http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/empire-...22164625990074
Games Radar article.:book:
Printable View
http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/empire-...22164625990074
Games Radar article.:book:
Hands on? I wish I had one. grrrr.
edit: From the playtime the reviewer got, it seems like just more confirmed goodness. Auto-attack, and timed etc. Realistic boarding is something I hadn't thought of. Will love to do that in Multiplayer, throw some hooks up and attempt to board a better ship. :laugh4:
@CA Staff: Is there a feature to upgrade ships towards a certain thing, such as boarding/firing/moving etc?
Something interesting I noticed in the review was that one of the pictures had a sail assisted paddle steamer. I didn't think that these were available as warships in the time period and if so this is the first evidence I've seen of CA's commitment to allow the player to twist history a little and develop technology early than it appeared in reality. It makes me wonder what other inventions we are likely to see sooner than their historical context.
The steamer is not totally new, it's been mentioned in other threads and I believe it's been stated that if you invest heavily in technology you can develop things way ahead of their time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Lane
Nice article.
Thanks for the heads-up, Intrepid Sidekick. Much appreciated. :bow:
Wow, there's a lot of quotable goodness in this article! Among the things that interested me:
Cool. I suspect we'll need those functions. :sweatdrop:Quote:
In an improvement to the grouping systems of previous games, ships can be set not only to group, but to maintain a formation in group.
Am very glad to see this! As a newbie admiral, it'll be nice to be able to automate at least basic functions. :2thumbsup:Quote:
It brings to mind Sid Meier’s Pirates! as a strategy game, but with much more realism: the primary goal is to line up as many of your cannons as possible to fire at the right moment. While automatic firing and circling options allow you simply to set a target and step back as your ships engage, you can choose to get more hands-on, such as turning off autofire to unleash a storm of cannonballs at the perfect moment.
Quote:
This time around, three coders focus on AI full-time, with others contributing. “We can always say that we’re working really hard on the AI - which we are - and that we think it’s going to be better than before - which we do - but the objective fact is that compared with Rome, we have a lot more staff on it,” says James Russell.
Quote:
If defeat is immaterial, they’ll maximize casualties against the opposition, then retreat. If they simply must triumph in this battle in order to win the war, expect a to-the-last-man encounter.
Outstanding! While I'm still somewhat skeptical, it does give me hope that maybe, just maybe, Empire will have the best AI since Shogun (and perhaps even better? oh to dream!).Quote:
“One of the first things Richard [Bull, lead battle AI programmer] did was to look at some of the exploit tactics people used in our previous games and say, ‘I’m going to make sure none of them work anymore,’” says Mark Sutherns. The period itself already minimizes some of this - camping a corner is less effective when it makes you a perfect target for cannon fire.
I'll be especially impressed if the AI is improved to the point that it's no longer easy to draw it away from strong defensive positions -- I've fought too many bridge battles where I was able to trick my opponent into attacking me. :smash:
Quote:
Similar innovations in government include democracies that swap their cabinet members with a shadow cabinet as their popularity wanes. These ministers replace the governors of individual regions - though there are still theater-wide-governors - and give bonuses in different areas. Since the shadow government has different strengths from the elected officials, you’ll find yourself in the novel situation of deliberately getting your government booted in order to seat people in power who are more suitable for your current predicament.
Ah, all sorts of juicy political stuff here. I can't wait to see what happens the first time I have a revolution on my hands (regardless of whether I deliberately triggered it or not). ~DQuote:
These sorts of political power games strongly tie into revolutions. They can be prompted for all sorts of reasons, and doing so gives you the option of choosing to fight for the status quo or for the would-be status quo - if you want to run a Republic, you may need to play to alienate your people to begin with. Or, you can play more considerately, spending your research resources on the sorts of enlightened strides in thinking that characterized the age. Of course, this will give the lower classes funny ideas about “rights." In Empire, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing to the established order. Creative Assembly promises a true research tech-tree for the first time in a Total War game, along with upper and lower social classes that are clearly modeled separately.
