Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Ship arcs in combat?

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Coming Soon] >> Distant Worlds 2 >> Ship arcs in combat? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 8:30:42 AM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline
From looking at the streams I think that weapon arcs is not restrictive enough. The worst arc is only 180 degree which mean that turning rates of ships really means relatively little.

I would suggest to make some, especially the larger weapon bays more restrictive in arcs, at least limit them to around 90 degrees to make arcs matter allot more than it seem at present time.

You could easily compensate seeking weapons by making them perhaps slightly bigger or something else, not sure.

This is just a reflection for what I have seen so far.

At least this is probably the first thing I would mod into the game for myself if it is not changed.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/7/2022 8:31:04 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 12:53:00 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 2
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 1:07:17 PM   
Bleek


Posts: 720
Joined: 10/26/2011
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.


I believe the smaller ships have wider arcs - is that correct?

Which means a larger, slower ship can be swamped by smaller craft because it struggles to bring it's weapons to bare.

This didn't happen in DWU so a large ship was more usable in 'Rambo-style™' than in DW2. I think that's a tactical pro in favour of weapon arcs.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 3
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 1:07:19 PM   
Galaxy227


Posts: 142
Joined: 12/1/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.

Completely unrelated, but I was just playing DW:U and found myself with an abandoned capital ship. I was unable to retrofit the ship to my liking, as the size was far larger than I was technologically capable of constructing. Nonetheless, it got me thinking... will we be able to retrofit ships larger than our own technological capabilities, considering ships now have pre-defined hulls? Sure, I understand I can't construct additional Capital Ships given my current technology, but who's to say I can't remove the bombardment weapons off of it, or even add more of my own primitive fuel cells? I understand not being able to reproduce the technology found in the ship, but it seems realistic enough for me to be able to slot in available technology into hulls.

TL;DR: Can we retrofit ships more advanced than our own technology in DW2?

< Message edited by Galaxy227 -- 2/7/2022 1:08:43 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 4
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 1:13:57 PM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.



Would it also not be interesting if the arc could change a bit based on the weapon size you put into them as well?

So you might have a 120 degree arc for a large and get +30 for medium and +60 for a small weapon in that slot. Could be on some slots not all, so it can differ between weapon bays.

Just a suggestion for some more tactical benefit of smaller weapons.

I probably still think that the arcs are a bit too wide on the smaller classes in general, especially for the larger bays. But I guess modding is ok to "fix" that for personal preference.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/7/2022 1:17:32 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 5
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 2:34:41 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.



Would it also not be interesting if the arc could change a bit based on the weapon size you put into them as well?

So you might have a 120 degree arc for a large and get +30 for medium and +60 for a small weapon in that slot. Could be on some slots not all, so it can differ between weapon bays.

Just a suggestion for some more tactical benefit of smaller weapons.

I probably still think that the arcs are a bit too wide on the smaller classes in general, especially for the larger bays. But I guess modding is ok to "fix" that for personal preference.

My understanding is that each Weapon Slot has a maximum Weapon Size. And slots with bigger sizes have worse arcs.

So if you got a 120 slot on a T2 Hull, it is likely a 90° at best. If you even have such a large slot on such a small ship (which is rare).

Also, have you considered that each race has different slot configuation for hulls?
Escorts: Mortalan have 2 heavy, forward. Ackdarian have 1 light, 1 heavy (I would guess the light is a 180° to 360°).

And once we get to the second hull, Ackdarians already start getting Fighter bays. While Mortalan get more weapon slots.

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 2/7/2022 2:35:18 PM >

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 6
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 3:25:12 PM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.



Would it also not be interesting if the arc could change a bit based on the weapon size you put into them as well?

So you might have a 120 degree arc for a large and get +30 for medium and +60 for a small weapon in that slot. Could be on some slots not all, so it can differ between weapon bays.

Just a suggestion for some more tactical benefit of smaller weapons.

I probably still think that the arcs are a bit too wide on the smaller classes in general, especially for the larger bays. But I guess modding is ok to "fix" that for personal preference.

My understanding is that each Weapon Slot has a maximum Weapon Size. And slots with bigger sizes have worse arcs.

So if you got a 120 slot on a T2 Hull, it is likely a 90° at best. If you even have such a large slot on such a small ship (which is rare).

Also, have you considered that each race has different slot configuation for hulls?
Escorts: Mortalan have 2 heavy, forward. Ackdarian have 1 light, 1 heavy (I would guess the light is a 180° to 360°).

And once we get to the second hull, Ackdarians already start getting Fighter bays. While Mortalan get more weapon slots.


I know this... my issue is that almost all heavy slots all the way up to at least destroyer seem to all be at 180 degree arcs, that leaves very little reason for manoeuvring thrustsers instead of just more speed in general.

The idea with my suggestion was mainly to restrict the heavier weapons while giving the lighter ones an arc bonus if mounted in the same slot. That way you could reduce the arc of the large bays in the smaller ships too as you are often likely to mount smaller weapons in them relatively often anyway and there would be a tactical reason to as well.


< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/7/2022 3:28:26 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 7
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 4:24:13 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

There are arcs worse than 180 degrees, though they are often more common on larger ships and stations, which have many weapon bays. The ship hulls with their design bays and arcs are moddable in the data, though the model meshes limit the external components.



Would it also not be interesting if the arc could change a bit based on the weapon size you put into them as well?

So you might have a 120 degree arc for a large and get +30 for medium and +60 for a small weapon in that slot. Could be on some slots not all, so it can differ between weapon bays.

Just a suggestion for some more tactical benefit of smaller weapons.

I probably still think that the arcs are a bit too wide on the smaller classes in general, especially for the larger bays. But I guess modding is ok to "fix" that for personal preference.

My understanding is that each Weapon Slot has a maximum Weapon Size. And slots with bigger sizes have worse arcs.

So if you got a 120 slot on a T2 Hull, it is likely a 90° at best. If you even have such a large slot on such a small ship (which is rare).

Also, have you considered that each race has different slot configuation for hulls?
Escorts: Mortalan have 2 heavy, forward. Ackdarian have 1 light, 1 heavy (I would guess the light is a 180° to 360°).

And once we get to the second hull, Ackdarians already start getting Fighter bays. While Mortalan get more weapon slots.


I know this... my issue is that almost all heavy slots all the way up to at least destroyer seem to all be at 180 degree arcs, that leaves very little reason for manoeuvring thrustsers instead of just more speed in general.


I am 90% sure I have seen 90° Arks for both large Slots on the Mortalan T1 hull.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 8
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 4:33:39 PM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

I am 90% sure I have seen 90° Arks for both large Slots on the Mortalan T1 hull.


I'm happy to be proven wrong... but here is an example of a Mortalen destroyer..

[image]https://www.dropbox.com/s/bv9oribn9kli3qc/MortalenDestroyer.jpg?raw=1[/image]

Why can't you instert images on this forum?!?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0bzxczfyqv2j8xn/MortalenDestroyer.PNG?raw=1




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/7/2022 8:28:33 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 9
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 4:43:41 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
You should be able to do JPGs.

Please also note that for military ships, the arcs for each hull vary by faction, so the arcs and component bay count for an Ackdarian Destroyer, a Mortalen Destroyer, a Human Destroyer, a Boskara Destroyer will all have some variation.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 10
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 7:13:47 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
Jorgan, use post reply and not the fast reply to embed an image.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 11
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 8:30:16 PM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

Jorgan, use post reply and not the fast reply to embed an image.


I suppose you have to upload the image and can't post links to external sources.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 12
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 8:34:46 PM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

You should be able to do JPGs.

Please also note that for military ships, the arcs for each hull vary by faction, so the arcs and component bay count for an Ackdarian Destroyer, a Mortalen Destroyer, a Human Destroyer, a Boskara Destroyer will all have some variation.


Yes... I have yet to see all of them so there surely are differences... the one we have seen are mostly the Mortalen and the Acdarians and they definitely are different.

As I said... I'm happy to mod it to my preferences later on... just interesting to know why there are relatively few restriction in the arcs. A 180 degree arc do not require allot of turning to get the weapons on target. But I have not played the game yet so this is just an armchair generals perspective... ;)

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 13
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 9:42:15 PM   
DasTactic

 

Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The Mortalen Light Cruisers have a line of 4 180-degree large bays in front, but just behind them are 2 90-degree small bays. all the other bays are 180-degree with a couple of 270-degree.

I hadn't thought about it before but it would be quite interesting to see what would happen with smaller arcs. I think that is something that could ultimately be modded on a ship-by-ship basis. In one-on-one combat, faster ships will tend to get in behind the larger ships and blast away so smaller arcs would make this quite pronounced.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 14
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 10:11:53 PM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline
In general, given how the mechanic work ships are basically behaving as sea going ships. We should actually see more wet navy like configurations on the ships. From a tactical perspective it is not actually smart to put all or most of your weapons in a forward firing arc.. that means you have to move in the same direction you shoot. There is a reason why navy ship tended to put most of their firepower on the side of their ship and eventually used large turrets that could turn about 270 degrees for the main guns.

In general if you fire perpendicular to your movement you are way more flexible in manoeuvring while fire at the target and have allot more options. I was hoping we could get more of that feel with the ships as that sort of make more sense. What I see is that most firepower is facing forward which actually make very little sense in general as it restricts manoeuvring and formation fighting.

But i digress...

(in reply to DasTactic)
Post #: 15
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 10:54:56 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

In general, given how the mechanic work ships are basically behaving as sea going ships. We should actually see more wet navy like configurations on the ships. From a tactical perspective it is not actually smart to put all or most of your weapons in a forward firing arc.. that means you have to move in the same direction you shoot. There is a reason why navy ship tended to put most of their firepower on the side of their ship and eventually used large turrets that could turn about 270 degrees for the main guns.

There are several reason for this, but none of them apply to space combat:
- ships at sea turn glacially slow. Rate of Turn Indicators list Degrees per minute, rather then degrees per Second. Without the water drag and with proper Maneuvering thrusters, ships will turn closer to airplanes then seagoing ships. Or maybe even more like tanks
- no way to place weapons forward. Sooner or later the citadel and smokestacks got in the way. And even if not, having a turret too far up is horror for durability and ship stability. Plus you wanted weapons on the aft, because sometimes you have to run from the enemy.
- it is still preferable to show only your front or your aft. It is a smaler profile, harder to hit
- unless you had some ideal case like "crossing the T" (Maxim 47. Don't expect the enemy to cooperate in the creation of your dream engagement), showing your front and being angeled just enough you could bring your aft guns to bear was the goal.

It happened as you say. But only because this as a Ocean Navy, not because it was some universal trught about navies

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 16
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 11:20:43 PM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

In general, given how the mechanic work ships are basically behaving as sea going ships. We should actually see more wet navy like configurations on the ships. From a tactical perspective it is not actually smart to put all or most of your weapons in a forward firing arc.. that means you have to move in the same direction you shoot. There is a reason why navy ship tended to put most of their firepower on the side of their ship and eventually used large turrets that could turn about 270 degrees for the main guns.

There are several reason for this, but none of them apply to space combat:
- ships at sea turn glacially slow. Rate of Turn Indicators list Degrees per minute, rather then degrees per Second. Without the water drag and with proper Maneuvering thrusters, ships will turn closer to airplanes then seagoing ships. Or maybe even more like tanks
- no way to place weapons forward. Sooner or later the citadel and smokestacks got in the way. And even if not, having a turret too far up is horror for durability and ship stability. Plus you wanted weapons on the aft, because sometimes you have to run from the enemy.
- it is still preferable to show only your front or your aft. It is a smaler profile, harder to hit
- unless you had some ideal case like "crossing the T" (Maxim 47. Don't expect the enemy to cooperate in the creation of your dream engagement), showing your front and being angeled just enough you could bring your aft guns to bear was the goal.

It happened as you say. But only because this as a Ocean Navy, not because it was some universal trught about navies


Don't care much about the details, the mechanic pretty much mimic sea going ships in general. The fact remains that moving toward the target is not as effective as moving perpendicular to the target as it give you allot more options, such as keeping distance, close distance or break off the attack.

I would gladly sacrifice some fire power for ships that can do that instead of being forced to drive at the target in order to shoot at it.

When all the ships have weapons in the front they will eventually get in each others way as soon as they start turning.

Also, in space turning your side against the opponent does not necessarily mean you present a bigger target either, that depends entirely on the ships dimensions.


< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/7/2022 11:34:11 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 17
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/7/2022 11:33:14 PM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
- it is still preferable to show only your front or your aft. It is a smaler profile, harder to hit


Actually this is not always true... the most difficult thing to hit and estimate in old naval combat was range and hit the ship, especially at medium to long range. Now... when you were close and you could shoot direct fire it was easier to hit.
So.. no... it was not always better to show your front. In long range duels it was more dangerous to show the front as there was more ship to hit behind the silhouette.

But none of that relate in any way to this game.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/7/2022 11:44:35 PM >

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 18
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/8/2022 2:50:54 AM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline
quote:

Don't care much about the details, the mechanic pretty much mimic sea going ships in general.

Ship combat in DW1 + DW2 does not mimik naval warfare. And enither should it.

This is space. You can cut your maing engine, turn yourself 180° and shoot backwards (compared to your direciton of movement) with no issuues.
But I understand if the Devs do not want to mimik space fighter combat, so they keep it on atmospheric fighter combat with large angles.

Also, funnily enough those Naval Turrets you want to emulate?
Yeah, there are 270° weapon slots. Large ones. But they might even round them to 360° for simplicities sake.
If you make it more like Sea warfare, you just threw any limited firing angles out the window. Pretty sure your goal was to make firing angles more important, not remove them completely?

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 2/8/2022 2:51:59 AM >

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 19
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/8/2022 8:35:36 AM   
Jorgen_CAB

 

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

Don't care much about the details, the mechanic pretty much mimic sea going ships in general.

Ship combat in DW1 + DW2 does not mimik naval warfare. And enither should it.

This is space. You can cut your maing engine, turn yourself 180° and shoot backwards (compared to your direciton of movement) with no issuues.
But I understand if the Devs do not want to mimik space fighter combat, so they keep it on atmospheric fighter combat with large angles.

Also, funnily enough those Naval Turrets you want to emulate?
Yeah, there are 270° weapon slots. Large ones. But they might even round them to 360° for simplicities sake.
If you make it more like Sea warfare, you just threw any limited firing angles out the window. Pretty sure your goal was to make firing angles more important, not remove them completely?


Just because the game is set in space have no real impact on how they act or what tactics would be best from a mechanical perspective, that is what I mean. In that way they behave like navy ships as they basically fight on a 2d plane and move and manoeuvre quite slowly.

I also did not really say I liked to have it that way... I just said it would be the more effective way. You also would not get all weapon bays in that configuration... those would be limited to a few on each ship. the rest would have more limited arcs.

My main argument is that having your weapons in the front makes you vulnerable once you want to start manoeuvring, versus someone that can fire their main weapons to their sides instead. When you have the weapons in the front it is much harder to maintain formation during an attack and you eventually end up in a brawl. Formation fighting will always be more potent, that is my main point.

So, it was mainly one of Lore reasoning given how the mechanic works. If I were a military engineer in this universe I would have a few large weapon bays in 270 degrees along the spine of the ship and then any other large that don't fit there on the sides. Smaller bays would be scattered around the ship for point defence and smaller weapons system.

I'm not saying we should do that... I like to restrict the weapons arc more as that make combat more interesting. I also would like ships that have more broadsides and not just all weapons firing forward to break up the tactical thinking.


< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/8/2022 8:40:13 AM >

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 20
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/8/2022 6:00:25 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Just FYI the Mortalen are quite aggressive and also have the most maneuverable ships (potentially) in the galaxy. They prefer to have a lot of punch concentrated into a somewhat more limited forward arc for maximum effect as they close range and then keep that front facing the enemy. Human ships, as an alternate example, tend to have more balanced arcs and can fight well in a broadside configuration. Teekan hulls encourage more caution and tend to have more weapons facing the rear to make it easier to maintain distance and escape when needed, etc.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)
Post #: 21
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/8/2022 6:37:06 PM   
Cauldyth

 

Posts: 752
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline
Got it, Teekans = Spathi!



(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 22
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/8/2022 6:47:31 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth

Got it, Teekans = Spathi!




I keep thinking a Cross between Skaven and Javas, in Space

(in reply to Cauldyth)
Post #: 23
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/8/2022 7:18:11 PM   
Cauldyth

 

Posts: 752
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline
Yeah, a lot of things in the Distant Worlds universe are obviously nods to Star Wars, and Teekans are definitely a nod to Jawas. But in the Star Control 2 universe, the Spathi were a very "cowardly" race, so the weapons on their ships pointed backwards, so they could fire while running away.

(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 24
RE: Ship arcs in combat? - 2/8/2022 10:13:34 PM   
Galaxy227


Posts: 142
Joined: 12/1/2020
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth

Yeah, a lot of things in the Distant Worlds universe are obviously nods to Star Wars...

This becomes very apparent when you know most of the planets from Star Wars. I'd argue a healthy tenth of all system names in Distant Worlds are Star Wars locations with a few letters changed.
Just off the top of my head, these are some names I can remember:

• Ryluth instead of Ryloth

• Sollost instead of Sullust

• Malastari instead of Malastare

• Dum Braddin instead of Dom Bradden

• Trandusha instead of Trandosha

• Mostafar instead of Mustafar

• Bandumiir instead of Bandomeer

• Thanta Zelbra instead of Thanta Zilbra

• Dathumir instead of Dathomir

• Dinnascar instead of Dennaskar

• Huth instead of Hoth

• Brintaal instead of Brentaal

• Xagubah instead of Dagobah




< Message edited by Galaxy227 -- 2/8/2022 10:15:27 PM >

(in reply to Cauldyth)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Coming Soon] >> Distant Worlds 2 >> Ship arcs in combat? Page: [1]
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

3.063