Why do navies move so slowly?

[tropdars]

What's the rationale behind navies moving slower than land armies?

[Dresden]

We actually have their movement set higher than land if I remember correctly. I will have to check into this again, they could probably use another bump up.

CA's naval movement system is somewhat messy at the moment.

[tropdars]

http://imgur.com/a/xAbZ7

In this comparison, it you can see that the land army has the larger movement radius (I measured). It occurred to me that this could be due to the fact that if armies and navies have the same amount (or close to the same amount) of movement points, then an army with bonuses to movement points is going to move faster than navies without bonuses to movement points. Navies should probably have more base movement points than armies.

[lollaaja]

The naval invasions are already infuriating, I wish they'd be removed.

[Phil2]

A lot of work on perspective for the team about naval refond...
Mainly how naval battles handle. I'm currently unable to enjoy any naval battle (non auto resolved)

[Dresden]

Yes we need to do a naval overhaul at some point. It won't be until after our release version, though.

The image you posted might have slower naval movement due to the siege (general) unit. The larger ship types are much slower.

[Damocles]

It's interesting to consider that the Roman Civil War, chiefly between Caesar and Pompey, lasted only five years, but saw Caesar himself campaigning from Spain, to Africa, to Egypt, Pontus and Greece, while still having time for a pleasure cruise and taking care of business in Rome.

Of course, it also took at least six years to pacify Gaul. Still, I consider this sometimes when my armies take a year just to get out of Italy proper.

[Phil2]

They could mesure how many miles a roman leg could travel in one month, as well as how many miles a roman bireme/trireme could navigate in one month...and transpose it to the game for each turn
Maybe not that easy...

[lollaaja]

It's not reasonable design to give navies and armies large movement ranges. It will exacerbate the design problems of the campaign map even further. Even now you have to have armies parked along the Italian peninsula because you'll get navally invaded by anyone. The whackamole is bad enough now in my opinion.

[Damocles]

They could mesure how many miles a roman leg could travel in one month, as well as how many miles a roman bireme/trireme could navigate in one month...and transpose it to the game for each turn
Maybe not that easy...

The main issue is that if armies moved even a quarter of the speed they could in real life, human players would conquer the map in ten years. Since Total War is totally war, and leaves out the various civil and societal obstacles or impetus to expansion that the Romans dealt with.

[Post Hoc]

If we were going to be realistic as possible, in one turn you should be able to march from Brundisium to the tip of Denmark. I've always understood the standard legion could march 20 miles a day. 30 days a month multiplied by 3 months (3 months equals one turn) equals 1,800 miles. The distance from Brundisium to Alabu is only 1571 miles.

For Trireme's i believe it is 50 miles a day. 50 (miles) x 90 (days) = 4,500 miles a turn. The distance from London to New york is only 3,500 miles. For gameplays sake this is ridiculous . I don't know the distance from London to Alexandria but I'm pretty sure it isn't more than 5,000 miles. The length of the Mediterranean sea is 2,300 miles (from the Pillars of Hercules to the coast of the middle east).

[Phil2]

Yes, with those results, it should be ridiculous for actual gameplay.
Now is to find good compromise.

[Damocles]

If we were going to be realistic as possible, in one turn you should be able to march from Brundisium to the tip of Denmark. I've always understood the standard legion could march 20 miles a day. 30 days a month multiplied by 3 months (3 months equals one turn) equals 1,800 miles. The distance from Brundisium to Alabu is only 1571 miles.

For Trireme's i believe it is 50 miles a day. 50 (miles) x 90 (days) = 4,500 miles a turn. The distance from London to New york is only 3,500 miles. For gameplays sake this is ridiculous . I don't know the distance from London to Alexandria but I'm pretty sure it isn't more than 5,000 miles. The length of the Mediterranean sea is 2,300 miles (from the Pillars of Hercules to the coast of the middle east).

A particularly famous example of quick travel, saw Caesar go by land from Rome to Spain, (going up through Transalpine Gaul/Massila, etc), in just seventeen days.

I forget the exact number of miles, but it's the kind of unreal number that makes you break out a calculator to figure out how it's physically possible.

The truth of it is, men are capable of greater things than any game or simulation can represent, and the victors in real life are most often those that break the rules that others, including the generational elite, believe are impossible to bend. It's been proven often enough, whether in quantum physics, the Maginot Line , or the 2008 Financial Crisis. And a thousand other examples.

