View Full Version : Fire at cities from a ship?
Do u think it'll be possible to fire at buildings from the sea like the black pearl does in Pirates of the Carribbean 1 ?
Centurio Nixalsverdrus
08-27-2007, 21:08
My educated guess would be: no.
It doesn't fit in the TW mechanics. Sure you can make port blockades, and surely you can be attacked by and enemy navy while blockading, and surely you'll be able to see the port in the dust or something, but I don't think you will be able to shoot at them on the battle map.
But I concur with you that canon-battles between harbour fortresses and enemy ships would be a great addition.
My educated guess would be: no.
It doesn't fit in the TW mechanics. Sure you can make port blockades, and surely you can be attacked by and enemy navy while blockading, and surely you'll be able to see the port in the dust or something, but I don't think you will be able to shoot at them on the battle map.
But I concur with you that canon-battles between harbour fortresses and enemy ships would be a great addition.
Maybe not on battlemap but why not just allow navies to move up next top coastal downs and have some kind of bombard mechanic where just like if city was under siege buildings begin to brake, order drops and maybe some civilians die.
Tellos Athenaios
08-27-2007, 22:57
I think there are a couple of catches involved:
1) To bombard the city would be interpreted as a siege/assault -> objective: to capture the place.
2) Most ships don't really come with canons powerful enough to clear a hole in a wall or some such thing. Not until later ages.
3) The proverbial hit in the face your PC would experience because of having to render two demanding situations at a time (city + naval battle).
4) The fact that the engine now has to be able not only to embark/disembark but also to do so with a significant heigt distance. Also, this would require a yet another embarking/disembarking anime to be added. (Besides from one ship to another.)
5) It would require to have both city and port at one location on the stratmap. I think there was a reason why this hasn't been the case yet. Perhaps the extra amount of sophistication the program would require? (As in you need to have cities landlocked; cities with a seafront; and ports for the cities who are landlocked when the province isn't.) Plus of course the fact that a port needs to be detected in a different, more complex way. (I.e the pixel method of RTW's map_regions (or equivalents thereof in other TW games) would not suffice.)
ninjahboy
08-28-2007, 08:37
my guess is its a cool concept but sadly no. Cannons would in no way be accurate enough to fire or even have to the range without being in danger of the MUCH MUCH higher number of cannons on the shore
Well, historically there were plenty of battles between ships & shore batteries in this period & as far as I know, the ships managed to win reasonably often, though fairly often the ships got seriously mangled too.
Tellos Athenaios
08-29-2007, 00:24
I think Historical Relevance plays less a part than Engine Limitations / Coding Difficulties, though. And I also think that the Coolness would outweigh any Historical Objections if CA considered adding this feature - after all such a feature could be a major selling point.
It is a game, therefore historical accuracy is not required. If one wants history then one should read a history book, communicate with historians, or invent a time machine to visit the past, or do another thing to quench one's hunger for history.
A reasonable amount of historical (or general reality) accuracy can be in a game but deviation is necessary for the gameplay factor. I still wonder when the first game featuring ultimate historical accuracy and good fun gameplay will arrive... or has it already?
Fisherking
08-29-2007, 07:08
Yes!
Also you should all know that attacking a stone fort with a wooden ship is not usually a really good idea.
For that to work the ship has to be able to knock out the guns of the fort. The fort only has to hit the ship enough to sink it…forts don’t sink.
It is just my guess but I would have to say I think it is easier to hit a moving target from a stationary position than to hit a small stationary target from a moving platform.
To attack a fort you usually need bomb catches(sp?) and rockets to allow your ships to stand off enough not to be sunk. Also attacking on a dark night can work to your advantage a bit as a fort is bigger than a ship…
We will just have to wait and see what ship types and weapons we get…then see what we can do with them.
pevergreen
08-29-2007, 07:40
If they can fire at forts, there will be no gameplay of it.
