Loadout on a Carrier

[strykerpsg]

Originally Posted by Herman

No problem, since it isn't a review copy. Anyone who wants to see how this game runs can sit and watch from a remote connection while I manipulate the controls and enter the commands.

Folks who are simply interested in video replays can also check out:

Interesting that you're showcasing the v1.01 build 462(shown in the upper right of your screen shot in your video) and not v1.04 build 490. What's also interesting is that you continue trying to reinforce your original review talking points, such as:

1. Clutter in the video, mentioning the BSOD (Black Screen Of Data((or Death, as you call it))). This was changed and user configurable in v1.02 and higher. Note 2nd Picture, lower left corner of screen.

2. Cluttered display, which you mention is not able to de-clutter, but you clearly pass over the "Merge Range Symbols" under "Map Settings" Note all pictures of a decluttered display. You can select cluttered, individual weapon/sensor displays or merge them according to weapons versus range.

3. You talk about refresh rates on your screen. I'm running an i7 processor and no hiccups. Even in a cluttered mode as you like, mine runs very smoothly so perhaps it's time for an upgrade for ya. But, too each, his own.

4. You mention about the AI expending all ordinance, which while true in v1.01, is not an issue with v1.02 or higher. AI expends their primary weapons and RTB with only self defense weapons, unless turned off in the Mission Editor so yes, you can have total furballs with every available weapon, if you choose. I also ran the North Pacific Shootout under full AI and only lost 6 F-14's and 1 Orion. Not bad considering the Russians lost 12 MiG31's, 3 Tu-16's and 6 Su-27's. Still a 3 to 1 loss ratio on both fighters and maritime patrol aircraft, hence the Triumph score.

My problem is your overall characterization of the game and your perception of it's fallacies. Did it have some warts in the beginning, some yes but very playable. You pointed out some of those warts in your original 1.00 review. However, like any responsible game design team, such as Warfaresims, they take every moment to improve upon that original engine, hence my screenshots to disprove your July 2014 video and your talking points. You're still running v1.01 and refusing to admit your original talking points are now no longer valid and therefore you loose credibility and to some, validity.

I would challenge you to upgrade to version 1.04 since you state you purchased a copy and are not using the review copy from SimHQ. This can be done by selecting the "Check for updates" tab on the opening screen on purchased versions. The Warfaresims team is offering the pinnacle Modern Naval simulation and rather than accept it, you go out of your way everywhere in an attempt to debunk it. The problem is the genre is a niche market and H3/H4 no longer are holding water as they did 10, 15 or more years ago. Are H3/H4 dead, certainly not, but this title has taken Command of that aging niche market and brought new life to it.

I know this was asked to go PM, but since you threw out your 1 month old, July 2014 video, I felt a need to address it's shortcomings as you seem bent on the same dated arguments from v1.00. It's time to update your build and then provide your feedback. I suspect there will be some things that may impress you.

Below are the pictures of my North Pacific Shootout results, v1.04 build 490, upper left corner of the pics:
Herman 1.jpg

Herman 2.jpg

Herman 3.jpg

Herman 4.jpg

Herman 5.jpg

Apologies to all, they came out a bit smaller than I anticipated.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by strykerpsg

I know this was asked to go PM

It most certainly was and to be precise....

It must end now...take anything further to PM.

You have had your right of reply to the edited post you make reference to and the matter MUST now go to PM if there are to be any more exchanges on the topic between yourselves.

This is my final request.

[strykerpsg]

Got it! Hooah!

[mapuc]

For your notice I love this game. Furthermore, you have a Dev team that works almost 24/7 to solve problems that we encounter while we play the game.

100 % realistic !? No its not and I guess it would be impossible to create a warefare Sims that are 100 % realistic

Just my opinion

Markus

[Reckall]

I understand the moderator's policy on this matter, but as the editor of that site I would like to give my two cents before going under the PM thermocline as requested.

Basically, all the videos are reviewed by me before being posted. As a cursory look at the site will show, I apply a strict policy when the video of a new game is posted: to specify under which patch the video was recorded.

The reasons, I hope, are obvious: if new patches are published, there is an immediate understanding that the video is outdated.

Regarding the idea that the video can mislead viewers, by using an older version of the game whereas the work on it has progressed via new patches, one only has to look to the date the video was released; he will be able to see that, by that date, the patch used was the most advanced one.

[Some videos, for a variety of reasons, are kept private, and YouTube shows the date the video was made public. There is nothing it can be done about that except to point messages from the people who asked/commented the video at an earlier date].

For obvious reason, I always try to very strict in applying this policy.

And that's all! Now I'll dive under the PM thermocline and try to avoid the moderators' deep ban charges. Wish me luck!

Vincenzo Beretta

Edit: Clarifications.