Totem games "Ironclads"--- DEMO is up

[Sonarman]

Our friends in Russia Totem Games have released a demo for their upcoming ACW ironclads game. Check out the 22.5MB demo here (http://www.totemgames.ru/main_en.html)

[Raptor1]

22 megs?

Ah well, nothing to lose

[Ilpalazzo]

I've had interest in this. I will check it out. Pretty small eh?

[Syxx_Killer]

I can't even remember the last time a demo was only 22MB. You can't even get patches now-a-days smaller than 22MB. I think it is pretty cool how it is only 22MB. I never download demos anymore because I don't want to take up 500MB+ just to try a game.

[Ilpalazzo]

lol me too! I passed on a bunch of demos because they were a gig or more. Jesus. Anyway I just messed with this one and uh. Maybe it's just that the demo isn't very good, but I was not impressed. In fact I didn't know this was a turn based game. I'd imagine it would take a god awful long time to complete a large battle in this. I didn't finish the demo because the AI just kept running away from me as I followed and took shots. That went on for a good long while. Bored me, sorry Totem Games.

[GlobalExplorer]

To be honest, the screenshots are so meh that I won't even download it. I would actually prefer the demo to be somwhat larger because 22mb does really not sound like a very impressive product.

What happened to Storm Eagles Jutland btw? Shouldnt this have been out for half a year now?

[Sonarman]

I think that Totem and Liquid Dragon (devs of Deadliest Catch Alaskan Storm) have both made the same mistake in their demos ie the demos are much too limited and do not give a enough idea of the scope of the game. In DCs case they only had one tutorial style mission with lots of annoying popups and a speedboat race. In Ironclads case they only have a single 2 ship fight playable from either side, they should have included a mission with multiple vessels on each side as well as this would give the user a much better idea of the strategy play.

[Randomizer]

The scenario is Monitor vs. Virginia so small, local, nice wx and very limited scope so that might explain the 22 Mb download. Ships are nicely modelled with action plotted in 5-minute pulses and then played out in a couple of seconds. You can pause during movement to fire or change course and speed. I'm not a fan of the 'camera' user interface but for those who liked the GUI in Distant Guns may find much that is familier. After two battles, both combatants failed to show any visual damage which was a bit of a surprise.

Turn based with plotted movement resolved sequentially. After two tries with Virginia forced Monitor to withdraw, first time with 11% and second with 14% damage with Virginia taking 4% and 1% damage respectively. Scenario ends when a combatant move beyond the limits of the 2D battle map.

Good Hunting

[Maxim]

1. A problem at a rate of a demo? I think that was not present. A problem in that that developers have accustomed players to big sizes of the games. It is sometimes inevitable. And more often simply speaks about unwillingness to optimize the product. Really you the size of the program thinks, what the more, the it is better? If so to us will not make the big work to increase the size of a demo up to absolute any. If will be 1 Gb you will be impressed more?
:)


2. The player receives the same result as in history. It shows, that the ships and game system are capable to give realistic result. Without knowledge of an epoch, tactics and the ships will play difficultly. If you wish to feel the participant of the true war this will be game for you. And if you wish even times to feel the most invincible, magnificent, remarkable and so on with this there will be problems. Have got used to fast result, wish to win only? I understand it, but I do not support.

Yours faithfully
Totem Games

[Randomizer]

1. A problem at a rate of a demo? I think that was not present. A problem in that that developers have accustomed players to big sizes of the games. It is sometimes inevitable. And more often simply speaks about unwillingness to optimize the product. Really you the size of the program thinks, what the more, the it is better? If so to us will not make the big work to increase the size of a demo up to absolute any. If will be 1 Gb you will be impressed more?
:)


2. The player receives the same result as in history. It shows, that the ships and game system are capable to give realistic result. Without knowledge of an epoch, tactics and the ships will play difficultly. If you wish to feel the participant of the true war this will be game for you. And if you wish even times to feel the most invincible, magnificent, remarkable and so on with this there will be problems. Have got used to fast result, wish to win only? I understand it, but I do not support.

Yours faithfully
Totem Games
Am looking forward to final release, the demo seems to hit the highpoints and the subject cries out to be done well IMO. I plan on purchasing Ironclads: ACW.

Observations regarding the lack of visual damage came from the real Virginia had (by most accounts) lost her ventilators, funnel, boats and davits and was down by the head when Monitor drew off. In my second try successfully ramming Monitor fully broadside at full speed (a difficult evolution when the target is smaller, faster and handier) produced no visual or actual damage to Virginia at all. Historically rammers suffered along with the rammed.

Liked that a loss of speed takes some time to make up, a characteristic of steamships that is usually understated.

Liked that only those broadside guns that bear onto the target actually fire.

Wasn't impressed with the ambiant background sounds, they sounded more like a modern factory floor than a reciprocating steam engine.

Will the final version have any ship/shore actions, running past forts and the like?

Are there going to be usable wooden ships and 'tinclads'?

Is the game action purely tactical?

EDIT:
Just finished a 100-round action as Monitor, the demo ends after this time representing some 8+ hours real time. Learned to use her manouverability and speed advantage to stay (for the most part) on Virginia's starboard quarter where I hit her a total of 61-times (after I started keeping track), mostly at point-blank range (70+ % ph). She lost at least one-gun, her after pivot rifle because after about round 30 or so, it never fired back at all. At end game Virginia had only 2% damage.

It would appear that either 11" Dahlgren's are useless in Ironclad ACW terms or Virginia's (Depleted Uranium?) armour is immune to solid shot and any behind-armour effects from repeated hits.

I recall the old Great Naval Battles Vol 2 would not apply additional damage to areas that had already been hit although this was subsequently fixed on a patch. I wonder if what I saw here is a similar bug.

Good Hunting

[Ilpalazzo]

The player receives the same result as in history. It shows, that the ships and game system are capable to give realistic result. Without knowledge of an epoch, tactics and the ships will play difficultly. If you wish to feel the participant of the true war this will be game for you. And if you wish even times to feel the most invincible, magnificent, remarkable and so on with this there will be problems. Have got used to fast result, wish to win only? I understand it, but I do not support.

Yours faithfully
Totem Games


I can appreciate historical accuracy. The demo may have proved more interesting with a battle that didn't historically take hours of just two ships firing at each other with little effectiveness. Ok so some people may enjoy that I guess. I'm just saying, that particular battle is not very interesting to play turn by turn.

I may be interested to play if it were in real time with the ability to pause and go forward in time. To play that battle turn by turn was just repetitive and time consuming. When I played, all I did was follow the AI ship and fire at it. While that was happening the ship just kept running away as if it didn't want to fight. Not retreating mind you. It was moving in large circles as I followed and fired. I'm not a historian and not very knowledgeable of the tactics of that battle. However, I'd like to think it wasn't as silly as it played out for me in this demo.

