PDA

View Full Version : A naval question



(type name here)
8th May 2005, 14:06
This is more or less directed towards sick as he is the only one (that i know of) that has played a naval battle. When you personally take command of an armada of ships, do you have tell each and every ship to move and fire, or can you just order them to attack?

sqall
8th May 2005, 14:13
From what ive seen and read it looks like you have to control each ship individually.
Looks a bit chaotic if you ask me ;)

(type name here)
8th May 2005, 14:15
I was wondering because with that many ships at least one is bound to drift off the map, or just sit there and get destroyed if you don't tell them to do something.

saddletank
9th May 2005, 00:34
with that many ships

How many ships? It looks to me from the screenshots like the maximum you get is 3. I have not seen a screenshot with more than 6 ships in view. Having played Aos2 for years it's a doddle to control 3 ships in minute detail.

(type name here)
9th May 2005, 01:32
Six ships on each side. Look at the naval video at http://www.tafn.info/TAFN/imperialglory/html/index.php

Gelatinous Cube
9th May 2005, 02:31
Eek. I hope the ones you aren't controlling have some form of AI control.

(type name here)
9th May 2005, 02:33
Well, not having ai control is my problem, while it might be fun to personally control one or two ships, six might get all confusing. just look at some naval videos. I don't think there is a way to just order them to attack.

Oststar
9th May 2005, 05:04
First off i'm sure you can play with more than six ships *runs off and searches for quote*

It's not like the land battles so I assume the cap is close to the same, maybe you can have thirty ships a side. I can't rattle off figures in terms of average large ship engagements: Trafalgar was roughly sixty ships in total (Top of my head figure) where as another engagement (nearly forgotten nowadays) off the Indian coast involved six or seven ships per side plus frigates, a grand total of under twenty ships including frigates. And then there were relatively minor engagements of say three Ships of the Line a side (SoLs).

I could ramble on about Ship of the Line terminology and how battles were fought for ages, I might even encourage some posts from Khornish, but it'd would help the topic at hand. Suffice to say six ships is far too few, twenty a side is closer to the mark.

In which case i'd be using autoattack and formations heavily. Standard battle tactic of the age was form line astern and sail past each other blasting away. So I presume there would be an auto tactic set up for this as well as other tactics. I think most of naval combat will concern ships AI using the tactics you set (Grape, Shot, Chain: Sails, Crew, Hull, Masts: Board, Sink, Take, Burn) and manoevering into advantageous positions.

So your tactics combined with where you place ships (IE don't send a lone frigate to take on a SoL and send your two SoLs to harass the frigates), will decide the majority of the battle with intervention (Your enemy isn't succumbing to grape, so you switch to shot) changing the course of battle (Your Frigate chased a sloop to far and is now taking on a SoL, you order it to disengage)

Of course this is all guessing games from what i've seen and heard. Here's to hoping that naval combat isn't a total waste of cash. (The primary reason i'm not getting RTW and it's expansion is for naval combat)

Khornish
9th May 2005, 05:15
First off i'm sure you can play with more than six ships *runs off and searches for quote*

I'm fairly certain 6 ships per side is the max that can be controlled. I don't know any additional held back will be able to take the place of a destroyed ship, but I have my doubts.

So far, I've been not at all happy with the various naval games released, and I'd originally had high hopes for IG in this area.

C' est la' vie.

I really would like to see what Eidos does with the naval aspect down the road as they have a nice basic layer that could be adapted to larger naval engagements.

Oststar
9th May 2005, 08:42
Hmm well the main reason (As I understood it) for land battles on IG being 2500 max was interface issues: the engine is capable of fielding more units than you can poke a double Xeon at. Therefore it stands to reason that a ship, which would run more set animations than a battalion but maybe have more textures etc, would be equal to one or two battalions in what it taxes the engine. Therefore 20+ ships a side is a logical setting, beyond which naval combat with six ships would be a grave disappointment as the really big engagements, Cape St Vincent, Nile, Copenhagen, Trafalgar, were fought with 25+ ships a side.

I'm hoping that in later patches (if not in the release) IG is changed (any medium level modder could do it) to accomodate many more units and ships. This is my only major gripe with IG: small battles.

Gelatinous Cube
9th May 2005, 10:54
My main concern is that there are too many ships for it to be gameplay feasible without an some kind of AI assistance. Having 20 or 30+ ships without some kind of AI assistance would be a nightmare.

jaywalker2309
9th May 2005, 11:57
My main concern is that there are too many ships for it to be gameplay feasible without an some kind of AI assistance. Having 20 or 30+ ships without some kind of AI assistance would be a nightmare.

The game allows 6 ships per side, so 12 ships on the `field` so to speak. Trust me, it gets very very hectic, and managing 6 ships is a challenge.

You get clear warning about leaving the field of play and manuevering (spelling?) the ships is very easy.

mob
9th May 2005, 12:21
caose is fun please live with it

Villaret-Joyeuse
9th May 2005, 12:24
6 ships? :confused: :(

I agree controlling more than 6 ships can be a difficult challange, however, what the heck!?!

One way that the problem of commanding a large number of ships would be to have the ships organized into squadrons. (van, center, rear) Then you could give general orders to the entire squadron.

jaywalker2309
9th May 2005, 13:19
6 ships? :confused: :(

I agree controlling more than 6 ships can be a difficult challange, however, what the heck!?!

One way that the problem of commanding a large number of ships would be to have the ships organized into squadrons. (van, center, rear) Then you could give general orders to the entire squadron.

Wait til you play... believe me its challenging :)

Oststar
9th May 2005, 13:36
The game allows 6 ships per side, so 12 ships on the `field` so to speak. Trust me, it gets very very hectic, and managing 6 ships is a challenge.

You get clear warning about leaving the field of play and manuevering (spelling?) the ships is very easy.

Six ships a side? Can't we have at least twelve? I assume this was a gameplay choice by the devs because of difficulty, but with grouping (I heard somewhere on the forums that in the final build we are able to group battalions together) lower abilty players can just order groups what to do. Higher level players shouldn't be troubled by six ships, and with a pause mode it will be a breeze. Most engagements of SoL's involved at least seven to ten SoLs a side not counting perhaps three frigates and some tenders/sloops. Even with no frigates or sloops in the battles, (they usually just stood off unless needed for special duties), six a side will be almost corny, while twelve a side seems realistic. 2500 men a side in land battles is less than some would like but still more than enough to give large battles. Six ships a side just doesn't seem enough to capture the feel of large engagements, is it at all possible for a patch to increase the number significantly?

jaywalker2309
9th May 2005, 13:40
Six ships a side? Can't we have at least twelve? I assume this was a gameplay choice by the devs because of difficulty, but with grouping (I heard somewhere on the forums that in the final build we are able to group battalions together) lower abilty players can just order groups what to do. Higher level players shouldn't be troubled by six ships, and with a pause mode it will be a breeze. Most engagements of SoL's involved at least seven to ten SoLs a side not counting perhaps three frigates and some tenders/sloops. Even with no frigates or sloops in the battles, (they usually just stood off unless needed for special duties), six a side will be almost corny, while twelve a side seems realistic. 2500 men a side in land battles is less than some would like but still more than enough to give large battles. Six ships a side just doesn't seem enough to capture the feel of large engagements, is it at all possible for a patch to increase the number significantly?

As i keep repeating, wait til you've played it :) It may sound corny to you, but the sea battles are much more intricate fights then the land battles, much more `in the thick of it` fighting.. :)

Oststar
9th May 2005, 13:51
Well i'll wait til I get it before asking again, no doubt I will be blown away by it, I just think that after controlling upwards of twenty 126-man-battalions on The Entente, plus tanks and artillery, controlling six ships will be easy. Imperial Glory always seems to have a little more that I can control, while providing enough autonomy to not go to pieces while i'm off elsewhere, except at the end where I like to watch the pretty graphics as the last battalion or two goes down fighting, screaming and shouting. Six ships will be fun but twelve just seems more realistic in terms of being able to form longer LoB's and bigger divisions.

jaywalker2309
9th May 2005, 14:04
Well i'll wait til I get it before asking again, no doubt I will be blown away by it, I just think that after controlling upwards of twenty 126-man-battalions on The Entente, plus tanks and artillery, controlling six ships will be easy. Imperial Glory always seems to have a little more that I can control, while providing enough autonomy to not go to pieces while i'm off elsewhere, except at the end where I like to watch the pretty graphics as the last battalion or two goes down fighting, screaming and shouting. Six ships will be fun but twelve just seems more realistic in terms of being able to form longer LoB's and bigger divisions.

