Victory at Sea

[33LIMA 972]

World War 2 naval action with Evil Twin's 2014 release

 

 

For a long time, many of us have been tied up at our home ports, fretting at our virtual quaysides with varying degrees of impatience; waiting for the launch of a decent simulation of naval surface action in World War 2. Sure, we still have the Silent Hunter series for submarine operations and other titles for surface action in earlier and later eras. And we have games like Navy Field and World of Warships, plus older stuff like Battlestations Midway/Pacific. But what we don't have is a proper surface combat simulation, a truly worthy successor to classics like SSI's Fighting Steel and Destroyer Command - notwithstanding some Silent Hunter mods which provide a limited measure of surface ship action.

 

Destroyer Command did what it did (the clue here, being in the title) reasonably well, despite the gaping ommission of ship-laid smokescreens (other than a purely visual mod, whose screens offered no actual cover). This meant you couldn't use the classic destroyer tactic of launching torpedoes while making smoke, then putting about and disappearing into your ready-made smokescreen. Still, as a sim of operating US destroyers, it wasn't bad and the graphics were better than the earlier SSI sim, Fighting Steel.

 

Despite very basic graphics, no land, subs or planes, Fighting Steel, especially with the FSP mod, was - and IMHO still is - the classic WW2 ship sim. We get a good range of adequately-modelled warships (and transports) from the German, British, US and Japanese navies and the ability to re-fight most of the classic WW2 surface ship actions, many added by the mod community. The FS command interface was extremely well designed, giving alternative 2d (map) and 3d views and the ability to command individual ships or divisions - which you do by issuing orders for speed, course, target and weapon selection via a neat set of icons. Whether you found this intuitive or not, the thing that struck me was that it looked like the designers' aim was to put the player the role of the ship's captain (or commander of a division of ships), letting AI-run systems take care of the rest. They didn't fall into the trap of giving you some kind of gamey, simplified, crosshaired gunsight to aim your weapons, or worse a floating reticle in the 3-d world. I didn't miss FS's lack of land, even for the Gaudalcanal actions; likewise, the lack of planes or subs. Night battles became much more interesting when the FSP mod added tracers and AI was quite good, with ships making good use of smoke screens. Gun and torpedo action was what FS did and it did both very well indeed. Which I relished, having been brought up in the post-WW2 era and soaked up TV documentaries like The Valiant Years and films like Sink the Bismarck! and Battle of the River Plate. I made many a 1/600 Airfix warship kit, back in the days before multi-lingual instruction sheets no longer told you that part 21 was actually the starboard main armament fire director. And I really loved the 1/1200 Eagle kits, released in themed sets based on famous Royal Navy actions. Each kit had a little potted history of the relevant battle in its box. Marvellous stuff.

 

 

Nothing I've tried since Fighting Steel has come close to providing a convincing PC simulation of classic WW2 surface actions, being either too 'gamey' or too limited in scope - usually both. And unfortunately, FS's graphics engine won't run on modern PCs. Still, it was a classic, worth playing if you have an old enough system somewhere to hand (Win 98 to XP inclusive, IIRC).

 

 

And so to the to the present day...last week, in fact. While I'm on holiday, I usually visit local video game shops or departments, on the lookout for bargains - typically, games I might not try, at full price. Wargame: European Escalation was a recent example, and a good one, too, bought on Spain's Costa del Sol earlier this year and impressing me so much that I later bought a follow-on title, Wargame: Airland Battle. True to form, last week in a Game store on the Costa Blanca, I browsed the few shelves these days left over to PC games. With my head canted over to scan the end titles on the racked DVD cases of the non-top 10 games, I spotted one called Victory at Sea. Despite keeping a weather eye open for the Messiah of WW2 surface combat sims, I was intrigued that I'd never heard of that one. Worth a look, I thought, if only to confirm it was either an arcade 'ship shooter' or a tedious shipyard stategy game.

 

 

At nearly twenty Euros, Victory at Sea wasn't coming at a knock-down price, and therefore wasn't something I was inclined to pick up, on the off chance that I might like it. I was offline and unlikely to return to the store from the resort, so I'd have to decide there and then, without checking out online reviews. Decisions, decisions! Disregarding the flashy cover artwork of what looked like a KGV battleship and a Gato-class sub being bombed by Japanese Army fighters, I had a look at the back, studying the little screenshots and applying my very limited Spanish to the 'blurb'. This actually looked promising - WW2 naval combat in the Atlantic, the Med or the Pacific, with campaigns in the British, German, Japanese and US navies; quick battles which added French, Dutch and Italians; subs and aircraft as well as surface action; over a hundred types (classes?) of ship; and real-time 3-d world action, not just some overly map-based navy-building strategy game. Victory at Sea appeared to be firmly single player and firmly historical, not some kind of Multi-Player, third person 'battleship shooter'. The cover boasted a TIGA award by for 'Best action adventure from small studio', which also sounded promising. OK, decision made! I'd give this a go. Maybe this would finally be the one, something that at long last came close to filling the seaboots vacated by Fighting Steel.

 

Having picked up the DVD from the shop's desk, I noticed I also got a mini-manual and browsing this soon after exiting the premises, my heart sank. Apart from brief installation instructions (via Steam) and a tabular listing of about 30 hotkey commands, the mini-manual consisted of several pages depicting the game's 'classes of ship'. First problem, the ship images, evidently featuring game models, were rather basic - more detailed that Fighting Steel's ships, but rather crude, with some inaccuracies and simplifications.  And a quick count showed under thirty distinct ship classes, leaving major gaps - for example, Germany had no battlecruisers or heavy cruisers. Were they counting every named ship in each class, to reach the claim of '100 tipos de barcos' in the blurb? But I needn't have worried - many more classes of ships are included. Any WW2 naval afficionado will understand how important this is - a WW2 surface combat sim which doesn't provide famous and important ships like (sticking with the Kriegsmarine example) the Deutschland class 'pocket battleships', the battlecruisers Scharnhorst or Gneisenau or a Hipper class heavy cruiser, just isn't cutting the mustard. There were few enough real WW2 surface actions and a Battle of the North Cape for example really must have Scharnhorst, as well as a KGV (for Duke of York) and sundry British cruisers. Even if you're just going to fight your own semi-historical campaign, you need to have a representative selection of the ships your chosen navy had, in that theatre and during that period. But they're all there and more besides, in Victory at Sea; they're just not all listed in the mini-manual. Phew!

 

So, back home and unpacked, it was time to blow the cobwebs off the PC, fire her up and then load up my latest sim. This review is the result. So is Victory at Sea a shell-swept triumph on, above and below the seas, or a soggy defeat, best consigned to Davy Jones's locker? Time to find out what this simmer thought of her, anyway!

