Naval battles in RTW

[Voigtkampf]

I saw Master and Commander the other day and, without wanting to discuss the film itself, I thought of R:TW and naval battles and decided to start this poll. So far, if I have my facts straight, the designers called no shots on how this segment is going to look, meaning that it will probably be something like it's in M:TW.

Hopefully not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

I know we can't expect no Sea Dogs or Pirates of Caribbean (wouldn't hurt, though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ), but a more elaborate sea battles and alike - blockades, which are supposed to be introduced - than in M:TW is one of my many wishes. IMHO, the R:TW will become one of the greatest games of all times, so it why not make it "total" in every aspect?

[spmetla]

It'd definately be some of the slowest combat around but it'd appeal to some of us. For people that don't want they could just autosolve.

[Teutonic Knight]

You know what I think?


I think this poll is irrelevant because the devs have already decided it's going to be an abstract battle just like it was in MTW...

[Nowake]

Abstract is the better option, but with more variables taken into account.

[Paxx]

I would love to see and command live naval battles. That's the point isn't it? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Dec. 09 2003,17:01)]You know what I think?


I think this poll is irrelevant because the devs have already decided it's going to be an abstract battle just like it was in MTW...
That for a fact? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif I haven't seen it in the official FAQ...

oh...


I just jumped over to official site.

Quote[/b] ]Q. How important is Naval units in RTW. How do you get your men across the Mediterranean Sea, with out walking.

A: NAval combat is abstracted in Rome: Total War. We've chosen to concentrate on the land battles of the period and make those as insanely great as possible. However, naval units do exist and can be used to convoy troops across stretches of water.


The last time I checked the FAQ out it said "naval battles abstract for now", and now... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

Oh, well...Can't have everything... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

But it could have been a great addition to a great game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[chilling]

I prefer the abstract method. I can't see chasing a couple of ships about with your couple of ships being much fun.

I'd like to see the odd pirate ship being incorporated like rebel uprisings. Also being able to enlist the help of privateers i.e mercenary ships. There are many times when you could do with clearing the sea lanes, but don't want to go to war with all the factions that have ships. Privateers would give you an option.

[Dead Moroz]

I vote for full naval battles. Because the way it autoresolve in MTW is something strange for me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif I believe many naval battles that I lose in the game I could win playing myself. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Moreover I think massive naval battles will be the same fun as common land ones.

I know that devs have allready decided to make naval battles automatic. But I hope we have chance to get real-style nav battles in RTW expansion.

[Antalis::]

Why don´t they make it so that you could desiced if you want to fight it abstract or not.

I voted for real battles.

[Sir Moody]

well its a nice thought but abstract battles are a better method - Naval battles of the Rome period were not the Flashy battles of the Napoleonic they were particulary gritty - its would be VERY hard to impliment the kinds of battles fought at see with Ramming - Boarding - Fire and produce a quality land battle - the Sea is a whole game in its own right and would delay things too much

[Paxx]

indeed ramming and boarding is a problem... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Antalis::]

Why are you so scared that CA has to do more things for this game?
Its theire job to give us the best game ever
Nothing less and nothing more.
If they would need two or three months more for such a wonderful sytem I can live with it.

So they should use theire creativity and make it like the battlefield they have already made, what´s the problem with such a battlesystem?

Sorry I can´t believe that they have not the time to make such a naval battle system: Maybe they release it with a patch.
But anyway.

Naval warfare was sometimes very important: Acctium, Killikian pirates, and if you want to add Greeks then you have to recognise that theire hole culture (also of the Phönizians (= also Carthago)) was naval based.

And don´t forget the upcomming mods: Maybe someone wants to make a mod based on the rivalry beetween Spain and England under Phillip II: The Armada: Should this mod has only an automatic naval warfare system?

Or what if you want to make a 17.th mod?

What if you want to add Turks, what about Pirates of the Carebean mods, what about the spanish siver fleets and so on.

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Antalis:: @ Dec. 10 2003,09:08)]Why are you so scared that CA has to do more things for this game?
Its there job to give us the best game ever.
Nothing less and nothing more.
If they will need two or three months more for such a wonderful sytem I can live with it. Ramming and boarding would hardly be the true problem after all the delicious and difficult stuff they are pulling off
Right said Fred http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Actually, perhaps people are afraid of asking too much... Maybe they are afraid the dev's will say "ah, to hell with you, you pushy little twerps, now you won't get R:TW at all and get to go to bad without supper"... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Or whatever...

I hoped for some more "serious" implementation of naval warfare, but I'll guess we'll all have to live without it.
Ramming and boarding would hardly be the true problem after all the delicious and difficult stuff they are pulling off with R:TW, and besides that, on the ships back than were also catapults and archers sometimes; hell, M:TW also gives you ships without cannons for a longer period of game And we would have another awesome aspect of the game we could mod to our hearts extent http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Their explanations are reasonable, though; they want to concentrate on the land battles and make them unforgetable...

But I guess they'll have to make better naval combat for the next TW game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]If they would need two or three months more for such a wonderful sytem I can live with it.


think another 1 to 3 YEARS naval comabt sims are out and Naval comabat has very little in common with LandCombat so would require a massive amount of work - yes it would create a very nice immersive game but its not the be all and end all id much prefer a polished Land war game rather than a game that tries to be too many things at once - other games that try that often fail

and before someone says something along the lines of "how hard could it be?" one a new syste mfor artillary would need to be developed as sea based artillary is dependant on the waves - how fast the ship is moving - the wind - the crew - the target - the distance
movement of the ships would require some kind of Wind system which would be useless on the Land so would be for sea battles only as well as a system for handling the rowers - ramming would be a major problem and boarding even more so face it Sea battles is worthy of its own Game not as a addon into a Land war game and as such would take as long to develop - CA doesnt have the money time or Manpower to add it in and get the game out before going broke - maybe as an addon pack after the main game is out but not as part of the final product

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] ]think another 1 to 3 YEARS naval comabt sims are out
NO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Damn, it seems I'm last to learn all those interesting details http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

But seriously, and respectfully, Sir Moody, naval combat would be a great addition. I didn't mean to actually have a Sea Dogs in my R:TW game, I would have been quite satisfied with a Port Royale game style; in fact, almost anything than "Battle at sea: your ship is sunk" info http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif


Quote[/b] ]and before someone says something along the lines of "how hard could it be?" one a new syste mfor artillary would need to be developed as sea based artillary is dependant on the waves - how fast the ship is moving - the wind - the crew - the target - the distance

The only possible problem - up and down of the ship and it's horizontal movement - can be ignored without much ado, with simply calculating the coordinates of the ship when it actually fires. Since naval ships of those times can hardly exceed speeds of 20+ knots (give or take few), that shouldn't have any effect at all on the trajectory of the missiles. As for other stats like accuracy, target, the wind and rain, distance...Well, as they are all considered and implemented in M:TW and S:TW in land battles, I see no practical reasons why they shouldn't work on sea http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Than again, it's all wasted breath, since we're gonna watch some more "Your fleet is sunk" messages, wether we like it or not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif[QUOTE]

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]The only possible problem - up and down of the ship and it's horizontal movement - can be ignored without much ado, with simply calculating the coordinates of the ship when it actually fires. Since naval ships of those times can hardly exceed speeds of 20+ knots (give or take few), that shouldn't have any effect at all on the trajectory of the missiles. As for other stats like accuracy, target, the wind and rain, distance...Well, as they are all considered and implemented in M:TW and S:TW in land battles, I see no practical reasons why they shouldn't work on sea


1) in modern terms waves meen zip because the turrets count for it - In roman times there were few if no turrets - artillary was fixed to decks so if the deck moved up your projectile would have a steeper angle and if the deck went down etc etc

2) again in modern terms Speed has no affect on accuracy but remmeber we are talking in Roman terms - On a modern day destroyer your opponents speed and your speed can make tracing a taget dificult but in roman times where there were no complex systems for tracking and ammo for the some weapons were VERY limmited far more than today