The decision was made on 6 a side, and the interface was optimised for that number.. so changes would need a new interface designing etc..

sick
9th May 2005, 20:24
Sorry for letting you wait so long. :rolleyes:
Indeed you have to control and give orders to each ship individually. You can order a ship to follow another, but since I haven't tested this much yet I can't tell much about it (will try to give a better one tomorrow.)

Now, it's time to backup jaycw. :D
Those who think 6 ships is too less and boring: wait till you've played the naval battles yourself!! In the naval battle movie from TAFN it may look like it goes too slow, but if I would also have made a movie of my keyboard and mouse you would see it's really challanging.

Oststar
9th May 2005, 23:28
Hopefully an interface change will be released later anyway to make use of the whole engine, rather than just 2500. The same for naval combat; large battles would be better, and with the mentioned following order it would be easy. You're saying it's harder than it looks, but on The Entente I had to command twenty or so battalions of 126 men, plus artillery and tanks, which had to be moved into just the right positions not to be machinegunned or walk into their own artillery. After that six ships will be easy enough, i'm sure the hardened RTS vets will agree and again, for those who can't cope you included a pause button. In smaller battles like unmodded Hanover i'm always clicking between units to get the maximum effect of the units. With larger battles, like my variant of Hanover with thirteen battalions a side, quite often I only correct major issues (Move troops to the other wing, reinforce the flank, retreat to better positions etc) so even if I can make myself really busy in a five battalion battle I can make myself slow down for a larger battle. Control isn't going to be a problem for anyone with a pause button, let alone the more serious RTS gamers.

Villaret-Joyeuse
10th May 2005, 01:08
I must agree with Oststar. Battles with more than 12 ships more than do able, particularly when a pause button is included. The Age of Sail games are examples of this.

I am not worried that the naval battes are not exciting, but rather, if I am building up a huge fleet, I want to have more than 6 ships........ :(

jaywalker2309
10th May 2005, 08:00
I must agree with Oststar. Battles with more than 12 ships more than do able, particularly when a pause button is included. The Age of Sail games are examples of this.

I am not worried that the naval battes are not exciting, but rather, if I am building up a huge fleet, I want to have more than 6 ships........ :(

There is NO pause option, and wont be one.. so 6 is MORE then enough.. Please dont judge something before you try it.. :)

saddletank
10th May 2005, 08:14
jaycw2309 - how many players does MP support on the naval battles? If it's 2 v 2 then that's 3 ships each and I think 3 is about right for MP. But if the game will allow 3 v 3 so each player has 2 ships then that too would be OK.

I think there is a general desire among many here to have more ships in the naval battles, so do please consider an interface mod to achieve that - 12 a side would be adequate and be just enough to give the feel of a major action.

Having played many online naval battles with Age of Sail II you can still get an excellent game with 6 ships a side (or in fact only 3 or 4), but for the SP game the player probably does need to feel he has a bigger navy at his disposal :)

Mike_B
10th May 2005, 08:26
I must agree with Oststar. Battles with more than 12 ships more than do able, particularly when a pause button is included. The Age of Sail games are examples of this.


With the Age of Sail games I assume, the game is based around it so in that context it's logical that it plays differently. Here however it's a part of the game and not the main focus also other games in that area simply don't have it at all. From what I've seen 6 vs 6 looks hectic enough and I'm pretty sure the designers had good reseaon to make it so. However I can't completely judge it untill I played it myself.

jaywalker2309
10th May 2005, 11:21
jaycw2309 - how many players does MP support on the naval battles? If it's 2 v 2 then that's 3 ships each and I think 3 is about right for MP. But if the game will allow 3 v 3 so each player has 2 ships then that too would be OK.

I think there is a general desire among many here to have more ships in the naval battles, so do please consider an interface mod to achieve that - 12 a side would be adequate and be just enough to give the feel of a major action.

Having played many online naval battles with Age of Sail II you can still get an excellent game with 6 ships a side (or in fact only 3 or 4), but for the SP game the player probably does need to feel he has a bigger navy at his disposal :)

Its 2 v 2. 6 ships per side. 12 Ships in all :)

saddletank
10th May 2005, 12:23
Sorry I wasn't clear, that's what I meant with 2 v 2 and 3 ships each - total 12 ships.

Villaret-Joyeuse
11th May 2005, 00:12
I am not judging the game play. However, on a strategic point of view, this is very limiting......

Oststar
11th May 2005, 03:18
why the hell did the devs include pause for land battles and skip it for naval battles? For the slow witted and limbed who couldn't control more than four battalions at once six ships will be a struggle too, what made the devs overlook this?

On top of that any decent gamer can use groupings to achieve greater control anyway. Please make the changes to have twenty or at least twelve ships a side, please.

Mike_B
11th May 2005, 06:45
There is no pause.

saddletank
11th May 2005, 13:04
There is no pause.

A pause button is used in the video from TAFN. It isn't clear if you can issue orders during the pause.

Mike_B
11th May 2005, 13:15
I can assure you that you can't.

Oststar
11th May 2005, 13:20
There is no pause.

Thank you captain obvious. That has already been stated hence why I said "...would have trouble controlling six ships, why did the devs overlook this?"

Some players had trouble playing the game without a pause button, it is plain to see that if naval combat is half as complicated as we're being led to believe then players who couldn't deal with more than four formations at once will be stumped by six ships.

That's beside the point for me as I never used pause and never will, not even for a large naval battle. I mentioned pause because though hardened RTS gamers and even average level gamers will be able to control twenty ships, some others will have trouble controlling even six. I think twenty or even just twelve ships is important because twelve gives the feel of a larger battle and twenty is about as big as they usual got anyway (Again Trafalgar, St Vincent, Copenhagen, Nile, Chesapeake Bay, Navarino, Bloody 4th June were all bigger than forty, but six would have made up the van and nothing else in such a battle), a lot of players, especially once online, will feel the missing element that numbers plays.

Six ships just isn't enough.

jaywalker2309
11th May 2005, 14:44
Thank you captain obvious. That has already been stated hence why I said "...would have trouble controlling six ships, why did the devs overlook this?"

Some players had trouble playing the game without a pause button, it is plain to see that if naval combat is half as complicated as we're being led to believe then players who couldn't deal with more than four formations at once will be stumped by six ships.

That's beside the point for me as I never used pause and never will, not even for a large naval battle. I mentioned pause because though hardened RTS gamers and even average level gamers will be able to control twenty ships, some others will have trouble controlling even six. I think twenty or even just twelve ships is important because twelve gives the feel of a larger battle and twenty is about as big as they usual got anyway (Again Trafalgar, St Vincent, Copenhagen, Nile, Chesapeake Bay, Navarino, Bloody 4th June were all bigger than forty, but six would have made up the van and nothing else in such a battle), a lot of players, especially once online, will feel the missing element that numbers plays.

Six ships just isn't enough.


*turns into broken record* Try it and see :)

Villaret-Joyeuse
11th May 2005, 21:58
How is this going to play out between strategic level and tactical. If you build up a fleet of 10 ships and you fight a fleet of 4, do you just get 6 ships to fight his 4? I am no fan of England, but if this is the case it would be unfair the them as they would have more difficultly of building a superiority on the seas...

saddletank
11th May 2005, 22:24
The obvious answer (and I've no idea at all if I'm right - just guessing actually) is that the max no. of ships you can have in a sea zone is 6.

Therefore a strong naval power places full stacks in several adjacent sea zones and attacks in over several turns to wear an enemy down by attrition.

Am I warm?

Oststar
12th May 2005, 00:17
*turns into broken record* Try it and see :)

Once i've played IG can I continue to berate you about it? :)

jaywalker2309
12th May 2005, 07:03
Once i've played IG can I continue to berate you about it? :)

Be my guest.. :)

Villaret-Joyeuse
12th May 2005, 12:12
Still that would give an advantage to the player with inferior numbers. If I have to fight you 6 v 6(then possibly 6 v 1-3), instead of 18 vs 6, I am going to lose more ships.

jaywalker2309
12th May 2005, 15:10
Still that would give an advantage to the player with inferior numbers. If I have to fight you 6 v 6(then possibly 6 v 1-3), instead of 18 vs 6, I am going to lose more ships.

The campaign area restricts the fights to maximum of 6 per side. So if you had a full compliment of ships and they only had 1, then it would be 6v1..

Villaret-Joyeuse
12th May 2005, 19:31
What about 10 vs 8?

(type name here)
12th May 2005, 21:09
Well, no offence or anything, what you want doesn't really matter because the game has already gone gold. And it's been confirmed and repeated that there will be six ships on each side, no ifs, ands or buts. Unless a mod team or a patch (not likely)changes it, it will stay the same.

jaywalker2309
12th May 2005, 23:19
Well, no offence or anything, what you want doesn't really matter because the game has already gone gold. And it's been confirmed and repeated that there will be six ships on each side, no ifs, ands or buts. Unless a mod team or a patch (not likely)changes it, it will stay the same.

What he said, for the time being its about to hit the shelves with this 6 v 6 cap.

Oststar
13th May 2005, 05:51
What he said, for the time being its about to hit the shelves with this 6 v 6 cap.

Yes but this can be included in a later patch, which isn't so unlikely if we keep asking. If it isn't included in a patch then i'll fly to Pyros studios and personally kick each and every one of you in the privates.

saddletank
13th May 2005, 08:34
jaycw2309, would you be able to please answer Villaret-Joyeuse's last question - what does the game do if, on a campaign turn one side has 10 ships in a sea zone vs a side with 8? What does the game do with it's 6 v 6 ship limit in that instance?

Or is it impossible (as I suspect) and a player can only put 6 ships max in a sea zone on the strategic map.

jaywalker2309
13th May 2005, 09:24
jaycw2309, would you be able to please answer Villaret-Joyeuse's last question - what does the game do if, on a campaign turn one side has 10 ships in a sea zone vs a side with 8? What does the game do with it's 6 v 6 ship limit in that instance?

Or is it impossible (as I suspect) and a player can only put 6 ships max in a sea zone on the strategic map.

You got it, you cannot have more then 6 in a zone, its capped on the campaign side too.

Oststar
13th May 2005, 10:52
You got it, you cannot have more then 6 in a zone, its capped on the campaign side too.

*buys airline tickets and begins shining shoes*

How much would have to be editted to make 20 ship battles feasable in campains? For example we now know that the interface and some coding would need changing, on top of that we need to do the same for the campain, and then there is details like cost, build time etc. I can imagine trying to get twenty ships when each one costs as much as five battalions would be hell, therefore that would need fixing.

Villaret-Joyeuse
13th May 2005, 12:22
*wires some money to Oststar's account to help pay for ticket*


So England is supposed to maintain control of the seas with only 6 ships were square. If France gets out six ships in a zone, the British have to attack with even numbers??? :eek:

saddletank
13th May 2005, 16:23
I don't think historical accuracy was high on Pyro's list of game criteria V-J :)

Given that the game will start in 1789 with an army and fleet of 0 in all nations (see the game video from TAFN) then it's not based on history at all and if France decides to build a big fleet she can do so. But I expect she will be more inclined to build a big army to face off threats from south, east and north. Britain, on the other hand will have to build a fairly chunky fleet from the off as she is an island and must have strong naval power to convoy her armies to Europe.

So the game uses correct geography and possibly correct political sympathies and social leanings WRT government and social conditions (France may be more inclined to social revolution than say, Britain) but other than that the playing field is open to all on an equal basis.

The game brings very little historical baggage in with it at the start if you get my drift. In the name of equal play balance etc.

Villaret-Joyeuse
13th May 2005, 19:03
I'm not getting into the specific historical accuracy of ships... like some people have with the soldiers uniforms and I'm waiting to see(or hear) about how the naval combat is before I comment. However, I am talking about basic naval strategy.


If historical accuracy is not high on their list, why is it third on the 'list' following the general description of the game and land battles:

"HISTORICALLY ACCURATE UNITS AND WEAPONRY: Faithfully reproduced units, which differ from Empire to Empire, reflect the color and splendor of the era. Authentic period formations and maneuvers provide great tactical depth"

Before I get jumped on - I commend Pyros for incorporating the naval aspect which is severely lacking in the TW series.

BTW - Which game video? there are a number.

jaywalker2309
13th May 2005, 21:15
I'm not getting into the specific historical accuracy of ships... like some people have with the soldiers uniforms and I'm waiting to see(or hear) about how the naval combat is before I comment. However, I am talking about basic naval strategy.


If historical accuracy is not high on their list, why is it third on the 'list' following the general description of the game and land battles:

"HISTORICALLY ACCURATE UNITS AND WEAPONRY: Faithfully reproduced units, which differ from Empire to Empire, reflect the color and splendor of the era. Authentic period formations and maneuvers provide great tactical depth"

Before I get jumped on - I commend Pyros for incorporating the naval aspect which is severely lacking in the TW series.

BTW - Which game video? there are a number.

Thats all true, as best as i know (i am not a historian) the units are right, the weaponry etc etc.. If we made the political balance correct for that period, then the game would be nigh on impossible to play as most nations, so the game is a level playing field at the beginning.

