Need NAVAL BATTLES

[sephodwyrm]

Yes. I want to see war galleys trying hard to destroy each other in the Mediterranean.

Do you guys think we should have naval battles???

[Templar Knight]

I wish, but I doubt it, wouldn't it be magic?

[Scurvy]

I wish, but I doubt it, wouldn't it be magic?

took the words out of my mouth...:2thumbsup:

[Templar Knight]

took the words out of my mouth...:2thumbsup:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/gc/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Mikeus Caesar]

I wouldn't want naval battles. Typically, navies of the time weren't that exciting, and were mainly used for transporting troops. And the few battles of the time were incredibly boring, consisting of ships firing shots at each other with catapults, and possibly boarding.

RTW or Napoleonic Era navies are much more exciting. From about 100AD up till the 1700's was a dark age for naval combat, with not much taking place, and not many advancements in the way ships fought.

[drone]

I would like to have naval battles, but......

They need to be implemented correctly so the human player can't cheese through it or take advantage of the AI's cluelessness. If the human can easily outwit the AI ships, that is just one more handicap that the AI has. The human player would rule all the seas, land attackers at will, control trade, etc.

That said, it would be nice to have naval battles (or at least have some clue as to what happens out there). It would probably take a new engine that deals with wind, oars, and various missiles, and have new unit commands for ramming, boarding, etc. Damage to the ship and loss of crew could affect movement, fires could cause havoc, speed affected by wind direction and vessel type.

So many options, but I don't see it happening.

[King Ragnar]

Id rather they concentrated on something else, navies didnt really play a big part in this time period.

[Zain]

I agree, I don't give a rip about the Naval Battles. I rather them just do them automatically.

-ZainDustin

[myz]

I really don't care too much about naval battles. One thing I found from playing RTW is that during battles, AI is not very tactically sound. On campaigns, AI is pretty predictable, and is not as aggressive as human player, with stacks just sitting around, is not prone to taking chances, often missing critical opportunities, does not employ spies very well. So if MTW2 can alleviate some of these problems, it would be great. More aggression would solve a lot of problems. Preprogramed AI battle strategy that trigger based on the player movements. If you guys recall a FPS game called Brothers in Arms, there the programs employ some kind of algorithm where the enemy AI adjust to player actions, ie, if players try to flank, AI will move and counterflank. I am just saying, maybe a similar algorithm can be applied to MTW2, where if I try to maneuver, the AI will pop up with a list of countermoves, with priorities depending on battle conditions such as terrain, weather, unit types, and select one move from that list and uses that.

[Mouzafphaerre]

Yes. I want to see war galleys trying hard to destroy each other in the Mediterranean.

Do you guys think we should have naval battles???
.
+1 :2thumbsup:
.

[ajaxfetish]

I would very much absolutely love to have naval battles! :fishbowl:














But I don't expect them till the next game at the earliest.

Ajax

[sapi]

No, i'm sorry, i don't.

A better autoresolve ai, sure.

Naval battles - no! They are very hard to implement properly when sails are necessary for movement, and can be tedious. I'd much rather ca focused on other areas of the game (hint: ai)

[x-dANGEr]

Id rather they concentrated on something else, navies didnt really play a big part in this time period.
Yeap

[Mount Suribachi]

I've said before, I really think TW5 will be a Napoleonic era game using a new engine which will include Naval Battles.

For MTW2 I would just be happy with a Naval autoresolve that isn't infuriating like in MTW and RTW.

[Brutus]

I wouldn't want naval battles. Typically, navies of the time weren't that exciting, and were mainly used for transporting troops. And the few battles of the time were incredibly boring, consisting of ships firing shots at each other with catapults, and possibly boarding.
That is pretty much the description of most naval battles. Just insert "bows" or "cannon" where it reads "catapults" for the appropriate era.


RTW or Napoleonic Era navies are much more exciting. From about 100AD up till the 1700's was a dark age for naval combat, with not much taking place, and not many advancements in the way ships fought. You wouldn't make friends here: most of our great naval heroes flourished between 1550 and 1700... Let's just mention the Great Armada of 1588 here...

Anyway, I would be all in favor of naval battles, although they do seem to be not quite as important in the early era (even though I'd like to see some Genoese in action against Saracen pirates, and vice versa). And I'd love to a battle like Sluys! :2thumbsup:

[Ludens]

Would take a lot of time to program and, as pointed out, naval battles where hardly important or exciting in this time period. I think there are more important things for CA to add.

