Naval game importance

Ok, seeing the poor interest shown by the posters in the naval part of the game, I wonder how many of you are interested in this part of the game. I mind and if the future players do say nothing then CA wont take care of it, so we will end having a similar naval combat system to what we had in Empire or Napoleon. Ships flying over the water like speed boats, super ram effects halving the ships in a thunder strike and some other things that maybe due to the complexity of the new games wont be able to be modded.

Also the relation of campaign naval features with naval battles. Will be ships also transporting troops so when sunk the troops are lost? will there be trade fleets to fight against? will there be storms that sink the fleet? will there be coastal restriction to early navigation? what about naval techs?

I am amazed that there is no a great debate about this in terms of acuracy and in terms of gameplay.

Isn't it a great new feature for our loved Rome game? Greeks without a good naval game are a joke or well having Spartans Hoplites is good enough? Many people would like to play Carthage, without a decent naval game?

Another thing about the importance of the naval game. If what has been said by some people of the forum, which is that now each ships will carry men(land units), and if the sunk ships take away part of the land units carried, if you are one of those who can't care less about naval game, wouldn't you be more interested on it as you may loose too many men in a naval battle or cause the enemy severe losts?

Your turn. (It would be better if you posted a comment of your opinion and also debate about any naval feature for campaign or battle)

I really couldn't care less about the naval combat. It has always just been slow and boring. I'm glad some people get a kick out of it, but it isn't my cup of tea.

Originally Posted by Cathal

I really couldn't care less about the naval combat. It has always just been slow and boring. I'm glad some people get a kick out of it, but it isn't my cup of tea.

This. I hope the naval battles become better and better...for those who enjoy it. My main concern is the naval now taking place in beaches/harbors. I hope we wont be forces to use/play it. I really really do not like naval battles.

Originally Posted by Cathal

I really couldn't care less about the naval combat. It has always just been slow and boring. I'm glad some people get a kick out of it, but it isn't my cup of tea.

Originally Posted by Kaap

This. I hope the naval battles become better and better...for those who enjoy it. My main concern is the naval now taking place in beaches/harbors. I hope we wont be forces to use/play it. I really really do not like naval battles.

That's why you guys don't have a naval strategy or a naval knowledge...
I "fought" a lot of intense naval battles, sometimes more intense than a land one.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

That's why you guys don't have a naval strategy or a naval knowledge...

Quite possible. I am and never were interested in naval warfare. Pure infantry/artillery here. Heck, I don't even use cavalry in my stacks.

Originally Posted by Kaap

Quite possible. I am and never were interested in naval warfare. Pure infantry/artillery here. Heck, I don't even use cavalry in my stacks.

That's all folks!!

I like swords in land battles better than gunpowder land battles..

But gunpowder for naval battles is always better in my opinion.

Naval features are hard to represent accurately in games. I enjoy naval battles to some extent but I did get a bit bored with them in ETW and Shogun 2. I thought it was unrealistic that an enemy would send many small fleets into a region where I had naval superiority, it forced me to fight many nearly identical small battles since you can't trust the auto calc which would give me the win but within 3 turns half my fleet is damaged where if I fight every battle maybe 1 or 2 ships have small damage. For ETW it wasn't always inaccurate historically as many raiders or small fleets did make trouble but 1 consequence was that playing UP often the nearer great powers sent small fleets continuously overseas when they should have stayed and protected their home ports.

Also in most battles the AI would fight to the death whereas in history if greatly outnumbered any admiral would retreat if possible. We really need naval interdiction missions so that a fleet stationed a certain radius from friendly ports has a good chance to engage an enemy fleet sailing into the area- the enemy fleet can choose to give battle or retreat (modified by a bit of random chance based on ship type/tide/storm/calm descending) and smaller fleets might still draw off enemy in pursuit leaving port unprotected but when a single small ship can blockade an entire port it makes it a continual chore to hunt them down and doesn't add much to the game. Perhaps better is that blockading a port is based on the port size and the number of blockading ships and is a % of effectiveness. A small fleet could completely blockade a small port but might only block 1/3 of a larger port.

As far as I can see it is a big improvement to allow naval forces to attack cities but that really requires a larger interdiction area. Large enough fleets to attack cities will be seen by small fishing boats, people on land, etc most of the time- perhaps a chance to evade detection even with a defending fleet patrolling but more often than not a defending fleet would sail out to give battle if it were in the area.

It might even be interesting for the parameters of the interdiction area to be by player choice- the wider the area there is a chance not all the ships in the patrolling fleet will gather in time for the big battle.

The other aspect is that fleets of ancient eras were very tied to the land and there are occasions were they were forced to put to sea in haste when a land army approached where they were getting fresh water/resting. Having a chance of that which lowers the fleet morale might be interesting. Or there the player could have a choice- seek shelter on land, pull up the boats etc but face greater chance of land forces finding you, or keep out to sea away from land but a much more devastating storm might wreck half your fleet.

Naval trade should rely more heavily on your fleet. I don't know how it works in Shogun 2 or Empire but fleets should have a zone of control that not only intercepts enemies but intercepts trade routes as well. Placing your fleet in strategic locations will block wherever that trade is going. This forces other countries to invest in a navy as a means of protecting the economy.

Considering Actium and Cape Ecnomus were the decisive engagements in their respective wars and the First Punic War was ended by a naval battle I would say very important.

Ok now a typical 80%-20%,

Originally Posted by Ichon

Naval features are hard to represent accurately in games. I enjoy naval battles to some extent but I did get a bit bored with them in ETW and Shogun 2. I thought it was unrealistic that an enemy would send many small fleets into a region where I had naval superiority, it forced me to fight many nearly identical small battles since you can't trust the auto calc which would give me the win but within 3 turns half my fleet is damaged where if I fight every battle maybe 1 or 2 ships have small damage. For ETW it wasn't always inaccurate historically as many raiders or small fleets did make trouble but 1 consequence was that playing UP often the nearer great powers sent small fleets continuously overseas when they should have stayed and protected their home ports.

Also in most battles the AI would fight to the death whereas in history if greatly outnumbered any admiral would retreat if possible. We really need naval interdiction missions so that a fleet stationed a certain radius from friendly ports has a good chance to engage an enemy fleet sailing into the area- the enemy fleet can choose to give battle or retreat (modified by a bit of random chance based on ship type/tide/storm/calm descending) and smaller fleets might still draw off enemy in pursuit leaving port unprotected but when a single small ship can blockade an entire port it makes it a continual chore to hunt them down and doesn't add much to the game. Perhaps better is that blockading a port is based on the port size and the number of blockading ships and is a % of effectiveness. A small fleet could completely blockade a small port but might only block 1/3 of a larger port.

As far as I can see it is a big improvement to allow naval forces to attack cities but that really requires a larger interdiction area. Large enough fleets to attack cities will be seen by small fishing boats, people on land, etc most of the time- perhaps a chance to evade detection even with a defending fleet patrolling but more often than not a defending fleet would sail out to give battle if it were in the area.

It might even be interesting for the parameters of the interdiction area to be by player choice- the wider the area there is a chance not all the ships in the patrolling fleet will gather in time for the big battle.

The other aspect is that fleets of ancient eras were very tied to the land and there are occasions were they were forced to put to sea in haste when a land army approached where they were getting fresh water/resting. Having a chance of that which lowers the fleet morale might be interesting. Or there the player could have a choice- seek shelter on land, pull up the boats etc but face greater chance of land forces finding you, or keep out to sea away from land but a much more devastating storm might wreck half your fleet.

Mostly agreed.

Another thing that I found frustrating in Empire or Napoleon naval campaign and battle is that AI never ever repaired its ships no matter the fleet stood 10 turns in the ports. I do not know about Shogun II. But PLEASE MAKE THE AI REPAIR ITS SHIPS, THE LACK OF THIS ATTITUDE RUINS THE NAVAL GAME.

I have no great care for anything before the cannon age, but I like to see gameplay and realism at there best.

I loved the idea about the zone of contol intercepting trade lanes. This would make trade very difficult at sea. Something the AI isn't too bad at and the player usually doesn't need to check.

Perhaps increasing trade from sea or grain imports (food) like what Egypt provided for Rome. Now if that link was cut, Rome would starve something the computer isn't too bad at like I say.

In the first punic war naval battles were (by far) much more decisive than land battles.

is a very important thing

especially for all historians of this forum ....

Originally Posted by Lord Dakier

I loved the idea about the zone of contol intercepting trade lanes. This would make trade very difficult at sea. Something the AI isn't too bad at and the player usually doesn't need to check.

I hope it is impossible to completely block a trade lane in RTW2. I can see embargo on a port but to completely block a trade lane with galleys is really unlikely. Pirates and enemy fleets could definitely create trouble but galleys can't sit indefinitely at sea waiting to catch enemy ships. Not to mention that galleys are much more difficult to spot from far away as they are much lower to the water than a ship of ETW era. Then there is also the factor that one galley vs another can't maintain the slight max speed differences over long periods of time that allowed a chase in ETW. Nightfall, squall, etc alot more conditions would make a chase impossible in ancient era.

I got so pumped once I thought about naval battles for Rome 2, I think it will be GREAT

i want to ram a transport ship or 2 defending a city

i always get my ass kicked if is not a one on one naval battle because i can't simply manage 10 vessels at once though this is largely my fault so i tend to auto resolve all my naval battles if they have large boats 10vs10 20vs20 other than i'm looking forward for roman time naval battles since is mostly close combat, i have heard, rather than shoot at my ships three miles away while i watch them explode without having a chance to shoot myself experience that i mostly have....

Totally depends on the starting date, but im guessing it's going to be 2nd century b.c, so we'll see naval battles oriented more to ranged fire and boarding tactics. Ramming will still be there but to a less degree.

Let's face it, if naval battles are reduced to ramming only, then they'll be quick. These ships weren't made to last. They were built to fight and "die" in the sea.

Two words:

Well first time through rome I would do almost anything to avoid using boats, and when I did I usally made sure it was the shortest journey over the water possible.

It would be interesting if ships each had a certain troop carrying capacity, and if transported troops could fight in naval battles, and also weigh down the ships for naval battles aswell... That way you could harrass naval forces attmepting to ferry troops with faster unburdened ships.