 

...to be continued!

[+pcpilot 181]

^DOOOH!  

 

^{What are ya doin to me man!  It aint right to leave a fella hangin like this...I might bust a gut or something!}

 

 

[33LIMA 972]

Installation and basics

 

Victory at Sea - henceforth, VaS - comes on the usual single DVD in the usual soft plastic case, whose only other contents are a publisher's (Excalibur) advertising leaflet and the aforementioned mini-manual with the three aforementioned short sections - multi-lingual installation instructions (for Windows and Mac); multi-lingual tabular hotkey list; and illustrated 'Ship Categories' section in English (which as mentioned, doesn't cover all included ships; there's a listing here, on the dev's website, which complement may have been added to since). As I said before, the ship models are not great, more 'tabletop wargame quality' representations than detailed miniatures, but the little para of text on each class seems to have been written by someone who has a feel for the subject, which is a good sign.

 

Installation installs the Steam client application, if it's not already on your system. As I'd temporarily forgotten my Steam password, I had to go through the Steam authentication rigmarole until my memory improved just short of a password re-set. Installation was otherwise painless. VaS dates from mid-2014 and its stated system requirements are Windows XP, Vista, 7 or 8 (or Mac OSX 10.8 or above); Core 2 duo 2.4 or higher; min 2 Gb RAM; GF 9500GT 512 Mb or above; and 4 GB or more of free HDD space. As far as I know, the game is only available via Steam, whether via shop DVD or direct download. There have already been several updates, with the developers evidently interested in player feedback and in improving the sim; my installation is 1.3.1 so I think I have the current version, with 1.4 reportedly coming soon, per discussions on the Steam VaS forum. A previous update added the ability to facilitate mods and a few are already available, details of which can also be found on the forum.

 

On starting VaS, you'll find the interface is neat and uncluttered. Here's the home screen. Appropriately enough, menu options are superimposed on an animated and nicely-rendered seascape, to the accompaniment of a somewhat mournful, drumbeat-backed theme.

 

 

Options are actually quite limited, as the screenshot below illustrates. Within each sub-option, there are only a few things you can tinker with. For example, under 'Gameplay', you can 'Restrict purchasable ships by nationality' (which whatever it means, sounds like how it should be, by default); 'Show individual batteries'; or have 'No night flying'.

 

 

If there's a full VaS manual installed somewhere amidst all the multi-foldered material in my Steam installation, I have yet to find it; but there's one online here, a 'Captain's Guide'. From a quick perusal, you will quickly see that like Fighting Steel, VaS presents a fairly simplified approach to the two main things you need to get the hang off, namely ship handling and fire control. Simplified, but accessible, and in fact fairly powerful, in putting a lot of stuff at your fingertips and/or on your screen. However, you can forget about manning a Fire Director or a rangefinder, scanning the horizon with your binos from the bridge and hearing the Firing Gongs or the ship's telegraph ringing in speed changes. Nor will you be able to take to the air in your spotter planes, if you have any shipped. But it seems that as captain you have what you need to exercise full control of your ship and its facilities at your disposal, like a crew on your virtual bridge, laid out in a sensible manner I found happily reminiscent of Fighting Steel - and that is a very good thing, in my experience. But more of that shortly.

 

I mentioned earlier that the ability to handle user-made mods was added in one of the game updates. There appear to be just a few mods available at time of writing, most concentrated on improving realism. Currently, the best place to find out about all this seems to be the VaS Steam community forum, which the developers also use eg to announce updates. I haven't tried the mod facility yet and have none installed so far, but here's the VaS mods screen, which looks like a built-in mod enabler, a neat feature which should help keep the game alive and evolving:

 

 

As an indication of the ships available and their appearance, the screenhots below were taken via the 'Custom Battle' option, from the screen you use to select ships for each side, up to your chosen points limit. In all cases I have scrolled over to the right, so as to display the capital ships available. The top pic, I've set to display British and German ships; the lower pic, US and Japanese. The UK-based developers may release additional ships and it would be nice to see the likes of the distinctive Japanese battleships Ise and Fuso and some other famous capital ships or cruisers. The displayed models rotate on this screen, hence their appearance below. You can see what I mean, about the models being somewhat crude; it would be good to see some improvements here too, whether from the developers or modders.

 

 

 

Gameplay

OK I've got VaS installed and looked over the options, such as there are of them, and read the full(er) manual, such as there is of it. Time to put to sea and see [sic] how it works, in practice.

 

There are three ways you can play VaS:

 

     campaign mode;

 

     historical battles mode; and

 

     custom battles mode, whereby you can create opposing forces up to a variable points limit (including 'unlimited'), wargame style, and then fight the resulting battle.

 

What I want most from a WW2 warship game or sim is the option in the middle of the list above - the ability to re-fight real actions from World War 2. Like the Battle of the Denmark Straits, Bismarck and Prinz Eugen against Hood and Prince of Wales. Or the Battle of the Barents Sea, with German destroyers and heavy cruisers trying to destroy a convoy escorted by outgunned but brave British destroyers and light cruisers. Or some of the fights between the Regia Marina and the Royal Navy in the Mediteranean, like Matapan. Or some of the vicious and deadly night battles between the USN and the IJN's 'Tokyo Express' over and around 'Iron Bottom Sound' during the Gaudalcanal campaign, launching or dodging 'Long Lance' torpedoes in the dark. Just the sort of thing Fighting Steel did so well - and still does if you can get past the dated graphics and have a machine old enough to run it.

 

So, how does VaS measure up, in the historical action department? Well, the first point is that there are currently just eight 'historical battles' available. Some obscure titles make it less clear what these actually are, but the list is as follows:

 

     Battle of the Denmark Straits - RN -vs- KM, May 1941 - Hood and Prince of Wales against Bismarck and Prinz Eugen

 

     The Final Battle - RN -vs- KM, May 1941 - Rodney and King George V against Bismarck

 

     Clash of Giants - RN -vs- KM, April 1940 - Renown against Scharnhorst and Gniesenau

 

     Arctic Skirmish - RN -vs- KM, December 1943 - Duke of York and cruisers against Scharnhorst

 

     Matapan - RN -vs- RM, March 1941 - featured as three separate battles, following successuve phases in the action.

 

     Battle of the Java Sea - mixed allied force -vs- IJN, February 1942.

 

Compared to Fighting Steel with its additional user-made missions, this is a pretty short list. However, I find that naval battles have high re-playability, in part because you or the enemy can try different tactics each time, so that only the initial set-up is the same. Besides, with VaS's 'Custom Battles' mode, you can recreate historical fights for yourself.

 

In the next part, we'll take a look at how a sea fight looks and plays out, using one of the above historical battles, before moving on to the custom battle and campaign features.

 

 

...to be continued!

[33LIMA 972]

Enemy in sight! - Battle of the Denmark Straits

 

For my combat try-out with a Victory at Sea Historical Battle, I decided to go for the famous fight in May 1941 when Hood and Prince of Wales, directed onto their prey by the shadowing cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk, intercepted Bismarck and Prinz Eugen in the Denmark Strait, trying to break out into the North Atlantic. I opted to play the German side.

 

 

When launched, the battle opens in the 'Tactical View', which has the appearance of a map, but is actually a zoomed-out 'satellite' view. The action is paused by default and VaS therefore enables you to give orders to your ships, while paused; so you have plenty of time to think and make a plan. Here's how this looks:

 

 

This is where you first make the acquaintance of the screen icons that are the main means of exercising control, with some also having hotkey equivalents. Top left, you have a fleet list, just two in this case. Here you can mouse click to select the ship you want to control directly.

 

Top right, are icons which control mainly camera mode and which unit icons are displayed next to each ship - options being none, flags or flags+ship ID. Bottom left is another block for the selected ship, with a mouse-dragable 'throttle' and radio buttons which enable you to turn your selected ship over to AI control and to elect to control all your ships manually, both of which are useful options.

 

Bottom right is a variety of icons for various orders including posture (attack, move, defend, retreat), formations (just column and circle are available), smokescreens and time compression. Bottom centre is the main control icon for your currently-selected ship, from which you can select weapons, launch your spotter planes and view damage, with the little row of icons beneath going red as systems suffer damage.

 

Interestingly, if you click the 'Help' icon over on the lower right, you get a pretty comprehensive clicakable version of the 'Captain's Guide' manual, which covers its content section by section, possibly also with some additional stuff. It's a great little resource, at your fingertips in-game, which you can pause the action to review. Neatly, each section is presented in the format of a short training film, with an animation and voice-over. Now that's what I call thoughtful, thorough design - top marks, Evil Twin!

 

 

In the real battle, the RN cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk were present but took no part in the battle and they're not represented in VaS's rendition [Edit - the two heavy cruisers did show up when I replayed this battle from the RN side, so maybe I just missed them]. What you do get, though, are the participating warships' spotter planes, in the air from the start. They are the things indicated by the little diamond-shaped groups of red (German) or blue (British) dots, which you can see on the Tactical View, near the ships. I believe the real battle was seen from a nearby British maritime patrol aircraft - a Sunderland I think - but the ships' spotters played no part.

 

Switching to the Combat View with the action still paused, I got my first view of my ships. As you can see, Bismarck is my currently-active ship, displaying the Baltic recognition markings (including prominent black and white stripes and [here de-swastika-ed] deck markings) that were painted out before the Germans made for the Atlantic.

 

 

Bismarck isn't one of the worst VaS ship models but her stern is heavily flared, her 15 inch turrets look a bit small and some of her 5.9 inch secondary turrets are in odd positions. Still she makes an impressive sight even in the dull conditions, with her heavy cruiser consort ahead (I had ordered column formation before leaving the Tactical View; if there is a way to decide the order of ships in a column, I don't know what it is). You have quite a lot of camera control in VaS, reminiscent of Fighting Steel, but the view above is about as close or low as you can get. It would be good to be able to go a bit lower in the Combat View (so as to see a decent distance from your ship, without having to zoom out) and to zoom in a little closer.

 

We're still out of range so when the action is unpaused, there's still no shooting. In the zoomed-out view below, you can see that one of our spotter planes is flitting about, just off Bismarck's stern. I should perhaps have tried to order him to spot for us but it didn't ocurr to me; with the British ships charging straight at us, I was under a certain amount of pressure, though I could have paused again at any point. You can just about see Hood and Prince of Wales in the next screenshot, at the very top edge of the screen, in the centre. As with Fighting Steel, the 2-d view (Tactical View in VaS) is more useful for keeping general tabs on a battle, although it's a great pity that you do not see the tracks of ships plotted, which Fighting Steel does. Introducing track plotting to VaS would be a big improvement.

 

 

Using the camera controls in the Combat View; it's possible to track the camera where you want. In the pic below I have tracked over to Hood (right) and Prince of Wales (left). You can see one of their spotters in the foreground; it looks to be a biplane with floats, which is about right. When close enough, you can hear the buzzing of the aircraft engines or the 'thrumm' of the moving warships.

 

 

My mission being hunting convoys not risking a fight with enemy capital ships, I should have refused combat and considered a successful escape a victory. But I decided to fight it out as per the historical battle. I would try to 'cross the enemy's T', turning to cross his path and hoping he would continue towards us in his anxiety to bring us to battle, much as in real life, where the British didn't 'open their 'A' arcs' (turn to bring their rear turrets to bear) until it was too late.

 

Changing to my lead ship Prinz Eugen, I checked the range, which was displayed via a light blue arc. The enemy were just about to come into range so I ordered Prinz Eugen to engage Hood and Bismarck to take on Prince of Wales.

 

 

Soon after that, the shooting started. I decided to let the AI take it from there and turned off 'Manual control' (you can see the icon, bottom left, is no longer illuminated green). You can also see that Prinz Eugen has turned to starboard while Bismarck is shooting ahead with turrets Anton and Bruno. Our shell splashes indicate that we have already straddled Hood and you can see some of Bismarck's rounds in flight. There are accounts of crew looking along the line of flight catching sight of outgoing rounds but this isn't really realistic, though commonplace in video games. I do like it, though, and it's fairly unobtrusive in VaS.

 

 

In the next pic, things have begun to happen very fast. Prinz Eugen is operating independently under AI control, and is off screen, to the right. Bismarck, also AI-handled because I have turned off Manual Control, has sensibly turned to open her 'A arcs'. Enemy rounds are falling nearby and getting some hits. The green wedge under my port bow indicates a turn being executed - as you can see this from a ship's wake, it would be better not to have these indicators, or at least, to be able to disable them. The enemy ships have also started to operate independently, one seemingly tracking Bismarck, the other Prinz Eugen.

 

 

At this point it became apparent that Bismarck was targetting the ship that was after Prinz Eugen, ignoring the more immediate threat. Before I could resume manual control, we received some serious hits, indicated by red and yellow damage text displays, rising from my ship. There really should be an option to disable these rather obtrusive messages, because the 'Health' bar (yuk, 'Damage' would be a better, non-gamey label) and the bottom row of damage icons tell you what's happening, already, on your own ship (and you should not get this kind of read-out for enemy vessels). Replacing the animated text damage messages with an audio damage report, as if from a crew member on your bridge, would be a good move (Fighting Steel has some such audio reports). It would be fine, just to eliminate them.

 

 

Further damage quickly followed and Bismarck was described as 'Destroyed' (a bit of an unsatisfactory description for a warship, unless suffering a catastrophic explosion). By this time, Prinz Eugen had also been hit and was sensibly beating a retreat under continual fire.

 

 

I took manual control of the heavy cruiser and continued to steer her away, trying to lay smoke, though it was hard to tell if it worked or was just smoke from my own damage. However, behind me, Hood had also been hit hard and was smoking, too. Prince of Wales, seen below, looked to be in better shape; but suddenly, both British ships turned away and broke off the action.

 

 

So, there'd been no repetition this time, of the result of the real battle! At least my heavy cruiser had escaped destruction, though it was a long way back to the nearest friendly port.

 

Well, so what did I make of this? Does it compare with the WW2 surface combat gold standard set (IMHO) by Fighting Steel? Well it's hard to say, as I haven't been playing for long enough. Some things could be better, as I have indicated above, like better ship models, a minimum camera height closer to sea level and drawing of ships tracks in the Tactical View. I have the impression that things could usefully be slowed down a little, for a less frantic and more realistic pace - like the rate at which damage is done, guns reload, or ships respond to the helm under player or AI control. I tried some zig-zags when retreating with Prinz Eugen, chasing the enemy shell splashes as they did to put off the aim of the next salvo, and I don't know if this affected the enemy's aim. The AI has been improved from the original release but I'm not yet sure how good it is. It would be good to factor in reliability; drill mistakes or technical issues can slow down reloads or even put guns or turrets out of action temporarily (as with the brand-new Prince of Wales's 14 inch guns in the real battle). I don't think VaS currently simulates ammo or fuel limits, though for many historic sea fights, this is not a critical omission.

 

However, I have to say that so far, on the basis of its ability to reproduce individual surface actions, I am mightily impressed. With the stated reservations, Victory at Sea really is a most impressive package, potentially and perhaps already a worthy successor to Fighting Steel, with the added advantage of featuring land, subs and planes. If my impressions survive sustained play, I'll have found my long-awaited WW2 naval combat sim. And that's before we get into its capabilities on campaign. If Victory at Sea's campaign and sub and air capabilities are up to the same standard as I've seen in single missions - a big ask - I will be in naval WW2 hog heaven, a Nirvana undreamt of in Fighting Steel, good as it was/is at gun and torpedo action. Time to find out!

 

 

...to be continued!

[33LIMA 972]

Custom Battles

 

Before we go on campaign with Victory at Sea, it's worth describing the Custom Battle option. In fact, there being plentiful help but no tutorial mission, creating a custom battle is probably the best way to familiarise yourself with sailing and fighting your ship or ships, in VaS.

 

You don't get to choose a theatre - it's all at sea so that doesn't matter much, right? From the Custom Battles setup screen, you do get to choose:

 

     - the points limit for each side - 'unlimited' is one option;

 

     - which nation's ships you play with and against (options being USA, Japan, Britain, Germany, France (Free or Vichy), Netherlands, Italy);

 

     - which ships and how many of each, are on each side (depending on the chosen nationality);

 

...and under 'Battle settings':

 

     - what type of battle you want to play (options being 'regular' [meeting engagement], port attack or defence, convoy attack or defence, blockade attack or defence).

 

     - the weather (options being clear, cloudy, rain or snow); and

 

     - time of day.

 

For familiarisation, it's best to pick 'Convoy Attack' which auto-generates a small convoy of merchantmen for you to use as live targets. You must choose at least one enemy warship though, but it can be something relatively inoffensive, like a Flower Class corvette or two!   My favourite Fighting Steel missions were the two variants of the Battle of the Barents Sea, when Admiral Hipper and Admiral Scheer with some destroyers tried to destroy a lightly-escorted Arctic Convoy. In the setup screen below, I have selected forces based on one of these actions, with Hipper and three of the big German destrovers against four of the smaller but more seaworthy British J/K/M Class destroyers. For a pure practice mission, I'd definitely suggest replacing the escorting destroyers with Flower Class corvettes - you don't want to catch a torpedo while training!

 

 

When you start the battle, you get a deployment screen like this, which I think is common to campaign missions, although in this case the ability to drag your ships about is limited to the bottom edge of the large  deployment box (brighter blue border). I don't know what the distance the smaller grid squares represent, nor the meaning of the arrows on the left. A sensible addition to this deployment screen - and to the Tactical and Combat Views - would be a compass rose or at least an arrow to indicate north, for orientation.

 

 

Clicking 'Next' to end deployment and start the battle takes you to the same Tactical View, with action paused, seen earlier for the Historical Mission option. By default, your force is in 'Attack' mode (other options being 'Move', 'Defend' or 'Retreat'); so when you un-pause, your ships move to engage the enemy (you start by default just outside maximum range). In the screenshot below, taken in the Combat View as the battle starts, my heavy cruiser - the sim has chosen Prinz Eugen for me, from the Hipper Class - is on the move, with full icon details turned on. The mission has started with my spotter aircraft airborne and nearby, highlighted by the little group of red diamonds; there may be a way to start with it stowed, the use of these planes being very limited in WW2, except for the Pacific or South Atlantic.

 

 

The next screenshot, taken soon after (with FRAPS, there being no screenshot facility built into VaS, AFAIK), shows two of my destrovers, with labels turned off. Note the text at top of screen is displaying progress towards mission objectives. The mission will end automatically when victory or defeat has been achieved.

 

 

Playing some custom battles for training purposes, I'm finding that ship and weapon control is perhaps not quite up to Fighting Steel standards.

 

For one thing, the interface is a bit more 'gamey' whereas FS tried to make things look and feel more 'naval' eg no labelled 'Health' bar and steering in FS is by reference to a compass rose with headings displayed. And while you can fire torpedoes, VaS doesn't let you control their spread, which FS did.

 

The biggest difference seems to be that in VaS, your ship is either 'full AI' or 'full manual'. In FS, you could designate a target (or targetting mode) and your AI crew would continue firing until you ordered otherwise. Issuing a steering command, for example, or ordering a change in speed, would not interrupt any of this. In VaS, things work differently. Under AI control, you do have some overall say: you can order an attack posture (amongst others) but once you start issuing steering or fire control orders, everything switches to manual control. Apart from steaming on, it appears that as a general rule your ship will then do nothing, except by specific player command.

 

So far, the big negative with this seems to be that when under manual control, fire control is very manual. You have to order every salvo and its target, for every weapon system (generally main armament, secondary armament or torpedoes; AA guns seem to be the exception that proves the rule, engaging planes automatically). A 'semi-automatic' facility would be much better - as in FS, order a target for each weapon then the AI executes that order until told to do something else, even if you are in the meantime ordering changes to speed or heading.

 

As things stand, once you take over manual control, it seems to me that you have to call every shot or salvo. I hope I'm missing something here; if not, this would really benefit from an update. While AI control in VaS seems reasonably effective and gives the player some 'oversight' control via choice of posture (Attack/Defend/Move/Retreat) there are times when you will want to intervene (eg change course or speed) and change one thing, without suddenly finding yourself having to do everything. Micro-managing a ship can be hard enough in a small action, but is likely going to be a real pain in a bigger fleet action.

 

I need to spend more time in VaS before I've really got the hang of ship handling in battle, and I daresay I'll become more accustomed to and at ease with the VaS way of doing things. While I would like a more 'naval' and less 'gamey' interface and a 'less manual' form of manual control - and improved ship models! - I must say that I remain highly impressed with the sim's excellent capabilities, scope and design. And yes - simplified as it is, I do think VaS merits the 'simulation' tag - as designers of good wargame rules know, you can simulate something effectively, without necessarily reproducing it in every detail.

 

I'm still getting the measure of the AI, which seems generally competent. I have seen ships which are manoeuvring close together get onto collision courses then 'jiggling' to avoid each other; and it may be that there is a tendency to close the range a bit too enthusiastically, although I have also seen damaged ships decide enough is enough and withdraw. In general, so far the VaS AI is looking to be up to the job.

 

Earlier, I used the Custom Battle option to set up a recreation of the Battle of the River Plate, with a pocket battleship against a pair of Leander Class 6-inch cruisers and a York Class 8-inch cruiser. As in the real battle, I paired off my Leanders (just like Ajax and Achilles) and operated my York (Exeter, in the real battle)  independently. I'm already getting used to deciding when to allow 'supervised AI' control and when to step in myself and the result was an exciting and engaging little fight, which I was able to leave mostly to the AI.

 

 

 

The sounds of gunfire, engine noise, hits and other intermittent audio effects backed up most effectively the excellent visuals, with shells splashing, tracers arcing and torpedoes lancing as the ships fired and manouevred pretty convincingly. In the end, I lost one heavy and one light cruiser, but we got the pocket battleship. Marvellous stuff! For what I want most from a WW2 naval sim, Victory at Sea fits the bill with just the Historical and Custom Battles, alone. And that's just from the surface action standpoint - remember, VaS can do submarine and aero-naval action, as well!

 

I don't think you can save and reload a Custom Battle but they can be generated really quickly. And they are a great way both to find your sea legs and to fight any action you fancy, whether re-creating a real fight or generating one of your own imagining. I haven't tried them yet but the 'Port Attack/Defence' options are probably also good practice for campaigns, as this type of action seems to be a feature of the campaigns in Victory at Sea...which is where we are headed, next.

 

 

...to be continued!

[33LIMA 972]

On campaign with Victory at Sea

 

This is I suppose where we see the other side of VaS, the Real Time Strategy element. Indeed, some would see the game as primarily an RTS rather than as I would, as a WW2 naval combat simulation with RTS elements in its campaign mode. The latter is firmly my view and as I'm not a player of RTS games, be aware that consciously or otherwise, I'm judging VaS according to my view of it, rather than as an RTS, seen from the standpoint of an RTS player. The developers actually hedge their bets, describing VaS using both labels. And no, I definitely do not rate VaS as an arcade game; I've played a few of those and this is a step or two above that, simplified though the simulation may be.

 

It's also maybe worth pointing out that for all my love of Fighting Steel, I don't think I have ever played its campaign. This is partly because I was quite happy fighting its single battles, but also because that's how I define WW2 naval combat - as a succession of single battles or patrols, often quite long periods and distances apart. Quite different from your average combat flight sim campaign, which is a series of missions flown in fairly quick succession, often from the same base. You sign up with a squadron and fly its missions. In a naval sim, sign up with the Bismarck and after working up, you get to go on one mission. Even if you manage to re-write history, you're not going on another mission for months, probably, with the intervening period spent laid up refitting somewhere while being bombed by the RAF. My idea of a WW2 naval campaign would be something like you see in Silent Hunter - a succession (if you're lucky) of single patrols or missions. For example for the Kriegsmarine, your campaign would be a sort of surface commerce raider's version of the Silent Hunter campaign patrols. Instead, Fighting Steel's campaign gives you (to quote the manual) '...an exercise in fleet management.' An RTS of sorts, in other words. Like VaS, in its different way. Anyway, it's time to take a look.

 

You start a VaS campaign by choosing from one of three theatres - Atlantic, Pacific or Mediterranean. I'm assuming that your campaign will be fought out in the chosen theatre, without moving on to others. On the same screen, you are prompted to choose a nationality and an avatar for your captain, and asked to give him a name. For the Med, the playable sides are the Royal Navy and the US Navy (the Kriegsmarine is playable in the Atlantic campaign and the Regia Marina only in historical or custom battles).

 

 

You then choose a difficulty level - options are Normal, Hard or Expert, the latter two offering increasingly numerous or dangerous enemies. You then get an introductory message from your commanding officer, and told what your first command will be - in this case, HMS Nerissa.

 

 

Nerissa was an N Class destroyer better known for her distinguished post-1940 service as the Piorun with the Polish navy in exile. Note the single funnel, not the two in the VaS model (which is shared between several of the RN destroyers). EDIT - I think what I was taking to be a second, squatter funnel is actually the searchlight platform, so the destroyer model is correct, in that respect.

 

 

 

Next you click your way through or past a couple of tutorial elements, first describing basic ship controls and then a couple of little animated clips about the 'World View' in which your campaign missions will start. This is a sort of animated aerial view in which warships appear much larger than life and which has a little globe view of the planet, top right, to show you where you are. My start location is the white dot; friendly ports are blue (Gibraltar, in this case) and enemy (Italian) ports, red.

 

Here's how the mission starts in this World View. It's 12 December 1941 and I am to hit ('sink' or 'intercept and sink' would be a better term!) an Italian destroyer, the Carrista, which I'm told, and can see from the map, is off Gibraltar. There's a Queen Elizabeth Class battleship nearby but it's not clear whether it will have a role in the mission; I'm not sure what the white line means, that's leading up to the top left from the battleship. I soon found out it's the ship's intercept course, so evidently I'm not on my own.

 

 

This sort of presentation is perhaps how Real Time Strategy players like to see things set out, but as a simmer not an RTS player, I would have much preferred to see things presented on a conventional map, Silent Hunter-style. There is a fair bit of info on screen if you care to check it out, including distances to nearest ports and to the target  - a mere 4 Kilometres away!

 

I should perhaps have paused the action and taken a bit of time to settle in and make a plan but instead I made a start, panicking initially to avoid my over-sized ship avatar from colliding with the similarly over-sized battleship avatar, and sending Narissa/Piorun off in the direction of the enemy destroyer, which in the meantime had turned north.

 

 

Somewhat disconcertingly, I next got a screen inviting me to choose which ship to enter the battle with. This game mechanic - which cuts in when a campaign battle is imminent and VaS decides it's time to switch view modes - is obviously designed for situations when you're commanding a squadron or fleet. It's a bit out-of-place, though, when you've got Hobson's Choice. If you're paying close attention, you'll see that Carrista is already in a damaged state, which is presumably how she let herself get caught in an exposed position.

 

 

Having made the only choice of ship possible, I found myself in familiar territory, in the Combat View, with my destroyer closing head on with my target, the Carrista; and the friendly battleship, HMS Warspite, on my starboard bow.

 

 

What followed was by now familiar enough, having played myself into VaS surface combat via historical and custom missions. As the Battle of Samar at Leyte Gulf proved, fast-moving destroyers are not an easy target for battleships and Nerissa had ample opportunity to show her mettle. I let her run under AI control for a while and watched the fun, before taking over, making both gun and torpedo attacks.

 

 

 

It was quite engaging, manoeuvring my little ship, and I had a jolly old time of it. My first torpedoes were evaded but by the time my second salvo was ready, the Carrista was smoking and pretty well dead in the water. Even so most of my torps missed, but the one that didn't was enough to finish the action in satisfactory style.

 

 

The mission now ended and my success was confirmed. In VaS, success earns you 'Experience Points' and 'War Bonds', which you can apparently use to obtain better kit, later on during the campaign.

 

 

Continuing the campaign, the next mission now appeared, resuming in this case pretty well where the first one left off. Apparently, further enemy warships (described as 'fleets', but listed by names which I think represent more Italian destroyers) are nearby and we must go get them, too.

 

 

That's as far as I have got with the VaS campaign so far and while it's only scratching the surface of what VaS provides by way of campaign gameplay, I hope it's enough to give you the gist of it. I'd have preferred a less RTS style to campaign content and presentation - specifically, a proper map as an intro, and for the missions to be presented as a series of longer, more open-ended patrols - say commerce raiding for the Kriegsmarine, convoy escort moving on to commerce raider search and destroy, then naval gunfire support for real life landings, for the Allies. However, the missions so far seem short but quite engaging, and that's before I've seen different mission types, like capturing enemy ports and convoy attack or defence and without seeing anything of carrier warfare, a whole new dimension. While the current approach is more RTS than simulation - and I'm quite happy to play VaS via its custom and historical battles, as I did with FS - I think these well-presented campaigns deserve a serious try-out, something Fighting Steel didn't mamage to persuade me to do.

 

...and the verdict...

 

While I rate Victory of Sea highly as a simulator of WW2 naval combat, it's hard to be sure from a few hours play and without a lot more info about what's going on 'under the hood' just where it lies on the 'simplified -vs- sophisticated' scale. In terms of the main headings - AI, ship & fire control, physics, damage and systems modelling and command interface - it certainly seems more towards the 'simplified' end of the scale; a 'sim lite', as another reviewer described it -  compared to my 'gold standard', Fighting Steel. On the other hand, VaS has (I'm pretty sure) a significantly greater variety of warships - and it simulates planes, subs and land, which FS doesn't. Despite the crude ship models, the visuals and sounds are mostly considerably better, the former to be expected in a more modern game of course. And there are some signs of sophistication in VaS - like torpedoes only arming after they have run a certain distance. Some torps can also be duds - in the Battle of the Java Sea mission, I saw an Allied destroyer turn into a fan of three Japanese torpedoes, only to take one in the bow - which didn't go off. And AI tactics are varied - they can make sensible decisions on which targets to engage given a choice and they will not just blindly close the range every time. And I have seen more than one example of ships which have obviously spotted incoming torpedoes turning into or away from them to 'comb' their tracks. Radar and spotter planes can increase the range at which enemes are spotted and aid spotting in darkness or poor visibility. Ships can and will deploy smoke screens. I'm happy to leave it to the AI to handle stuff like ammo type selection and don't feel cheated if I can't fiddle with every variable; in fact it's better that as ship's captain I don't have to, as that's what my (AI) subordinates are for.

 

Most of all, by and large the results look, feel and sound like convincing sea battles from the Second World War.

 

 

 

 

Things I really like about VaS include:

 

- the scope - Fighting Steel was ships only, 1939-42; Victory at Sea includes planes, subs and land, and it covers the full war;

 

- the very good range of navies and ships included;

 

- the inclusion of both a modest set of historical missions and a very easy-to-use custom battle generator;

 

- the ability to pause time while issuing orders;

 

- the AI, which if not stellar, appears in many respects to be quite solid;

 

- the visuals and the general ambience;

 

- the clean, comprehensive and easily-picked-up interface (though some elements are a bit 'gamey' in presentation);

 

- the neat & pretty comprehensive 'help' facility, accessible during battles;

 

- the developer's continued work on the product, including additional ships and features.

 

Things I think could be better are:

 

- while by no means the wildly manoeuvrable speedboats I have seen in some other games (eg Navy Field 2 video clips), ships respond to orders and change course too quickly (and seem to turn too tightly) and turrets traverse (and heavier guns/torpedoes reload) too fast - all of this I think needs slowed down somewhat, while maintaining collision avoidance (which is good, now);

 

- ship tracks (over time) should be marked up on the Tactical View and a compass rose/north arrow marker should be provided on this and on the Combat View;

 

- the camera in the Combat View should be able to go a little lower, closer to the sea, and be able to zoom in a little closer to ships;

 

- ship models are crude - in particular, some gross errors need fixing eg not enough forecastle ahead of 'A' Turret on many ships, funnels badly positioned or shaped (eg too tall, round rather than oval in X-section);

 

- when under manual control, designated targets (for each level of armament) should continue to be engaged until fire orders are changed or cancelled, regardless of any other orders eg speed, course;

 

- some on-screen aids that are permanent should be capable of being toggled off, notably the text labels for torpedoes, the coloured 'turn in progress' indicators and the 'rising text damage labels';

 

- spotter aircraft should not be deployed unless and until ordered (now, they seem to start in the air, by default);

 

- the ability to save custom battles, and to specify their location (eg 'The Slot' at Gaudalcanal), would be very useful;

 

- some simulated audio messages would be nice, like the voice of a bridge crew member reporting a sighting or a sinking (FS has some of these);

 

- the interface could be made less 'gamey' eg the dreaded 'Health' bar re-labelled as 'Damage', the delta jet spotter plane icon replaced with a straight-winged aircraft - and campaign missions could start with a proper map, rather than the very gamey, RTS-style 'World View'.

 

Of course, more ship types would also be great: adding one or two of the pre-war USN & IJN battleships, another fleet carrier each for the USN and IJN, a pre-war German destroyer and torpedo boat, and a ship capable of acting as a commerce raider/armed merchant cruiser, would leave little left to be desired.

 

 

All in all, on this scale...

 

5 - Must Buy - Delivers a consistently outstanding experience with minimal flaws that do not detract from the gameplay in any significant way.  

4 - Highly Recommended - Delivers a fun and enjoyable experience well worth your time and money, despite some room for improvement.

3 - Recommended - Delivers a solid gameplay experience with a few irritations that occasionally disrupt enjoyment.
 
2 - Difficult to Recommend - Delivers some of the promised fun, but not without significant problems in the gameplay experience.

1- Not Recommended - Delivers a sub-par gameplay experience; doesn't fulfill its promises; offers more bugs than fun.

...this reviewer's final score is: 4 - Highly recommended. Victory at Sea hasn't entirely knocked Fighting Steel off its throne but it is a very worthy, more modern, better-looking, generally better-equipped consort and will be my platform of choice for WW2 naval combat on my current PC, which for too long has been without a decent sim in this genre.

 

[+pcpilot 181]

Thank you for the honest, well thought out review. Lots of details and insight. Great screenshots too. I too miss my Fighting Steel games. Especially the night battles around Guadalcanal; starshells, torpedoes, LOTS of gunfire, all good stuff.

[33LIMA 972]

Thanks for the feedback! Reminds me, starshells is something I haven't found out if VaS does, possibly not unfortunately. Yes night actions were/are rather good in FS, especially with the FSP mod. I'll maybe follow up this review later, with a mission report or two, featuring custom battles in VaS based on some or other of the Gaudalcanal actions; maybe also a wolfpack battle or something like Coral Sea, to see how VaS handles the sort of stuff that FS didn't do.

[+ojcar 157]

Well man, you made me to buy the game!

[33LIMA 972]

Well, I hope you like it! Maybe let us know, what you think of it?

 

Edit - I just had a first stab at setting up a carrier action, using the Japanese Chitose-class light carrier Chiyoda with a destroyer escort against a convoy escorted by a PT Boat. The 'just outside gun range' starting setup of a custom battle is really too close for a carrier attack; so it's just as well your planes launch very quickly. I expect carrier action is better suited to Victory at Sea's campaign games, which seem to range over wider areas.

 

 

In the pic below, you can see my airstrike - a pair of Vals, I can also deploy Zeros and have some control over numbers - making shallow dive attacks on a merchantman. With the labels turned off, you have some visibility of aircraft via the faint trails they leave. You can also see the flak bursting in their wake, which may have been coming from the PT Boat escort...not sure if the merchant ships pack any defensive armament.

 

 

Looks very easy to pick up, in part reflecting the very simplified approach to carrier ops, but not without appeal and an added dimension to the purely surface action.

[+Dave 2,318]

Great another to buy now. Great review. 

[33LIMA 972]

Thanks, Dave!

 

I just tried a quick Custom Battle with a submarine, to get an idea of how that worked. It may be no co-indicence that Victory at Sea's joint publishers are Mongoose, who also published an identically-named and branded set of wargame rules. For the PC game in some respects has a wargame feel; and its simple point-and-click game mechanics are somewhat reminiscent of those of Wargame: European Escalation and sequels.

 

I set up a USN Gato Class sub for a 'Regular' battle and as opponents, selected an IJN fleet carrier with two destroyers and a cruiser. After ordering the sub - I got USS Pargo - to go for the carrier, I turned my boat over to AI control, to see how that would pan out. As usual, we started just outside gun range and for some reason, Pargo surfaced, possibly as the enemy group was not on a closing course and a submerged approach at low underwater speed would have been pointless.

 

 

We were quickly spotted, though - serves us right, for attacking in broad daylight! The enemy made smoke and turned away from us. At the same time, I noticed that the carrier had launched some planes, which were speeding our way at low level.

 

 

My sub evidently detected them and crash dived. Subs in VaS seem to operate at two depths, 'periscope' and 'deep'. When deep, your sub is invisible in the Combat (3d) View, unless you have the labels turned on (or the sub's turning, in which case you see the turn marker appear at the bow). When at shallow depth, you get a sort of dark, shadow-like view of the sub, as seen here, being bombed by the Japanese carrier aircraft.

 

 

We survived the attack, but I was then surprised to find myself on the receiving end of a couple of fans of torpedoes. These also missed. They may or may not have been launched by the enemy destroyer or destroyers at extreme range, before I crash dived.

 

 

By about this point in time, one of the two Japenese destroyers was headed straight for us...

 

 

...but the other enemies were wisely making off at high speed, the carrier being sheperded away by the second destroyer and the cruiser, which tactics I thought quite convincing...

 

 

All the while under AI control, our sub went deep for a time, then came back to periscope depth and tried to get the destroyer with a shot from one of her stern tubes. But to no avail...

 

 

The depth charge attacks which quickly followed were pretty accurate...

 

 

 

...and soon fatal!

 

 

Silent Hunter it certainly isn't, but submarine and aero-naval operations appear to be a potentially useful and entertaining addition to Victory at Sea's mainstream gun and torpedo action!

[+Dave 2,318]

This is going to sound cheesy but the shadow representing they sub is the best I have ever seen in a game. Think about it for a sec and you'll understand why. 

[33LIMA 972]

Yes at first I thought 'What the...' but then I thought, well, it looks like many a pic I've seen of a whale at shallow depth, taken from the air, from about the height of the camera view. A bit like this:

 

 

All that's missing is a wake for a periscope. Not appropriate for all seas, sea states and lighting conditions no doubt, but not a bad convention, for a wargame-style WW2 naval combat simulation that has no pretensions of being a ship simulator.

[33LIMA 972]

'Convoy defence' is another option for a Custom Battle and as with all battles in Victory at Sea, you can either let the AI run the show or yourself, take manual control of either one, or all, of the vessels on your side.

 

I would like a bit more control over the parameters for Custom Battles and the ability to save a battle you have previously set up would be really good - the 'Load' option seems to work only for campaign games. But it is simplicity itself to create a Custom Battle from scratch. A few clicks generated the one below, seen before launching this 'Convoy Defence' action. You can't control the size of the convoy but I decided to provide this small one with a strong escort: six destroyers - including a powerful 'Tribal' class - and a couple of corvettes and to position them around our charges.

 

 

Under AI control, the single attacking Type IX U-Boat got off some torpedoes, but he didn't last long, before the also-AI controlled escorts were onto him.

 

 

I had chosen to take control of the 'Tribal' class destroyer - the one with the two funnels - by the time the screenshot below was taken, but the others nailed the U-Boat before I could complete my own depth charge run.

 

 

Other games I have tried in the hope of fighting some decent WW2 surface actions include Battlestations Midway and Pacific Storm - Allies. But nice though the ship models are, the arcade-style, super close range surface combat element of these different games is not in the same league as VaS. Though clearly not a ship simulator, Victory at Sea is I think the best simulation of WW2 naval combat since Fighting Steel, compensating for its more simplified simulation with its greater scope. Just the ticket!

 

 

[+Hinchinbrooke 36]

It's a shame the ship models are so crude, as it definitely looks interesting.  Over the summer, I came across a game 'app' for my android tablet called "Atlantic Fleet".  It has far superior models, but the game play, though good, is more restrictive.  I wish it could be ported to PC.

[+Dave 2,318]

It's a shame the ship models are so crude, as it definitely looks interesting.  Over the summer, I came across a game 'app' for my android tablet called "Atlantic Fleet".  It has far superior models, but the game play, though good, is more restrictive.  I wish it could be ported to PC.

 

You need to see the greenlight at steam for Atlantic Fleet. 

[33LIMA 972]

Atlantic Fleet actually seems reasonably sophisticated, not to mention having the sort of ship models VaS should have (plus the ability to see them closer up). A large selection of historical battles, too, which is what I prefer to a campaign; happily not restricted to Atlantic actions eg Barents Sea, Sydney -vs- Kormoran. I really don't like the turn-based approach (rather than being able either to play in real time or as in VaS, choose to pause the action) and the fact that when you're between turns, the ships stand still but the sea animation continues. The whole stop-go-stop-go, stacatto sequence looks really naff - beyond awful. Maybe ok for ground combat, where in modern times, troops tended to move in tactical bounds in between halts at fire positions or pauses for new orders; but it looks terrible, in a simulated sea battle. Still, I hope AF makes it to PC, it looks like a another potential must-have, for WW2 naval gamers.

 

 

In the meantime, there's Victory at Sea, which also has the advantage of the Pacific Theatre and associated warships. Below are some pics from a 'Port Attack' custom battle. I had two small divisions of Japanese ships, each comprising a battleship, a cruiser and a couple of destroyers up against a US battleship, a couple of cruisers and some destroyers. The objective of this kind of mission, as I didn't realise but discovered, is to clear a way through to the port, for a formation of friendly landing ships or craft. It's a night battle, but not very dark, and you don't have starshells or searchlights.

 

Battleship Kongo is burning aft from a fuel fire, slugging it out with intercepting US warships, which are also taking damage:

 

Kongo is soon heavily damaged, but is still trading rounds with a Dakota Class BB:

 

 

My second battleship, Nagato, is also heavily engaged (the little while numbers appear when you group ships into a formation, and are one of those features that should toggle off with ship labels, but don't):

 

 

And here are some of my landing craft, running in towards the enemy port. One has already been hit hard, with US cruisers had destroyers closing in. By now, I've realised that, in deploying my ships in two widely-spaced columns purely for the surface action I had expected, I'm badly placed to defend my landing force:

 

 

It's getting up close and personal, as I order my cruisers to run down the US warships. Below, a heavily-damaged Kako, top right and under AI control, crosses the 'T' of a US cruiser, which has also been hit hard.

 

 

Heavy landing craft losses meant the mission was a failure, though I was able to play on, to the point where we had revenged ourselves by sinking the last of the outnumbered defenders. All in a day's work, in Victory at Sea!

 

[+Hinchinbrooke 36]

Killer Fish made an earlier 'Pacific Fleet'.  The models are cruder, but one can only hope that their efforts for both oceans are given decent support should they allow us to play via the PC.

 

One thing.  The models for Atlantic Fleet remind me of the models made for the seemingly defunct Storm Eagle Studios (Russo-Japanese War, and Jutland).

[+Dave 2,318]

Killer Fish made an earlier 'Pacific Fleet'.  The models are cruder, but one can only hope that their efforts for both oceans are given decent support should they allow us to play via the PC.

 

One thing.  The models for Atlantic Fleet remind me of the models made for the seemingly defunct Storm Eagle Studios (Russo-Japanese War, and Jutland).

 

Hinch

 

Did you know our very own Stary and Julhem are part of Killer Fish and worked on Atlantic Fleet?

[+Hinchinbrooke 36]

Hinch

 

Did you know our very own Stary and Julhem are part of Killer Fish and worked on Atlantic Fleet?

 

No I didn't, but they've done a very nice job within the limits of the game.

 

Atlantic Fleet, with game play adjustments, could be a great game.  Something that would last a long time and provide a lot of kudos for all.

[+Dave 2,318]

No I didn't, but they've done a very nice job within the limits of the game.

 

Atlantic Fleet, with game play adjustments, could be a great game.  Something that would last a long time and provide a lot of kudos for all.

 

I am hoping it gets ported to PC. 

[33LIMA 972]

+1 to both the above. I really, really hope any 'gameplay adjustments' include enabling real-time play, preferably with a pause button, to replace turn-based. It may be what PC wargamers are used to and possibly quite ok for ground combat; but for naval warfare, I find it incredibly irritating, comical if it wasn't so frustrating. I hope they also add the ability to designate targets for each level of armament, rather than as it appears now, having to take every shot yourself. VaS suffers from this too, but the AI control option helps. The manual fire control option in AF looks quite clever in its way, but it should be like playing as gunner in a tanksim, the action goes on. Some such tweaks for the PC release would indeed take AF to a higher level altogether, sort of Destroyer Command meets Fighting Steel meets Victory at Sea, a nirvana of serious WW2 naval combat gaming. Then, we could all happily sail into the sunset, in our chosen battlewagon.

 

[+Hinchinbrooke 36]

And if a PC version of Atlantic Fleet was moddable, I could add things...

 

[33LIMA 972]

Bon Dieu de mille Bons Dieux! Now, that would be nice to see, both in Atlantic Fleet and Victory at Sea. The latter has a Richelieu rather than a Dunkerque; as with many VaS ships, it's quite recognisable, but takes considerable liberties with the relative positions of many of the ship's main features, things which it would have surely been as easy to get right.

 

 

The cruiser la Galissonniere looks a lot more accurate, complete with what I expect are Vichy-style air recognition colours on her turrets: