A new twist on blockading ports?

[NakedBarbarian2]

Everyone wants to see naval battles included in the TOtal War franchise.

However during the middle ages most naval encounters occurred outside of ports, i mean how many times did the Venetians and Ottomans duke it on the coast of Venice, same goes for the Ottomans and Byzantinians outside of constantinople.

What if everytime you blockaded a port, or challenged a blockading fleet you had to fight it out as a battle? It would add a totally new demension to a part of the campaign that isn't terribly interesting. Other than buggering the enemy AI's economy, building a massive fleet is not an awful lot of fun for the ammount of florins it takes i.e. in my current spanish campaign i absolutely dominate the entire mediterranean but building massive fleets of carraks has pretty much bankrupted my treasury.

I could pretty much garuntee that if CA included naval battles as a major feature in the next total war game (im predicting Napoleonic) than they would sell like hot potatoes in a Kazakh winter. It would totally be the icing on the total war cake!

[Centurio Pax]

I think everyone agrees.

[Armoured_Crusader]

I totally agree

[Marku]

yeah i agree, nice idea.

[Real]

In Napoleonic it would be very useful, but I don't think there will be one...

Anyway, I agree with the idea!:original:

[Lusted]

Well i don't really agree as i think it's hard enough working on the 2 engines already in the TW series(land battles and campaign) and the issues related to them, imagine adding in a 3rd(naval battleS) and all the extra work that would entail.

[NakedBarbarian2]

I see your logic dude, but all games franchises have to keep evolving or they remain stagnant and nobody buys them anymore. Refining the graphics for the battles is great but if CA keep repackaging the same basic formular people are gonna look elsewhere for RTS entertainment. admittently the 4 in 1 expansion took me completely by suprise, buts its 'spicing it up' that keeps it interesting! People, particularly fans have been suggesting naval battles since ROMETW, and i think CA would be fools to overlook that, especially if they decide to do Napoleonic total war, set in a period where naval fleets were just as, if not more important than land battles.

[Lusted]

But my point is it is a HELL of a lot of work, not just some simple add-on. It's an entirely new 3rd part of the engine, with its own physics etc, its own ai etc. It's not simple or easy to do, and CA have a hard enough time just doing the 2 current parts of the engine. Imagine how buggy the next TW game would be if their resources were divided between 3 different parts of the engine.

[NakedBarbarian2]

well i gues i've never really taken into account the fact that resources can be very restrictive, but as the acronym goes u gotsa spend money to make money, and if spend a long time and resources on creating a graphics engine adding naval battles, not only would they get all of our money, but the games in general would probably appeal to a wider audience.

I mean these games are the bread and butter of these businesses, so it would make sense that they would make the best game possible to sell the most ammount of copies to make the most ammount of money to make the best games possible to sell the most ammount of copies to make the most ammount of money and so on and so forth.

[fiveswords]

I don't really care about naval battles. I'm interested in land warfare, the fleets I've got are just another tool to disrupt my enemies' economy.

Or did you mean the battle was going to be on the land with sailors/soliders of your fleet attacking the port town to take it over?

[Germanicus75]

I agree with fiveswords.

[Towelie]

yeah, i'm also against naval battles.. more like those hand to hand combats, so could say that i'm also against napoleonic TW...

[CzarKirk]

They could at least add a few options, for example aggressive or defencive style of combat for your ships.

[Condottiere SOG]

Well i don't really agree as i think it's hard enough working on the 2 engines already in the TW series(land battles and campaign) and the issues related to them, imagine adding in a 3rd(naval battleS) and all the extra work that would entail.

many other games present these features and for half the graphics cost.

[NaptownKnight]

Well CA has definetly pulled in alot of money since RTW, and they are currently pulling in alot of money from M2TW. Hence they have more resources than ever before, and it would be possible for them to hire more people etc. to work on a 3rd engine. The amount of bugs wouldnt be a problem as long as they beta tested and got rid of them. I am seriously surprised CA dosen't have some of us in the modding community test their games and help them get rid of the bugs.

[crazyj]

many other games present these features and for half the graphics cost.

Which others games would combine a strategic campaign map, 3d battle map with thousands of troops, and a 3d naval map with dozens of ships? Uh none. Nobody can touch TW as it is, forget about a 3rd engine.

IMHO, naval warfare is its own game. Its why games like Silent Hunter and whatnot dont' also have a huge landwarfare simulation component included.

Sure, I'd LOVE to see them. But understand why we never will until Total War X.

[Lusted]

I suppose Imperial Glory includes all 3, but, well, it sucks. An example of what happens when you try to include too much in one game and stretch your resources too thin.

[NaptownKnight]

I suppose Imperial Glory includes all 3, but, well, it sucks. An example of what happens when you try to include too much in one game and stretch your resources too thin.

Actually thats what happens when you rip someone off, add something too it, but forget to include everything from what you ripped off. I hear there isnt even morale in that game....

[Douchebag]

In theory its a good idea, but I have to go with Lusted; to much work.

[Gorrrrrn]

Just out of interest:

has anyone ever played a good naval warfare simulator for the medieval period?