In praise of the game.

Noooo, not ETW. Don't be silly. But the naval aspect of Empire? Yes, I rather like it. Love it, actually.
Who could've foreseen that both the veteran tactical and strategic portions of Empire would stumble on stage causing great embarrassment, yet the rookie naval game shines proudly.

True, the naval game is a touch arcade out of the box, but the modders seem to have been purposely handed enough to make it more to my liking.
More importantly, the AI is pretty decent. Sure, you should be able to beat the AI even with fewer and smaller craft. It's not without it's flaws, like the AI's fleet getting itself in a confused and immobile pileup. But at no time will you see the mind boggling incompetence witnessed in the strategic or battlefield parts. If I make a move, the AI responds. If I try to cross the T, the AI tries to manoeuvre so that it can match me gun for gun. It just feels like the AI knows hows to win.
Thus, suspension of disbelief is maintained. Which is all I ever required, really.


Which makes it such a pity that the bulk of this very enjoyable naval game is hidden away in Empire. You have to wrestle your way through the early to mid game before the AI fields decent fleets and once you sink them, it's damnably reluctant to rebuild.
I would definitely buy a game where this naval engine gets used in it's own game where it's all about a naval campaign. Or something like Pirates! As the naval game is now, it can more then hold it's own against the current games in it's genre, like the offerings from Akella.

I really hope CA takes the Naval engine further then a mere Total War sideshow. It deserves more.

I like the naval battles too. The one thing that bothers me a touch is that it can read your mind.

Try selecting chain shot and watch him turn and approach in the wind with sails furred. Watch what happens when you select grape shot and so on.

It is no killer and you can fool it easy enough and use it to your advantage. But I do like the naval battles very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmar Bijlsma

True, the naval game is a touch arcade out of the box, but the modders seem to have been purposely handed enough to make it more to my liking.

---

I don't see how the modders can remove the arcade factor. They'd have to figure out how to keep ships from sailing directly upwind, and then teach the AI how to deal with that, so it isn't just a player exploit.

The naval battles have no relation at all to the sail combat of this era, other than the eye candy of cannon fire. Allowing ships to sail upwind, and circle-strafe, and anchor in the middle of the ocean (!!!), is like giving the Empire land armies a cavalry composed of modern air cav helicopters, and ignoring the limitations of a horse.

I honestly think everyone would be having a lot more fun with the naval battle engine if we had to cope with realistic constraints of sailing, just like we have to cope with some constraints in land combat (advantage of high ground, etc.). But I'm afraid that horse has already left the barn (or maybe the ship has sailed?). The major problem in the naval battles is ability to sail upwind and do 360 degree circles like modern powered vessels. I doubt that's something the modders can touch, and CA doesn't seem interested in improving it. They've already decided that tacking against the wind is "too hard" for the players to understand.

Sure because as we all know we all want to spend from 8 hours to days fighting just a single naval battle. :yes:

We don't want to spend 8 hours fighting land battles either. In the TW series of games, CA managed to strip the essentials down to something that at least looks somewhat realistic, if you know anything about the warfare of that time. There is nothing in the naval battle engine that looks even remotely realistic, other than the eye candy (cannon fire, damage effects, etc.).

I think CA underestimated the intelligence and interest of their audience, especially since naval battles can be auto-resolved if they're too difficult. The Sid Meier Pirates! game had more realistic sail combat. This would have been more fun with more sailing realism... that's what kills me.

I'm a sailor in real life, so it's especially annoying, and I'll stop ranting now because I know there aren't many here in the forum that understand what's going on here (which is why CA can get away with it). It's like the kind of gripe you'd get from black powder or horse archer enthusiasts, when CA doesn't get the details right. I still think it's a blown opportunity.

I think you might be a wee bit overly critical here Zenicetus.
I'm not claiming it is some hardcore simulation. Because indeed it isn't. But with some care from the modding community a fairly decent game can already be made. I'm mean.... compared to all the other Age of Sail sims out there. :shifty:
I share your belief that CA aimed a little low with some of the mechanics. But I'm equally confident that you aim too high too. I think the people with even a basic knowledge needed for anything approaching reality are fewer that you'd think.
I hated the out of the box sailing against the wind BIGTIME. But with that reduced to slow crawl I can tolerate it. Certainly I shall tolerate it a whole lot more then an AI stuck mid stay during tacking. One might say it's the lesser of two weevils! :laugh4:

I'm still a little pissed that you don't see sharks attacking men in the water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmar Bijlsma

I share your belief that CA aimed a little low with some of the mechanics. But I'm equally confident that you aim too high too.

---

It's aiming too high to ask that a square rigger not sail upwind? That's what the tactics of sail combat are all about! Working the wind advantage is how you defeat the enemy, not steering the ships around like they're powerboats. Without a dead zone where ships can't point their bow, there are no tactics in the battle. It's just point the ships any way you want, and it ends up in a furball.

Quote:

---

I think the people with even a basic knowledge needed for anything approaching reality are fewer that you'd think.

---

Learning how sailboats operate isn't any harder than learning how horse cavalry is supposed to be used in historic battles, and CA expects newbies to learn that, right? If the target audience can handle that kind of depth and realism in the land combat side of the game, then why should the naval battles be a dumbed-down arcade game? The audience for this kind of game can handle some complexity and detail, otherwise it wouldn't sell at all.

Quote:

---

I hated the out of the box sailing against the wind BIGTIME. But with that reduced to slow crawl I can tolerate it. Certainly I shall tolerate it a whole lot more then an AI stuck mid stay during tacking. One might say it's the lesser of two weevils! :laugh4:

---

The insult here, is that (according to prior posts in this forum) CA decided to eliminate realistic tacking, not because the AI couldn't handle it, but because they thought it would be too confusing for the players. They dumbed it down because they thought *we* couldn't handle it, not the AI.

And the real hit is down the line, if CA goes back to earlier eras with naval combat in future games. This is the start of a great naval battle engine. They could use this for Ancient Greece or Ancient China, with mixed sail and oars for galleys. But it will be another silly arcade game, if sailing doesn't mean tactics determined by the direction of the wind.

Good topic Elmar Bijlsma.

I also agree, that CA have done an excellent job with the naval action. They should be proud about how little criticism they have received about it. That seems to be the litmus test for whether you have done well or not these days.

I tend to agree with Zenicetus. There are so many things technically and tactically wrong with the naval battles that I routinely auto resolve all of them.

At the very least--they should have offered choices between a realistic sailing mode and an arcade sailing mode plus maybe an additional choice somewhere between the two extremes.



Cheers

P.S.
It also gripes me to no end that every single square rigger in the game bends a sail that does not belong for the period depicted. There should be no lower course on the mizzenmast---only the spanker (gaff sail) or a stay sail. The lowest yardarm at this level is called the cross jack and its only purpose was as a brace for the mizzen top sail. Only well into the 19th century when the clipper ships were developed for high speed did square riggers begin to have both a lower course and a gaff on the mizzenmast To bend a lower course on the mizzen prior to these types of ships is pretty much like sticking a jet engine on the wings of a WW II spitfire.

I find that you really have to think of R:TW as a Battles BC kind of thing. Just enough history to make you feel where you are, but ultimately it is cool stuff (sword fights, splodey stuff, i.e. "eye candy") that sells the product, and ultimately, selling the product is what it's all about.

Edit: No offense to any CA guys here, it really would be impractical to do total realism research on these games. (Look at how many man hours go into research for a mod like EB, and you'll soon realize that realism to that level is not profitable when it has to go onto the payroll/release timetable demands from parent companies.)

I know all the pro's and con's and soap box statements made by all parties based on what I am about to say, so there is no need to go totally ape.


BUT:

The level of armchair criticism is a little hard to swallow sometimes.

I'd really like to see some people at least try to comprehend the requirements and work needed to do some of the things they criticise CA about.

Some attempt at working out just how difficult it would be to "put your money where your mouth is" would be great.

Ok so those of you that can't resist, please commence your rants about being a consumer, paying money, right to criticise, consumer protection, etc etc. :beam:

I personally enjoy the naval battles as is, but obviously a big portion of the player base would have more fun with a more realistic system. I would propably enjoy a realistic system less!

