Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game - 1/20/2013 8:32:40 PM   
Ralzakark


Posts: 146
Joined: 4/24/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal
If entente naval power in the north sea then drops to less than half of German naval power, Germany’s convoys would be ‘re-activated’ and convoys would spawn for Germany.


Would this be accompanied by introducing a realistic balance of naval power between Great Britain and Germany?

(in reply to Myrddraal)
Post #: 31
RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game - 1/21/2013 9:58:19 AM   
Myrddraal

 

Posts: 295
Joined: 11/13/2012
Status: offline
We are adding more starting naval units, and hopefully the balance of power will be more realistic.

We'll release all our changes in open beta before before the patch gets finalised, so there will be time to comment and help us get it right.

(in reply to Ralzakark)
Post #: 32
RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game - 1/21/2013 4:05:25 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2130
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal

We are adding more starting naval units, and hopefully the balance of power will be more realistic.

We'll release all our changes in open beta before before the patch gets finalised, so there will be time to comment and help us get it right.


Thankyou,I really like this game and with a better naval feel to it will make it even better cheers!

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Myrddraal)
Post #: 33
RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game - 1/21/2013 6:01:21 PM   
jack54


Posts: 642
Joined: 7/18/2007
From: East Tennessee
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Well they will have to come up with something,because ships can't stay at sea indefinitely,not in world war 1.
warspite1

Which is why I suggested that every turn a ship stays at sea it loses an efficiency rating. This covers a whole manner of things - the need to replenish ammo, crew fatigue, wear and tear on machinery etc.


I like these ideas, A gamey 'naval' tactic that I have used against the AI... as the Entente when blocked by Ottoman forces at the Sinai I send an Amphibious garrison along the coast but never attempt a landing; this causes CP forces to follow while I move up and down the coast teasing them..

Maybe,Attrition strength hits on an amphibious force at sea for extended periods?

< Message edited by jack54 -- 1/21/2013 6:04:32 PM >


_____________________________

mostly playing
Flashpoint Campaigns:Red Storm, Piercing Fortress Europa, RUS, Qvadriga, Drums of War, Hannibal


Avatar:FC:RS German counter

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 34
RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game - 1/21/2013 6:34:47 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 17196
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jack54

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Well they will have to come up with something,because ships can't stay at sea indefinitely,not in world war 1.
warspite1

Which is why I suggested that every turn a ship stays at sea it loses an efficiency rating. This covers a whole manner of things - the need to replenish ammo, crew fatigue, wear and tear on machinery etc.


Maybe,Attrition strength hits on an amphibious force at sea for extended periods?
warspite1

I thought that was in the game already?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to jack54)
Post #: 35
RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game - 1/21/2013 6:48:54 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2108
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
Keep them at sea long enough they go yellow then red.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 36
RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game - 1/21/2013 6:48:55 PM   
catwhoorg


Posts: 636
Joined: 9/27/2012
From: Uk expat lving near Atlanta
Status: offline
Amphib forces currently lose efficiency, not strength.

Maybe once the efficiency bottoms out, then a strength adjustment could occur ?

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 37
RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game - 1/25/2013 11:53:59 AM   
FOARP

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline
RE: German convoys - really, giving Germany convoys after they defeat the Entente at sea is just giving them extra power at the moment when they no longer need it. After all, if the Entente navy has been defeated, you hardly need convoys giving X00 PP every month since you can now just go ahead and win the game as you are.

I would much, much prefer the following:

1) A 1% morale malus to all CP countries for every 2-3 turns the Entente have a larger number of battleships than the Central Powers. Obviously starting fleets will have to be re-balanced to represent the superiority the Entente had in this regard.

2) A 5% morale malus to a country every time it loses a complete convoy - this would motivate the CP to go out and sink Entente convoys.

3) Make subs easier to build. Right now submarine warfare just doesn't justify its cost.

(in reply to catwhoorg)
Post #: 38
The U-boat warfare is terrible! - 5/4/2013 8:38:31 PM   
Templer


Posts: 945
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Nürnberg, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal

Dear friendly forum users! We (the LGS) are looking at ways we can improve the naval game in a patch. We've been watching the efforts of some modders on these forums with interest, and thinking of ways we could incorporate some of their ideas into an official patch. We’re trying to finalise a plan for what to change, and your input would be very much appreciated.