3) yes some Things are implimented - for LAND battles unless uve worked out how to walk on water physics on land work very different on sea - damage for instance on land a wall stands as long as it can - on sea a ship CAN sink with a single arrow/rock/bolt if the attacker gets damn lucky how does the system in MTW allow for this?

the Naval type of battle is a whole game in itself so developing it in tandom with RTW would be like developing 2 games - CA doesnt have the size or cash to manage it


Quote[/b] ]But seriously, and respectfully, Sir Moody, naval combat would be a great addition. I didn't mean to actually have a Sea Dogs in my R:TW game, I would have been quite satisfied with a Port Royale game style; in fact, almost anything than "Battle at sea: your ship is sunk" info


that would absoultly RUIN RTW the whole selling point of the Total war games is they stick darn close to relaity and try to model things as close as they can - if they rush a navel battle sim in and its a joke with little or no comparison with real life (think ships in games like AOM or WC3) then they would sliting their throats - a lot of people would be very disapointed in a game that models land battles realistically then throws in a crappy sea sim just to bolster the game a bit - as i said games have tired it and failed - they aimed too high and failed its better t olet them focus on what the game is - a Land war Sim

[Voigtkampf]

Beating a dead horse... OK, let's run through it once more, since I'm downloading some R:TW videos and I must stay online for some more while, so I can as well discuss this.

Quote[/b] ]1) in modern terms waves meen zip because the turrets count for it - In roman times there were few if no turrets - artillary was fixed to decks so if the deck moved up your projectile would have a steeper angle and if the deck went down etc etc


Two ships on different coordinates...
The first fires...The game calculates speed of the ship, angle of the weapons attached to deck, accuracy of those who fire at the very moment of firing Since the enigne is fast and todays processors can do this in an instant, we notice nothing of this and there is no "freeze". Afterwards the missiles proceed on their trajectory; the wind has the same influence on them as above land. The other ship can stand, move slow or be fast; the faster it is, the greater chance it will leave the spot where the missiles are going to hit. There is certainly no need for the missiles to refer to the targets speed If you've ever tried to hit a galloping cav unit with a trebuchet that's something farther away, you must have notice that the stone projectile often hits far beyond them, since they are too fast. Same could happen on sea, IMHO, without any problems

Well, it's obvious we are talking R:TW and not modern naval combat...

Quote[/b] ]
2) again in modern terms Speed has no affect on accuracy but remmeber we are talking in Roman terms - On a modern day destroyer your opponents speed and your speed can make tracing a taget dificult but in roman times where there were no complex systems for tracking and ammo for the some weapons were VERY limmited far more than today

Lack of technological gadgets as a problem for implementing naval combat in R:TW? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif Sure thing they didn't have no targeting computers and self-guiding missiles, but they had ships nevertheless. And best computers available in all times, including ours; human mind http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif As for limited ammo issue...Can't tell, but land archers, catapults and guns also have limited ammo... So should ships have limited ammo, though much more of it than a single unit of archers. No different than it was in reality


Quote[/b] ]that would absoultly RUIN RTW the whole selling point of the Total war games is they stick darn close to relaity and try to model things as close as they can - if they rush a navel battle sim in and its a joke with little or no comparison with real life (think ships in games like AOM or WC3) then they would sliting their throats

Point of the Total War series is to implement TOTAL WAR, I believe everyone would agree here... Naval combat is a vital part of warfaring, though it wasn't as significant in times of Rome as it got during and after medieval times... The English and Spanish have built vast empires thanks to their fleets

I wouldn't want them to "rush" the naval combat either; and as for AOE ships, I don't want them in R:TW either. I want a decent naval combat that resembles reality in any possible and imaginable way, but I won't get it and neither will any of us http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

So, respectfully, treat this topic as a very beaten down dead horse,

"bows"

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Hurin_Rules]

I found naval combat one of the most frustrating things in MTW. I agree with Moroz that I often lose battles that I think I should have won. I once lost a battle where I had three ships, each with an attack/defence of 2/2, against a lone 1/1 ship.

Factor in the fact that in some campaigns, naval warfare is THE determining factor in the game, and it really sucks to be no better than another computer opponent.

[Sir Moody]

you missed the point yes it can be done yes its all very nice you can see its is simmiliar to the MTW phsyics but they are not one and the same it and ,as i have said 3 times now and you havent mentioned, CA doesnt have the Time, Money or Man power to develop Sea based combat to add upon a Land based game

and on another thing you over estimate the engine - yes for 2 ships it probably could handle everything - start adding ships if its gonna be a proper sim its gonna have to handle 50ish ships - do u think the Engine can handle the movemment of the waves - wind - individual damage - individual Crew counts - ammo counts - Trajectories - Speeds - the list gos on as i have said there are ship sims out - they have a hard time handling realistic ship battles the more ships u lump in and would you want a system that only allows for one or 2 ships when in RL there would be fleets? Theres a lot more invovled in a Sea fight than on the ground and the only way round it would be to have the sea battle in a weaker engine... ie not in glorious 3d


Quote[/b] ]Naval combat is a vital part of warfaring

today? yes Napoleonic times? yes Medieval? yes Roman? no

just face it - we dont need a sea combat to make the game good - if adding sea combat will delay and/or make more things to go wrong and ruin the game why does it need to be added? the phrase "if it aint broke dont fix it" comes to mind - MTW handled Ships quite well not brilliant but with tweaking would work from this game without haveing to spend time money and manpower on a flashy gimic (and thats what it would be) that really isnt needed

and yes it is thrashing a dead horse

[Antalis::]

Naval warfare was not that important for the roman period, that´s right, BUT every new modern game should be MODDABLE as possible.

And that means that theire horizon of making this game should be far wider then today with the abstract naval battle system.


I hated that Shogun had no ships.
Ok, I understood that japan warfare didn´t needed fleets.

But at least in MTW there should have been ships, but I guess that most of the CA team were already working on RTW, so no resurces for naval warfare.


Now with RTW they should implementate it.
The developement of RTW needs years to be finished till Shogun was released (I guess, maybe before that they had started on working on RTW), so there was enough time to develope a kick as -naval battle system


Imagine, if someone wants to make a persian war mod with RTW: No Salamis


Hmm, CA, back to the drawingboards

[Sir Moody]

shall we see if 4th time lucky is it

CA hasnt got the money, time or Staff to handle this on top of pumping out a top quality Land battle game UNLESS u want to wait a year or 2 - and that is really how long it will take

[Antalis::]

Zitat[/b] (Sir Moody @ Dez. 10 2003,12:51)]shall we see if 4th time lucky is it

CA hasnt got the money, time or Staff to handle this on top of pumping out a top quality Land battle game UNLESS u want to wait a year or 2 - and that is really how long it will take
I guess they had 3-4 years time for developing RTW before 2004, so they had enough time.

But anyway, I can´t understand CA, that they don´t implementate it.

In that point (to make the game as much moddable as possible) they are blind.

[The Wizard]

I say let head-to-head sea battles as they were in MTW.

But I think that the moving of the ships should be just like that of the land armies in RTW. Also, blockade options should be far more elaborate, and ships should be able to play *some* kind of role in sieges. Think of the siege on Syracuse, for instance.

[Monk]

Naval Combat IS abstract, just take a look at the FAQ at the top of this forum. it was not to long ago some members of the .Org got together and asked CA some quastions, one of those questions was mine, here it is...


Quote[/b] ]2)what role will ships play in Rome?