I don't want to feel invincible. In fact, I wanted the AI to fight back. I was playing as the monitor by the way. The conflict may have been different if I played as Virginia, but I didn't stick around after that to try it.

In fact, I wonder why the game is turn based. Real time would be exciting to me. If there is option to play this game in real time I'm sorry but I did not know. I guess I'm going to have to read a preview because I only really know of this game what I played in the demo. The campaign may be fun.

That demo was boring. The game itself may be good, but I believe that demo did not show the game off very well. That demo has led me to think that the game itself may be just as boring.

But that's all just one persons opinion...

[Maxim]

2 Randomizer\

The explanatory:

Armor CSS Virginia = 4,5 in the iron armor + 26 in a wooden oak lining
Armor USS Monitor = 8 ” the iron armor

At use of a double charge of gunpowder by a round pig-iron kernel of Dahlgren guns in calibre of 11 inches (the weight of 62 kg, initial speed of 406 km/s) can punch approximately 5 inches of the iron armor. After that the kernel jams in a wooden lining under the armor.

Additional damages are not put to already destroyed parts of the ship.

The demo version has been released to estimate is how much correctly conducted our work above game. It is important to us to understand, that it is necessary to alter, and that it is necessary to leave without changes. I shall make the list for completion.

1. The Demo shows battle of two well protected ships. The most possible result of battle is a drawn game. It do not allow the player to appreciate game system as a whole, does not show flooding, fires. To play boringly.

Conclusion: to show battle of the several ships, the player should have an opportunity to destroy or drown the ships of the enemy. In a demo there should be wooden ships and ironclads.

2. To improve quality of sounds in game. The note: in game record of a sound of the steam machine from the true steamship is used. Quality and processing of a sound for game are not good enough.

3. The System of calculation of success in mission is not clear. From the text it is difficult to understand what side what has caused a loss.

Conclusion: to give detailed explanatories by estimation of results of mission.

Thanks for your help. Only so we can understand what game to you is necessary.

Maxim Ferapontov
Totem Games

[Maxim]

2 Ilpalazzo\

1. We as soon as possible shall make a new demo the version. In it the different ships will be accessible. We hope, that then game will not seem such boring.
2. Tactics of battle is dictated by TBS. The similar behaviour of the enemy in general is characteristic for games with step-by-step system. Especially it is appreciable in battle only two ships. Battles of greater number of the ships are more interesting. Fans of TBS games have remained are enough.
3. Campaign will be interesting. We very much try to make its such.
4. I got it. Our enemy - boredom!

Thanks for the correct and clever answer.

[Letum]

I'm not quite sure what the game is trying to achieve.

The scope for any kind of tactics or strategy was very limited. In part this was
because of the very, very rigid, un-fluid way the game plays. the game game
me no feedback about what was happening. I never had the sense that I was
reacting to the AI or the AI was reacting to me, I never felt immersed in the
game. My choices didn't seam to make a lot of difference to the outcome as
long as I kept as many guns firing as I could. If there where other dynamics
at work then they where well hidden and not intuitive.

It is like controling robots, not being in command of a ship.

Move, fire, move, fire, move, fire, move, fire, move, fire, look at win/lose
screen. There isn't really much more to the demo.

That just isn't enough to engage the player for long.

The game really needs to have the player more involved.
Give the player more control, more to do. Some more micro-management.
Give the player some tough choices to make (other than move, fire!), some
traps to fall into. Give visual feedback about what is happening; damage
graphics are a good start.

[Ilpalazzo]

2 Ilpalazzo\

1. We as soon as possible shall make a new demo the version. In it the different ships will be accessible. We hope, that then game will not seem such boring.
2. Tactics of battle is dictated by TBS. The similar behaviour of the enemy in general is characteristic for games with step-by-step system. Especially it is appreciable in battle only two ships. Battles of greater number of the ships are more interesting. Fans of TBS games have remained are enough.
3. Campaign will be interesting. We very much try to make its such.
4. I got it. Our enemy - boredom!

Thanks for the correct and clever answer.

Unless your being sarcastic that sounds great. A demo that shows a game off very well may get people to buy it.

What Letum just said is true. I can only hope that having more ships makes,"move, fire, move, fire" more interesting. Personally, I still think it would be better off in real time. What's the point of turn based when you wind up issuing the same few commands over and over. Perhaps there is more depth in the final game.

[GunnerGreg]

I have been looking forward to this game, as ACW naval warfare is one of those areas I'm interested in, but have had little time to study.

I've played the demo three times as CSS Virginia, forcing USS Monitor to retreat each time. The results were 6% / 6% damage, 6% / 2%, and 16% / 2% (Union / Confederate).

One feature that would be nice would be to see the damage done to each ship at the end of the battle.

I found that the TBS aspect allowed very unrealistic actions. For example after I came to a stop after ramming Monitor, she passed down my starboard side, around my stern and up my port side during her turn. Of course, I was not able to fire at her at all, when in reality, seven guns would have been brought to bear at one time or another during that manuever. I was able to return the favor later, hitting Monitor with my bow gun, all three port side guns, and my stern gun and then continue past and out of Monitor's range without receiving any return fire.

[CaptHawkeye]

22 megs?

Ah well, nothing to lose

Except your dignity. :)

[Buddahaid]

Well, I'm trying the demo, and not being familiar with turn based games (except Outpost), I can't quite get the UI. Is there some sort of controls explanation I've missed?

Buddahaid

[FIREWALL]

Not trying to go OT but, Isn't the small mb D|L# easier on the dialup people so more will try Demo ?

Just a thought. :hmm:

[Hitman]

I'm downloading the demo, but even before seeing it you have one customer in me :) I always buy and hence support any serious effort to bring a new naval game to life; but this time I also have the sense it will be a very fun experience :up:

Keep it coming Totem Games :rock:

P.S. I forgot: How will it be comercialized? Will we be able to buy a boxed version like the one displayed in the web? Will it be available in Spain?

Cheers

[Maxim]

http://www.totemgames.ru/Ironclads_ACW_demo_2.exe

New Demo

1. The user's guide (Game Manual) to be in a folder from a demo. It is a file in format PDF.

2. You are right. Not in all countries the Internet is developed equally well. We try to make game accessible to all.

3. The English version of game can be purchased in Spain only through the Internet. We did not receive offers on translation of game on Spanish.

Totem Games

[Ilpalazzo]

Hey, this demo is much better than the last one. I felt this demo really gave me a feel for the game and it is much more interesting with more ships involved :)

I have one fairly bad problem with the demo though. There is a bug I seem to get every time I play. At some point, an AI ship will get stuck in some sort of loop and never end it's turn. It will not move, but rather sit there and I must close the game's running process to stop it. I was very patient for quite some time, but it is apparent that this is a bug and the AI will not execute it's action. I'm uncertain as to what causes this. It seems that when I have a ship in front of an AI ship, this bug is likely to occur. As though I'm blocking it and it doesn't know what to do. I have been unable to finish the demo because of this problem. I suppose I could try not to get in front of the AI...