[TinCow]

I agree with skipping them in favor of other stuff. The very nature of the realtime battle engine would preclude its conversion to naval combat in any meaningful form. In order to make naval combat worth playing, they would have to develop a completely seperate system just for that purpose. There are plenty of other naval combat games to fill this need if people want it. TW games were designed to simulate large scale pre-gunpowder warfare. They have certainly taken on a larger empire-building sim style of play, but I don't think we should lose sight of what these games are really about.

[caio giulio]

I wouldn't want naval battles. Typically, navies of the time weren't that exciting, and were mainly used for transporting troops. And the few battles of the time were incredibly boring, consisting of ships firing shots at each other with catapults, and possibly boarding.

RTW or Napoleonic Era navies are much more exciting. From about 100AD up till the 1700's was a dark age for naval combat, with not much taking place, and not many advancements in the way ships fought.

Well.... I'd like to see naval battles even if in this period they were so boring (Mods.... a Rome mod or a Napoleonic one..).
But as already said before I prefer CA concentrate in more important things (AI!!!)

[ajaxfetish]

Even without including full-on naval battles, I hope there's something done to improve the sea-war experience. The randomness and unpredictability in MTW1, and especially the dang dromons playing hopscotch with my fleets preventing all my trade and troop movement without posing any real challenge to my fleet and grr mumble ~:angry: . Ahem, anyway, something new and improved would be nice, but not full-on naval battles yet.

As drone said, proper naval battles would have to involve wind, sails and tacking, current, etc. etc. etc. which I'd like to wait till it can be done right. For now the focus should be on the land.

Ajax

[Martok]

Even without including full-on naval battles, I hope there's something done to improve the sea-war experience. The randomness and unpredictability in MTW1, and especially the dang dromons playing hopscotch with my fleets preventing all my trade and troop movement without posing any real challenge to my fleet and grr mumble ~:angry: . Ahem, anyway, something new and improved would be nice, but not full-on naval battles yet.


Well if CA uses Rome's campaign map (and one assumes they will be), and assuming [crossing fingers here!] that the AI is better, then I think we'll probably see a more satisfactory (and somewhat realistic) naval aspect of the game. Since in Rome, ships actually have movement points and can therefore only go so far each turn, it's generally much easier to run down those pesky dromons/barques that have been hampering your merchant shipping. I've gotta admit, this is one thing I felt that Rome did better than Medieval. Not that the naval AI for the other factions was actually very good, but I at least can appreciate how CA designed the naval part of the game to work.

[Brighdaasa]

CA already stated that naval battles were impossible with the RTW engine. And since MIITW engine is just a beefed up version of the RTW one, you shouldn't expect naval battles just yet.

[King Henry V]

I want naval battles! I mean, imagine a night time see battle (I know, I've been watching Ben Hur) with dozens of galleys in the Med, employing Greek fire catapults and ramming each other and boarding and snapping the enemy's oars off...sweet...:2thumbsup:
I would also love to see beautiful Atlantic sea battles...winds with turbulent seas, decks brimming with archers and cannons.
But I doubt it will be possible...:no:

[Taurus]

I'd rather they put more effort into other sections of the game but I would however love to see naval battles that would be awesome. :2thumbsup:

[Cesare diBorja]

QUOTE-I wouldn't want naval battles. Typically, navies of the time weren't that exciting, and were mainly used for transporting troops. And the few battles of the time were incredibly boring, consisting of ships firing shots at each other with catapults, and possibly boarding.

RTW or Napoleonic Era navies are much more exciting. From about 100AD up till the 1700's was a dark age for naval combat, with not much taking place, and not many advancements in the way ships fought-UNQUOTE

says you bud, all the stuff learned in the Napoleonic wars was learned in the Middle ages.\

diBorgia

[Antiochius]

I wouldn`t like to have naval battles. That is inpossible.

[hundurinn]

No thank you. Chashing horse archers all over the map is enough for me I wouldn't want to spend even more time chashing ships.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Would be cool to choose when starting the campaign whether to control navy only, armies only or both.

Naval battles of the era were more interesting - and important - than most people think. Even though major cannon battles such as Lepanto is out of the time frame as the game ends in 1530, there were several caravels and not only galleys involved, especially in the Atlantic.

