View Full Version : Will ship battles ever get the 3d treatment?
Are there any plans announced for adding a 3d battle engine for naval warefare similar to the land battles? It seems to me that that could be very interesting indeed, and the current auto-resolve-only situation is kind of a downer when it comes to integrating ships into your campaign.
Of course I do realize the difficulties in implementing such a feature. But this would truely be an expansion pack worth buying!
Markus
I hope they do. At this point, naval battles are somewhat akin to playing all your land battles on auto-calc. That's just ridiculous.
Personally, if such a feature is to be launched I hope it will be optional.
Silver Rusher
12-04-2004, 18:18
you mean the same way land battles are already optional?
Anyway, when I first got MTW I deliberately got into a sea battle to see what it would be like. I was very dissappointed to find that they were auto calc. I personally think that they might as well wait until the next TW game. Adding Naval Battles is a huge step for an expansion, pretty much a whole new game.
Modding the game I noticed MANY files showing they were planning on having 3D sea battles.
Most likely like a moving ship plateform and then having men attack eachother, with maybe sailors manning the Ballista's.
There is no doubt in my mind they WANTED to have them, most likely it was due to being rushed out the door. I think its possible latter we may see them in a patch or an expansion.
I wouldl ove to see sea battles! :charge:
Colovion
12-04-2004, 21:09
I've seen little snippets of 'Pirates' 3D Naval battles and they look pretty good.
However, ancient naval warfare would be much more boring.
FYI - the game wasn't "rushed out the door" it was given an year extra tacked on to the original time allotted to make it
Uesugi Kenshin
12-05-2004, 00:29
After that time Activision probably told them to wrap it up so they could make some money.... But 3D naval battles would be hard to implement and could be very taxing on people's mid end computers, so if they do implement them they should have both land unit sizes and sea unit sizes, because naval stacks are often large and with 100 men per unit, 20 units per side... Some people may not be able to play them well if they are implemented.
Boring? Well, I guess tastes differ, but I would love them! Ships firing at each other, ships ramming each other, bording other ships! Maybe even taking them and adding them to your own fleet...
Markus
anti_strunt
12-05-2004, 01:38
...you know what would be really cool? Having reinforcements arrive by ship, like ancient Normandy... Maybe you could assault a city from both land and sea... Or riverine battles... Oh, the possibilities... :duel: :dizzy2:
Krusader
12-05-2004, 01:38
Two things you will never see in a Total War game.
Naval battles & multiplayer campaigns.
As someone wrote, ancient naval battles might not be that fun. It was mainly boarding action or ramming. The Romans first fought naval battles as they were land battles (kinda). The Corvus Triremes. They sailed right up to an enemy ship, locked onto it, and levered/crashed the Corvus (which was a "bridge" at the front of the trireme) on the enemy ship, and the Roman marines (most often Hastati, Principes style legionaires) charged across the corvus, which served as a bridge.
The Janissaries did something akin in Lepanto in 1598. Was it that year?
Uh, the Janissaires got their butts kicked at Lepanto.
Grifman
HopAlongBunny
12-05-2004, 10:49
I hope not. At well over a thousand battles in my present campaign I doubt the addition of naval battles would help much.
As a stand alone game? Yes! 3D ship battles from ancient up to around the Napoleonic era would be very nice ~:) A naval simulator with the level of feel of MTW (only at sea) would get my money.
I think you missunderstood what I said, I wasn't talking so much of 3D ship battles more like what the others said Ballistas and ramming with Boarding. You can see the files were they were going to add this but didn't.
I think something other than autocalc would be good. Nothing fancy just something more, they must have felt the same way at first also.
To the guy who said it wasn't rushed because of the 1 year addon. lol Yes it was thats why Beta didn;t pick up all those BUGS. There are well to many for a polished game on schedule. Hardy bug and Heat bug are a serious oversight. Not to mention the hundreds of other issues.
