SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > Sub/Naval + Other Games > Ironclads
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-30-08, 03:55 PM   #31
Ilpalazzo
Frogman
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 309
Downloads: 20
Uploads: 0
Default

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.
Ilpalazzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-08, 12:30 AM   #32
Maxim
Totem Games
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 228
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
Maxim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-08, 01:47 AM   #33
kjuice
Seaman
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 38
Downloads: 22
Uploads: 0
Default For Totem

Thanks for replying to my video glitches. I hope you can get it ironed out.
__________________
kjuice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-08, 06:04 PM   #34
CaptainHaplo
Silent Hunter
 
CaptainHaplo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,404
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
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!!!!
__________________
Good Hunting!

Captain Haplo
CaptainHaplo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-08, 08:48 PM   #35
CaptainHaplo
Silent Hunter
 
CaptainHaplo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,404
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
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!
__________________
Good Hunting!

Captain Haplo
CaptainHaplo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-08, 12:35 AM   #36
Maxim
Totem Games
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 228
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

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
Maxim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-08, 07:01 AM   #37
ReallyDedPoet
Canadian Wolf
 
ReallyDedPoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The one and only East Coast
Posts: 10,773
Downloads: 946
Uploads: 5


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Typical Russian
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


RDP
__________________

Back in the Day



ReallyDedPoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-08, 04:47 PM   #38
Dutch
Sonar Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 376
Downloads: 19
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Typical Russian
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.
__________________
\"Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You, Ask What You Can Do For Your Country.\" President John F. Kennedy
Dutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-08, 09:58 PM   #39
OldNuke
Nub
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Greenville, SC, USA
Posts: 3
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default Ironclads Demo

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
OldNuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-08, 01:26 AM   #40
Maxim
Totem Games
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 228
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

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:

Thein-gamehelpwaslimited. Iwouldhopetheproductionversion 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

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:

Youreallyhavenoideaofhowmuchdamageyouaredoing 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:

IneachbattleItried(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
Maxim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-08, 02:22 AM   #41
RedChico
Mate
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 55
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
Default

I think it should be in Real Time rather than Turn Base.
__________________
A Grand Prix Legends racer ---> http://www.rscnet.org

\"You are my adversary, but you are not my enemy. For your resistence gives me strength, your will gives me courage, your spirit enobles me. And though I aim to defeat you, should I succeed I will not humiliate you. Instead I will honor you, for without you I am a lesser man. \"
RedChico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-08, 09:48 AM   #42
CaptainHaplo
Silent Hunter
 
CaptainHaplo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,404
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
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.
__________________
Good Hunting!

Captain Haplo
CaptainHaplo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-08, 01:29 PM   #43
Ilpalazzo
Frogman
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 309
Downloads: 20
Uploads: 0
Default

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.


Quote:
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,
Quote:
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 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? 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.

Last edited by Ilpalazzo; 09-06-08 at 02:06 PM.
Ilpalazzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-08, 02:59 PM   #44
CaptainHaplo
Silent Hunter
 
CaptainHaplo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,404
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 0
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.

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.
__________________
Good Hunting!

Captain Haplo
CaptainHaplo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-08, 04:44 PM   #45
Ilpalazzo
Frogman
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 309
Downloads: 20
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Ilpalazzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.