The hundred years war is a good example of both great naval battles (to play), and the importance of them. The battle of Sluys in 1340 was fought between around 200 ships on each side, with English longbows, a lot of English manouvering, and several boardings. The battle was a greater and more important victory for the English than Crezy, Poitiers and Agincourt together! The French casualties at Sluys mounted to 20k, compared to 8k at Agincourt, 2.5k at Poitiers and 6k at Crécy. Strategically, if the French had won the battle the hundred years war may never have happened, because it was thanks to it that the British achieved the naval dominance in the channel they needed for supply routes and troop transporting. The French nearly won the war later when they allied with the Spanish who effectively cut of the English in Aquitaine thanks to the Spanish naval strength, but as we all know that was however not the end of the war - Henry V could embark upon a campaign and some not so clever political moves turned it into a two front war when the Burgundians also joined the fighting, before the war really ended. So in conclusion the navies are really important and so far I don't think the TW games have shown that clearly enough. Adding naval battles would be great for the sake of realism, but also from a gameplay point of view. The battle of Sluys was a lot more epic and large scale than any of the land battles in the hundred years war!

[tutankamon]

It would be fun to have naval battles not to mention doing sieges on towns from the sea side.... but perhaps it's not possible... or perhaps it is?? the Game Imperial glory has naval battles.. so..

[z2ei]

Not really, no. Naval battles are annoying. Besides, there's a lot of more important features that would be ahead of naval battles.

I hope they fix the pinball navies for MTW2, though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Navel battles would be too complex and would take away from the ultimate intent, land battles. I'd autocalc them all anyway.

[tutankamon]

Navel battles would be too complex and would take away from the ultimate intent, land battles. I'd autocalc them all anyway.

well I think it's a matter of taste ;) I have always loved naval warfare and I was therefore a bit dissapointed when RTW came out, whitout the great naval part, I mean who wouldn't have loved to commandeer great fleets of trierimnes and bierimnes... and besides, as I said above the game: Imperiale Glory, which look a lot like RTW, altough it's timespan is the napoleon period, has naval battles and they work perfecly.. so...

[SirGrotius]

I would like naval battles if you could actually control armies on ships and have boarding actions and the like.

Just kidding! :laugh4:

Naval battles should be abstracted unless we want a lot of silliness.

[drone]

I would like naval battles if you could actually control armies on ships and have boarding actions and the like.

Just kidding! :laugh4:

Naval battles should be abstracted unless we want a lot of silliness.
Don't laugh, I would want exactly that. Ramming, boarding actions, wind effects, fires, etc. But I also know that it would be extremely difficult to code properly, the onship path-finding would be atrocious, bugs galore, and in the end the advantage would go to the human player and the enemy fleets would be swept from the seas by smaller, more economical, human fleets using better tactics (i.e. exploiting bugs and a poor AI).

If they could make (or better yet, co-opt an existing one) a proper engine for naval battles, I would love it. The auto-calc ship battles of MTW and RTW always wound me up, since I could never figure out what was really going on, and always "knew" that I could do better. But I also understand the reality of the situation. Spend the time and money making the rest of the game great.

[Gazi Husrev-Beg]

If they make it right..yes add that too.They would be optional anyway.

[King Yngvar]

I would say yes to naval battles, they are truly needed!

[dej2]

Battle of the Aegates (Egadi) Islands, 241 BC

By the winter of 243/2 the Roman treasury is exhausted. However the Romans had sufficiently recovered from the debacle of 249 to build yet another fleet. The Senate passed a measure taxing themselves, the monies to be repayable in case of victory. 200 war ships are built.

Successful ground and naval assaults are launched against Carthaginian fortresses at Lilybaeum and Drepanum in Sicily.

In 241 the fleet of 200 quinquiremes which was placed in command of Gaius Lutatius Catulus were sent to renew the blockade of Lilybaeum. Th Romans appeared off the coast of Sicily in the summer and the surprised Punic fleet was forced to sail home, allowing the Romans to take the harbor at Drepana (Trapani), where he installed siege-works and blockaded the city, and the roadsteads near Lilybaeum. Meanwhile he drilled in naval manoeuvers every day.

The Carthaginians managed to reactivate their fleet and send a force of 170 ships, loaded their ships with grain and sought to relieve Hamilcar's troops in Eryx. The fleet was out of practice, undermanned and burdened with supplies for the garrison. The commander, Hanno, planned to sneak into Eryx, unload the corn to lighten the ships and take on the mercenary troops of Hamilcar Barca and then seek out the Roman fleet.

This plan failed. Lutatius got word of the arrival, embarked his best troops and sailed to the island of Aegusa (Aegates Islands or Egadi Islands) near Lilybaeum to intercept.

At daybreak he saw that the strong breeze favoured Carthage and that the seas were rough. He was unsure whether to engage but in the end decided that this would be preferable to fighting the same force later after it could be strengthened by Carthage. So upon seeing the enemy at full sail, he put to sea at once, quickly maneuvering his fleet into a single line facing the enemy.