A) A) Naval combat is abstracted in Rome: Total War. A quick
back-of-the-envelope calculation showed us that the average player would
die of old age if he had to fight through all the naval battles on top of
the all the land battles. In conventional circles, it's considered
frightfully bad form to kill your players. However, the abstract system
isn't as abstract as the one in Medieval: Total War. Sea regions don't
exist in the game, so it is possible to position fleets to blockade and cut
off cities. It's also possible, therefore, to sail around enemy fleets or
just attack a portion of a blockading force. You won't get to control at a
battlefield level, but you do get a finer degree of 'operational' command.
We've also tried to include an interesting mix of ancient warships.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Antalis:: @ Dec. 10 2003,19:53)]I guess they had 3-4 years time for developing RTW before 2004, so they had enough time.
But anyway, I can´t understand CA, that they don´t implementate it.
In that point (to make the game as much moddable as possible) they are blind.
Have you any idea of ho much effort has to go in programming a game? No? Neither have I, so we shouldn't accuse CA of wasting their time instead of adding wonderfull features that some fans, like you, would love, and other fans, like me, would despise. Yes, I know there will be auto-resolve, but I'd much rather have if they spent their effort on making the game great, in stead of just large.

The game is already very complex, and I don't think either programmers or a lot of gamers would appreciate it if yet another complex feature is added. We can argue about what has to be changed, but I think we all agree that:
1. The naval battles will be complex and in a number of matters different from the land battles (damage model, physics, interface, etc.) and thus require a lot of time, manpower and, last but not least, money;

or
2. The naval battles will be simple (simple damage model, simple physics, etc.), which would spoil the nature of the game.

IMO CA would do a lot better to spend their energy to improve the land battles and the strategical system, which are te focus of the game.

Of course, if they would try to implement this feature in the next TW, or in the expansion pack, I wouldn't complain. But that is their own business, because they know better what it takes to get such a thing done.

[Antalis::]

Zitat[/b] (Monk @ Dez. 10 2003,13:32)]Naval Combat IS abstract, just take a look at the FAQ at the top of this forum. it was not to long ago some members of the .Org got together and asked CA some quastions, one of those questions was mine, here it is...


Zitat[/b] ]2)what role will ships play in Rome?


A) A) Naval combat is abstracted in Rome: Total War. A quick
back-of-the-envelope calculation showed us that the average player would
die of old age if he had to fight through all the naval battles on top of
the all the land battles. In conventional circles, it's considered
frightfully bad form to kill your players. However, the abstract system
isn't as abstract as the one in Medieval: Total War. Sea regions don't
exist in the game, so it is possible to position fleets to blockade and cut
off cities. It's also possible, therefore, to sail around enemy fleets or
just attack a portion of a blockading force. You won't get to control at a
battlefield level, but you do get a finer degree of 'operational' command.
We've also tried to include an interesting mix of ancient warships.

Well, I don´t like if someone (CA) will think for myshelf:
So "It will take to much time for the players to fight all naval battles".
Yes, but I want to descide if I want to have a white beard or not


That´s the same story like with the MP-campaign.

But I say: Such a Mp-campaign would be possible for some friends, who are knowing each other without a problem.
It doesn´t work for people playing it from all around the world who don´t knowing eachother.

But nobody had asked me, if I want to play with my friends or in the internet

[Monk]

Quote[/b] (Antalis:: @ Dec. 10 2003,15:10)]Well, I don´t like if someone (CA) will think for myshelf:
So "It will take to much time for the players to fight all naval battles".
Yes, but I want to descide if I want to have a white beard or not
I feel the same way, and I would have liked to play out the Naval battles. However it seems CA has made up their mind from the FAQ.

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]Well, I don´t like if someone (CA) will think for myshelf:
So "It will take to much time for the players to fight all naval battles".
Yes, but I want to descide if I want to have a white beard or not


well make ure own game then http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif no player has control over what the publisher pumps out - they have had their say - from what they say it should be far better tha nthe completely abstract MTW so why complain at all?


Quote[/b] ]But I say: Such a Mp-campaign would be possible for some friends, who are knowing each other without a problem.
It doesn´t work for people playing it from all around the world who don´t knowing eachother.



personally ive laughed at al lthe people asking for this - you have to understand the internet - the Internet is far from stable and how will a campaign handle a player suddenly crashing out? it just isnt feasable and wouldnt be much fun if handled badly - a LAN connection is damn near 100% stable in fact its as stable as any connection can be and so a LAN campaign is feasable but in all honesty why would CA want to add a multiplayer LAN function which again would take men and money off the main game - game developers have blinkers- if it detracts from the main game they dont see it and this allows them to make good games without bankrupting themselves

[Hurin_Rules]

In what sense was naval combat less important in the ancient world than in the medieval or Napoleonic worlds? I don't understand this statment, which several people seem to have accepted at face value.

As someone pointed out, Salamis was pivotal. Also, why did the Spartans win the Peloponnesian war? Because they developed a navy and cut off Athens. The Romans were able to invade Carthage because they developed a navy, without which they could never have defeated Carthage. Rome was held together by the Mediterranean, and only completely collapsed after the Vandals cut the sea routes.

In short, naval warfare was as important in ancient warfare as it was to medieval or modern.

[Sir Moody]

i didnt meen less important i ment less common - engadments at sea occured but at nowhere near the scale or frequency of the other time frames

[Antalis::]

I only wanted to say that naval warfare was not so imortant for rome after they had conquered the hole Mediterrenian sea.
There were (except the Killikian Pirates) no enemy fleets in this sea anymore.
Before that it was important, yeah, thats right.

[Voigtkampf]

Lads, I know one thing - I'm certainly glad they've decided that they do have enough "money, time and manpower" to make at least the land battles the way they are going to make them

The other night I've spent around three hours in my M:TW campaign and made only two turns http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif I'm glad they weren't so worried that I would die off fighting all those land battles and made it this way Imagine M:TW tactical battles as a small screenie:

Your army has 1200 troops
The enemy has 750 troops
You are defeated and have lost the province

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

whatever... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

...voigtkampf signing off...

[Beelzebub]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this game setting take place before the Romans turned the med into mare nostrum? In which case Naval power would still be important and contested.

I hope they do at put in a naval combat simulation, add an expansion with it, or make the game moddable enough so that players could do it themselves. I'm sure a lot of people would want to do a persia vs greece mods, or even different time periods. If there was a good naval simulator, we could even see a Lord Nelson era navy mod.

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]I hope they do at put in a naval combat simulation, add an expansion with it, or make the game moddable enough so that players could do it themselves. I'm sure a lot of people would want to do a persia vs greece mods, or even different time periods. If there was a good naval simulator, we could even see a Lord Nelson era navy mod.

this i can agree with once RTW is out if they can add a naval sim as an addon (we know they wont) they tha twould work - but they have to make sure RTW works on land first...

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]CA hasnt got the money, time or Staff to handle this on top of pumping out a top quality Land battle game UNLESS u want to wait a year or 2 - and that is really how long it will take


Quote[/b] ]The game is already very complex, and I don't think either programmers or a lot of gamers would appreciate it if yet another complex feature is added. We can argue about what has to be changed, but I think we all agree that:
1. The naval battles will be complex and in a number of matters different from the land battles (damage model, physics, interface, etc.) and thus require a lot of time, manpower and, last but not least, money;

or
2. The naval battles will be simple (simple damage model, simple physics, etc.), which would spoil the nature of the game.

IMO CA would do a lot better to spend their energy to improve the land battles and the strategical system, which are te focus of the game.
THEY ARE RIGHT http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



Quote[/b] ]The other night I've spent around three hours in my M:TW campaign and made only two turns
Yeah Happens a lot... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Et tu, Lord Aymar? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[chilling]

"the Internet is far from stable and how will a campaign handle a player suddenly crashing out?"


I don't know which Internet you're using then? I've played counter-strike sessions that have lasted for hours without a hitch. I have mates that leave SWG characters macroing for days at a time, again they don't seem to have problems. These days if you have a problem with an online game it's usually a fault of the netcode in which case the developers should fix it. Or your ISP isn't very good in which case you should swop.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Et tu, Lord Aymar? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
C'est la vie... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
One can't always agree, you know? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Brutal DLX]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 12 2003,12:45)]
Quote[/b] ]Et tu, Lord Aymar? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
C'est la vie... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
One can't always agree, you know? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Yes you can, and even if it only is agreement on disagreement. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Or do you disagree?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[The Wizard]

Sentences getting too complicated for Wizzy's mind... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 12 2003,06:45)]
Quote[/b] ]Et tu, Lord Aymar? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
C'est la vie... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
One can't always agree, you know? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
argh, stabbed in the back...
I don't agree on this disagreement that we can-not always agree on our different opinions...