Apart from that bug, this is much better than the first demo.

"3. The English version of game can be purchased in Spain only through the Internet. We did not receive offers on translation of game on Spanish."

Any info on who the English version of the game may be purchased from?


On the TotemGames.ru website there does not seem to be any other projects. Is Ironclads their first game? Just curious.

[Raptor1]

I agree that the new demo is much better than the last one, but I found that bug with the AI really annoying, hopefully that will be fixed when the full game comes out

[Maxim]

1. We shall correct errors up to release of game.

2. Help us to relieve game of this bug. If at you the same problem send us please two files: "dxdiag" and "TotemLog".

dxdiag - computer diagnostic file. To get the file, follow the instructions below:

1. Press the Windows «Start» button;
2. Click on «Run»;
3. Type the following: dxdiag, then hit enter;
4. Save result in a separate file and pack this file in ZIP archive;
5. Attach the file to your email.

In a folder from a demo file TotemLog (for example C: \Program Files \Ironclads - American Civil War Demo 2 \TotemLog.log) is located. Attach the file to your email.

3. Now it will be known that the English version to be on sale through the Internet. About sales on disks there are negotiations.

4. It is first our game.

Totem Games
support@totemgames.ru

[Maxim]

The bug is corrected. The updated version of a demo here:

http://www.totemgames.ru/Ironclads_ACW_demo_2.exe

Excuse for inconveniences.
Totem Games

[Dutch]

Apparently I am the only one here that has crashes every time I try to play the game.

I can't even play with the US side, but with the CSA I can move 2-3 ships before it randomly crashes, either by me hitting move and crashing right after load. Any ideas on this? Looks to be an intresting game, I like the idea of surface combat and it looks like it would be fun. But again I can't seem to play it. I'm looking to see if I've done anything wrong. I am going to uninstall and re-download then reinstall to make sure.

[Ilpalazzo]

Nice, the AI no longer locks up the game. I had much fun:yep:

However, around 27-28 turns into it, the enemy had two ships left and the game unexpectedly closed itself.

The end of the TotemLog states;

EXCEPTION : 0x 4841ce

[Maxim]

I ask to pay attention, that game should not work on operational system Windows Vista at all. It is written in system requirements.

Now we work above this problem. We hope with your help it to solve.

Thanks all who has sent us files with the indication on an error.

BR,
Totem Games

[Maxim]

I'm looking to see if I've done anything wrong.

You have made all correctly. Excuse for the caused inconveniences. We do all that we can to correct it a bug.

Totem Games

[Dutch]

Oh wow I had no idea a dev was in here! It no problem at all no need to apologize. Any software is going to have its problems and glitches but from what I have been able to play I am very excited about this game.

You guys keep up the good work don't let a couple of bugs get you down, most of us understand how it is. Thank you for you quick response! I just received an email from you guys this morning, I hope it helps you guys.

[Ilpalazzo]

I couldn't help but think about this from the game's page;

"the morale, training, physical conditions of the crew have an influence on the efficiency of the ships"

Is morale modeled in the demo? I saw no indications of morale or it's effect on anything. Or anything about the crew for that matter.

[Maxim]

Oh wow I had no idea a dev was in here! It no problem at all no need to apologize. Any software is going to have its problems and glitches but from what I have been able to play I am very excited about this game.

You guys keep up the good work don't let a couple of bugs get you down, most of us understand how it is. Thank you for you quick response! I just received an email from you guys this morning, I hope it helps you guys.
Thanks for understanding and support.

Now about a moral and physical condition of crew. Our game is similar to an iceberg. Behind several simple actions of the player big work disappears.

For example at a shot speed of both ships, a corner between the ships, distance up to the purpose, speed of a shell during the moment of hit, kinetic energy of a shell, a zone of continuous destruction is considered. If the shell gets in the armor calculation of resistance of the armor and a wooden lining joins. What quantity of energy of a shell was absorbed with the armor. Depth and diameter of a hole.

What does the player see? Has guided the cursor of the mouse and has given a command to shoot. All!

Each of the ships has a value of training of crew, a moral condition. They vary during fight. Only the player of this does not see. There can be it a mistake, but we have given the player only those data on the ships and crew which are accessible to the real commander of the ship.

Totem Games

[kjuice]

Thanks for replying to my video glitches. I hope you can get it ironed out.

[CaptainHaplo]

First of all - I am downloading the demo now and will post an opinion of it asap. However, let me simply say you have my business already for 3 distinct reasons.

#1 - Your presence here shows your committed to the customer - you want our feedback to make the game better. This is a great thing.

#2 - When issues arose - you fixed them - even revamping your demo due to feedback. If thats how you respond to problems or concerns - I know my money will be well spent on this game.

#3 - You had the courage to tackle a subset of naval history that is often overlooked, difficult to model, and yet wanted by tru naval grognards. Well done!

Tell the entire team they have support here in at subsim.com!!!!

[CaptainHaplo]

OK I am hooked. No problems to report. I noticed you guys are doing things via XML for the vessels themselves. Great decision! Its one great game - I can't wait to buy the full version. If there is any help I can provide (be it helping proofread documents/in game text in english - or playtesting etc), feel free to let me know. I will be glad to help. You guys have a great game in process!

[Maxim]

Our game is first experience of creation of game about an epoch of the first ironclads. To understand, that our ideas correct, to us the opinion of players is very important. Only players can inform us successful and unsuccessful game elements. It allows to remove unsuccessful elements and to make game better. While game is still made much it is possible to change. After end of all work it is already difficult to correct something.

Now we have found problems in a demo. With your help have collected the information on this bug. As soon as we shall cope with this error we shall inform.

Thanks for attention to our project.
Sincerely,
Totem Games

P.S.
2 Captain Haplo\
The help in testing is necessary to us. Please contact us.
support@totemgames.ru

[ReallyDedPoet]

Our game is first experience of creation of game about an epoch of the first ironclads. To understand, that our ideas correct, to us the opinion of players is very important. Only players can inform us successful and unsuccessful game elements. It allows to remove unsuccessful elements and to make game better. While game is still made much it is possible to change. After end of all work it is already difficult to correct something.

Now we have found problems in a demo. With your help have collected the information on this bug. As soon as we shall cope with this error we shall inform.

Thanks for attention to our project.
Sincerely,
Totem Games

P.S.
2 Captain Haplo\
The help in testing is necessary to us. Please contact us.
support@totemgames.ru

Continued good luck with this TR :yep::up:


RDP

[Dutch]

Our game is first experience of creation of game about an epoch of the first ironclads. To understand, that our ideas correct, to us the opinion of players is very important. Only players can inform us successful and unsuccessful game elements. It allows to remove unsuccessful elements and to make game better. While game is still made much it is possible to change. After end of all work it is already difficult to correct something.