I look at other strategy games which use a similar method (ie all start the same and then progress at players pace) - i've forgotten the name right now, but i know there is a game out there where you can have tanks and planes in one nation fighting against another nation that is still with bow and arrows (all `accurate weaponry`)

get my drift?

Dravin
13th May 2005, 22:36
I look at other strategy games which use a similar method (ie all start the same and then progress at players pace) - i've forgotten the name right now, but i know there is a game out there where you can have tanks and planes in one nation fighting against another nation that is still with bow and arrows (all `accurate weaponry`)

get my drift?

That's been my very common experience playing Civilization III on lower difficulty levels, is that the game you are thinking of?

I must say, there is something to using M1A2s against Hoplites... except when the Hoplites win. :(

Villaret-Joyeuse
14th May 2005, 01:06
And in someways that is what happened, although not as drastic. The French soldiers were better quality - better trained, then their Spanish, Austrian, Russian and Prussian counterparts. That is partly why France was able to defend themselves against all of them. (1794-1796). (Politics were also a major factor as some powers were more focused on the partition of Poland.) Then with the arrival of Bonaparte, France went on major offensive. The end of the Napoleonic empire can be traced to two things. First, the decline quality of French soldiers, drained by years of war and the rigors of Spain and Russia. Second, the other nations were improving the quality of their troops. Having been defeated a number of times, the Austrians eventually incorporated parts of the "Napoleonic" system of warfare. The Austrian troops of 1809 were a definite contrast to the Austrians of 1794-1796.

However, I was talking strategy not weapons. This basically allows the Austrians to build a navy of 6 ships that English would have difficulty to attack. (which is a joke). I am all for a-historical gameplay. However, there should be a limit to how far off it should go. The Spanish conquering every territory of Europe? The French should win by dividing their opponents and defeating them piecemeal, while the non-French win by allying and crushing the French.....


(BTW, just for trivial knowledge, some Russian cossacks did fight with bow and arrow still during this period.... :D )

saddletank
14th May 2005, 01:17
Villaret-Joyeuse, the video I mention was one of a set of three (land battle, strategic map, naval battle) posted up by TAFN at www.imperial-glory.info but I now cannot find the link. Perhaps they took it down. It was a huge d/l, something like 125Mb and each of the 3 videos was 12-15 mins long. From that vid you got a good idea of what the naval battles will be like.

Dravin
14th May 2005, 01:54
This (http://www.gamershell.com/download_9024.shtml) what you looking for?

saddletank
14th May 2005, 09:11
That's the one. Thanks for the link Dravin. Just don't try getting it on a 56k... :(

Oststar
14th May 2005, 11:09
Don't tell me what I can and can't do!

*fires up getright and cracks out the coffee*

Having been on 56k for years i'll tell you that it would take me roughly three and a half days to download it. It took me six days to get a modification for a game, the mod was 895MB: I had several hundred local calls on my bill, all of which came to $2:04 :)

When i'm allowed to connect my DSL modem i'll download it though, thanks for the link.

(type name here)
14th May 2005, 13:34
It took me 12 minutes :)

saddletank
15th May 2005, 02:23
Don't tell me what I can and can't do!

I didn't. I suggested trying to get it on a 56k line might not be a good idea.

Aubrey
15th May 2005, 17:22
Sorry for letting you wait so long. :rolleyes:
Indeed you have to control and give orders to each ship individually. You can order a ship to follow another, but since I haven't tested this much yet I can't tell much about it (will try to give a better one tomorrow.)

Now, it's time to backup jaycw. :D
Those who think 6 ships is too less and boring: wait till you've played the naval battles yourself!! In the naval battle movie from TAFN it may look like it goes too slow, but if I would also have made a movie of my keyboard and mouse you would see it's really challanging.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think people are worried about it being boring - they are more concerned with greater flexibility in fleet sizes-thats all.
Being able to slow action down to real life speeds would have made controlling
large fleets a little more manageable. Too late now though.

That being said the game looks quite impressive.

Can you tell me how interdiction of trade will be handled?
ie: if you have say x number of ships in a zone will they destroy a random #
of merchants or are merchants not represented at all?


Thanks

Mark

Oststar
16th May 2005, 08:58
I didn't. I suggested trying to get it on a 56k line might not be a good idea.

I was only kidding. Besides which i'm the proud new owner of a DSL modem.