Naval Invasions-back to RTW [Archive]

amritochates

03-10-2009, 06:27

Though I am probably not the first to notice this, I am the first to distinctly point this fact out.

Get ready for ETW's greatest feature so far:

NO NAVAL INVASIONS AT ANY DIFFICULTY LEVEL WITH ANY FACTIONS WHATSOEVER

Since no one bothers to actually read my post I shall encapsulate the analysis below into the simplest form possible:

the emphasis of my post is not on a more Agressive AI, what I am reffering to is the inability of the AI to transport units/stacks from one theatre of war or from the mainland to the islands or vice versa using naval transports.

Yes that wonderful feature from RTW is back. The much vaunted Campaign AI cannot/doesnot transport units by ship or conduct naval invasions.This leads to the following:

A. Players of Britain Total War rejoice!! no one foreign foot will ever set foot upon your native soil. You are safe for eternity or the next patch.

B.Since it cannot transport units, It tends to waste its money building up monster stacks in the Islands, for ex Martinique. Also since CA in its infinite wisdom decided to do away with the console we cannot aid the AI by transporting its stacks to wherever they are required.

C.Also it cannot reinforce units in the three campaign areas: what exists in each theatre of war at beginning of each game stays there till the end, same is the case for all units recruited in that theatre.
So even if the Spanish have 20 uber stacks in new spain(a mild exaggeration):beam: they will never be brought over to spain to defend her in her time of need.
So viewed rom the AI point of view each of the three theatres of war are in effect three different campaigns being fought at the strategic level that are united only at the global level by common utilisation of revenue.

Update:(courtesy NimitsTexan)
D.The AI is unable to acquire new colonies until and unless it utilises the diplomatic option of either buying or bartering a settlement from a faction that is previously established there.
As NimitsTexan so rightly points out that implies effectively that the player nation is the only one to establish colonies in India, unless they acquire settlements through diplomatic means.

I wish for once that CA would do the following:
a. Hire proper playtesters instead of whover they hired this time and the time before this extending all the way back to RTW and the save-load bug.
b.Not have the same old bugs crop up in every new release.

Now all those enamored of the Game may rejoice and enjoy this brand new feature at absolutely no extra cost whatsoever, courtesy CA.:2thumbsup:

Ps. I apologise to in advance to all Orgers in advance for any dissatisfaction they experience with ETW after reading my post. I am truly sorry.:shame:

PPs. In the end a slim ray of hope- since this feature has been encountered in previous titles and rectified one may hope that the same might occur.
Though it is also important to keep in mind the following facts as well:
a. That this is a brand new engine that probably has very little in common with the previous engine.
b. That this feature was only fixed in an expansion pack(RTW-BI) and the same might be true in this case as well.

Mailman653

03-10-2009, 06:41

This is interesting, so I can kick France out of North America and not worry about seeing a French fleet drop off two stacks on the East Coast.

NimitsTexan

03-10-2009, 06:51

It also plays out that the player nation is the only one to establish colonies in India (though I have considered selling some territory to France just to make things interesting).

Polemists

03-10-2009, 08:43

It also plays out that the player nation is the only one to establish colonies in India

At one point sweden sold me Goa, though maybe that was from a previous deal. Also I think the Dutch own Ceyon.

Well I guess this is a game feature, who knew.

Here's hoping for a patch to fix it :2thumbsup:

amritochates

03-10-2009, 08:52

Also I think the Dutch own Ceylon

I believe the United Provinces start out with Ceylon.

Wausser

03-10-2009, 08:54

Yes that's 100% true :whip:

Fisherking

03-10-2009, 09:09

This is not something that needs fixing!

If the AI buys some place far away and defends it, that is great.

This is not WWII!

Who in history ever launched a major amphibious assault half way around the world?

We will wind up with the shear idiocy of M2TW and no floating log being safe from invasion.

It is silly to want it! Mod it your self and don’t spoil the game for everyone else!

If you change it you are going to have every AI army on a ship on turn one heading for god knows where…and every turn afterward.

These knee jerk reactions have spoiled more in these games than they have ever fixed.

amritochates

03-10-2009, 09:23

Quit shouting !! your argument does not improve if it is given in Large Font.
Large Font is suitable for emphasis but to write a post in Large font is the internet equivalent of screaming in my face and regarded as equally rude behaviour. You are entitled to your opinions as misguided as they may be, but so am I.

This isn't simply a matter about naval invasions, but also about the AI transporting units/stacks from one theatre of war to another.To recapitulate what I posted in the other thread:

It is a major problem because now there are three theatres of war instead of a single unified camapaign map, that are connected only through naval fleets. So if the AI is incapable of transporting fleets it implies that for the GC the AI factions will be restricted to their respective theatres, incapable of reinforcing one theatre from the other.I doubt that you think it desirable that I can besiege and take over Paris,France while the AI retains 20 stacks in new France.

Also since the AI is ignorant of the fact that it cannot transport units, it tends treat Islands as normal provinces building up large stacks that then do nothing for the remainder of the campaign except suck up army upkeep and will only come into play If and whwn the player decides to invade.

Dead Guy

03-10-2009, 09:27

The ignoring it solution isn't any better in my opinion. How does knowing this spoil the game for everyone? It was a fact before someone pointed it out.

This is absolutely something that needs fixing. Proper fixing, not some half assed "now the AI drops troops off everywhere all the time" fixing. I cannot believe that there are only two options, no naval invasions or this is sparta naval invasions. It ruins the game for a lot of factions, and removes many elements of warfare.

knoddy

03-10-2009, 09:33

this is not entirely true as i stated in the other thread the AI can and DOES move troops into india through Persia.

and i have a foot in both sides, i would like to see some more aggression and perhaps naval invasions BUT i dont want the sheer stupidity that was the M2 patch that made provinces launch naval invasions across the map when they were surrounded by rebels.

IF this is implemented it should be based on priorities. the ai should only do it if its surrounding borders are safe and not at war with its neighbours and it SHOULDNT BE OVER THE TOP.

my 2 cents

Polemists

03-10-2009, 09:36

While I don't think the Ai could stop you from invading Paris even if it had 20 stacks to spare and put them on a ship do to the 6-8 turns it would take to get there. I do see a point behind this.

There should not be massive invasions no. However the current AI's main problem is not that, after all Sweden, Russia, prussia and austria all do quite well as to Ottomans.

However Spain, England and France rely on other provinces to be strong. Even the UP.

To say there are major naval invasions is silly, but to say that the carribean should not turn into the major warzone it was during this time frame is equally silly.

Spain, England, and France should be conquering each other and using those assets to take on each other in the old world, as was the history. There is no issue with spain training 5 stacks in Cuba, do to a rebellion or some such. That happens.

It would also be quiet silly to see New France save Paris, that would be similiar to the 13 Colonies saving London.

What needs to happen is the AI needs to properly allocate resources better. This is not to say 1-2 stacks a turn need to be sent from the New World, but they need to be able to conquer and assault each other in the new world more easily. Further Paris and Spain either need more holdings or more forts, it's that simple. They should not be as easy to take as they presently are.

Again this is just my opinion.

I do think that the old world should be able to send reinforcements to the new world though. As was done in history. England sent 2 regiments to contain America before the outbreak of 1776. France, Spain and England have difficulty fighting the Pueblo, and other local minor factions and it would make sense for them to send a army here or there. Not every turn but on occassion.

Now I have no desire to see it ramped up to MTW2 levels, where Siclily is losing 5000 troops a turn because it has some divine mandate to take out Tunis.

Though the AI being able to reinforce itself overseas does make sense. Though I still feel it should only be old world to new, other way around.

While yes it could train 8 stacks in the colonies and invade Spain..it just seems silly.

Fisherking

03-10-2009, 09:38

@ amritochates

I took the cue form you…and I didn’t want it to be missed. As you can see I feel strongly about it. I was not trying to be rude.

Transporting armies by sea is risky! There is a lot at stake if they get sunk.

If it were the age of discovery and factions were not trying to expand insanely then I might have a problem with it. But small armies.

The AI will reinforce its overseas holdings but as I said sea invasions are risky.

We have had all the games before with mad conquers as every AI faction. This is a different age.

You are going to wind up with stupid wars and conquests if you make the AI that aggressive.

It is a personal preference, and not one everyone else should have to live with.

AussieGiant

03-10-2009, 09:58

Ok, so now there has been a few moment for everyone to pull their underpants back down to normal heights, lets just take a moment.

I'm unaware of any large military troop moment by any major power in this time period. Mostly it was through colonisation that enabled troops to be recruited in a particular theatre of operations. So I'm not sure it's appropriate for the AI to start moving full stacks from Europe to the America's or India.

I could be wrong but can someone please verify? This could therefore be a historical move by CA.

Having said that, in a particular theatre the AI must be able to move troops off islands and get them to other parts of the IN theatre conflict. This is similar to the RTW issue first mentioned.

