Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Fishey55

  • Rank
  1. That's a really good question. As an RTS game it doesn't add anything ground breaking and is somewhat boring as a historical game it falls very short. But if I had to market it I would say something like: "Take to adventure on the high seas with challenging game play using beautifully crafted ships from the 1700 & 1800's. Take to the land with detailed ground forces from Marines to Militia all lovingly rendered and capture key objectives" Guess I would stay away from locking into a game genre (no one wants to be labeled even 0's and 1's!) and focus on the strong points like t
  2. If the game is going to claim "Take command in a realistic simulator with hardcore game play" but does not have any intention to add realism then just remove the claim. If its going to live up to the sales pitch then land battles would need to slow down to a more realistic speed. The laws of combat from the day were practiced by all the nations included in AOS and could be applied to the game with little compromise on game play. By eliminating routed and captured units from the battle it would balance out the slower down game play. If there were group formations and orders the number of units
  3. It has been awhile since I visited the home page but on it the claim, "Take command in a realistic simulator with hardcore game play" A pretty bold statement but one I welcome and hope it will be backed up! I posted about land combat but was under the impression this was more of a fast paced RTS like the ultimate general series but with that sort of advertisement I have renewed hope! I just started another campaign and land combat is still way off the realistic simulator, the Bunker Hill battle feels like a 1860's Calvary melee rather than a 1770's land battle. My gripe was units routing wou
  4. When a unit breaks many times it will run behind my lines not their own. They then come back into the battle behind me or flanking me. As the battle progresses and routed units start returning to the fight it begins to look like a swirling cavalry scrap rather then an infantry skirmish. I'm saying if a broken enemy unit runs towards me and not to its own line it should be eliminated. Historically there were different mental states of troops running away, routed units could be rallied. A unit that was broken or shattered would gone for the day no matter where they got off to. Agreed abo
  5. I think you guys may be taking what I'm saying to far. I'm talking about during a battle if a unit is broken or surrenders then its done for the rest of that engagement. If the unit falls back towards its own lines then it should be able to rejoin. The unit commanders already have ratings, land combat is strength and fatigue, why not add an inspiration rating that determines how quickly they could recover during the battle. With the game in mind I'm talking 1 or 2 minutes not hours or days. It's really if the AI that runs away then re-appears wherever it wants ready to fight again, it just f
  6. Land combat is a little more RTS click fest than a 1700- 1800's tactical skirmish. If this is the design intention that's fine just ignore any critiques that follow. First off infantry units swirl around at will with no fatigue penalties whatsoever! and they do so in almost any terrain type.These are not cavalrymen they are infantry and in both the campaigns poorly trained infantry at that, especially in the beginning of each campaign. If a unit in the Caribbean got cut off in a jungle somewhere chances were they would be gone for the day. In AoS routing units will run off into a forest
  • Create New...