It runs from the upper belt edge up to a point 2/3 of the way between the waterline and the upper deck.
The armor value shown on the telescope popup is a result of averaging all these numbers (including weapon armor), weighting not only the thickness but the extent covered, and the type of armor itself (steel, Harvey, Krupp, etc.).

As I said, this average number is NOT used in game calculations, it's just there as a sort of quick reference. It can be misleading if a ship has a very thick belt but no other armor, because such a ship might have a high average armor value but still be extremely vulnerable because most of it isn't armored much or at all. This was, in fact, a fairly common armor layout in this era, for ships built before Harvey and Krupp armor was invented. They had to have truly massive belts, which weighed so much they couldn't have armor elsewhere, and these thick belts didn't provide any more protection than thinner belts of more advanced armor types.

You named your RND engine "Dark God", didn't you? ;)

No, I just use the term "Dark Gods" as "bad luck".

But that's exactly what I'm talking about! Concerning about quite realistic requires that battle is based most upon random events - as were in real those times! But it's a game killer! To avoid "Dark Gods" I should save and load - and thus all the above stuff doesn't matter: armor, hit locations, fires - only random is! That's pitty...

Most wargames are very deterministic. If the range is X and the conditions are Y, then gun Z always has such-and-such a chance to hit, and will always penetrate so much armor. As a result, most wargamers have been raised since birth to expect all games to work that way.

Or course, it isn't like that at all in real life. There's actually huge scope for human error and mechanical malfunctions, little if any control over hit location, and even then the shell might be a dud, or might do unexpectedly large amounts of damage. All that sort of thing is modeled in our games. As a result, individual battles fought under the same conditions can vary a lot in their results. In any given battle, any individual ship can perform better or worse than its historical basis. However, over the long run, the results of many trials will average out at the historically realistic level.

This all makes our games more realistic--they are simulations, not just games. Battles are dangerous, unpredictable things and you might take painful losses even if you go in with the much stronger force. This approach appeals to many people, but not others. Sorry you don't seem to like it.

So, I gonna make a complete research - thank's to you included Scenario Editor in 1.5 ;) I gonna create a few scenarios to make comparable results and collect statistics...

You'll have to run any test you create many, many times to arrive at a meaningful result. I'm talking dozens of times. Without a large enough sample, your result will be skewed by outliers.

Could you please tell me your opinion - what two of Russian BB and Japan ships are closest in battle value? If I put up for example Tsesarevitch vs Asama - should it be "fair" accourding to their techs?

I don't think in those terms so have never given this subject any thought. Instead, I just put my forces into what I think are their most effective arrangements, pick my fights carefully, and use skillful tactics to keep things in my favor as much as possible.

When I play the Russians in the campaign, I actually try to avoid battle as much as possible. After all, killing IJN warships doesn't contribute directly to victory and takes ships away from the vital task of stopping merchants. I avoid Togo completely until 2PacRon arrives and in the meantime just use 1PacRon for nocturnal sorties against the blockade at Port Arthur so my cruisers can get in and out easier. I use the Vlad ACs to lead the IJN on a wild goose chase, which makes life easier for my PCs in the Sea of Japan.

However, over in the Gamesquad forum, there's a guy named "Double Whisky" who is an expert at fighting fleet actions as the Russians. He's posted a number of AARs of glorious victories in the Yellow Sea and Tsushima Straits. You might want to read some of that.

[alexsmith]

No, I just use the term "Dark Gods" as "bad luck".

This explains everything! I probably just cursed... :)


Sorry you don't seem to like it.

This is a problem! If I wouldn't like it - I wouldn't write here ;)


When I play the Russians in the campaign, I actually try to avoid battle as much as possible.

This is another problem: to accomplish campaing goal for both side is almost too easy - and too boring :( This isn't your fault - it's historic condition. Playing for Russian you may only hunt down transports running away from battle - playing for Japanese - destroy Russian cruisers and rest until the end. This is not worth a game ;) At least - this is not worth a $50 I've payed. DG is a battle simulator - what is interesting in avoiding all battles then? ;) If there would be a land fighting - this would be reasonable ;) But in naval simulator the only fun from game is to engage enemy at sea! Doubt it? But in Russian campaing it's a bit complex - unless you found fun killing dozens of DD and TB. There are not too many possibilities for Russians to engage in comparable situation untill second fleet arrives - at the end of game. As for IJN - most of the campaing you also must look at rolling clocks - and wait till PA falls at least...

