HPS new games

[wodin]

Im going to purchase this game...not normally a naval man...but this sounds a great mix of air and ship...

[htuna]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: cmurphy625

Decisions, Decisions Decisions... This... or Over Flanders Fields.. or wait.. just a lil bit for Gettysburg!!!! [:D]

I dunno. HPS Midway game is thin in a few places, but plenty thick in a lot of others.

That said, I've probably log'd forty hours on Midway, thus far, and I'm about 2% into the single-player content. This game really does appear to have some legs on it, particularly when you consider the possibilities of either cooperative or competitive multiplayer.

I'm an OFF driver too, btw, but I'm looking at Rise of Flight as an alternative because the CFS3 engine is darn near as old as RB3D!

The new Gettysburg game should be cool, for IP play, but I'm not sure how it will be superior to TC2M for solo-only players. There are a lot of really fine gentlemen working on it, real Civil-War-Nuts, and I wish them all the best.

ROF is pretty cool, from the Graphics/Flying/Fighting aspect... but kind of limited Campaign - Types of Missions.. Amount of planes you can fly... That's why I was tempted on OFF...

I really really enjoyed TC2M... so Gettysburg is probably the most exciting to me right now..

[Grim.Reaper]

ORIGINAL: cmurphy625

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: cmurphy625

Decisions, Decisions Decisions... This... or Over Flanders Fields.. or wait.. just a lil bit for Gettysburg!!!! [:D]

I dunno. HPS Midway game is thin in a few places, but plenty thick in a lot of others.

That said, I've probably log'd forty hours on Midway, thus far, and I'm about 2% into the single-player content. This game really does appear to have some legs on it, particularly when you consider the possibilities of either cooperative or competitive multiplayer.

I'm an OFF driver too, btw, but I'm looking at Rise of Flight as an alternative because the CFS3 engine is darn near as old as RB3D!

The new Gettysburg game should be cool, for IP play, but I'm not sure how it will be superior to TC2M for solo-only players. There are a lot of really fine gentlemen working on it, real Civil-War-Nuts, and I wish them all the best.

ROF is pretty cool, from the Graphics/Flying/Fighting aspect... but kind of limited Campaign - Types of Missions.. Amount of planes you can fly... That's why I was tempted on OFF...

I really really enjoyed TC2M... so Gettysburg is probably the most exciting to me right now..

If it was me, I'm thinking Gettysburg will be the best bet out of all these games, assuming you can only pick one:) I also recently received Midway and assuming Gettysburg is generally in the same ballpark as TCM2, I think in the end I will get more mileage out of it. However, also enjoying Midway, just haven't had enough time to fully wrap my head around it yet.

[JudgeDredd]

Got my Midway tonight...looking forward to a wee game of it [:D]

[JudgeDredd]

Just and initial immediate observation...it would be nice if the zooming action zoomed in on the currently selected unit, wherever that may be. (seems it's not doen that way in WoME either)

[rahamy]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Just and initial immediate observation...it would be nice if the zooming action zoomed in on the currently selected unit, wherever that may be. (seems it's not doen that way in WoME either)

I would agree...noted!

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: rahamy

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Just and initial immediate observation...it would be nice if the zooming action zoomed in on the currently selected unit, wherever that may be. (seems it's not doen that way in WoME either)

I would agree...noted!

Ditto.

I really appreciate the scroll-wheel zoom, but the focus does indeed drift away from the cursor (pretty severely).

[JudgeDredd]

Just played the tutorial. Quite tense. I enjoyed it.

Thinking about the zoom - it's a tough one. When I was zooming, generally I wanted to zoom into my selected unit. However, I can also see times when you don't want to zoom into a specific unit. But I'd say the first scenario was the most likely

Can't think of anything off hand that needed attention though. I hope what I read was true...that there's variety in the deployment. That would make the game very replayable.

[JudgeDredd]

mmm...there are a couple of things. I wish it were easier to identify what target your package is going after. When you have two Unknown CAs and two Unknown DDs, it's kind of difficult to make sure you're splitting your packages evenly among the targets.

Say I had 8 packages, I would like to send two packages to each target - but it's not easy to indentify what packages have been targeted. Maybe showing the target on the Aircraft panel and also having a unique identifier for the target when found. For example the first CA spotted would be designated CA1 - the next would be CA2 etc.

