View Full Version : Naval problem... not a bug I guess
Warmaker
08-25-2002, 16:39
Okay, here I am with my Byzantine Empire overstretched literally East from Georgia to West at Portugal and NW Africa. My "ally" the Egyptians got pissed off I guess since I took away all land routes to any parts of mainland Europe. My navy was just beginning to grow but when the Egyptians all the sudden declared war they had a single ship deploy somewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean. That SINGLE ship allowed 3 different armies to criss cross the Mediterranean into my Easternmost island, Nicea, AND Lesser Antioch. I've got two problems with this. In ONE TURN, a single ship transported roughly 20,000 treacherous Egyptians into MY shores. My second problem is that these armies came from different provinces... present day Sudan and Egypt.
On a later occasion the computer sneaked by a single warship and guess what it gorged out at Constantinople: About 2000 men! A modern LHD warship can roughly hold a battallion of men!
Naval power is great, but this is ridiculous. I propose having various ships have differing troop transport limits AND having you place troops onto them. If that ship sinks, then bye-bye ship and men/horses. Put emphasis on having dedicated galleys/firegalleys/etc. to protect those ships slated for transport.
Jeez, we could have used transports like that in WWII...
------------------
There's no such thing as overkill, just ensured victory!
TechnoMage of Shadows
08-25-2002, 16:58
ah,
this is year long turns?
then thats how many men the ship carried in a year!
====
edit
====
math error
Q - how long does it take to sail across?
[This message has been edited by TechnoMage of Shadows (edited 08-25-2002).]
I think the bigger problem is how one ship allowed them to move armies from two different places to two OTHER different places when we couldn't do it with less than two ships... maybe more.
TechnoMage of Shadows
08-25-2002, 19:10
they have a whole year to move them,
365 days!
you can sail a long way in 365 days...
(load men, take to destination, unload, go back,
load more men, take to destination, unload, go back,
load more men...you get the idea?)
[This message has been edited by TechnoMage of Shadows (edited 08-25-2002).]
DarknScaly
08-25-2002, 20:22
Quote Originally posted by JRock:
I think the bigger problem is how one ship allowed them to move armies from two different places to two OTHER different places when we couldn't do it with less than two ships... maybe more.[/QUOTE]
It probably didnt.
1 ship in the north sea allows you to move soldiers form both mercia and northumbria because both provinces have ports on the north sea...and youc an ove into more than one province because the north sea borders more than one province.
same in lots of other places.
Tsunamisan
08-25-2002, 20:32
One ship is clearly representing an active fleet, not one ship going back and forth for a whole year ! You simply could not invade a country with one shipload imho
Funky Phantom
08-25-2002, 20:39
I think it would depend on many factors such as garrison size etc..
I guess it could be done, but its not all that realistic, i mean there arent many\any accounts in history in which a single ship has transported and assembled an entire an entire army on enemy shores...
The manual clearly states that the fleet is assumed to be protecting your fleet of merchant ships - that you NEVER see - and are an assumed part of the game. I for one do not want to have to track merchant ships to.
Your problem is twofold:
1) Every alliance will end - the AI gets hemmed in and eventuall they will attack - you were not prepared.
2) You didn't build a fleet to protect your shores - a major oversight on your part. The sea is a door of opportunity - for you and your enemies. Leaving it unprotected is like leaving the door unlocked.
Your fault, not the game's http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Grifman
Kraellin
08-25-2002, 21:02
from what little i've seen of the ships, they arent really treated as one ship, even though it's represented that way. it's always a 'fleet', and that means there's really more than one ship there. a lot of the sea stuff is in a conceptualized or symbolic form. you arent really moving ships about on the map other than to symbolize that you have a ROUTE there and if you have a ROUTE then you can move things, trade goods and armies. the ships only represent the potential to move these things, not so much the actual ships themselves. and like the other guys point out, it's a year per turn and a lot can moved in that year through that ROUTE.
it's a step up from shogun where you could 'teleport' instantly around japan by sea ports. and with agents this is still true. in mtw you now have to have these routes set up before you can move your military units in the same way. break the route and you lose your teleporter link. it's not a perfect system, but it's a big step up from stw/we/mi.
K.
------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.
Quote Originally posted by Kraellin:
from what little i've seen of the ships, they arent really treated as one ship, even though it's represented that way. it's always a 'fleet', and that means there's really more than one ship there. a lot of the sea stuff is in a conceptualized or symbolic form. you arent really moving ships about on the map other than to symbolize that you have a ROUTE there and if you have a ROUTE then you can move things, trade goods and armies. the ships only represent the potential to move these things, not so much the actual ships themselves. and like the other guys point out, it's a year per turn and a lot can moved in that year through that ROUTE.
it's a step up from shogun where you could 'teleport' instantly around japan by sea ports. and with agents this is still true. in mtw you now have to have these routes set up before you can move your military units in the same way. break the route and you lose your teleporter link. it's not a perfect system, but it's a big step up from stw/we/mi.
K.
[/QUOTE]
Well put K, it does seem like people take things in the game to be real life reps too much at times, especially when the AI finds an open chink in a players army and swots them from the map http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif.
MTW is definetley moving in the right direction in alot of areas but it is far from real life, so be lenient with it.
Pachinko
08-25-2002, 23:15
Well here goes,
I was the Danes and the Viking
long boats went to the Scotland. I won... But I cant go back to the homeland!!! No ship or anything. I dont understand.
Soooo..Whats the deal DD/DnS? It's only a one ticket!
P.
[This message has been edited by Pachinko (edited 08-25-2002).]
DarknScaly
08-25-2002, 23:23
You need a port to EMBARK troops.
When you took scotland it either didnt have a port or was destroyed in the attack. Build a port and you can get them back out of there. ;-)
I am playing the English and I have a ship in every port in the map. I have more than 1 in some Mediterranean waters since the Italians attacked my ships and I had to destroy their entire fleet. No port attacks against me.
Warmaker
08-26-2002, 08:22
Okay, after calming myself down I continued producing firegalleys and sending them to African and Mid.Eastern shores owned by the Egyptian scum. It took alot of resources but it finally paid off... The Mediterranean is Byzantine controlled and I've got ships waiting off the shores to pluck any idiotic Egyptian naval attempt. I've assembled a powerful army at the tip of NW Africa led by most able general (rank 7 I believe). Byzantine forces will be easily reinforced by Constantinople and Nicea so they can hold the line from any Egyptian land grabbing. That's the anvil. My NW African army (Afrika Korps?) will drive all the way East to Egypt as the hammer! Rommel would shed a tear!
I'll concede that it was a huge oversight of not securing the seas earlier on, but I have my excuses! All my resources were focused on dealing with a huge Almohad horde from the West! I ran into them in Milan! The Spanish had fallen! The French and English are weary from fighting each other and barely formed an alliance to speedbump the Almohad hordes. The subsequent battles were massive bloodlettings. Hence any province worth its salt producing land forces for the meat grinder!
[This message has been edited by Warmaker (edited 08-26-2002).]
DarknScaly
08-26-2002, 08:26
"Great Generals are those who learn by their mistakes. The greatest are those who admit them."
TenkiSoratoti
08-26-2002, 08:31
a patch springs to mind
------------------
"The good fighters of the old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an oppurtunity to defeat the enemy."
Warmaker
08-26-2002, 11:04
Gah! I just thought about this: Okay, I may concede to the idea of that SINGLE ship transporting 20,000 men North, South, West, and East of the Eastern Mediterranean in a 1 year span. I'll also concede to them doing shuttles back and forth the Mediterranean.
Soooo with this in mind, why can't I fight these piecemeal invasions when they land in maybe 100-200 men at a time? Do my generals have to ask permission from the enemy as they land before attacking? It's a single ship for cryin' out loud!
Here's my new view on it:
In Nicea, upon hearing reports from the local peasantry of foreign invaders beginning to land at the shores, the Byzantine General sends scouts to confirm such stories but immediately issues orders to his subordinates to prepare for battle, just in case.
His scouts confirm the rumors and he immediately mobilizes his garrison of 1500 men and 60 Kataphractoi.
Once he nears the shores he sees the Egyptians off loading from a single ship and a measly 180 men off load. This is no match for his army he believes but a horseman arrives from the invading Egyptians' general with an unusual message: "Wait, you Byzantine scum, you can't attack until later this year!"
The Byzantine general replies back with,"Why?"
His answer was: "You have to wait until the other 3000 men come over. Then we can form up and wage war."
The confused Byzantine general then agrees: "Ummm. Okay, very well. We'll go back to the city. You gather your army and send me a courtesy message that you're ready to fight. Have a nice campaign."
Should my men uselessly sit on the shores and wave at these invaders as they land throughout the year?
------------------
There's no such thing as overkill, just ensured victory!
Quote Originally posted by Warmaker:
Gah! ... Should my men uselessly sit on the shores and wave at these invaders as they land throughout the year?
[/QUOTE]
GAH!
No... they can have a picnic! They can be eating popcorn and sipping fine Elmo 'shine while they wave and taunt the funny-walking Egyptians...
GAH!
DragonCat
08-27-2002, 00:46
I think the correct term to use is that a ship represents a "presence" in a sea area. If you have 2 ships you have a stronger "presence" there.
Using this term, we don't have to fiddle about with how many actual ships transported how many men when.
------------------
DragonCat
. . . on the prowl!
Ii Naomasa
08-27-2002, 01:07
Hehe. I was in a similar situation as Warmaker. As the Egyptians, I owned the east from Arabia all the way up to the full expanse of future Russia and was far west as Constantinople.
Allah had blessed his children and the Almohads had expanded in the west, owning everything from Portugal to chunks of the Holy Roman Empire. When it reached the point that I could either take the Poles and other small remaining Christian factions between us, or I could claim my brethren had become corrupt living among the decadence of Western Europe and attack the Almohads.
I chose the latter out of strategic need. After all, I'd rather fight a small front coming up from Africa than a border across half of Europe. The early campaign went well and I took Spain fairly quickly. Everything was going well until the Almohads had realized that they still had their entire fleet in every sector of the Mediterranean while I stupidly had ignored it in my land conquest.
Suddenly I had Almohads everywhere, including a large force that surprised and sacked my capital (word of warning...don't lose control of rich capitals...you'll spend years trying to build back the loss of money each year).
That taught me the value of a navy, and my English navy no patrols almost the length of the western shores of Europe. Amphibious assaults are wonderful...aside from the marooning of the troops until a dock can be built.
I don't see much of a problem with the current way fleets are handles. It's abstracted, yet gives you some visual cues. Since all you need is one small 'ship' to keep an enemy from invading, it's not much of a gamble to protech rich/vulnerable targets (sure the enemy can sink it, but that gives you a head's up).
Kraellin
08-27-2002, 01:33
exactly, naomasa, and that's the key. protect your shores with fleets. you cannot be invaded by sea in that province if your fleet is there protecting it. this is also stated in the manual. just remember, the reverse is also true when you want to try and invade someone else.
"Soooo with this in mind, why can't I fight these piecemeal invasions when they land in maybe 100-200 men at a time? Do my generals have to ask permission from the enemy as they land before attacking? It's a single ship for cryin' out loud!"
the reason is simple. the invader now has a fleet on that province's sea zone and that fleet blocks YOU from counter-invading. protect your shores!
K.
------------------
The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.
GAH!
You can get by a naval blockade to launch an amphibious assault if you sneak attack your ally! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
GAH!
Pachinko
08-27-2002, 01:54
The Naval war,don't give up,it seems that 2 or 3 years to make it work.
P.
Warmaker
08-27-2002, 13:27
IMO, abstraction or not, a single unit simultaneously landing 3 huge armies in 3 different provinces while I can't do anything but write "WELCOME" on the beaches is lame.
Also, I'm not talking about launching counterinvasions... I'm talking about killing the scum as soon as their feet are wet on my beaches. Surely a province with watchtowers, 1000+ men can spot the ships way off shore?
Regardless, no matter how much I b***h about it, I've got to deal with it here and now. As it stands now in my campaign the Byzantines for most part have control of the Med. The once proud Egyptian navy is providing fish with shelter and breeding grounds. They should just stick to sand...
Oh, nearly forgot... GAH!
[This message has been edited by Warmaker (edited 08-27-2002).]
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.