Areas for improvement

[SnuggleBunnies]

Rock Paper Shotgun took a look at the game, and mentioned some areas for improvement that I have to agree with.

1) Lack of information about whether and why a ship is unable to move.
2) Inability to target ships stuck between hexes
3) Loss of control over nearly the whole fleet once committed
4) Ship momentum not carrying over turns

1: Being a turn based game, it's nice to be able to make plans based on detailed information, but we get no information as to whether a ship will actually be able to move or not, and if not, why. This makes things far more difficult than they need to be.

2: This has been discussed in other threads, but it is counter intuitive and frankly irritating.

3: As things stand, between the commander radius (including crippled commanders), inexplicably stuck ships, and walls of wrecks, I basically consider any squadron I've committed to be trapped for the duration of the battle. This problem is the hardest to come up with solutions for, but fixing (2) would go a long way toward being able to at least plan for having some ships immobilized. Perhaps it should be an option to transfer command, with the reduced radius, from crippled ships. Finally, the issue of wrecks. In reality, triremes almost never sank - the wrecks would float, and then be towed off by the victors. Perhaps it should be possible to either ram wrecks out of the way or tow them out of the way.

4: This I have little issue with personally, mainly because I can't really think of how it would be implemented.

I am really enjoying the game by the way, I just think it could be better, particularly at explaining itself.

[76mm]

I pretty much agree with all of Snugglebunnies' points.

[Cats]

It would also be nice to have a hotkey page to print out!

Or did I miss it?

[Niessuh]

I must admit that Mr. Stone's article has been really negative, and the fact that he did not want to go deeper into the game has been very disappointing for me. On the points mentioned I must say:

On 1) it is true that at first it is difficult for a player to anticipate what a ship can do in certain situations, the clearest example of this is when after ramming an enemy the player gives front orders when he should choose backwater to avoid the obstacle created. It's something that you learn as you get to know the game, but I understand the frustration of unpredictability when you start playing it.

2) The next patch will allow attack of static ships trapped between hexagons and grab them from the stern.

The chaos and paralysis caused on part of the fleet after the contact is intentional, and managing the reactivation of the affected ships is a fundamental part of the game as it has been conceived.

About momentum, there is a mechanism that applies it when a ship gets unsuccessfully rammed and its speed is reduced to half for the rest of the turn. Also, the speed is reduced to half when a ship manage to ungrapple from boarding. But there is not a speed momentum factor between turns for this game, for an oared war galley passing from attack speed to a full halt was quite fast to achieve; Also, I do not want to complicate movement by remembering past displacements from turn to turn and restrict current actions because of it. If we a the future Age of Sail game momentum is going to be a key element of course.

If you have seen rowing races at the Olympics, or the classic Oxford-Cambridge boat race, you could observe how fast the rowing boats reach their maximum speed at start or they easily brake after passing the goal line. Well, classic ships were even faster to build momentum, since they are formed by multiple layers of superimposed rowers. We have not witnessed this, but it should have been impressive.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Turnopia
2) The next patch will allow attack of static ships trapped between hexagons and grab them from the stern.

Yea!! Great news.

[fornost]

I'm pretty dissapointed also, specially because he didn't tried multiplayer. It feels that he started playing with a huge battle and felt overwhelmed. The same has happened to me with other games and then I have had to back down and start with smaller scenarios.

About command transfer, was it possible historically?

[headcount_slith]

I'd love to have been more positive, but, as the piece made clear, I really struggled to like fundamental aspects of Mare Nostrvm. The combination of poor info provision, large battles (yes, I tried a few smaller ones via the skirmish generator) and a WEGO system that basically prevented me from reacting to changing combat circumstances sensibly, meant there was no real incentive to "go deeper" (play for longer?).

If I've learnt anything during my two decades as a game reviewer it's "Never pull your punches". If you don't enjoy something, admit it. If patches alter my opinion of the game, I'll mention that in a future column.

[FroBodine]

Thank you, RPG_Tim. Not everyone has to be a fan of any given game. It's tough for people who enjoy a game to hear the negative side of their baby. But, it needs to be said.

[Cats]

RPS_Tim,

Very new here, can you provide a link to your review!

Thank you

[Moltke71]

RPS_Tim,

Very new here, can you provide a link to your review!

Thank you

Don't bother. My review will be up tomorrow at Wargamer.com. I played not only several games solo but played two multiplayer and won both. The nits RPS felt
compelled to emphasize take almost nothing away from the game if you consider routes and movement.

[jack54]

While I'm happy with some of the improvements Turnopia has agreed to implement, I have to say that many of my initial concerns have eased as I've gotten use to the system. IMHO I hope the changes are subtle.

[Rosseau]

When it comes to non-wargames, I will almost always check RPS and some other sites for their opinions. Otherwise, I know what I like after 35 years, and I like this game - despite no knowledge or love for the era. The current concerns are far from game-breaking, and c'mon, we're talking $20 here. That's the cost of two HexWar games [;)]

With niche games like these, I think wargamers will make their own decisions, so the "negative" review should not have much impact anyway. OTOH, I would never want to be a game reviewer myself, especially with the pressure to be the first to spit out a review on the web.

Good game, and thanks for the upcoming patches.

EDIT: Sorry, "spitting out" was a poor choice of words, and I have no idea what motivates RPS's deadlines.

[headcount_slith]

Cats, it look like I can't post links yet, but if you search for Flare Path Rollocks you'll find it (the miniature MN review is at the end of last week's 'Flare Path' column)

Looking forward to reading your review on Wargamer, Jim. It sounds like your piece will counterweight mine nicely.

[eddieballgame]

It amazes me how many games I like (to include this one) that get negative write-ups.
Keep up the good work Turnopia.

[Jafele]

ORIGINAL: eddieballgame

It amazes me how many games I like (to include this one) that get negative write-ups.
Keep up the good work Turnopia.

+1.000

[Cats]

Cats, it look like I can't post links yet, but if you search for Flare Path Rollocks you'll find it (the miniature MN review is at the end of last week's 'Flare Path' column)

Thank you!

[Ichili]

Two minor comments:
1) It would be nice to be able to keep the "viewing speed" of my choice throughout the duration of a scenario, rather than having to change it from normal to FX3 every turn (twice if I use replay)
2) I am playing as Pompeian and it is difficult to see command lines and bases due to a lack of contrast between the dark brown and the ocean's blue.

[Niessuh]

Indeed, I would darken those lines.

The problem with maintaining the viewing speed is that the new turn would start too fast for those who like to see it more slowly and accelerate just at specific moments