I think this would be a good addition. If CA can pull it off.
pevergreen
08-29-2007, 08:08
I think it can be auto put in with blockading. They are much the same thing.
s_tabikha
08-29-2007, 08:35
ok oko k all this nonsense about "wooden ships" cant beat "stone forts"
is nonsense!
my facts
1.the black pearl did it
2.ships of the line have upward of a hundred guns
thats more then a usual fort last time i checked
3. commander norrington said somthing about long nines
as in 9 foot long cannons
thats big and mostlikly will go through stone
everything in PoTC has been proven true by me
there prob going to change the name to potc now....
Fisherking
08-29-2007, 10:16
something that forts have that ships have loads of trouble with is the ability to fire hotshot... red hot shot meant to start fires.
Ships of the line had about 74 guns for the most part. The true giants went up to 120 main guns but this includes both sides, bow chasers and stern chasers if these were full size guns. So only half or less can fire at the same time at the same general target area.
It would be foolish for a single ship to try and take on a fort alone but a fleet might manage it. Another practice was to put Marines ashore to assault the fort from another side while the ships kept them busy but in the end most harbor defences were eliminated from shore. That doesn't mean that they didn't shoot up towns to damage infrastructure etc.
All of this is pretty complicated and it will be interesting to see how much and how well CA can pull it off.
Even the ship types will be interesting to see as there were so many and each country had different ways of putting it all together. The English and later the Americans had the best crews while the Spanish and French often had larger ships and thus more guns and larger crews.
It will be fun just to see what they come up with and no matter how good it is we will still complain about what got left out! ROFLOL
pevergreen
08-29-2007, 10:38
As stated elsewhere, constructive critisim is ok, complaining and CA bashing isnt.
Elmar Bijlsma
08-29-2007, 14:41
To do it right would require an awful lot of work, for relatively little added value.
pevergreen
08-29-2007, 22:15
Nicely summed up.
:bow:
Darkarbiter
08-30-2007, 07:05
my guess is its a cool concept but sadly no. Cannons would in no way be accurate enough to fire or even have to the range without being in danger of the MUCH MUCH higher number of cannons on the shore
Not necassarily. Perhaps you could sabotage them earlier? Or maybe you have just lost the city and they haven't installed canons there yet.
Well, historically there were plenty of battles between ships & shore batteries in this period & as far as I know, the ships managed to win reasonably often, though fairly often the ships got seriously mangled too.
Not too read up on this particuler subject but I'm pretty sure this guys right. At the very least it worked some of the time... and it isn't exactly less historically correct then canon elephants.
something that forts have that ships have loads of trouble with is the ability to fire hotshot... red hot shot meant to start fires.
Ships of the line had about 74 guns for the most part. The true giants went up to 120 main guns but this includes both sides, bow chasers and stern chasers if these were full size guns. So only half or less can fire at the same time at the same general target area.
It would be foolish for a single ship to try and take on a fort alone but a fleet might manage it. Another practice was to put Marines ashore to assault the fort from another side while the ships kept them busy but in the end most harbor defences were eliminated from shore. That doesn't mean that they didn't shoot up towns to damage infrastructure etc.
All of this is pretty complicated and it will be interesting to see how much and how well CA can pull it off.
Even the ship types will be interesting to see as there were so many and each country had different ways of putting it all together. The English and later the Americans had the best crews while the Spanish and French often had larger ships and thus more guns and larger crews.
It will be fun just to see what they come up with and no matter how good it is we will still complain about what got left out! ROFLOL
It would be good if we could have a battle where it's like "Quickly defend the canons" so that the ships were not able to get in range and fire. From what's been said it's obviously a situation where the ships are at a defenite disadvantage however I'm sure theres going to be at least one port thats poorly defended or you can take care of the guns.
Some cities would be built around the port and some would be inland (like in RTW/M2tw) I don't see why this would be a problem. I also don't see how this is much harder to code? It'd just be a
-Select troops
-Attack town where the enemy is
-Select to have the nearby ships appear on the battlemap on the reinforcements screen.
-Destroy the crews of the enemy canons so your ships can come closer.
Or possibly even more cool is a situation where the port is the best position to land the troops so it's a matter of the ships coming to shore and landing the troops before the canons can take out the ships.