Urgh... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

Yeah, thanks aLOT, Brutal XXL

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
Et tu, Lord Aymar?

C'est la vie...
One can't always agree, you know?

Yes you can, and even if it only is agreement on disagreement.
Or do you disagree?
Errrr... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif ...errr... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif ...eeeeerr... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif ...eeeerrrrrrr???? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Someone remind me, what was this all about? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[mercian billman]

What do you guys think about CA offering people the chance to play the Naval battles like Legion? You determine your formation choose your axis of advance, and once the battle starts you have no tactical control.

In my mind this would be realistic I would find it difficult for an admiral to control his fleet when the fighting starts, especially if his own ship was under attack.

[Belisarius]

Well if the more then a decade old Centurion could have naval combat in it that was highly enjoyable, then RTW could to, but I agree this is beating a dead horse.

I for one would love to command my Trirems in a vigorious attack on the Carthagenian navy, and I´d never trust the the Autoresolve (it cheats, I know it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif ).


Now for something completly different.....

... how about being able to control Gladiatorial bouts and chariotracing like it was in Centurion or any else minigames? Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

[DemonArchangel]

We have half naked samnites for a reason in RTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif i doubt it's for combat.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]We have half naked samnites for a reason in RTW i doubt it's for combat.
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[The Wizard]

Lol, I don't think you'll like it that much when after you have beaten back the Carthaginians in three huge battles, that you also have to beat back the Carthaginian navy in three huge naval battles... Scipio had naval commanders for that ya know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

If CA would fix the randomness of the MTW naval battles, I'd be more than happy about them.

[Nelson]

The evolution of Total War has been tremendous so far.

In Shogun we had great tactical battles, decent strategy, poor siege warfare and no naval at all

In Medieval we got slightly better tactical battles, much better sieges, richer strategy and decent strategic naval.

It seems that Rome will enhance all of the above but naval. I can live with that. A full blow naval sim component is what people would like (myself included when dreaming) and that just isn’t a reasonable expectation. If CA shoehorned something half-baked into the game we would all complain.

[Efrem Da King]

Quote[/b] ]Naval warfare was not that important for the roman period


Please tell me your kidding

Have you read anything on the punic wars?? The issue was decided through sea combat.

[Duke of RumpyPumpy]

When did the Romans ever use cannon?

I must have missed that Hollywood movie.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Naval warfare in the Roman era was comprised mainly of ramming the opponents ship then boarding, or coming along side and boarding.

I think this could be a very fun game play element. Training up different combinations of marine based troops. If you are the attacker and the computer determines you have "caught up" with the attackee, then your fleets are brought up in a small area of ocean, whereupon you try to ram the the others' ships and board with your troops. Throw in the option of able seafarers ability to outmaneuver the attackers and escape, and the use of highly inaccurate, but fun none the less, flaming catapults onboard larger ships.

And voila Fun

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Duke of RumpyPumpy @ Jan. 22 2004,17:07)]When did the Romans ever use cannon?

I must have missed that Hollywood movie.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
The poll was made under direct influence of viewing "Master and Commander", which should explain the phrase, a rather poor attempt on my side to mimic the English that sailors used in 19th century. But it's always good to get a free historical lesson, and I'm sure the other members see it that way too.

[Ja'chyra]

There might not have been cannons at the time, but wasn't there Greek fire?

I do think that this is a moot point though, the sea battles will be abstract, however much we wish otherwise, as the extra amount of effort would be colossal. 4 disks and £60?

Maybe next TW game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Ja'chyra @ Jan. 23 2004,11:48)]There might not have been cannons at the time, but wasn't there Greek fire?
IIRC Greek fire was invented in the Middle Ages.


Quote[/b] ]I do think that this is a moot point though, the sea battles will be abstract, however much we wish otherwise, as the extra amount of effort would be colossal. 4 disks and £60? Maybe next TW game
That is the point: I don't want sea battles which do not take into account wind, sails, crews, entering and so on. To have a "realistic" sea-battle-engine, all these things have to be programmed and that is going to take time. As said before: I'd rather see that CA spends its time on perfectionizing the land-battles.

[Knight_Yellow]

total number of people who will buy RTW as it is 2,000,000.

total number of people who will buy RTW with new naval feature after being delayed 2 years to make it and considering every other RTS by the year 2006 will look astonashing 2000.





who honestly cares about ships?

woopdee dooooo my chunk of wood can float longer than you chunk



etc. etc.

[Duke of RumpyPumpy]

How did roman naval warfare get de-evolved so quickly???


We started out with Roman ships being tall masted sailing ships with cannon. And now Roman naval warfare has devolved into groups floating around on "chunks of wood." I assume the method of warfare is hitting at others on their "chunks of wood" with crude clubs, hoping to knock them off or expediate the rate at which the chunk of wood will sink. Which is it? Large cannon broadsides or naked men stradling chunks of wood clubbing each other?

I totally agree with your scientific analysis that 2,000,000 people will buy RTW. But did you look in the small print of that report??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif It clearly states that IF naval warfare was included approximately 2,500,300 people will buy RTW.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

That's an increase of $50 x 500,300 = $25,015,000. That's a lot of extra profit

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

Yes it would be out in 2006. But that was FISCAL year 2006. First quarter FISCAL 2006 is actually June 2005. So it's not as far as it may seem.


Also, please don't bring your personal problems to this forum. If you are having trouble "floating your piece of wood", there are other forums that can be much more helpful to you.


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Teutonic Knight]

ROFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh.gif

[PSYCHO]

http://www.histomin.com/lineand/andanc/mpanlp09.jpg

Together now:

'Awl I wont is a ship dun wiff caair
far awai from the absrwact affair..
To showe my nau-ical fwair
Oh wooooden-et be wuverly'

[Duke of RumpyPumpy]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif

Side note: There is a long naval tradition for conducting a pants-dunk on anyone making reference to My Fair Lady on board a ship of war. A pants-dunk being a de-pantsing of the alleged offender followed by tossing him head first off the stern of the ship.

[PSYCHO]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-embarassed.gif


..Oh, is that what that songs from? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif ..... and I thought it was from 'Spartacus http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Doug-Thompson]

I apologize for not reading every reply in this thread, but I read many of them that I strongly disagree with: Two points:

1. Naval battle was vital to the Roman empire. After all, the naval battle of Atrium settled the Roman Civil War between Marc Antony and Octavian. Remember Cleopatra?

CA has decided to gloss over one of the most vital aspects of ancient strategy. Here's another example.

The Punic Wars lasted as long as they did because Carthage was a naval power. Rome could never even get to Carthage to invade it until it found a way to beat their navy. The vital invention was a huge gangplank with a sharp iron spike on the end, pointing downward. Romans would drop the thing like a drawbridge onto the deck of enemy ships. Brute force beat better ship handling

2. Modeling naval warfare is not that hard. There's be more time spent on the artwork and animations for a good naval battle than on developing the system.

A gaming company called Avalon Hill came out with an ancient naval combat game called "Trireme" 20 or 30 years ago. You used cardboard cutout on a hex grid. CA could buy the rights to that -- or just lift it wholesale if the copyright's expired -- and have a better naval system than what it's got.

What, it's got to either stink or be perfect., so nothing better than what we have -- which stinks -- has to be acceptable? I don't buy that.

"Total War" simply animates the battles that people have been fighting with metal miniatures for a hundred years or more. Before the personal computer, people bought small but expensive metal figurines and staged battles all the time. It was a tedious process requiring bookkeeping and dice rolls, but it created a wealth of knowledge and workable ways to account for things like flanking, combat modifiers for charging, etc. etc.

Putting all that stuff on computer make the battles lightening quick and affordable. A $50 computer game is cheaper than 10 of those little metal statues. That's what the battle system in the "Total War" series is -- automated miniatures.

Guess what? Those same types of miniature rules were invented for ships. My friends and I practically re fought the naval battles of Guadalcanal when I was a teenager using a friend's metal ships and tape measures, an empty room and lots and lots of paper and sharp pencils.

Programming those rules into a game would be child's play.

3. The dominant terrain feature of the Roman Empire is the Mediterranean Sea.

[squippy]

True enough... but there are already naval combat games to buy. Any given game has to be explicit as to what is in its scope and whats is not, because it has to define vraibale and feedback loops. For good or ill, the TW series is optimised for land war - thats what it does. Trying to build a naval system as well will virtually be a whole additional game.

[Captain Fishpants]

Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ Mar. 11 2004,16:15)]I apologize for not reading every reply in this thread, but I read many of them that I strongly disagree with: Two points:

1. Naval battle was vital to the Roman empire. After all, the naval battle of Atrium settled the Roman Civil War between Marc Antony and Octavian. Remember Cleopatra?

CA has decided to gloss over one of the most vital aspects of ancient strategy. Here's another example.

The Punic Wars lasted as long as they did because Carthage was a naval power. Rome could never even get to Carthage to invade it until it found a way to beat their navy. The vital invention was a huge gangplank with a sharp iron spike on the end, pointing downward. Romans would drop the thing like a drawbridge onto the deck of enemy ships. Brute force beat better ship handling

2. Modeling naval warfare is not that hard. There's be more time spent on the artwork and animations for a good naval battle than on developing the system.

A gaming company called Avalon Hill came out with an ancient naval combat game called "Trireme" 20 or 30 years ago. You used cardboard cutout on a hex grid. CA could buy the rights to that -- or just lift it wholesale if the copyright's expired -- and have a better naval system than what it's got.

What, it's got to either stink or be perfect., so nothing better than what we have -- which stinks -- has to be acceptable? I don't buy that.

"Total War" simply animates the battles that people have been fighting with metal miniatures for a hundred years or more. Before the personal computer, people bought small but expensive metal figurines and staged battles all the time. It was a tedious process requiring bookkeeping and dice rolls, but it created a wealth of knowledge and workable ways to account for things like flanking, combat modifiers for charging, etc. etc.

Putting all that stuff on computer make the battles lightening quick and affordable. A $50 computer game is cheaper than 10 of those little metal statues. That's what the battle system in the "Total War" series is -- automated miniatures.

Guess what? Those same types of miniature rules were invented for ships. My friends and I practically re fought the naval battles of Guadalcanal when I was a teenager using a friend's metal ships and tape measures, an empty room and lots and lots of paper and sharp pencils.

Programming those rules into a game would be child's play.

3. The dominant terrain feature of the Roman Empire is the Mediterranean Sea.
There are so many sweeping generalisations and misunderstandings in this single post that our minds boggle. If you're in Sussex you can probably hear the sloshing about of our boggling minds. That's how boggled we are. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

This isn't a trivial job or child's play. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

There's a good reason for this: when we do a naval system, we'll do it properly and to our and everyone's satisfaction.

Pshaw Sir, Pshaw

[Sir Robin]

Bravo...

I heartily agree.

Thank you for letting us know, now back to work. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I have already scheduled my "ignore the wife" time for this fall and I don't want to reschedule. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Good to know, Captain Fishpants http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif


Quote[/b] ]I have already scheduled my "ignore the wife" time for this fall and I don't want to reschedule.
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ Mar. 12 2004,10:21)]
There are so many sweeping generalisations and misunderstandings in this single post that our minds boggle. If you're in Sussex you can probably hear the sloshing about of our boggling minds. That's how boggled we are. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

This isn't a trivial job or child's play. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

There's a good reason for this: when we do a naval system, we'll do it properly and to our and everyone's satisfaction.

Pshaw Sir, Pshaw

I may not be an award-winning computer programmer, but at least I know how to use a spell-checker.

It's "generalizations," unless you spell it differently in the mother country or while your mind's boggled. I think an Oxford's dictionary will bear me out, though.

Other than that, you deserve a few points for a certain stylishness but none for being specific or straightforward.

You dodged the question, sir, your taunts notwithstanding.

If the tone of my post was also impolite, I apologize, but at least I proffered some arguments, however poor they may be.

Considering that I, a layman, programed a computer to do the calculations for "SEEKRIEG" miniature rules in my spare time more than 10 years ago, then, no, I do not see why this is so hard. I did not do graphics, however. Perhaps that's the core of the problem?

Seriously and respectfully, I'd like to hear some reason besides "we concentrated on land battles." If it's an economic or business reason, I'd understand that. Naval simulations have been poor sellers. That's no secret. If your customers don't want even a crude naval combat system -- just about anything would be better than what you have, so arguing that you want to "do it right" rings very hollow -- then the customer's always right. So be it.

However, it is certainly neither a sweeping generalization nor a misunderstanding that naval warfare was very important to the Roman Empire and RTW will gloss over it.

If you are capable of explaining why, I am capable of understanding it.

And if you deny that your game's tactical battles bear at least a strong family resemblance to games with miniature's rules, that would be mind boggling.

Finally, one final note about the language. President Andrew Jackson once said that it's a mighty poor mind that can think of just one way to spell a word.

[Sir Robin]

Do my ears deceive me?

I might have heard the gauntlet's strike upon yonder cheek.

Wonder I might which cheek has gained the reddish glare?

Generalizations was probably aimed at the difference between miniatures and software. Coding competent AI routines for complicated battles is not easy. Especially when you would want to add weather effects, beaching, burning sails, crew competence, crew exhaustion, and weather or not to animate crew aboard ships for boarding actions. Plus trying to make the AI competent enough for challenging battles on a constantly changing seascape.

Misunderstandings may be referring to the importance of naval warfare. Yes it was an important element in the growth of power. However without tactical land forces to secure the victory it would have been pointless. If I recall there were many battles between "mainland" powers and "island" pirates. The issue was never resolved until ground forces were brought in to hold the pirate's island.

I thought that Atrium would not have even happened were it not for Marc Antony's belief, or was it Cleopatra's, that he had better ships?

Besides in today's business environment many software companies settle for the "better than nothing" approach. In a way CA is guilty of this as well. However they have refrained from trying to imply tactical naval warfare by keeping it abstracted.

If they attempted this, which they have not before to my knowledge, and ran into unforeseen problems then it could have caused problems with scheduling and absorb man-hours better directed at the core of their product, tactical land engagements.

Maybe he went to far but I believe just from its content that it was intended more as tongue-in-cheek than any pointed rebuke.

[Doug-Thompson]

Well said, brave, brave Sir Robin.

Coding the AI probably is a very significant problem. It also would have been a simple answer much better than a vague, dismissive "pshaw." After all, miniature rules are written for two human beings to use. Programing the AI is not a problem there.

Making an AI that wouldn't have a human player winning every battle would be a serious puzzle.

So is that the reason or not? It would be nice to get a definite answer.

And even if that is so, that assumes the "all or nothing" reasoning.

We can't do it right, so we're going to do something as close to nothing as possible?

Even a highly abstracted system based on probabilities would be better than the coin-toss in MTW.


As for the relative importance of land battles, I cannot accept your reasoning. Certainly, Rome was a land power that threw away most of its navy as soon as Carthage was wiped out, but it had to have sea power to get to that point. One would not have happened without the other, therefore one is as vital as the other.

[Sir Robin]

Companies make their decisions based on various "reasonings."

There are similar questions as to the "why" about the reported "unlocking" feature.

There is probably no single reason why it was decided not to pursue naval battles. I am sure that in the various "brainstorming" sessions before development that tactical naval battles were considered, maybe even attempted. I am also sure that at some point it was decided to remain with the naval system of MTW.

This may have even been a decision from higher up than the development team and might even be a sour subject for some of them.

I do not mind the naval system of MTW to greatly. In that game naval power mostly becomes a tool to keep open or close trade routes. We have seen at times how poorly the strategic AI handles naval assets. This could have been another concern leading to the lack of visual naval engagements.

As far as my opinion we agree to disagree. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Doug-Thompson]

That's a nice list of possibles, Sir Robin, but I'd like to know which of those are the real reasons.

That has to come from the company. They were not obligated to explain themselves to anybody before. However, I now think I'm owed an explanation, not just "pshaw."

All we've been told is that CA wants to concentrate on the land game. Fine. They don't have time to create a new AI and system for naval battles.

Fine again. Use the same basic combat system for ships.

I know that sounds oafish, and probably was considered by CA and rejected for some reason they haven't deigned to tell us.

But consider: Galleys usually fought in two lines abreast, facing each other -- just like the land battles in MTW. They had three types of attack: ramming (charge), boarding (melee) and missile (well, missile.) That's much the same as the tactical land battles, too. The missile systems at sea were exactly like the missiles on land -- bows and arrows and light siege weapons.

Why use a system that just the same as battles on land? So decisive naval battles won't be left to the computer gaming equivalent of a coin-toss unless the player chooses to auto-resolve. That's why.

[Voigtkampf]

Doug-Thompson,

I believe you have scared our Captain Fishpants for good now Oh, cursed this devilish idleness that brought me to post this topic at all, but I couldn't know what horrors it will bring to daylight

::voigtkampf tears his shirt into pieces::

Stella STELLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Antalis::]

Zitat[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ Mär. 12 2004,10:21)]There are so many sweeping generalisations and misunderstandings in this single post that our minds boggle. If you're in Sussex you can probably hear the sloshing about of our boggling minds. That's how boggled we are. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

This isn't a trivial job or child's play. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

There's a good reason for this: when we do a naval system, we'll do it properly and to our and everyone's satisfaction.

Pshaw Sir, Pshaw
@Captain Fishpants:


Well, yes, I can understand that you want to make it probably and its not easy:

But then take the time and make it proberly for an addon.


Hope CA will take the challange and make also a very good and not an abstract naval battle system for at least the addon(s).


Don´t always thing about Rome, think also about the possibilities for modmakers.

Don´t you like to see a Pirates TW, or a Nelson Admiral with his fleet?

I do.


So please do it.


Antalis

[Ludens]

Doug-Thompson, you state that it would be easy for CA to include sea battle because 1) CA could take the 'combat-rules' of miniature games so 2) CA only needs to work on the graphics.

Following your reasoning, I could say that it would be easy for CA to produce Rome: Total War land battles because 1) CA already has the 'combat-rules' from MTW so 2) CA only needs to work on the graphics.

Quod est demonstrandum

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Mar. 13 2004,07:29)]Doug-Thompson, you state that it would be easy for CA to include sea battle because 1) CA could take the 'combat-rules' of miniature games so 2) CA only needs to work on the graphics.

Following your reasoning, I could say that it would be easy for CA to produce Rome: Total War land battles because 1) CA already has the 'combat-rules' from MTW so 2) CA only needs to work on the graphics.

Quod est demonstrandum
Now that's not a bad point. Score one for the landlubbers.

However, Sir Robin has already mentioned the problem of coming up with the AI, which was the real challenge in the whole Total War series. Well, they have an AI now. I think it could be used for naval combat. Nobody's given me a reason why that won't work. There would have to be some system for damage as opposed to just losing a certain portion of your men, though.

I would also guess that mapping over terrain -- hills, mountains, forests and other thing that aren't at sea -- takes time.

CA not only glossed over naval combat, they keep glossing over their reasons for glossing over naval combat. All we get are "we wanted to concentrate on land battles" or "pshaw."

As for scaring away "Captain Fishpants" (what an unusual nickname for someone who won't go near the water), I'm sure he posted from the office on Friday and will not have a chance to reply before Monday, if then.

[Sir Robin]

The devs have every right to respond or not respond to posts. They are part of the group making the game and they are doing us a favor just by posting at all.

DT's original post could be interpreted as downplaying the amount of work the devs have put into making a land based tactical combat engine. While I doubt that was DT's intent it would explain the Captain's concern.

I agree with the Captain's concerns based on that interpretation of DT's original post. The amount of work required to create the RTW's tactical land battle engine could not be directly translated to a tactical sea battle engine. Their are to many differences as far as how the units and environment interact.

Once the units and environments are even interacting properly then they would have to develop a "capable" AI that would hopefully be able to use the tactics of the day and be a challenge to "unpredictable" human competition.

I also agree with DT's disappointment with the current naval battle system. However the strategic AI just doesn't seem comfortable with naval asset missions outside of troop transport.

As far as "glossing" over why they have not? Probably because there were quite a few reasons involved and none of them may know which "specific" reason was the "last straw."

Wow I blabber alot...

The known reasons of wanting to concentrate on the land engagements, and doing it right, probably sum up the results of however far, tactical naval combat, got during RTW's initial development.

Now on to my explanation of why I am so darn good looking even with squirrels in my pants...

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ Mar. 13 2004,15:50)]However, Sir Robin has already mentioned the problem of coming up with the AI, which was the real challenge in the whole Total War series. Well, they have an AI now. I think it could be used for naval combat. Nobody's given me a reason why that won't work.
Because fights between ships are very different from fights between men. Nobody has given me a reason to believe otherwise.


Quote[/b] ]I would also guess that mapping over terrain -- hills, mountains, forests and other thing that aren't at sea -- takes time.
Don't you think that the saved time would be lost again in making a more advanced physics model?


Quote[/b] ]CA not only glossed over naval combat, they keep glossing over their reasons for glossing over naval combat. All we get are "we wanted to concentrate on land battles" or "pshaw."
Perhaps because CA is amazed at the ease with which you assume that they are being lazy or not doing their job properly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Mar. 13 2004,11:29)]Because fights between ships are very different from fights between men. Nobody has given me a reason to believe otherwise.

Units move. They attack. The attack is successful, or it is not.

If it can be done with paper and pencils. It can be done with computers.


Quote[/b] ]Don't you think that the saved time would be lost again in making a more advanced physics model?

No.

Roman warships did not fight under sail, unless I'm very seriously mistaken. There's less need for the complex calculations you'd have to use to make a sailing sim.

Even if there are complex physics problems involved, navigation is a well-researched topic.


Quote[/b] ]Perhaps because CA is amazed at the ease with which you assume that they are being lazy or not doing their job properly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .

Ludens, they have not done naval combat "properly."

Look, the folks at CA obviously know a great deal about land combat.. Do I criticize the makers of IL-2 Sturmovik because their game doesn't include a detailed land combat system? Of course not, because IL-2 is a flight sim. It covers tactical air combat.

That's all IL-2 covers, but IL-2 covers it all.

If MTW or RTW covered nothing but the land battles in their tactical games, I'd have no grounds to complain. However, they have glossed over — and that is the right phrase — an important part of the "game" they're playing.

Now, obviously, recreating the Roman world is a bit more daunting than having a dogfight over the steppes. However consider this:

I may be remembering my Roman history imperfectly, but it seems there was a disaster at sea in which several thousand Roman soldiers were drowned during a storm during the Punic Wars. That is a significant event.

That will not be able to happen in RTW..

Leaving out such possibilities is a glaring flaw.

When playing MTW, I can move an army of any size from Norway to Egypt, for example, with complete safety. Theoretically, I can be blocked but the fleets bearing the army cannot be attacked. That is a big benefit for me, but it is also a serious flaw.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ Mar. 15 2004,17:03)]Units move. They attack. The attack is successful, or it is not.
So sea battles should be identical to land battles?

On the sea, you are not only fighting your enemy. You are fighting the elements as well.


Quote[/b] ]If it can be done with paper and pencils. It can be done with computers.
There is no question about whether it can be done. The question is: is it reasonable to do it?


Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Don't you think that the saved time would be lost again in making a more advanced physics model?
No.
Roman warships did not fight under sail, unless I'm very seriously mistaken.
But surely the Romans weren't the only naval power in the region. And we are not talking only about large warships, but about small boats with entering crews as well.


Quote[/b] ]There's less need for the complex calculations you'd have to use to make a sailing sim.
Even if there are complex physics problems involved, navigation is not an unknown topic.
All right, you have got me here. I cannot get away with a short answer again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .

Wind power isn't the only physical calculation involved. You have currents, speed changes, influence of speed on damage inflicted, influence of damage on speed, damaged oars, crew number and tiredness, boarding crews, choppy seas and so fort. Surely you are not suggesting that we will have beautiful land battles, but our sea battles will be a few cardboard ships moving over a blue square?

In land battles, the terrain is static, on the sea it is dynamic. You have to win from the sea as well as from your enemies.

I do not know what you mean to say with: "navigation is not an unknown topic."


Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Perhaps because CA is amazed at the ease with which you assume that they are being lazy or not doing their job properly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif .
Ludens, they have not done naval combat "properly."
I agree. But 'the job' is not only about naval combat. Again: there is no question about whether it can be done. The question is: is it reasonable to do it?

Naval combat isn't the only part of the game. As I said before in this thread: CA could either include naval combat or they could just leave it at it current elementary level (not without some necessary improvements though). If they choose to include it, they have two options:
1) Include simplistic naval combat. This would be easy and cheap, but it would satisfy neither of us.
2) Include complex naval combat. I think this would cost much time and effort. My reasons for believing this are stated above. Would this new feature be worth the wait for the buyers? I doubt it.

So CA choose not to do it.

The MTW naval combat systems is fundamentally flawed. I think this is because it was added too late in the development. They had to treat the ships as agents to make it work. Let's not make the same mistake again and add another feature this late in the development.

[Doug-Thompson]

I'm going to try a new tack, to use a nautical term.

Suppose you transport an army in the game by sea. Suppose there is a storm at sea that sinks one of your ships along the route, and there is no alternative route.

Your army disappears, presumed drowned at sea.

What, exactly, is the daunting technological challenge of that?

It's absurd in MTW to be able to transport armies containing thousands of troops from Norway to Egypt risk-free.

Or suppose that each fleet "unit" contained, say, 10 ships instead of one. A coin-toss battle may wipe out your whole fleet or it may not, depending on the odds. "Damaged" fleets can be repaired in provinces with shipwrights and harbors. Where's the difficulty of programing that?

OK. Let's get down to brass tacks. You made the excellent point earlier that, by my logic, CA could have just written land wargame rules into code and come up with RTW or MTW. I admit that point is valid. Re-writing miniature rules would have yielded something pretty lousy and wouldn't have won the accolades the Total War series has earned.

But it would be a heck of a lot better than the naval game the TW has now. Even "cardboard counters on a blue field" is better than what we've got.

What we have here is a severe case of the best being the enemy of the good, or even the not-quite-so-bad.

Beyond that, it would be nice to know what the problems are, something besides "we wanted to concentrate on the land battles." That's a statement of the obvious.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ Mar. 15 2004,21:37)]Suppose you transport an army in the game by sea. Suppose there is a storm at sea that sinks one of your ships along the route, and there is no alternative route. Your army disappears, presumed drowned at sea.

Or suppose that each fleet "unit" contained, say, 10 ships instead of one. A coin-toss battle may wipe out your whole fleet or it may not, depending on the odds. "Damaged" fleets can be repaired in provinces with shipwrights and harbors.
That would be improvements indeed. It would require abandoning the naval system of MTW, but I think CA is going to do that anyway. It is not that I think that the current MTW naval systems is good, it is just that you ask too much if you expect CA to come with a game containing excellent land battles and proper sea battles. That's two games in one.


Quote[/b] ]But it would be a heck of a lot better than the naval game the TW has now. Even "cardboard counters on a blue field" is better than what we've got.
What we have here is a severe case of the best being the enemy of the good, or even the not-quite-so-bad.
Well, the problem is that you cannot have game with complex and beautiful land battles, but simplistic and not-good-to-look-at sea battles. I am not saying that the sea battles need to be just as good as the land battles, but they should be good enough to have the right to be in the game. I guess that that is what you mean with "a severe case of the best being the enemy of the good".


Quote[/b] ]Beyond that, it would be nice to know what the problems are, something besides "we wanted to concentrate on the land battles." That's a statement of the obvious.
Yes, I would like to know that too. On the other hand, CA does not owe us an explanation. It is their game so they can do with it what they like. Off course, there may be consequences in the potential sales of the game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

In fact, I think that the current way in which CA interacts with us is fine. The people from CA come here occasionally and talk to us. They might come here more often, but they have jobs to do and they have their own forums. We cannot demand of them that they reply to every demand for information.

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Mar. 16 2004,14:08)]We cannot demand of them that they reply to every demand for information.
No, but I was not the first one to ask, not by a long shot.

Even the mainstream game press -- assuming that's the right term -- have asked about this and received very unrevealing replies.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

Quote[/b] (Antalis:: @ Dec. 10 2003,09:08)]Why are you so scared that CA has to do more things for this game?
Its theire job to give us the best game ever
Nothing less and nothing more.
If they would need two or three months more for such a wonderful sytem I can live with it.

So they should use theire creativity and make it like the battlefield they have already made, what´s the problem with such a battlesystem?

Sorry I can´t believe that they have not the time to make such a naval battle system: Maybe they release it with a patch.
But anyway.

Naval warfare was sometimes very important: Acctium, Killikian pirates, and if you want to add Greeks then you have to recognise that theire hole culture (also of the Phönizians (= also Carthago)) was naval based.

And don´t forget the upcomming mods: Maybe someone wants to make a mod based on the rivalry beetween Spain and England under Phillip II: The Armada: Should this mod has only an automatic naval warfare system?

Or what if you want to make a 17.th mod?

What if you want to add Turks, what about Pirates of the Carebean mods, what about the spanish siver fleets and so on.
I would KILL to be able to fight the Battle of Dan-no-Ura in a Total War mod can you imagine how epic it would be? not only would there be the screams of warriors, thered be splashes, the sounds of the waves crashing against the ships, all acompainied by a dark sky and the usual thunder man it would be great

[Intrepid Sidekick]

Quote[/b] ]I'm going to try a new tack, to use a nautical term.

Suppose you transport an army in the game by sea. Suppose there is a storm at sea that sinks one of your ships along the route, and there is no alternative route.

Your army disappears, presumed drowned at sea.

What, exactly, is the daunting technological challenge of that?

It's absurd in MTW to be able to transport armies containing thousands of troops from Norway to Egypt risk-free.

Or suppose that each fleet "unit" contained, say, 10 ships instead of one. A coin-toss battle may wipe out your whole fleet or it may not, depending on the odds. "Damaged" fleets can be repaired in provinces with shipwrights and harbors. Where's the difficulty of programing that?


Sorry. I hope you guys and gals don’t mind me butting in here but something has to be said. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-curtain.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

At no point did anyone from CA including Captain Fishpants ever say that the entire naval system was going to be the same as the one in MTW.

The battles will be auto resolved but that does not mean that they will be the same. No. Not at all.

Movement around the sea in RTW will be very different from MTW and much less abstract.

It will in fact reflect more closely the problems of naval movement, combat and troop transportation in the ancient world. It will be anything but "risk free".

Storms will sink your ships, battles will damage your fleets, and armies can be lost at sea. Transport is not instant from point A to point B. The coast is your friend.

If you will excuse the pun. There are a "raft" of changes that should satisfy many of you. These were planned and implementation begun some time ago. I believe we answered this in an FAQ either here or on the .Com (Apologies if we didn't).

Anyway hopefully this information helps.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

Intrepid Sidekick
~ CA Staff~

[Voigtkampf]

Thank you for the good news, Intrepid Sidekick

I can't speak for all, but I certainly love this game and would like to see it as good as possible when it comes out, and I am glad that you take our ideas and wishes into consideration when you make your decisions.

