Ships can o longer be captured

[Sebastianus Somerus]

So I read in a new article: http://www.totalwar-rome-2.de/viele-...r-rome-ii-374/
that ships can no longer be captured. I don't like this because capturing ships was of major importantce for the romans.

When the first punic war started the romans had no experince in naval warfare, the carthaginians did. The ships rammed eachother to sink the other. The carthaginians had much more experience in this so the romans had to think of something new. They invented the boarding bridge so they could fight men to men, somehing they were better in.

In Rome II this will not be possible. What do you think?
sorry for spelling mistakes, i wrote this on iphone and im not english

pic: https://www.google.nl/search?q=punic...8oadyvPi6k82M:

[Mementomoridc]

sorry for spelling mistakes, i wrote this on iphone and im not english

Damn foreigners (BTW dont have to be English to speak English as a first language ) As for not being able to capture ships that sounds like total crap since at this time in history a ship was so expensive sinking one was far less common. The bronze nose of a ship alone would cost so much that capturing it would make more sense than sinking it, the boat it's self was just a bonus if you did not need it.

[Thorn777]

CA should really second guess this

[Xerrop]

Why should boarding during battles not be possible anymore?
The sentence in the article tells us, that you cannot add ships to your fleet anymore after the battle.

But I wonder why. Prizes must have been important in Roman times also. Better capturing enemy ships and use them on your own instead of only rely on your shipbuilders.

[sleepyx732]

[Mementomoridc]

Why should boarding during battles not be possible anymore?
The sentence in the article tells us, that you cannot add ships to your fleet anymore after the battle.

THis has nothing to do with boarding, atlest from the posts I have read sorry if some1 else said it. But if you kill everyone on a ship in a boarding action or cause a ship to surrender it is dumb that the ship would just "disappear"

[Narf]

I agree, I'd like to be able to capture ships, or it at least be an option.

[Sebastianus Somerus]

Feindliche Schiffe können nicht mehr gekapert und dann selbst eingesetzt werden

This means: Enemy ships can no longer be captured

I thought that meant that boarding wasnt possible anymore

[Nexatt]

Interesting. Perhaps it means that ships can't be captured and then used immediately after? Such as, ships must be first sent back to a friendly / owned port, then refitted, repainted to faction colours, repaired, resupplied, etc. before they can then be used. I couldn't imagine that CA would entirely take out the ability to capture ships. Or maybe they would ?

[RGA]

Feindliche Schiffe können nicht mehr gekapert und dann selbst eingesetzt werden

This means: Enemy ships can no longer be captured

I thought that meant that boarding wasnt possible anymore

This means: Enemy ships can no longer be captured AND used as one's own [in later battles].

Shipbuilding in ancient times was not the limiting factor. In contrast to the ocean-going warships in the Age of sails, Greek and Roman warships didn't require dedicated materials which could last dozens of years. The limitng factor in ancient naval warfare was rowers. Even states as rich as Athens were strained to the breaking point by the economical and manpower pressure of maintaining a standing navy. And in sea battles, rowers were normally massacred on site or much much more seldomly enslaved. No one expected to used captured rowers in his own navy.

I think CA made a good and historically proper decision here.

[The Roman Republic]

The only reason why I think they have removed it is because of having three ships in one unit, and there in lies the problem of having to board ships.

[Lockpick]

The only reason why I think they have removed it is because of having three ships in one unit, and there in lies the problem of having to board ships.

This.

[matray]

I think this is in relation to the units ships. They say that to cross water the units build their own ships and then cross. I am guessing that the ships that cant be captured are those and usual triremes etc can be captured and turned into your own.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I think maybe it's the usual CA "Two steps forward, one step back" formula.

[w.wallace61]

The only reason why I think they have removed it is because of having three ships in one unit, and there in lies the problem of having to board ships.

Well, what happens then if 2 of the 3 ships you own is destroyed ? That makes 1 ship in one unit again.

[Nicolaos]

I think it's a misunderstanding.

They are probably talking about the unit transportation ships. Armies will be able to build their own crossing ships in one turn to cross water. They will be destroyed after landing.

It is likely that players can attack such transportation ships during the crossing. Since the ships would be destroyed anyways it is not possible to capture them. That's probably it.

[The Roman Republic]

Well, what happens then if 2 of the 3 ships you own is destroyed ? That makes 1 ship in one unit again.

Either be routed. Or if not it will just be a battle.


CA isn't going to spend the time to plan, design, implement, test, assess a feature that allows you to board a ship when there is one left in your unit.


Im sorry but if you would all open your eyes abit and realise that CA isn't a multi-billion pound company you would know that they can't afford the money and time of adding features halfway through the process of creating a game. Everything is pre-planned.


To understand it easier just look at what companies do in terms of creating something.


Type in on google any of these diagrams
waterfall model
spiral model

which can easily be transferred into creating a game.

[daelin4]

The statements made in the link are allegedly from Gamestar.

Now do the statements of that source actually cite CA or just pulling BS out of thin air?

No need to jump to conclusions if CA never actually made these claims.

[torongill]

Until we see a clarification, this could mean all sorts of things. I actually approve. This isn't NTW or S2TW. In this era there were lots of peoples who didn't have any idea of naval warfare. Do you really expect the Iberians to be able to effectively use a Hellenic sixteen-rower or even a quinquereme in the same turn they captured it? The whole notion is ridiculous. Besides, the whole system used in NTW isn't really realistic. It should cost you to have a captured ship be reused and if you don't use it, then the value of the ships should be mostly lost to you(the faction), but morale of the ships that participated in that action should increase. Either that or the admiral, that commanded the squadron should get a trait that increases morale(due to sailors knowing he will make them rich )

[Petroniu]

This is really stupid because the Romans won the 1st Punic War by capturing a Quinquireme from the Carthaginians and copying its model to build their owns. I can't see the reasoning here. Maybe the barbarians shouldn't be able to capture it because they don't know how to use it and they aren't naval powers but the civilised factions should.