Secondly, I notice that you can change you're package name, but I don't see it anywhere after changing it. I changed both my F4Fs patrolling the fleet to CAP1 and CAP2, but was unable to see it anywhere except in the Package dialogue. It really should be shown as an option on the map...just to help you tie things up.

The tutorial was quite sparse with equipment, so I can imagine throwing in another couple of carriers and things could get messy.

[JudgeDredd]

Oh - couple of other things.....a range utility so I can see what 100 miles out from my carrier looks like

And the Package Names and Mission Names don't seem to be working right

Admittedly, I have only read the tutorial and played that. So I will endeavour to read the manual and see if anything I've mentioned in here is my lack of understanding (most likely)

Still enjoyed it enough to restart the tutorial again though [:D]

[wodin]

your a hard man to please...hehe

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Oh - couple of other things.....a range utility so I can see what 100 miles out from my carrier looks like

Select your carrier, then click on VIEW on the toolbar above, and select DISTANCES.

And the Package Names and Mission Names don't seem to be working right

The mission names need to be unique VT/VB/VF, whereas the package names are what's shared when squadrons are combined. Once the first mission within an intended package is created, the package name will appear as a drop-down in all three types of Mission dialogue (Patrol/Search/Strike). All you have to do to add additional missions to the package is select the proper entry. I think that it's the label "mission" that's confusing, BTW. Mentally, I wanted to make packages an element of the mission, rather than the other way around.

When you get use to the Aircraft, Mission and Package dialogues, the game's a lot easier to play.

[JudgeDredd]

Good...'cos when I was working with the package and mission names last night, I was getting mighty confused.

Thx for the info on the ranges. I do recall reading that earlier in this thread now you'e mentioned it.

Like I said - it's manual time. But it is good to see a game that has depth, but you don't have to spend days on the manual to get the basics.

I was trying to land my aircraft last night and couldn't figure out initially why I couldn't. At first I knew (guessed) why - my Saratoga was on fire. But once the fire was out they still wouldn't land. But then I saw she had 55% damage (or is that number 55% structural intergrity?) Either way, it was below the 70 or so % needed to land. Unfortunately, all my aircraft had to ditch before the mission end - and this affected my score, so I only got a minor win.

Thoroughly enjoyed it though.

[wodin]

Hurrah Judge is pleased....I need this game...

[rahamy]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: rahamy

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Just and initial immediate observation...it would be nice if the zooming action zoomed in on the currently selected unit, wherever that may be. (seems it's not doen that way in WoME either)

I would agree...noted!

Ditto.

I really appreciate the scroll-wheel zoom, but the focus does indeed drift away from the cursor (pretty severely).

JT just changed zooming so that when done with the mouse wheel, zooms on the cursor which I think is best. Zooming on the selected unit could cause you to scroll all the way across the map if the selected unit is off screen, so doing that is a bust really. This will be included in the 1.01 update which we'll probably release in early April to tweak a few things.

Also, I'm in dicsussions with GameSquad to get a dedicated forum setup for this series & if that doesn't pan out for some reason will talk to the Wargamer. Nothing against Matrix, but I thinik it would be more respectful to have another companies game discussed on a different site. [8D]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: rahamy

JT just changed zooming so that when done with the mouse wheel, zooms on the cursor which I think is best. Zooming on the selected unit could cause you to scroll all the way across the map if the selected unit is off screen, so doing that is a bust really. This will be included in the 1.01 update which we'll probably release in early April to tweak a few things.

Also, I'm in dicsussions with GameSquad to get a dedicated forum setup for this series & if that doesn't pan out for some reason will talk to the Wargamer. Nothing against Matrix, but I thinik it would be more respectful to have another companies game discussed on a different site. [8D]

Good deal.[:)]

[RedArgo]

I've played a several times now. I tried out Coral Sea and ended in a draw. I hit them first, but them quite a while later they had multiple raids come in and sink Lexington and disable Yorktown. Both sides lost one carrier and had one disabled. I think between the two of us only four aircraft survived.

I have a couple questions.

Every game my outgoing raids have run in to the incoming Japanese raids and particularly with my TBDs this ends badly with all my planes getting shot down. However, it does leave their raid unprotected. Did strikes really run in to each other a lot in the war?