Now we have found problems in a demo. With your help have collected the information on this bug. As soon as we shall cope with this error we shall inform.

Thanks for attention to our project.
Sincerely,
Totem Games

P.S.
2 Captain Haplo\
The help in testing is necessary to us. Please contact us.
support@totemgames.ru

Man talk about elite customer service, I do not believe that I have ever seen a company so readily willing to help their future customers! You guys will certainly have have my business.

[OldNuke]

I tried it and it was pretty buggy...probably not surprisingly, considering the size of the file.

The most frustrating thing about the game is the turn-based architecture. I don't understand why they would go to all the effort to make the ship models look realistic (down to the turrets turning before firing) and then limit them to board-game-like turns. It reminds me of the old X-Com game.

Graphically, there are some clunky aspects. All the smoke plumes go straight up, with exactly the same shape, even when the vessels are moving. The background steam engine noises are repetitive and annoying. The models have serious z-axis problems with the undulating water surface rising inside the bulwarks and covering the decks of the ships on occasion. (Think submarines with funnels.) In one game, all the ships acted like they were on teeter-totters for a brief period. Maximum speed of movement is unrealistic for the scale.

The in-game help was limited. I would hope the production version will be more informative. When I saved a game and logged out, I couldn't reload the game.

Similar ships are grouped at the beginning of a battle so they can move as a unit, but can be split up for individual ship-on-ship engagements. However, there is no provision for regrouping them later in the battle.

You really have no idea of how much damage you are doing to the enemy other than tool-tips indicating "Undamaged", "Light Damage", and "Damaged". I didn't notice any effect of battle damage on rate of fire to the enemy ships, but YOUR ships take damage that eventually can leave them without guns. The instructions tell you to shoot at point-blank range for greatest effect, but often I would lay my ship right next to the other and have no more than a 62% chance of a hit. Didn't make sense.

In each battle I tried (3), at some point the movement phase of either friendly or enemy ships developed errors. Either the friendly ship didn't track along the specified PIM, or the enemy ships ran into their own ships, or they took extra movement turns. The demo wouldn't let you finish your turn until all of your ships had moved to their maximum extent, even if that wasn't what would have been prudent in the tactical situation. Even X-Com allowed you to skip a turn for one of your soldiers! The ships are slaved to a pseudo-inertia model, so they speed up and slow down gradually over the course of several turns (you can't do All Back Emergency or All Ahead Flank, in other words).

The map in the demo is limited to just showing positions of friendly and enemy ships at a single scale. The circular markers are not identified by name, only by color indicating side. There is no heading marker (think NTDS), so it's hard to relate the map positions to what you see in the camera view. Speaking of the camera view, it is slaved to only friendly ships. You can pan around, tilt, and zoom relative to the selected friendly ship, but there is no overall battlespace camera that lets you get a view of all the ships.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Just thought I would provide fair warning. I would like to get copies of the plans they used for their ship's models, though.

Terry
Greenville, SC

[Maxim]

Terry:

I tried it and it was pretty buggy...probably not surprisingly, considering the size of the file.

The most frustrating thing about the game is the turn-based architecture. I don't understand why they would go to all the effort to make the ship models look realistic (down to the turrets turning before firing) and then limit them to board-game-like turns. It reminds me of the old X-Com game.

Totem Games:

At this forum fans of simulators communicate. For you game in real time is better, than turn-based. At forums where fans of strategy all on the contrary gather.

Terry:

Graphically, there are some clunky aspects. All the smoke plumes go straight up, with exactly the same shape, even when the vessels are moving. The background steam engine noises are repetitive and annoying. The models have serious z-axis problems with the undulating water surface rising inside the bulwarks and covering the decks of the ships on occasion. (Think submarines with funnels.) In one game, all the ships acted like they were on teeter-totters for a brief period. Maximum speed of movement is unrealistic for the scale.

Totem Games:

In occasion of a smoke from pipes you are right. Thanks that have paid our attention.

Depth of immersing in water of the ship depends on each concrete computer. Normal it is possible to consider almost full immersing of the case of the monitor in water. On the Internet it is a lot of photos on which monitors in movement are shown. Very similar on a submarine. We consulted at historians. They have confirmed such strange feature for the modern person of these ships.

Terry:

The in-game help was limited. I would hope the production version will be more informative. When I saved a game and logged out, I couldn't reload the game.

Totem Games:

Page of the help have already corrected and have added. You cannot load game? Contact us please … support@totemgames.ru (support@totemgames.ru)

Terry:

Similar ships are grouped at the beginning of a battle so they can move as a unit, but can be split up for individual ship-on-ship engagements. However, there is no provision for regrouping them later in the battle.

Totem Games:

We based on experience and tactics of the true battles. During Civil war in the USA, Paraguayan war, war between Austria and Italy, wars for islands Chincha the ships did not gather in groups after the beginning of battle. There is no example. Historians have explained to us what to make it is impossible. Therefore we have repeated it in game.

Terry:

You really have no idea of how much damage you are doing to the enemy other than tool-tips indicating "Undamaged", "Light Damage", and "Damaged". I didn't notice any effect of battle damage on rate of fire to the enemy ships, but YOUR ships take damage that eventually can leave them without guns. The instructions tell you to shoot at point-blank range for greatest effect, but often I would lay my ship right next to the other and have no more than a 62% chance of a hit. Didn't make sense.


Totem Games:

How it is possible to estimate a condition of the enemy ship in fight? You see it only outside. Therefore can estimate damage from your actions only as it was made by us. Accuracy of shooting in fight depends on the sizes of the purpose, speed of your and enemy ship. Please, pay attention that guns on the first ironclads differ from guns of the ships of Nelson only in the sizes. On these} guns are not present even normal sights. That accuracy, that you see in game is calculated on the basis of statistics of all sea battles with 1854 for 1875. Esteem special books and count up.

Bombardment of fort Samter - distance up to the purpose of 660 meters - accuracy of hit of the ships in a fort of 8,28 % - accuracy of hit of a fort in the ships of 17,4 % (Both the ships and a fort did not move.)

Fight of a cruiser of England and the monitor from Peru - a distance of fight of 2275 meters - accuracy of 6 % (By both ships only rifle guns).

Fight of two ironclads of Chile against the monitor from Peru - a distance of fight of 200 meters - accuracy of 35 %

Terry:

In each battle I tried (3), at some point the movement phase of either friendly or enemy ships developed errors. Either the friendly ship didn't track along the specified PIM, or the enemy ships ran into their own ships, or they took extra movement turns. The demo wouldn't let you finish your turn until all of your ships had moved to their maximum extent, even if that wasn't what would have been prudent in the tactical situation. Even X-Com allowed you to skip a turn for one of your soldiers! The ships are slaved to a pseudo-inertia model, so they speed up and slow down gradually over the course of several turns (you can't do All Back Emergency or All Ahead Flank, in other words).

