Ask Your Questions Here!

[Nelduin]

I think it would be an interesting and realistic feature .

[Stath's]

I'd like that

[Basileos Predator]

A verry good idea.It would be a far more immersive and realistic experience for the game and add to it's flavour.I belive (if possible) it should be in.Nice to see new features are being developed .

[Jagmodo]

For now I'm undecided. Is it only loading on the ships outside ports prohibited or disembarking from the ships would be also prohibited? I’m having nothing against if loading on the ships would work only in the ports (that’s their function in reality). What I’m against is if disembarking from the ships outside the ports would be prohibited because that would deprive human player from option of having naval invasions. If the loading on the ships is only the case then I fully support the idea.

[Aradan]

It's just getting on the ships that would be restricted to ports, getting off the ships would be allowed everywhere.

[Wambat]

I terms of making actual sense, and also giving practical use to some units that are rarely used my humans, I would make both embarking and disembarking dependent upon a port, with the exception of Harad corsairs and corsair archers, and RK mariners. If there are going to be provinces that require a water landing to capture, then I would put some mariner/corsair-type mercenary unit on the map as well, so that other factions have the chance to capture these provinces.

[Legio]

Interesting and unique!

[Aradan]

I terms of making actual sense, and also giving practical use to some units that are rarely used my humans, I would make both embarking and disembarking dependent upon a port, with the exception of Harad corsairs and corsair archers, and RK mariners. If there are going to be provinces that require a water landing to capture, then I would put some mariner/corsair-type mercenary unit on the map as well, so that other factions have the chance to capture these provinces.

Prohibiting disembarking outside ports can be done, but there exists an easy way to bypass it, so it would end up being a half-baked thing. The way it is now (only embarking being restricted) resembles the way ports worked in MTW, where you could move armies via ships only from provinces with ports, but could land them on any coastal province, which is kind of nice for MTW-nostalgics like me.

Also, the whole thing is not done on a per-unit basis, so your detailed plans about units that should have it and units that shouldn't is not possible.

[Dejeyo]

I agree. Embarking should be restricted to ports, it's more realistic.

[acci_dent]

Does the AI deal with ok? I suppose it's not like the RTW ever really makes naval invasions anyway.

[Aradan]

It only applies to the player. The AI wouldn't stand a chance at using it.

[Stark1]

I think it would be a nice feature.

[Basileos Predator]

This kind of feature woud really add to the uniqueness of this already greatly unique mod.Hopefully it shall be implemented as it is entirely realistic and useful for adding to the in-game playability.
Disembarking should not be affected by this but embarking of troops to fleets is an basic characteristic of ports.

Can we get a more detailed view on this feature?

[Aradan]

It's already been implemented.

More detailed how? The concept is quite simple. Unless a fleet is in a port, the player cannot get his armies on it. If you have more specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them though.

[Basileos Predator]

Oh i meant if you could tell us a bit about how you could do the "embarking on ships in harbours but but disembarking everywhere you like".I get it on what the feature does.

On a different subject can we get some insides on how "wonders" and special buildings fit in the mod?From TNS i remember you used all the building slots.So, what did you do in this area ?

[Aradan]

Oh i meant if you could tell us a bit about how you could do the "embarking on ships in harbours but but disembarking everywhere you like".I get it on what the feature does.

Through the magic of editing descr_cursor_actions (which is why it only applies to the player). It's nothing complex or difficult really, compared to all the other features of DoM.

On a different subject can we get some insides on how "wonders" and special buildings fit in the mod?From TNS i remember you used all the building slots.So, what did you do in this area ?

EDB was almost redone from scratch for DoM. It's much more efficiently coded now and even though we got more factions, more cultures, more buildings and way more mechanics, there are slots left.
Marvels are handled the same way as in TNS, as indestructible pre-existing buildings, though each slot is now used for more than one marvels (saves space). Wonder-capture has changed more. The 'capture' and 'secure' phases have been removed, since we now have provincial pacification/control buildings, and there's only a faction-specific 'exploit wonder' building. Other special buildings are simply special levels or faction-specific names of regular buildings (eg tier-3 court is Merethrond, Rohan-specific tier-5 core bldg is Meduseld, etc).