I know this has been mentioned before, but I still can't reiterate enough how awesome it is. Being able to win the game without necessarily having to conquer huge swaths of territory should be a massive improvement! ~:thumb:Quote:
It’s telling that this, rather than the simple conquest method of winning an empire, is the basis for Empire’s concept of “prestige,” and whoever has the most - gained via research, economic power, and military victories in the year 1800 is declared the winner.
Quick question, though: Is the year 1800 a typo? I thought the game didn't end until 1820. :inquisitive:
A couple things which I admit I found to of concern and/or confusing:
A bit of a bummer that tacking didn't make it into the game. I understand the reasons, but it it's still a little disappointing.Quote:
Another area where total realism took a hit: tacking (i.e., zig-zagging your ship) to move into the wind, which isn’t as simple as just sailing at an angle. “It sounds like a good idea,” Ferguson says, “but what it means is that if you click somewhere, the ship goes off in a completely different direction." After attempting to make the mechanic mandatory, the team eventually chose to make things simpler: Wind greatly affects a battle in terms of the ships’ speed and direction - a “North Sea in winter” battle will be fought at least as much against the elements as against your opponents - but tacking won’t ever be necessary. Instead, those who choose to give it a whirl will be rewarded with a speed bonus.
What I don't quite get, though, is the afore-mentioned speed bonus: Is there any reason *not* to tack into the wind then? Or is there some sort of drawback (or at least potential drawback) to doing so?
So does this mean we can't station troops on the islands in the Caribbean and East Indies? That seems a little odd to me. (And here I was looking forward to being able to garrison Port Royal with British soldiers and fight off theQuote:
Then there are the trade theaters - such as the Caribbean, East Africa, and the East Indies - to which you’re unable to send land forces, and so must dominate by naval power alone.
Black PearlFrench & Spanish raiders! :beam: )
Still, all in all, a most excellent preview. Now if we can only find out what kind of copy protection ETW will have.... :clown:
The speed bonus is really what you get from donig tacking, if you move your ships in a tacking way up wind you'll see them move faster than just sailing upwind. However we've not made tacking necessary.Quote:
What I don't quite get, though, is the afore-mentioned speed bonus: Is there any reason *not* to tack into the wind then? Or is there some sort of drawback (or at least potential drawback) to doing so?
You can in the Caribbean, the article has that wrong. There is instead a different trade theatre in that part of the map.Quote:
So does this mean we can't station troops on the islands in the Caribbean and East Indies?
Are those 15-line deep firing formations still going to be in the final game? They do look kind of silly, to me, at least.
Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up Lusted. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lusted
Well check out the land battle trailer released today for some nice footage of line infantry in 3 deep lines.Quote:
Are those 15-line deep firing formations still going to be in the final game? They do look kind of silly, to me, at least.
This is what I've been afraid of, all along. Square riggers sailing directly upwind? You've got to be kidding us! That will be an arcade game with pretty graphics, not a representation of sail combat during the historic period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lusted
You expect gamers to be sophisticated enough to appreciate flanking tactics and the use of cavalry in land combat, but you think they're unable to grasp the concept of tacking in sail combat? Or is that CA just couldn't develop an AI that could handle it? Other game developers have managed it. This might as well have been a WW1 game with propeller-driven ships, if you're going to disregard the way sailing ships actually move on the water!
Bah, humbug.
This is very disappointing, but maybe I'm the only one bothered by this. I'll definitely have to read a bunch of user reports after the game is released, before I think about buying it. I'm not that interested in gunpowder combat, and naval combat was the big selling point for me. Until now.
Land battle trailer? Where?
Oh I'm sure they could, it's just that we felt battles are better without forcing the player to spend ages tacking up wind just to be able to engage.Quote:
You expect gamers to be sophisticated enough to appreciate flanking tactics and the use of cavalry in land combat, but you think they're unable to grasp the concept of tacking in sail combat?
No the AI can and does tack if it's required. Remember, just because we've not made tacking required doesn't mean that if you choose to tack you'll see benefits.Quote:
Or is that CA just couldn't develop an AI that could handle it?
