In praise of the game.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Noooo, not ETW. Don't be silly. But the naval aspect of Empire? Yes, I rather like it. Love it, actually.
Who could've foreseen that both the veteran tactical and strategic portions of Empire would stumble on stage causing great embarrassment, yet the rookie naval game shines proudly.

True, the naval game is a touch arcade out of the box, but the modders seem to have been purposely handed enough to make it more to my liking.
More importantly, the AI is pretty decent. Sure, you should be able to beat the AI even with fewer and smaller craft. It's not without it's flaws, like the AI's fleet getting itself in a confused and immobile pileup. But at no time will you see the mind boggling incompetence witnessed in the strategic or battlefield parts. If I make a move, the AI responds. If I try to cross the T, the AI tries to manoeuvre so that it can match me gun for gun. It just feels like the AI knows hows to win.
Thus, suspension of disbelief is maintained. Which is all I ever required, really.


Which makes it such a pity that the bulk of this very enjoyable naval game is hidden away in Empire. You have to wrestle your way through the early to mid game before the AI fields decent fleets and once you sink them, it's damnably reluctant to rebuild.
I would definitely buy a game where this naval engine gets used in it's own game where it's all about a naval campaign. Or something like Pirates! As the naval game is now, it can more then hold it's own against the current games in it's genre, like the offerings from Akella.

I really hope CA takes the Naval engine further then a mere Total War sideshow. It deserves more.

[Fisherking]

I like the naval battles too. The one thing that bothers me a touch is that it can read your mind.

Try selecting chain shot and watch him turn and approach in the wind with sails furred. Watch what happens when you select grape shot and so on.

It is no killer and you can fool it easy enough and use it to your advantage. But I do like the naval battles very much.

[Zenicetus]

True, the naval game is a touch arcade out of the box, but the modders seem to have been purposely handed enough to make it more to my liking.

I don't see how the modders can remove the arcade factor. They'd have to figure out how to keep ships from sailing directly upwind, and then teach the AI how to deal with that, so it isn't just a player exploit.

The naval battles have no relation at all to the sail combat of this era, other than the eye candy of cannon fire. Allowing ships to sail upwind, and circle-strafe, and anchor in the middle of the ocean (!!!), is like giving the Empire land armies a cavalry composed of modern air cav helicopters, and ignoring the limitations of a horse.

I honestly think everyone would be having a lot more fun with the naval battle engine if we had to cope with realistic constraints of sailing, just like we have to cope with some constraints in land combat (advantage of high ground, etc.). But I'm afraid that horse has already left the barn (or maybe the ship has sailed?). The major problem in the naval battles is ability to sail upwind and do 360 degree circles like modern powered vessels. I doubt that's something the modders can touch, and CA doesn't seem interested in improving it. They've already decided that tacking against the wind is "too hard" for the players to understand.

[nameless]

Sure because as we all know we all want to spend from 8 hours to days fighting just a single naval battle.

[Zenicetus]

We don't want to spend 8 hours fighting land battles either. In the TW series of games, CA managed to strip the essentials down to something that at least looks somewhat realistic, if you know anything about the warfare of that time. There is nothing in the naval battle engine that looks even remotely realistic, other than the eye candy (cannon fire, damage effects, etc.).

I think CA underestimated the intelligence and interest of their audience, especially since naval battles can be auto-resolved if they're too difficult. The Sid Meier Pirates! game had more realistic sail combat. This would have been more fun with more sailing realism... that's what kills me.

I'm a sailor in real life, so it's especially annoying, and I'll stop ranting now because I know there aren't many here in the forum that understand what's going on here (which is why CA can get away with it). It's like the kind of gripe you'd get from black powder or horse archer enthusiasts, when CA doesn't get the details right. I still think it's a blown opportunity.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I think you might be a wee bit overly critical here Zenicetus.
I'm not claiming it is some hardcore simulation. Because indeed it isn't. But with some care from the modding community a fairly decent game can already be made. I'm mean.... compared to all the other Age of Sail sims out there.
I share your belief that CA aimed a little low with some of the mechanics. But I'm equally confident that you aim too high too. I think the people with even a basic knowledge needed for anything approaching reality are fewer that you'd think.
I hated the out of the box sailing against the wind BIGTIME. But with that reduced to slow crawl I can tolerate it. Certainly I shall tolerate it a whole lot more then an AI stuck mid stay during tacking. One might say it's the lesser of two weevils!

