Metascore
tbd

No score yet - based on 2 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 2
  2. Negative: 0 out of 2
  1. Aug 19, 2014
    70
    History buffs with an appreciation of the complexity of naval combat will find plenty to love in the Custom Game mode, recreating classic engagements and variations based on them, but for other players the title can quickly became repetitive and frustrating.
  2. Aug 12, 2014
    50
    Victory at Sea is not without some charm. The basic ship combat is simplistic but fun, and though controlling large-scale battles is tricky and occasionally cumbersome it can be pretty satisfying.
User Score
5.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 11 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 11
  2. Negative: 3 out of 11
  1. Aug 9, 2014
    5
    I'm a big fan of new indie developers. I'm a big fan of WWII maritime simulators. I played Victory at Sea for as long as I could stomach it soI'm a big fan of new indie developers. I'm a big fan of WWII maritime simulators. 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. TLDR: It starts off bad and becomes worse. It's obviously an arcadey attempt at WWII fleet sea combat, but Port Royale did fleet sea combat much, much better many years ago.

    Let's run through some of the lowlights:
    1. Sub games in the 80s had better AI. Really. Destroyers should be terrifying to sub captians. They are the rock to submarine scissors. Here they will run straight into OP torpedo salvos. Submarines don't submerge when they should which is the only thing that makes them beatable without unnacceptable losses. Allies will destroy a ship that has surrendered: that's sick.
    2. Weapon systems are Just. Plain. Broken. Torpedos run at crazy speeds, with short reload times, the bizarre gun accuracy ranges between pinpoint for small guns to shotgun for big guns.
    3. 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.
    4. Chronology is, how do I put this... odd. The US joins the war before the fall of France.
    5. Missions are just nuts. A battlecruiser fleet is sent to deliver a letter.
    6. Scripted loss of a major British sea port because HQ sent you to Norway and doesn't give you time to return.
    7. No army or airforce behaviour. None.
    8. The economy / ecology is terribad. Experience comes in way too quickly to keep pace with money.
    9. Permaspawning irritant destroyers and no significant challenging enemy fleets.
    10. 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.

    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.
    Full Review »
  2. Sep 9, 2014
    10
    What a Fantastic game !! I love this War simulator It looks so real the game is much more realistic for WW2 maritime battle than any otherWhat a Fantastic game !! I love this War simulator It looks so real the game is much more realistic for WW2 maritime battle than any other game Try it and you will know it !!! Full Review »
  3. Aug 19, 2014
    9
    This has strong dev support and is already better than when it came out a week or so ago, I haven't seen a game with such as fast responseThis has strong dev support and is already better than when it came out a week or so ago, I haven't seen a game with such as fast response from the devs. They have the communities back on some of the flaws of the game which are minor tbh.
    The game has 3 campaigns across the Pacific Atlantic and Med, although they are allied only at the moment the devs have promised more from it including German and Japanese campaigns. This is a grower!
    Full Review »