Global Triumph

Only because naval travel was popular before the advent of combustion engines.  Most US Navy vessels today can only go at around 30 mph, far less than what we'd see from a jeep even on "undeveloped" territory (which - since we have jeeps, tanks, and nukes - can reasonably be assumed to have at least a cattle trail used by the locals).

Battleships and transports may travel slower... I suggest another sea unit be created,it would be faster and yet not as equipped with the weopons/defenses of the battleship... maybe even allowing a few infantry to board...

Something like partol craft or even submarines would be awesome.

subs have already been shot down.

I have nbeen wanting to pick this up for a while, but haven't had the time.  Ships should still be faster.  Land vehicles have other things to deal with besides mere MPH.  1) carrying their own fuel, 2) the ruggedness of open terrain, 3) inability to travel at full speed at night over open country.

Ships have land vehicles beat by a long way in all of these categories.  I have no doubt that a humvee driving from los angeles to san francisco over open terrain a) would probably not make it, b) if it did, it would not beat a sailboat much less a ship of war, and c) its average speed would be nothing like 30 mph.

It would also introduce greater fluidity to the game.

a HMMVE on open terrain would be able to keep up 30mph easily. gas would be the largest issue, which makes this a little unrealistic, since jeeps can just drive and drive and drive. an M1 Abrams main battle tank can pull off 30mph off-road according to globalsecurity and wikipedia. the HMMVE can do 90mph without major armor on a road and 65mph with armor. i'll bet that without armor, it can pull off 30mph off road.


ships also have weather to deal with, since the ocean isn't just a flat expanse for them to sail on.

and a sailboat can't pull off 30mph against the wind from LA to SanFran to beat a HMMVE, in all honsety.

POSTED earlier

Mech Infantry = 45 mph @ 12 hrs = 540 mpd
Mech Cavalry =  60 mph @ 12 hrs = 720 mpd
Armor speed =  45 mph @  12 hrs = 540 mpd
Ship = 30 knots = 35 mph @ 24 hrs = 840 mpd


Estimated Ratios and assumed distances based on 1 square = 60 miles
Infantry = 1.00 = 9 squares
Cavalry  = 1.33 = 12 squares
Armor    = 1.00 = 9 squares
Ship      = 1.56 = 14 squares


Current Movement
infantry and Tanks = 9 squares
Jeeps = 12 squares
Ships  = 15 Squares

So, it seems that the Mighty Creator is correct with his speed ratios.

If you go consistently 45 mph over open ground (i.e., unpaved), you'll brake the vehicle before the day is out, and you certainly won't go in a straight line.

Maybe the assumption is we are playing on a big parking lot.

what, there is no weather on the land?

some days, you go slower, and others you go faster. in the end, we play with an average, unless different kinds of terrain are integrated, which won't be happening any time soon.

and this is just the beta, so i wouldn't worry about getting your knickers in a twist.

you also have to realize that we're tossing technologically advanced nations down on a barren world. the only resistance we encounter is that of other nations. so just think of it as a space sim where different colonies are vying for territory control, the vehicles are more technologically advanced than what we currently have.


and weather is something that will be added later. johnny dropped a hurricane on Ankylo just to get a rise out of us a while back.

Hell, tactically, there is no way to move this fast.  This isn't a realistic game.  But in fairness to Johnny, the speeds seem to be a fairly decent ratio amongst each other.

As for a big parking lot... The world is flat ya know.  In future releases he expects to add variable terrain and speeds over them.

One other thing, even if a ship moved much faster, they couldn't get  near as close the the shore as they do.  There would be VERY few placed that a transport could make landfall.  If we used LCACs, how long would it take to offload 9 battalions of armor?

I, personally, like this game.  I like that I can take my time to coordinate my attacks.  I like that there is some semblance of strategy without having to read Sun Tzu.  I like that a person can drop into a world and possible make a stand.  I don't like that alliances play such a big roll in the game but the nature of people will perpetuate this whether Johnny takes them out or not.

This game is like playing a flying game on a console vs playing some modern flight simulator on a PC (one of those that uses a stick with separate throttle and pedals and still used EVERY button on the keyboard).  I don't want the realism.  If I did, I would find a different game.

I think it is an aewsome game. Hell, it is the first thing I check in the morning. Screw checking my email and my to do list, I want to know what happened after the update!

Thank you for all the compliments and support!

GT was never intended to be some visually stunning, perfectly accurately detailed war simulation.  It's more of an overall strategy game.  I wanted to create a game that felt like a general directing units around a map, and I wanted a game that didn't give an advantage to people who could sit and play all day over people who didn't have much time.  I think (hope) it does things well.

As Tim said, the world is basically a big flat map.  I think the speeds are pretty balanced and, as Tim's research showed, fairly accurate.  Realistic, though, the game is not.  It's just trying to win a war given the tools provided within the game.

And Bernie, I know exactly what you mean.  Every single day for me starts with sitting down with a bowl of cereal and checking my GT progress. haha

Damn, I thought I was the only one.  Let's not forget the checking to see if anyone has posted anything whenever I get bored (which is like always).

If we are dumping the realistic argument (the Wehrmacht never made more than 400 mile per day when gobbling up the ukraine, nor did the americans in iraq (i never heard anything over 300)).  Lets go with the greater fluidity argument.  Right now, sea borne assaults take a month or more to get to their landing zones, and then frequently get blown away at the 11 hour.  It shouldn't take months for this stuff to develop, especially if you want action to check out every morning with your fruit loops.

I meant realistic in the sense of full detail, terrain, weather, etc.  I think units and unit movements should have some semblance of reality, which, as I noted, Tim's research confirmed.  I wouldn't want to create "bullet" ships just to make the action more intense.

The ship speed also forces additional strategy into the game.

I could see the argument that sea units are too weak and vulnerable, though.

Its not realistic though.  Tim's research confirms speeds in a vacuum, not under real conditions.  Please refer to historically rapid advances rather than mere mph and you'll see what I mean.

Also, ship speed doesn't force either more or less strategy.  Strategy adapts to the rules, unless by more you mean more cumbersome, as in the cumbersome fleet that you had to create to cross Ankylo.  Faster ships allows lighting strikes like the vikings of yore.  Its hard enough to sneak up on anyone in this game because the color of the terrain changes when you take it.  The sea is the one place where you can "sneak up".  (Sidebar: I was opposed to radar for this reason).

Without the ability to achieve surprise, the warfare become largely economic as the larger power crushes the smaller by shear weight.  In my view, a smaller power should be able to land a seaborne raiding party and seize a capital, thereby cutting the larger foe in half in a single blow and evening the odds.  Of course, to do this, not only would ships have to be faster (as is reasonable), you would also have to have the option to move forces without occupying territory and thereby changing the color of the turf.  Not only would this allow tactical or strategic surprise, but it would allow allies to aid one another without being confined largely to the use of airpower only.

For the record I like the game too and kudoos to Johnny.  Nevertheless, I am right.

you continue to not be correct.

vikings only had "lightning strikes" because the people defending against them were poor farmers with little to no military protection of their own. and they traveled slower than the ships we are using.

and as far as , johnny has already stated that he intends to add weather an terrain to the game at a later date, so your continued complaints fail to garner any support as they are already addressed.

I see where Constant is coming from but I also see how that could effect the game in a negative way.

One thing I've thought of, is there a way to have your transport pull up to the coastline and have your ground unit make a landing in the same cycle?

A problem I've seen is that for one turn your ship is completely defenseless right on the shoreline, can't tell how many times I've been surprised to find an enemy ship on my shoreline, but I just pick it off with an airstrike before a landing is made.

Maybe if there was a way to set an attack for both your transport  and ground unit when not touching a coastline would smooth out the process?  That way your ship could pull up to the coastline and the unit it's carrying could exit in the same cycle, rather than being a sitting duck on the coast a cycle before you land.

Could make transports move like construction trucks, half their attack range.

You might still get the same time from end to end, just means that you plan you advance so that you can move the last 6 sectors then attack with your troops.  You may have to advance only half the day before to ensure that you aren't a sitting duck.

Yes, I've added that to my list.  It's one of those things I keep thinking I need to change, but I never noted and, therefore, keep forgetting!

That's a great suggestion!  Thank you!

I am not so sure about that idea due to sheer size of the map. I really think half is a bit drastic of a reduction. In real life the support ships keep up with large attack crafts quite handily.

If the pic loads. that was a photo shot of my first battle group. When looking at it i was on the submarine on the left.

They would still attack at the same speed, just you could get within say 6 sectors and the next turn, you could move in and unload instead of attacking and waiting for the next day.

Also, I am sure that a naval battle group moves like a convoy and only moves as fast as the slowest ship.

Actually cannot explain it but NOTHING like a convoy. Yea, when i was growing up in Ohio I had a picture in my mind what a battle group looked like out to sea. HA, yea Hollywood lied to me!

Not referring to the formation as much as the speed.  Maybe more like an infantry squad, all advancing at the same speed but some leapfrogging and some radial patrols.  Never in a straight line and always on the move.

The only fleet I have seen was mothballed in the Bremerton Ship Yards in Washington.  They are all in row (or were 20 year ago).

If I made the change, they would work just like construction trucks.  So, if you haven't moved at all during a move, you get to attack the full attack distance.  If you've moved, though, then the attack distance is reduced by the move amount.

People would most likely use them exactly the same (attacking the full distance) until they approached the shore, when they would use their move to get right up to the edge and deploy.

Are you sure you don't want to try faster shipping on a particular world?