How tactical is space combat?

[TheMaestro]

I've been reading and looking around -- any testers or anyone able to share how intense space combat is?

IE: Like MOO2...Armada...does it compare to any of those? How's the zoom feature work -- or not work...can you truly have the massive fleets that people want?

[Shnozwangler]

Check out the postings of the Beta testers here and on IGs MoO3 forum. If they are anything like what is described then we are in for a real treat!

Unless ofcourse Xentax and the Great Spud Head are washing it with too much "artistic interpretation" and creative writing.

[booje]

Just a nitpick when it comes to combat: Why are ships and fighters STILL using curved paths when flying through space as if they were flying in air? It might've been cool to see them use only straight paths.

[Tolver]

Inerta goes in a straight line, thrusters diviate the path, it works out to a curved flight path.

[Xentax]

Combat is *finally* and *actually* tactical. It wasn't, by any means, tactical in MOO1 or MOO2.

As others have said, check out the beta tester Impressions/After-Action Reports thread on the official forums (here) for some examples.

I haven't embellished my reports at all, except to the extent that I've used dramatic verbs (like, "slammed into" instead of "hit"). I'll disclaim my reports by saying that battles TEND to get more interesting in the late game compared to the early game, so don't expect to see epic battles 10 or even 50 turns into a game.

@bjooe: As Tolver said, even in a vacuum, with Newtonian physics, you'll get plenty of curved flight paths. But, on top of that, MOO3 combat isn't officially Newtonian, so the rules for movement are more a function of desired gameplay implications than any particular quest for realism.

In particular, ships, missiles, and fighters all seem able to overcome their inertia more readily than you might expect, and have a maximum movement rate, neither of which fits well with Newtonian physics. It works out just fine for gameplay, though.