FYI - GamesRadar.com hands on preview

[Sir Beane]

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

[Zenicetus]

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.

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.

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?

[AussieGiant]

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.

[Polemists]

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.

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.

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.

[pevergreen]

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.

[Celtic_Punk]

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.

[Sir Beane]

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.

[Thermal]

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

[Sir Beane]

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

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.

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.

[Sol Invictus]

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.

[PBI]

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).

[Zenicetus]

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.

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.

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.

[Jack Lusted]

As I said on the first page the AI does know how to tack.

[Sir Beane]

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.

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

[Ibn-Khaldun]

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?

[Jack Lusted]

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.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Thank you!

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!

[hoom]

CA doesn't make that kind of concession on the land combat side of the game.

Oh really?
I guess I must have just imagined this then

[Wandarah]

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.

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!
.

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.

I think CA have provided an excellent compromise. A speed bonus for bothering is a great way to manage it.

[Husar]

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.

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.

[Polemists]

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

[Lord of the Isles]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Zenicetus]

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.

[Sir Beane]

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.

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.

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.

[sassbarman]

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.

wow this is fairly significant. I have wanted this back since rome.

[ThePianist]

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.

[Celtic_Punk]

thats pretty much like Hearts of Iron... with the victor being whomever holds the most victory points at the end of 1953

[SpencerH]

It certainly looks like CA has put a great deal of effort into the game. My severe caution level has moved up a notch.

[Goofball]

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?

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.

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

[Intrepid Sidekick]

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.