Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Order of Battle is a series of operational WW2 games starting with the Pacific War and then on to Europe!

Moderators: Order of Battle Moderators, The Artistocrats

kverdon
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:38 am

Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by kverdon » Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:38 am

Well despite my doubts about the Kreiegsmarine DLC based upon the "enhancements" added to the game I decided to give it a try. After all the Original OOB Pacific was not too bad and even the Battle of Britain was decent so I got it to see how it represented the North Atlantic Naval War. Unfortunately, if falls really, really, short of even somewhat historically portraying the Atlantic War due to a number of glaring issues with the game system and scenarios.

1. As I feared the new "Fire Efficiency" rule that requires you to keep constant range on a given surface target is completely absurd. Here is prime example of how nuts it is, I am 2 hexes NNE of an enemy surface target. Here are the expected damage calculations:
No Movement, Range 2 - 2 damage
1 move West, Range 2 - 2 damage
1 move east Range 3 - 1 damage
1 move South, Range 1 - 1 damage
2 moves South, Range 1 - 1 damage
3 moves South, Range 2 - 2 damage. Seriously, even the casual student of naval warfare HAS to have a clue that decrease range equals INCREASED Accuracy and INCREASED Penetration and due to shorter time to observe fall of shot INCREASED rate of fire. Closing the range should NOT decrease you fire effectiveness in any way. This should completely be removed.

2. BB/BC Main Gun separation and cool down. Again this fails, you should not have to choose between firing the main battery and secondary batteries. They each historically had their own directors and could engage separate targets. This gets further absurd when you factor in that you cannot fire your AA weapons and your main battery either. Now I COULD see making the player have a choice between firing the secondary batteries at either a surface target or an air target as may ships had dual purpose secondary batteries (the KM, did not but I'd give a pass at that). Having to choose between firing at a BB at range 2 or a Swordfish at range 2 is nuts. Keep the cooldown and allow the BB/BCs to fire both main an secondary batteries in a round.

3. Uboats Unfortunately submarines carry over their pitiful performance from OOB Pacific. You are lucky to score 1 or 2 hits against a surface combatant with a sub, even against merchantmen. The whole surface to recharge works on a whole but it could have been made better by linking submerged time to hexes traveled. Say 4 turns at speed 2 or 4 turns at speed 1. This would have been at least somewhat realistic. Where if falls completely apart is that surfaced submarines cannot be attacked by patrol aircraft. Yep, those PBY Catalinas and Short Sunderlands flying around the map cannot touch your surfaced submarine. Again, Absurd.

4. Scenario Design that does not make sense. Outside of some of the glaring issues that have been pointed out with scenario conditions not matching actual requirements (sink 2 BB...0/3), which is just sloppy, other requirements just don't make sense. In an open, North Atlantic fight, there is a requirement to do damage with mines. Ok, I am not sure how you do that. They show up on the map so the AI does actually something smart and avoids them. I mined the entire entrance to the Irish Sea and never had a ship come near them. You also have a requirement to defend the sub bases from Air Attack. Ok, but there is no FLAK??? The Sub Pens were THE most heavily FLAK defended bases in Europe and hardened against attack but a sole Hurricane can fly in and blow them to bits. Nuts!

5. RN Nelson Class BB (HMS Rodney) - Outside of the fact that they did not bother to make a different ship icon for these very distinctive BBs with their Armament all set in the fore of the ship, I noticed that they seem to zip about the map at the same 3 hex speed as my Bismarcks. In reality their top speed was only 23 knots so they should have a slower 2 hex speed.

6. Arbitrary Ship Damage - In different scenarios, merchant ships have hit points of either 1, 5 or 10 points. Why? They also move, at about 8-10 knot top speed as the 29 knot Bismarck.


I think the OOB series has reached and end. The devs MAY have had a good idea when the started but seem to lack the basic understanding of the subject matter they wish to portray. They give their DLC a name but then create something that vaguely resembles the name of the DLC. Of, course the Blitzkrieg DLC is another example of this. I had hoped the Devs had learned their lesson from that mess but it appears not.

Well the only light I can see is that Panzer Corps 2 is coming. They put some decent naval combat into it and we may have something.

Dive...Dive...Dive....

Mojko
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:04 am

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by Mojko » Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:21 am

kverdon wrote:Unfortunately, if falls really, really, short of even somewhat historically portraying the Atlantic War due to a number of glaring issues with the game system and scenarios.
I agree that Krigsmarine has it's issues, however I also have to say that most pressing issues were addressed promptly with series of quick patches that were deployed via the new auto-update system. There are still some issues remaining (like objective counters not displaying correct information), however none of them is game breaking, i.e. all objectives I've seen thus far are possible to complete.
kverdon wrote:As I feared the new "Fire Efficiency" rule that requires you to keep constant range on a given surface target is completely absurd.
This is a game, not a war simulator. Historical accuracy and realism are secondary to gameplay. What you are missing here is the intention of the developers regarding the gameplay. Before this change the naval combat looked like this:

- you don't use submarines
- first line is formed by destroyers as they protect your capital ships from getting hit by a torpedo
- behind them you have capital ships
- you get close to your enemy and you hold this formation almost at all times
- after their destroyers are gone you can send your destroyers to torpedo their capital ships

This is very straightforward and it doesn't require much thinking.

After this change you actually need to plan ahead of your turns because ideally you want move your every ship as much as possible, but you also want to maintain same distance to the enemy ships. If your ship can launch torpedo, this gets even more tricky because torpedo use is not effected by these rules so it's basically a trump card you can play only at limited times. I was a little bit sceptical when I read about this new naval combat, but now after playing several scenarios I must say it works very well.
kverdon wrote:BB/BC Main Gun separation and cool down
I really like this feature as it gives another layer of strategy. I'm always saving the big guns for large ships and I'm bating the enemy to waste them on my small ships.
kverdon wrote:Uboats Unfortunately submarines carry over their pitiful performance from OOB Pacific
I disagree. U-boats are now very difficult to spot, so they are safer to use if you know what you're doing. They can also do decent damage when combined with the Wolfpack specialisation. It also helps that ships with 3 or lower strength are slower so U-boats can hunt them down. I would suggest to consider lowering U-boat supply to 1 to promote even more U-boat use.
kverdon wrote:In an open, North Atlantic fight, there is a requirement to do damage with mines. Ok, I am not sure how you do that. They show up on the map so the AI does actually something smart and avoids them.
It's not that difficult. Use the Junkers Ju-88 bombers to lay mines. The supply ships travel in a very predictable pattern, they will run into your mines. To make sure they actually take hit be sure to soften them up by inflicting decimal damage to the supply ships before they run into mines.
kverdon wrote:The Sub Pens were THE most heavily FLAK defended bases in Europe and hardened against attack but a sole Hurricane can fly in and blow them to bits.
Gameplay reasons, obviously. If you use the two provided fighters to defend the pens you will do ok. Careful management is rewarded here. I lured enemy fighters to my capitals ships and weakened them by AA guns. After a short while they had no fighters left and I could dedicate two fighters to defence.
kverdon wrote:5. RN Nelson Class BB (HMS Rodney) - Outside of the fact that they did not bother to make a different ship icon for these very distinctive BBs with their Armament all set in the fore of the ship, I noticed that they seem to zip about the map at the same 3 hex speed as my Bismarcks.
I recommend avoiding using capital ships with 3 or less speed. New naval mechanics are all about the movement.
kverdon wrote:6. Arbitrary Ship Damage - In different scenarios, merchant ships have hit points of either 1, 5 or 10 points. Why? They also move, at about 8-10 knot top speed as the 29 knot Bismarck.
Gameplay reasons obviously. In one scenario you command U-boats only and in another you have capitals ships as well. This requires the scenario to be balanced to specific conditions.
kverdon wrote:I think the OOB series has reached and end.
I couldn't disagree more here. If I compare the initial game version to what we have currently I see significant improvement. I may partially agree on the campaign design point since my favourite campaign still remains the Raising Sun.
Author and maintainer of Unit Navigator Tool for Order Of Battle (http://mfendek.byethost16.com/)

kverdon
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:38 am

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by kverdon » Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:30 am

Yes, I figured out the mine laying issue. I simply eliminated the RN combatants and used my ships to hold fire and herd the merchantmen into a minefield laid by the JU88's bug and you say "Gamey"?

"Historical Accuracy and realism are secondary to gameplay". Ok then if that is the case call it "OOB Elves vrs Orcs and not "Kreiegsmarine". So much content has been sacrificed to what you call "gameplay" as to render the subject matter insignificant. You might as well relabel the Hasbro game "Battleship' Battleship: Kreigsmarine. If you are going to label a game with a specific titular content the at least make an effort to represent it. SSI's Great Naval Battles I: North Atlantic was light years and warp speed ahead of this.

Mojko
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:04 am

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by Mojko » Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:20 am

kverdon wrote:Ok then if that is the case call it "OOB Elves vrs Orcs and not "Kreiegsmarine". So much content has been sacrificed to what you call "gameplay" as to render the subject matter insignificant.
I think you are really missing the point if you are complaining about historical accuracy. Kriegsmarine is by definition historically inaccurate because it features fictional scenarios that did not happen. Even on the product page the description says
it features several “what-if” situations as well: perhaps you can save the Bismarck, or even employ the Graf Zeppelin carrier!
This game may not be for everyone. If you don't like it that's ok. You are entitled to your opinion. But based on the goals that the devs wanted to achieve in the naval combat changes I think this DLC is a big success.
Author and maintainer of Unit Navigator Tool for Order Of Battle (http://mfendek.byethost16.com/)

Horst
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1568
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by Horst » Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:43 am

I haven’t played a single minute of KM yet, but can already tell something according to the game files and the scenarios from the editor.

The hit chance of ships should certainly increase when closing in, but the real armor-penetration could become worse on capital ships as you can only target their heaviest armored belt that close. A higher chance to damage armoured battleships is from far high-angled shot onto the lesser armoured deck, as long as you don't get lucky hits on critical spots like the bridge.
Such realistic stuff is a bit out of place in such game, but just wanted to tell about it. I think it's still okay if you get a movement penalty while shooting. It's still fair if you got your ships retreating and the chaser can't hit so well anymore.

The new primary guns feature of BBs is IMO the worst change of all that I gladly modify out of my game. Now you have to switch back and forth the primary guns to play them awkwardly. Mercy on the player if he forgets to revert back to the normal ship mode or suffer without any AA capability!
Instead of dumping down the most powerful ships, I would have raised the supply/command cost of the modern battleships from 5 to 6 what I did in my game. I mean, even the most powerful battleships can be defeated by submarines and tactical bombers which are much more cheaper. The scissor-paper mechanic already worked fine here.
What comes next: main gun mode for Tiger tanks with cooldown? Sorry, but there winners and loosers on the battlefield among all the war machines. That’s war. It’s not fair.

I think the designer is very well aware of the pitiful performance of submarines, hence we wouldn’t see merchant ships with only 1 strength point in scenarios of KM. I’ve given submarines 50% more attack value in submerged mode in the past to solve this problem.

Okay, I wanted to post this in a separate topic, but I think it also fits here:

Who had the idea to include the British DD Battle in the Kriegsmarine campaign in scenario: Operation Torch (11/42), Arctic Convoy (12/43) and Scapa Flow (2/44)?
The availability date is given correctly 14/9/1944 in units.csv what should clearly produce a fat, red X for “not available” in the editor in every single KM scenario. The whole campaign ends on 28/5/1944 if I’m not mistaken.
If you need more destroyer power then give the J-class more experience for the slightest sake of authenticity!
Too bad you didn’t have enough time to create more year-variants for ships. Upgrading your units should be part of the fun playing a campaign.

Longasc
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by Longasc » Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:09 pm

While the criticism is harsh, kverdon already played through the scenarios I am just about to play and figured out how to do this and that.

My experience with Kriegsmarine is fairly limited, so I will play some more before pointing out things I liked or not. I already noticed some trends I wante to mention and some mechanics that remain weak.