Why would this be hard to code? I'm not going to act like I know much but in theory....
Zenicetus
08-30-2007, 07:32
Why would this be hard to code? I'm not going to act like I know much but in theory....
Sure, there's a lot that could be added to a game like this in theory... that is, if programmer and playtester resources were unlimited. Since they're not, it becomes a question of "what else do you want to give up, to get this?"
In an ideal game I'd like to see this stuff. But on the other hand, I don't want to spend the next two years complaining (and reading complaints) about how the Marines can't pathfind their way from one ship to another in a boarding action. Or some other let-down. This thing will be complicated enough to program and test if they get the new tactical 3D naval combat even remotely realistic, so I'm hoping they're not dealing with too many other distractions from the core game.
Just my $.02 opinion...
Oh man, if they could pull that off that would be soo cool.
One thing that I think will happen this game is the ability to capture ports without having to capture the capital of the province. That is historically acurate where they had to capture a port so they could land supplies and rienforcements. Also this way if you just went around capturing all of the prts you could boost your trade economy. It would act similar to how the forts act in kingdoms. Especially now that buildings will be outside the castle. I wonder wether that means out side the settlement or outside the walls?
Also, Toronto, the capital of Canada in the war of 1812 was captured by the americans after the guns on the ships took out the cities shore defenses. They then landed a beaching party which captured the cityproper. The ships guns were actually superior to the cities guns becase they were of langer range and the cites guns were mostly field peices not seige, also they were a bit old. T_T Damn we are a cheap nation.
Darkarbiter
09-06-2007, 08:12
My educated guess would be: no.
It doesn't fit in the TW mechanics. Sure you can make port blockades, and surely you can be attacked by and enemy navy while blockading, and surely you'll be able to see the port in the dust or something, but I don't think you will be able to shoot at them on the battle map.
But I concur with you that canon-battles between harbour fortresses and enemy ships would be a great addition.
New game engine, new possibilites. Don't forget that.
It should be included just for the reason that it is a cool addition. Historical accuracy or not, it would make for a fun game (and it will be a "game" to be played, not some product that looks like a game and is designed to show historical accuracy).
Historical accuracy is fine, but gameplay comes first.
lancelot
09-07-2007, 00:58
It is a game, therefore historical accuracy is not required. If one wants history then one should read a history book, communicate with historians, or invent a time machine to visit the past, or do another thing to quench one's hunger for history.
That makes no sense.
my facts
1.the black pearl did it
Thats hardly a 'fact' ( actually I dont recall Port Royal having very much at all in the way of naval defences in that movie- let alone a whopping great fort) but-
Given the timeframe for this game, coastal forts should most certainly be in the game. A lot of the combat in colonial america/canada between ships & forts and Nelson's attack on Denmark are good examples of such combat.
They were key defensive points for many nations- the U.S National Anthem was wrote while a coastal fort was being bombarded for crying out loud!
Wooden ships could and did silence stone forts, if anything gets hit on the gunpowder magazine its gonna have a bad day, as well as the traditional just knock out the guns approach.
Can I see CA implementing this- hell no? Why? No particular reason, I just believe they wont bother...I hope Im wrong.
That makes no sense.
Explain.
Incongruous
09-07-2007, 07:57
Explain.
Oh Jesus...:no: :thumbsdown:
Oh Jesus...:no: :thumbsdown:
What he showed was that he stated something and not explain the reasons behind it. Whenever someone makes a statement the least he is to do is explain his reasoning to support it. So a simple phrase like "it makes no sense" is worthless. Can you still follow or is it too difficult? :laugh4:
And instead of addressing my fresh post just before his reply (as this one gives another good reason why 'firing at cities or batteries from a ship' would be nice to include) he replied to an old one. Maybe.... "that makes no sense?" :laugh4: He even rips apart my post in his quote instead of addressing the second part.
Anyway, I thought I had you set to ignore before, but apparantly I hadn't. I guess I will attend to it now then :)
It should be included just for the reason that it is a cool addition. Historical accuracy or not, it would make for a fun game (and it will be a "game" to be played, not some product that looks like a game and is designed to show historical accuracy).