This should be resolved if it is the case.

Hollerbach

03-10-2009, 10:07

France and England fought like cats and dogs on the east coast of present day US/Canada. Some of the troops would have been European colonists, and both sides allied with native groups, but the vast majority of troops were shipped over from Europe. In any case, it appears from all reports that the AI won't even ship troops to Britain from mainland Europe in order to invade.

I can't see how even the most myopic fanboy could suggest that this is a 'feature' of 'personal preference'. Clearly the AI is not performing a basic function that it would be expected to be able to do, leading to easy exploits.

amritochates

03-10-2009, 10:09

The only part of my post in large font is my singular point of emphasis, for everything else I have either used BOLD or Italics still that is beyond the point.

Now I shall say this for the last time, the emphasis of my post is not on a more Agressive AI, what I am reffering to is the inability of the AI to transport units/stacks from one theatre of war or from the mainland to the islands or vice versa using naval transports.

And if Transporting armies by sea is risky! where do you think the British Armies during the American War of Independence came from, :idea2: did Dr.Who transport them over one by one in his Tardis??

The fact is in this age more so than others previous to it sea trade including bulk goods was more important than ever. And the first global war the seven-years war (1754 to 1763) was fought simultaneously in multiple theatres during this very period-
North America
Caribbean
Indian Sub-continent
Europe

All of which would have been impossible if sea trade/transport had not improved and become reliable to the point that the the british would deploy several thousand german mercenaries during the american war of indepence.

Your point about naval invasions is true to a certain degree but my post is not only about naval invasions but is a more holistic query combining elements of the Lack of Naval Invasions and the above highlighted point with the emphasis going to the latter.

AussieGiant

03-10-2009, 10:34

Well it does seem at this point that we have an issue with the AI. It must be able to move troops from theatre to theatre and also within a particular theatre. I've noticed in my British GC that France has large stacks just sitting on small islands in the Caribbean.

Having said that I've seen more than a few French fleets moving west from the Channel and heading omminously out to sea. I assume they will pop up in the America's soon...if they have troops on them then the issue seems less than clear.

amritochates, Fisherking, I think you two have reached a respectable stand off and we can continue on as normal. :balloon2::egypt:

-edit-

amritochates, did you pop this in the official Org bug thread?

JAG

03-10-2009, 10:42

Fisherking - you have got it all wrong. The point about this period is that armies, troops and resources were HEAVILY transported around the globe, indeed it is precisely why economies and conflict escilated to unprecidented levels.

Let me put it this way, in the American revolution, how do you think the British got their reinforcements to the new world to combat the ever increasing insurgency? Magic? .. Go look at some history books, Bunker Hill will probably be a good starting point.

This game is supposed to be about reality, hell it is the reason you give in other threads to appease the stupid AI and easy nature of the game, but this problem is anything but realistic. However more than this, the game is meant to be about the global aspect, the fighting from one continent to another - if there is no troop transportation, this is defunkt. I hope it gets fixed.

amritochates

03-10-2009, 10:43

Having said that I've seen more than a few French fleets moving west from the Channel and heading omminously out to sea. I assume they will pop up in the America's soon...if they have troops on them then the issue seems less than clear.

Do you have someone in that area, agents or units that could verify this??Do try and verify that any stack/unit that exists did not move from another area or was hidden in an forested region and actually did land with the fleet.

Screenshots no matter how crappy the resolution will be greatly appreciated.

Even cameraphone shots will be better than nothing.

Kulgan

03-10-2009, 10:45

Namarie22

03-10-2009, 10:47

So, how did soldiers get shipped around the world in the 18th century? I think boats were probarly a rather important part in the whole operation of shipping men and things around.. And yes, the AI not doing it in E:TW removes the risk of invasion once you control regions or areas, which I for one find ludicrous.

Fisherking

03-10-2009, 10:58

I agree that Sea Transport should be something the AI looks at. I think it does, but it may not be its highest priority.

I think the AI should look at protecting and reinforcing its controlled regions. I don’t think it should be launching massive sea invasions to every floating log at sea…which we had in the last game.

I think from your example the AI need some sort of priority system for the creation of its units more than it need a more aggressive naval posture.

Spamming huge armies in isolated locations seems a much larger problem in need of a fix than not attacking every where on the globe.

Transporting Fleets the AI use should be strong enough to reasonably guarantee its arrival…likely one ship for each land unit and mostly 3rd Rates with very few light ships. Both represent a large financial investment and risking that loss should be considered.

