My short review

[Simulacra53]

You are right, because can indeed bring it back at reduced cost.
So it has been depleted so much it was forced out of combat.
I can live with this choice, it was not meant as criticism.
A turn based game on this scale brings its own challenges.

I do agree that fleets would better reflect the land war with its corps level gameplay.
But fleets have their own design challenges.

[Edorf]

ORIGINAL: Edorf

So which ww1 or ww2 strategy pc game(s) of this scale, new or old, have modeled the naval part very good in your opinion? Apart from the more obvious War in the Pacific ae.
As far as I can tell there’s not many options.

Ekaton

It is very hard to combine both good land and naval warfare, it's usually a tradeoff. War in the Pacific AE land warfare is not nearly as good as in dedicated land warfare titles. War in the West dealt with it really well, IMO. It was never the main focus, and naval warfare wasn't that important at that time, so he abstracted the U-Boat warfare, and tied it to production, rather than have AI move lackluster hexes around the map.

This game tries to do both and fails flat. Devs should have understood the limitations of their system and abstract it more, if they were unable to deliver proper battles. HOI4 did a rather decent job with ASW, but it took years for them to balance it properly. At times it was awful, with U-Boats either being too strong or too flimsy. HOI3 had the same issue, even with some of the best mods - I remember sending several U-Boat fleets to the Atlantic Gap only to see them destroyed in about 2 months.

There you go. There’s not many options doing both good. Since I wanted a WW1 game doing the land part pretty good I have bought this new release. The naval part is not that important to me anyways so it’s ok that its’s bit abstracted. I can understand that people have different opinions on how a game should work but I think Fury does a good job of making their games playable. I would of course love to see the perfect WW2 ETO pc game but that would demand a lot of resources from a developer team. Speaking of HOI3, that’s really only a WW2 sandbox.

[canuckgamer]

ORIGINAL: sol_invictus

The way the game engine handles naval combat is the sole reason I never bought any of the WWII titles; though I was very tempted to get WAW on several occasions. I just couldn't get past the naval gameplay. I heard the Task Force mod for the WWII titles was coming to this game so hopefully that will make the naval game somewhat acceptable but they really need to get serious with naval combat for the next title.

I did buy SC WIE but not SC WAW because the change in scale made the fact that you couldn't stack even a bigger issue in Europe. After reading here about the congestion in Belgium due to no stacking I am going to pass on WWI.

In addition I really don't care for the unrealistic abstracted naval rules and the Pacific theater was all about the navies.I am wondering about the Task Force mod you mentioned. Is this going to be an update from the game developers or a third party mod? Any idea as to when we can expect to see this? Thanks.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Ekaton,

Thanks for your review and we are sorry to hear that despite it being the best WWI grand strategy game out there, by your own estimation, it is still not good enough for you to openly recommend. That's actually a first for us!

I'll try and answer and possibly clarify some concerns here for you under your 'What doesn't work' section:

1) Regarding unit density, and just in case it has been missed, we find that swapping unit positions helps quite a bit here. This can be done by clicking on a unit, holding down the shift key, and then selecting another unit you prefer to swap positions with. As you may have noticed the AI does this quite a bit and is now specifically coded to bring artillery forward through the lines as well as any other stronger units such as Tanks when the time comes for that.

2) This is indeed a bit of a trade off as realistically, sure, naval battles would have all units attack and defend from a single hex, but the design intention here is to allow for some tactical feel for naval units within a grand strategy game. It allows you to move your fleet in groups and set up screens with Subs, Destroyers etc., and engage over multiple hexes. Granted this is not for everyone, and coming from other games where it is handled differently may leave some disconcerted, but on the flip side we've also had feedback over the years from those that do enjoy the tactical feel as mentioned. Is it perfect? Is there room for improvement? Of course, and we are always considering ways to improve this part of the game as we realize it is indeed not for everyone. Modders have put their own spin and feel on this part of the game as well.

4) What is happening here is that the AI will at times evaluate all of its fronts and re-organize units, and theatre strengths accordingly. Likely in your game the French front began to solidify while other fronts became precarious for the AI. In these cases it may shift excess tactical strength from one front to shore up defenses and weaknesses in another front to attempt to rebalance strengths and weaknesses across the board. Sometimes this is temporary too and it may shift units back in place as needed. It may feel odd at times but it is very calculated and arguably one of the strengths of the AI to consider all theaters combined for longevity.

5) Others have commented here on the losses and how this is reflected in game, for example, units are not always considered wiped out but rendered combat ineffective as they can be re-purchased at a reduced cost, but regardless casualties did tend to be quite high in WWI. When researching Verdun I came across statsisics that mentioned from August to the end of 1914, the French had 850,000 casualties, while the Germans suffered 650,000.

