You want more dynamics and less realism. The pleasure from game is more important than history. I understand you.
In game are put in pawn idea of a simulator and historicity. We have spent many months for studying of a subject of game. We consulted to historians and military men in Russia and in the USA. Unfortunately I too badly write to describe all details in English. I will comment on some moments.
1. The physics of movement of the ships in game is not true only in one. At turn the ships lose speed. We did not begin to do it.
2. Management of groups is realised on the basis of the analysis of instructions and historical battles. I will write it once again. Do not pay attention to THEORIES of admirals. Analyze only practice. It has been thought up various theories of management by the steam ships in fight, but in a reality it is possible ONLY two variants. The general dump and chaos or fight in columns. Esteem attentively instructions before fight of any admiral. For each ship its place in a column was specified. An admiral ALWAYS by the first ship.
Admiral David Glasgow Farragut never changed the leader. 1864 Schleswig War - there is no change of leaders. 1864-70 Triple Alliance War - there is no change of the leader in fight. 1864-66 Guano War - there is no change of the leader in fight. 1866 Austro-Italian War - change of the leader at Italy before fight has deprived a management squadron. Change of the leader during fight is not possible. Fighting instructions describe an order of change of the leader in fight. After an exit of the leader from battle by the new leader there is a ship following it.
Why commanders of squadrons always by the biggest and powerful ship. Because it should sustain most of all damages.
3. Probably it will surprise you, but an admiral in fight supervised over nothing. All work on the fleet organisation has been made earlier. It is boring, it not for game, but it is the truth.
We respect your opinion, sometime we will make dynamical arcade game.
|