It's a tough nut to crack, having customers with opposite wants. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramela

I personally enjoy the naval battles as is, but obviously a big portion of the player base would have more fun with a more realistic system. I would propably enjoy a realistic system less!

It's a tough nut to crack, having customers with opposite wants. :)

---

Totally correct, which puts CA between a rock and a rather hard place.

I completely "get" that you can sail into the wind. I also completely "get" that this should not be the case. CA have explained why, so it should be possible to "move on" and deal with other parts of the naval battle solution.

If someone can get passed that point, I'd say it has been very well done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I know all the pro's and con's and soap box statements made by all parties based on what I am about to say, so there is no need to go totally ape.


BUT:

The level of armchair criticism is a little hard to swallow sometimes.

I'd really like to see some people at least try to comprehend the requirements and work needed to do some of the things they criticise CA about.

Some attempt at working out just how difficult it would be to "put your money where your mouth is" would be great.

Ok so those of you that can't resist, please commence your rants about being a consumer, paying money, right to criticise, consumer protection, etc etc. :beam:

---

I love it when you post something like this, it literally saves me five minutes typing almost exactly the same thing, with the proviso that if it was me typing it I'd probably lose my rag thinking about over-privileged whining people & insult someone whilst you are always so polite!

Cheers mate!

PS: Added to which, people are so short-sighted they genuinely cannot see that however "offended" or "alienated" they are -- which of course says more about them than anything, that a computer game could affect them so -- that the changes that they demand & wax so righteous over are things which wouldalienate & offend a much much larger group of people were those features implemented.

Gnaaarrrggghhhhhh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbosatan

I love it when you post something like this, it literally saves me five minutes typing almost exactly the same thing, with the proviso that if it was me typing it I'd probably lose my rag thinking about over-privileged whining people & insult someone whilst you are always so polite!

Cheers mate!

PS: Added to which, people are so short-sighted they genuinely cannot see that however "offended" or "alienated" they are -- which of course says more about them than anything, that a computer game could affect them so -- that the changes that they demand & wax so righteous over are things which wouldalienate & offend a much much larger group of people were those features implemented.

Gnaaarrrggghhhhhh.

---

Well put man! Be happy that we have a product like this at all! Appreciate the time and hard work put into this stuff. And, based off looking at the Daily Update at the Com thread, be happy that they are making a concerted update every day to make this game as good as it possibly can be.

I would like to add my voice to this. I recently intercepted a Barbary Galley with my brig and though it was a lopsided battle I marveled at the beautiful graphics ( even on my laptop) as I boarded the galley and took it as a prize. These small battles allow one to zoom in and enjoy the detail.

one on one, two on two, even two on one, I still lose naval battles:no:i guess im just a bad admiral. For people like me, it presents a massive challenge compared to the relatively easy land battles(get fire by rank and you steamroll the campaign for the first 50 or so years)

I've spent a whole lot of time on computer games since the 80's, and overall most have limited long term appeal. Either they are too easy to challenge or become boring and repetitive. Worst of all for me are 'mission' type games where you are shunted along a predestined path. Since I first played MTW I have spent more gametime on the total war series than all other games combined. The combination of inter nation turn-based strategy and fast-paced battle immersion has always kept my interest.:inquisitive:

In contrast, capturing mysterious resource production sites and churning out dozens of kamikaze sprites with green health bars on the top in an exhausting click-frenzy makes me want to unplug the PSU forever.:dizzy2:

The Total War series has broken the mold of rts games again and again. When it works ETW is a beautiful creation, combining the best elements of earlier games with graphics so sophisticated they often blow my 'came with the machine' graphics card to ruin. At first the sheer complicatedness of the strategy map made me feel like a lost child, until I learned to understand the many whirling animations.

The Naval battle struck an immediate chord with me and those responsible are to be congratulated on a superb implementation of an exceedingly challenging and complex world. The first time I lost a full stack of ships to a pirate fleet I knew I was in a real contest. It may lack the sophistication of sailing a real ship, but I don't have one of them. Or a battery of howitzers in my back garden.

Come on you whingers: this game is good by any standards. Yeah the AI armies need to run around and reform less and get on with attacking if that's what they are going to do. Sometimes they do it rather well and I almost start to worry about losing, which is enough stress for me. :laugh4:

Not many people have mentioned the genius of the science tree. This adds much to the desire to keep a long campaign going, and allows more choice of playing style. I think ETW is a huge leap forward from M2TW, which I felt was bogged down in repetitive slug-fests with regenerating Milanese crossbow militia and endless spear wielding peasants who took weeks to kill, but never did anything but mill about aimlessly. And annoying Popes.:wall:

Now I must get back to my Prussia campaign to see if my steam ships can evade the pirates in the Caribbean. I want to drop quick lime on those buccaneer sons of bitches!:beam:

If the sailing characteristics were more realistic, the steamships might have a fighting chance.

Great thread :clown:

I, too, love the naval battles :yes:

Cheers for your comments Turbosatan,

Please note, I still think there is room for improvement, but in light of CA's public commitment, then there is not more you can ask of a company providing you with a 50 to 75$ investment. They will get this game resolved to a very high level because their business model depends on it. I think a lot of people forget that.

Given the time taken to develop this patch (and I'm frustrated as hell right now), I'd say it will make quite a substantial difference in how the game plays, and will place them much closer to completion than we give them credit for.

In the end, and given this is CA's "first" attempt at naval battles, then they have done a wonderful job. Even more thought provoking is their long term strategy. It could be quite a planned event to make the naval action less realistic in this first version and save a more accurate simulation for the next game. Thus given the community time to get a feel for this part of the game.

Keep that in mind.

I have to agree with everyone here on all their opinions! The naval battles are something that make ETW alone worth playin, while i'm not a total realistic naval nut, I have played a couple of other naval games and while I didn't realise in ETW the sailing against the wind was that bad its a very good point that sailingagainst the wind should be imposible, my favourite sailing combat game so far would have to be age of pirates and sailing into the wind certainly stopped you in your tracks mostly, and in sid meiers pirates it certainly had an effect on your battles.

anyway long story short, It would be nice to have the option to choose it :)

Well, in Sid Meier's Pirates!, your sloop can dodge full broadsides with ease. Heck, if you're attentive you can dodge them in the 40-gun frigate. Thats something you CAN'T do in ETW :2thumbsup:

There were plenty of unrealistic things in Pirates! like that, but I think it proves the point that a restriction on sailing upwind doesn't mean the game can't be fun. In Pirates! you had to tack on the campaign map too, since it modeled the circular trade winds in the Caribbean basin. This stuff isn't rocket science, and it's been modeled more realistically in plenty of games before this one.

The point above about steamships is also valid. They should have a major tactical advantage against any vessel under sail. Doesn't anyone care about that? Or are steamships just late-game eye candy with no real tactical value?

P.S. "over-privileged whining people"? What does over-privileged have to do with anything? You don't have to own a sailboat to know how they work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

There were plenty of unrealistic things in Pirates! like that, but I think it proves the point that a restriction on sailing upwind doesn't mean the game can't be fun. In Pirates! you had to tack on the campaign map too, since it modeled the circular trade winds in the Caribbean basin. This stuff isn't rocket science, and it's been modeled more realistically in plenty of games before this one.

The point above about steamships is also valid. They should have a major tactical advantage against any vessel under sail. Doesn't anyone care about that? Or are steamships just late-game eye candy with no real tactical value?

P.S. "over-privileged whining people"? What does over-privileged have to do with anything? You don't have to own a sailboat to know how they work.

---

There you go Zenicetus, get into it. Sledge away there fella. Let out the inner agnst. :egypt:

No one said they didn't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

There you go Zenicetus, get into it. Sledge away there fella. Let out the inner agnst.

---

Do you have something to contribute here, besides ad hominem attacks?

CA has stated their reason for doing it this way. Some of us don't agree with the simplification, but I seriously doubt they are going to change it.

I watch the AI tack when going upwind. Most of the dynamics are there for a good solid sim. I can live with what they have given us.

I don't know why they gave some of the ships the stats they have, but oh well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

Do you have something to contribute here, besides ad hominem attacks?

---

Nice use of Latin. Apologies for the sledging of your sledging. But that was the point of my post previously.