Actually what I really want to say - the game requires DIFFICULTY lever! At "Novice level" it's quite more easy to hit and destroy enemy, at "Expert level "- it's a trick to survive. Mean level matches historic conditions - like now does. Without it you only may play campaing game no more than couple of times - then it become clear that there is almost only one real strategy for every side - and it's quite boring... Playing again and again the same(!) situation - knowning that there is always only one possible successive way...


However, over in the Gamesquad forum, there's a guy named "Double Whisky" who is an expert at fighting fleet actions as the Russians. He's posted a number of AARs of glorious victories in the Yellow Sea and Tsushima Straits. You might want to read some of that.
I will surely! Appreciate.

[Bullethead]

This is another problem: to accomplish campaing goal for both side is almost too easy - and too boring :( This isn't your fault - it's historic condition. Playing for Russian you may only hunt down transports running away from battle - playing for Japanese - destroy Russian cruisers and rest until the end. This is not worth a game ;) At least - this is not worth a $50 I've payed. DG is a battle simulator - what is interesting in avoiding all battles then?

This is a matter of individual taste and the play style that results from this taste.

All naval campaigns based on a realistic situation (except perhaps the US in late WW2) share a common factor: decisive battles are really decisive. Prewar fleets can't be replaced and there will be few, if any, major units as reinforcements for the duration. Thus, no matter how long the campaign might last, there's only ever going to be 1 or maybe 2 really large battles. After that, 1 or both fleets are dead and there's not much else to do.

In real life, most admirals knew this and also that nothing is ever certain in war. As a result, there have been very few naval battles compared to land battles, and few of them have really been decisive or involved more than a fraction of the total fleet. The risk of the Dark Gods favoring the other side is large enough to impose caution unless the odds are overwhelmingly in one's favor, because there's no Plan B if the fleet is destroyed.

This is why naval campaigns don't appeal to everybody. Some folks like this aspect and enjoy the stress of knowing things can go terribly wrong whenever they accept battle. They agonize over such decisions and spend a lot of time and effort, using kleinkrieg strategy, trying to achieve conditions where they can force a decisive battle on favorable terms. This is the sort of person naval campaigns are made for. Other folks just want action, so they rush off to battle on day 1, then complain that they've run out of enemies to fight. They therefore tend not to like naval campaigns. This is the sort of person that scenario editors are made for.

The realistic and uncertain battle simulation in DG can be used by both types of person. On the campaign side of things, it's necessary to make battles dangerous and unpredictable, so that the players must confront the true risks of accepting battle. On the tactical side of things, it makes for cool battles.

[alexsmith]

It's a big pleasure to talk to you but you probably don't understand what I'm saying ;) This is probably because my English is poor - I just can't express what I mean...

I just want to say that if trying to just win campaing - for example for Russian Empire - it's absolutely unnecesary to fight at all! Catch transports and run away - and you win! This is maybe good for the first time, but what is a point to play game that way? Who of naval gamers you mentioned like the game without naval battles? One or two, large or small - it doesn't matter. When I finish one campaing with just one or two battles - I'm not supposed to throw a game out - I want to try again! Find different circumstances, different strategy, achive better results. But at this point one may realise that playing DG over and over again make almost no difference to gameplay! Russians can't fight with major IJN forces until second fleet arrives, Japanese can't catch Russian's until they lost PA - that's it! No chance Russian's can beat Togo, no chance Togo can beat united Russian fleet.

If the game had something to slightly tune chances for both sides - it would make a gameplay much more unpredictable!

We all know what happened in real - Russia has lost. That's real, that's history. What we trying to prove in simulation - would Russia win if some circumstances were slightly different? What could happen if Varyag could escape to PA? What if first Japanese DDs attack was more/less resultative?

But why shouldn't we go futher? What would happen if Russia's guns would have the same rate of fire as Japanese had? It's not real - but what if it would? We know - most Japanese ships were better than Russian - modern, better armored. But what if we slightly change those factors?

Or on the other hand - what if I became so experienced player that I beat computer with no troubles at all. Would I be tough the same if I make Japanese ships even more powerfull?

That's the point - allow player to slightly change balance for sides - as you did with gunnery accuracy/damage. This would create not just one game but many different games! Thanks for your attention :)

[Bullethead]

But at this point one may realise that playing DG over and over again make almost no difference to gameplay! Russians can't fight with major IJN forces until second fleet arrives, Japanese can't catch Russian's until they lost PA - that's it! No chance Russian's can beat Togo, no chance Togo can beat united Russian fleet.

This isn't true.

As the Russians, it's perfectly possible to destroy or at least maim Togo with 1PacRon. Double Whisky over at Gamesquad does this a lot. Once he thinks he's weakened the Port Arthur blockade sufficiently, he goes on a Togo hunt with 1PacRon and the Vlad cruisers, and usually not only ruins Togo but isn't hurt that badly himself. He explains how he does this in detail in several threads. Besides, if he loses the battle, he's got another chance with 2PacRon against a weakened Togo.

From his POV, this is an acceptable risk because he knows how to cause and fight the battle to his advantage. He isn't looking for mutual destruction but a decisive win while preserving the bulk of his force. He considers that removing Togo makes life easier for his cruisers.

I prefer not to do things this because I see it as riskier than he does. So I'm content to wait until 2PacRon shows up, just using 1PacRon to weaken the blockade and trying to keep the IJN from mining the Port Arthur area too much. I think I have better odds with 2 fleets than one, so why not wait? But I also consider my limited use of 1PacRon as making life easier for my cruisers.

It's quite possible to win the game either way, just as it is to win the game without using 1PacRon at all. However, both of the above strategies are less risky than keeping 1PacRon in port. You can't count on your cruisers always getting through the blockade either way, and they sometimes run into Togo at night and get blown to bits before they can escape. If those things happen early in the game, which is quite possible, you're not going to win without using 1PacRon. And 1PacRon can't do anything until Togo is dead.

So, you have several options. It all comes down to what you want to do. There's nothing stopping you from seeking battle with just 1PacRon, just like there's nothing forcing you to take them to sea. You don't have to do the same thing over and over.

Now, as the Japanese, it's also possible to lure 1PacRon out of Porth Arthur and kill them. You just have to be sneaky about it because they won't come out unless they think they have a chance to win. If you show up at their doorstep with the whole IJN, they'll stay in bed. Thus, you have to lure them into a trap with a weak, but still important force, dragging them too far from home to escape before the IJN BBs catch up with them. It's a good idea to do this as soon as possible, so you have the most time to repair before 2PacRon shows up.

[alexsmith]

Thanks a lot for your comments - but you didn't say a word about difficulty settings - what you think about that?

[Bullethead]

Thanks a lot for your comments - but you didn't say a word about difficulty settings - what you think about that?

I think that would be very hard to implement and that few people would appreciate the effort. But it's not my call, so if you feel strongly about it, send in a suggestion and try to talk my boss into it ;).

[alexsmith]

I think that would be very hard to implement and that few people would appreciate the effort. But it's not my call, so if you feel strongly about it, send in a suggestion and try to talk my boss into it ;).
I will certanly! As for another suggestions too. Just tell where to send ;)

You say computer does not cheat? I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!

Having the same situation - 7 BBs + 3 AC against 4 Japanese AC - about 40 minutes of battles from 4km - all Japanese ships are still light. But when I just FOR A MINUTE let them fire at my cruisers - 2 of them are MODERATE at the moment! And only two(!) hits at the enemy from my cruisers for the same time in the comparetive conditions!

Computer sometimes hits my ships with major guns three times per second! I only see occasional hits of enemy. They not just fire faster - they hit much more frequently! At the moment I feel nothing but angry - no pleasure from such cheating at all...

[Bullethead]

You say computer does not cheat? I DON'T BELIEVE YOU!

Well, that's your opinion. But the computer doesn't cheat. Sometimes, the Dark Gods just hate you. That's what makes battle risky.

[alexsmith]

Well, that's your opinion. But the computer doesn't cheat. Sometimes, the Dark Gods just hate you. That's what makes battle risky.

:) Well if you would add hits at computer managed ships in the game log - it would be more fair! We could just compare two numbers. Of course if there would be no cheating with log ;)

If "Dark Gods" hate me definitely more than a computer - then it is cheeting! That's what I'm talking about ;)

I don't say it is impossible to win against a computer. I just say that to avoid so called "Dark Gods" I'm forced to load too often. I know a few men, for example, who were playing UFO and did load every time they miss a single shot! In DG I also can load after each time my ship's hited - and I probably win - even most impossible battle! But that's not good...

[alexsmith]

Ok, we all now know - Dark Gods hate me! Personally.

But that what's another person wrote at one forum concerning DG (I'll try to translate):

Did anybody try to catch Nissin with Kasuga? I ...ed up to kick them! I caught them with Tsesarevitch, VladCR, Askold and Novik - about 3 hours I tried to beat them! They have no damages at all! Russian ships don't throw torpedoes from 600m, Japanese do. At the end they are OK, mine are moderate. WHAT TO DO?