Matrix Games Forums

Great title and I'm sure it will get better with age...Thanks to the dev's

ORIGINAL: VegasOZ

Playing the Fleet tutorial mission is a BLAST.

The Naval Warfare with aircraft is really, really well done and a ton of fun to play.

+1 now that was fun!

Congratulations on the launch! enjoying every minute so far....thank you!

Playing with the full 3D graphic setting I am noticing a little grind and faltering when Aircraft units are involved with the action. Not major, but I thought I'd pass it on. Just some stuttering with the AI execution is what I'm seeing.

ORIGINAL: VegasOZ

Playing with the full 3D graphic setting I am noticing a little grind and faltering when Aircraft units are involved with the action. Not major, but I thought I'd pass it on. Just some stuttering with the AI execution is what I'm seeing.

Same experience here, including naval units. Seems to occur at the beginning of the turn.

ORIGINAL: oldspec4

ORIGINAL: VegasOZ

Playing with the full 3D graphic setting I am noticing a little grind and faltering when Aircraft units are involved with the action. Not major, but I thought I'd pass it on. Just some stuttering with the AI execution is what I'm seeing.

Same experience here, including naval units. Seems to occur at the beginning of the turn.

I´m having the same problem. Heavy stuttering, while the AI executes its move. The flags stop spinning for a while and it is hard to follow the action then. Tried different performance settings, but got no satisfying results.

Can anyone expand a little more on the differences from PG/PC? More specifically, how much deeper gameplay? I like PG/PC and will sometimes revisit PC, but want just a little more from it as far as depth. I play WiTE and WiW so I come up for air with PC every so often, but I don't want to go all the way to the surface if that makes sense. [:D]

Everything from screenshots to AAR's look very nice visually, just can't seem to pull the trigger on this title yet thinking about the above. Someone sell me!

It might be best to watch some of the gameplay video's out there. This one for example makes comparisons with PzC regularly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSjxekCXG0A

Since the question comes up regularly, I'll quote our interview on The Wargamer:

Aside from the graphics the most obvious difference must be the addition of a supply system. This means positioning of units and keeping a solid front-line is very important. With supply sources capable of maintaining only limited amounts of units, digging a whole army in around a single victory point is a recipe for defeat. This seemingly simple feature has a profound impact of how the game is played.

OoB also has more detailed combat mechanics, with more different combat statistics and special rules for air and naval combat. This, combined with a large range of special abilities – such as mine-laying, sonar sweeps, bridge building, etc – make for a slightly more complex gameplay. The difficult terrain of most of the Pacific theater scenarios also lead to a generally slower paced game.

ORIGINAL: GI_Tom

Can anyone expand a little more on the differences from PG/PC? More specifically, how much deeper gameplay? I like PG/PC and will sometimes revisit PC, but want just a little more from it as far as depth. I play WiTE and WiW so I come up for air with PC every so often, but I don't want to go all the way to the surface if that makes sense. [:D]

Everything from screenshots to AAR's look very nice visually, just can't seem to pull the trigger on this title yet thinking about the above. Someone sell me!

Order of Battle: Pacific has a certain "grit" and "suspense" to it that I do not see in Panzer Korps. I dearly love my Panzer Korps (own ALL DLC campaigns). This game is very similar but more gritty.

However, I would warn you about one thing about Order of Battle: Pacific. It is going to be an EXPENSIVE game to own. It is what I have always known as a "beer and pretzels" game. It is FUN to play, pretty fast paced and the missions have some tension to them. BUT, you are going to have a DRAMATIC INCREASE in your Beer and Pretzels expenses because Order of Battle: Pacific is a "one more turn, just one more turn" addicting game... LOL

On the other hand, you can always invest in Beer and Pretzel company Stocks and make another type of killing.

I've been having a blast just playing the tutorials. There's a lot of familiar Panzer Corps feel but a lot of new features, especially the addition of fleet battles. Hopefully there'll be a grand campaign DLC a'la PanzerCorps

Game is terrific fun and agree with all positive comments. Certainly is a 'one more turn' kind of game!

I've played up through Java campaign as Rising Sun and it can be challenging.
The upcoming patch should do wonders for the Java scenario.

This engine, cleaned up and with a few UI improvements, would be dynamite for a WW2 Mediterranean naval/air campaign game. PG/PC did not do it right but this one probably can.

-deleted- *wrong forum post*

But congrats on the great game. It looks and feels positively gorgeous!

Best wishes, Vic

While I still favor this game as a purchase, there is a trend I am seeing (and have seen in other operational strategy games in the past decade that I find disturbing. Some scenarios are designed to where they have to play out in a certain linear order. I'm not talking in relation to other scenarios, but rather within the single scenario itself.

Ex. You are supposed to fight and win the offshore naval battle FIRST. THEN escort the supply ships off the map next. THEN repel an eastern attack. THEN repel a southern attack. THEN ... etc....

See, the whole thing as if the battle is orchestrated for you and you MUST follow it in the sequence it was intended to play out. How, can I best describe this? Take the Battle of El Alamein as an example (not related to Pacific stuff, but a good example for what I'm trying to describe). There was the bombardment phase, then the mineclearing, then the initial northern assaults, then the southern feint, then the northern breakthrough, then the pursuit.

That's all fine in how it historically happened, but why not let the player design the strategy? Plop the player into the scenario, give the player some goals, then allow the player to exercise his own ingenuity in coming up with a strategy. There is no need to micromanage strategy for the player. See what I'm getting at?

This Pacific game is a fine addition to the Panzer Corps line, but I think it forces strategy on the player. The game is playing overall commander and you're just carrying out tasks.

My first impressions. Well, it's fun! I don't really like that the campaign is not a true campaign it's a collections of small scenarios. I should have researched more before buying. I do not like this sort of liner play. I thought the campaign meant that I would control the Allied or Japanese forces and fight it out.

I thought (incorrectly on my part) it would be more like Strategic Command or Storm Over the Pacific (only way better). So far I think it is a fun beer and pretzel game. I just wish I could fight the war on my own terms.

Oh, BTW, who designed the Oahu map and completely left out the Ko'olau Mountains! [:-]

I've done well through bootcamp an the allied campaign until Midway. I sunk 4 jap carriers, lost no ships of my own, sunk the whole invasion force. Then was informed I'd done so badly that the war is lost and the campaign is over [:o] That's a bit harsh isn't it? [:D]

I don't mind losing, I'm used to it. What happened there?

That sounds wrong. Can you send the final turn savegame to info@the-artistocrats.com?

I will tell you how good this game is. It is on my laptop at work!!!!

ORIGINAL: tulsaexec

I will tell you how good this game is. It is on my laptop at work!!!!

Shhhh, got it installed on two work PCs as well [8D]

Lukas, I restarted the campaign, probably autosaved over it. I might have misread something anyway, don't worry about it. If it happens again I'll save it.

Thanks for your quick support

Erik,

I've been modding the units.txt file for some interesting combat variations!