Ships do move at different speeds relating to the wind direction(and in fact sail fastest with wind slightly off one beam instead of directly behind them) so it's a very realistic sailing model, the only thing we've really changed is ships sailing into the wind.Quote:
This might as well have been a WW1 game with propeller-driven ships, if you're going to disregard the way sailing ships actually move on the water!
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/38082Quote:
Land battle trailer? Where?
Right, that also means that you've changed the ability to recreate classic sail-era sea battles the way they actually happened, with the limitations and challenges that were involved at the time. A naval combat engine where ships can sail directly upwind (especially in a square-rigged ship!!) is an arcade game, one that isn't worthy of the previous attempts at historical accuracy in Total War games, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lusted
Let's see you do any better. Whining like how you do is not at all helpful. If you have any suggestions, it's best to at least keep it as constructive criticism.
To me the important question is how much of an advantage you get from tacking.
If you take two identical vessels sailing from point A to point B which is directly upwind, the ship tacking needs to get to point B well ahead of the one going straight upwind.
The ship sailing straight into the wind needs significant maneuvrability restriction too.
AI tacking is a good thing, don't like the idea of a stupid AI sailing straight upwind at me all the time. I probably won't mind it occasionally though.
Methuselah, I've been trying to keep my criticism constructive about the sailing issue for months. Read my earlier posts. I've tried to point out how wind direction is the equivalent of the use of terrain in land battles. Without it, it's less of a game for those who care about realistic use of tactics. Some of us care about these things, others don't. That's fine. If CA doesn't want to make the kind of game that people who understand and love sail combat would like to play, that's their decision and we just won't buy it. Simple.
I would actually find realistic sailing pretty boring, I wouldn't want to see some stupid AI try to escape upwind and then give every single of my 20 ships zigzag waypoints to follow them, then wait for hours until they have reached the end of the sea-map. :dizzy2:
Realistic or not, this is something I can simply overlook for the sake of gameplay.
Easy, folks. Please keep the discussion civil.
Ideally, I'd love for my ships to be able to tack as they would've in real life. Unfortunately, though, CA does sometimes have to make a choice between realism/historical accuracy and gameplay. Such is the nature of making almost any game (and *especially* a historical-themed strategy game); occasionally something has to give.
CA has been doing this long enough that by now they know which way they want to go when it comes to realism-vs.-gameplay issues. If eliminating tacking is necessary to keeping the naval battles fun, then so be it. I'll miss it, no doubt, but not to the point where it'll cause me to stop enjoying the game.
Just give me a decent AI, a robust political/diplomatic system, and I'll be happy as a clam in mud. ~D
Interesting read, although the fact that author (Kieron Gillen) and one of the CA employees mentioned in the article (Ian Roxborough) used to work together at PC Gamer UK back in the day does make me take it with a pinch of salt. Although to be fair Gillen has been a long-time fan of the TW series (I am the king of Spain!)
Hello peeps
Nowhere has anything said by CA that tacking is not a valid thing to do.
In fact anyone smart enough and willing to spend the time tacking will gain a distinct advantage by doing so. i.e. They will get to their destination quicker.
We did a fair amount of gameplay testing to get to the model we have.
A very common problem we discovered with an entirely realisitic model of sailing was that less informed players, i.e. those with no knowledge of sailing, could not understand why their ships would start heading off in a different direction when they gave them an order to go a point directly in to the wind e.g heading north east to get to a point just 500 meters north west. Even with route indicators and a simple advisor explanation it just went above their heads.
So to make it simple enough to understand we just allowed ships to sail extremely slowly in to the wind if ordered by the player. Tacking is still your best method but you arent left "stuck" if you dont understand the finer points of sailing. NB We also experimented with taking-a-back ships, (in order to clearly show that the player was sailing in to the wind) that turned in to the wind but that really confused people: "Why is my ship moving backwards when I gave it an order to move forwards?".
Please consider that we are making a fun game for a very large market not just for informed sailing enthusiasts.
