Super glad this popped up in my recommended feed! I started watching your channel when you were making Victory at Sea Videos, and absolutely loved your gameplay and presentation style. Can't wait to see what this game holds!
I loved that VaSP series, still very fondly recall it from time to time. I recently tried to play it again and bounced off it somehow. Crazy! I guess it was the right thing at the right time back then... Anyway, yes, let's see how VaSA is.
Regarding 3 DD vs. BB, you're wrong. You've forgotten DD torpedoes. If even one DD gets into good torpedo range, and launches a well aimed spread, the BB can definitely go down.
looks really good. One thing I absolutely despised about VaS Pacific was the zoom into combat thing, felt like they sacrificed too much detail on the units to get that and it didn't really work in the end.
I barely remember that! The things that most stand out to me, upon reflection, are the bugs. Mostly with aircraft. Oh, and also the fact that convoy fleets were incredibly powerful against warships -- it appears that's the case in this game.
@@francescomolina Mine never will. Water is blue on maps. They shouldn't be trying to re-invent the basics. And what's with the brown interiors to England and Germany. What was the point of that? SMH
And here I was planning on combatting the U-boat menace via distributing Hunt-class DDEs to every convoy + adding some hunter-killer groups, getting B-24 Liberators to close the Mid-Atlantic gap, but that all seems unnecessary given how easy the submarines are to sink. Also, realistically, the 16 nmi main gun range of the QE and Hood class which is just under 30 km, should be more than enough range to combat any battleship in WW2 (at least until late-war).
I should reiterate and emphasize my point about this game being its only reality, and you have to play it as a game almost in a different universe. History, reality are loose guidelines. Gun range -- allegedly the longest shot was Warspite vs. some Italian ship, was around 16 nm I think. And that was one hit... So I agree!
@@TortugaPower I mean, counting straddles the longest "hits" would by like ~34.5 kiloyards by Yamato on the CVE USS White Plains, dealing significant damage as the shell exploded underneath the keel. Along with USS New Jersey + Iowa landing straddles 35-39 kiloyards on HIJMS Nowaki, only splinter damage, though. So that's why I made a distinction with "late-war" BBs.
You're on point with what you've said in the beginning. Unfortunately, it is endemic for more niche type of games to throw themselves over the finish line of a sort of finished game and then never receiving polish or balance, or realizing their full potential.
While not a Battleship, 30 Nov 42 battle off Tassafaronga, 8 Japanese Destroyers defeated 4 Heavy Cruisers, 1 light cruiser, 6 destroyers Sinking a heavy, and severely damaging 3 others, for the loss 1 destroyer.
Gods, watching enemy subs is painful. "You've encountered an enemy sub." It's directly in front of you and in no position to actually attack the convoy. "You've been ambushed!" For a moment I was expecting fish to already be in the water but no, it's directly in front of you and in no position to attack the convoy. I feel the game has no idea how attacking a convoy with a sub actually worked. Perhaps you should consider auto-playing convoys just for a sense of realism. Hey! On the bright side, just for once I'm not going to be dashing out and buying this game so...thank you!
Well, for whatever reason, the color choices of the sea and the Allied land mass just irks me. ;-p If you have to try and balance your game by removing half the historical forces, something is probably wrong somewhere. Perhaps the right way to do it would have been the amount of squares available for building, or the time needed for GB to build vs Germany? Or the yields on the farms, or whatever. Yes, you WANT to build more ships, BUT, the people just aren't planting enough Victory Gardens! Or, since it's a CONVOY game (it seems) you putting research on Iceland should mean there has to be convoys created and sent there to support them. Building up ANY square would mean convoys to that zone either to pick up or drop off goods for it. Combat, um, not my cup o' tea, there. So unless research is really stellar...
Oh, these games are such a mess. I remember playing the Victory at Sea Pacific and learning in the tutorial that aircraft carriers had to sail DOWN-wind and not UP-wind in order to launch planes. It only got worse from there. I constantly get the feeling that the devs of these games know very little about naval combat, naval history, ww2, tactics or anything else. It's just a mess, and I will not waste money on this.
When I played victory at sea pacific I thought it was still not finished but then they announced this game when the tactical combat (air and especially sew combat) seems so unfinished. I can see how the game can be interesting (as you said the potential is good especially the ability to leave the tactical to do some strategic stuff and then go back to the tactical etc. but the tactical part just ruins it for me). In a way these games shine in the strategic part but suffer in the tactical while with war on the sea it is the other way around (especially with surface to surface)
Awful color palate for a map like this. Just looking at it gives me a headache. How about something crazy like blue water, grey for all of Germany, red for all of England. Pretty sure it's been tried before successfully.
