Naval Battles!!!

[Funkybax]

"Trade and naval battles will present a new axis of player strategy: build galleys, caravels and fire galleys equipped with catapults, guns, and greek-fire to extend control into sea regions, letting you decide who gets to trade. Factions such as England and Italy will find themselves relying upon piracy and trade income as a source of revenue"

This is from the official medieval TW site.
So there will be naval battles.
Tac or Strat?

[Polar]

hmmmm wonder how galleys route http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Good post funkybax!

I am dreaming of tactical but believe that it will play out on the strategic map with cut scenes, a bit like ninja assasination attempts.

[Shiro]

I agree with Kuma! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Naval tactical battles would be amazing! Not going to happen though. Gah!

[BakaGaijin]

I dunno, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch for the engine, really. I mean, yeah, it's tough for a ship to try and rout, but maybe that just means they won't, unless ordered. =)

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[Funkybax]

Seems to me that will be a sort of strat (a little shame, thinks to a naval battle with many ships type), but the interesting thing is there will be naval zones.
Bye.
Funkybax

[Hirosito]

Quote Originally posted by Funkybax:
build galleys, caravels and fire galleys equipped with catapults, guns, and greek-fire to extend control into sea regions, letting you decide who gets to trade. [/QUOTE]

the trade bit prob means that if an enemy stations warships in your trade path that trade route will be destroyed

but the catapults, guns, and greek-fire seems a bit too sophisticated to be used just for cutscenes. the Q is will there be naval battles or will you only be attacking land provinces from the sea. think about attacking constantinople from the sea that would be fantastic

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

[ShadesWolf]

Naval battles would open up a whole new aspect to game play. I dont know if this is practical.

Now on the other had, you could quite easily, i would imagine, blockade ports with ships. This would be a good idea, add to this the ability to transport units, and the abilty of traiding then you would have some more useful bits.....

But I still dont think Naval battles, ship v ship, would be good game play.

[Jaguara]

I have to disagree with ShadesWolf. I think that tactical naval battles would be interesting...if they put the time into it to do it at least moderatly right. Naval battles are not land battles, as we all know.

Ships are not simply alive or dead like a soldier is...it sustains damage and can be crippled. I wonder how that will be handled in the engine?

I would suspect from the description of several weapon types and ship types that there will have to be a tactical component...but I do not expect for them to spend a lot of time refining it - as opposed to the land component.

I do expect that this may mean that naval troop landings will be possible now.

[Funkybax]

In the time there wasn't sea blockades.
And many battles were pirates war in the mediterranean sea were there were the North African Muslim pirates cove and also the Venetian, Genuan and the S. John's Knights fleets for the Christians.
Bye.
Funkybax

[Nelson]

Sea battles would require a whole new tactical engine. I can't see that happening. Sea combat can be resolved on the map automatically.

[ShadesWolf]

I totally agree nelson

In my option this would be very hard to implement,

Come on guys, they can't even manage to create an online campaign, so how would they manage to do sea battles.

[JAG]

naval battles would be great and would be a great specticle to be seen but it aint gonna happen http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
Sarcasm . . . . . Never!


WarlordWarrior

[Catiline]

It'll happen long before MP campaigns i suspect

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[Kraellin]

i see two assumptions being made here and nothing in that blurb to back either one. regardless, both would be easy to implement. if it's on the strat map then you simply add sea zones and animations to the icons. if it's in tactical/battle mode, then you simply change a few sprites and a few routines and make the maps all water. piece a cake.

now, if you really wanted to get clever with it, you could do not only those two together, but you could add a third mode of capturing a ship and boarding and deck fighting. that one would be a bit tougher, but not impossible.

just remember, a lot of these pr blurbs are going to be fairly vague and generalized so as not to give too much away. so let's not read too much into what's there....and what's not there.

K.


------------------
I'm sorry, but i never apologize.

[Funkybax]

"if it's on the strat map then you simply add sea zones and animations to the icons. if it's in tactical/battle mode, then you simply change a few sprites and a few routines and make the maps all water. piece a cake."

I don't think so. For realistic playing in a fleet tactical mode the weather condition are very important. The old day ships need wind.
Bye.
Funkybax

[Hirosito]

i agree with funky sure you could just slap a few naval units into the game but compared to the depth of the land battles it would be a joke. take games like AOE,Empire Earth etc. the naval battles are basically who has more units wins the ships change direction with gay abandon and so on it would be letting the game down a lot

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

[Kraellin]

funky,

read it again. that's what i meant about 'adding a few routines'.

K.


------------------
I'm sorry, but i never apologize.

[Funkybax]

Ok, Kraellin. I can apologize.
Bye.
Funkybax

[MagyarKhans Cham]

i hope it will be limited to some autoresolve and the time saved used on the campaign system and unitsbalancing...

we know how hard it is to maka a good game, so adding an engine for thsi and so on wont have my priority

[Erado San]

If they include a proper naval battle option we won't see this game until September 2003. No option imo.

Yes, let them focus on the issues really needed to make this potential classic a real one.

[Vanya]

Gah! If there is a '16 ship limit' in a 'fleet' then we will know sea battles will rage ship to ship with boarding and deck fighting.


[This message has been edited by Vanya (edited 12-27-2001).]

[vapd]

I dont know exactly what period we are talking here but am asuming its 1000-1400ish. Well there wernt any big naval battles in this time... Anglo-Saxon Britain was invaded by the Normans in 1066. They landed no probs and the war was waged on land. The Crusaders again didnt seem to have any problems fighting at sea. They lost a few ships in storms mind you. The Spainsh armada was destroyed not by the English fleet (we didnt have a fleet, just a collection of state sponsored pirates) but by bad weather, and the armada wasnt really a fleet. It was a collection of transports. Big naval battles with lots of guns wernt a factor until the 1700's or there abouts.

As such I hope we can look fwd to small naval confrontations where the object is to board and capture nme vessels. And I look fwd to having an excellent Drake equivelent in my sea captains...

Thought I'd better edit the post a bit as its really from a north Euro perspective. Did a bit of reading today on what was going on in the seas. Found an interesting bit here:
There was little distinction between lawful mariners and pirates during the 14th C, and where the mariners of the Cinque ports were concearned, there was often no diff at all.
Piracy was nothing new to the inhabitants of the Cinque Ports, the 5 towns of Hastings, Romney, Hythe, Dover and Sandwich [all SE of England], and there confederates from Rye and Winchelsea. They formed the first line of defense against French invasion, and had long provided most of the ships for the King's wars. In return a blind eye was turned when they attacked...[ships]...of peaceful foregin allies and even fellow Englishmen.
In the early 13th C, the 'sea monsters' had included Eustace the Monk, perhaps the most notorious pirate of the Middle Ages.... In 1212, however, he went over to Prince Louis of France, and harried his erstwhile accomplices.... At the battle of Sandwich in 1217, Cinque Ports ships attacked him 4-1, throwing quicklime into the wind to blind his crew. He was discovered hiding in the bilges, offered a vast ransom of £6600, but his former henchman Stephen of Winchelsea decapitated him...and his head was triumphantly displayed throughout England.
...Judgeing by the constant stream of complaints and counter complaints which passed between the rulers of England, France, Spain and Flanders, many medieval seamen succumbed to the temptation to turn tempoary pirate when they encountered a weaker foregin ship....The hundered years war increased the prevalence of piracy, as sea-rovers were ensured a safe refuge in England or France.
Found some other good stuff as well but there are very few references to naval battles until the 1700's, at least in the books I've got.


[This message has been edited by vapd (edited 12-28-2001).]

[Flame of Udun]

What about Lepanto? but that wasnt till the 1500s so...

[ShadesWolf]

I will still be very interested to see how they handle this, as combat I cannot see how it can work.

If im not mistaken pirates were quite important, but surly naval battle cant work. If it was Roman/ greek/ Egyptian then yes Gallies etc warfare. But how effective were navis, except for transport.

When the normans invaded England, they came unopposed,
When the Vikings raided Europe, they were unopposed.
When the moors took spain they were unopposed.
I havent heard much about England having problems sending soldiers to fight in France in the 100 year war.

[Kraellin]

my understanding was that the game was going to be later than the time period given here. i'm pretty sure i heard talk of guns and cannon and so on and that somewhat implies a later time period. i would have thought it would have been more 12th to 16th century or even 13th to 17th. anyone have the data on this yet?

K.


------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

Well I just hope they do something to add this feature some how to the game. Naval tactical battles would be fun but i agree with Erado would push the release date back a few hundred years. On the strategic map it would be just as good.

Well what ever they do i just hope they dont forget naval warfare (if there was any) all together.

------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Definitly strategy map stuff MAYBE with some cut scenes.

------------------
Yes the camel sprites do look good

[evilc]

even a 2D top down view + simple commands would be good enough for me

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

nah i wouldn't have a 2D style thing. It would be like something that they forgot and so added in the last 5 mins sorta thing. Its gotta be either 3D or on the strategy map.

I just think that 2D would bring the game right down to normal status not 99% status.

------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

According to the ign preview, the naval battles will be auto-calculated. So it's all strategic map stuff, don't know if we will see cut scenes though.

------------------
Yes the camel sprites do look good

[This message has been edited by Sir Kuma of The Org (edited 01-11-2002).]

[NARF]

BOOOH I wanna fight with some ships goddamit

[ShadesWolf]

I'm glad to here that.

They can spend more time on developing gameplay.(inc castle sieges)

[Red Peasant]

Quote Originally posted by ShadesWolf:
I havent heard much about England having problems sending soldiers to fight in France in the 100 year war.
[/QUOTE]

Well, not after Edward III slapped some serious Froggy bottom in the major naval dust-up known as the Battle of Sluys, 1340! They never learn!

That said, naval warfare WAS almost non-existent in that period.
------------------
"Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo"
--Ovid
(The drop hollows the stone not by force but by dripping often)

[This message has been edited by Red Peasant (edited 01-12-2002).]

[vapd]

Yes Suly's was a big victory. But all that happened was that the French ships were morred up and the English ships approached from one end and worked there way along the line fighting hand to hand. IE like a land battle where the defender couldnt move...

[Red Peasant]

Nearly all medieval and ancient naval battles ended up as 'land' battles on water. The Athenians did develop some adroit formational tactical manoeuvres to set the enemy up for ramming (esp. the Periplus and the Diekplus), but once the enemy eventually got wise to such deviousness then it came down to a hand-to-hand slog. The Romans were masters this from the 1st Punic War onwards.

------------------
"Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo"
--Ovid
(The drop hollows the stone not by force but by dripping often)

[evilc]

oh well, we cant hint at them to change it now http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif