Tides of War

Finally a great game that does not require DSL or cable to play and be competitive at .

Maybe i'm saying something wrong. But how do you intend to download the patch without dsl or cable, because there going to be big files. Better arm yourself with patience with a 56k, and get GetRight...

But I hope the patch is going out soon, because i'm going to leave my PC soon too. And I don't wan't to miss does 15 inchs....

Finally a great game that does not require DSL or cable to play and be competitive at .

Maybe i'm saying something wrong. But how do you intend to download the patch without dsl or cable, because there going to be big files. Better arm yourself with patience with a 56k, and get GetRight...

But I hope the patch is going out soon, because i'm going to leave my PC soon too. And I don't wan't to miss does 15 inchs....

Lol, it usually takes all night/day but I DL big files oki ( I use a dl manager) usually when I am gone to work... whats another eight hours, when you are waiting on a patch for weeks? buxton:

It is the gameplay that annoys me in some games that are designed around the assumption everyone has cabe/dsl. Then the same games cannot handle the broadband spam and choke constantly (errmm Shadowplane and Planetlag come to mind). But you can play Aces High or (used to) Air Warrior II/ III on a 28.8k-56k all night with just a few spikes or shudders?

Also GIGEX or somebody can burn the patches to CD like WWII online used to do. But that is slower than just just DLing it over night.

Hammer

For info, patch is likely to be

There are some voicepaks still to be done which might inflate this, not sure though.

/bux

< or = 60mb is not bad on 56k. I want to say that is no more than a 3 -4 hour DL tops. Thanks for the intell Buxton!

Hammer

Lol, it usually takes all night/day but I DL big files oki

to hammer: That shure brings back memory's, and not that old...

to buxton : Saying that the patch is below 60mb, are U saying the patch is realy on it's way very very soon, few days? another week?

Keep up the great work! enigma!:

Its going through TAG's own QA right now - after that it goes to Dreamcatchers QA - then it goes out!

We are talking weeks not months for sure - its not my place to be more specific.

/bux

I think the Tirpitz main armament was the same as the Bismarcks - they both had 8x15 inch guns. The strength of the German Battleships was that they were heavily armoured, and it showed when the Bismarck was hit by several British Ships, but continued to float. It took a considerable amount of fire and torpedoes to finally sink the Bismarck.
And the Tirpitz was sunk in a Norweigen port by RAF Bombers.

Very interesting. For some reason in my mind I always had Tirpitz tagged as a pocket battleship ala the Graf Spee. I always knew she was sunk in port, but beyond that, knew very little. Guess its because it never made it out of port that I didn't research it up. In any case, thanks for setting me straight. Good stuff.

Actually she did make a couple of brief forays out into the North Sea if I remember my history right... But mostly he main affect was to be a huge drain on german resources and a sitting duck or Allied bombers. Warships aint much good if they are in port under repairs all the time

Actually she did make a couple of brief forays out into the North Sea if I remember my history right...? But mostly he main affect was to be a huge drain on german resources and a sitting duck or Allied bombers.? Warships aint much good if they are in port under repairs all the time

She didn't make any forays but not in the North Atlantic (she was not part of the channel dash - that was the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen), but she was based in norway so her targets were going to be Russian convoys. however I doubt she went near any convoys, the German navy did not wish to risk their last capital ship, especially when a considerable British Fleet was stationed nearby (at Scapa flow).

There was another major German surface vessel (Scharnhorst?) also stationed in Norway that would have supported the mighty Tirpitz against the Russian convoys, however she was sunk be superior British forces and U-boats and the Luftwaffe proved to be a more efficient alternative. So, despite her firepower the Tirpitz pretty much remained in port until she was sunk late in the war (I think in 1944). Like the Yamato - it was a sad end to a powerful warship that never saw its full potential.

Am I the only one that does not think much of the Yamato? After having read as much on it as I can, unlike the German ships of which I know little beyond common knowledge, I mean on paper she looks great. But from what I found the general opinion of her from US naval contemporaries was that she was an oversized tub. Several US ship commanders were chomping at the bit for a confrontation. Wether that was over zealous chest-puffing is a good question, nonetheless the general consensus of the day she was not highly regarded beyond the respect due to any BB.

Fast forward to today and the ship is nearly worshipped. Anyone else share my confusion at the diconomy?