[antisocialmunky]

I'm still a little pissed that you don't see sharks attacking men in the water.

[Zenicetus]

I share your belief that CA aimed a little low with some of the mechanics. But I'm equally confident that you aim too high too.

It's aiming too high to ask that a square rigger not sail upwind? That's what the tactics of sail combat are all about! Working the wind advantage is how you defeat the enemy, not steering the ships around like they're powerboats. Without a dead zone where ships can't point their bow, there are no tactics in the battle. It's just point the ships any way you want, and it ends up in a furball.

I think the people with even a basic knowledge needed for anything approaching reality are fewer that you'd think.

Learning how sailboats operate isn't any harder than learning how horse cavalry is supposed to be used in historic battles, and CA expects newbies to learn that, right? If the target audience can handle that kind of depth and realism in the land combat side of the game, then why should the naval battles be a dumbed-down arcade game? The audience for this kind of game can handle some complexity and detail, otherwise it wouldn't sell at all.

I hated the out of the box sailing against the wind BIGTIME. But with that reduced to slow crawl I can tolerate it. Certainly I shall tolerate it a whole lot more then an AI stuck mid stay during tacking. One might say it's the lesser of two weevils!

The insult here, is that (according to prior posts in this forum) CA decided to eliminate realistic tacking, not because the AI couldn't handle it, but because they thought it would be too confusing for the players. They dumbed it down because they thought *we* couldn't handle it, not the AI.

And the real hit is down the line, if CA goes back to earlier eras with naval combat in future games. This is the start of a great naval battle engine. They could use this for Ancient Greece or Ancient China, with mixed sail and oars for galleys. But it will be another silly arcade game, if sailing doesn't mean tactics determined by the direction of the wind.

[maestro]

Great thread

I, too, love the naval battles

[AussieGiant]

Cheers for your comments Turbosatan,

Please note, I still think there is room for improvement, but in light of CA's public commitment, then there is not more you can ask of a company providing you with a 50 to 75$ investment. They will get this game resolved to a very high level because their business model depends on it. I think a lot of people forget that.

Given the time taken to develop this patch (and I'm frustrated as hell right now), I'd say it will make quite a substantial difference in how the game plays, and will place them much closer to completion than we give them credit for.

In the end, and given this is CA's "first" attempt at naval battles, then they have done a wonderful job. Even more thought provoking is their long term strategy. It could be quite a planned event to make the naval action less realistic in this first version and save a more accurate simulation for the next game. Thus given the community time to get a feel for this part of the game.

Keep that in mind.

[Durallan]

I have to agree with everyone here on all their opinions! The naval battles are something that make ETW alone worth playin, while i'm not a total realistic naval nut, I have played a couple of other naval games and while I didn't realise in ETW the sailing against the wind was that bad its a very good point that sailingagainst the wind should be imposible, my favourite sailing combat game so far would have to be age of pirates and sailing into the wind certainly stopped you in your tracks mostly, and in sid meiers pirates it certainly had an effect on your battles.

anyway long story short, It would be nice to have the option to choose it :)

[Marquis of Roland]

Well, in Sid Meier's Pirates!, your sloop can dodge full broadsides with ease. Heck, if you're attentive you can dodge them in the 40-gun frigate. Thats something you CAN'T do in ETW

[Zenicetus]

There were plenty of unrealistic things in Pirates! like that, but I think it proves the point that a restriction on sailing upwind doesn't mean the game can't be fun. In Pirates! you had to tack on the campaign map too, since it modeled the circular trade winds in the Caribbean basin. This stuff isn't rocket science, and it's been modeled more realistically in plenty of games before this one.

The point above about steamships is also valid. They should have a major tactical advantage against any vessel under sail. Doesn't anyone care about that? Or are steamships just late-game eye candy with no real tactical value?

P.S. "over-privileged whining people"? What does over-privileged have to do with anything? You don't have to own a sailboat to know how they work.