is M2TW kind of crippled?

[neoiq5719]

Despite the bugs and all that, i think it´s a great game BUT i think it´s kind of crippled because its missing SEA BATTLES. Why was it left out? imagine having sea battles the way we have the land battles with soldiers getting onto other ships and battling the same way. Why dont they develop a patch, extension or whatever u wanna call it aim for this purpose instead of a cinematic aditor or some other B.S.
I wanna play, not edit.
What do u guys think?

[Quickening]

I think sea battles would be rubbish. The game loses nothing without them in my opinion.

[Derfasciti]

The idea of a sea battle system would be much fun for sure. I think however they left it out because it was probably way too much work. As we have so many bugs in this game already, imagine one with sea battles! They'd be up all night,:coffeenews:

[Xehh II]

Sea battles would make the game way better but from what I heard is that it would take a lot of time to make this. I think they should take the time though it would be worth it.

[Lusted]

From the sounds of your post you have no idea how complex that would be. It would be adding a third engine into the game - and thats a huge amount of work. That's gonna be in a patch or an expansion, it would only ever be in a new game, and im not sure CA will ever add them in due to how much more complex it would make the game - 3 engines to work on, 3 engines to make ai for, 3 engines to debug. And that might give you some idea of why it was left out. Devs don't just wave a magic wand and suddenly a fully working naval 3d egnine appears, it would require years of work.

And i hardly think a lack of sea battles cripple the game.

[Xehh II]

From the sounds of your post you have no idea how complex that would be. It would be adding a third engine into the game - and thats a huge amount of work. That's gonna be in a patch or an expansion, it would only ever be in a new game, and im not sure CA will ever add them in due to how much more complex it would make the game - 3 engines to work on, 3 engines to make ai for, 3 engines to debug. And that might give you some idea of why it was left out. Devs don't just wave a magic wand and suddenly a fully working naval 3d egnine appears, it would require years of work.
They better get started then.

[Hoplite7]

I'm actually glad they left them out, since only a couple of factions actually use navies, and they are never that big on VH. Unless they made the AI work differently, sea battles would just be another tedius aspect of dealing with rebels.

[Frederick_I_Barbarossa]

IMHO there were worse things left out than sea battles...for one thing not being able to select the faction heir and the total disappearance (:furious3:) of princesses from your family tree when you use them to "acquire" a foreign general are way more pressing issues for my style of gameplay than not being able to fight sea battles.

[Csargo]

Yes, let's add sea battles so then people can have more things to complain about. This has been said for a long time now, adding sea battle, and I doubt that CA would ever even try doing that.

[Traffik]

I would think in a future total war installment that relied on naval battles more than land they would add such an engine (not to say that navies were not crucial in medieval and ancient times), but a lack of sea battles in my opinion doesn't really detract from the experience of the game. Hell, I'd probably end up autoresolving the naval battles most of the time anyways.

[HoreTore]

Seriously. Sea battles with galleys isn't very exciting, unless of course they choose to make it "fantasy". As someone said last time this subject came up, you "would have all the fun of selecting your army, clicking on the enemy fleet and wait".

I don't think it justifies all the effort that would have to be put in the game to enable. It would take lots of work, with little gain. However, what I would like to see, are more tactical variation on the sea battles we have now. Ships with pro's and cons, instead of the one ship per level we have now. That would make it more fun, with little effort.

Oh, and lowering their cost so a navy is a viable option.

Perhaps also enabling transport ships...

[CamelGunner]

My gripe with sea battles as they are now is that when I have like 8 holks, gun holks, etc. (or equivalent) going against 3 dinky cogs, I might sink 1, then they run and I have to chase them all over the sea.

My idea would be that overwhelming numbers (say 4 to 1 advantage) should sink the enemy fleet (factoring in quality of the ships of course).

[avatar]

I am glad there are not intricate sea battles. Trying to get in close enough to throw grappling hooks or ram would be a tedious task; then the actual boarding attack/defense, putting out fires, ... no thanks.

[IrishArmenian]

I'd rather CA has a well polished full game then tack on naval battles. So, I do not want naval battles until the game has reached its highest potential.

[Frederick_I_Barbarossa]

My gripe with sea battles as they are now is that when I have like 8 holks, gun holks, etc. (or equivalent) going against 3 dinky cogs, I might sink 1, then they run and I have to chase them all over the sea.

My idea would be that overwhelming numbers (say 4 to 1 advantage) should sink the enemy fleet (factoring in quality of the ships of course).

Let me remind you that the Drake's English fleet that destroyed the Spanish Armada was inferior to their Spanish counterpart in both quality (size, # of guns, etc.) and quantity.

[pike master]

crippled? more like incapacitated or decapititated!

[TevashSzat]

I can picture battles now. You enter battlefield, select all of your ships, click on the enemy and just wait. After gunpowder, things would get even more boring since you'll have to carefully turn all of your ships sides towards the enemy and hope you don't get friendly casualties. Naval battles are never that fun except for with modern ships

[Slug For A Butt]

Sea battles? Why for god's sake?
Surely they would be cumbersome and boring.
They have never been included in any Total War game, and for the forseeable future I'm happy for them to leave it that way. It's absolutely no loss to the game, and they can concentrate on what TW is good at... land battles.
I suppose the game is crippled in a way, but it sure as hell is nothing to do with lack of sea battles. I don't know how long you have been playing TW games, but I think you are missing the point of them. Sea battles are insignificant enough to be left out, look at the overall beauty and depth of all the TW games... it's enough for me.

[holycow]

y'know if you're too sissy to tackle a naval battle, if it ever is designed, then just auto-guess as you do now. i think actual naval battles would be great and for those who think they're boring, you know nothing bout history. go watch the history channel or research naval warfare before you condemn something.

[Slug For A Butt]

y'know if you're too sissy to tackle a naval battle, if it ever is designed, then just auto-guess as you do now.
i think actual naval battles would be great and for those who think they're boring, you know nothing bout history. go watch the history channel or research naval warfare before you condemn something.

Holycow, I think you need to understand what people are saying before you act in such a pompous, patronising manner.
Reread and digest what people are saying...
I do watch the History channel at times (is that where you get all your knowledge from?) and find it mildly entertaining, and I do know something "bout" history, and I do think naval battles are not what TW is about and they would be cumbersome and boring.
Do I have your permission to condemn the idea now? :sweatdrop:

[Csargo]

y'know if you're too sissy to tackle a naval battle, if it ever is designed, then just auto-guess as you do now. i think actual naval battles would be great and for those who think they're boring, you know nothing bout history. go watch the history channel or research naval warfare before you condemn something.

:laugh4:

The main land battles have problems and bugs that need to be fixed. If you added on naval battles then only God knows what will happen. I think CA has enough problems fixing current problems. There's no need too add something that would give them more in the future. Not to mention the fact that Medieval naval battle pretty primitive(ramming, boarding, etc.) people would lose interest fast in that sort of thing. It's not worth CA's time or manpower to try to come up with a system like that imo.

[pike master]

surely you are kidding me guys.

sea battles would be awesome. especially with broadside exchanges. boarding actions. ships mast falling over and ships listing and sinking and fires raging when the powder kegs get hit.

cool!

[Csargo]

Maybe with gunpower ships, but before that it's not really interesting

[sapi]

Could we please keep this thread clear of personal attacks and CA-bashing?

Talk to the topic, not to the person.

[Xehh II]

I really want CA to put Naval battles in future games/expansion becuase i'm sick of not having any control over them.:furious3:

[JCoyote]

Yeah even short of an engine I think there could be a simple minigame that gives you SOME input on how things turn out. It's the feeling of lack of control that gets to me. Just give us a few choices to make for tactics regarding the ships involved, etc and that'd be enough.


But I think the thing that's really missing is extra space in the engine for different factions. It feels like the should have left a few "blank factions" in things for modders to play with as well as leave expansion possibilities for themselves.

[Ethelred Unread]

Agreed,

It's a shame we don't have a "defensive" or "offensive" choice, most times I'd just like my navy to scarper and avoid getting boarded/sunk, especially when a family member is on there avoiding an inquisitor.

How many people would be happy with a mini game though? Knowing the level of interest people would be more like "why can't i control the amount of canvas" "those currents never existed in real life" etc etc.

[Lusted]

But I think the thing that's really missing is extra space in the engine for different factions. It feels like the should have left a few "blank factions" in things for modders to play with as well as leave expansion possibilities for themselves.

They have, one mod has already added in 9 new factions.

[Chosun]

In re: sea battles, I wouldn't mind a couple of short sea battle animations. They did it for the agents. A little more control would have been nice but where would you stop. I think it is OK for now and also in the future.

[Callahan9119]

honestly if i had a chance to retreat i'd be content

the only crippling thing to me is getting bored after about 40 turns cuz its just like "ok guess i just wage war and win"

after 40 turns i am teched up enough to roll over anybody

[Gaiseric]

I would like more control over the auto-resolving of Both land and naval battles.

I think that adding a mini game might be too much to ask for when the developers could focus their attention elsewhere. It would be cool though if I could see the unit cards lined up and the combat phases taking place. Kind of like in the Hearts of Iron II Game. In battles each unit selects a target and attacks or defends throughout the phases. Things like The Generals Leadearship/Traits, Unit type, Armour, Bonuses, and Attack and Defence Values all come into play and help determine the outcome of the battle. Plus there is a small graphic showing all of this taking place.:clown:

I think something like this would be an easy addition to an expansion and would give the player more control over the auto-resolve option or at least let them know how auto-resolved battles work. I never use auto-resolve (except naval battles) because I dont understand how it works and because I only take 1/3 the casualties by doing the battle manually. :wall:

I would use auto-resolve if I understood it and thought it was fair. A system similar to Hearts of Iron II should be added to improve gameplay and reduce the amount of micromanagement and time needed to complete a long campaign. People who want to play with late period gunpowder units could auto-resolve battles up to that time without feeling like the casualty rate was too high or without having to worry about their 10 star general dying when attacking a grop of rebel peasents.:thumbsdown::idea2:

[Veho Nex]

Maybe some cinematics instead of an actual fight

[Whacker]

Meh, I'd love sea battles but I don't see it coming anytime soon, if at all. Combat itself is already highly abstracted in this game, sea battles would be even moreso and in theory a LOT slower paced. In short, would be cool, but I'd rather they focused more on bug fixing and putting back in features that some of us felt were left out.

:balloon2:

[alpaca]

Well if we'd get a kind of Colonial: Total War, I'd be all for sea battles because they could be a ton of fun.
In Medieval or Rome (without cannons) they definitely wouldn't be worth the work in my opinion.

[Tiberius maximus]

i think its hard to imagine how CA would have sea battles go as far as boarding other ships and stuff. IMO live it how it is!

[neoiq5719]

many of u think it´s not possible maybe due to a lack of imagination or others say that it would have many bugs but SO WAS THE FOOTBALL game and many others at the begining.
All u have to do is get to it and with the people´s ideas, comments and other things all those drawbacks can be overcome.
Good games rise from impossible ideas (or unthinkable).

[TevashSzat]

Football game??? Can you be more specific as to what game is it because I'm pretty sure football isn't part of the Total War series

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If you want sea battles get Age of Sail or another good sailing ship game. There are so many other things you could add to make the game better. Heck if they could just get it back to VI playablity id be a happy camper.

[HoreTore]

Football game??? Can you be more specific as to what game is it because I'm pretty sure football isn't part of the Total War series

Premier League: Total War

Now, if they could only fix the Chelski-bug...

[Slug For A Butt]

Chelski bug... is that the one where all your units have disproportionate upkeep costs?

And I suppose the Manchester United bug is the one where your units refuse to leave the city when you sally because of the seige mentality bug?

The Liverpool bug means you sack your neighbours settlements and steal their TV's even when they are your allies?

etc...

*Edit: I don't mean to cause any offence to anyone by this...
except Man Utd supporters obviously. :hmg:

[neoiq5719]

what a bunch of retards, i´m talking about the complexity of a game not football being a total war game. WAKE UP

[Csargo]

what a bunch of retards, i´m talking about the complexity of a game not football being a total war game. WAKE UP

Maybe you should try expressing your ideas more indepth, and not insult people. Oh and their posts were most likely a joke.

[Budwise]

I'm actually glad they left them out, since only a couple of factions actually use navies, and they are never that big on VH. Unless they made the AI work differently, sea battles would just be another tedius aspect of dealing with rebels.

Really after thinking about it, I agree. I agree with the three engine post too. If you think about it you can't really be expecting much. For instance...
1. Your not having a massive armata of ships, mostly just one vs one. Its like an archer firing on an archer and see which one hits which first.
2. A health bar - All ships will take more than one hit so the dreaded health bar that CA leaves out (and a good call on that one to be blunt) will have to come back. Even if they omit it and show ship damage instead, it will still be who can hit who the most quickest.
3. Time to develop - COME ON EVERYONE, to enjoy a good game like this takes time to develop. I would much rather enjoy even an average AI to having yet another broken option with crappy everything on it.
4. Almost no strategy avaliable for the battles. Their are no hills, no buildings, even no trees to hide behind. I guess on the coastline you could hide behind a reef or rocky cliffs but it would most likely a fight between 1 ship and another ship - THATS IT.

Please CA, don't screw up a great game by adding too much ingredience to a perfectly cooked Entree.

[Ethelred Unread]

I'm sure they could do it if they really wanted to, but the investement of time and resources wouldn't really make it worthwhile.

Video clips would be good though.

[JFC]

@ Budwise, I agree mate.

Has anyone played Age of Sail 2?

I have, and let me tell you the graphics and engine would be ideal if grafted onto MTWII, HOWEVER it would be very dull. I say this as in AOS2 you have the benefit of 18/19th Century Naval Combat, with ships armed to the TEETH with cannon. But in medieval time, I would fail to see the fun in chasing a ship round a battle map just to ram it or get a grappling hook on.
Also, in AOS2; to control a fleet of sailing ships is actually quite hard, AND if there was no time slider, I'd probably kill myself, as two ships fighting in 2-3 Knots of wind isn't great.

Naval combat in days of old where men where made of steel and ships of wood was exceedingly horrid and very much a challenge, but I just don't think it would be good for this game. Some gamers might find this an extra challenge, but I would rather concentrate on the land battles and have my Cannae instead of becoming a medieval Nelson!

[TinCow]

what a bunch of retards, i´m talking about the complexity of a game not football being a total war game. WAKE UP

This is an unacceptable response. Personal attacks will not be tolerated on this forum.

Thread locked.