Initial Review

[Sorge]

I've played this game for about an hour and a half at this point and am on mission six in the campaign. I'd say overall NWAC needs a lot of work before it could be called a good naval game.

Graphics
The graphics are, in my opinion, a step above older titles like DW and JFC. The interface is appealing and not too flashy. The 3d environment won't blow your mind, but for this type of game, it provides an appealing window into the world with some well-done weather effects.

Physics
The physics are very rudimentary and in some cases buggy. Unit course changes, in particular, are laughable. Large aircraft and submarines will practically turn on a dime, and occasionally jump from place to place. Aircraft weapon drops do weird things on the tactical map, especially at high altitude. Damage doesn't seem very realistic, nor do the paths that weapons sometimes take.

AI/Pathfinding
Things get buggy along the coastlines - I saw a sub continue driving straight into land. I'm still trying to understand how units handle launch orders and ROE, and why such a small percentage of weapons have a successful kill and others do not. Ordering a sub to launch a tomahawk on a land base resulted in the sub launching all 20 of its missiles in the space of 2 seconds!

Gameplay/Realism
NWAC gives us an impressive array of modeled units and weapon systems from a number of countries that surround the Arctic Circle. The storyline concept is an intriguing one and holds great potential.
Unfortunately, realism is lacking. As someone with a bit of knowledge of how the real stuff works, I can tell you that the amount of ordnance being carried in many of these platforms is not realistic, even considering possible capabilities 15 years into the future. Considering how unreliable and difficult to employ weapons are in this game, I guess that's a good thing. That DICASS is the only type of buoy available is also puzzling.
One of the biggest shortcomings in NWAC is the lack of coordinate, range/bearing and other navigational/tactical display tools available in the main display. This alone renders NWAC to the casual game inventory.
The quirks in the game's physics and AI leads to some very frustrating gameplay that I don't recall seeing in either DW or JFC.
While not a huge detractor, the storyline aspects of the game between missions are interesting but presented in a way that seems a bit amateurish.

I think NWAC has some potential, but the devs should've put a little more work into improving the physics and at least provided a coordinate readout for the cursor. If you're new to naval games, NWAC might be entertaining, but if you've played such games before, you might be wishing that the gameplay and physics of JFC could somehow be married to the crisp graphical presentation of NWAC.
I'm consoled by the fact that NWAC cost me only $20 bucks on Steam and was bundled with another strategy game.

[XanderF]

Ordering a sub to launch a tomahawk on a land base resulted in the sub launching all 20 of its missiles in the space of 2 seconds!

This took me a moment, too. You'll notice, when firing the weapons, you have a toggle from one of three fire patterns - one, 'enough', and 'overkill'. Something I actually like, in fact - when you tell a unit to fire on something, it fires the appropriate amount of weapons based on that setting. Makes it VERY quick to have a number of units fire dozens of weapons to overwhelm target defenses.

Rather handy!

I think NWAC has some potential, but the devs should've put a little more work into improving the physics and at least provided a coordinate readout for the cursor. If you're new to naval games, NWAC might be entertaining, but if you've played such games before, you might be wishing that the gameplay and physics of JFC could somehow be married to the crisp graphical presentation of NWAC.

IMHO, I think this game "feels" like it models the weapons systems and detection options (and CERTAINLY managing air strikes and air groups) better than "stock" JFC by a pretty big leap.

Obviously, the NWP updates to JFC have helped it a lot in that regard towards being more realistic (and modern), but you can hardly measure a just-launched-$20 game against a game that was $50 on launch and has had a decade of user work done to it.

Comparing stock NW:AS to stock JFC, NW:AS feels somewhat more realistic in many areas, it has a much more intuitive interface, looks better, sounds better, and is (although it does get tossed around as an insult) "more fun".

I'm consoled by the fact that NWAC cost me only $20 bucks on Steam and was bundled with another strategy game.

Yeah, it's definitely worth no more than $20 at present, and I particularly find "$20 and includes Conquest of America" to be a fair price for it.

It's good, better than many naval games I've purchased at that price point or higher...but not great.