Historical accuracy is fine, but gameplay comes first.
Bijo, then why not play with the nuclear bomber in ancient Rome?
I think the gameplay and historical accuracy are a must be.
lancelot
09-08-2007, 20:12
What he showed was that he stated something and not explain the reasons behind it. Whenever someone makes a statement the least he is to do is explain his reasoning to support it. So a simple phrase like "it makes no sense" is worthless. Can you still follow or is it too difficult? :laugh4:
I would have thought a post that contains such wonderful suggestions as 'invent a time machine to visit the past' did not really need any further explanation...guess I was wrong...
And Garcilaso de la Vega el Inca got the subtle point I was trying to raise...so there- is that enough explanation?
Divinus Arma
09-08-2007, 23:36
Seems possible and it would historically accurate.
Lord Winter
09-10-2007, 00:26
It would be nice to expand it so that you could force enemy held strarights in the game. Costly but effective.
I wonder, for example, if i attack, how the enemy will defend?
I hope they will have forts.
Omanes Alexandrapolites
09-10-2007, 20:18
I wouldn't mind seeing battles to take control of ports, that is if they are treated like M2:TW/R:TW cities. In these sorts of battles, ships could enter the harbour and unload any troops which they may be carrying. From there, these troops could simply hop of their ships and capture/raid/loot the places' riches. This method of naval conquest could be used as a risky way of bypassing wall defences. Of course, in this sort of attack, ships could fire cannon blasts at units and buildings, although I'm not quite sure if the original poster meant that sort of thing.
Divinus Arma
09-11-2007, 02:42
I wouldn't mind seeing battles to take control of ports, that is if they are treated like M2:TW/R:TW cities. In these sorts of battles, ships could enter the harbour and unload any troops which they may be carrying. From there, these troops could simply hop of their ships and capture/raid/loot the places' riches. This method of naval conquest could be used as a risky way of bypassing wall defences. Of course, in this sort of attack, ships could fire cannon blasts at units and buildings, although I'm not quite sure if the original poster meant that sort of thing.
An intriguing idea. And one that fits the CA goal of making non-settlement locations more strategically important and worth fighting over.
*Dreams of amphibiously landing a company of Continental Marines to take a british seabase.
CA, will you make my dream come true? PLEASE?!
I think the original poster made this suggestion.
Just include it already. It could give nice possibilities for gameplay.
I would expect the fact there will be real naval battles in TW to make the blockade of ports being completely reviewed. If we can actually fight the ships blocking the commercial trade between cities, why then those ships couldn't force the port defenses and take the city by sea?
That was why i posted this thread in the first place. I'm not very sure it'd add so much coding, cause sieges in TW are already very crowded with effects and units. So adding some sea & city fight wouldn't be a big deal now, would it?
Galapagos
09-11-2007, 13:13
You are like a bunch of dreamers.How many things we were expecting to have in Medieval 2 and we were disappointed.This game will make no exception.It will only have some new things but not so many.
Ja'chyra
09-11-2007, 16:59
You are like a bunch of dreamers.How many things we were expecting to have in Medieval 2 and we were disappointed.This game will make no exception.It will only have some new things but not so many.
No need to be offensive, or so negative, maybe the designers will listen and add some of the things that the players want, they have in the past.
Galapagos
09-11-2007, 18:20
No need to be offensive, or so negative, maybe the designers will listen and add some of the things that the players want, they have in the past.
I am not negative just that i want them to add many new things not just a few.The members here have many good ideas but i don't think CA will listen.
Elmar Bijlsma
09-19-2007, 14:53
Not even a question of CA listening (or not) but of resources. There is a limited amount of coding time going in to ETW. So it's got to be rationed. So stuff like this, though a cool thing, will typically fall by the wayside as there are things more essential to gameplay that needs the attention more.
So with that in mind I would have like to see this in the game, but not if it's going to cut into programming time for other, more essential stuff. I'd be properly P.O.-ed if a coder was taken off working on the AI and tasked to put this idea in.
