If Real Time Naval warfare was included...

[hellas1]

Hi all,

Been posting in the RTW forum for a while, what 2 yrs.?

Not so many times here though.

You know, if C.W. incorporated R.T. naval warfare, somewhat like what Eidos did in Imperial Glory they would RULE the Real Time Warfare Genre for historically real armies.

Why don't they do that? Will they...EVER?

hellas1- I wish they would (fill in the blank).

[Kraggenmor]

Given the expense of building and maintaining a meningful naval presence in the game, it would be nice if there was a bit more meat to the naval engagements.

[Sheogorath]

Well, it would mean building a totaly different system just for the naval battles, and if you remember IG, managing more than one or two ships in a 'realistic' naval combat environment was a serious pain.
Hell, you could BARELY assemble a decent line of battle.

That and, from the command point of view, medieval naval battles would be pretty boring. Theres not a lot you can do once the ships have locked onto each other except watch. Getting into the late 1400's/1500's things get more intersting, but I doubt that theyre willing to put so much effort into what would be a rather silly addition.

Also, how dare you mention IG on an MTW2 board. I should confiscate your interwebz.

[Fate]

I think as mentioned above, that a.) CA doesnt have the engine to do that, and b.) at this point naval battles would indeed be very boring.

But, i do think that for the next major release (ie. not an expansion or add on) there will be an interactive naval combat system. Im basing this on the fact that i reckon the next game will be a Napoleonic era, much like IG, but with the Total War feel, and obviously the importance of naval battles.

[stev666]

boring or not I would still prefer to be doing it myself, as unless your forces are overwhelming in numbers the auto resolve generally makes a right hash of it.

[dismal]

Well, it would mean building a totaly different system just for the naval battles, and if you remember IG, managing more than one or two ships in a 'realistic' naval combat environment was a serious pain.
Hell, you could BARELY assemble a decent line of battle.

That and, from the command point of view, medieval naval battles would be pretty boring. Theres not a lot you can do once the ships have locked onto each other except watch. Getting into the late 1400's/1500's things get more intersting, but I doubt that theyre willing to put so much effort into what would be a rather silly addition.

Also, how dare you mention IG on an MTW2 board. I should confiscate your interwebz.

Yes, I think that's right. Most naval battles of the period seem to have consisted of tying up with enemy vessels and fighting with swords.

Presumably in a total war game this would involve all the excitement of selecting your army and clicking upon the enemies army then watching the results.

[dopp]

I think that's a little unfair. There are some ways naval combat can be as interesting as land combat, especially since this is a computer game.

Firstly, you have to decide between softening up the enemy with missile fire or closing to board immediately, with the additional option of ramming (like cavalry charges in their effect). This is very similar to a land battle. As the age progresses, ramming and boarding will become less important and 'line tactics' using the new artillery will become more important.

Secondly, you are still faced with the basic challenge of achieving local superiority of numbers in order to win. Nelson's achievement at Trafalgar was to divide the enemy fleet in two and then batter the weaker half into submission before the rest could return to help out. Maneuvering so that two or more of your ships gang up on a single enemy one and then rolling up the enemy line from there is still the order of the day. Formations that allow you to do that will still be a challenge to achieve, especially since you have to account for the kind of attack style your opponent opts for. The Greeks had several tight circling fleet formations against ramming attacks, for example, while cannon-armed warships will deploy in lines to maximise firepower.

Thirdly, there are only a few ship types compared to land units, of course, but if you look at each ship as a fighting platform for land troops (as they were used in those days), you will discover as many options for tailoring them as land armies. Do you embark more archers to shoot, or more pikemen for boarding? Do you drop a few units to lighten the load for ramming, or to squeeze in some more artillery? Of course, if they allowed you to customize the design of your ships, that would be even better.

Fourthly, naval combat is often criticized as being lacking in terrain, but this is not necessarily the case. Most historical naval battles occurred near to land, where terrain does become a factor. Sea battles also have their own considerations like wind direction and storms to liven things up.

RPS is more of an issue, since ideally I wouldn't want to see a repeat of the infamous 'zippy-fire-raft-blows-up-slow-dreadnought-despite-screens-of-frigates' tactic. Ships in those days were pretty self-sufficient and didn't need escorts to defend them like they do now.

[TevashSzat]

still, i doubt that real time naval warfare is gonna be added even for the next total war game since it would require way too much work from ca

[JCoyote]

I think, even without a full featured real time battle, we should at least have a minigame where our decisions can have some impact on the battle. Instead of just how hard you click on autocalc...

Anyway, until actual engagements are taking place, there should be a highly accelerated timeframe. Obviously you can quickly flip through running down a ship for half a day. Unfortunately this can't be wholly skipped past, maneuver here is important. Then once the catapults and cannon start firing things go to real time. There's which ship to hit with what, to use flame or not, when to engage archers... when to throw grapnels... and which ship to do what with.

There are a couple features that should come into play. One is, the various regular infantry producing facilities in a settlement should impact what sailors created there are equipped with. That adds a necessary dimension to the combat as well as fleet planning.

Another is... there should be at least some possibility for... plunder. ARR!! Depending on the level of enemy ship, and the kind of trade it's nation has running through the area, the victor should get some florins reflecting that.

Also, if my impressment idea was ever implemented, while exceptionally rare on land it should be almost common at sea... Many a defeated sailor had to labor on the victor's ship in alternative to swimming home, at least until the got back to port.

[dopp]

Medieval warships were crewed by sailors, but the fighting complement was often simply ordinary infantry from the army, which is why you used to get this 'split' command structure with one set of officers dedicated to sailing the ship (the Master) and one set in command of the soldiers and the fighting part (the Commander/Captain). Sometimes the ships were actually merchant vessels and 'converted' into warships by embarking sailors.

Therefore, you may not even need to have separate marines and crew, you could just bring your regular army (minus the horses) on board your fleet for battle. This separation of the ship from the fighters would also work in reverse, allowing you to have units of marines that can disembark for land operations, rather than remaining stuck to their ships like in most strategy games to date.

[Rollon]

well, what CA could do fairly easily is to allow you (or AI for that matter) to capture enemy ships, not just sink them. just a random chance on autocalc.
also I find those full stacks transported by a single dhow (cog etc) to be somewhat ermmm... unrealistic.

[zverzver]

I don't think naval combat should be introduced. It will take a lot of effort to develop, and if done it will take a lot of time to play and not be a lot of fun.
I would prefer to see smaller changes in how navies opperate, for example:

1. If my navy is cloe enough to enemy nave to se its composition I would like to see a percentage chance of victory like you have with agents
2. After a flete is defeated there should be a chance for each ship to separate from the stack and flee in a different locatio as fleats were often scatered after a confusing naval battles
3. I think a transportation limit should be introduced as 20 units of cavalry being transported by a single ship is rediculus.
4. Ships movement range should be increased to represent their far faster speed than that of land forces. Type of land units on ships should not affect movement distance.
5. Fleets should be able to decrease trading income without blocading ports. Just by being in a see zone they should be able to decrease enemy trade incomes from trade routs going trough this see zone and maybe even chanel a smoll percentage of it to you. It is funny how you can base your economy on naval trade and have no warships at all.

This list can be extended and modified but if we want CA to introduce changes to naval aspects of future TW game I would prefer them to concentrate on this easear to implement (at leat in my oppinion) changes that enchance already great millitary and economic aspects of the game than to introduce some form of controled naval engagements.

I have played some naval games and can not name a single good naval stratedy and only some good naval simulators.
I also disagree with the idea of introducing a minigame for naval combat as it would lead to introduction of minigames for agent actions. If you vant to play minigames play Sid Mayer's Pirates!

[dismal]

Nelson's achievement at Trafalgar was to divide the enemy fleet in two and then batter the weaker half into submission before the rest could return to help out.

Trafalgar was in 1805.

Medieval naval tactics seem to have involved tying one's ships together to achieve mass, followed by lots of ramming and boarding. An account of the Battle of Sluys:

The disposition of the French was made in accordance with the usual medieval tactics of a fleet fighting on the defensive. Quiéret and Béhuchet formed their force into three or four lines, with the ships tied to one another, and with a few of the largest stationed in front as outposts. King Edward entered the road-stead on the morning of the 24th, and after manoeuvering to place his ships to windward, and to bring the sun behind him, attacked. In his letter to his son he says that the enemy made a noble defence "all that day and the night after." His ships were arranged in two lines, and it may be presumed that the first attacked in front, while the second would be able to turn the flanks of the opponent. The battle was a long succession of hand-to-hand conflicts to board or to repel boarders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sluys

You are right about the missiles adding some element of strategy. You could probably argue that the player would need to make calls about what sort of troops to put on the ships, but at the end of the day the guy with the "bigger and/or better" force is likely to win. This might be an improvement over just "bigger" as it is now.

To me, the most unrealistic thing is that I can fit a 20 stack army (including horses and elephants) on one ship, but if they are attacked apparently those guys will just stay below decks.

The question to me is whether this is the best use of CAs time in terms of making the game more fun. I'd probably vote for better AI. But I don't discount the that well-implemented naval battles might be a lot of fun.