Something I'm surprised you didn't mention, though, that is a peeve of mine after an hour or so playing it, myself...

...there doesn't appear to be any randomization in unit start locations* in the missions. And there is no mission builder. Not even a 'quick battle' or dynamic mission generator.

You have the ~25 or so missions the game ships with, playable basically just once or twice each*, a multiplayer component, and...that's it.

* The 'what we know' thread mentions that there is "some random variation of where exactly forces are deployed" for the missions, so...I dunno, maybe I've just been playing missions with very small start areas or been unlucky with the random generator, but I haven't seen any variances, yet.

[Foxendown]

Helpful reviews, thanks. I've been playing around a bit with the demo and have formed much the same impressions , but have to say (and this may just be personal taste) I don't like the interface, much prefer those in DW and Global Conflict Blue 2. The 3d models look a bit crude and unfinished to me (though that may be something to do with the demo only allowing me to use medium settings for some reason). On the map, without NTDS symbols, the ships take up a lot of room at low levels of zoom and that looks wrong to me.


As for realism, I like to know the depth of water ships are operating in and over, I can't see how to get that info, it may be there somewhere. But the biggest problem for me so far has been seeing one of my ships taking heavy damage but keeping all its sensors and weapons in 100% working order. Anyway, I need to give the demo a fair run which I will over the next few days.

[Arclight]

It works (mostly, few minor bugs) and I'm enjoying it, but it feels a bit gamey for me. Stuff like dropping a dozen torpedoes or launching every AMRAAM on an aircraft just to get a single hit; it feels like formulas at work (set hit %) rather than weapons being simulated.

Of course I'm comparing it in my mind to DW and FC, where you could drop a single torpedo from a helo and kill that sub you had been tracking. In NWAC, I often have 2 helos prosecuting a sub and all they manage after emptying their stores is maybe 1 hit, so I need to divert the ASW aircraft looking for other subs to come drop a few torpedoes as well.

(ASM not tracking surfaced subs is one of my major complaints btw; there's no reason they shouldn't, which adds to the feeling of "it's just a game". Seems it considers subs sub-surface units regardless of their depth).

Weapons seem rather inneffective, at least compared to what I'm used to, and I imagine I'll spend the weekend tweaking just that.

[0rpheus]

I went into it with DW in mind as well, and while some of the physics do seem to spin out occasionally (especially at high TC) it doesn't bother me too much. Having a blast with it so far, though I'm appalling at manual evasion (if that's even possible!). :har:

[Hawk66]

There's another review http://www.outofeight.info/2012/04/naval-war-arctic-circle-review.html

Hm, what I have read so far does not convince me, although in general I want to support devs, who develop non-mainstream naval stuff.

But probably I wait for Command..

[XanderF]

As for realism, I like to know the depth of water ships are operating in and over, I can't see how to get that info, it may be there somewhere.

The depth and altitude are handled in 'bands' (looks like 5 for altitude and 5 for depth). You can see that on the 'manuver' page for the units - helicopters only have access to the bottom 3 altitude levels, for example. Just click on the one you want to set the unit to.

[CapitanPiluso]

In my humble opinion, this is a "refreshed" Fleet Command and also the interface has something in common.
The graphic interface looks regular, you can not save a mission in the middle of the game, there is not a reference or library of all units,lacks mission editor and the way it manages detection alerts is really weird.
As I have played Harpoon series and Fleet Command with NWP mod, then this game looks like has nothing good to offer by now ( I only tried a few missions here and there).
I think they released a core of a game and wait for modders to do their job, perhaps it needs to grow and in this sense I should give it a chance for the time coming.
I really feel I lost $ 20 :down: This is not the fact, I would happily pay $ 50 for a good game

(I got it from Steam and was bundled with "Conquest of America"...gonna try this, seems to have fair graphics indeed ) :haha:

[Shearwater]

I downloaded the demo yesterday, and so far I like it.
Things that come to mind that should / should be improved in furher versions and others have mentioned:

- Performance. Maybe it's because I don't have the fastest system around, but I found it to be a bit sluggish. Especially switching between units makes the 3d window black out for a second or so - nothing that kills gameplay, but not that pretty to look at either.