Submarine mechanics are not too fun again, the "flow" of the game is lacking at times as many scenario are more puzzles than war sims. A puzzle with often quite strange and awkward game mechanics.

The naval part of the original two campaigns was very fun though, combined with the air combat system it had something. I haven't tried Blitzkrieg yet, but heard its a methodical slogging match and not quite living up to the idea of a "Blitzkrieg" per se. My concern is that the current direction isn't going to do it for the "mass market" given the way the gameplay is, while I somehow don't think scripted puzzle scenarios will entice the more history and warfare sim interested grognards much either.

kverdon
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:38 am

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by kverdon » Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:25 pm

Horst,

You have a point with low angle shellfire striking the main belt of heavily armored battleships though the only engagement where I have heard of that possibly being true was the final battle of the KGV/Rodney against the Bismark. The other factor here however was that the KGV only had 14" guns mediocre penetration performance and for the 16" guns of the Rodney, I have read that they could not be fired with Maximum propellant due to the blast effect shaking the ship apart. You look at the USS Washington vrs IJN Kirishima at 2nd Guadalcanal and it its a much different story. The Washington sank the Kirishima in short order after maneuvering to short range and blasting here with 16" shellfire.

I do agree that maneuvering at high speed with turns should disrupt attacker and defensive accuracy ("salvo chasing'") but in the example I used, moving 3 hexes instead of just 1 increase fire effectiveness, not decreased it as I moved back out to the original range.

kverdon
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:38 am

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by kverdon » Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:25 pm

Longasc, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The main failing with OOB is that, in many scenarios it is just not fun and fails to find a niche for itself. It is frustrating for the historical minded player in that the units depicted cannot be used in a historical fashion or do not well represent their historical counterparts and the scenarios fail to represent the content matter they are supposed to portray. On the casual gamer side, many, perhaps like yourself, become frustrated by the "puzzle" or "golden bullet" type of scenarios that require repeated play or save game reloads to find the key to making it work. A solution that is often counter intuitive to the historical context.

This stands in stark contrast to Panzer Corps. Panzer Corps hits the mark with pretty much everyone. It has enough historical units and flavor and the scenarios and campaigns do a decent job of portraying their subject matter that it keeps the Grognards happy and, at the same time it a heck of a lot of fun to play as you watch your core units gain experience, heroes and upgrades over time. I will still say that OOB Pacific was a decent game and I still go back an replay it from time to time, I just think that the basic, core, game system did not work will outside that context. It was not "elastic" enough to allow it to be a WW2 game "Toolkit" to fashion into any sort of game. Slitherine/Matrix seem to have realized that and are now moving forward with Panzer Corps 2. OOB has had 2 strikes with Blitzkrieg and Kreigsmarine, I do not think it will survive a 3rd.

Longasc
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by Longasc » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:19 pm

I lost interest in Kriegsmarine after the third scenario and am about to give up on the OOB Series.

This is no battle, there is not much freedom in what you can do. The objectives are more a checklist of things to do. Tactics involved matter VERY little. For instance, in the third scenario sinking the carrier is best be done by sending 1-2 subs from the port and sinking a carrier parked near the eastern edge of one island.

Um, I compared Kriegsmarine's "Narvik" to "Norway" in the very old original Panzer General.Replayability, mechanics, flow, just the overall fun and appeal.
Some might be sick of the eternal Panzer General comparisons, so let me say it bluntly without the comparison: So much potential and in the end the result is not fun at all.

Andy2012
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 1690
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:55 pm

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by Andy2012 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:59 pm

Longasc wrote:I lost interest in Kriegsmarine after the third scenario and am about to give up on the OOB Series.

This is no battle, there is not much freedom in what you can do. The objectives are more a checklist of things to do. Tactics involved matter VERY little. For instance, in the third scenario sinking the carrier is best be done by sending 1-2 subs from the port and sinking a carrier parked near the eastern edge of one island.

Um, I compared Kriegsmarine's "Narvik" to "Norway" in the very old original Panzer General.Replayability, mechanics, flow, just the overall fun and appeal.
Some might be sick of the eternal Panzer General comparisons, so let me say it bluntly without the comparison: So much potential and in the end the result is not fun at all.
I wouldnt be so harsh. I havent finished Kriegsmarine yet (and that will take me some more time), but after finishing Surface Raiders, I have the vague feeling that I have less fun than playing Eriks 41-42 campaign.
I cant really put my finger on it, but it is definitely not the freedom. You can choose three different approaches and the goals are kind of fair.
Somehow, the mechanics feel off or not really balanced. I mean, this is usually a thing that takes months and a lot of manpower to perfect - time the OoB crew does not seem to have so much. Kind of resembles the nerfing of arty, something doesnt really work. Ship battles and subs were the worst in the original, carrier battles were fun and felt like the real thing. Maybe it is that.
I will have to play this again to fully appreciate this and / or say what exactly annoys me.

kverdon
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:38 am

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by kverdon » Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:58 am

Well having finished the DLC, I will amend my review to "Two Thumbs Down". For me Kreigsmarine just did not work and was not actually much fun. Reasons:

1. Game Mechanics - Outside of what I have brought up before, the game mechanics just did not appear to work for me in Kriegsmarine. For any given class of ship less than a BC/BB, my ship was pretty much ineffective against Allied ships of its own class. My DD's could barely scratch Allied DDs, My CL's were worthless again Allied CLs and my Hipper Class CA's, though pretty good destroyer killers, were pretty useless against Allied CAs. I am not sure why? The Hipper Class CAs were as well armed and pretty much better protected than any allied "Treaty" Cruiser but when using surface gunfire I usually saw 0-0+ as an expected result. Huh? They were effective however as fast torpedo boats. This is a totally whacked, ahistorical use. I completely gave up on using DDs and CLs after the first few scenarios and pumped my Resource points in to more Hipper CAs. I ended up with about 6 of them. It was doubly irritating to see the Hippers able to dash in an put 2 hits on an Allied BB where my UBoat Torpedoes were lucky to get 1 hit on a 0+ expectation.

2. Lack of Upgrades. This I did not get at all. Though you see Allied ships getting upgraded with "South Dakota '43" or "New Orleans '44", you are stuck with the exact same ships you started the war in 1939 with and the same aircraft. I posed the question as to "Why" and never got a response. I believe that is because the only real possible answer is laziness. It was just an order of battle database update and it is worth noting that a game that titles itself "Order of Battle' makes no effort to emulate one.

3. Scenario Design. Some of the scenarios and objectives seem not to be well thought out and this detracts from the overall experience. Torch could have been an epic battle with the human player KM forces teaming up with a AI led French Force to take on an combined AI USN/RN force. With a more realistic requirement to preserve the French Ships for later use, it could have been pretty cool. Adding a French Ship to your core force for keeping x amount alive would have make for a nice carrot. Alas what come across is a scenario that is a bit "Meh". The North Cape scenario makes absolutely no sense at all. For once, the game portrays the historical Allied order of battle, which, though accurate for the historical battle with the historical KM of 1943, makes no sense in the context of the game that has it up against a much more powerful Human KM force. Having gone down the research path to getting a CV and Naval Stukas, this was absurdly easy to complete. I think I suffered about 3 total damage points to my fleet while wiping everything else out. An ahistorical North Cape scenario would have been more fun and challenging. There is also an ahistorical lack of Allied Naval airpower in the scenarios. You should be forced down the dev path to Carriers to have a change in combatting the inevitable swarm of Allied naval attack planes, which never materializes.

Do I think the OOB series is at an end? Perhaps. It has not faired well in trying to expand the system into new areas with "SlogKreig" and "Kindermarine". The game system did do well in the Pacific with smaller maps and mostly naval engagements. Perhaps it would do well in the Med but that is the subject of another thread.