@@TortugaPower I mean remove the tactical part. It would also remove loading time and screen. You should be more the guy that manages production, repairs, logistics and construction. The devs are currently throwing themselves in every directions and wants everything in their game but that means everything will be ordinary. What I am seeing now is a game concept that is about what you build and construct more than battles. It feels like the game wants to be more like that than anything else. Being a god that controls everything from the government down to the guy that shoot is not that great either.
@@user-dx6bv2pe1s And if they keep such horrible combat mechanics instead on focusing 9n the core of the game, their game will have massive negative reviews which will destroy sales. The game is about strategy and logistics, not tactical combat.
Super glad this popped up in my recommended feed! I started watching your channel when you were making Victory at Sea Videos, and absolutely loved your gameplay and presentation style. Can't wait to see what this game holds!
I loved that VaSP series, still very fondly recall it from time to time. I recently tried to play it again and bounced off it somehow. Crazy! I guess it was the right thing at the right time back then... Anyway, yes, let's see how VaSA is.
So glad you have finally decided to play this one. Loved the Pacific series way back when.
I'm never sure when I should play these. For VaSP I waited about six months. I'll probably do the same for a full playthrough of this one.
Regarding 3 DD vs. BB, you're wrong. You've forgotten DD torpedoes. If even one DD gets into good torpedo range, and launches a well aimed spread, the BB can definitely go down.
This is why Warspites attack at Narvik was so risky.
I think he was trying to say that in a pure gun fight the DDs wouldn't have had a chance, it's just that he seems to have failed to clarify that part.
Hi Dylan, to clarify, this is gunfire only (no torpedoes).
looks really good. One thing I absolutely despised about VaS Pacific was the zoom into combat thing, felt like they sacrificed too much detail on the units to get that and it didn't really work in the end.
I barely remember that! The things that most stand out to me, upon reflection, are the bugs. Mostly with aircraft. Oh, and also the fact that convoy fleets were incredibly powerful against warships -- it appears that's the case in this game.
It took a genius to make the land blue and the surrounding sea green.
*Golfclap*
Blue = allies, Red = enemy .. that was the idea .. but my eyes needs time to like it
@@francescomolina Mine never will. Water is blue on maps. They shouldn't be trying to re-invent the basics.
And what's with the brown interiors to England and Germany. What was the point of that? SMH
I dont like the chosen colours too, it irritate the eyes
And here I was planning on combatting the U-boat menace via distributing Hunt-class DDEs to every convoy + adding some hunter-killer groups, getting B-24 Liberators to close the Mid-Atlantic gap, but that all seems unnecessary given how easy the submarines are to sink. Also, realistically, the 16 nmi main gun range of the QE and Hood class which is just under 30 km, should be more than enough range to combat any battleship in WW2 (at least until late-war).
I should reiterate and emphasize my point about this game being its only reality, and you have to play it as a game almost in a different universe. History, reality are loose guidelines.
Gun range -- allegedly the longest shot was Warspite vs. some Italian ship, was around 16 nm I think. And that was one hit... So I agree!
@@TortugaPower I mean, counting straddles the longest "hits" would by like ~34.5 kiloyards by Yamato on the CVE USS White Plains, dealing significant damage as the shell exploded underneath the keel. Along with USS New Jersey + Iowa landing straddles 35-39 kiloyards on HIJMS Nowaki, only splinter damage, though. So that's why I made a distinction with "late-war" BBs.
You're on point with what you've said in the beginning. Unfortunately, it is endemic for more niche type of games to throw themselves over the finish line of a sort of finished game and then never receiving polish or balance, or realizing their full potential.
wow. that was u47 gunther priens boat. he was the one who invaded scapa flow and sunk the royal oak. He was one of there best at the time.
While not a Battleship, 30 Nov 42 battle off Tassafaronga, 8 Japanese Destroyers defeated 4 Heavy Cruisers, 1 light cruiser, 6 destroyers
Sinking a heavy, and severely damaging 3 others, for the loss 1 destroyer.
Gods, watching enemy subs is painful. "You've encountered an enemy sub." It's directly in front of you and in no position to actually attack the convoy. "You've been ambushed!" For a moment I was expecting fish to already be in the water but no, it's directly in front of you and in no position to attack the convoy. I feel the game has no idea how attacking a convoy with a sub actually worked. Perhaps you should consider auto-playing convoys just for a sense of realism. Hey! On the bright side, just for once I'm not going to be dashing out and buying this game so...thank you!