- NTDS symbols would be a nice addition, plus at least a short data block next to units. Like others have mentioned, coordinates next to the cursor or anywhere on the screen would be a good addition.

- In-game saving (can't believe they left that one out)

- Mission builder / random mission generator

That said, I found the demo enjoyable. I definitely had in mind to buy this game, and the demo hasn't changed it.

I'm actually looking forward to what modders / devs will be doing with this game :ping:

[XanderF]

I have about as powerful a computer as one could build, and still notice that black fade-out/fade-in for the 3d window when switching units.

Still, otherwise, it's very fast. Can launch get into a mission in about 1/5 the time it takes Jane's Fleet Command.

[seaniam81]

Other then no mission builder and a way to view what units and their stats, I'm very much enjoying it.

[Onkel Neal]

Good reviews, Sorge.:salute:

[Sorge]

Thanks for the replies and additional reviews.

I think the black fade in/out on the 3d screen is by design. At least that's the impression I got. However, the graphics also seem a little sluggish on my laptop as well, and my laptop has decent specs.

I understand how the weapons expenditure options work, and like Xander, soon learned that you can limit it with those options. I do like the idea of having these options, but I just wish it'd be a little less ridiculous when the unit actually fires weapons. Giving an F-18 guidance to fire lots of weapons shouldn't result in the aircraft releasing five missiles at once. Just think it needs to be tweaked a little.

[wetwarev7]

Good reviews all! I'd been eyeballing this game and your reviews help me to make an informed decision. :up:

[Seeadler]

Graphics
The graphics are, in my opinion, a step above older titles like DW and JFC. The interface is appealing and not too flashy. The 3d environment won't blow your mind, but for this type of game, it provides an appealing window into the world with some well-done weather effects.


The game was created with the Unity3D game engine (http://unity3d.com/unity/pro/), therefore cutting-edge graphics would been possible but it was probably not being the primary goal.

[0rpheus]

The game was created with the Unity3D game engine (http://unity3d.com/unity/pro/), therefore cutting-edge graphics would been possible but it was probably not being the primary goal.

This also makes it very moddable from what I understand :up:

[cathode]

The game brings back fond memories of Harpoon for me. I'm generally enjoying it but the one nit I have to pick is the instant aircraft launches.

Launching a whole wing of long-range strike aircraft should take some time.

I remember it taking time for aircraft to launch and form up in Harpoon, and that added tension to the game when you're scrambling to get defensive assets aloft.

[Drewcifer]

The game brings back fond memories of Harpoon for me. I'm generally enjoying it but the one nit I have to pick is the instant aircraft launches.

Launching a whole wing of long-range strike aircraft should take some time.

I remember it taking time for aircraft to launch and form up in Harpoon, and that added tension to the game when you're scrambling to get defensive assets aloft.


That is true, the aircraft launch pretty much instantly the only realistic thing is when you swap out packages it takes a long time to change out the payload.

[XanderF]

That is true, the aircraft launch pretty much instantly the only realistic thing is when you swap out packages it takes a long time to change out the payload.

Depends on where you are launching them from - on a carrier, I pretty much queue up half the aircraft on the thing immediately in a mission with flights of 2 to 4 aircraft given various missions.

It DOES take a few minutes of 'real time' to get everything in the air (game time thus being...guessing here...maybe half an hour?).

Land airbases tend to get everything airborne a lot faster.

Granted, the launch time DOES feel...too short. It's not 'instant', though. (The other thing that bugs me for timing is the mid-air refueling. First off, those tankers seem to run dry FAST, and secondly, WOW they refuel planes...like...instantly. Still, it's better than JFC in this regard, so...)

[Arclight]

It works (mostly, few minor bugs) and I'm enjoying it, but it feels a bit gamey for me. Stuff like dropping a dozen torpedoes or launching every AMRAAM on an aircraft just to get a single hit; it feels like formulas at work (set hit %) rather than weapons being simulated.

Of course I'm comparing it in my mind to DW and FC, where you could drop a single torpedo from a helo and kill that sub you had been tracking. In NWAC, I often have 2 helos prosecuting a sub and all they manage after emptying their stores is maybe 1 hit, so I need to divert the ASW aircraft looking for other subs to come drop a few torpedoes as well.

(ASM not tracking surfaced subs is one of my major complaints btw; there's no reason they shouldn't, which adds to the feeling of "it's just a game". Seems it considers subs sub-surface units regardless of their depth).

Weapons seem rather inneffective, at least compared to what I'm used to, and I imagine I'll spend the weekend tweaking just that.
To come back to that, there really is a lot going on under the hood. For example, the way radar works:

The dimensions of the object from the viewing angle determines its radar cross section (rcs). The RCS is then modified by the RadarCrossSectionSize value of the unit, which varies from VeryStealthy to Large.

Some modifications are added here: disturbance from precipitation, objects near surface, land immediately behind target, etc.

The distance is taken into account, and the target's angular size towards the target is calculated (in ArcSec). Whether the radar detects the unit depends on the minimum angular size the radar is able to see.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?600345-Stealth&p=13692231&viewfull=1#post13692231

Work continues as well: for example, my complaint about ASM not targeting surfaced subs is fixed, and torpedo decoy efficiency is tweaked making ASW aircraft more effective.


Seems the UI is a bit too effective: it's easy and straightforward to the point it triggers the illusion (for me) that it's a simple game, but it really isn't. NWAC simulates, and does it well.

With a demo available (http://store.steampowered.com/app/200050/?snr=1_7_suggest__13) I strongly suggest people give it a chance and see for themselfs. In my mind, it is more than worth the asking price.

[0rpheus]

NWAC simulates, and does it well.

You're spot on about this, it certainly does simulate - I think its partially the interface and partially the fault of the 3D view, which doesn't show things like impacts & evasions very well on smaller units. Ship fx is much better in this respect, but when viewing planes etc I don't seem to notice flares etc like I do on the ships. Sure it'll get tweaked though, they seem very passionate about the game and the devs interacting daily on the forums is really encouraging to see.


Really enjoying this overall. I like that there's a good mix of mission types, and balancing the various forces required for victory is very engaging. I'm about halfway through the NATO campaign so far. Think this game will be one that grows and grows, especially if they add a mission editor. :up:

[Samea10]

I am half way trough the campaign, and i have a feeling that something is missing, i mean it's a good game for the money, but it's not THERE yet.

But i am sure they will buff those sharp edges in time.

[Fearless]

Just bought it... Is the campaign dynamic?

[Sorge]

Just bought it... Is the campaign dynamic?

So far, it does not seem to be dynamic. Ships destroyed in previous missions even show up again in subsequent missions.

You're spot on about this, it certainly does simulate - I think its partially the interface and partially the fault of the 3D view, which doesn't show things like impacts & evasions very well on smaller units. Ship fx is much better in this respect, but when viewing planes etc I don't seem to notice flares etc like I do on the ships. Sure it'll get tweaked though, they seem very passionate about the game and the devs interacting daily on the forums is really encouraging to see.

As I play it more, I see some of these nuances as well and learn to appreciate this game. I find, for instance, that the TU-50 stealth planes tend to be the most difficult to detect and shoot down, which makes sense, considering that they're supposed to be stealthy. Also, what I initially thought might've been a bug in submarine movement (which gave the appearance of the submarine jumping around), actually may be a reflection of the fact that the submarine's position, course and speed is being incrementally updated and refined by sensors in contact, which is actually realistic. But I think there's still some major work in some areas (could be a bit more stable, for one) and fine tuning in others needed. I look forward to the future of this game.

[Arclight]

You don't think you're being a wee bit unreasonable? You can't expect "Fleet Command 2" from a small studio for $20. I rather feel like you're using the wrong measuring stick.

Yes, it could use a little more work and that's exactly what TTG is doing. Imho that doesn't mean it's bad now but that it will only get better. There's a few bugs (units flying higher than they should due to pre-launch setting, and I managed to hover a ASW plane once or twice), but I can't think of any that would keep you from playing, apart from the one affecting XP users (game freezes).

For the record, the editor is being developed and the other features you mentioned are being considered.

I don't feel like there's more micro-mangement here than in comparable sims, but that may depend or your play-style.

Performance here is just peachy, but I'm not trying to run it on a 5 year old dual core. To be fair, it exceeds stated requirements so either optimization or adjustment of requirements is called for.

[Bilge_Rat]

I bought the game and like what I see so far.

On my system (Intel 9550 quad-core, ATI 6950, Win 7 64 bits), it works just fine, no problems so far after 4-5 hours of play.

Graphics are nice, somewhere between DW and SH5. I especially like the way the ocean is rendered. Some of the models look a bit low-res, but it is still early days.

There is an impressive number of sea and air units, sensors and weapons. The Devs have done their homework which is a good sign. Some of the sensor/weapon effects may be geared more towards gameplay than simulation, but I understand the engine is very moddable?

The gameplay is deceptive, it looks easy on the surface, but as you get into it, you realize there are many factors to consider. I especially like how air operations are modelled. The Tactical AI, especially of the fighter planes, also seems quite competent. Once you give it appropriate orders, it does not require much babysitting.

Yes, there are a few rough spots, but considering this is the first retail game ever made by these developpers, I for one, am very impressed by the quality of this product.

(Editorial mode on): There are very few developpers still making simulations for the PC market, even less in the Naval field. I would urge anyone concerned about the future of Naval simulations to take a look at this game and consider buying it. Unless we simulation fans vote with our wallets, we will have no one to blame but ourselves when the Naval simulation market is gone forever. (Editorial mode off)

[Arclight]

If you think I'm being unreasonable because TTP is a small studio, then you should check out the sim "Command" at Warfaresims.com

If you really like and care for this genre, you'll be really surprised and impressed by what an even smaller dev group have already done so far!

I'm well aware of stuff like Command, I've been around here for a while as well. ;)

To be honest, that's what I figured you were using as a measuring stick, and NWAC will never measure up, if only because it doesn't aim to be a hardcore sim.

At any rate;

I wasnt expecting much of Naval War to be honest. Always knew it was supposed to be a Naval War entry level gamey but I was actually impressed with it after a couple of hours playing.
But then its bugs started to kick in and that was my way out. It was rushed out unfinished. For me its over for now. Maybe when its finished and fixed I may dedicate some time to it.

Sounds a lot more reasonable, not as many exclamation marks at least. Total condemnation just seems a bit like going overboard.

[GalaxianFive]

I've been playing the demo for a few days and for the price, the game looks like VFM. I'm sure the bugs will be ironed out soon as they seem to be working hard on issuing patch fixes regulally, I just wish they would fix the land detection issue as seeing a helicopter fly through a mountain is a bit disconcerting. Overall I think this game is pretty good and I will be buying in the near future.

[Bilge_Rat]

If you think I'm being unreasonable because TTP is a small studio, then you should check out the sim "Command" at Warfaresims.com

If you really like and care for this genre, you'll be really surprised and impressed by what an even smaller dev group have already done so far!

I wasnt expecting much of Naval War to be honest. Always knew it was supposed to be a Naval War entry level gamey but I was actually impressed with it after a couple of hours playing.
But then its bugs started to kick in and that was my way out. It was rushed out unfinished. For me its over for now. Maybe when its finished and fixed I may dedicate some time to it.

I presume you do realize that as a member of the "Command" team, whatever you write reflects not only on you, but on the entire team. I presume you also realize that you are in an obvious conflict of interest when you make disparaging comments about a competitor's product.

I had'nt realized "Command" was so worried about NWAC. :ping:

[stormrider_sp]

I presume you do realize that as a member of the "Command" team, whatever you write reflects not only on you, but on the entire team. I presume you also realize that you are in an obvious conflict of interest when you make disparaging comments about a competitor's product.

I had'nt realized "Command" was so worried about NWAC. :ping:

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

[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]

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..:hmmm:

[XanderF]

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/showthread.php?601202-MISSION-EDITOR-It-s-happening!

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

[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/2012/05/04/three-moves-ahead-episode-167-naval-war-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.