If you are willing to give Empire's naval battles a chance you will discover that different ships have different speeds in different wind conditions and at different points to the wind. Damage to rigging, sails and crew all effect the ships ability to respond to your orders and to their speed and movement. If you tack then you gain an adavantage over those that dont tack. Most importantly you will see that it is fun to play. As we have always said since day one of making Total War games. If there is a decision to be made between fun gameplay and realism, gameplay wins - every time.
Thanks for that very detailed explanation of the development process!
I think it's very good to hear that the engine supports very realistic sailing conditions, so for those who really want to have a 100% accurate sail simulation it could be modded in.
I'm still a bit baffled by the whole thing however. So in Scenario A you click on a point straight north, where the wind is coming from, and your ship would start tacking NW, NE and so on. This was too confusing, because the ship didn't go north. Along comes Scenario B where you click on a point straight north, where the wind is coming from, and your ship sails slooowly north. But if you take the time to manually tack you get there faster.
Is it me or does that sound like a pain in the ass? In Scenario A you could just click and the game would do the tacking for you and in Scenario B you now have to do it manually. I hope somewhere is the advanced option of Auto-Tacking, meaning that your ships will try to get from point A to B on the fastest not the shortest route. Also what about the AI? Will it use tacking or just sail slooowly?
All in all a fascinating example of Realism vs. Usabilty! :2thumbsup:
Optional auto-tacking, now that sounds like a good idea to me! :2thumbsup:
Thank you, Jack and Intrepid, answers are much appriciated.
And I must say, Empire is looking good, pretty good. All you guys at CA are doing a great job :yes:
And what is wrong with a challenging gameplay? I have encountered players who could not understand nor liked the concept of morale. They either had to learn it or use the option for Arcade gameplay. Why not do the same for naval combat in ETW?Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick
CBR
Not sure that's possible. Even if there is a parameter for "speed when sailing directly upwind" that could be modded to zero, will the AI be able to cope with that? Or will it just sit with ships dead in the water (or sliding slightly backwards), because it doesn't know that sailing directly upwind is forbidden, across a fairly wide angle of possible directions? As always with any mod, the big question is whether the AI can handle the changes, when the game hasn't been designed with that original intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ituralde
Yeah, unless by "doing it manually" CA means there's an auto-tacking feature. Remember though, that tacking isn't only about optimizing tack angles for the most efficient travel from point A to point B. Tacking is also about placing your ship beam-on to the enemy, so you can fire (and avoiding being caught with your bow or stern to the enemy's broadside). Both functions are considered together, once you're in firing range, which is really the only thing that makes sail combat different from WW1 dreadnaughts maneuvering in battle.Quote:
I'm still a bit baffled by the whole thing however. So in Scenario A you click on a point straight north, where the wind is coming from, and your ship would start tacking NW, NE and so on. This was too confusing, because the ship didn't go north. Along comes Scenario B where you click on a point straight north, where the wind is coming from, and your ship sails slooowly north. But if you take the time to manually tack you get there faster.
Is it me or does that sound like a pain in the ass? In Scenario A you could just click and the game would do the tacking for you and in Scenario B you now have to do it manually. I hope somewhere is the advanced option of Auto-Tacking, meaning that your ships will try to get from point A to B on the fastest not the shortest route.
Tactics change completely when there is a direction where you literally can't go, no matter how hard you try. Allowing ships to move slowly in that forbidden direction, even if "very slowly," makes it a different kind of game. Unlike land combat, naval combat is a vast open field with only a single tactical challenge -- how to work with the wind, and force the enemy into an unfavorable position relative to the wind direction. I would think players would enjoy that challenge (assuming the AI is a worthy opponent).
Good question. If the player doesn't try to understand what tacking is all about, won't he/she be confused if the AI's ships are always sailing for best speed advantage and tacking upwind? And if the AI never tacks, then isn't tacking a player exploit?Quote:
Also what about the AI? Will it use tacking or just sail slooowly?
There is always that balance to consider in a game. I've said before here that I don't think it would be fun at all, to have to deal with every tiny detail in the management of a sailing ship. Especially one as insanely complicated as a full-rigged ship of the line. You'd go nuts trying to determine how much sail to put on, and how to set the yards for every course change. But the bare basics of sailing aren't rocket science. Realistic, or even semi-realistic sailing has been done before in computer games, while still being fun. Even the somewhat cartoonish 2nd version of Sid Meir's "Pirates!" wouldn't let your ship sail directly upwind. That game respected the "forbidden zone" so you felt like the ships were actually sailing instead of being powerboats. I don't remember anyone complaining about that game being too hard.Quote:
All in all a fascinating example of Realism vs. Usabilty! :2thumbsup:
I don't remember it exactly but couldn't you sail really sloow against the wind too in Pirates! ? I remember it was a major disadvantage and quite hard to get out of once you started it, but it wasn't completely off-limits. Either way, in Pirates! you only maneuvered one ship at a time. I'm really looking forward to test the naval battles and see how they go, commanding 20 ships and such. :beam:
Oh and I agree with your other points. Right now I'd really have to see it/play it to say anything more about it.
The problem is, as CA have said, they have to cater for everyone.
If I was handed the naval combat part of ETW, I would eventually figure out which way the wind was going, but then i'd have no idea of how to go that way, apart from sailing directly to a point.
If a wind is going south, to me that means you cant go north. Or anything like north. Because the wind would just push you back. Also, as CA have said, gameplay > realism when they clash.
edit: I can imagine you as one of the people annoyed about RTW allowing unlimited fatigue and missiles, saying that makes all Horse Archers imbalanced. (which it does, but complaining about something that can most likely be changed doesnt help)
As a historical strategy gamer, how long did it take you to learn about protecting the flanks of your battle line, or the use of archers, or the proper use of cavalry? How to lay seige to a castle, or defend against a seige? How to use horse archers?Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
None of that is intuitive, for gamers living in the 21st Century. Isn't learning about how to use these battle tactics, which have nothing at all to do with modern warfare, part of the fun with games like this?
Sailing isn't rocket science. Really, it's not that hard to figure out, and it's the only available tactic when you're fighting on the high seas without the use of engines. It's been done before, in other games. If square rigged ships can sail directly upwind, you will learn absolutely nothing about how naval combat worked in this historical period.
If the sailing mechanic of sailing directly upwind can be modded, and if the AI can deal with that, then I withdraw all objections. Until that's confirmed, I'll remain a skeptic.Quote:
edit: I can imagine you as one of the people annoyed about RTW allowing unlimited fatigue and missiles, saying that makes all Horse Archers imbalanced. (which it does, but complaining about something that can most likely be changed doesnt help)
I think it's a fairly sensible approach.
While not realistic, there is going to be a clear advantage of "knowing" about tacking and wind direction. That in itself will give you a tactical benefit. If you don't learn about it, then you will be constantly at a disadvantage.
In the end I expect most players to use "sailing" directly into the wind as a "choice of last resort".
It should be a non factor in many respects the more I think about it.
That's good to hear! So we can get the "Get out of my land" option finally?Quote:
Similar enhancements are seen in the diplomacy between governments, as you’re capable of offering a much greater variety of deals. There’s also increased transparency of an opposing nation’s feelings, so you should no longer be surprised by allies who become foes over something you didn’t realize they were touchy about - like, say, invasions.
Better diplomacy was one of the things I really hoped that E:TW introduces.
Have to say that I'm more happy to get better diplomacy/campaign map AI than naval battles.
I'll probably going to try some naval battles at first but later just build the best ships and autocalc the naval battles.
Anyway, nice article! :2thumbsup:
I think you are being a little harsh on CA, Zenicetus. You make some good points about realism and I agree that being able to sail head on into the wind is a little arcadey, but we've had two members of CA pop up to tell us that they are doing all they can to make sailing both user friendly AND as realistic as possible.
I think part of the problem is that while sailing enthusiasts and people interested in the Age of Sail know how boats move in relation to the wind, your 'average joe' consumer has little to no idea how a sailing craft works. The sad truth is that most people are too used to the idea of boats with engines to appreciate the art of getting from point A to B with nothing but the wind as your aid.
Like Intrepid Sidekick said, some people just won't understand why there boats don't go straight to where they click. CA have to sell games to these people to stay in business, so they have to make a few concessions. People might learn how boats work eventually, but they might also never put in the effort.
On a positive note though I think the fact they have included a bonus from tacking means you are still challenged to correctly used the wind to your advantage. If you make sure you always tack (and you should) you'll never have to see a boat sailing dead into the wind ~:)
Of course this is only true if the A.I knows how to do this. Otherwise us humans will be running rings around the enemy ships as they sloooowly fight their was against a gale :laugh4:
CA doesn't make that kind of concession on the land combat side of the game. Why should they do it differently for naval combat? On land, we have to learn historical tactics and use of historical units to get the most out of the game... not just group-selecting all your units and throwing them at the enemy. I had to learn how a phalanx worked in RTW, because it was totally new to me. With M2TW I had my first real exposure to horse archer tactics. That's something I'm still trying to get better at. It's this depth in the game that drew me to the Total War series in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
If that game design philosophy works on land, and sells enough product to make the series successful, then why dumb things down for naval combat? Why shouldn't the player be expected to spend a little effort learning how sailing works, so the naval combat experience is as deep (and as fun!) as the land combat?
While the principles of medieval warfare are implemented in CA's games, I would hardly call them medieval war simulators. In many respects they "represent" a close attempt at replicating war as it was at the time.
It certainly reasonable to take that approach to the "attempt" they are making with naval warfare in this game is also not a simulation. It is similar to that of the age and will allow you to benefit from knowing how it works, but CA wont render you completely useless if you are not entirely aware of the mechanics.
It's not an exact replica but it is certainly a very good attempt.
Actually they do. No one had to use a phallax to win rome total war, I know cause I never did. Just as no one had to use advanced strategies to win battles in MTW 2. You had the choice to use them, and using them made the battle easier. The same will be true of ETW.Quote:
CA doesn't make that kind of concession on the land combat side of the game. Why should they do it differently for naval combat? On land, we have to learn historical tactics and use of historical units to get the most out of the game... not just group-selecting all your units and throwing them at the enemy.
As for marketing, they need to dumb it, yes even more. The fact is while we love Empire Total War it is not anywhere near a even decent sales number compared to how many units other video games sell. CA had to get bought by Sega just to stay afloat, if we want them continue to make it, the fact of life is they have to reel in the Command and Conquer and Warcraft 3 kids. This is a business after all.
Agreed with Polemists on Land Battles. First game I played, when I came up against some phalanxes I charged troops into the front. After seeing that they cant get past the spears, trial and error come through, as it will for many players.
About tacking, why not make a setting that removes the ability to sail upwind? that way everyone wins?
Im looking forward to this, but unrealistic sailing would be a huge gamebreaking experience for me, given my naval background.
I agree with Celtic_Punk. An option to turn on realistic wind would be a good way to cater to everyone. They can put it in along with the option to remove the bizarre smoke trails for cannonballs, and the annoying green arrows under selected units.
Intrepid Sidekick said CA have already experimented with both forced tacking and an auto tacking mechanic for naval combat. If this is the case it would hopefully be feasible to put both in as optional settings.
could the CA answer whether eupore will be made of a few regions? on the land battle trailor at the start people have been a bit worried that theres only 1 region in france and italy etc. or is it a work in progress? either way cant wait 4 this to come out :yes:
To me it looks like there are atleast four regions in Italy, going by the trailer, so I wouldn't be too worried about it. Also regions might not be as important now. If France has 1 region but 8 or 9 cities in it I wouldn't say it was much different from Medieval 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aries777777
If individual settlements like cities, farms, ports etc. can be taken and held by an attacker without the need to take the capital then invasions would work much the same as they do now, with the difference that enemies can't just hole themselves up in a castle and expect to keep their infrastructure intact.
It would be nice if a CA staffer could confirm this one way or the other, but I suspect this sort of information is being held on to until Chapter 3 of the preview videos.
I think the reason that the major nations only have one region is that we simply will not be allowed to conquer them piece by piece anymore. They will remain intact for the duration of the game, which is accurate. When a nation is defeated in war the victor will be potentially rewarded with money, trade rights, some sort of protectorate status for loser, or change of government, including other other possibiities. The settlements and structures that are scattered around the countryside are an attempt to make the owning nation come out from behind fortresses to defend these vital targets, thus creating more field battles. I imagine that if a nation's Capital is captured and held for a few turns, peace negotiations will soon follow. It is the smaller factions, mainly in Germany, Italy, and overseas Colonies that will be targets of outright conquest. That's my take at least.
I quite like that idea; so taking an enemy capital could be seen as primarily a temporary strategic move to force them to sue for peace, rather than a permanent territorial expansion. Actually holding onto the enemy capital and attempting to integrate it into your own nation could be seen as a despicable act, somewhat akin to exterminating cities on M2TW (only maybe more severe).
An optional setting to go either way would be ideal, but maybe not practical. Something like that would probably require two different sets of AI routines, and would definitely require two different rounds of testing and debugging by the in-house testing group (since CA doesn't use outside alpha and beta testers, AFAIK). From what I've seen of game design over the years, it's the second factor that often limits the number of options offered to players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
User modding is sometimes a way around that. It worked pretty well to beef up the realism of the game and the performance of the AI in the recent Silent Hunter III/IV sub games. But if the AI doesn't have any pre-existing routines for dealing with "forbidden" sailing angles, it won't work. It would just be a player exploit.
As I said on the first page the AI does know how to tack.
Excellent! With all of these replies from CA members you can tell the dev team obviously cares a lot about the naval combat and also about pleasing the fans. I have every confidence that when we finally get to control a navy of our own, both hardcore realism fans and inexperienced new players will be pleased with the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lusted
Since CA seem keen to reply to posts in this thread I would like to ask a question about how different ship types will be affected by wind.
Will lateen rigged ships such as Galleys and Xebecs be able to sail closer to the wind than square riggers? And, in case of a battle with little to no wind, will some ship types be able to use oars as an alternate method of propulsion?
I really hope Jack or Intrepid Sidekick can give us an answer, but I understand if the information can't be released right now. Keep up the good work guys :beam:
Jack Lusted..
Could you say more about the diplomatic abilities? Will we get the "Get out of my land or else..." option finally? Or those 'new' diplomatic offer options are 'secret' yet?
Well in Empire you will not be able to go onto another factions lands unless you are at war or have military access. More than that I cannot really talk about the diplomacy side of things at the moment.
Thank you! :2thumbsup:
Finally I don't see those small Captain led two unit AI armies just sitting next to my Capital for 30-40 turns and then attack for some reason although I have almost full stack of units stationed in it!
Ok.. I understand why you can't talk about diplomacy yet. But what you just said makes a me want to get ETW even more! ~:)
Oh really? :inquisitive:Quote:
CA doesn't make that kind of concession on the land combat side of the game.
I guess I must have just imagined this then :shrug:
https://img517.imageshack.us/img517/...guysru5.th.jpg
I'm sorry but I for one wouldnt find *having* to tack remotely enjoyable. I would find it an incredible pain in the ass. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people would feel the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
I think CA have provided an excellent compromise. A speed bonus for bothering is a great way to manage it.
Like I tried to say before, fine if you control one ship in an RPG or so, horrible if you have to manually tell it to 20 ships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandarah
There are alot of games like Sid Mieier's Pirates and Pirates of Burning Sea that already have semi accurate and enjoyable ship battles. That are not OVERLY historic or UNDERLY historic, hopefully Empire will have a similiar idea.
Your right telling 20 ships individually to all do different actions at once is a bit much, but then again so is trying to figure out 8 different sail and wind variations per battle for new people.
We'll see when the game becomes playable, and since CA always releases the demo late and it leaks out early that will probably be Jan though Ca would like it to be feb :laugh4:
That's just a user-interface issue. It should be simple to group ships into squadrons/fleets then give commands to the group. If I remember Man of War II or III (an old but good Naval game covering the same period), you selected a flagship for every group, gave it orders then set a signal (orders) for the rest of its squadron. There were only a small number of signals, but they were perfectly adequate and produced quite a realistic feeling effect - since in real life each ship's captain would interpret signals with much these same constraints as in the game. Wanting exact control over every ship's actions isn't very authentic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Anyway, some more general points, having just come to this thread:
Firstly, thanks CA for the trailer. The eye candy looks wonderful and some of the rest also encourages me to hope that Empire will be good to play.
Secondly, thanks Sidekick & Lusted for your comments. It is really appreciated when you contribute to threads and give us info - even when the info isn't quite what Zenicetus & I wanted to hear. :beam:
Thirdly, as you can see, like Zenicetus I'm really disappointed that such a basic thing as wind isn't going to work realistically in naval battles. I do take the point that a lot of casual gamers might find sailing ships of this period tough to understand and when it comes down to game play v realism, going for the former is almost always the best choice (are they really so stupid though? sigh).
I do see a possible resolution though. If I've understood the thread, the AI knows about tacking. Since tacking is going to be overall a faster way to reach a point upwind of where we start, make the AI always use it. Then, if the game options provide a "realistic wind in naval battles" setting, there doesn't have to be different AI to cope with that. Some code changes of course but these could be kept to a minimum.
It is worth noting that something like the above is already quite a compromise for those of us wanting realistic wind. We should be discussing how to model failed tacks, when the ship gets taken aback, and in a similar vein, when to wear the ship when its type/speed/available crew/damage is such that it has X% chance of missing stays if it tried to tack. Realistic wind adds quite a bit to the tactical considerations that a commander would have to juggle, but I guess that a lot of this will have to be dumped in the interests of ... um ... attention span challenged potential buyers of the game.
Right, that's the kind of thing I was trying to get at, without getting too technical. Swinging your bow across the wind is a very dangerous maneuver in real-world sail combat, even with a ship whose sails haven't been shot to shreds. If the game engine allows sailing upwind with no penalty other than reduced speed, then it seems to me that it will allow some very dubious and silly tactics like circle-strafing the enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of the Isles
This is a very good point that I hadn't considered. Allowing ships to circle each other will take all the tactics out of positioning your fleet before attacking. I really hope they find some way of discouraging players from this kind of approach. It will be awful if battles consist of one side having a wind advantage, reaching the other first and then the lines meeting and the wind advantage being completely cancelled out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
On a side note, but still related to naval realism, I wonder if CA have modelled different depths of water? If reefs, sand bars and other obstacles are in the game it will provide a good excuse for the use of smaller vessels with a shallow draught. It will also add in a bit more tactical variety.
wow this is fairly significant. I have wanted this back since rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lusted
O wow! Whoever has the most prestige is declared the winner! It's almost like 21st century wars. What geniuses at Creative Assembly! This is definitely going to be the best Total War of the series, something unseen from all the previous games.
thats pretty much like Hearts of Iron... with the victor being whomever holds the most victory points at the end of 1953
It certainly looks like CA has put a great deal of effort into the game. ~:thumb: My severe caution level has moved up a notch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
Whaa...
Why don't you just buy http://www.2kgames.com/pirates/pirates/home.php. It's probably more up your alley anyway.
EDIT: Keep the criticism constructive, please. -- Martok
If a ship sails in to the wind you'll soon realise that "circle strafing" although possible against a stationary or very slow moving target it isnt optimal, nor is sailing direct in to the wind.
Using the wind to tack is best for fast movement.
Differently rigged ships have different sail characteristics according to how close to the wind they sail.
Steamships and oared vessels are not such slaves to wind.
Good to know, Intrepid Sidekick. Thanks for sharing! ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick
On a semi-related note: Can wind direction change during naval battles, or will it stay the same once combat is joined? For that matter, can weather in general change during both naval and land battles? (I mainly ask because I've always liked how in Shogun & MTW, the weather could change on you -- it added an interesting variable. :thumbsup: )
Does that mean that galleys will be included? If yes, will they be able to give frontal cannon fire, because as far as I have seen from screen shots with naval interface - there are only two options - right and left broadside cannons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick
Galleys are indeed forwards firing :yes:
Oooh Sweetness, both Galleys & forward firing confirmed :beam: