Controlling ships in naval battles

[Martok]

Well each side can control up to 20 ships at a time, and battles can involve more than just 2 factions' navies. So you could very well have a Trafalgar-style battle in which a British fleet of 20 warships takes on a combined French-Spanish fleet of 26 vessels (just as an example).

CA has also said that you can group your ships into squadrons (much like how it's always worked in land battles), and that you can assign formations to them. I don't believe you can run ships aground, but I might be wrong.

[LadyAnn]

Hope we can also set fire to the ships and ram the enemy :)

Annie

[IsItStillThere]

Hope we can also set fire to the ships and ram the enemy :)

Annie

Ramming? too bad they didn't have naval battles in RTW!!!

Since ramming and the use of fire ships were both long since out of date by 1700 I doubt we'll see either...but I'm sure we can set other ships on fire in other ways

I hope they simulate the importance of the wind...the fleet with the "weather gauge" (upwind from the enemy) had a great advantage. To a fleet of sailing ships, wind was everything.

[Megas Methuselah]

I remember reading somewhere (maybe in my dreams? ) that ramming an enemy ship (actually, colliding is a better word) results in quite a bit of damage to your own ship as well as to the enemy's.

[Mailman653]

While on the subject, what about naval engagements in MP? Would it be possible to be on the same team as another player; one controls a few ships, the other another few ships.

Probably just wishful thinking.

[Megas Methuselah]

Why not? You can do that in land battles, can you not? I wouldn't imagine naval battles would be any different...

[Polemists]

Since ramming and the use of fire ships were both long since out of date by 1700 I doubt we'll see either...but I'm sure we can set other ships on fire in other ways

Quite true but CA has stated and show multiple times that Boarding actions will be a large part of battle. Boarding is pretty much like ramming, just with the side affect of your men going on to beat up the other ship's guys. :)

[Mailman653]

Why not? You can do that in land battles, can you not? I wouldn't imagine naval battles would be any different...

Your right, my fault for not being clear enough. What I meant to say was being the same nation, for instance have a four player match where two players are for example Russia and the other two Prussia.

[LadyAnn]

I remember reading somewhere (maybe in my dreams? ) that ramming an enemy ship (actually, colliding is a better word) results in quite a bit of damage to your own ship as well as to the enemy's.

Set the ship ablaze before ramming!

Annie

[Megas Methuselah]

Set the ship ablaze before ramming!

Hahaa, that's awesome! A sort of kamikazie fireship! I'm gonna be the worst Naval commander ever...

[Knight of the Rose]

Since ramming and the use of fire ships were both long since out of date by 1700 I doubt we'll see either

Fire ships were used extensively in the game's time-frame. There are threads on that in the monastary IIRC. I've yet to see a screenshot with fireships, though, so maybe it won't be a feature in the game.

/KotR

[Megas Methuselah]

Your right, my fault for not being clear enough. What I meant to say was being the same nation, for instance have a four player match where two players are for example Russia and the other two Prussia.

Well, you could do that in RTW, but I can't speak for M2TW.

[Slammer]

Hello i see we have a female commander in Lady Ann i wonder if she will be another Honor Harrington

[Megas Methuselah]

That is ridiculously off-topic.

Anyways, I sincerely imagine that naval battles will be exactly like land battles, as in choosing the weather, teams, etc, etc, etc. You might end up having naval battles with 8 players, each controlling 20 ships. That would be outta site.

[CrackedAxe]

CA has also said that you can group your ships into squadrons (much like how it's always worked in land battles), and that you can assign formations to them.

I certainly hope so, and that naval battles aren't just a CTRL+A and charge affair. I'm hoping that maneuvering tactics for focusing broadside fire are essential and that the turning circle of ships is accurate, so that if you get it wrong you're pretty much screwed.

[Zenicetus]

I certainly hope so, and that naval battles aren't just a CTRL+A and charge affair. I'm hoping that maneuvering tactics for focusing broadside fire are essential and that the turning circle of ships is accurate, so that if you get it wrong you're pretty much screwed.

It won't be accurate. The devs have already said that square-rigged ships can sail directly upwind, albeit more slowly than on other points of sail. So you'll be able to sail in a circle instead of being forced to tack. The tactical downside of reduced speed going directly upwind might result in players (and the AI?) using more-or-less realistic tactical choices in how they maneuver. That part remains to be seen. At any rate, it sounds like you're not going to be at risk of going into irons, being driven astern, etc. if you blow a maneuver.

Supposedly this decision was made because they thought players would be confused, if they sent an order for a ship to "go to point X" and the ship immediately turned away from that direction, in order to tack towards it against the wind. It's not how I would have designed it, but it isn't my game. It's disappointing... but I want to see if the game is still fun, in spite of that.

[Puzz3D]

It won't be accurate. The devs have already said that square-rigged ships can sail directly upwind, albeit more slowly than on other points of sail. So you'll be able to sail in a circle instead of being forced to tack.

If the speed of turning has also been made unrealistically fast then ships will be able to turn through the wind with almost no tactical disadvantage. Gaining the wind may be of negligible tactical advantage in ETW while is was an extremely important tactic in real naval battles of the period.