Pipe Dream

**Fisherking** · 02-25-2009, 11:01

The game is coming out in only about a week. And we know that amphibious operations are not included, because ships don’t interact with the land.

We know troops can disembark from ships though. I think it is a shame we cannot disembark crews and Marines from ships to attack cities or forts near the shore.

Sailors would make decent skirmishers with decent melee skills and Marines would be solid line infantry. Ships guns could be dragged ashore with a slow movement rate. If the landing party took the settlement then crews would remain their ships. If they failed then the losses could be computed and the crews would be smaller.

I don’t think it would be hard to implement but I know we won’t be seeing it anytime soon.

I can only hope that if the game is getting continued support that it could come with the multiplayer changes.

I hope it is something CA could at least explore.

**Elmar Bijlsma** · 02-25-2009, 11:48

Amphibious landings were typically unopposed and we can do this already.
The history books aren't exactly full of amphibious landings directly leading to a large scale battle. It just didn't make sense to land an army on top of a significant opposing force. So why would CA go to great lengths to make such an occurrence work? Doesn't seem like sensible allocation of programming resources to spend time on something that hardly ever happened.

**Sir Beane** · 02-25-2009, 11:49

It sounds like an interesting idea but I vermy much doubt it will be in the game. Perhaps amphibious landings and ship-to-shore operations will be included in a future expansion? I would love to be able to attack and take seaside forts with my fleets. And aid beach assaults with broadsides from my ships.

**Hollerbach** · 02-25-2009, 12:22

I think in fact it would be a lot of work to implement (and test enough to be confident about it). As folk have said, it wouldn't happen often enough to be worth the time, even without considering whether there is historical precedent.

This does raise a somewhat related point, in RTW (and in MTW2 maybe, can't rememeber) some units had the ability to swim across rivers, while others did not. I wonder if there will be any swimmers in ETW or whether bridges and fords will be the only way across for everyone?

**Fisherking** · 02-25-2009, 12:40

Ship’s forces often raided ashore and even captured forts and Islands. Morgan’s Sack of Panama was an naval operation.

The proximity of ships should also mean that Land Armies are tied up incase of raids and attempted capture of settlements. Why do you think that Marine compliments were a part of almost every ship in every navy of the time?

The first American Amphibious landing took place during the Revolutionary war. On March 3, 1776 the fleet's Marines and a number of seamen under Marine Captain Nicholas splashed ashore about two miles east of Fort Montagu, one of the Bahama Island's two forts, which they captured in a battle as "bemused as it was bloodless." After resting the night in their prize, the invasion force completed the job the next morning by taking Fort Nassau, securing the town, and arresting the British governor. By March 16, the island's military stores, with the exception of the gunpowder, were loaded and secured. The Marines and seamen who took part in the landing were then embarked, as was the governor and two of the island's key officials. The following morning the signal was given to weigh anchor, and the force returned to America.

Naval Bombardment would be great but I fear it is beyond the capabilities of the game engine.

**Elmar Bijlsma** · 02-25-2009, 16:49

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Ship’s forces often raided ashore and even captured forts and Islands. Morgan’s Sack of Panama was an naval operation.

No it wasn't. Ships dropped Henry Morgan off safely away from Chagre and picked him and his spoils up again a few months later. That's about the extent of the naval component. Morgan's fleet was located in the wrong ocean(!) for it to have been a naval operation.

The proximity of ships should also mean that Land Armies are tied up incase of raids and attempted capture of settlements. Why do you think that Marine compliments were a part of almost every ship in every navy of the time?

Uhm... To have a trained body of fighting men in a boarding action? To enforce shipboard discipline? Did they at times carry out raids? Certainly. Did they participate in amphibious battles? Hardly ever. To insinuate that the latter is why navies used marines is mere truthiness.

The first American Amphibious landing took place during the Revolutionary war. On March 3, 1776 the fleet's Marines and a number of seamen under Marine Captain Nicholas splashed ashore about two miles east of Fort Montagu, one of the Bahama Island's two forts, which they captured in a battle as "bemused as it was bloodless." After resting the night in their prize, the invasion force completed the job the next morning by taking Fort Nassau, securing the town, and arresting the British governor. By March 16, the island's military stores, with the exception of the gunpowder, were loaded and secured. The Marines and seamen who took part in the landing were then embarked, as was the governor and two of the island's key officials. The following morning the signal was given to weigh anchor, and the force returned to America.

So, even in this example you give there was no opposed landing nor, judging from the text, direct naval support. As such it's a textbook example of how such actions were typically fought. Therefore already within what Total War can model, correct?
Not that I'm saying it never happened that marines and seamen carried out opposed landings, but as a whole, it was a method not used enough to be worth any serious programming time.
We're talking flaming pigs and screeching women here, let there be no doubt about it.

**Greyblades** · 02-25-2009, 20:05

Originally Posted by Hollerbach

This does raise a somewhat related point, in RTW (and in MTW2 maybe, can't rememeber) some units had the ability to swim across rivers, while others did not. I wonder if there will be any swimmers in ETW or whether bridges and fords will be the only way across for everyone?

Somehow I think the phrase "fish in a barrel" is relevent here.
Swimming across a river during a gunpowder based battle would be suicide as the units gunpowder would become wet and unusable, so they cant retaliate if attacked while swimming, (or after fror that matter). It doesnt help that allmost no people in 18th century europe could swim.

**Hollerbach** · 02-25-2009, 21:44

Yep, I'm just wondering whether there will be say some cheap melee infantry, some light cavalry or possible some Indian or native American units that will be able to swim. Might make for an interesting surprise, since as you say most units in this game would have very good reasons to stay high and dry.

**A Very Super Market** · 02-26-2009, 00:52

Sounds interesting, I doubt they wouldn't put it in. If they did so in BI there is no reason they can't put it in ETW

**chairman** · 02-26-2009, 07:48

I think that I have to agree with Fisherking's point if maybe not his example. To better illustrate the idea:

Battle of Aboukir - 8 March, 1801

Admiral Lord Kieth and General Abercromby (British) land in Egypt to drive out the French after Napoleon's invasion. 157 transports, 15000 troops, 4 Bomb vessels/Gunboats, 3 Sloops and 185 boats.

General Menou (French) holds Aboukir Castle overlooking the sea approaches and landing zone with 6000 troops and 40 guns amongst the dunes above the beaches.

Under heavy fire and despite a delayed launch, General Moore (commanding the assault) has 6,000 men ashore by around 10AM (an hour after launch), withstands a charge by French cavalry directly against the men disembarking in the surf, and by 4PM the day is their's.

Casualties:

British - 600
French - unknown but much higher

Siege and Battle of Quebec - June to September 1759

Admirals Holmes and Saunders and General James Wolfe (British). 22 Ships of the Line, a dozen Frigates, and 14000 troops.

Governor-General Vaudreuil and Marquis de Montcalm (French). 18,000 troops, 100+ guns in and between Quebec and Beauport (10km downstream).

Over the course of the several month long siege, the British attempt several real and feint amphibious landings directly and indirectly against staunchly defended French positions. Finally, Wolfe lands with 4,000 troops just to the south of the city and on 13 September wins the battle of the Plains of Abraham, which results in the capture of Quebec and a decisive British Victory.

These are just two examples from our period. There were also numerous amphibious landings and assaults in the years prior to and after ETW. These include: the 1565 Siege of Malta by the Turks; the Capture of Fort George in 1813 on the Niagara River; the Siege and Landings at Vera Cruz in 1847 by the United States against Mexico.

There were also many instances of naval-assisted land sieges and assaults: Yorktown in 1781, Gibraltar in 1783 and Baltimore in 1814 being just some more examples. For proof of the frequency of this type of warfare just look at the number of coastal fortress that were built during this time period and the level defences that they had facing the seaward approaches.

Chairman

**Fisherking** · 02-26-2009, 10:32

@ Elmar Bijlsma

Who said a landing had to be opposed? We are talking about small targets of opportunity not using your fleet to take on a whole army alone. It forces the expenditure of money for troops to guard against such raids.

Look at Diamond Rock or the Pirate Raid on Baltimore. It is about the use of naval forces ashore.

I mentioned Marines as line infantry. They were the primary component of landing parties. None of their duties shipboard were beyond the capabilities of sailors. The Master At Arms was a warranted naval rank and not filled by a Marine Officer.

Morgan’s forces where Privateers and not Regiments of Infantry and Cavalry. He marched them across the isthmus of Panama and burned and sacked the city and returned to his ships.

I don’t think you can find historical precedent for excluding Marines and Sailors from land combat.

Most here will have heard of Admiral Edward Pellew, 1st Viscount Exmouth. A very real person by the way, and not a fictional character.

In the summer of 1777 (Acting Lieutenant) Pellew, with a detachment of seamen, was attached to the army under Burgoyne, was present in the fighting at the Battle of Saratoga, where his youngest brother, John, was killed. He, together with the rest of the force, was taken prisoner. After the surrender of General Burgoyne at Saratoga, he was repatriated.
An interesting lowlight in a distinguished Naval Career no doubt.

I would never say you should squander Naval forces when other troops are better but why not have a capability that existed?

**Freedom Onanist** · 02-26-2009, 11:01

I agree with Fisherking that this is an interesting concept.

But I think in all the disscussion about sailors and marines being used or not, the real point has been missed. This isn't about in-game amphibious landings but about the flexibility it can give you. There is no need to have the men rowing to the beach and starting a battle 9though it would be nice), opposed landings in this time period were something they would've avoided as far as possible.

I think the point is that sailors and marines mean you don't have to embark soldiers to raid far away places. As mentioned Morgan sacked Panama and raided far into Spanish territories (grenada, cuba, etc...) without dedicated soldiers. Their impact was huge though.

It has been stated that you can impact an enemy's economy by destroying provincial infrastructures, sailors and marines would be perfect for this in relatively undefended coastal areas. Fleets wouldn't just interdict the opposition's seaborne trade but also their land infrastructure (to a degree) without dedicating soldiers to the task.

**Fisherking** · 02-26-2009, 13:46

Thank you Freedom Onanist

That is the point I was trying to make.

The game’s engine will not allow men rowing ashore or ships to bombard coastal facilities.

It will however, allow disembarkation of troops on coastal areas. The ability of ships to disembark a portion of their crews would allow their presence to be more effective in tying down armies and give the player more flexibility in operations far from his troops.

There is nothing inaccurate or unhistorical in allowing such things to take place.