Totem Games:

Each ship in game constantly moves. It not a simulator. Even when you see, that the ship stands on a place - is in movement. The ship is not the tank. It cannot will stop at any moment. But you can finish speed of your ship to zero and it will not have an opportunity to move.

Look at maps of sea battles of that period. Full chaos. Absence order and managements. Each ship conducts fight in itself. It is not necessary to transfer the representation about other epoch of sea battles on 1854 - 1875. This especial time.

Terry:

The map in the demo is limited to just showing positions of friendly and enemy ships at a single scale. The circular markers are not identified by name, only by color indicating side. There is no heading marker (think NTDS), so it's hard to relate the map positions to what you see in the camera view. Speaking of the camera view, it is slaved to only friendly ships. You can pan around, tilt, and zoom relative to the selected friendly ship, but there is no overall battlespace camera that lets you get a view of all the ships.

Totem Games:

To open the information screen on the vessels involved, use the 2D map and click on the circle with a star inside. To close the ship information screen, move the cursor to the map border and press the mouse button. So you will see the name of all ships and the information on these ships.

Terry:

I could go on, but you get the idea. Just thought I would provide fair warning. I would like to get copies of the plans they used for their ship's models, though.

Totem Games:

We searched for drawings of the ships in all museums and libraries. Some drawings should be restored under drawings of the same or similar ships. We were very much helped by professional ship builders from Russia.

About searches of drawings it is possible to tell separate detective histories ;)


Thanks for your message.
BR,
Totem Games

[RedChico]

I think it should be in Real Time rather than Turn Base.

[CaptainHaplo]

For those wanting the game to be "real time" - remember your tasked - in the demo only - to control 8 or more ships at a time. Think your up to tracking them ALL at the same time in "real time"? If you tried - you would end up screaming "Its too much to control at one time - why isnt there a "pause and command" feature!" The first time you neglected to check a vessel and it got hammered, you would be unhappy. This is not a game that is designed to be command and conquer with ironclads - its designed to represent some of the HISTORICAL challenges of fighting with, and against, this "new technology" at an earlier time in naval history.

Your entitled to your opinions, but lets keep the "well your screwed this all up" to constructive criticism. Instead of saying "the map doesnt show which way my ship is going" - try suggesting a fix - a map graphic change that shows the bow of your ship marked so you can determine direction for example. Just remember - you have a map - the Captains of the time period had a hand drawn map that they had to be able to tranlate what they could see - to relate it onto the map. Think just seeing a map that gives you a "birds eye view" would have been a luxury they would have loved to have? *Actually it would have given them alot better tactical awareness".

While games like Xcom did allow a soldier to "pass" his movement phase, thats something a person in the real world could do - choose to not move. However, can a ship in battle suddenly stop dead in the water just because its "tactically sound", then resume its movement later? No - physics indicates it can't - so such an option should not be in a game that strives represent the challenges of the era. Part of the challenge of naval maneuvering - from the age of sail through steam, is being able to plan ahead and anticipate what your opponent may do - so you place yourself not for the moment, but you act so that you have the opening in the future you need to gain the advantage. If you play any sailing "game" for the "right now" advantage - you won't win. This held true even with powered ships, and can be seen in actions from the defeat of the Spanish Armada, to the Battle of Jutland.

I am a bit of a history buff. I look at this as yes - the game could be improved. However, these devs haven't gotten this "finished" and have shown a great willingness to fix things that can be shown to need fixing. Is that not what we as gamers have always said we wanted? They have obviously done alot of groundwork research, and no game is perfect. Sure its not as pretty as Seadogs2 (PotC), or realtime. So far I haven't even inquired about if they are building in multiplayer support (nothing listed on that on the main english page). But the fact is, its a work in progress that shows a lot of promise.

If you like something - say so. If you don't - say that too! Just be considerate of the fact that these people are pouring alot of effort into it - so offer ideas on how to improve things, vs just "this is whats all wrong". The only exception there is turn based vs realtime. Taking a game like this - on a "built" engine - and changing that from one to the other - is almost impossible. You are asking them to almost start over. Those types of decisions - real time vs "time" turn based are made very early in developmental planning. There is nothing to be done about it now - and trust me on this - in the end you wouldnt be happy with it unless you could constantly pause the game to issue new commands anyway. If your having to do that - your not playing "real time" like a historical captain did anyway right?

Now - I will make a couple of suggestions regarding the turn based model. First, set it up so that if a player does not give specific orders to a vessel or group, they continue with the current orders. Also perhaps create a slider or setting to where we could control how much time each "turn" is containing. Currently the manual states we are simulating 5 minutes of time per turn. Some may see 5 minutes as too long a period for each turn. If we could adust it - say to 1/3/5 minute settings, then it would allow many gamers to feel they have more control over the actual battle. This could alleviate some of the "real time" requests while keeping the current scheme. Might not be possible due to reloading times - don't know how you guys implimented that. Just a couple of ideas.

[Ilpalazzo]

Is Totem Games looking for suggestions regarding gameplay changes? I was under the impression that this game was very close to release and that any gameplay change would be out of the question. I thought that at this point, Totem Games was only interested in releasing their game bug free.


I think I might play it a few more times and see if I can come up with any good ideas.


For those wanting the game to be "real time" - remember your tasked - in the demo only - to control 8 or more ships at a time. Think your up to tracking them ALL at the same time in "real time"? If you tried - you would end up screaming "Its too much to control at one time - why isnt there a "pause and command" feature!" The first time you neglected to check a vessel and it got hammered, you would be unhappy. This is not a game that is designed to be command and conquer with ironclads - its designed to represent some of the HISTORICAL challenges of fighting with, and against, this "new technology" at an earlier time in naval history.
CaptainHaplo, the game, in it's current form, cannot be real time. I understand that and that's cool cause it is a good game. I think I like your idea about the turn time slider. More micro management of the flow of battle might help distract me from feeling like there is nothing else to do, which is something I ramble on about later in this post. I just want to know if you think a naval battle game where you control many ships would be completely ill suited for real time.

On an unrelated note. I would have purchased Distant Guns if they didn't make the price so unreasonable. Seriously, I believe Distant Guns is $70 US!


I just feel like I have to say this,

for me, turn based games are fun because they are meant to be tactical. They have to be in turns because there's so much you can do that you need time to think about it. I know next to nothing about the time period and the naval battles so I can't say what else can be added for you to do on your turns in Ironclads. The game is striving for realism and I really can't imagine the real ships doing anything other than moving and firing. So really there is no problem with the game. I just can't quite understand (from a gameplay standpoint) why it was decided to be made turn based. As Letum said earlier in the thread,
The game really needs to have the player more involved.
Give the player more control, more to do. Some more micro-management.
Give the player some tough choices to make (other than move, fire!), some
traps to fall into. Give visual feedback about what is happening; damage
graphics are a good start.
If Totem Games can think of anything else for the player to do than I am all for it. The current choices are simply limited to move and fire. I know it's not an rpg or anything so nothing outlandish, but is it possible that there could be something else for the player to do? If in reality all they did was move and fire then perhaps the game would have been best suited for real time with pause and time compression features and orders for your ai ships to fire within certain ranges or target certain ships. In other words, less micro more macro. That is all under the assumption that moving and firing is all there is to it. However, in a turn based game, I find it preferable to have more micro management.


If possible, more damage graphics to show the player how things are going would be nice. So far the game is doing very well with this, if I see a ship listing to a side or burning, then I know I did something good:yep: It would be neat if there were other damage graphics/effects to give the player more visual feedback on the progress of the battle. However, it is not necessary as the game does already do this well enough.

I noticed, when firing point blank, that often times there is no graphic to indicate if anything happened. Normally you would see an explosion on the ship or a splash in the water to indicate hit or miss, but when firing close ranged I sometimes do not see an explosion or splash which makes it hard to tell if I hit or missed. I believe this may be a bug.


The only reasonable suggestion I have for Totem Games regarding Ironclads is to make the user interface smaller or 'streamlined'. The UI is, in my opinion, unnecessarily large. I play on a 37 inch monitor and the graphic just seems to take up an awful lot of space.



And now the stuff that I don't think will be taken too seriously.

I would like to discuss whether or not the point of impact from my shots has significance on the enemy. I can see on my screen that my ship is divided into different points that indicate damage/flooding. I assume the enemy ships are the same way yes? I've been maneuvering my ships to fire on the same points of the enemy in hopes that my concentrated damage will hamper the enemy more than randomly firing anywhere I can. I need clarification on this because it seems that when I fire, the explosion hit graphic is usually on the center of the enemy ship regardless of where I was hoping to hit (fore,aft). This just make me confused as to whether or not I'm hitting what I mean to hit.

I guess what I'm saying is that I would like to know if it is possible to make 'aimed' shots for specific points on the enemy and whether or not this is necessary. Usually, my ship seems to just aim for the center of the enemy. Perhaps being able to aim shots would add an interesting dynamic and something more to do with your turn. I noticed the ai seems to destroy my guns and actually manage to render my ironclads harmless. I would like to be able to aim at their turrets and try to destroy their guns, but this all seems up to chance as there is no real way to aim the guns. There seems to be parts of ships that are less armored than others. I always try to aim for these 'weak points'. I just can't tell if it matters in the game.

I also would like to know if it would be possible to give the player different ammo types, as this would add a tactical decision. I believe historically they did have different types of ammo (explosive shell and solid shot).

I'm just trying to think of how you can add more to the players decisions. You are striving for historical accuracy so don't take my ideas there seriously because I really don't know much about this subject. Since it is necessary to be as close as possible to make a hit, perhaps they didn't care about what they hit and so there was no real use in aiming? Is this true? It can be difficult to set up a perfect shot so I would not be surprised if they fired whenever they thought it would hit, regardless of whether or not it's where they would prefer to have shot. I'd imagine that, ideally, they would try to concentrate on a specific part and keep at it because of the difficulty in damaging an ironclad to begin with.

The scale indicated in the game throws me off a bit. Are the ships in proportion to their surroundings? When I am as close as possible to a ship without ramming it, is the distance between us mere meters or hundreds of meters? It seems so odd that it could look like I am touching a ship and still manage to fire past it.


Did anybody else find it more difficult to win as CS vs US in the demo? Got any tips for me? I seem to play badly as CS in the demo. I think I can win, but the demo always does that crash to me. Anyway, as CS I quickly end up with only my 3 best ships. Perhaps I should be less suicidal with my little ones?:dead: Generally, I would try to use one of the big ships to ram an enemy ironclad at full speed and then pull the other big one up beside said ironclad and fire a full broadside. Is this a good tactic? I was under the impression that ramming ironclads with the big ships was a viable strategy.


edit. OH i wanted to mention one more thing. I like the way the speed of movement works in the game. It makes sense that you must complete movement to finish your turn. However, sometimes my ship wont make the full movement. Then I have to keep messing with the slider and hitting the move button many times until the ship finally finishes it's move length and allows me to end the turn. This seems to be another sort of bug.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not the game gets new features because I have already decided to purchase it. Just letting you know I'm not a jerk that wants to change the game. I just want to see the bugs fixed.

[CaptainHaplo]

Excellent post Ilpalazzo - and I don't know if they are looking for feedback on features, etc or just looking for bugs. I figure it can't hurt to throw a well reasoned and well explained option or idea out there though. :arrgh!:

As for your question of can a naval game be realitime? Yes - it can - but it still needs a "pause" button so you can get a feel for whats happening. Otherwise there is too much to do and keep up with. A perfect example is the classic Fleet Command. Another is Naval Gunnery Campaign , a game which I am proud to say I had a very minor hand in making a reality. Dangerous Waters, when your just the dd and a whirlybird or 2 still requires an occasional pause to properly assess the tactical situation.

If your one ship and your role is to handle just that one ship - then real time is great. If your tasked to fight from multiple platforms, you simply cant give enough attention to each one to make it fight at 100% effectiveness. This is why even in today's modern navy, the admiral isnt telling the ASW commander what "possibles" to pursue, the CAG how to fly his aircraft, etc. Each level of command has its own level of authority. The group commander tells the ASW commodore where the threat axis is, he tells the CAG when to expect a raid, or what to strike - but the "specialists" decide the general how - and then the ship captains or pilots carry out the task.

I think this is one reason why we were not given the choice of "where" to target an enemy. Not to mention - given the premise of warfare at the time - calling your shots was an unknown really. You aimed for the target only. With differences in the quality of powder, shot weight, and even each gun itself, there would have been no "lets aim for ________ spot". The guns of the era, due to the quality control of manufacturing - just didnt make that kind of thing possible in a life or death battle.

The game's damage model, as explained by TR, is actually fairly robust it seems. I hope that we get more info on how this relates morale, etc - and what steps can be taken during a fight to insure we are most effective.

[Ilpalazzo]

The game's damage model, as explained by TR, is actually fairly robust it seems. I hope that we get more info on how this relates morale, etc - and what steps can be taken during a fight to insure we are most effective.
This is what irks me right now. It's easy for me to make assumptions because I just don't know how well this stuff all comes together in the final game. I'm hoping that, more than anything, the way you command your movements makes the biggest difference. That is to say, I would like to be able to learn what becomes the most effective way to handle a given situation or enemy. If I can be just as successful no matter what I do, then that's no good. Hope that makes sense. My thoughts on that are not all together right now.

On movement,
I've been wondering, why wouldn't I travel at my fastest speed at all times? Why would I want to slow down? The only reason I am seeing right now is that when I am slower, I can make tighter turns. However, I cannot travel as far. Leaving me open for attack. Sometimes these turns seem awfully tight, but that might just be me. Like if my speed is low enough, I can fire a broadside, spin on a dime, and then fire the other broadside at the same enemy. Is that believable? Anyway, is there anything else to it? Does going full speed effect accuracy? I don't really see why you wouldn't want to be going as fast as possible at all times just coming in, firing your shots, and getting out. Just wondering if there was anything else I'm unaware of regarding speed and movement.

As it is right now, it only seems like ships are moving around and firing on each other until one can't take anymore. If there is more at work (crew effectiveness/morale), then the game is hiding it very well. If there is more going on then I would like it if the game relayed that information to the player somehow.

I think this is one reason why we were not given the choice of "where" to target an enemy. Not to mention - given the premise of warfare at the time - calling your shots was an unknown really. You aimed for the target only. With differences in the quality of powder, shot weight, and even each gun itself, there would have been no "lets aim for ________ spot". The guns of the era, due to the quality control of manufacturing - just didnt make that kind of thing possible in a life or death battle. That makes sense. I guess I have to think less in terms of gamey and more in terms of realism. This still makes me wonder though. Like, you know how when you select a ship in the map you get that little info window on it? I figured, that if I aimed for the areas where armor is thinnest, then I would be able to take it out easier. So I like to position myself to try and hit those spots. Is the game actually doing what I want it to in that situation? Like I said, it seems like the ships always just hit each other in the center. Even though they seem to flood or burn in the correct place. Is it just that the 'hit' graphic always appears on the ship's center, even though you hit it elsewhere?

Does it make sense for me to try to get all of my shots to hit a part of the ship (port,starboard,fore,aft) and keep doing so to damage that part in hopes of flooding,burning, or otherwise taking out some guns? Or is that just as effective as evenly hitting all areas? Do you know what I mean? I may not be able to aim for specifics, but I like to think that if the armor is weaker behind the ship, positioning myself behind and firing at that spot is actually meaningful.

Have you noticed whether or not you've been able to disable some of the ai guns? They seem to do it pretty easily to me. I hate when they manage to take out my guns. I will just say,"luck of the draw", but I will think,"damn, now this ironclad is useless to me!" btw, when that happens, I like to use my disarmed ships to play tag with the enemy. I would like to learn more about the effectiveness of ramming. Sometimes it doesn't seem to do anything, and other times I quickly notice the enemy ship listing to the part I rammed.

I can't wait to hear more about the campaign.


nnnnn I really have nothing else to say.

[CaptainHaplo]

I have played the demo extensively - and I admit - monkeyed around a bit with the ships. *Side note - don't do this much - it has a tendency to crash the game when some things are "outside" the lines - and I haven't learned what that is yet...*

Movement speed isnt going to always be maxed out for a couple of reasons. Yes, at medium speed you have the greater maneuverability, but what if your running to get side by side with your target - your going flat out - and suddenly he kicks down his speed? You will get one passing shot at him - granted a full broadside if you have the guns - but then you have to turn and circle around him. In that time he is back at full speed and running hard away from you. If he has close to your speed, he is likely running toward friends - meaning you now have a long haul to catch him, and when you do - he will likely have some help. Its better to be a little slower so you can just pull up beside your target at the end of your movement - then use speed to keep your position and pound on him.

As for damage - yes - it does have alot going on that you dont see. I took a frigate alongside another and got in point blank (94%) shots - a total of 16 on the broadside. My enemy was gunned similiar to me, and only could respond with 5 shots - so I took out 11 of his guns - at least temporarily. I don't know if the game allows for repairs, etc.

I too am looking forward to seeing how the game plays when it is fully fleshed out!

[Maxim]

Time in game.

Duration of one round in game meets to 5 minutes of real time. That is within the limits of one round the ship can make actions limited in real time five minutes.

The sizes and distances.

All the sizes long in game have scale 1:1. For example, distance between the ship in group (column) of 185 meters.

Speed and maneuverability.

All the ships in game have identical speed of animation of movement. The player sees increase in speed of the ship on increase in distance which can pass the ship within the limits of a round. At speed in 5 knots the ship can move on 771 meter within the limits of one round. At speed in 10 knots the ship can move on 1542 meters within the limits of one round.

Time of increase or reduction of speed depends on a direction of movement of the ship. The more a corner of turn of the ship, the more slowly it increases speed and more quickly reduces speed.

The more speed of the ship, the is worse its maneuverability. The maneuverability depends on length of the ship and the form of its case.

Modeling of the ship.

At mathematical modeling the ship its size, displacement and materials of which it is made is considered. These parameters are used for definition of safety factor of the ship. Safety factor shows, what damages the ship yet can sustain will not stop to be a construction.

At the ship always any part is under water. Therefore it is possible to destroy guns only that part which is located above water. The ship with the destroyed part on water cannot shoot and will float more slowly, but can leave a battlefield and after repair to participate in following battle.

The fire too destroys the ship, and the smoke and temperature from a fire prevent to use to the ship a part of its guns. But even completely burned down ship can not sink.

The best way to destroy the ship is to drown it. It is necessary for this purpose that shells or a bow of the ship have done holes in a board of the ship on a water level. Then in the ship water will start to act. When the weight of water inside of the ship will be equal to displacement of the ship - it will sink.

It is necessary to consider, that the crew of the ship struggles with flooding the ship. Special a pomp pump out water, and people close up holes in a board. Therefore to drown the ship it is necessary to make as much as possible holes on a water level as it is possible the greater size. When the ship plunges into water through holes which were highly above water earlier, water too acts.

The more displacement of the ship, the is more than water it can accept in itself through holes in the case before sinking or turning over. The ship will sink in horizontal position if water acts in it in regular intervals. The ship overturns and will sink, if the weight of water in one part of the case is more than in others (a difference approximately in 10 % from displacement). If at the ship of a hole only on the one hand cases probability of that there is more that it will turn over.

By the ships of the period of Civil war in the USA there were no internal partitions which would prevent to spread to water inside of the case. Therefore water freely fills in all parts of the ship, but most of all waters there, where a hole.


Shooting.

Calculation of range of shooting is limited to distance in 2500 meters. If the distance up to the purpose was more the ships did not try to shoot at all.
Accuracy depends on distance up to the purpose and the area of the purpose. The more and more close the purpose, the easier in it to get. Rifle guns have greater accuracy, than smoothbores. If the shell has not got in the armor the distance up to the purpose does not influence damage. At shooting on the ship from reservations it is necessary to suit as it is possible more close. The distance up to the purpose influences an opportunity of a shell to punch the reservation. The armor partially or completely absorbs energy of a shell. Therefore smoothbores guns of small calibres cannot seriously damage a part of the ship from armor.

The more the calibre of a gun, the is more than damage to the ship put shells of this gun.

Ram.

Impact by a forward part of the ship in a board of other ship can make a hole in the case. This hole is always located on a water level. The size of a hole depends on the form of a forward part the ships, on which blow and a corner between a forward part of the attacking ship and a board of other ship is striked speeds. The most dangerous impact can turn out at perpendicular position of a forward part of the attacking ship and a board of its purpose.

