Printable View
Hi,
Does anybody know if it matters at all what kind of ships you use in a navy? I mean, is it just about having as many men (and thus as many large ships) as possible, or is a good mix, ranging between Bireme, Trireme, Quinqereme, Corvus Quinqereme and Decere more likely to succeed?
I was just wondering as it doesn't seem to me that having enormous navies of Quinqeremes actually has the awesome force to destroy other navies as I had expected.
Thanks. :bow:
When the A.I. sends a full 20 unit stack of Briemes against your four Quintremes, your Quintremes will generally lose, at least that is what's happened to mine.
But whenever I've built massive navies of 10 Quintremes or more, they seem unstoppable, at least until they've won so many battles that they've lost enough men to be weak.
I dont think that having a mix would help any, but it would give you more numbers from less amount of time to construct than a Quintreme, & less money/upkeep.
I think base value of stats is a factor also. Even though naval battles are a bit biased towards the A.I. even on norm diff, when I put a bireme with lots of exp against a quingreme it will more likely lose but a quingreme versus a highly experienced bireme usually wins.
Also biremes take heavy casualties even if they do win against higher class ships. So all in all the higher the class of ship the longer it will last.
Biremes with 80 men may last on average 4 turns. Quingremes on average seem at times to last forever.
In the middle/late game, just build quinqiremes. But by then, you'll probably have sea supremacy anyway by virtue of having wiped out most of the strongest faction's fleets.
The naval side of the game is underdeveloped, I never really bother too much about it.
Underdeveloped, I agree.
I understand why we can't fight our own naval battles -- we'd need an entirely new battle package for it (much memory/processor/cost), but I do wish the auto-resolve was a bit better developed.
Historically, some navies were known for small ships and ramming tactics (Rhodes) whereas others faired better with quinq's and lots of marines (Rome). Naval stuff as coded now seems mostly an exercise in economic power with little chance for the underdog to even the odds.
Seamus
I can't imagine it would be taht involved. I have been playing a game that plays in the same style as Total War. "Imperial Glory" and this game has made naval war a part of the game.
Very well too, the ships turn a bit too quick and it's too easy to retreat by accidentally going near the edge of the map. This game has pulled it off.
The imagery of ships engaging each other on rivers, canals and the sea would be spectacular. A whole new arena for the above mentioned differences in ramming vs boarding tactics employed by the naval powers of the time.
Oh the lovely options for city assaults.
It's probably best there are no sea battles in RTW. Considering the ineptitude the AI suffers from in the main land battles, do we really need another area for the AI to make a complete mess of?
Same; why focus your efforts on sea, when you can simply march upon their lands right to their capital themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelscum
Of course some people like constricting their enemies supplies & economy, blockading their ports, etc, but I never bother with it, I instead just craft my newest & most powerful army, march on their cities, its fun.
Yes, but
(1) to bring your army to their cities securely you often need a fleet and
(2) while protecting your coasts from other invasions it pays to have some more (fleets, not armies, that is).
Playing Carthage without naval domination of the Western med is like removing all teeth from a dog and letting it guard an area nevertheless ....okay sounds a bit weird but maybe you get me. ~D
[heh? did I submit two identical posts? nevermind...]
I am missing the "delete post" button :stare: