Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz33
I was there at the dawn of the PC age. I was on the beta team for North Atlantic 86, my name is the the original Harpoon strategy guide and I've played every modern military sim to death. and I do call some of them junk. boosted capabilities my ass. now. those so call automatic crew operation in DW is just junk as none of them would have made it on a real US sub.
|
So what does you being the self-proclaimed Godfather of PC simulations have to do with anything?
Will it somehow boost your authority?
Will your hollow arguments suddenly fill with reason?
No.
So far you simply bashed DW and the other titles, without giving reasonable examples, and your last sentence is nothing but delusional. What does that even mean, "none of them would have made it on a real US sub."?
At least the lingo and procedures are simulated - not like in CW, where your crew consists of mutes!
It's like you're bashing
Project Cars in terms of physics, and than claim that
Super Mario Cart is the hottest stuff around.
Hilarious.
If you are so well-versed in the simulation genre, you sure did play Fast Attack, a title developed (in lead) by a former 688 skipper, and a game the Navy wasn't too happy about due to its authentic nature.
I hoped CW would have at least some feeling and features from FA, like announced/implied, but I am still looking for it. Did you find something?
Enlighten me.
So, all these games are "junk" (because reasons, I assume), but CW is somehow "it"?
Sorry what?
And what do you mean,
boosted capabilities your beep?
Are you, the
Godfather of the naval simulation genre himself, saying that the boats in CW behave reasonable and authentic?
If a Los Angeles class submarine would be that ridiculously agile, it would not even need counter-measures... what for, if you have fail-safe "knuckles" that shake off every torpedo 100% of the time in this 1:1 simulation that probably breaks OPSEC?
You start to sound like a shill, to be honest.