Also, in this last game my scout who found the enemy got shot down. I moved in several other scouts, but I had to manually keep them in contact with the Japanese CVs. Is there a way to have the scouts automatically stay in contact after I had to move them?

Is there a way to select more than one flight once they are in flight? It would be nice to be able to lasso a bunch of fights and direct them.

Last thing, maybe its just being early in the war, but when I manually direct my CAP to engage unescorted enemy bombers it sure seems like I'm losing more Wildcats then they are bombers. May I'll try later in the war and see how the Hellcats and Corsairs do.

Enjoying the game.

Bill

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: RedArgo
...
Also, in this last game my scout who found the enemy got shot down. I moved in several other scouts, but I had to manually keep them in contact with the Japanese CVs. Is there a way to have the scouts automatically stay in contact after I had to move them?
...

re this point - I did it this way. I went to the carrier and opened up the aircraft dialogue. I selected one of the other Scouts and assigned it a patrol mission and set it to loiter when the CV is found. There are one of two things I did before that...I either set the aircraft a direction towards the carrier, then waited for it to make contact and THEN set the mission, or I gave the aircraft a path using the max and min degrees, knowing it would put the scout in touch with the carrier and set it to loiter on CVs

If it's there, I missed it - but I think a "double click" to open the Aircraft mission dialogue is needed. It's a pita having to go back to the carrier and selecting the correct flight. It's been a few days since I played as I am rebuilding a friends computer and my memory is terrible at the moment, but I can't remember if there is another way to re-assigning an air group as opposed the the method I know (going back to the carrier, finding the right air group and setting the mission)

[RedArgo]

Thanks, I thought I tried that, but I must not have done it correctly. I'll give it another try.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: RedArgo

Every game my outgoing raids have run in to the incoming Japanese raids and particularly with my TBDs this ends badly with all my planes getting shot down. However, it does leave their raid unprotected. Did strikes really run in to each other a lot in the war?

It doesn't happen to my strikes every time, but it does occur more frequently than is to my liking. That's not to say that it's unrealistic, it just throws my strike into chaos! Yes, it happened in real life. If two forces launch strikes toward one another, at anything near the same time, they are going to approach each other on approximately reciprocal headings. Historically, I think that USN escorts were more disciplined about staying with their charges than were those of the IJN (which were notoriously aggressive and known to stray from the bombers). It would be cool if that was so modeled, but I doubt that it is.

Also, in this last game my scout who found the enemy got shot down. I moved in several other scouts, but I had to manually keep them in contact with the Japanese CVs. Is there a way to have the scouts automatically stay in contact after I had to move them?

Once you've got a solid position on the enemy, go back and modify/reduce the range/vector values for your search missions. That will concentrate those search aircraft near the target. Obviously, you'll want to set them to shadow carriers that come into view.

Is there a way to select more than one flight once they are in flight? It would be nice to be able to lasso a bunch of fights and direct them.

When you manually direct an aircraft, you effectively detach it. From that point forward, you are it's brain! Unfortunately, MY brain's ability to effectively handle such matters is inversely proportional to the number of tasks at hand. Because of that, I normally find it desirable to give the unit back to the AI ASAP. To do so, open up the mission dialogue for it's base. Look for an unassigned a/c entry, no "hanger," no "spotted," no nothing. That'll be your culprit. Select the now-errant unit, select from the patrol/search/strike mission tabs and assign it to a package via the drop-down manu. Obviously, the amount of hassle this becomes is proportional to the number of aircraft that you've meddled with. [;)]

Last thing, maybe its just being early in the war, but when I manually direct my CAP to engage unescorted enemy bombers it sure seems like I'm losing more Wildcats then they are bombers. May I'll try later in the war and see how the Hellcats and Corsairs do.

Same here, but I've been playing scenarios with the early-war parameter data. No doubt, you're aware of the problems with American torpedoes, issues that weren't resolved until well into 1943. Well, there were problems with the Wildcat also. In particular, there was a problem with the ammo-bins that would cause the guns to jam during violent maneuvers. Because of that, the F4F wasn't up to snuff until well into 1942. Anyway, that's how I rationalize it. BTW, I was playing the Pearl Harbor Hypo scenario yesterday, and a lone Kate snooper shot down a four-aircraft P-36 flight that was attempting an intercept.