At the different ships the different opportunity to punch a board and to be protected from such impacts. The more thickly and more strongly the board, the is more difficult to punch it at impact by a forward part of the ship.



PS\

Game is almost finished. To change a basis already there is no opportunity. I attentively read and I write down interesting ideas for the future.



BR,
Totem Games

[CaptainHaplo]

Thanks for the data TR! We are here to help, and Totem's commitment to a good game makes it easy for us to throw out ideas.

A note or "bug" I have found regarding movement. The game does allow the greatest acceleration to be in a straight line - most of the time. On occasion, especially after a couple of lazy turns at speed, centering the rudder does NOT actually give me max distance of travel. Often the greatest distance or acceleration is derived from having the helm on notch to the left or right.

Does Ironclads have a built in screenshot key? If so, it would be easy to get a few screenshots showing what I am describing.

Also - is it just me - or is the map display 180 degrees off on the north and south axis? For example - each selected ship has a "North" indicator. However, if I have a enemy to my northwest, on the map - it shows the enemy to my southwest. Again - screenshots may be best for demonstration. It may be I am looking at it wrong, but it sure seems out of phase to me!

Keep up the great work!

[Maxim]

Thanks for the data TR! We are here to help, and Totem's commitment to a good game makes it easy for us to throw out ideas.

A note or "bug" I have found regarding movement. The game does allow the greatest acceleration to be in a straight line - most of the time. On occasion, especially after a couple of lazy turns at speed, centering the rudder does NOT actually give me max distance of travel. Often the greatest distance or acceleration is derived from having the helm on notch to the left or right.

Does Ironclads have a built in screenshot key? If so, it would be easy to get a few screenshots showing what I am describing.

Also - is it just me - or is the map display 180 degrees off on the north and south axis? For example - each selected ship has a "North" indicator. However, if I have a enemy to my northwest, on the map - it shows the enemy to my southwest. Again - screenshots may be best for demonstration. It may be I am looking at it wrong, but it sure seems out of phase to me!

Keep up the great work!

1. Reduction of speed at turns inures only on following round.

2. To a regret in a demo there is no function for creation of screenshots. I recommend to use the separate program.

For example http://www.faststone.org/

You can send screenshots and comments to the address of support@totemgames.ru

Totem Games

[OldNuke]

I, like at least one other person here, didn't realize the developer was actively participating here and taking input. My whining could have been more constructively phrased, I'm afraid.

CaptainHaplo made a comment that actually might be a solution to the turn-based scenario. If you could pause the action to set commands for each ship and then let the scenario run with both sides maneuvering and shooting at the same time, that would be closer to a realistic situation than sitting still while the enemy runs rings around you with impunity.

For Totem Games: The z-axis problem was most noticeable with the steam-sailing ships that have bulwarks. The water level could be seen rising and falling above their decks, inside the bulwarks, which would be a real problem for those ships!!

Terry

[Maxim]

I, like at least one other person here, didn't realize the developer was actively participating here and taking input. My whining could have been more constructively phrased, I'm afraid.

CaptainHaplo made a comment that actually might be a solution to the turn-based scenario. If you could pause the action to set commands for each ship and then let the scenario run with both sides maneuvering and shooting at the same time, that would be closer to a realistic situation than sitting still while the enemy runs rings around you with impunity.

For Totem Games: The z-axis problem was most noticeable with the steam-sailing ships that have bulwarks. The water level could be seen rising and falling above their decks, inside the bulwarks, which would be a real problem for those ships!!

Terry
It is good, that you have written that thought in the message. Praises are not necessary to us. The truth is necessary to us.

We thought above such idea. If the ships of the player and a computer will simultaneously operate, it is game in real time. If the ships of one side, and then another it is very difficult to supervise such fight will simultaneously operate. It not strongly differs from our variant, in my opinion even is worse.

Before the beginning of work above game we have studied various desktop naval strategy. It was interesting to try to transfer rules of a board game on a computer. The first version of the prototype game was with division of a game field into cells and copying of basic elements of board games.

After the first testing became clear, that the computer does the basic work which did the person earlier. For example throws game bones (cubes). Or writes down position and a condition of the ship. Actually at such a variant to the player it was very boring. Movement - a shot – movement - a shot... Thus parameters of the ship and all game mechanics it is too simple. It is necessary that the life of the ship became equal to zero. Any fires, floodings or calculations of the armor. The ship from armor in such games has more than spots of a life.

It has not arranged us also we have decided to try realistic modelling of the ships and fight with TBS mechanics of game.

In some days we shall start to test campaign for the North. Therefore any changes would be a mistake.

I have understood you. We thought that water can be rolled on decks of the small ships. Probably we were mistaken.

BR,
Totem Games

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok - I have confirmed a bug with the demo regarding the map. I will get some screenshots using an external app and then forward them to you via email TR. Give me a day or 2 to get those. Thanks again for being open to input.

[Deamon]

Is it by any chance starforce protected or something similar intrusive ?

[Maxim]

Is it by any chance starforce protected or something similar intrusive ?

The demo has no protection. Starforce - categorically is not present! We respect with the buyers... As protection not such reliable as promote.

We have found the reason of bugs. Now there is a work on correction. We shall soon update a demo.

BR,
Totem Games

[Deamon]

Great!

I guess I will try it then :)

[CWorth]

For those wanting the game to be "real time" - remember your tasked - in the demo only - to control 8 or more ships at a time. Think your up to tracking them ALL at the same time in "real time"? If you tried - you would end up screaming "Its too much to control at one time - why isnt there a "pause and command" feature!" The first time you neglected to check a vessel and it got hammered, you would be unhappy. This is not a game that is designed to be command and conquer with ironclads - its designed to represent some of the HISTORICAL challenges of fighting with, and against, this "new technology" at an earlier time in naval history.


I am going to guess you have never played Age of Sail 2 Privateers Bounty.

One of the best things about it was that it was in real time.And trying to fight the Battle of Trafalgar in real time with all those ships is what made that even more fun.Simply because it made for a challange trying to manage a fleet of 22 British ships or a fleet of 33 French and Spanish ships.

Sure it was buggy but it was still a fun game and the real time control made it even better.

This is a game I will be getting for certain but a real time version maybe later on would be great.

[Maxim]

Bugs are corrected. The demo now works on operational system Windows Vista. New screenshots of game campaign for US Navy.

Work above game approaches end. In October we shall begin sale of the English version through the Internet. A guiding price 35 - 40 US dollars.

BR,
Totem Games

[Maxim]

Totem Games announces the completion of the historical turn-based naval strategy game for PC "Ironclads: American Civil War". The game focuses on the first steam propelled armored ships of the United States and Confederation during the Civil War in the USA.

The game can be purchased directly from the developer's website www.totemgames.ru

BR,
Maxim Ferapontov
Totem Games