The unintended consequences of making the AI too aggressive it likely to turn everything upside-down.

There shouldn’t be a mad dash to conquer India or Iceland etc, etc. Everywhere is occupied and war should have consequences.

While you are not advocating a more aggressive AI, that is what it will most likely require to get the system you are seeking.

It is not something that should get a quick fix. Any thing needs a deeper look before the “do something quick” thing takes hold.

Zaleukos

03-10-2009, 11:04

This is correct. There was no such thing as massive invasions, givven a few exceptions.

- The invasion of England by spain's ' grande armada ' which was sunk by the weather and the english fleet ( francis drake etc )
- The invasion in the 13 colonies after declaring independence by england
- Napoleon was about to invade England in 1804 ( camp de boulougne ) but then he had to move his troops to austria to prevent a coalition between austria and russia ( battle of austerlitz )

While not exactly D-Day scale operations you also have, among others:

- the glorious revolution of 1688 (William the third brought a Dutch army along)
- the Spanish invasion of Ireland in support of the O'Neill rebellion of 1604
- Pretty much any English operations in continental Europe (or is it only a naval invasion if it goes from Europe to Britain?:p) from the failed intervention in the Dutch war of independence to the Napoleonic wars...

I think any of these are of at least the same scale as the planned armada invasion (12000 soldiers under the duke of Parma IIRC). Vastly improved naval transport is a defining feature of the period.

I've had serious naval invasions conducted against me in Rome btw (in the same predictable order as in M2 whoever holds Greece goes for Rhodos, and whoever holds Rhodos goes for Halicarnassus in Turkey), but I guess that was only added in a patch.

Polemists

03-10-2009, 11:20

While i'm as much for a patch as the next guy I fear the later

That we'd end up seeing armies from Iceland save denmark, and armies from Souther Lousiana save Paris.

Implementing it is fine but it does need to be more of a one way naval system. Not Quebec suddenly invading the world (Who gets gigantic navies anyway)

Malkut

03-10-2009, 11:21

Somehow, after I went to war with France in my UK game, the Colonies ended up with Newfoundland and the Leeward Islands.

Still trying to figure that out.

Fisherking

03-10-2009, 11:22

This is correct. There was no such thing as massive invasions, givven a few exceptions.

- The invasion of England by spain's ' grande armada ' which was sunk by the weather and the english fleet ( francis drake etc )
- The invasion in the 13 colonies after declaring independence by england
- Napoleon was about to invade England in 1804 ( camp de boulougne ) but then he had to move his troops to austria to prevent a coalition between austria and russia ( battle of austerlitz )

These 3 examples are the only ones I can really recall myself, there is about 300 years between the first and the latter and only one was actually semi-succesfull.

Most battles fought overseas were troops recruited regionally or shipped in over time in small numbers.

Givven these facts I find it logical we don't see massive invasions. Although an entire lack of movement by fleets is also not correct offcourse.

Patch us!

I agree that it should be a considered option for the AI but it needs to be something not lightly undertaken!

The Armada failed and had lasting consequences. Calculated Risk!

The British attempted to reinforce a rebellious region in the 13 Colonies, not launch a major invasion of another nation. Transport to its own region!

Napoleon was thwarted by the British Fleet who blockaded his ports. He was not foolish enough to risk his troops at sea against a superior force. Didn’t take the risk!

As I said, something needs to be done about the AI spamming troops in isolated places and not using them. It should also look at reinforcing threatened areas by sea. It should not be looking to invade every island and country on the seashore.

Polemists

03-10-2009, 11:31

Somehow, after I went to war with France in my UK game, the Colonies ended up with Newfoundland and the Leeward Islands.

Still trying to figure that out.

The Ai is pretty region trade happy in certain instances. Newfoundland is often a country france is eager to give away. Probably was a AI to AI trade.

Belid Hagen

03-10-2009, 13:07

It's quite obvious that this is a bug. As Maratha, once i had removed the protugese from goa, and the dutch from Ceylon I never once in the 75 remaining turns of the short campaign did ANYONE try invading india. I ended up in russia and the middle east, and controling the entire carribean - and i was trying my best to go as slow as possible.

Polemists

03-10-2009, 13:16

Belid Hagen

03-10-2009, 13:18

India is usually just a duke out between Mylore, Mughals, and Martha's, all of whom get pretty large armies as the game goes on. Along with Persia.