Anyway the topic was about 3D ships and not release times. :book:
Cheers
Lt
Mikeus Caesar
12-05-2004, 12:17
I would love to see 3D ship battles. Then i could kick my friends ass on land and sea. By having ship battles, it would be a race against time to defeat the enemy before they sink all your ships and all your men. It would be damn cool. But i would rather see it as a seperate add-on pack, or another game altogether.
Werent they thinking of MP campaign at one point but had to scap it. I remembered reading somethin bout it.
metatron
12-06-2004, 09:56
Two things you will never see in a Total War game.
Naval battles & multiplayer campaigns.
As someone wrote, ancient naval battles might not be that fun. It was mainly boarding action or ramming. The Romans first fought naval battles as they were land battles (kinda). The Corvus Triremes. They sailed right up to an enemy ship, locked onto it, and levered/crashed the Corvus (which was a "bridge" at the front of the trireme) on the enemy ship, and the Roman marines (most often Hastati, Principes style legionaires) charged across the corvus, which served as a bridge.
The Janissaries did something akin in Lepanto in 1598. Was it that year?That's how naval combat was up until the advent of the ironclads.
And don't let that fool you, there was more strategy beyond "RAM!"
ToranagaSama
12-06-2004, 22:04
Are there any plans announced for adding a 3d battle engine for naval warefare similar to the land battles? It seems to me that that could be very interesting indeed, and the current auto-resolve-only situation is kind of a downer when it comes to integrating ships into your campaign.
Of course I do realize the difficulties in implementing such a feature. But this would truely be an expansion pack worth buying!
Markus
Yeah, sounds like a good idea except for:
1) There are TOO many battles (insignificant and inconsquential) as it is. It would take too much time and effort to implement, particularly when there are:
2) a HOST of issues, bugs, features, etc. that are more pressing. RTW needs a good deal of work to match up to it's predecessors, and even more to match the MedMod. Implementing Naval Battles s/b a very low priority. Probably for the next version of the game, whatever that may be....
Now I can only dream a 3D naval battle. Hum...
Your fleet now sails in a good formation, but you can issue individual commands to every single ship. Ships can be controled to move around with some kind of "momentum" lag, so you have to issue the commands carefully. There are also wind/sea current factors that will carry everything away. (It is possible to push an entire ship out of the battlefield. Wow)
Ships have their damage level. When reaching 100% this ship is sunk with all its soldiers. Damage can be done by collision or any kind of naval battle weaponry.
When the ships are close the decks will be automatically connected, and sailors will rush over to fight. Some will fall down to the sea - like a stone wall assault. You probably don't need to control your units because all they need to do is fight, anyways.
After the fighting is over the loser's ship is considered "sunk". The winning soldiers will raise their weapons, cheering in the current RTW style, then return to their own boat to look for their next victim.
Ships can try to retreat when not engaged, but might lose a few ships during the process (getting lost or captured by the enemy).
To add some playability, it is perfectly possible to engage multiple ships at the same time, a bit like flanking. So basically we are trying to gang up and pick out individual enemy ships through careful manuevering.
Hum... ~:)
1) There are TOO many battles (insignificant and inconsquential) as it is. It would take too much time and effort to implement...
Yeah, but you could always auto-resolve them the way they are auto-resolved right now. It's not like you'd have to play them...
I agree that there are bugs that need to be fixed. But at the same time, these guys are not going to turn into a company that only fixes bugs for the rest of their existence. They are going to work on new stuff, and it seems to me that this would be a cool area to improve.
Markus
Uesugi Kenshin
12-07-2004, 04:33
If they make naval battles they need to include greek fire ( if the time period is appropriate) and fire arrows/ballista bolts. I know greek fire was used in the medieval campaign but I do not think it would have been made during this game..... But if they ever go back...
The_Emperor
12-07-2004, 10:52
Yeah, sounds like a good idea except for:
There are TOO many battles (insignificant and inconsquential) as it is.
Yes but most of them are naval battles because the AI loves to spam fleets and ships don't sink...
Right Now its a case of.
Naval Battle!! (Big manly music playing)
Navies cannot withdraw, press the bloody button. (presses the button)
Loss. "ROW FUR UR LIIVVVEESS!" (Ship sails from Sicily across to Crete in a single turn)
Then the next faction that has a turn declares war and attacks the same fleet...
"ROW FUR UR LIIVVVEESS!" (Ship speeds across the med again)
I spend more time on naval battles than on land fights and if I was able to fight them myself in 3D at least they would be decisive!!!
ToranagaSama
12-07-2004, 20:08
Yeah, but you could always auto-resolve them the way they are auto-resolved right now. It's not like you'd have to play them...
I agree that there are bugs that need to be fixed. But at the same time, these guys are not going to turn into a company that only fixes bugs for the rest of their existence. They are going to work on new stuff, and it seems to me that this would be a cool area to improve.
Markus
Autoresolve ehh? Well, you've just made my point.
Like you said, Naval battles already are "autoresolved", guess what? Nobody likes the way it works. I like it better in MTW, but lots of folks didn't like that either.
Think about it. TW games are really two separate games melded together. That's a lot of development effort and resources to create two games and sell them as a single game.
Naval Battles would effectively be an additional and THIRD game within a game.
Yeah, it might be cool, but I'd prefer they focus upon perfecting the existing game; and, there's a LOT that NEEDS perfecting.
ToranagaSama
12-07-2004, 22:05
Yes but most of them are naval battles because the AI loves to spam fleets and ships don't sink...
Right Now its a case of.
Naval Battle!! (Big manly music playing)
Navies cannot withdraw, press the bloody button. (presses the button)
Loss. "ROW FUR UR LIIVVVEESS!" (Ship sails from Sicily across to Crete in a single turn)
Then the next faction that has a turn declares war and attacks the same fleet...
"ROW FUR UR LIIVVVEESS!" (Ship speeds across the med again)
I spend more time on naval battles than on land fights and if I was able to fight them myself in 3D at least they would be decisive!!!
Well, again, think about it. Naval Battles as they are, for want of a better term, don't work.
So, this rather simplistic version has serious issues. Imagine, a complex real-time 3D naval battle *module*, do you really think it'll *work*?
Yes, of course, the CA guys could do it and make it work; but, asking them to do so, simultaneously with both the Campaign Engine and the Battle Engine is placing a LOT on their plates. In many *real* ways, more than what any other developer has to deal with.
We *need* CA to focus upon perfecting RTW, NOT creating a new Naval module. The worst case scenario would be an imperfect Naval module along with a continued imperfect RTW.
Not what I want.
---
Well, I can sympathize with having to deal with all the Naval Battles. I have yet to finish a campaign, but in all the campaigns I've started and stopped, I've learned to make a priority to avoid engaging navies or to weaken the ones I must. Against the Gauls, I try to keep them from having enough money to build navies; and, I try VH to keep their ports from developing to the level of shipbuilders.
In other circumstances, I'd think the aim and motto would be: Beat them on Land--Beat then on Sea. Disrupte their sea trade, then start taking provinces. Take a port province. The economics should go against the AI. You may lose your ships, but you also lose the maintenance costs of those ships. The income *gain* from no longer carrying the ships maintenance, along with a good *land* income, and the take from conquering a province or two should allow for a couple of good land armies.
The AI on the other hand may rule at sea, BUT will have to continue carrying the Naval maintenance, while losing provinces and income. The AI will steadily lose the ability to field and maintain land armies. It's not intelligent enough to realise it needs to dump its ships.
This is the way I intend, and to a somewhat similar degree always have, approached things. Attack the AI economically, and use its strength(s) against it.
NOTE:
You're probably playing *Vanilla* RTW, I don't and WON'T. Fortunately, there's the "Total Realism Mod" which adjusts and effects a number of things, including causing the AI to build fewer ships!!! As well as adjusting the *aggressiveness* of the Factions. Now, you may or may not like the *Realism* part of the mod, the Gameplay part is superior to Vanilla.
Additionally, you can play the mod in conjunction with another mod, the "Total Combat Mod" which adjust speed rates, kill rates and, importantly, shield values, as well as a bit more.
Together, while not close to being perfect, they make for a FAR superior Gameplay experience than does Vanilla.
Think about it. TW games are really two separate games melded together. That's a lot of development effort and resources to create two games and sell them as a single game.
Naval Battles would effectively be an additional and THIRD game within a game.
Yeah, it might be cool, but I'd prefer they focus upon perfecting the existing game; and, there's a LOT that NEEDS perfecting.
This is true. A third sub-game would limit resources spent improving what we already have. Besides, I can hear it now:
Some ships are too fast!
Some ships are too slow!
The pace is all wrong!
The corvus doesn't deploy properly!
Naval AI stinks! It was better in Shogun! :wink:
ToranagaSama
12-07-2004, 22:51
LOL! you got it!
Besides, I can hear it now:
Some ships are too fast!
Some ships are too slow1
The pace is all wrong!
The corvus doesn't deploy properly!
Naval AI stinks! It was better in Shogun! :wink:
True. But if that sort of ctiticism bothers people, then game development is not the business they should be in, if you know what I mean :wink:
Markus
Yeah, it might be cool, but I'd prefer they focus upon perfecting the existing game; and, there's a LOT that NEEDS perfecting.
Yeah, like sea battles! :wink:
I guess when I really think about it, this is the point I am trying to make: Sea battles do not work well right now. So much so in fact, that I would almost consider them broken. They are next to useless and non-immersive. This is true for the attacks you initiate, but it is especially true for being attacked, where a perfectly good ship can be attacked until in sinks within a single turn and all you can do is pretty the stupid button to auto-resolve the battle. Argh!
Markus
"Hit the stupid button" I meant to say of course :wink:
Markus
Swordsman
12-08-2004, 03:23
Anybody remember/ever play "Centurion: Defender of Rome"?? Had it back in 1990-91 I think. Played on a 286 w/1Mb RAM. While the graphics would be totally substandard today (although fantastic at the time), look at the GAMEPLAY it introduced:
-- 3D Ship Battles!! Nothing fancy/exotic, but at least it TRIED.
-- Diplomacy!! Not that much less than RTW when you get down to it. More than MTW. And what it had seemed to work rationally...
-- Separate turn-based Strategy/RTS-based combat!
-- General with command radius based on ability!! You could see a "circle" around your general, and could only directly command units within that circle of command. Better the General, bigger the circle! If you had a newbie Gen you had to run him all over the battlefield if you really wanted to control ALL your units. This would be GREAT in RTW!
-- When you held "Games", you actually could (had to? don't remember) participate in the chariot race. Didn't occur often enough to be a pain. Was actually kind of fun.
-- IIRC, when you built/bought a legion you did it all at once, and got a "stock" OOB (mostly cohorts, couple of Cav, etc.). These gradually got upgraded as time went on. Mention this because I just read some posts somewhere talking about this very thing.
My point is not only is this stuff not that hard to do technically, but it has been done before (and sometimes better) with much more limited computer power. Frankly, if some company remade this old, defunct game and did nothing more than upgrade the graphics/battles to MTW standards it could probably give RTW as it exists today some competition. Be kinda in between RTW and Legion.
Don't get me wrong, I love great graphics-- but what keeps me coming back is gameplay. What would be so hard about emulating some of the great features of past games? Is it just a case of "Not Invented Here"?
Guess my fantasy (well, gaming at least ~D ) is to see a game like this developed that actually surveyed the great features of past games (not just the last couple of years) and incorporated the best ones.
I agree completely. Of course, this is what the industry has done in general, right? Make games prettier with higher production values, but gameplay suffers. Of course, less depth often translates into lower entry hurdle and therefore a bigger audience.
Also, the more the are starting to remake these old games, the more I realize that those old games were not quite as amazing as I remember them. Consider the new Pirates! for instace. The pretty much follow exactly the recipe that you define here: Take old game play (even add to it a bit... or quite a bit, actually...) and make the graphics much better, and voila! But then you play it and you realize that all the new version really does for you is destroy fond memories of the old game.
And that is not a new trend either. I remember playing Pirates! on the C64 for hours and hours (at one point a friend of mine and I actually considered breaking the world computer game playing endurance record on this game). But then when it came out on the Amiga, I spent a few hours with it and decided that it was not worth my time. Yet it was a better game than the C64 version. When I tried the new Pirates! this week, I had a very similar experience...
Markus
ToranagaSama
12-08-2004, 18:06
-- General with command radius based on ability!! You could see a "circle" around your general, and could only directly command units within that circle of command. Better the General, bigger the circle! If you had a newbie Gen you had to run him all over the battlefield if you really wanted to control ALL your units. This would be GREAT in RTW!
[\quote]
VERY interesting! Something for CA to consider.
I like the basic idea quite a lot. This has a LOT of potential. For instance:
Not only should the commanding General have his "command circle", but Family Members should have their "command circle" as well. Rather, and additionally, than having to run your General ragged trying to keep control of all your troops. A player s/b able to utilize Family Members for control as well.
A Player would tactically disperse Family Members to among the troops and across the battlefield. In order to have FULL control over ALL the troops you'd need to have enough Family Members to cover the area with a combined "command circle" (command circumference, is probably more apt definition).
As Family Members fall/die on the battlefield the "command circle" would shrink; either overall in a general manner; or, if a Family Member falls on your right flank, the Player's control over that flank would be greatly lessened. In this circumstance, either the General would have to rush over to that flank to regain control, and/or a Family Member would be rushed over to take control.
THIS would be GREAT! and add a whole new dimension to Tactical Battles; provide a more Fleshed out role for Family Members on the battlefield; increase the value of command experience for Generals/Family Members.
Taking Family Members with good command experience into battle would be a new dimension. In all versions of TW, presently, it's best to AVOID bringing such Family Members to battle. Why risk losing them if you don't have to.
With a Command Circle/Circumsference implementation, the better your Family Members and the more you have and bring to the battle the Better!!
Dude, thanks for posting this!!!!
Now, time to start a seprate thread and agitate, agitate, agitate, CA will here us!!
~:grouphug:
[QUOTE]My point is not only is this stuff not that hard to do technically, but it has been done before (and sometimes better) with much more limited computer power....
Unfortunately, this is not correct. Yeah, they did all that back then with limited computer resources, but you gotta realize that the Code they implemented was rather crude and undemanding, to today's standards. For one, I'd imagine that there was a *static* background with little detail, if any.
Today you'd have a *detailed* 3D background, that would need to be *dynamic*, etcetera.... As well as, have THOUSANDS of 3D models running around. Even with the increased computer resources, it'd be MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, harder to implement.
The great thing though, is that by the end of 2005, the good folks of AMD and Intel will bring us ***Multi-Core*** CPUs and ATI will have its next gen GPU (5 series) out. Not to mention, *64 bit* Windoze s/b here as well.
Sooo, this is really really possible, dependant upon the robustness of 64 bit Windoze and CA's prowess in coding to multi-cores. Linux would probably be a better OS to use, but....
Thanks again for the idea, if you dont' start a thread, I will by the weekend.
Just had a funny thought, the Pausers trying to manage 3, 4, 5 *Generals* at the same time!!! :charge: ~D
Actually, I think they already have the idea of command circles implemented. [pause] Ah, I see, are you saying you wouldn't be able to give orders if you didn't have a general there? Not sure about that, but there is something of what you're talking about built in, in terms of the morale and combat effect.
I was on another board (ooh, I feel so dirty when I say that), but they actually had one of the CA developers on there, describing the theory behind it. The distance-from-the-general at which units get the benefit depends on a formula related to command skills and influence. The formula looked fairly linear, a (8m * C * (I/2)) kind of thing. It would be interesting to be able to hold a key down and see how far the general's influence did extend on the battlefield, however.
Didn't say whether other family members can have an effect, or it's just the actual general. I'd prefer the former, personally.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.