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by bru888 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:52 am

My confidence is wavering.
- Bru

Andy2012
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 1690
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:55 pm

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by Andy2012 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:15 am

kverdon wrote:Well having finished the DLC, I will amend my review to "Two Thumbs Down". For me Kreigsmarine just did not work and was not actually much fun. Reasons:

1. Game Mechanics - Outside of what I have brought up before, the game mechanics just did not appear to work for me in Kriegsmarine. For any given class of ship less than a BC/BB, my ship was pretty much ineffective against Allied ships of its own class. My DD's could barely scratch Allied DDs, My CL's were worthless again Allied CLs and my Hipper Class CA's, though pretty good destroyer killers, were pretty useless against Allied CAs. I am not sure why? The Hipper Class CAs were as well armed and pretty much better protected than any allied "Treaty" Cruiser but when using surface gunfire I usually saw 0-0+ as an expected result. Huh? They were effective however as fast torpedo boats. This is a totally whacked, ahistorical use. I completely gave up on using DDs and CLs after the first few scenarios and pumped my Resource points in to more Hipper CAs. I ended up with about 6 of them. It was doubly irritating to see the Hippers able to dash in an put 2 hits on an Allied BB where my UBoat Torpedoes were lucky to get 1 hit on a 0+ expectation.

2. Lack of Upgrades. This I did not get at all. Though you see Allied ships getting upgraded with "South Dakota '43" or "New Orleans '44", you are stuck with the exact same ships you started the war in 1939 with and the same aircraft. I posed the question as to "Why" and never got a response. I believe that is because the only real possible answer is laziness. It was just an order of battle database update and it is worth noting that a game that titles itself "Order of Battle' makes no effort to emulate one.

3. Scenario Design. Some of the scenarios and objectives seem not to be well thought out and this detracts from the overall experience. Torch could have been an epic battle with the human player KM forces teaming up with a AI led French Force to take on an combined AI USN/RN force. With a more realistic requirement to preserve the French Ships for later use, it could have been pretty cool. Adding a French Ship to your core force for keeping x amount alive would have make for a nice carrot. Alas what come across is a scenario that is a bit "Meh". The North Cape scenario makes absolutely no sense at all. For once, the game portrays the historical Allied order of battle, which, though accurate for the historical battle with the historical KM of 1943, makes no sense in the context of the game that has it up against a much more powerful Human KM force. Having gone down the research path to getting a CV and Naval Stukas, this was absurdly easy to complete. I think I suffered about 3 total damage points to my fleet while wiping everything else out. An ahistorical North Cape scenario would have been more fun and challenging. There is also an ahistorical lack of Allied Naval airpower in the scenarios. You should be forced down the dev path to Carriers to have a change in combatting the inevitable swarm of Allied naval attack planes, which never materializes.

Do I think the OOB series is at an end? Perhaps. It has not faired well in trying to expand the system into new areas with "SlogKreig" and "Kindermarine". The game system did do well in the Pacific with smaller maps and mostly naval engagements. Perhaps it would do well in the Med but that is the subject of another thread.
Those are some valid points about Kriegsmarine, havent made it as far as you did by now. Especially Game Mechanics and Lack of Upgrades should be fixed and are serious concerns.
OoB series at an end is a bit over the top. Blitzkrieg was pretty good and I enjoyed it. Land warfare right now is working out. Keep in mind that the naval component except for carrier battles was always the weakest element in the original OoB. Obviously not fixing this in a specialized DLC however does not bode well.

@bru: Dont waver, try it yourself. I think this can be fixed with a patch. However, this should have come up during the Beta.

bjarmson
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:39 pm

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by bjarmson » Sat Apr 29, 2017 4:58 am

I agree with most of the criticisms posted by long time players. One thing seemingly not mentioned, most of the scenarios are really boring. I won them all easily just using mostly big ships (CAs & BBs) to slowly destroy the enemy ships piecemeal, repairing damage with support ships. The only scenario I had to restart was the Danzig one, where I screwed up the infantry units the first time. Most of the scenarios have virtually no replay value. It's just find the enemy, destroy them.

I think it's time the developers sit down and decide if they really want to keep making bad DLCs. Slogkrieg and now Kindermarine are inept travesties. I hated the hypothetical scenarios that ended the Pacific DLCs. Blitzkrieg started well (the first 3 scenarios) and then deteriorated to scenarios that had nothing even suggesting Blitzkrieg (hence my renaming it Slogkrieg) and now Kindermarine is even worse. The developers seem to have virtually no talent for hypothetical scenarios. If they want to continue making DLCs, I really suggest they get back to modeling actual WWII battles. If they wanted to make a naval DLC, they should have modeled the Mediterranean 1940-43, British Navy vs Italian Navy and Luftwaffe. Ah, what might have been. I'm now afraid the next DLC might be a German 'wonder weapons win the war' one.

This game once had great potential, but the developers have frittered most of that away. I'm truly disappointed how this game has deteriorated. Another DLC in this vein and it will be time to give up on this game.

wolfpinguin
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: Belgium - Turnhout

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by wolfpinguin » Sat Apr 29, 2017 8:33 am

What a criticism here.
I suggest you ask to be a beta-taster for the next OOB.
There you can make your remarks; it's always easy to have critics after the release.
As beta-tester I’ve made my remarks/critics and they were heard.

W.
RES NON VERBA

Andy2012
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 1690
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:55 pm

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by Andy2012 » Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:07 am

wolfpinguin wrote:What a criticism here.
I suggest you ask to be a beta-taster for the next OOB.
There you can make your remarks; it's always easy to have critics after the release.
As beta-tester I’ve made my remarks/critics and they were heard.

W.
While I disagree with a lot of the general harshness and vicious, belittling undertone of some of the criticism here (Kindermarine and Slogkrieg are mean and do not further a productive discussion), I even more decisively disagree with your statement.
"If you dont like it, you should have been a betatester" basically removes the customer service aspect of this industry and puts the responsibility for product quality in the hands of the buyers. To underline the absurdity of this position, think about any other industry and apply this reasoning here. "You dont like the wobbly steering, failing brakes and musky odor of your new car? Well, too bad. Should have been a test driver then. BTW, unpaid testdriver. Oh yeah, there is no refund. Enjoy." Any company applying this reasoning will be out of business. With Panzercorps 2 looming, I doubt that things will get easier for OoB.

That being said, I think a lot of the criticism (even though too harsh in tone) points out valid balancing issues and problems with mission design.
For example, I believe that the idea of "Surface Raiders" (a quick dash of Kriegsmarine vessels through an enemy screen into the Atlanctic) is a good idea and historically well grounded (it happened). However, the way this mission works right now, this is more of a grinding match through a layered defense and a rather exhausting, repetitive experience over 40 tedious turns.
I would have tackled this mission the following way (which I believe would be more fun and rewarding)
1. Briefing: We must dash through the British screen and enter the Atlantic before they can bring their full might down on us. They are superior in number, we are superior in speed and firepower. Turn limit 20-25 turns. Bonus for finishing in 20.
2. You get a three star Bismarck aux BB. If you finish in 20 turns, you get to keep it and its commander. (Can be Lütjens...) This is motivating.
3. You deploy your force to the full in the first turn. You also get two aux Bf110 long range fighters to keep recon away. If you clear out two recon planes in five turns, you get to keep them. (Another reward. See what I am doing here?)
4. The winning strategy for this mission would be to keep a tight formation of ships constantly steaming towards the exit fields and obliterating any RN resistance with superior firepower. For this, the Bismarck should actually be powerful enough to knock out RN DDs with one or two salvos.
5. RN deployment increases incrementally, punishing loitering. So does their airpower. Basically, you are forced into a sprint towards the exit. Regular photo events increase a sense of urgency ("RN leaving port", "RAF fighter bombers deployed" and so on.)

I think mission design and balancing criticism is valid and should be heeded. I feel like a lot of issues can be fixed with a patch (subs are just too weak against surface vessels).