7) Were you perhaps using Amphibious Transports to transfer your troops? It could explain the high casualties and duration at sea if this was the case. For example, if using a Sea Transport to transfer troops you can travel up to 40 hexes (with Naval Cruise) and it should only take 3 turns from France to Egypt, perhaps 4 if you use the South Atlantic to the Red sea transit loop.

Hope this helps a bit,
Hubert

[eightroomofelixir]

In terms of naval warfare, I personally think nearby fleets assist each other in attacks and defense, similar to artillery pieces in this game, could help a lot.

Even if the the design intention is to bring certain degrees of tactical feel for naval units, naval vessels dueling in a 1v1 style is far from "tactical," single ship in the line formation would assist each other in a dreadnought-era naval battle.

[Tanaka]

Maybe if ships were not allowed to move after attacking like land units this would help? Seems most people just don't like the in and out.

[MrLongleg]

In terms of naval warfare, I personally think nearby fleets assist each other in attacks and defense, similar to artillery pieces in this game, could help a lot.

Great idea

[sol_invictus]

ORIGINAL: canuckgamer

ORIGINAL: sol_invictus

The way the game engine handles naval combat is the sole reason I never bought any of the WWII titles; though I was very tempted to get WAW on several occasions. I just couldn't get past the naval gameplay. I heard the Task Force mod for the WWII titles was coming to this game so hopefully that will make the naval game somewhat acceptable but they really need to get serious with naval combat for the next title.

I did buy SC WIE but not SC WAW because the change in scale made the fact that you couldn't stack even a bigger issue in Europe. After reading here about the congestion in Belgium due to no stacking I am going to pass on WWI.

In addition I really don't care for the unrealistic abstracted naval rules and the Pacific theater was all about the navies.I am wondering about the Task Force mod you mentioned. Is this going to be an update from the game developers or a third party mod? Any idea as to when we can expect to see this? Thanks.

It is a third-party mod and the author has stated he is working to bring it over; sorry forget his name. Only he knows how long it will take but I imagine within a few weeks.I have not actually used the mod but have heard good things about it.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: eightroomofelixir

In terms of naval warfare, I personally think nearby fleets assist each other in attacks and defense, similar to artillery pieces in this game, could help a lot.

Even if the the design intention is to bring certain degrees of tactical feel for naval units, naval vessels dueling in a 1v1 style is far from "tactical," single ship in the line formation would assist each other in a dreadnought-era naval battle.

Personally I like the concept and I think it could reasonably fit will within the current game engine.

I know Bill has some further ideas as well and I wouldn't be surprised if something along these lines is also on his list.

It had been a very hectic last month to get the game ready for release, but now is a good time for us to further discuss things to improve the game based on all the feedback so far, including the feedback from this thread.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
Maybe if ships were not allowed to move after attacking like land units this would help? Seems most people just don't like the in and out.

One potential downside to this is that it would leave the attacker quite vulnerable on the following turn. Land units can also move out after an attack, it comes down to how many APs they have left, and with naval units we halved the remaining AP after any attack to help recognize and compensate for the fact they have significantly more AP than land units.

This helps to address both concerns to a degree, i.e. that an attacking naval unit will not necessarily be left in a vulnerable state on the following turn, while also limiting the in and out.

For a further example, the halved APs after an attack significantly addressed a previous issue where Naval units could zoom in from well outside an area of initial combat and then escape quite a ways away after combat. Now if they are well outside an area of combat, a player has to think a bit more carefully if engaging is worth it as they could very well get stuck in a vulnerable position if they had to expend most of their APs just to engage in the first place.

[MrLongleg]

I think I have to defend the game a bit. I play a lot of SC3 WaW against human players and it is a great game. It captures well the Pacific game of cat and mouse between carrier fleets. If you put proper screens up the enemy BB's cannot easily get to the carriers. The overall game pretty much lets you face similar dilemmas a supreme commander in WW2 had to face. I assume that the WW1 game captures this essence too.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
Maybe if ships were not allowed to move after attacking like land units this would help? Seems most people just don't like the in and out.

One potential downside to this is that it would leave the attacker quite vulnerable on the following turn. Land units can also move out after an attack, it comes down to how many APs they have left, and with naval units we halved the remaining AP after any attack to help recognize and compensate for the fact they have significantly more AP than land units.

This helps to address both concerns to a degree, i.e. that an attacking naval unit will not necessarily be left in a vulnerable state on the following turn, while also limiting the in and out.

For a further example, the halved APs after an attack significantly addressed a previous issue where Naval units could zoom in from well outside an area of initial combat and then escape quite a ways away after combat. Now if they are well outside an area of combat, a player has to think a bit more carefully if engaging is worth it as they could very well get stuck in a vulnerable position if they had to expend most of their APs just to engage in the first place.

Gotcha makes sense!