I got Goa from Sweden, so nations will trade other nations away when they want.

oh yes, sure they will. but when I control all of india, what do you think the chances are that ill sell any part of it to the europeans?

oh, and BTW, can we please get a patch to stop all the trade spam. I got requests to buy my regions from half the major nations EVERY SINGLE TURN.

Sir Beane

03-10-2009, 13:26

Just a small announcement before I begin. Please don't size text up for emphasis, people will read it anyway. It just ends up making your post read like an attempt at a Newspaper or a post by some kind of raving madman :laugh4:. It seems to have stopped now, but keep it in mind in the future please.

I think this is probably a bug. While it may be true that naval invasions were really undertaken, moving troops by the sea was frequently done.

No naval invasions mean that India and America will never switch hands. Austria could grow huge and own half the ports in Europe and it will never make any attempt at all at grabbing some colonial riches. Is this realistic?

It also means that Britain is compeltely invulnerable to France and other European powers, which is silly.

However, you shouldn't let this ruin your game. I know full well this is a problem and I still think that the game is fantastic. I don't see why someone poiting it out somehow makes it worse. If you hadn't notice that this was a bug then did it really effect your enjoyment of the game that much?

AussieGiant

03-10-2009, 14:53

Having now brushed out my old uni books on the period, there are no significant massed seaborne invasions in this time period.

Main field armies of the period numbered around 20 000 plus soliders, and obviously some of the big battles involved well over 50 000 per side in some instances...now gentlemen do some math.

How many ships do you think you would need to transport any significant number of soliders, lets say 20 000?

The Victory had a crew of 900 men or so...it was THE most expensive ship of it's day. It was the equivalent of building an aircraft carrier today. Now it wasn't designed to move troops, but guess what? There were no massive troop carrier ships capable of moving large number of soldiers in the 1700's.

SO, my point now is firming. The concept and cost of moving a competitive field army from one part of the world to another was impractical and economically a non-starter.

Throw in the idea that these same fleet of ships, that would transport no more than a few thousand soliders at a time, could in fact transport spice, gold and other valuables, then hey...you have yourself a very strong counter point.

The reality was that over time constant shipping could move troops in small but significant numbers. When I mean over time I mean years, not months or even a half year.

So I'll stick with my initial comment. It's certainly not a game breaker as in inter-theatre issue as at that period of time no one was capable of doing it. However in-theatre ships must be able to move troops about, but in fact probably have them capped to avoid the ability to move stacks of troops around.

batemonkey

03-10-2009, 14:56

Thing is at the moment if you don't control the British they will not attack India, nor will the french.

This is just plan wrong.

Fisherking

03-10-2009, 15:30

Please
It is extremely unhelpful if every thing the players don’t like is called a BUG! Please don’t use the term if there is any other explanation.
Now!

There is certainly nothing wrong if a couple of factions some times launch sea invasions.

All should use sea movement to reinforce over seas possessions if they are threatened.

But making EVERY FACTION launch a sea invasion of anything that look remotely like land is going to SPOIL THE GAME.

If a couple or three AI personalities were tuned up to launch a sea invasion of some particularly promising area, fine. But they should do it with full fleets or at least one ship for every unit they send.

But turning it into the mess that was M2TW with everyone going after every island was totally lunatic.

If it cannot be fine tuned then it should be left alone.

There have been comparatively few successful sea invasions in history. European control of India did not come about form a full scale invasion. They gained a foot hold with trade first and built up over time.

Every Continental Army that tried to intervene in Ireland lost. The last time England was successfully invaded was in 1066. There were two invasions that year but only the second succeeded, mostly because of lack of time between the two.

They should not be frequent occurrences. What would be a feature worth having is sea intervention on behalf of an ally. But even this should not be a frequent occurrence.

The naval AI attacks ports and intervenes on tread routs. If it used troops to raid coastal areas and capture an island, just one or two in a game, that would be more along real lines.

Ill considered changes should not be made by the designers. All should be well thought out and not a knee jerk reaction to a few vocal critics.

Everyone has to live with the result and there is no going back to earlier versions now that it is using Steam.

Trapped in Samsara

03-10-2009, 15:34

Hi

People have been asking whether there were any major sea invasions during the ETW period. What about Napoleon's invasion (initially of Malta and) of Egypt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Egypt_(1798)

I'm afraid the horrors of RTW and M2TW are being repeated. Shame on CA-SAGA. And on the fanboys who don't hold them to account when they show contempt (e.g., no play testing) for their paying customers.

Regards
VGB

Galain_Ironhide

03-10-2009, 15:51

Don't own the game, don't intend on owning for a while yet either.

But as far as the AI sitting idly not moving troops around - historical or not, sounds a bit disappointing and boring to me. I would love to see massive armada's invading enemy territory.

This is Total War is it not?

Wandarah

03-10-2009, 15:59

Galain_Ironhide

03-10-2009, 16:08

Arguing about the validity of 'large invasions' is entirely redundant if the AI never launches *any* seabourne invasions in the first place.

Exactly :yes:

Fisherking

03-10-2009, 16:12

Arguing about the validity of 'large invasions' is entirely redundant if the AI never launches *any* seabourne invasions in the first place.

Same bug that was in RTW - and was addressed in 1.5 patch, no?

That was not a fix! It became a problem in its self.

The AI transports troops and lands them. If it doesn’t launch sea invasions that is a bit different.

For what ever reason it doesn’t see it as the best use of its forces.

Cranking up the aggressiveness of the AI is not the best idea.

Dogfish

03-10-2009, 16:13

Gee, I wonder how Britain got all those troops to America for the Revolutionary War... or why Britain was concerned about an invasion by France and kept a naval defense close to home as a deterrent?

Just because no major ones occurred in this era doesn't mean the threat and potentiality wasn't there. If I leave no military units on or around England, the AI should be smart enough to at least attempt to load a unit of pikemen onto a sloop and sail across the channel.

amritochates

03-10-2009, 16:23

For the love of God!!!!

I said that the much vaunted Campaign AI cannot/doesnot transport units by ship or conduct naval invasions.

Note the priority, is it on naval invasions?? -NO

Is it concerned at the fact that the AI doesnot move any units whatsoever by naval transport whether intra-theatre or between theatres, that at the moment the AI cannot move units to and from islands or anywhere else whereever units need to be transported by naval means?? -YES

Is this a bug?? -Yes. The fact that certain provinces ex. Sardinia, Malta, Cyprus, Hispainola currently cannot be reached or acquired by the AI except through diplomatic means is most definately a bug.

Finally Fisherking, I don't know what version of M2TW you have been playing, but I have played several VH\H campaigns on DLV and I have never seen the type of spammed invasions that you so vividly describe.

markaoliver

03-10-2009, 16:25

Just slight correction. The wonderful bug that messed up the main RTW campaign was not fixed with the BI expansion it was CAUSED by the BI expansion. Like the dead kings aged 56 years bug caused by Viking Invasion.

Now due to CA efficiency and the tea lady doubling up as QA down at CA towers you get game breaking bugs straight out of the box instead of having to wait for an expansion ...

Lord of the Isles

03-10-2009, 16:35

I can see the points being made on both sides. There were very few large scale movements of troops by sea during the period in question. Napoleon's invasion of Egypt an exception and a number of British expeditions perhaps also (v USA, in India and against Napoleon in the Peninsular War and later up till 1815). These things were technically possible but very expensive and risky, so rare. Doing it over time made it a little easier, as AussieGiant has noted.

Perhaps commoner was sending out a smaller force than a full scale European army of the time and either beating larger numbers of locals by technical superiority, or by bribing/recruiting locals to pad out your forces. Or allying with one local faction against another: divide & conquer.

Personally, I'd just like a level-ish playing field. If the AI finds it too difficult to conduct overseas joint naval/army campaigns, make it harder for the Human player. One easy fix would be to restrict the number of units per ship type. Another to have a % of troops die every season while at sea, for all but the shortest of journeys (but see reinforcements discussion below). Note btw that the typical crew sizes for ships of the time are different from what a ship could be adapted to carry at a push - you could squeeze quite a lot of troops onto ships by making them put up with cramped conditions for a few weeks or months. That's the sort of time period of within-theatre operations - for movement between theatres the times scales may get longer I admit.

One other gameplay issue that impacts here is replenishment of armies in the field. I like the new system in theory for it eases micromanagement but it makes it far too easy to operate abroad. I can end a battle in India with an army of decimated regular line units and two seasons later they are all brand new up-to-full-strength units. Add in the ease of recruiting medium quality troops like Sepoys and East India Company ones from local barracks (land in India, conquer Gujarat, hey-presto you can begin churning out from that troop producing building next turn) and it is all too easy.

The AI building up large garrisons on islands should be addressed separately from the naval invasions issue I think. We all agree it is bad.

Fisherking

03-10-2009, 16:36

There is a difference in the AI being able to do something and making it the number one priority that it do one thing.

If you want to see the same thing in every campaign then that is what you will get.

The AI transports troops, though it may lack logic in some of its moves. The spamming of large numbers of troops on tiny islands seems of more concern that it is wasting its resources.

Like I have been saying. If a few of the AI personalities launch sea invasions, and some French and British ones should have that, then that is great!

But not every faction every game, where you know that the Barbary states are going after Iceland and the UP is going to invade Newfoundland. Then it is just as bad as Portugal always going for Ireland. It may be funny the first time, but every time you play the game…then it too is a bug.

If it can not be made to be more selective of its choices in using naval power then it should just be left as it is and not have the same events predictably happen in every game.

AussieGiant

03-10-2009, 16:44

I certainly think there should be some level of invasion and movment of troops using naval resources.

However it should not be too aggresively implemented. Moving the equivelent of a 50 000 troop army from England to the US theatre or India is entirely unrealistic and was essentially impossible to afford.

There should be some type of balance.

Bob the Insane

03-10-2009, 16:44

The concern here is that the game is not historic, but rather like EU has a historical start and historical weighting but all bets are off for what if could happen once you start...

So Austria could become a colonial power, Britain could be invaided by France, etc... I think the point is that the game should allow for that. Maybe it should be tuned to historical expansion and discouraged from chaoctic action, but all should be possible. Otherwise how can the AI surprize you?

Is it feasible for Prussia to send a large army to India? Well if Alexander managed it...

Here is another absraction that hurts the game i think, the fact that you can place a full stack of troops and a stack of boats whether it is one boat of many. But that is a different subject really.

Fisherking

03-10-2009, 16:55

I don’t disagree that is should not be able to do it.

By all means we all like surprises.

It has just meant in the last couple of games that everyone invades everything, and I don’t want to see that mistake repeated.

I don’t care so much about the Historical Accuracy as I care about some faction spamming 20 units, putting them on a galley and heading for “pick a spot”.

It needs delicate handling to work and not the shotgun approach we have had in past titles.

I think some of the past titles bug fixes where much worse than the original BUGS!

markaoliver

03-10-2009, 17:06

Fitting 1000 men on a sloop has been with us since RTW. To say that its unrealistic in defense of this bug is really quite absurd. Its also absurd that it takes a ship three years to get from Prussia to Goa, but some things have to be taken with a pinch of salt for gameplay reasons.

The fact of the matter is that seaborne movement of troops is BROKEN!

Never mind large scale seaborne assults. Continental Europe need never worry about interference from the UK. Goodbye the defence of Hanover, the Peninsular War, Waterloo etc etc etc.

Also the UK will never be threatened. Just because Boney did'nt manage to invade Britain was'nt for want of trying. Britain also tried to invade Argentina in this period.

This is quite simply an out and out bug that should have been spotted, just like it should have been noticed when BI was released. These French stacks marching up and down Martinique are exactly the same as the Brutii and Scipii stacks marching up and down Italy with nowhere to go back in 2005.

Never mind that noone even goes to India unless player controlled.

It beggars belief how this was not picked up in testing. Sorry, what testing. we should have expected it. Every single CA release since Shogun and its expansion has arrived with major game breakers out of the box. Never mind the over-hyping of the AI and the Diplomacy which have supposedly been re-written so many times.

I will give an exception to Kingdoms and Alexander. Still 2 out of 8 ain't bad eh?

Greyblades

03-10-2009, 17:14

I dont realy see what all the fuss is about, in my game the ai can do landings just fine. If they cant then why the heck is the mathara confederacy controling newfoundland and gibralter in my british campaign?

Sir Beane

03-10-2009, 17:18

Greyblades

03-10-2009, 17:20

I can't realy imagine the Thirteen colonies giving up Newfoundland, and why would spain give up its last foothold in the Iberian peninsula?

AussieGiant

03-10-2009, 17:23

It certainly need to be addressed that is for sure.

markaoliver

03-10-2009, 17:24

It could be province swaps. The AI seems pretty keen to trade provinces sometimes.

When BI came out some of us spent a while with the Fog Of War disabled and proved that no-one was getting on a boat. Have we got the same capability in ETW?

Can anyone reply to this thread and say hand on heart that they have seen the AI move any troops or agents by boat?

Sir Beane

03-10-2009, 17:25

I can't realy imagine the Thirteen colonies giving up Newfoundland, and why would spain give up its last foothold in the Iberian peninsula?

That might be the case, but until someone can produce a screenshot showing troops on an A.I boat I'm doubtful that naval invasions occur.

Playing as Britain my Empire is entirely undefended, just as an experiment. To attack me though an enemy would have to go via the sea, because I own all of America and India. I haven't once been attacked, despite declaring war on every other faction in the game.

Fisherking

03-10-2009, 17:36

The AI at least in some situations is moving troops by sea.

If they are not launching sea invasions at all, or can’t…then some, SOME should be made to have it as a higher priority.

Every faction in the game should not be looking to snatch every island in the world or send massive armies to India.
____________________________________________________________

Let's start form scratch....

What I see is not just a naval problem. It is resource management.

AI resource management and some sort of threat analyses should be put in place, so the AI doesn’t spam units in isolated areas and redistributes its forces based on thread or intentions, by the most expedient means. This will be by sea in most cases, of course.

It should examine resources (units & fleet) to see if any may be used to aid in its allies wars.

They should manage their territories and decide on a military posture toward their neighbors.

If that posture changes due to war or peace, then the AI should redistribute its forces to match its perceived threats.

Does anyone see it as some other problem?

Trapped in Samsara

03-10-2009, 17:53

Hi

@Fisherking
I think that's a very decent analysis of what the root problem might be. But, of course, until someone from CA-SEGA makes an authoritative statement about this issue it remains speculation. And (of course) first of all they would have to acknowledge that there is indeed a problem. The likelihood of the latter is seriously diminished by people in this forum arguing their case for them, and giving them a fig leaf to hide behind, by denying that this is a serious issue.

Regards
Victor

TheArsenal

03-10-2009, 19:37

I can't realy imagine the Thirteen colonies giving up Newfoundland, and why would spain give up its last foothold in the Iberian peninsula?

In my current game playing as the United Provinces, I finally built an army and navy to move in to take French Guina from the Spanish. Too late. It was already taken by England. England and Spain are currently at war, so I can't imagine it was an AI to AI trade.

TheArsenal

03-10-2009, 19:40

In my current game playing as the United Provinces, I finally built an army and navy to move in to take French Guina from the Spanish. Too late. It was already taken by England. England and Spain are currently at war, so I can't imagine it was an AI to AI trade.

Correction: I meant French not Spanish.

Marquis of Roland

03-10-2009, 19:50

I think there is a small point missing here, is that while you might not want every nation sending invasion fleets everywhere, there are some nations that will be crippled without it (duh, Great Britain). Also without it the India theatre is basically a separate campaign from the rest of the world. So definitely, if there is a bug that prevents the AI from utilizing seaborne invasion at all, then it is something that needs to be fixed.

Perhaps if the AI got missions periodically as the player does, some form of limited control can be exercised over picking relevant targets to invade. Or maybe if each province got assigned a hidden priority value, and each province's value would be different for each faction. I don't know if they already do this for the game.

I wouldn't mind France sending 10 stacks to America, as long as they go back to Paris if it is being threatened (which is pretty much all the time).

Sorry I think some of these were addressed while I was still typing lol (at work).

Fisherking

03-10-2009, 20:17

@ Marquis of Roland

I thought I had said that the British and French needed it, but I guess that was another thread…:laugh4:

As I said, I think it goes beyond just sea movement.

The whole issue needs addressed and not just one symptom. Other wise you just add to the problems.

IsItStillThere

03-10-2009, 23:55

This is a familiar problem...

M2TW didn't have seaborne invasions by the AI until after the first or second patch.

Ordani

03-11-2009, 01:33

Though I am probably not the first to notice this, I am the first to distinctly point this fact out.

Get ready for ETW's greatest feature so far:

NO NAVAL INVASIONS AT ANY DIFFICULTY LEVEL WITH ANY FACTIONS WHATSOEVER

That explains a lot, and trivializes a number of campaigns. I'd notice the AI was never reinforcing a number of isolated areas in the Americas and never saw any other European power in India, but assumed it was a sea-lane control issue. Thinking back I've never seen an AI fleet with an army attached to it. I have seen Sweden repeatedly attack the port of London but never did Britain or Sweden ever send troops at each other. I've also seen the AI destroy pirate fleets but never attacked either Pirate or Barbary strongholds.

With UP in particular I lived in constant fear of a Spanish invasion fleet in the Caribbean that never materialized, in fact the majority of other fleets I saw were nothing but galleons.

I can't believe such an obvious bug of this magnitude completely slipped through playtesting; in fact I'm surprised they didn't have sandboxes set up specifically to test how the AI conducted seaborne operations given the world is defined by sea lanes.