Patricius
09-21-2007, 11:48
Yes!
Also you should all know that attacking a stone fort with a wooden ship is not usually a really good idea.
For that to work the ship has to be able to knock out the guns of the fort. The fort only has to hit the ship enough to sink it…forts don’t sink.
It is just my guess but I would have to say I think it is easier to hit a moving target from a stationary position than to hit a small stationary target from a moving platform.
To attack a fort you usually need bomb catches(sp?) and rockets to allow your ships to stand off enough not to be sunk. Also attacking on a dark night can work to your advantage a bit as a fort is bigger than a ship…
We will just have to wait and see what ship types and weapons we get…then see what we can do with them.
Wooden ships are very hard to sink. Perhaps it is because the energy transmits nicely along the hull and the wood simply floats. It could take a lot and still be above water in some form. Portions of the hulls would have copper coating and the like. A ship is not fixed in its place. Like with Pirates of the Carribean, a fort could be bombarded with a standard battle afterwards.
Galapagos
09-21-2007, 13:53
Not even a question of CA listening (or not) but of resources. There is a limited amount of coding time going in to ETW. So it's got to be rationed. So stuff like this, though a cool thing, will typically fall by the wayside as there are things more essential to gameplay that needs the attention more.
So with that in mind I would have like to see this in the game, but not if it's going to cut into programming time for other, more essential stuff. I'd be properly P.O.-ed if a coder was taken off working on the AI and tasked to put this idea in.
They could release the game later so they would have time to make a super game.
Kurulham
09-21-2007, 18:31
Wooden ships are very hard to sink. Perhaps it is because the energy transmits nicely along the hull and the wood simply floats. It could take a lot and still be above water in some form. Portions of the hulls would have copper coating and the like. A ship is not fixed in its place. Like with Pirates of the Carribean, a fort could be bombarded with a standard battle afterwards.
You don't need to sink a ship for it to be a "kill". Shoot away enough of her rigging and she's not going anywhere except under sweeps; you can pick her apart at your leisure with your guns, or come in and board her. Also, the splinters thrown out when a shot from a 32-pounder (typical for a shore battery during this period) hits two feet of oak are long, jagged, often barbed bits of horribleness; they'll kill a man quick as you like. Stone, on the other hand, doesn't send out fatal fragments when struck with roundshot, so batteries are significantly more difficult to damage with gunfire than ships. Finally, forts had one big advantage that was often decisive; they could heat their shot in furnaces. Wooden ships at this time were giant boxes of pitch-soaked wood caulked with pitch and straw (actually oakum but whatever) and stuffed with gunpowder; fire was a horror, and glowing-hot roundshot did a brilliant job of starting it. Once a ship started to burn there was very little to be done.
That said, even smaller ships could take on shore batteries, but they usually did so by landing a party of marines to take the battery and blow the magazine.
Still and all, I would absolutely love to see this sort of thing in the game. It all depends on how "naval" they want to make the game; if they play to the desires of folks like me, we'll see the ability to "cut out" enemy ships by night, island fortresses, landing marines to blow a battery, opposed landings... y'know, all the stuff that makes Patrick O'Brian and C.S. Forester so much fun! Not holding my breath, though; perhaps a mod, hmm....
Elmar Bijlsma
09-22-2007, 14:37
They could release the game later so they would have time to make a super game.
I so hope you are not an economics student.
Working on something costs money. You only work on stuff that is deemed to add sufficient value to the product as to be worth the investment. Overstuffing it with expensive features does not significantly boost sales.
Matt_Lane
09-23-2007, 12:48
Historically ships did take on land targets, The Royal Navel engaged Copenhagen with Rocket and Bomb Ships in 1801 and then in 1807. Neither of these are designed to destroy stone walls, the Rockets are more a psychological weapon whilst the Bomb Ships use mortars to lob shells over the defenses.