NB: Patching a game isn't the same as modding a game.
When you’re modding a game, anything goes. You can rip up the rule book and start again. When patching a game with an official you have to be a lot more careful. For example:
You might create a mod where any unit in the enemy red zone loses 1 hp per turn, to simulate losses due to mines. Anyone who downloads your mod will know exactly what their getting, no nasty surprises. But many more players will download a patch than a mod, and many of these won’t be forum posters. If we include something similar in a patch, we’d have to be very careful about how this new rule was introduced to the player, possibly with a new overlay on the map showing ‘mined’ hexes in such as way as the player is immediately aware that something has changed. Otherwise we’d be much more likely to be flooded with bug reports (My fleet hp is falling every turn, this game is borked!!!) than happy customers.

So what are we considering:
- A new ‘Destroyer’ unit type, as implemented by kirk and xris.
The reason this unit wasn't added originally is that naval units are meant to represent entire fleets (due to a lack of stacking in this game). Destroyer units by themselves don’t make much sense in that context.

- An ‘escort’ ability for all naval units.
This escort ability would be very similar to the air intercept/escort mechanic, where armed fighters automatically protect units which are attacked from the air. For naval vessels, the range of this ‘escort’ ability would be just 1 hex. This means that units adjacent to each other would support each other if attacked. A mechanic like this in a sense compensates for the lack of stacking, and allows for some sort of combined arms approach to naval defense. Three naval units can now sail together, support each other defensively and could be considered a ‘fleet’ (rather than the single unit counter model we had previously).
Different units could provide a different defensive bonus when escorting. Destroyers would provide a very large defensive bonus to ships they escort, but provide very little offensive impact, meaning that fleets without destroyer ‘screens’ would be much more vulnerable to taking casualties.

- Simulate the blockade of German ports
At the start of the game, Germany would have convoys, just like France & Britain. When Britain first attacks a German convoy (usually within the first few turns of the game), a historical event would appear saying ‘Germany’s ports blockaded!’ ‘Britain has intercepted merchant shipping heading for German ports. No more merchant convoys will sail for Germany until the British hold on the North Sea is weakened’.
If entente naval power in the north sea then drops to less than half of German naval power, Germany’s convoys would be ‘re-activated’ and convoys would spawn for Germany.

We’re hoping that these three changes would be enough to make the naval game more meaningful, as well as more tactical. Comments and ideas very much appreciated!

The U-boat warfare is terrible!
Absolutely awful - the worst thing I've ever seen in a strategy game.

Why can't submarines, which are attacked, do not submerge?
Submerge (visually on the map) with a % chance to escape without damage?
The ability to submarge is what characterizes a submarine!
Something important like this may never be abstracted!
The Strategic Command series shows a way to do this.

U-boats were and are dangerous and effective!
See yourself again the introductory video of Ypres - Artois scenario to listen carefully and listen closely ...
"... Submarins have Proved to be deadly. While difficult to catch and even harder to destroy ...".
Your submarine warfare design is embarrassment for the whole game!

A destroyer unit is not that important to me.
After you've explained now why you waive the destroyer, it's understandable and make sense (at least to me).

I really like how do you implement the convoy system in the game
Sometimes you can see through the fog of war only a short "wiper", which can then hunted in your next turn.
That's a mini-game for themselves.
I would, however find more fun to hunt (and escape) with functionale submarines.

And maybe you will also find better sound for the submarine movement and torpedo launching?
The vanilla ones are....well.

< Message edited by Templer -- 5/4/2013 8:53:15 PM >

(in reply to Myrddraal)
Post #: 39
RE: The U-boat warfare is terrible! - 5/4/2013 9:07:32 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 8513
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
I dissagree regardinghow easily it is to kill subs, If you move towards them I do not think you can even attack them, they are thus very hard to kill... perhaps they should do more damage to conveys though...
In regard to the abstraction of arming ships at sea, these are long turns...
the other way to do long turns is in a box in the middle of a sea, boring for a hex based game imo..

did these changes come forward in 1.3?

(in reply to Templer)
Post #: 40
RE: The U-boat warfare is terrible! - 5/4/2013 9:25:38 PM   
Templer


Posts: 945
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Nürnberg, Germany
Status: offline
I'm not saying, it is easy to kill U-boats.
I say that the design decision as the U-boat war is visually presented is unacceptable to me.

Whether the U-boats should do more damage to convoy?
I do not know.
Could it be, that later, cause by advancing technologies and the upgrading of the submarines, that they will do more damage?
I do not know. Because I do not like the design of the submarine warfare, I have until now always dispense with the use of U-boats (Which is a shame).

U-boats dive.
I want to visually see this (and maybe hear an alarm tone).
Therefore my reference to Strategic Command.

That issue annoys me even more, than Lordz Games Studios, as they prove with the game and also briefly demonstrated in Panzercorps, have excellent Artdesigner at hand.

< Message edited by Templer -- 5/4/2013 9:27:52 PM >

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 41
RE: The U-boat warfare is terrible! - 5/5/2013 8:57:15 AM   
operating


Posts: 655
Joined: 1/19/2013
Status: offline
I'm not a history nut, but do know that CP subs attacked frequently on the surface to allow enemy crews to abandon ship early in the war. Unresticted/give no quarter was quite another affair later in the war. In otherwords, not exposing oneself to counterattack. So I see merit to Templer's issue.

(in reply to Templer)
Post #: 42
RE: The U-boat warfare is terrible! - 5/5/2013 6:08:16 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1685
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Templer

I'm not saying, it is easy to kill U-boats.
I say that the design decision as the U-boat war is visually presented is unacceptable to me.

Whether the U-boats should do more damage to convoy?
I do not know.
Could it be, that later, cause by advancing technologies and the upgrading of the submarines, that they will do more damage?
I do not know. Because I do not like the design of the submarine warfare, I have until now always dispense with the use of U-boats (Which is a shame).

U-boats dive.
I want to visually see this (and maybe hear an alarm tone).
Therefore my reference to Strategic Command.

That issue annoys me even more, than Lordz Games Studios, as they prove with the game and also briefly demonstrated in Panzercorps, have excellent Artdesigner at hand.

This is a 20 day game turn and not about a particular U-boat diving, or surfacing, the sub icon represents several subs in an area of sea, just as the surface ship icon represents several surface vessels. The sub icon becoming 'visible' means that the enemy know there are subs in the area and will start searching for them, with the possible combat.

The map represents the display in a High Command HQ, the fact that the sub icon is visible on this strategic scale game map means that enemy subs have been reported in a certain area and combat may have taken place, it is not a tactical display and does not mean that subs are actually visible on the surface.

Combat is the result of nearly three weeks activity during a game turn, and considering the need to abstract the action at this strategic scale, it works reasonably well. Whether, or not, the combat odds and chances for detection are historically correct is debatable.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 5/6/2013 9:49:47 AM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Templer)
Post #: 43
RE: The U-boat warfare is terrible! - 5/5/2013 7:32:46 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2130
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
The game has improved considerably since first launch, and with the latest patch the naval game is getting better, submarines I feel should still be more effective both in attack and defence, as per history the German U Boats very nearly brought Britain to its knees, due to the tonnage losses of merchants ships, so much so that they were the number one enemy at sea in the mid to late war years.

_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 44
RE: The U-boat warfare is terrible! - 5/8/2013 8:57:38 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2130
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
Commander The Great War Naval Game.

1 = Warships being at sea for the duration off the war has to stop, in world war 1 this was impossible, so in order to fix this problem,a drastic solution needs to be implemented, I suggest that Battleships and cruisers be treated as per land artillery, ie they need to replenish their magazines after combat, which would require the ships to return to port. Plus more over, shell production as per land artillery,should be a vital requirement.

2 = Cruisers should have limited ability to conduct shore bombardments.

3 = Players Disbanding Battlefleet's should incur a national morale penalty off at least 50% to discourage gamers from even contemplating such drastic steps.In most cases a countries battlefleet was an essential part off their military force, and its loss would constitute a national disaster,from which it would be hard to recover.

4 = The AI should be encouraged to disengage its fleets, when the fleet strenght equals 50%, its better to survive and fight another day should be the norm in naval combat, for everyone and not just the AI.

5 = The ability to surround fleets at sea blocking there escape route, needs to be removed from the game, all ships wanting to disengage should be allowed to do so, as per history ships of the loosing fleet, would retreat under the cover off a smoke screen, and due to the distances involved in naval combat it is impossible to be able to barr every escape route.

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/8/2013 9:57:13 PM >


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 45
RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game - 5/9/2013 4:48:30 AM   
jjdenver

 

Posts: 1231
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Myrddraal
NB: Patching a game isn't the same as modding a game.
When you’re modding a game, anything goes. You can rip up the rule book and start again. When patching a game with an official you have to be a lot more careful. For example:
You might create a mod where any unit in the enemy red zone loses 1 hp per turn, to simulate losses due to mines. Anyone who downloads your mod will know exactly what their getting, no nasty surprises. But many more players will download a patch than a mod, and many of these won’t be forum posters. If we include something similar in a patch, we’d have to be very careful about how this new rule was introduced to the player, possibly with a new overlay on the map showing ‘mined’ hexes in such as way as the player is immediately aware that something has changed. Otherwise we’d be much more likely to be flooded with bug reports (My fleet hp is falling every turn, this game is borked!!!) than happy customers.


I think you're selling the intelligence and adaptability of your installed buyer base short here. Yes many won't visit the forum but if you display patch notes I think users will be delighted to see improvements to the game. Getting new features and improvements for a game that you enjoy is like christmas. Don't aim so low - aim to make your game the best and I think most will end up happy.


_____________________________

AARS:
CEAW-BJR Mod 2009:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2101447
AT-WW1:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1705427
AT-GPW:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1735661

(in reply to Myrddraal)
Post #: 46
RE: The U-boat warfare is terrible! - 5/14/2013 5:33:37 PM   
jack54


Posts: 642
Joined: 7/18/2007
From: East Tennessee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

Commander The Great War Naval Game.

1 = Warships being at sea for the duration off the war has to stop, in world war 1 this was impossible, so in order to fix this problem,a drastic solution needs to be implemented, I suggest that Battleships and cruisers be treated as per land artillery, ie they need to replenish their magazines after combat, which would require the ships to return to port. Plus more over, shell production as per land artillery,should be a vital requirement.

2 = Cruisers should have limited ability to conduct shore bombardments.

3 = Players Disbanding Battlefleet's should incur a national morale penalty off at least 50% to discourage gamers from even contemplating such drastic steps.In most cases a countries battlefleet was an essential part off their military force, and its loss would constitute a national disaster,from which it would be hard to recover.

4 = The AI should be encouraged to disengage its fleets, when the fleet strenght equals 50%, its better to survive and fight another day should be the norm in naval combat, for everyone and not just the AI.

5 = The ability to surround fleets at sea blocking there escape route, needs to be removed from the game, all ships wanting to disengage should be allowed to do so, as per history ships of the loosing fleet, would retreat under the cover off a smoke screen, and due to the distances involved in naval combat it is impossible to be able to barr every escape route.


I like each of these suggestions 'very much'!

_____________________________

mostly playing
Flashpoint Campaigns:Red Storm, Piercing Fortress Europa, RUS, Qvadriga, Drums of War, Hannibal


Avatar:FC:RS German counter

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 47
Scapa Flow is now a Fortress. - 5/15/2013 2:52:11 AM   
kirk23


Posts: 2130
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
I have been playing this game for months,and it has just dawned on me, how come Scapa Flow is a City ? Anyway I have changed it and it is now downgraded to a Fortress with PP.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/15/2013 2:23:28 PM >


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to jack54)
Post #: 48
Move and Attack ? - 5/15/2013 3:02:25 AM   
kirk23


Posts: 2130
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
Another thing that has just dawned on me,after months of playing the game,is how come you can Move & Attack in one turn, but you can't Attack & Move ? If you attack your turn is over for that unit,why can't you ATTACK and then move.

No wonder the game is strange from a naval stand point,when you can't use hit & run tactics ?

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/15/2013 3:43:50 AM >


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 49
RE: Move and Attack ? - 5/15/2013 3:11:18 PM   
jack54


Posts: 642
Joined: 7/18/2007
From: East Tennessee
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kirk23

If you attack your turn is over for that unit,why can't you ATTACK and then move.

No wonder the game is strange from a naval stand point,when you can't use hit & run tactics ?


This would be the biggest and the best change for the naval rules IMHO... I could not understand it but something was missing and that's it. (I don't mind the restriction in land combat so much as it helps give a WW1 feel), but the naval game, would totally change, I believe in a good way,. How many times have I known an attack was suicide?... attack and then sit and wait. Imagine disappearing under fog of war, a whole new game. but can the AI handle it... I think so..

Edit: true hit and run would of course be 'move,attack, move' but that's not going to happen so 'attack move' or 'move attack' would be an improvement.

< Message edited by jack54 -- 5/15/2013 3:49:20 PM >


_____________________________

mostly playing
Flashpoint Campaigns:Red Storm, Piercing Fortress Europa, RUS, Qvadriga, Drums of War, Hannibal


Avatar:FC:RS German counter

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 50
RE: Move and Attack ? - 5/15/2013 5:24:36 PM   
kirk23


Posts: 2130
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
I think at least for the naval game this is a must have,I mean to say, imagine how much more effective submarines would be in game,if they could use their stealth ability,to be lying in wait on the convoy route,and the first thing the merchant ships know,is that they are being hit with torpedos,then the subs moves and repositions its self.This I feel would enhanced the naval game,because the important convoys would need an escort for protection!

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 5/15/2013 5:28:10 PM >


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to jack54)
Post #: 51
RE: New Destroyer units? - 9/9/2013 9:17:12 AM   
kirk23


Posts: 2130
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
Update to naval game I'm play testing at the present time, with the game designers saying that Destroyers, will be included in a future patch, I have changed the whole idea of the Battle fleet unit, the Battle fleet & Cruiser fleet are deemed to have destroyers as a screening force only, meaning there main job is to protect the Capital ships, and not go of chasing Submarines.The roll of attacking Submarines is the Destroyer units job. More over on the Tech Development, only the new Destroyer units can use Depth Charge Technology etc.


The added bonus to the game, of only having the new Destroyer units, as a threat to the Submarine. Is that the Central Powers player, can now build more Submarines in the knowledge, that only the Destroyer is it's true enemy, while the Allied player needs to build Destroyers to counter the Submarine threat, with the result we now have a cat and mouse naval game to play!

German Submarine Force 1914–1918


1914 = 29 ( In game terms 3 U Boat flotilla units at 10 submarines per unit )

1915 = 54 ( In game terms 5 U Boat flotilla units at 10 submarines per unit )

1916 = 133 ( In game terms 13 U Boat flotilla units at 10 submarines per unit )

1917 = 142 ( In game terms 14 U Boat flotilla units at 10 submarines per unit )

1918 = 134 ( In game terms 13 U Boat flotilla units at 10 submarines per unit )

The German U-boat force was now primarily based at Ostend in Belgium, giving the submarines better access to the sea lanes around England. The Germans made use of this advantage, sending out about 20 U-boats to begin the naval blockade.

Submarine warfare.

In 1914 the U-boat's chief advantage was to submerge; surface ships had no means to detect a submarine underwater,

and no means to attack even if they could, while in the torpedo the U-boat had a weapon that could sink an armoured

warship with one shot. Its disadvantages were less obvious, but became apparent during the campaign. While

submerged the U-boat was virtually blind and immobile; boats of this era had limited underwater speed and

endurance, so needed to be in position before an attack took place, while even on the surface their speed (around

15 knots) was less than the cruising speed of most warships and two thirds that of the most modern dreadnoughts.

The U-boats scored a number of impressive successes, and were able to drive the Grand Fleet from its base in search

of a safe anchorage, but the German Navy was unable to erode the Grand Fleet's advantage as hoped. Also, in the two

main surface actions of this period the U-boat was unable to have any effect; the High Seas Fleet was unable to

draw the Grand Fleet into a U-boat trap. Whilst warships were travelling at speed and on an erratic zigzag course

they were relatively safe, and for the remainder of the war the U-boats were unable to mount a successful attack on

a warship travelling in this manner.


NB :
The Battlefleet has been renamed Battle squadron consisting of 10 battleships only.

The Battleship has been renamed Dreadnought.

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 10/30/2013 5:14:44 PM >


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 52
NAVAL MOVEMENT TWEAK ? - 10/30/2013 11:43:33 AM   
kirk23


Posts: 2130
Joined: 10/15/2010
From: Fife Scotland
Status: offline
NAVAL MOVEMENT ALLOWANCE TWEAK.

The naval movement off 1 hex per movement point is to much, the sea hexes need to have the same affect as land movement, IE per terrain type, the sea is not a calm boating pond, in most cases it is quite rough or even stormy with very high seas,so I think that the standard off 2 movement points per hex should be the norm.
This movement restriction would aid the naval game when any combat occurs,by reducing the range that nearby friendly units can react and assist in any combat.Meaning that ships will survive longer if its harder to swarm like bees around a target ship from great distances!

NB: THIS MOVEMENT RESTRICTION ONLY APPLIES TO WARSHIPS AND NOT CONVOYS OR TROOP TRANSPORTS.

< Message edited by kirk23 -- 10/30/2013 11:45:41 AM >


_____________________________

Make it so!

(in reply to kirk23)
Post #: 53
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Commander - The Great War >> RE: Consultation: Patching the naval game Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.104