Matrix Games Forums

I really like all the changes that are being made for this new release and the land battles look epic.

I'm still a little iffy on the air and naval part of the game however. Seems like there should be more sea zones for example. Doesn't feel like there is a whole lot of strategy to that part of the game.

And I'm not sure I like the idea of just having air army's instead of breaking them out into strat bombers, fighters, tac bombers etc.

What do others think? Am I missing something? Is there more to the naval game than meets the eye?

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

I really like all the changes that are being made for this new release and the land battles look epic.

I'm still a little iffy on the air and naval part of the game however. Seems like there should be more sea zones for example. Doesn't feel like there is a whole lot of strategy to that part of the game.

And I'm not sure I like the idea of just having air army's instead of breaking them out into strat bombers, fighters, tac bombers etc.

What do others think? Am I missing something? Is there more to the naval game than meets the eye?

I've done a lot of the testing on the naval game , and I'm here to tell you that there is a lot of strategy in it. You want strategy - get the Graf Spee home without converting it into a submarine. It can be done, 'cause I've done it! Here's another strategic question for you -- when do you commit the Kriegsmarine to it's Hell Ride? It can give you one or maybe two.
The air /naval interface is particularly well done now (within the scale and limitations of the engine.) Leaving ships in a sea zone where you don't have air superiority is asking to have your head turned into a canoe. (The developers have turned down the air units a smidge lately, and it's makeing a difference.) As far as the number of sea zones, ask yourself how far a warship can travel in 168 hours?
If you're into naval warfare, as I am, you'll love the Central Med in 1940-41. What a cat fight that is.
There's lots of things that I'd like to do differently, but this is sort of a mid range beer and pretzels kind of game. Its a real blast to play, it has sufficient complexity to have kept some really heavy hitters completely entranced for half a year, and I want to play pbems, which I never do. What it isn't is Drang nach Osten. If that's what you're looking for, I understand that the Great Grigsby is going to do it for you right here on this network.[8D]
I really think that if it gets enough air time, this deserves Game of the Year more than most of the trash that has gotten that award over the last decade. And if you want to know how much they paid me to say that go back and look at some of my posts from when RtV came out. I'm still amazed that Erik didn't challenge me to a duel.

Here's my problem with Seazones, simply, there is no provision for maneuver.  You have it for the land units, but not for the seas?
 
This is one of the premises for a great wargame, even in chess there is maneuver.  Or sure, you can deploy into the seazones, on the periphery, make committals, but there is no operational aspects within the zone.
 
As it is for tanks on the desert, it should be ships on the ocean.  The interaction of the various forces is impeded without maneuver!

What do you mean by maneuver ? At sea there never was any flanking/encirclement ... Sea zones are imho the only good way to simulate naval battles, the examples of the contrary (SC, CEaW) show clearly that - their naval systems are screwed, ship speed is ridiculously low, and the battle never look real.
I don't own RtV/ToW but the seazone system is for me a good point - I'm less sure about the rest so didn't buy yet.

Hey ...I'm hip PDF, ship speed is laughable, but SC has an editor.  I made a mod, PanzerArmee Afrika, with maxed out ship and air movements, not to mention the land units also.  It made for a very fluid game, on the water and on the desert, hence my comment about maneuverability.

Its just my preference, like my fav, SPI's PZAA, except it didn't have the air/naval model, so I made one that did.

I guess I'm an anomaly, cause I like crossing the T, or getting in close for a torpedo run, or the quick carrier task force that moves in, attacks at dusk and then is out of range before the enemy can react.  Or putting my subs and destroyers out on a recon picket line to observe enemy movements while my capital ships ease into their targets.

What do I mean by maneuver?

I have no idea!

What you're saying (crossing the T, torp run) is relevant for tac games , not much for strat games ... What is relevant is the overall ability to mount historically believable naval ops, and moving individual ships on a hex map isn't cutting it for me in this case unless the game is very detailed about naval (like WiTP say).
BTW how does the naval system in ToW ? How work Naval missions ? Air strikes ?