In terms of Gameplay I think its important to be able to involve navel power in land engagements. Britain had a small army that was often delivered to battle, supplied and supported by its large navy. In the American Revolution, Britain was unable to dominate areas away from the support and supply of the Royal Navy and naval bombardments took place during the battles for Savannah and Baltimore.
Lastly I'm not a software engineer but could not the coding for Land / Sea engagements be treated the same as the Sea / Sea battles, with the forts or cities acting as stationary 'ships' that could direct fire and take damage like the actual ships? I'm not sure how practical this would be but I'd be interested to hear peoples opinions.:yes:
Ozzman1O1
10-01-2007, 20:49
everyone knows the most amazing battles under this category where in the french-indian war,large amounts of bombordment and indian ambushes were relivant at that time,next to the alamo,wich im discusted no ones talking about...........:smg: :smg: :date: :soapbox: :surrender: :charge: :duel: :duel: :charge: :hmg: :hmg: :horn:
Hello,
Even if it's plain suicide to attack a coastal fort with a ship, it can prove to be worthwhile in the greater scheme (distraction).
Nothing prevents you to attack knights in M2TW with just peasants either, there can be uses.
Ozzman1O1
10-02-2007, 20:25
ummmmm............hi
Ozzman1O1
10-05-2007, 20:35
i stilll think the frnch indian war is perfact for this era
You know what, this will certainly be a very very very good idea, because ships using large guns on their decks did fire at targets inland too, and many times it so happened that the single guns on the ships were larger than any gun the fort might posses.....
If I'm not wrong, the American National Anthem was written by Francis Scott sitting in a ship, while it bombarded a fort near the shore...........
But sadly, I can tell you people this (seeing that I'm a programmer), thats it won't be all that simple for CA to do this.......to combine a naval and land battle accurately it'll take I believe quite a lot of extra work.......ofcourse a sort of workable thing can be done, but who wants workable things, its got to be good isn't it............
Defender
10-24-2007, 19:30
Hmm that sound's like a solid idea. Indeed it was done in that age, and in sense of programming it should be tricky but it could surely be done...
Maybe they can give ships an option to have troops disembarked.
You get to see a small cutscene in wich you see the ship unloading troops (a cutscene like the one you get if the general is killed or something) and as long as the ship is docked, it is treated as a tower. maybe they can use some of those mechanics.
Or they could use ship as you use towers, stationary but destroyable and above all lethal...
hellenes
10-25-2007, 02:10
It is a game, therefore historical accuracy is not required. If one wants history then one should read a history book, communicate with historians, or invent a time machine to visit the past, or do another thing to quench one's hunger for history.
A reasonable amount of historical (or general reality) accuracy can be in a game but deviation is necessary for the gameplay factor. I still wonder when the first game featuring ultimate historical accuracy and good fun gameplay will arrive... or has it already?
Tery Europa Barbarorum mod and you will revise your views on the topic...
Divinus Arma
10-25-2007, 03:07
Regarding the earlier post about adding value to the product:
It could certainly be argued that this feature, potentially being a MAJOR engine requirement, would prove to be excessive in cost in comparison against profit potential.
I would rebut that this series is in need of quite a bit of revolution rather than evolution in order to keep the core concept fresh and engaging. Sea warfare is an important addition to the series. However, this particular time period requires much in features in gameplay to avoid becoming bland quickly. It is true that many armies were similar in the period. Many ship were similar. And CA are addressing this with changes from diversity in units to diversity in tactics/formations. But I don't think formations as counter-tactics nor ship-alone combat will be enough to break the potential for monotony. Land-sea interactions are important enough tactically and strategically in the essence of the core concept, whilst also adding value to counter the potential for repetition. Reviews are important. Replayability is important.
In essence, this is needed to make the game complete.
Defender
10-26-2007, 07:33
There is a game that also lets you attack forts. Pirates of the Carribean has it. I know that game sucks, and faring your boat sucks even more. Also the fact that you could not destroy the fort sucked ass too. But still, if you felt suicidal you could attack a fort.
Not that it is RTS or anything, I am just trying to say that it is possible to do. If it is possible to do with this game engine, I don't know. I let other people do the hard programming ;)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.