Computer games, and other simulations all ultimately require binary definitions of what is possible. And we don't live in a binary world.

[Summary]

The way I see it is that there are two major factors that play into successfully modifying this issue:

• The actual movement possible per day as "Post Hoc" pointed out.
• The time frame on turn covers.

Yes, it would be nice to have a navy travel 4,500 miles per three months as would be accurate in real life. But the problem is these three months occurs in one turn, and the human player in any Total War series always has the advantage of the initiative since, your turn is first. Basically what this means is that if you have the ability to mobilize and strike with all your armies in one turn, then their response during the end turn simulation is baseless (they have been blitzed). So how to combat this while allowing for accurate movement speeds?

The answer, reduce the time frame each turn covers. For example, the distance between Sparta and Athens is 131 miles. So, if any army can travel 1,800 miles per turn (covering three months), then Sparta would be able to reach Athens with ease and take the city. However, in real life I doubt the Athenians would sit back and give their Spartan rivals three months to march on Athens and do what they please. In other words, in reality the advantage of the initiative doesn't exist, everything happens real-time. Enemies react to your movements instantly.

But the Total War series is not designed to be a real time game and to achieve this would be difficult. So the best way of getting close to this would be to reduce the time frame each turn covers. Now consider this, each turn covers only one week. This means an army from Sparta would be able to travel only 140 miles per turn. They would still be able to reach Athens and take it out, but the initiative is considerably reduced, giving the player the advantage of only 1 week's time to act without expecting an enemy reaction. If we were to further reduce this time frame per turn to say about half a week, then the distance traveled per turn would be 70 miles. This means that Athens will have a chance during the end turn simulation to intercept this army outside it's city if they choose. So, this actually simulates a better response of an enemy. In other words the smaller initiative you gain due to the time frame of each turn, the more realistic or closer to real-time the game gets.

Of course, half a week turns are ridiculously too small a time frame because who is going to play 96 turns per year (Considering 4 weeks per month, to simplify calculations)??!! Even a week turn is too small, around 48 turns per year. Two weeks per turn hits 24 turns per year, some sub-mods are already available for this.

All in all what this means is that in the 96 turns per year, the distance covered in 96 turns should be the same as the distance covered in 48 turns by the 48 turns per year version and the same distance covered in 24 turns as the 24 turns per year version, as they all cover the same time frame of one year. But in the 96 turns per year, the enemy has the opportunity to confront you 96 times during your march, in the 48 turns per year, they have 48 moments to confront you, and the the 24 turns per year, they have 24 opportune moments to hinder your march. This means that although you are traveling the same distance in a year, the march is hardest in the 96 tpy version, and you are less likely to blitz the enemy or get blitzed in turn.

Getting a very accurate version of movement would require striking a balance between movement ranges and time frame per turn, the two factors. Accordingly, even the recruitment and research rates will have to be modified. You can't recruit 400 Spartans in half a week time . But that is another aspect and I will not complicate things further, unless someone asks me how to factor in changes to the recruitment speeds and research rates.

[Phil2]

Good post Summary That clarify things up.

[Lieutenant Sharpe]

@summary, I have always wanted a scenario that uses days or weeks as a time frame with a quite zoomed in map. Or possibly a shorter campaign time. Perhaps focusing on specific campaigns in certain regions like Italy, Macedonia, or Iberia.

[Damocles]

@summary, I have always wanted a scenario that uses days or weeks as a time frame with a quite zoomed in map. Or possibly a shorter campaign time. Perhaps focusing on specific campaigns in certain regions like Italy, Macedonia, or Iberia.

You should like Caesar in Gaul, then. That is a 24 turn per year, or thereabouts.

[Cope]

I also think the navy speed needs to be increased. It takes way to long to move your fleets around at the moment.

[Agraza]

navies are too slow. armies move faster or as fast, and can receive many more +% bonuses from agents and traits than fleets can. Why proven leader and the such only affect speed as a general I don't know. Admirals need to be able to get similar or stronger bonuses to develop what should be superior mobility.

[tropdars]

I don't think navies should be able to move as fast as they could in real life, I just think that for gameplay's sake, they should move faster​ than land armies so that there is a good reason to move armies over water.