Respectfully,

voigtkampf

[Doug-Thompson]

I don't recall ever being so glad to be shot down in flames.

That is excellent news. The staff at CA has my thanks and my apologies.

[Galestrum]

hope it turns out as good as it sounds http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Captain Fishpants]

Indeed.

And btw, Doug-Thompson, "generalisations" is a perfectly acceptable variant spelling.

I haven't been back to argue to the toss because I'm in a death march to the localisation (or localization, if you prefer) deadline at the moment. And that's not what we do anyway when we try to answer questions.

We don't 'deign' to tell people here anything. We aren't condescending at all. We try to give honest answers to sensible points, or steer people in the right direction when they've taken off in a completely wrong direction. That's all.

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Captain Fishpants @ Mar. 18 2004,05:02)]We don't 'deign' to tell people here anything. We aren't condescending at all. We try to give honest answers to sensible points, or steer people in the right direction when they've taken off in a completely wrong direction. That's all.
===============


Quote[/b] ]There are so many sweeping generalisations and misunderstandings in this single post that our minds boggle. If you're in Sussex you can probably hear the sloshing about of our boggling minds. That's how boggled we are.

This isn't a trivial job or child's play.

There's a good reason for this: when we do a naval system, we'll do it properly and to our and everyone's satisfaction.

Pshaw Sir, Pshaw



Yes, that was catty of me. I'll be nice from now on. Promise.

Seriously, I am glad to hear about the changes and admit to the lion's share of the blame for the rancor. Also, as you can see from earlier posts, I figured any lack of response was for one of two reasons: work related, or unwillingness by you to argue with a fool.

And as President Jackson said, it takes a mighty poor mind to think of only one way to spell a word.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Nowake]

We aren't condescending at all.

I personally don't think that here are people that would take it as offensive.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

I make mine Lord voigtkampf's words... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[Duke of RumpyPumpy]

Can you tell us at least if the cannon sound effects are going to be well done?

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Duke of RumpyPumpy @ Mar. 19 2004,08:11)]Can you tell us at least if the cannon sound effects are going to be well done?
That was a joke right?

[alman9898]

Quote[/b] (Duke of RumpyPumpy @ Mar. 19 2004,00:11)]Can you tell us at least if the cannon sound effects are going to be well done?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif There are no cannons during this era dude...

[The Wizard]

Well, we have Ramses, why can't we give him a cannon on his reed biremes? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



~Wiz

[Nowake]

Because it would be a self-destruction weapon http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif A cannon on a galley of that type would sunk it through recoil.

[rory_20_uk]

The things that I hate in MTW is the absurd somplicity of the abstract model:

One ship in a square can "blockade" any number of enemy ships.
A fast ship has no option to flee when attacked.
A good commander in charge of a fleet can not run. Either they win or die.

I'd've thought that altering this to be a bit more complex would not be beyond the ken of man.

Ships should be given different types of orders: are they running troops, freight or trying to disrupt the enemy's ships? Are they to attack weaker ships on sight, or flee as soon as another ship comes visible?

And similarly, one ship can not "blockade" a trade route. I would prefer that ships have a chance to intercept trade (for example a small ship has the chance to intercept up to 20% of available trade in the sea). And of that a small amount is gained by the one disrupting the trade.

Sorry if I'm babbling / repeating what someone else has already written http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (rory_20_uk @ April 04 2004,05:29)]Sorry if I'm babbling / repeating what someone else has already written http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
You're not. Good sugestions... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif

[RisingSun]

Quote[/b] ]There are no cannons during this era dude...

Nor are there "Chosen Axemen," Pharaonic Egyptians, fighting units of druids, "Iberian Bull Warriors," gladiators conscripted into the army on a regular basis... Need I go on?

[rory_20_uk]

if the cannon were mounted on the prow the ships would survive.

Some of the units in the game almost require 2 modes: normal mode and fantasy mode where all the pixies elves (and the odd detachment of gladiators) come out to play

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Durruti]

The unfairly programmed naval-simulated conflict all but ruins MTW for me. Previous discussions have documented the cheats that rule naval battle outcomes.

You can win land battles, but if you lose your trade routes you will be hard pressed to maintain enough income to replenish your armies. Naval power in MTW is at times more important to your success than land power.

In RTW which will be mostly based in around the Mediterranean, sea power-trade routes will be even more important than in MTW. There is a solution (actually 2 solutions) to the conundrum of'to be or not to be'-naval presence in RTW.

Solution #1: If the developers have the time & $$$ they can program an "Age of Sail II" style tactical naval combat which will allow the players to make their own luck in naval battles- as they do in land battles.

Solution #2: The other solution, & the one I favor (as it appears the developers are going to drag the present untenable MTW naval simulation over to RTW), is to return to the STW symbolic naval presence (which worked fine). In STW the trade was real & symbolic; you build ports, & you had trade income. Trade can be further abstracted (as it is in MTW for inland provinces with tradable products) by allowing the construction of trading posts.

I reiterate; Sloppy naval power simulations can ruin the Total War game strength-which lies in tactical land battles-in which a strong effort by the player can overcome other adversities (such as being outnumbered)& enjoy a fair FAIR fair FAIR enjoyable-fair & enjoyable GAAAAAME. Unfair naval simulations, in which the player has little control-except to pump out large numbers of boats- has ruined MTW for me. Players-customers want to feel a sense of achievement-where if they play well-they can win.

I'm only a-minority of one-; however, I will not purchase RTW unless it comes to grips with fairness-in what should be a strategic-tactical WARGAME. If naval simulation is the weak point, then resolve the conundrum by tactilizing it as in Age of Sail II, or eliminating it entirely as in STW (an easier solution for the developers & possibly the best solution).


Am I banging my head against an unmovable object?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Nelson]

Quote[/b] (Durruti @ April 13 2004,07:45)]Am I banging my head against an unmovable object?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif
I would say that you are banging your head against an object we have yet to see. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Everyone should have known that we weren't getting a tactical naval game to rival the land combat. What we will get is enough unlike Medieval for the devs to drop in and say as much. Time will tell.

I for one have no serious complaints about the Medieval naval component. For me the ships represent effort to exploit and control the sea. That's all. Just abstract effort. It is preferable to Shogun's treatment IMO.

[spmetla]

Perhaps we'll see some sort of naval combat when/if they make a napoleanic total war. It'd be nice to ships of the line pounding away with those hundreds of guns.

[Durruti]

What Thompson said;

I agree completely-it's what I have been saying for a while. Tactical naval conbat in RTW is very possible. Failure to improve naval combat in RTW (the Mediterranean world based strategy epic) will kill the game.

I would pay $$more for a completely thoughtout & well rounded RTW - that has advanced as much over MTW as MTW advanced over STW. Just some 3D glitz additions won't do it for me. For example, Age of Mythology is inferior to AOE2 because Shelley concentrated on glitz over improving gameplay (player reviews rate AOM significantly LOWER than AOE2). I didn't say AOM is terrible; it just missed the boat.

Why hurry?
So RTW is released for XMAS - it will be (& have)
1. the best game ever
2. great seasonal sales

For a few $$more & a few hours more-

1. Naval combat depiction can be cleaned up (make it tactical - you can do it).

2. Diplomacy can be cleaned up (serious penalties -lose all your money-rebellions -for breaking alliances -Europa style BB Badboy penalties) etc..

a. allow alliance victories (as in AOE1 & 2) This will shorten the game for those who have to work & pay attention to the kids-or attend school.

3. Realistic castle seige & beseiging (units defend on top of walls as they did in LOTR2 a century ago - make building & defending castles an important, useful, & necessary part of empire building.

4. Make Crusades fairer ( http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif ) joke-joke

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ April 04 2004,19:16)]
Quote[/b] ]There are no cannons during this era dude...

Nor are there "Chosen Axemen," Pharaonic Egyptians, fighting units of druids, "Iberian Bull Warriors," gladiators conscripted into the army on a regular basis... Need I go on?
but they could have been at least, while cannons ..