Meteor2
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 6:47 am

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by Meteor2 » Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:54 pm

I think, that the scenarios are more and more boring for me, because there is only minor flexibility how to achive the objectives. It feels more and more railroaded and if you have not placed the panzers south or if you are not doing xyz in the first and second round, you will fail. This hinders me more and more to play or enjoy. In addition to this, the difference to "real feeling" WW2 scenarios is often to big. More of SiFi... That's bad.

jdarocha
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:45 pm

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by jdarocha » Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:07 pm

I have said this in many forums whenever someone complains about "historical accuracy" in a war game; you want accuracy in your war game experience? Join the army. I was in the army for several years, and have seen combat.If you really want to "play war" go to a recruiting office. Otherwise just enjoy what Kriegsmarine. These games are meant to be fun with a historical, military component added in. Perhaps a patch could be released so that if you lose a scenario in Kreigsmarine, the game releases a virus into your computer which roasts your motherboard, simulating real loss in battle. Argghhh! the horror of war!
Halder

kverdon
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:38 am

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by kverdon » Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:22 pm

I will agree with Andy that some of the criticism, mine to the forefront, has been harsh but it is borne out of the frustration with the series. It has turned a bit ugly in that the people developing the OOB series appear to be oblivious to any feedback, and as a result, it has gotten more pointed. Each follow on DLC has gotten worse, not better in it's content. What we all seem to be coming back to is that, somewhere in the background there appears to be a good game system in OOB that just needs some kinks worked out of it. That game system gets lost in really, really, poor scenario design. I am not sure why it has to be that way. It could be for 1 of 2 reasons.

1. The scenario designers just don't get how to design scenarios for historical games and the target audience of the series.. Though I am a proponent of historical accuracy, in this type of game what I am really wanting is historical context. What I mean is that individual units should function similar to their historical counterparts in terms of efficacy and the scenarios should reflect a historical context. The idea is not to recreate history but to examine "What if...". Your (Andy2012) ideas for a breakout scenario are JUST what I am talking about. THAT should have been the nature of the game. Neither the scenarios in Blitzkrieg or Kriegsmarine recreate the historical context of "feel" of their subject matter. Often they appear to be parodies of the subject matter, hence the parodies of the names.

2. The scenario design has actually been crafted to hid some glaring deficiencies in the game system. I.E., they tried to put together something that looked right but then found that it fell apart when tested against the game system. They then created odd scenarios with artificial victory conditions in an attempt to make them more challenging. I have this sinking feeling this is the case but then Erik seems to have crafted some pretty good scenarios and even a campaign that is far superior to the original so maybe there is hope.

As to Halder's comments I would first thank you for your service, that does mean a lot. The intent with these games is not to "Play War" but to use them to explore the history of the subject matter. Given a well designed system, it can be used to follow along and understand the decision making used by the commanders of the day and to also see what happens if a different strategy is employed or a mistake not recreated. Does the outcome change? If so how? Yes, these are historical events that are being portrayed that folks of both sides fought and died for, it is thus fitting to try and at least make an effort to recognize that. My only argument with your statement is in that NOT following the historical context, you are actually just "Playing War".

My message to the devs would be: "Study your subject matter and understand the background of the subject you are trying to portray. Then create a series of scenarios that explore that subject matter and allow for the exploration of "what if...." to come to play. Secondary victory conditions should play into that as well as guide the player into meeting historical conditions. Having a game that follows a historical context and is also fun are not mutually exclusive conditions. Panzer Corps did it well, I believe OOB could as well.
Last edited by kverdon on Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Meteor2
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat May 30, 2015 6:47 am

Re: Kriegsmarine - Thumbs Down

Post by Meteor2 » Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:32 pm

Halder wrote:I have said this in many forums whenever someone complains about "historical accuracy" in a war game; you want accuracy in your war game experience? Join the army. I was in the army for several years, and have seen combat.If you really want to "play war" go to a recruiting office. Otherwise just enjoy what Kriegsmarine. These games are meant to be fun with a historical, military component added in. Perhaps a patch could be released so that if you lose a scenario in Kreigsmarine, the game releases a virus into your computer which roasts your motherboard, simulating real loss in battle. Argghhh! the horror of war!
Halder
If this was a reply to my post...
Of course I now that very well. WitE would be my choice for an approch regarding accuracy.
But my my concern was "railroading" and a lack of flexibility. For me these are shortcomings of some magnitude.

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle Series”