Game Review: Jane's Fleet Command - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  Game Review: Jane's Fleet Command

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Game Review: Jane's Fleet Command

Spoe posted 05-13-99 09:19 PM ET
Hope you don't mind me posting this here, but I thought some of you might be interested in this.

I had been looking forward to this game as the first new modern naval warfare sim beyond the single ship level in some time.
My first impression on starting this game was good(aside from a skimpy 46 page manual, 17 of which don't even directly adress the game but the mission editor). Good graphics and what seemed a decent interface. But this game has been spoiled for me by Harpoon and its sequels.
The first issue I have with the game is the way aircraft are handled. All aircraft have fixed loadouts, some of which have been confirmed as physically impossible by naval personnel(e.g. the SH-60 carrying 2 Mk-50 torps, 1 Penguin ASM, and 4 Hellfire ASM). Others simply show a lack of flexibility, such as the F-14 with 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders, 2 AIM-120 AMRAAMs, and 2 AGM-84 Harpoons or the inability to fit AV-8B Harriers with Sidewinders. I'd hardly usually put an air superiority fighter/interceptor such as the F-14 up with antiship missiles. Come on, Jane's. For a game with you label, and developed by a defense contractor I'd expect at least the ability to choose from several loadouts, a capability that has been in the Harpoon franchise since its inception in 1989.
The other major problem I have with the game is that the way the interface is set up right now it is a click-fest is you attempt a scenario with more than two to three ships total. Every missile launched againt one of your ships must be manually engaged by first clicking on one of you ships and then right clicking on the missile. This is no problem against one or two small missile boats, but what about when you are up against a major surface action group supported by a regiment of Backfire? You could easily be facing 100 inbound missiles in such a situation. As far as I can tell the is no way to set a ship for automatic missile defence, as lack I find particularly interesting in the case of the automatic Aegis ships. Also annoying is that it seems you need to issue separate orders for each individual missle launched(with the exception that a second missile will be launched after a miss). This seems odd in an arena where a basic tactic is overwhelming your opponent's defenses through massive waves of missiles.
This last point brings up another point: there doen't seem to be even rudimentry strike management tools. The closest seems to be drag-select a bunch of platforms and issue an 'engage' command.
All told, I am currently dissappointed with this game(I shudder at calling it a simulation) and hope that there will be patches available to correct some of the more egregious shortcomings. I'll give it about a 6 out of 10 at this point. I also hope that Harpoon/4 will make a better showing next summer.
Spoe posted 05-13-99 09:36 PM ET
Oops, my bad. The F-14 carries 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Harpoons in the game.
Khan Singh posted 05-13-99 10:34 PM ET
How is it with WW2 stuff? And what about the interface in the rest of the game (the non-missle part)? I was kind of interested in this game and I would appreciate your opinion if it's worth buying for WW2 simulation.
As for Harpoon and other games, I haven't yet seen a naval combat simulator that was worth a damn.
wkehrman posted 05-13-99 11:30 PM ET
I wonder if the problem here was to try an avoid a duplication of the Harpoon system, which works, IF you have "liveware" AI to compete against. Sooner or later Bond, Carlson and company are going to find someone who can work the game right, in the mean time, a referee aid program would be nice, but I digress.
It does look pretty flaky. F-14s are now being used in some limited strike roles based on their ability to haul quite a load and their age (leave the high-G turns to the younger whippersnappers in the F/A-18s) and, IIRC, as part of a stopgap between getting rid of the A-6 and not having a true follow-on.
Taken at face value, it sounds like someone screwed up BIG TIME. Even if you consider the ease of pre-figured loads, there is no reason to pre-figure in such an oddball way, especially since you SHOULD have a volume or two of Jane's handy. Oh, well, looks like I'll have to convince my gaming buddies to go naval until someone gets it right.
Spoe posted 05-14-99 01:18 AM ET
Khan:
It's a modern-only game.
For its day, the original Harpoon game(based on version 3 of the board game, IIRC) was good(other than a nasty habit of running out of memory and unit handles in the more complex scenarios). Granted that came out in 1989 or so. Harpoon II and Classic for Windows were both, IMHO, substandard but better games than Fleet Command.
wkehrman:
Tell me about it. If 360 Pacific could allow a selection of loadouts back in the days of the 286/386 it seems a bit odd that Jane's/Sonalysts couldn't today.
As I mentioned above, the original computer Harpoon project did a good job, considering the limitations they were working under. Since Bond wasn't involved in the Harpoon II project and was/is with Harpoon and Harpoon/4, there is a shred of hope.
Khan Singh posted 05-14-99 09:41 AM ET
Why do they show Nelson (or Rodney) on the box cover then? Or am I thinking of some other game due out soon?
Spoe posted 05-14-99 12:50 PM ET
I think you're thinking of Fighting Steel, an early WWII games(through 1943 or so).
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Game Review: Jane's Fleet Command
Spoe	posted 05-13-99 09:19 PM ET Hope you don't mind me posting this here, but I thought some of you might be interested in this. I had been looking forward to this game as the first new modern naval warfare sim beyond the single ship level in some time. My first impression on starting this game was good(aside from a skimpy 46 page manual, 17 of which don't even directly adress the game but the mission editor). Good graphics and what seemed a decent interface. But this game has been spoiled for me by Harpoon and its sequels. The first issue I have with the game is the way aircraft are handled. All aircraft have fixed loadouts, some of which have been confirmed as physically impossible by naval personnel(e.g. the SH-60 carrying 2 Mk-50 torps, 1 Penguin ASM, and 4 Hellfire ASM). Others simply show a lack of flexibility, such as the F-14 with 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders, 2 AIM-120 AMRAAMs, and 2 AGM-84 Harpoons or the inability to fit AV-8B Harriers with Sidewinders. I'd hardly usually put an air superiority fighter/interceptor such as the F-14 up with antiship missiles. Come on, Jane's. For a game with you label, and developed by a defense contractor I'd expect at least the ability to choose from several loadouts, a capability that has been in the Harpoon franchise since its inception in 1989. The other major problem I have with the game is that the way the interface is set up right now it is a click-fest is you attempt a scenario with more than two to three ships total. Every missile launched againt one of your ships must be manually engaged by first clicking on one of you ships and then right clicking on the missile. This is no problem against one or two small missile boats, but what about when you are up against a major surface action group supported by a regiment of Backfire? You could easily be facing 100 inbound missiles in such a situation. As far as I can tell the is no way to set a ship for automatic missile defence, as lack I find particularly interesting in the case of the automatic Aegis ships. Also annoying is that it seems you need to issue separate orders for each individual missle launched(with the exception that a second missile will be launched after a miss). This seems odd in an arena where a basic tactic is overwhelming your opponent's defenses through massive waves of missiles. This last point brings up another point: there doen't seem to be even rudimentry strike management tools. The closest seems to be drag-select a bunch of platforms and issue an 'engage' command. All told, I am currently dissappointed with this game(I shudder at calling it a simulation) and hope that there will be patches available to correct some of the more egregious shortcomings. I'll give it about a 6 out of 10 at this point. I also hope that Harpoon/4 will make a better showing next summer.
Spoe	posted 05-13-99 09:36 PM ET Oops, my bad. The F-14 carries 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Harpoons in the game.
Khan Singh	posted 05-13-99 10:34 PM ET How is it with WW2 stuff? And what about the interface in the rest of the game (the non-missle part)? I was kind of interested in this game and I would appreciate your opinion if it's worth buying for WW2 simulation. As for Harpoon and other games, I haven't yet seen a naval combat simulator that was worth a damn.
wkehrman	posted 05-13-99 11:30 PM ET I wonder if the problem here was to try an avoid a duplication of the Harpoon system, which works, IF you have "liveware" AI to compete against. Sooner or later Bond, Carlson and company are going to find someone who can work the game right, in the mean time, a referee aid program would be nice, but I digress. It does look pretty flaky. F-14s are now being used in some limited strike roles based on their ability to haul quite a load and their age (leave the high-G turns to the younger whippersnappers in the F/A-18s) and, IIRC, as part of a stopgap between getting rid of the A-6 and not having a true follow-on. Taken at face value, it sounds like someone screwed up BIG TIME. Even if you consider the ease of pre-figured loads, there is no reason to pre-figure in such an oddball way, especially since you SHOULD have a volume or two of Jane's handy. Oh, well, looks like I'll have to convince my gaming buddies to go naval until someone gets it right.
Spoe	posted 05-14-99 01:18 AM ET Khan: It's a modern-only game. For its day, the original Harpoon game(based on version 3 of the board game, IIRC) was good(other than a nasty habit of running out of memory and unit handles in the more complex scenarios). Granted that came out in 1989 or so. Harpoon II and Classic for Windows were both, IMHO, substandard but better games than Fleet Command. wkehrman: Tell me about it. If 360 Pacific could allow a selection of loadouts back in the days of the 286/386 it seems a bit odd that Jane's/Sonalysts couldn't today. As I mentioned above, the original computer Harpoon project did a good job, considering the limitations they were working under. Since Bond wasn't involved in the Harpoon II project and was/is with Harpoon and Harpoon/4, there is a shred of hope.
Khan Singh	posted 05-14-99 09:41 AM ET Why do they show Nelson (or Rodney) on the box cover then? Or am I thinking of some other game due out soon?
Spoe	posted 05-14-99 12:50 PM ET I think you're thinking of Fighting Steel, an early WWII games(through 1943 or so).