Seeing this, the Carthaginians lowered their masts and closed. The Romans benefited from removal of all heavy equipment from their vessels and their training now paid off whereas the laden Carthaginian galleys were difficult to maneuver and their marines merely raw recruits. The result was that the Carthaginian ships experienced defeat after defeat. Fifty of their galleys were sunk outright and seventy captured. The remainder were saved only by a fortuitous change in wind direction and raised their masts and ran before the wind, which had veered around, and made their way back. The Romans had taken nearly 100,000 prisoners of war and Carthage was forced to sue for peace shortly thereafter.

Thus it was that on March 10, 241BC, the Carthaginian relieving fleet was totally defeated near the Aegates Islands off western Sicily.

Catulus, who had made the decision to attack, shared in the triumph, though a wound had prevented him from taking part in the operations.

The Carthaginians subsequently crucified the naval commander Hanno.

[Gaiseric]

If they could make (or better yet, co-opt an existing one) a proper engine for naval battles, I would love it. The auto-calc ship battles of MTW and RTW always wound me up, since I could never figure out what was really going on, and always "knew" that I could do better. But I also understand the reality of the situation. Spend the time and money making the rest of the game great.

If they are considering naval battles, CA should take a look at Patrician 2. The game is mostly focused on trading but the naval battles are quick and fun with a smart AI.

However this might require them swithcing the ships unit card to represent a single warship. The warship could be damaged, sunk, or even captured. A damaged warship would have less movement points. (Might even work with no new battle engine.)

This would solve my problems of the small pesky ai fleets blockading my ports that take me so long to chase down and destroy and that are a major nuisance.:inquisitive:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Managing naval units is principally no different than managing chariots. If they can do chariots, they can do ships too. The only additional factor would be the effect of wind and waves on units movement and I'm pretty sure they can handle it.

Patrician 2/3 naval battles are fine. However, the system in original Port Royale (not the sequel) would be a better comparison.

Face it: A wargame is incomplete without naval battles. :no:
.

[sapi]

Navel battles would be too complex and would take away from the ultimate intent, land battles. I'd autocalc them all anyway.
I agree.

Order a ship to turn. Wait. Order it to fire. Wait. Get another ship in line for a perfect shot. Get blown off course by the wind. Curse. Wait.

[Gaiseric]

Patrician 2/3 naval battles are fine. However, the system in original Port Royale (not the sequel) would be a better comparison.

Face it: A wargame is incomplete without naval battles.

Port Royale 1 would work great because it allows large fleet actions. I think most people would like these types of naval battles because they are short(5minutes max), decisive, and fun.

I have doubts on how well a naval battle might work on a RTW battle map. It might look cool, but it would be hard to program the ai to know when to raise/lower sails, get the weather gauge, and when to switch shot types.

If the programming could be done, a naval battle on a RTW battle map would be a great addition, but the battle might take too long even on 3x speed. Thats why I think CA should use somthing thats more short and sweet.

[Voigtkampf]

I remember the discussions about naval battles back where Rome was in development. Again, it is a safe bet to say no such thing will be introduced, or at least not much different than it is now. I would love to be proved wrong, though.

[Prince Cobra]

I definitely think the naval warfare should be improved (why on earth should I spend loads of money on expensive ships?!(I ask myself when playing the old MTW system of naval battles)). And I think it will be interesting to fight at the sea (wind,greek fire)- but only some major battles (not one ship vs. one ship). And btw there was one city which could not be conquered without a fleet- Constantinople. So they should include some ships in the sieges and assaults.

[TB666]

Battle of the Aegates (Egadi) Islands, 241 BC

mmmkay :inquisitive:
Wrong era dude :laugh4:

But as many has said, I rather wouldn't want naval battles in this game(of course there wouldn't be in even if I wanted to).
Let's wait until we get a NTW :2thumbsup:

[ArcticSonata]

I wouldn't want naval battles. Typically, navies of the time weren't that exciting, and were mainly used for transporting troops. And the few battles of the time were incredibly boring, consisting of ships firing shots at each other with catapults, and possibly boarding.

RTW or Napoleonic Era navies are much more exciting. From about 100AD up till the 1700's was a dark age for naval combat, with not much taking place, and not many advancements in the way ships fought.

THough I would aggree that the naval battles from different battles would be even more impresive, there where still some great battle In the Rennissiance which would work great ,I.e. Lappanto.

I am hoping that they will put navalbattles in the game and that they turn out as greats as what takes place on land