[JCoyote]

To me, the most unrealistic thing is that I can fit a 20 stack army (including horses and elephants) on one ship, but if they are attacked apparently those guys will just stay below decks.

To me the most unrealistic thing is that 20 stack army seems to have no interest whatsoever in whether the ship they are on sinks or not. Give the amount of hand to hand naval combat, pretty much any of them could have been useful (but none would fight mounted of course). However, I would also make it clear that at sea, the sailors and marines are the tough ones, everyone else is going to be at a penalty fighting on the ocean.

Also, in the way an archer card isn't a single archer, a ship card could easily be considered representative of a group of ships instead of just one.

[IsItStillThere]

To me, the most unrealistic thing is that I can fit a 20 stack army (including horses and elephants) on one ship, but if they are attacked apparently those guys will just stay below decks.

I agree with the above poster, each ship actually represents a fleet or at least a group of ships.


Representing real-time naval warfare, and doing it right, would be a game in and of itself. I'd rather see it stay the way it is in the medieval Total War games, so they can focus on land battles.

On the other hand, if they do a Napoleonic era game next, they will have to address naval battles somehow, due to their much increased importance (the more sea trade there is, the more important navies become).

[dismal]

I agree with the above poster, each ship actually represents a fleet or at least a group of ships.

If imagining that huge armies could be moved on a fleet that costs as little as one holk unit costs works for you, that's fine.

But it still doesn't explain why that 20 stack army wouldn't help fight in ship to ship combat.

[ASPER THE GREAT]

Wow great thread everyone has good ideas and I love them all. I think that CA could introduce a movie thing like with the spys. Showing the ships come together (grappling hooks), the boarding parties, the blast of the little cannon's ect.... would be nice. What about greek fire! was it already a lost art in this time pierod that would be outstanding, see in how we are flinging cows and the like. The stack limit is poor and may be only 50 or 100 men per ship. Viking long boats what a horrific site to see off the coast of England. "Anything other than auto calc would be great.

[IsItStillThere]

If imagining that huge armies could be moved on a fleet that costs as little as one holk unit costs works for you, that's fine.

If a holk costs 500 florins, then that would represent about a fourth of my empires total surplus (in a typical early game). And it takes two years to build. So, no, its not just one ship we are talking about.

Since necessary game mechanics prevent a completely faithful reproduction of reality, some things need to be taken as abstractions (like two years passing in time each turn but characters age only 6 months). Consider ships in a similar way.

[Ulstan]

somewhat like what Eidos did in Imperial Glory they would RULE the Real Time Warfare Genre for historically real armies.

I actually didn't like the Imperial Glory ship battles at all. Visually impressive, but very very very boring. I dunno, perhaps I just didn't get to the heavier ships, but there was so much dancing around and shooting for not much result.

Also, at this time period, most naval battles involved boarding actions between soldiers, or ramming, or some combination therefor. There wasn't much in the way of ships sunk exclusively with cannon fire, even at Lepanto.

[Vanya]

GAH!

Anybody here every play the oldie "Centurio"? (It even fit on a single 1.44 floppy!)

That game had naval combat to go along with land battles. (Not to mention the coloseum fights and the chariot races).

Vanya would think even such a crude implementation as that would be a foundation upon which naval battles can be incorporated into the game at some point.

GAH!

[JCoyote]

A mini game doesn't have to be so majorly interactive. Yes, I have Pirates!

I'm thinking something more like allowing you to pick your fleet deployment on a map, tactics, and goals and letting those influence the fight. It could still be pretty near like autocalc but at least giving the player a chance to change the outcome. Things like letting small ships try to lose bigger ones in the shallows, or triangular sailed ship run from square sails by heading into the wind. Goals like whether they should be trying to flee the battle, sink the enemy, or capture their ships and plunder the cargo. Something that's anywhere from 15 seconds to a couple minutes to do... giving the player the chance to interact with the situation without spending much time distracting from the primary game.

I'm thinking something close to a historical chess or puzzle game using the fundamentals of naval warfare, as opposed to doing an all-out simulation.

And I definitely think that, like how land battles have ransom, sea battles should have plunder on occasion.

[dismal]

If a holk costs 500 florins, then that would represent about a fourth of my empires total surplus (in a typical early game). And it takes two years to build. So, no, its not just one ship we are talking about.

I understand it's not supposed to represent just one ship. But nor is 60 archers meant to represent only 60 archers. Does it seem reasonable that one can build enough ships to transport a 20 unit army for the same cost one can build a unit of spearmen? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Then, of course, you can add as many as 19 more ship units to your fleet and you can still move exactly the same 20 units you could move when you had one.

