Need NAVAL BATTLES

[tutankamon]

Navel battles would be too complex and would take away from the ultimate intent, land battles. I'd autocalc them all anyway.

well I think it's a matter of taste ;) I have always loved naval warfare and I was therefore a bit dissapointed when RTW came out, whitout the great naval part, I mean who wouldn't have loved to commandeer great fleets of trierimnes and bierimnes... and besides, as I said above the game: Imperiale Glory, which look a lot like RTW, altough it's timespan is the napoleon period, has naval battles and they work perfecly.. so...

[SirGrotius]

I would like naval battles if you could actually control armies on ships and have boarding actions and the like.

Just kidding!

Naval battles should be abstracted unless we want a lot of silliness.

[drone]

I would like naval battles if you could actually control armies on ships and have boarding actions and the like.

Just kidding!

Naval battles should be abstracted unless we want a lot of silliness.

Don't laugh, I would want exactly that. Ramming, boarding actions, wind effects, fires, etc. But I also know that it would be extremely difficult to code properly, the onship path-finding would be atrocious, bugs galore, and in the end the advantage would go to the human player and the enemy fleets would be swept from the seas by smaller, more economical, human fleets using better tactics (i.e. exploiting bugs and a poor AI).

If they could make (or better yet, co-opt an existing one) a proper engine for naval battles, I would love it. The auto-calc ship battles of MTW and RTW always wound me up, since I could never figure out what was really going on, and always "knew" that I could do better. But I also understand the reality of the situation. Spend the time and money making the rest of the game great.

[Gazi Husrev-Beg]

If they make it right..yes add that too.They would be optional anyway.

[King Yngvar]

I would say yes to naval battles, they are truly needed!

[dej2]

Battle of the Aegates (Egadi) Islands, 241 BC

By the winter of 243/2 the Roman treasury is exhausted. However the Romans had sufficiently recovered from the debacle of 249 to build yet another fleet. The Senate passed a measure taxing themselves, the monies to be repayable in case of victory. 200 war ships are built.

Successful ground and naval assaults are launched against Carthaginian fortresses at Lilybaeum and Drepanum in Sicily.

In 241 the fleet of 200 quinquiremes which was placed in command of Gaius Lutatius Catulus were sent to renew the blockade of Lilybaeum. Th Romans appeared off the coast of Sicily in the summer and the surprised Punic fleet was forced to sail home, allowing the Romans to take the harbor at Drepana (Trapani), where he installed siege-works and blockaded the city, and the roadsteads near Lilybaeum. Meanwhile he drilled in naval manoeuvers every day.

The Carthaginians managed to reactivate their fleet and send a force of 170 ships, loaded their ships with grain and sought to relieve Hamilcar's troops in Eryx. The fleet was out of practice, undermanned and burdened with supplies for the garrison. The commander, Hanno, planned to sneak into Eryx, unload the corn to lighten the ships and take on the mercenary troops of Hamilcar Barca and then seek out the Roman fleet.

This plan failed. Lutatius got word of the arrival, embarked his best troops and sailed to the island of Aegusa (Aegates Islands or Egadi Islands) near Lilybaeum to intercept.

At daybreak he saw that the strong breeze favoured Carthage and that the seas were rough. He was unsure whether to engage but in the end decided that this would be preferable to fighting the same force later after it could be strengthened by Carthage. So upon seeing the enemy at full sail, he put to sea at once, quickly maneuvering his fleet into a single line facing the enemy.

Seeing this, the Carthaginians lowered their masts and closed. The Romans benefited from removal of all heavy equipment from their vessels and their training now paid off whereas the laden Carthaginian galleys were difficult to maneuver and their marines merely raw recruits. The result was that the Carthaginian ships experienced defeat after defeat. Fifty of their galleys were sunk outright and seventy captured. The remainder were saved only by a fortuitous change in wind direction and raised their masts and ran before the wind, which had veered around, and made their way back. The Romans had taken nearly 100,000 prisoners of war and Carthage was forced to sue for peace shortly thereafter.

Thus it was that on March 10, 241BC, the Carthaginian relieving fleet was totally defeated near the Aegates Islands off western Sicily.

Catulus, who had made the decision to attack, shared in the triumph, though a wound had prevented him from taking part in the operations.

The Carthaginians subsequently crucified the naval commander Hanno.

[Gaiseric]

If they could make (or better yet, co-opt an existing one) a proper engine for naval battles, I would love it. The auto-calc ship battles of MTW and RTW always wound me up, since I could never figure out what was really going on, and always "knew" that I could do better. But I also understand the reality of the situation. Spend the time and money making the rest of the game great.

If they are considering naval battles, CA should take a look at Patrician 2. The game is mostly focused on trading but the naval battles are quick and fun with a smart AI.

However this might require them swithcing the ships unit card to represent a single warship. The warship could be damaged, sunk, or even captured. A damaged warship would have less movement points. (Might even work with no new battle engine.)

This would solve my problems of the small pesky ai fleets blockading my ports that take me so long to chase down and destroy and that are a major nuisance.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Managing naval units is principally no different than managing chariots. If they can do chariots, they can do ships too. The only additional factor would be the effect of wind and waves on units movement and I'm pretty sure they can handle it.

Patrician 2/3 naval battles are fine. However, the system in original Port Royale (not the sequel) would be a better comparison.

Face it: A wargame is incomplete without naval battles.
.

[sapi]

Navel battles would be too complex and would take away from the ultimate intent, land battles. I'd autocalc them all anyway.

I agree.

Order a ship to turn. Wait. Order it to fire. Wait. Get another ship in line for a perfect shot. Get blown off course by the wind. Curse. Wait.

[Gaiseric]

Patrician 2/3 naval battles are fine. However, the system in original Port Royale (not the sequel) would be a better comparison.

Face it: A wargame is incomplete without naval battles.

Port Royale 1 would work great because it allows large fleet actions. I think most people would like these types of naval battles because they are short(5minutes max), decisive, and fun.

I have doubts on how well a naval battle might work on a RTW battle map. It might look cool, but it would be hard to program the ai to know when to raise/lower sails, get the weather gauge, and when to switch shot types.

If the programming could be done, a naval battle on a RTW battle map would be a great addition, but the battle might take too long even on 3x speed. Thats why I think CA should use somthing thats more short and sweet.

[Voigtkampf]

I remember the discussions about naval battles back where Rome was in development. Again, it is a safe bet to say no such thing will be introduced, or at least not much different than it is now. I would love to be proved wrong, though.

[Prince Cobra]

I definitely think the naval warfare should be improved (why on earth should I spend loads of money on expensive ships?!(I ask myself when playing the old MTW system of naval battles)). And I think it will be interesting to fight at the sea (wind,greek fire)- but only some major battles (not one ship vs. one ship). And btw there was one city which could not be conquered without a fleet- Constantinople. So they should include some ships in the sieges and assaults.

[TB666]

Battle of the Aegates (Egadi) Islands, 241 BC

mmmkay
Wrong era dude

But as many has said, I rather wouldn't want naval battles in this game(of course there wouldn't be in even if I wanted to).
Let's wait until we get a NTW

[ArcticSonata]

I wouldn't want naval battles. Typically, navies of the time weren't that exciting, and were mainly used for transporting troops. And the few battles of the time were incredibly boring, consisting of ships firing shots at each other with catapults, and possibly boarding.

RTW or Napoleonic Era navies are much more exciting. From about 100AD up till the 1700's was a dark age for naval combat, with not much taking place, and not many advancements in the way ships fought.

THough I would aggree that the naval battles from different battles would be even more impresive, there where still some great battle In the Rennissiance which would work great ,I.e. Lappanto.

I am hoping that they will put navalbattles in the game and that they turn out as greats as what takes place on land