Battleships

ELTEE

ELTEE

Vice Admiral
I'm looking for a game that centers on fleet action - WWII preferably, but either world war is fine. I'd like engagments both large and small.

Any advice? Dundradal, I think you've mentioned a couple in the past, right?
 
Yeah...there are two I play on Xbox 360.

Battlestations Midway and its sequel Battlestations Pacific. BS:M has perhaps the better gameplay/strategy of the two, but BS:p adds a bunch of stuff that is pretty great, but it also adds a lot of beginning player type of stuff (inflight reloads, smart targeting, etc). I typically play BS:p a few nights a week online.

They both let you use aircraft, surface ships and submarines. BS:p has a more diverse selection of units (and "what if" units - Super Yamato, Montana, Shinden, Kuma torpedo cruiser).
 
"Distant Guns: Russian Japanese war" and "Jutland" are based on the same engine, and combine both operational and tactical levels of sea warfare. I haven't played them, so I can't tell if they are good or bad.

New version of Carriers at War is quite good in capturing essence of carrier vs carrier battles, gameplay is fast, intense and not complicated. However presentation of surface (gun and torpedo) actions leaves much to be desired.
 
Played Jutland on PC, excellent game

I actually reviewed the game for an online magazine back in the day. I loved the game, cant get it to work on XP any more but the Game was perfect for WWI fleet actions. You had the Coronado battle, the Falklands and then the actual main fleet action at jutland. You can jump from Ship to ship, on which ever side you choose. I personally won Jutland for the Germans by superior DC and gunfire. I always one the Falklands and Coronado battles as the germans or Brits when I chose sides.

If you still have an old dos or Win95/98 machine laying around you can still play Jutland, but I can not get it to work with XP and loading Himem.sys or any other XP related boot disks.
 
Dominator said:
.
New version of Carriers at War is quite good in capturing essence of carrier vs carrier battles, gameplay is fast, intense and not complicated. However presentation of surface (gun and torpedo) actions leaves much to be desired.
Click to expand...

I have the new version. In some ways it is a nice leap over the original, but the selection of scenarios it ships with isn't as expansive as the original two.

We should play an online game sometime.
 
There was an older game that came out on the PS2... i think it was called Naval ops? You get to design your own BB.
 
I had that game - it pissed me off because you had to wait so long until you could unlock anything of value. I gave up after a while - the gameplay didn't really hold my interest.
 
Dundradal said:
They both let you use aircraft, surface ships and submarines. BS:p has a more diverse selection of units (and "what if" units - Super Yamato, Montana, Shinden, Kuma torpedo cruiser).
Click to expand...

Do you find that it is heavily reliant on airpower? Are you able to setup situations where 'guns' can make or break an engagement?
 
In most cases it is the guns of the fleet that can decide a game. Strategy isn't as good as it was in BSM because of the removal of set-piece battles (you have 3 units...lose them...you are out) and the implementation of "island capture" mode. But most people will unlock the Super Yamato or Montana classes and hope to just bully their way to victory. Although then someone puts out a sub and is able to change the situation.

Airpower if used correctly by a team can be very devastating. The US has TBM Avengers carrying Tiny Tim rockets which are able to destroy most ships very quickly (1 rocket will kill a DD, 3 will kill most CAs, and for the BBs it's between 5-8). The Japanese have Okha carriers that will drop their kamikaze loads which can be devastating (although the okhas can be shot down by both AA and fighters).

But the majority of the game is really concerned with a gunfight. Most people you play just spam units instead of actually thinking about a smart way to win. If you go against people that understand strategy you can have some really great games.

I'd tell you to check out the demo...but it's awful. The graphics are nice but it's a horrible demo.

Nevertheless I recommend both games highly.
 
ELTEE said:
I had that game - it pissed me off because you had to wait so long until you could unlock anything of value. I gave up after a while - the gameplay didn't really hold my interest.
Click to expand...

My Battleship was ridiculous. completely COVERED in guns.
 
Naval Ops and BS Midway are fun games. I agree about the battleship totally caked with weapons in Naval Ops. It was cheesy but fun (esp with turret mounted 305mm chainguns!)
Jutland just came out with an Ex-pack.
http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/html/ship_pack_01/se_Jutland_Ship_Pack_01.html
I like Jutland, every other surface action game I've found has been pretty arcade-ish but Jutland is more of sim type game. The graphics arent very pretty but its nothing that I get hung up on.
 
Drifter said:
Naval Ops and BS Midway are fun games. I agree about the battleship totally caked with weapons in Naval Ops. It was cheesy but fun (esp with turret mounted 305mm chainguns!)
Jutland just came out with an Ex-pack.
http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/html/ship_pack_01/se_Jutland_Ship_Pack_01.html
I like Jutland, every other surface action game I've found has been pretty arcade-ish but Jutland is more of sim type game. The graphics arent very pretty but its nothing that I get hung up on.
Click to expand...

Heroes of the Pacific wasn't bad either, though thats more flight, less tactics, but still an awesome game.
 
Bah, some people in BSP will only use the Super Yamato or Montana classes. Granted they are covered in guns (and the Super Yamato's shells do double the damage of any of BB shell) but they are horribly slow and maneuver like well....a battleship :p If I am going to use an unlockable BB (the game has you play the campaigns in order to unlock units for MP play, well except for the DLC units they are always available) I typically go for the Iowa or Yamato. They are slightly faster than the super BBs, while not trading much difference in firepower.

The issue with BSP is unlockable units. Not every unlock is available on every map (which makes some sense) but on certain maps the counter-unit is not available (US can unlock TBMs, but it won't let the IJN use Okha carriers). They also made the mistake of making P-51s carrier based which affects balance quite a bit. (with their A-G rockets they can kill DDs, CLs, and CVs fairly quickly)

Some of the maps are decidedly unbalanced (it makes you wonder if they were play tested at all) with the position of shipyards (in a race to the middle type of map the IJN BBs spawn facing away from the middle base, causing you to waste 2-3 minutes turning them while the US ships spawn looking directly at it. With the middle base being the only airfield the US can quickly come to dominate with little chance of IJN success, especially if they have TBMs unlocked). However, the new Carrier Battles maps are great (well except for Leyte) and I have a ton of fun playing them.

You should maybe rent the game from Blockbuster or something, give the campaign and whirl and once you have the system figured out we can get a game going.
 
yeah, those unlockable units did sorta goof the game up. I played through the single player and had fun but it didnt last more than a month or two on my hard drive. Very pretty to look at and fun to play but I just didnt get into it too much.

I've played Naval Ops and Naval Ops 2 several times over. The whole ship building aspect of it is a lot of fun and the subs in Naval Ops 2 (might be called something a little different? Warship ops?) are pretty fun esp on "stay stealthy or fail" missions.
I'd love to see a WC style game like that, third person Ralari's VS Ventures, and Exeters and such. Surface combat has always interested me and I loved WC even though it was mainly fighter based.
 
Drifter said:
yeah, those unlockable units did sorta goof the game up. I played through the single player and had fun but it didnt last more than a month or two on my hard drive. Very pretty to look at and fun to play but I just didnt get into it too much.

I've played Naval Ops and Naval Ops 2 several times over. The whole ship building aspect of it is a lot of fun and the subs in Naval Ops 2 (might be called something a little different? Warship ops?) are pretty fun esp on "stay stealthy or fail" missions.
I'd love to see a WC style game like that, third person Ralari's VS Ventures, and Exeters and such. Surface combat has always interested me and I loved WC even though it was mainly fighter based.
Click to expand...

I tried the double hull cruiser... that thing lasted all of 5 minutes against the bosses.
 
ELTEE said:
Which would you suggest I start with? BSM or BSP?

EDIT: I'm also thinking of checking them out for the PC - any advice there? (i.e. bad idea, better on consoles, etc?)

Thanks!
Click to expand...

honestly the controls are a little weird on PC. Stick to the console if you ask me.
 
I only have them on XBox...I don't think I'd like the control scheme for the PC (unless you use a game pad or something...I don't think a joystick would be all that great)
 
Sorry I totally missed your question in the other post.

I'd say definitely start with BS:M. First, the campaign is done a lot better. Well in general everything except the graphics and a few minor things are better than BS:p (most notably the voiceovers...those in BS:p are a disgrace, the Japanese ones on the verge of being offensively bad)

After you've got the hang of it, message me on XBL and we can probably get a few people together to play a match or two. ck9791 and I played a while back, I'm sure we could get him and probably find a few people online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top