Fire at cities from a ship?

[Caius]

I wonder, for example, if i attack, how the enemy will defend?

I hope they will have forts.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I wouldn't mind seeing battles to take control of ports, that is if they are treated like M2:TW/R:TW cities. In these sorts of battles, ships could enter the harbour and unload any troops which they may be carrying. From there, these troops could simply hop of their ships and capture/raid/loot the places' riches. This method of naval conquest could be used as a risky way of bypassing wall defences. Of course, in this sort of attack, ships could fire cannon blasts at units and buildings, although I'm not quite sure if the original poster meant that sort of thing.

[Divinus Arma]

I wouldn't mind seeing battles to take control of ports, that is if they are treated like M2:TW/R:TW cities. In these sorts of battles, ships could enter the harbour and unload any troops which they may be carrying. From there, these troops could simply hop of their ships and capture/raid/loot the places' riches. This method of naval conquest could be used as a risky way of bypassing wall defences. Of course, in this sort of attack, ships could fire cannon blasts at units and buildings, although I'm not quite sure if the original poster meant that sort of thing.

An intriguing idea. And one that fits the CA goal of making non-settlement locations more strategically important and worth fighting over.

*Dreams of amphibiously landing a company of Continental Marines to take a british seabase.

CA, will you make my dream come true? PLEASE?!

[Caius]

I think the original poster made this suggestion.

[Bijo]

Just include it already. It could give nice possibilities for gameplay.

[TheImp]

I would expect the fact there will be real naval battles in TW to make the blockade of ports being completely reviewed. If we can actually fight the ships blocking the commercial trade between cities, why then those ships couldn't force the port defenses and take the city by sea?

That was why i posted this thread in the first place. I'm not very sure it'd add so much coding, cause sieges in TW are already very crowded with effects and units. So adding some sea & city fight wouldn't be a big deal now, would it?

[Galapagos]

You are like a bunch of dreamers.How many things we were expecting to have in Medieval 2 and we were disappointed.This game will make no exception.It will only have some new things but not so many.

[Ja'chyra]

You are like a bunch of dreamers.How many things we were expecting to have in Medieval 2 and we were disappointed.This game will make no exception.It will only have some new things but not so many.

No need to be offensive, or so negative, maybe the designers will listen and add some of the things that the players want, they have in the past.

[Galapagos]

No need to be offensive, or so negative, maybe the designers will listen and add some of the things that the players want, they have in the past.

I am not negative just that i want them to add many new things not just a few.The members here have many good ideas but i don't think CA will listen.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Not even a question of CA listening (or not) but of resources. There is a limited amount of coding time going in to ETW. So it's got to be rationed. So stuff like this, though a cool thing, will typically fall by the wayside as there are things more essential to gameplay that needs the attention more.

So with that in mind I would have like to see this in the game, but not if it's going to cut into programming time for other, more essential stuff. I'd be properly P.O.-ed if a coder was taken off working on the AI and tasked to put this idea in.

[Patricius]

Yes!
Also you should all know that attacking a stone fort with a wooden ship is not usually a really good idea.
For that to work the ship has to be able to knock out the guns of the fort. The fort only has to hit the ship enough to sink it…forts don’t sink.

It is just my guess but I would have to say I think it is easier to hit a moving target from a stationary position than to hit a small stationary target from a moving platform.

To attack a fort you usually need bomb catches(sp?) and rockets to allow your ships to stand off enough not to be sunk. Also attacking on a dark night can work to your advantage a bit as a fort is bigger than a ship…

We will just have to wait and see what ship types and weapons we get…then see what we can do with them.

Wooden ships are very hard to sink. Perhaps it is because the energy transmits nicely along the hull and the wood simply floats. It could take a lot and still be above water in some form. Portions of the hulls would have copper coating and the like. A ship is not fixed in its place. Like with Pirates of the Carribean, a fort could be bombarded with a standard battle afterwards.

[Galapagos]

Not even a question of CA listening (or not) but of resources. There is a limited amount of coding time going in to ETW. So it's got to be rationed. So stuff like this, though a cool thing, will typically fall by the wayside as there are things more essential to gameplay that needs the attention more.

So with that in mind I would have like to see this in the game, but not if it's going to cut into programming time for other, more essential stuff. I'd be properly P.O.-ed if a coder was taken off working on the AI and tasked to put this idea in.

They could release the game later so they would have time to make a super game.

[Kurulham]

Wooden ships are very hard to sink. Perhaps it is because the energy transmits nicely along the hull and the wood simply floats. It could take a lot and still be above water in some form. Portions of the hulls would have copper coating and the like. A ship is not fixed in its place. Like with Pirates of the Carribean, a fort could be bombarded with a standard battle afterwards.

You don't need to sink a ship for it to be a "kill". Shoot away enough of her rigging and she's not going anywhere except under sweeps; you can pick her apart at your leisure with your guns, or come in and board her. Also, the splinters thrown out when a shot from a 32-pounder (typical for a shore battery during this period) hits two feet of oak are long, jagged, often barbed bits of horribleness; they'll kill a man quick as you like. Stone, on the other hand, doesn't send out fatal fragments when struck with roundshot, so batteries are significantly more difficult to damage with gunfire than ships. Finally, forts had one big advantage that was often decisive; they could heat their shot in furnaces. Wooden ships at this time were giant boxes of pitch-soaked wood caulked with pitch and straw (actually oakum but whatever) and stuffed with gunpowder; fire was a horror, and glowing-hot roundshot did a brilliant job of starting it. Once a ship started to burn there was very little to be done.

That said, even smaller ships could take on shore batteries, but they usually did so by landing a party of marines to take the battery and blow the magazine.

Still and all, I would absolutely love to see this sort of thing in the game. It all depends on how "naval" they want to make the game; if they play to the desires of folks like me, we'll see the ability to "cut out" enemy ships by night, island fortresses, landing marines to blow a battery, opposed landings... y'know, all the stuff that makes Patrick O'Brian and C.S. Forester so much fun! Not holding my breath, though; perhaps a mod, hmm....

[Elmar Bijlsma]

They could release the game later so they would have time to make a super game.

I so hope you are not an economics student.
Working on something costs money. You only work on stuff that is deemed to add sufficient value to the product as to be worth the investment. Overstuffing it with expensive features does not significantly boost sales.

[Matt_Lane]

Historically ships did take on land targets, The Royal Navel engaged Copenhagen with Rocket and Bomb Ships in 1801 and then in 1807. Neither of these are designed to destroy stone walls, the Rockets are more a psychological weapon whilst the Bomb Ships use mortars to lob shells over the defenses.

In terms of Gameplay I think its important to be able to involve navel power in land engagements. Britain had a small army that was often delivered to battle, supplied and supported by its large navy. In the American Revolution, Britain was unable to dominate areas away from the support and supply of the Royal Navy and naval bombardments took place during the battles for Savannah and Baltimore.

Lastly I'm not a software engineer but could not the coding for Land / Sea engagements be treated the same as the Sea / Sea battles, with the forts or cities acting as stationary 'ships' that could direct fire and take damage like the actual ships? I'm not sure how practical this would be but I'd be interested to hear peoples opinions.

[Ozzman1O1]

everyone knows the most amazing battles under this category where in the french-indian war,large amounts of bombordment and indian ambushes were relivant at that time,next to the alamo,wich im discusted no ones talking about...........

[TosaInu]

Hello,

Even if it's plain suicide to attack a coastal fort with a ship, it can prove to be worthwhile in the greater scheme (distraction).

Nothing prevents you to attack knights in M2TW with just peasants either, there can be uses.

[Ozzman1O1]

ummmmm............hi

[Ozzman1O1]

i stilll think the frnch indian war is perfact for this era

[rajpoot]

You know what, this will certainly be a very very very good idea, because ships using large guns on their decks did fire at targets inland too, and many times it so happened that the single guns on the ships were larger than any gun the fort might posses.....
If I'm not wrong, the American National Anthem was written by Francis Scott sitting in a ship, while it bombarded a fort near the shore...........
But sadly, I can tell you people this (seeing that I'm a programmer), thats it won't be all that simple for CA to do this.......to combine a naval and land battle accurately it'll take I believe quite a lot of extra work.......ofcourse a sort of workable thing can be done, but who wants workable things, its got to be good isn't it............

[Defender]

Hmm that sound's like a solid idea. Indeed it was done in that age, and in sense of programming it should be tricky but it could surely be done...

Maybe they can give ships an option to have troops disembarked.

You get to see a small cutscene in wich you see the ship unloading troops (a cutscene like the one you get if the general is killed or something) and as long as the ship is docked, it is treated as a tower. maybe they can use some of those mechanics.

Or they could use ship as you use towers, stationary but destroyable and above all lethal...

[hellenes]

It is a game, therefore historical accuracy is not required. If one wants history then one should read a history book, communicate with historians, or invent a time machine to visit the past, or do another thing to quench one's hunger for history.

A reasonable amount of historical (or general reality) accuracy can be in a game but deviation is necessary for the gameplay factor. I still wonder when the first game featuring ultimate historical accuracy and good fun gameplay will arrive... or has it already?

Tery Europa Barbarorum mod and you will revise your views on the topic...

[Divinus Arma]

Regarding the earlier post about adding value to the product:

It could certainly be argued that this feature, potentially being a MAJOR engine requirement, would prove to be excessive in cost in comparison against profit potential.

I would rebut that this series is in need of quite a bit of revolution rather than evolution in order to keep the core concept fresh and engaging. Sea warfare is an important addition to the series. However, this particular time period requires much in features in gameplay to avoid becoming bland quickly. It is true that many armies were similar in the period. Many ship were similar. And CA are addressing this with changes from diversity in units to diversity in tactics/formations. But I don't think formations as counter-tactics nor ship-alone combat will be enough to break the potential for monotony. Land-sea interactions are important enough tactically and strategically in the essence of the core concept, whilst also adding value to counter the potential for repetition. Reviews are important. Replayability is important.

In essence, this is needed to make the game complete.

[Defender]

There is a game that also lets you attack forts. Pirates of the Carribean has it. I know that game sucks, and faring your boat sucks even more. Also the fact that you could not destroy the fort sucked ass too. But still, if you felt suicidal you could attack a fort.

Not that it is RTS or anything, I am just trying to say that it is possible to do. If it is possible to do with this game engine, I don't know. I let other people do the hard programming ;)