I think it'd be a smart move to see how this develops over the next few months :)
Ya I dont think its finished yet. its prerelease.
I watched. To the end even, seems neat. Enjoy a comment for the overlords.
Bought it a few days ago, as it sounded so promising.. but haven't dared to start it yet :P
I'm getting Great Naval Battles North Atlantic vibe. Which is a good thing.
never seen a game let you aim with the mini map
German DDs don't have torpedoes to sink British BBs? You sure?
In the fight I'm referring to, the DDs sank my BB without torpedoes, with surface gunfire only.
@@TortugaPower Well, that makes no sense at all.
@@rvanleersum Agreed!
It makes sense Hood wouldn’t be there in 1940 as she was dabbing on the French in the Med
Thanks for the correction. I did not remember that. I think we are still missing some carriers up here though
I dont think there was squid or hedgehog yet either. I dont know what year you playing though.
all it takes is a couple torpedoes for the battleship to be sunk an destroyers do have torpedoes at least they did in Ultimate dreadnaughts lol
The voices sound like they are from WH40k Battlefleet Gothic: Armada
Well, for whatever reason, the color choices of the sea and the Allied land mass just irks me. ;-p
If you have to try and balance your game by removing half the historical forces, something is probably wrong somewhere. Perhaps the right way to do it would have been the amount of squares available for building, or the time needed for GB to build vs Germany? Or the yields on the farms, or whatever.
Yes, you WANT to build more ships, BUT, the people just aren't planting enough Victory Gardens!
Or, since it's a CONVOY game (it seems) you putting research on Iceland should mean there has to be convoys created and sent there to support them. Building up ANY square would mean convoys to that zone either to pick up or drop off goods for it.
Combat, um, not my cup o' tea, there.
So unless research is really stellar...
This is going to be a very niche game and probably not appeal to everyone
Why on earth should you also manage food production in naval strategy game? This makes no sense
Because the entire battle of the Atlantic was fought to prevent Britain from starving, it makes perfect sense
Oh, these games are such a mess. I remember playing the Victory at Sea Pacific and learning in the tutorial that aircraft carriers had to sail DOWN-wind and not UP-wind in order to launch planes. It only got worse from there.
I constantly get the feeling that the devs of these games know very little about naval combat, naval history, ww2, tactics or anything else. It's just a mess, and I will not waste money on this.
I do not remember that about the carriers in VaSP. Maybe I never noticed it. But huh, that is funny.
@@TortugaPower Yeah, maybe they eventually patched it, but I stopped playing. Great premise, but bad execution.
When I played victory at sea pacific I thought it was still not finished but then they announced this game when the tactical combat (air and especially sew combat) seems so unfinished. I can see how the game can be interesting (as you said the potential is good especially the ability to leave the tactical to do some strategic stuff and then go back to the tactical etc. but the tactical part just ruins it for me). In a way these games shine in the strategic part but suffer in the tactical while with war on the sea it is the other way around (especially with surface to surface)
I know Sweden was a little so so in WW2 but put there land under a red flagg is not right.
It seems they were a little over-zealous in painting the map red.
All Hail the YT algorithm!
Awful color palate for a map like this. Just looking at it gives me a headache.
How about something crazy like blue water, grey for all of Germany, red for all of England. Pretty sure it's been tried before successfully.
Too arcady for me, but cool game otherwise.
these turn radius is very wrong = one resoan to not buy this game
Everything is usually wrong in these games. There is no nice way of saying it: the "Victory at Sea"-games are crap.
Combat is horrible. They should remove it entirely.
I'm not sure about remove -- a naval wargame without combat would be peculiar. But it could use improving.
@@TortugaPower I mean remove the tactical part. It would also remove loading time and screen. You should be more the guy that manages production, repairs, logistics and construction. The devs are currently throwing themselves in every directions and wants everything in their game but that means everything will be ordinary. What I am seeing now is a game concept that is about what you build and construct more than battles. It feels like the game wants to be more like that than anything else. Being a god that controls everything from the government down to the guy that shoot is not that great either.
@@user-dx6bv2pe1s And if they keep such horrible combat mechanics instead on focusing 9n the core of the game, their game will have massive negative reviews which will destroy sales. The game is about strategy and logistics, not tactical combat.