(and by weird, I mean bad.) Destroying a submarine with a depth charge in this game, requires you to hit the proverbial nail on the head. When it comes to depth charges, things really get weird. Picking a ship without them, will typically lead to defeat and game over. Torpedoes run very fast, and you'll find more often than not, you're using those as your primary weapons. Firing with the guns is only barely effective when you figure a way around the game's system, usually by randomly clicking shorter than you want to fire, in the hope that your shells will actually get to the right target. No matter how many times you click on the enemy ship to fire on it, your shots will routinely go further than the target. You select your guns, point and fire only to watch your shots go in a direction you never told them to go. If you can suffer through the graphics induced (there's irony, considering the game's graphics) lag, you run into the second major flaw. This is largely due to the way the ocean is rendered, as well as the rain that never seems to stop falling. It runs on the unity engine, so we can't fault it for that, but even with the textures to their lowest setting, a computer which runs ESO at its MAX settings, will still tank. Within your first tutorial missions, you'll run into the main issue the game has. It's when you GET to the fights that things become annoying. Enemies are in an abundance, so picking a fight isn't hard.
#Victory at sea pacific tutorial plus#
Where to start? On the plus side, it's relatively fast paced, and since it's not a sim, but something more akin to the Uncharted Waters games from the NES days, that's okay. It's not to say it's not without some of its own charm, it does have that to some degree, but overall the gameplay is frustrating at best, mind numbingly bad at worst.
#Victory at sea pacific tutorial how to#
It's not to say it's not without some of its own charm, it does have that to some degree, but overall the How to say it. At the end of the day, what is the point? That said, I got 8 hours of mild, mind-numbing 'entertainment' that made me want to play Silent Hunter again. Callous, lightweight treatment of the subject to the point of insulting the memory of the men and women who died in warships and the merchant marines. Permaspawning irritant destroyers and no significant challenging enemy fleets. Experience comes in way too quickly to keep pace with money. Scripted loss of a major British sea port because HQ sent you to Norway and doesn't give you time to return.
A battlecruiser fleet is sent to deliver a letter. The US joins the war before the fall of France.
AI ship deployment (no chance to modify it) is so random it's invariably better to enter the battle as a single ship so the game doesn't drop your cruiser on the other side of the map in gun range of a heavy cruiser. Torpedos run at crazy speeds, with short reload times, the bizarre gun accuracy ranges between pinpoint for small guns to shotgun for big guns. Allies will destroy a ship that has surrendered: that's sick. Submarines don't submerge when they should which is the only thing that makes them beatable without unnacceptable losses. Here they will run straight into OP torpedo salvos. Destroyers should be terrifying to sub captians. Let's run through some of the lowlights: 1. It's obviously an arcadey attempt at WWII fleet sea combat, but Port Royale did fleet sea combat much, much better many years ago. TLDR: It starts off bad and becomes worse. I played Victory at Sea for as long as I could stomach it so I could get a complete picture of the game, including endgame. I'm a big fan of WWII maritime simulators. I played Victory at Sea for as long as I could stomach it so I'm a big fan of new indie developers.
0 kommentar(er)