[Thangaror]

I assume, this feature only works with ports but not with fishing villages?

The problem with embarking only in ports is that this will make a retreat almost impossible under some circumstances.
For example, if you capture Tolfalas and the town doesn't have a port, your army is trapped there. Also, playing Adûnabâr or RK, I'm heavily relying on ships in the first phase of the war to transfer troops across Anduin, predominantly to send reinforcements from Minas Tirith to Emyn Arnen and back.

A forth port level could resolve the problem, if you created a very cheap port, which is of no real use, apart from being a harbour, and can be built in the very first city level. Strictly speaking, a fishing village with a rudimentary harbour should be able to provide enough small vessels to transport an army to a warship anchored in the roadstead.

As a matter of fact, fleets are retarded anyway, since you can move a full stack army of 1,000 men onto one stupid ship. (Always made me LOL in Rome, because the Biremes were so fragile in reality, the mariners had to sit in the middle of the ship motionless until battle, else it might have cause problems).


Anyway since speaking about that topic, I've always wondered why e.g. Pelargir can export goods by sea to Emyn Arnen, although there's no port?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

A fleet of a few ships can carry thousands of men because the stack represents the warships. The troops are carried on transports.

CA themselves have said this multiple times.

[Aradan]

I assume, this feature only works with ports but not with fishing villages?

Yes.

The problem with embarking only in ports is that this will make a retreat almost impossible under some circumstances.
For example, if you capture Tolfalas and the town doesn't have a port, your army is trapped there. Also, playing Adûnabâr or RK, I'm heavily relying on ships in the first phase of the war to transfer troops across Anduin, predominantly to send reinforcements from Minas Tirith to Emyn Arnen and back.

It does indeed make things harder and demands some extra consideration when planning naval transoprtation. I don't necessarily view that as a bad thing. As for the two examples you give: Tolfalas starts with a port, and the AI is set to not destroy it. So, given that only the player can destroy the port and only the player is affected by the embarking restriction, if a problem ever arises there, it's caused by the player himself. As for Emyn Arnen, well, you can send troops to Ithilien quickly from Pelargir or Minas Anor, it's moving them back that might not be so easy. Do you view that as irrational? It seems to me like a strategic choice, but if enough people disagree, I can always rethink the particular mechanic.

A forth port level could resolve the problem, if you created a very cheap port, which is of no real use, apart from being a harbour, and can be built in the very first city level. Strictly speaking, a fishing village with a rudimentary harbour should be able to provide enough small vessels to transport an army to a warship anchored in the roadstead.

Ports are associated with specific hardcoded effects; the first port, for example, always creates a trade line, and I don't want tier-1 settlements to have that.

As a matter of fact, fleets are retarded anyway, since you can move a full stack army of 1,000 men onto one stupid ship. (Always made me LOL in Rome, because the Biremes were so fragile in reality, the mariners had to sit in the middle of the ship motionless until battle, else it might have cause problems).

No way to fix this. A 'solution' would be to make naval units much more expensive and slow to build, rename them to 'fleets' and have them simulate entire fleets (warships and transports) and not individual ships. If people are in favour of that, we could do it, with a bit of text editing...

Anyway since speaking about that topic, I've always wondered why e.g. Pelargir can export goods by sea to Emyn Arnen, although there's no port?

Because it's coastal. Coastal provinces without a 'port' tile cannot export by sea, but can import.

A fleet of a few ships can carry thousands of men because the stack represents the warships. The troops are carried on transports.

CA themselves have said this multiple times.

Still, a somewhat unsatisfactory explanation. Every ship built auto-generates enough transports to carry 5000 men, which disappear when two ships merge into one fleet and reappear when they split up again...

[Wambat]

I have always been curious as to why Emyn Arnen does not have a port. Was there something in the lore about how this province could not ever have a port? Is there a reason why, with all that coastline, not one place is suitable for a port? Maybe it doesn't have one at the start of the game, but it is inconceivable that a ruler might decide to build one later?