Anyway, that wasn't really the main point. .The main point was more about the fact that medieval naval combat was mostly grapple and board, and having armed knights on board would have been a plus.

[IsItStillThere]

Anyway, that wasn't really the main point. .The main point was more about the fact that medieval naval combat was mostly grapple and board, and having armed knights on board would have been a plus.

Agreed--in RL having extra soldiers aboard (particularly archers) would be an advantage.

[dopp]

Trafalgar was in 1805.

Yes, I think I know that. The point I was trying to make is that Trafalgar is an example of successfully achieving concentration of force. The assumption being made by earlier posts is that naval combat is simply lining up and sort of battering away at the other guy, or a huge free-for-all where everyone just picks a target and rams, and is thus not fun. I was just trying to demonstrate that the aims of naval combat can be made to mirror those of land combat, which would make it fun.

[todorp]

Wow great thread everyone has good ideas and I love them all. I think that CA could introduce a movie thing like with the spys. Showing the ships come together (grappling hooks), the boarding parties, the blast of the little cannon's ect.... would be nice. What about greek fire! was it already a lost art in this time pierod that would be outstanding, see in how we are flinging cows and the like. The stack limit is poor and may be only 50 or 100 men per ship. Viking long boats what a horrific site to see off the coast of England. "Anything other than auto calc would be great.

I think that your idea can be implemented by adding a trigger as the spy movies. The story is to find naval battles movies and convert them to the MTW2 format, I think it is BINK or BLINK.

[Merciless_Doge]

Dopp - You bring up some great ideas for naval battles. Kudos.

[hellas1]

Hi all,

All I'm saying is for a complete RTS in the Total War series, it is a MUST to have naval battles. It would "complete" the game itself. I'd pay for more!!

You know, I wonder how many people that play TW series games actually know both infantry, cavalry, artillery (non-gunpowder and gunpowder), naval doctrine, strategy/tactics and equipment?

The TW series would be UNPARALLELED if naval battles were finally put in.

I love this game genre, but I would LOVE the genre more IF naval battles were in. For example, like the Battle of Lepanto. That was a SERIOUS battle in that if the Genoese lost, we might be mixed breeds: Greek-Turk, English-Turk, Italo-Turk, etc or not exist at all, who knows?
Very important infantry and naval engagements happened in the Mid to Late middle ages.

Look at Byzantium and it's fall in 1453. The rest of Europe sh*t!!!
They knew they would be next, IF something wasn't done.
That something was Lepanto.

Right? You know I'm right.
hellas1- A pity that the early middle ages aren't covered by TW series, they were very formative years.

[Ivan_the_Terrible]

I thought that among the christian forces at Lepanto, there were Spaniards, Venecians, French etc as well as Genoese?

Or am I confusing this with another battle?

[General Zhukov]

For example, like the Battle of Lepanto. That was a SERIOUS battle in that if the Genoese lost, we might be mixed breeds: Greek-Turk, English-Turk, Italo-Turk, etc or not exist at all, who knows? ...

Look at Byzantium and it's fall in 1453. The rest of Europe sh*t!!!
They knew they would be next, IF something wasn't done.
That something was Lepanto.

Nothing personal of course, but I have an off-topic comment about observations like this. They always seem like so much hooey. What if the Europeans had lost Lepanto? Maybe a storm would have hit and dashed the victorious Islamic fleet. Maybe the muslims would have invaded Italy, only to be repulsed by a defensive crusade with the rest of history playing out as it did.

Hey, if the Franks would've won at Hattin, the Islamic world might be speaking French right now.

If the Eqyptians had lost at Ain Jalut, we might all be drinking mare's milk right about now.

If the muslims had won at Tours, we might all be praying in mosques right now. Well, maybe nothing would have happened afterward.

If Hitler had won the Battle of Britain, or Stalingrad, we might all be speaking German right now. What? I seriously doubt it.

Historical speculation spiced with melodrama is fun, but hardly as profound as some of its practitioners sometimes think. Anywho, just wanted to get that off my chest.

[dopp]

Historical speculation spiced with melodrama is fun, but hardly as profound as some of its practitioners sometimes think. Anywho, just wanted to get that off my chest.

Historical speculation is how historians make money and stay in business. "Lepanto: The Destiny of Europe", sounds a lot cooler than "Lepanto: Greedy People Hit Each Other Again (Extra Blood Edition)".

The 'decisive battles' approach to military history has always been recognized as fundamentally flawed and blinkered in the first place, but it does make for good reading.