A couple questions????

[djcyclone]

I have been thinking about buying the game fighting steel, but I have a few questions.

First of all, can you navigate your ship freely to anywhere you want, or do you have to be in a combat situation? I am talking about just floating around like the new game ship simulater. I know you can only see your ship from a 3rd person point of view, but I want the ability to do anything I want.

Can you pull into, and out of port?

I think your add on to the game metions the ability to refuel, so I guess I can ask if that is true?

Is hunting subs fun, or is it stupid?

Can you set up any mission you like, such as in Fleet Command?

Can you take command of individual turrets, and stow them away after a battle? I used to hate that about Destroyer Command. After the fight was over, my guns would still be hanging off the side, and I could never straighten them out. Same went for the torpedo mounts.

[COlPrice2002]

can you navigate your ship freely to anywhere you want
Not really. The TAS add-on shows a map view, but the only purpose of the simulator is as a combat simulator...


Can you pull into, and out of port?
There's no land in FS - map view in TAS, but there's no simulation of ships entering port, docking, refueling.


Is hunting subs fun, or is it stupid?
Just not possible in this simulation - I think that TAS has sub activites - but as an abstraction.


Can you set up any mission you like, such as in Fleet Command?
I'm not familair with FC, you're limited to a small number of types of scenario (escort, evade, etc)


Can you take command of individual turrets
No. If you look at the pictures of many ships, you'll find that the main turrets were often turned abeam -sometimes A & B turrets to port/starboard. The training fore/aft tended to be entering/leaving port.

HTH

Colin

[djcyclone]

Sounds like the game is not what I am looking for, but thanks for your input.

[Scott Chisholm]

I have been thinking about buying the game fighting steel, but I have a few questions.

First of all, can you navigate your ship freely to anywhere you want, or do you have to be in a combat situation? I am talking about just floating around like the new game ship simulater. I know you can only see your ship from a 3rd person point of view, but I want the ability to do anything I want.

Can you pull into, and out of port?

I think your add on to the game metions the ability to refuel, so I guess I can ask if that is true?

Is hunting subs fun, or is it stupid?

Can you set up any mission you like, such as in Fleet Command?

Can you take command of individual turrets, and stow them away after a battle? I used to hate that about Destroyer Command. After the fight was over, my guns would still be hanging off the side, and I could never straighten them out. Same went for the torpedo mounts.

Hi,

Fighting Steel is a division-level tactical surface naval combat simulator - weapons are limited to guns and torpedoes. Unlike Task Force 1942, you cannot take first-person control of anything, and unlike the Great Naval Battle series, you cannot directly control damage control efforts.

There is no simulation of submarines or aircraft. Fighting Steel is a straight-up surface ship tactical simulator in which you control one or more divisions of one to eight or so ships each. You determine courses to steer and ship speed; you can designate individual targets, or allow the AI to do that based on general targeting orders.

There are several camera modes which allows for some interesting game play.

In my mind, the biggest draw back of the game is the lack of land. The Fighting Steel Project does not improve upon that as it would have required a complete rewrite of the game engine, which is beyond the scope to FSP.

The NWS Fighting Steel Project is an after-market series of patches and updates which greatly increase the stability and overall performance of the game. Many new ships are added, and many of the game mechanics are improved. I wouldn't dream of playing Fighting Steel without FSP....

Thunder At Sea is a strategic/operational-level campaign overlay for FSP. Perhaps a more accurate description is that TAS is an operational-level naval warfare simulation that utilizes FSP to resolve combat. In TAS you direct your task forces in the conduct of your campaign. Whenever ship-to-ship combat occurs, TAS creates a FSP scenerio and automatically starts FSP. After you play out the battle, FSP closes and TAS resumes.

Aviation and submarines are abstracted in TAS. You can order your task forces to go places, but you don't actually drive them. Refueling/reprovisioning are abstracted at the operational level - no driving your destroyer alongside the oiler.

You can play FSP without TAS, but you cannot play TAS without FSP.

From your post, you sound a lot like I felt when I was trying to decide to purchase Fighting Steel. I was at first a bit disappointed that it was not a TF1942 clone, but the first time I played the First Guadalcanal I was hooked. The gameplay - with FSP - is a lot of fun, and there is more than enough to keep you busy and entertained.

If you have the ~10 USD to spare, you might want to give FS/FSP a try; I suspect you'll be pleasantly surprised. If you get tired of playing the stock campaigns, you might then consider TAS, which is really just a campaign generator for FSP.

I hope this helped.

[djcyclone]

Unfortunetely it does not seem to be what I am looking for. Maybe what I am looking for does not exsist yet. In that case I will just have to wait. Eventually a game will come out that incorperates total control, like I am wanting.

When dealing with a game in this time frame you have to include aircraft and submarines. Even if the player does not have the ability to control those units, you should include them for the player to hunt. It is simply unrealistic without those units. Land is another issue, because that is what Battleships where best at.

If aircraft are unavailable, then how does the game account for the seaplanes that Battleships and Heavy Cruisers carried? This was their radar before radar was invented.

I do appreciate your inputs, but I think I will pass for now. Maybe a game that includes total control, will be developed within the next couple of years.

[Warship NWS]

Unfortunetely it does not seem to be what I am looking for. Maybe what I am looking for does not exsist yet. In that case I will just have to wait. Eventually a game will come out that incorperates total control, like I am wanting.

Fighting Steel was directly designed for surface combat actions. Even though when and where surface actions took place could be dictated by other military or combat environment reasons they did not typically involve those elements during the actual engagements.


When dealing with a game in this time frame you have to include aircraft and submarines. Even if the player does not have the ability to control those units, you should include them for the player to hunt. It is simply unrealistic without those units. Land is another issue, because that is what Battleships where best at.

Now your going outside of the scope of what historically took place during tactical surface engagements, IOW, beyond the scope of the admiral in charge of a surface action task force. Even though land is not included in FS overall land itself mostly effected approach and withdraw for the forces engaged or caused various radar issues, of which can be modeled to a degree. During the actual battles however land did not cause as much of an effect as many seem to think. This is to say it was not an important consideration but it was to a limited effect in most cases, and many battles land had no effect at all. Land will be included included in WCDB v2.0+ and NAW however. TAS, the campaign handler, also had land included in the operational maps.


If aircraft are unavailable, then how does the game account for the seaplanes that Battleships and Heavy Cruisers carried? This was their radar before radar was invented.

Aircraft during WW2 were used on a *very* limited basis for gunnery and with mixed results. For the most part they were launched before combat just to get them off the ship and/or had their fuel removed to negate the chances of an avgas fire or used to locate targets for raiders.



I do appreciate your inputs, but I think I will pass for now. Maybe a game that includes total control, will be developed within the next couple of years.


For total control of naval warfare I would recommend our upcoming Supremacy at Sea that is currently in beta testing.

http://forums.navalwarfare.org//forumdisplay.php?f=7
Thanks.

[asnrobert]

From what I've read of naval combat in WW2, the only naval surface battle where submarines actively took part was during Operation Torch where the Vichy French sortied a force of one CL and 6 DDs to attack the invasion fleet, and was virtually wiped out. During the engagement, there were 2 or 3 French subs in the area, and they made a couple of torpedo attacks, but did not hit anything, and their impact on the battle was nil.
The only battle where surface and air fought together that I could think of was at Samar, where planes from the jeep carriers made attacks while the DDs and DEs made their torpedo runs.
Most of the influence of subs and airplanes was before or after the fact, like the Swordfish attack on the Bismarck, or some in the battles of Guadalcanal(S-44 sinking the Kako, the Hiei being finished off by aircraft, and a Japanese I-boat sinking the crippled Juneau).
Fighting Steel does have a air/sea superiority setting that takes this into account, and can inflict further damage (or even sink) ships after the battle is over.

[djcyclone]

What I am refering to though is the ability to hunt subs, and the nucense that air craft caused ships. It is simply unrealistic if you do not have to wory about these things. It is always fun to engage a sub with a WW II Destroyer. Trying to determing the position, then trying to figure out the depth so you can set you depth charges right. I even destroyed a sub with a torpedo in Destroyer Command.

It was a vary rare occasion, but I spotted the pariscope off of my starboard beam, and so I set my torpedoes as deep as they would go and launched three of them in the general direction. The second one hit and the sub was instantly destroyed. It is random things like that, which make a game fun.

Another random event that I noticed in Destroyer command, was shooting a torpedo bomber down shortly after it had dropped its torpedo, and then watching the explosion as the torpedo slammed into the wreckage of the plane. I want a game which gives you total control, but also includes the ability for random things to happen.

It has to be realistic for me to consider it fun, and playing a game is unrealistic when your only enemy is another surface ship. I do look forward to the Navies at War, so I guess I will see just how realistic that is, but even it will be limited until they start launching the patches for aircraft carriers, and subs.

[Warship NWS]

To Dj,

Comparing a first person ship simulator to a simulation that allows you to command a surface action force is not the same thing - nor should it be. If you want the type of game play you are suggesting then you might consider playing Battlestations Midway where anything can happen, historically accurate or not and with little regards for actual naval doctrinal operations of surface combatants.

Robert nailed it dead on.. subs or aircraft had NO participation in surface actions that amounted to anything in naval history for WW1 or WW2 with the only exception being when carriers were caught completely off guard by attacking surface units. Why is it unrealistic if a simulation does not take them into account when such events rarely, if ever, took place in history? Can destroyer command allow you to fight the Battle of Savo Island, River Plate, 1st and 2nd Battles of Guadalcanal, Denmark Straits, Renown vs S&G, etc. while being in command of all surface action units engaged in combat and with the realistic detail of Fighting Steel with FSP? No, it cannot. It is a different simulation intended for commanding single destroyers from a first person, captain of a ship, point of view... that is all.

Not knocking the game Destroyer Command mind you but if your going to criticize a simulation as "realistic" or not please base it on facts, not just game play.

Please do not take my direct reply in the wrong light.

Thanks.

[asnrobert]

Actually, Destroyer Command allows you to be in command of a division of DDs, and you can fight certain actions like Savo Island (one of the missions in the game), but of course you only have control of the destroyers.

[djcyclone]

To Dj,

Comparing a first person ship simulator to a simulation that allows you to command a surface action force is not the same thing - nor should it be. If you want the type of game play you are suggesting then you might consider playing Battlestations Midway where anything can happen, historically accurate or not and with little regards for actual naval doctrinal operations of surface combatants.

Robert nailed it dead on.. subs or aircraft had NO participation in surface actions that amounted to anything in naval history for WW1 or WW2 with the only exception being when carriers were caught completely off guard by attacking surface units. Why is it unrealistic if a simulation does not take them into account when such events rarely, if ever, took place in history? Can destroyer command allow you to fight the Battle of Savo Island, River Plate, 1st and 2nd Battles of Guadalcanal, Denmark Straits, Renown vs S&G, etc. while being in command of all surface action units engaged in combat and with the realistic detail of Fighting Steel with FSP? No, it cannot. It is a different simulation intended for commanding single destroyers from a first person, captain of a ship, point of view... that is all.

Not knocking the game Destroyer Command mind you but if your going to criticize a simulation as "realistic" or not please base it on facts, not just game play.

Please do not take my direct reply in the wrong light.

Thanks.



You are still misunderstaning me. I know that submarines never took action in surface to surface engagments. However surface commanders always had to worry about submarines in the area. Take the Indianopolis for example, or even the Bismarck. It has been said the the British units abandoned a good portion of the Bismarcks crew because a radio transmision was recieved that warned of a possible U-Boat in the area. The British did not want to lose a major combatant to a sub, so they chose to withdrawl and they left the remaining survivors in the water.

Aircraft are another issue. Surface commanders could not go anywhere without the constant threat of dive bombers pouncing on them.

All in all I am looking for a Fleet Command that takes place in the WW II era, and possibly even a game that takes place in the WW I era. This would give the player complete control over everything.

[Warship NWS]

You are still misunderstaning me.

I am not misunderstanding you at all Dj. If you want to be in charge of every weapon in a naval war.. then I highly suggest you look at Supremacy at Sea where you are in charge of military assets covering land, sea, and air. I will simply not agree with calling a simulation "unrealistic" because it does not go beyond the scope of what a commander would actually be in charge of managing in a combat scenario or based on hypothetical events that did not directly effect actual historical engagements - during combat.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

Actually, Destroyer Command allows you to be in command of a division of DDs, and you can fight certain actions like Savo Island (one of the missions in the game), but of course you only have control of the destroyers.

Thanks Robert, it has been a while since I have played DC.

[djcyclone]

I am not misunderstanding you at all Dj. If you want to be in charge of every weapon in a naval war.. then I highly suggest you look at Supremacy at Sea where you are in charge of military assets covering land, sea, and air. I will simply not agree with calling a simulation "unrealistic" because it does not go beyond the scope of what a commander would actually be in charge of managing in a combat scenario or based on hypothetical events that did not directly effect actual historical engagements - during combat.

Thanks.



I do intend to get Supremacy at sea when it is launched, but form what I understand, this game will not provide a 3D Window like Fleet Command does. Although the Graphics in Fleet Command are far from top notch, it is kind of fun to be able to see your units in action first hand.

This is the first I have heard that supremacy at sea will cover land units. That is awsome, so now I will definetly look into it. I have however been under the impression that Supremacy at Sea is a stratagy only game, and the only view you have is a global map such as the game Super Power. Am I wrong in this opinion?

Also the game you are working on right now, Navies at War is supposed to be able to play with Supremacy at Sea over the Internet. This means that Aircraft Carriers and Submarines will have to be in Navies at War eventually.

[Warship NWS]

For Supremacy at Sea, go here;

http://forums.navalwarfare.org//forumdisplay.php?f=7 (http://forums.navalwarfare.org//forumdisplay.php?f=7)

2 media packs and considerable information is posted there.

Thanks.