Rum,sodomy and the lash- The navy in MTW2

**Markas** · July 24, 2006, 05:38 AM

So, what about naval elements in MTW2?

For the memory-retrievally lazy amongst you, here's some reminders-

MEDIEVAL TOTAL WAR NAVY-

-There were approximatly Nine types of ships: Barque, Galley, Fire Galley, Cog, Carrack, Dhow, Baggala, Longboat, Dromon.

-To transport troops to another province or invade overseas you had to have a clear, unbroken line of ships.

-With overseas trade the same as above.

-Combat was a curious affair whereby engaging an enemy ship did not always end in battle. They often escaped to the next province instead.

ROME TOTAL WAR (VANILLA)-

-There were approximatly six types of ships: Bireme, Tireme, Quintireme, Corvus, Boat, Large boat (surely there were more...)

- Overseas trade was abstract and had nothing to do with ship units.

-Combat meant engaging with your ships and fighting a non-retreatable battle that was difficult to win (at least it was for me).

THE GRIPE(S)

My gripe with RTW was that there was little point in naval dominace as trade was unneffected as long as you weren't blockaded and had ONE ship for transport (as long as you weren't invading Egypt from Britain that is).

My Gripe with MTW was the need for complete uber-dominance to trade and transport troops. No wonder crusades took twenty years to get to the Holy land, surely even the most pious Knight would lose their faith waiting that long.

I personally like having a more balanced army/navy expenditure as it means I have to husband my troops more carefully. I would also like to see more bonuses and technologies devoted to ships (perhaps a province bonus for Venice for Galleys?) and a return to the amount of ships as seen in MTW.

Any thoughts?

**Giurza** · July 24, 2006, 06:09 AM

I don't even know... I agree with your points totally, but how make it all work? maybe they could implement a real trade route blockade, where you can give a specific task to your fleet, or boats - blockade trade route, by placing it on trade route sign... and effect would be dependent on the size of your fleet...
well actually I think that we could be happy with existant system, or maybe some hybrid between MTW and RTW as long as Ai copes with it...
3D map wasn't that good when we talk about navies... maybe it is because of too small travel rate... I don't even know...
I am totally lost in my mind as to this matter

**Captian Marcus Cornelius** · July 24, 2006, 06:24 AM

Yes an over haul of the naval systems is needed id like to see some strategy involved instead of the randomness of dice rolls , maybe just picking a overall battle strategy like Ram them, , attack at range , broad them , bombard , delaying action , ect working in a kinda rock paper scissors system where Raming would get an advantage over boarding and so on the play would pike the strategy before the battle , as would the ai , and the strategic bonus would be added in to the ships other stats. Also each type of ship would excel a different strategy ie galleys at ramming, this would factor in to the over all equation , ie the better strategy , the better ships , how got the ships are at that strategy .

That would be my preferred way of battles working, short of actually fighting them you self
As for the wider look a naval control and trading and transport I haven real thought about it much

**Chuffy** · July 24, 2006, 06:36 AM

I think more importance should be placed on the actual construction and maintenance of fleets. EB's system of treating the ships as fleets with huge recruitment and upkeep bonuses is a nice idea and makes naval power more important as it's far far harder to replace naval losses. Also the system of only having certain provinces able to build navies makes them more important.

Basically in MTW2 the AI and the player should keep their navies together and not spread them out, naval battles themselves should be far far more decisive, with huge losses incurred for the losing side. This eliminates fleet hunting and trying to wear them down to 10 men like in RTW.

If a factions fleet is destroyed it should mean dire consequences, building a fleet would take a long long time and would be horrendously expensive, if you are being attacked more emphasis would be placed on the land war and so there is less of a chance of taking back the seas. Also the attacker would then be able to split their fleet up and blockade the enemies ports without having to worry about being attacked. For a faction very dependant on overseas trade this would literally cripple them and place alot of emphasis on maintaining a strong navy.

There could also be two options for blockade, Blockade (just stopping trade) or Naval Bombardment/Raiding. Bombardment/Raiding could stop ships from being built in the port and maybe after a long time even reduce the level of the port through damage. The disadvantages of this might be your own ships may suffer losses from doing this or it could cost a small amount of money to do. Maybe, just an idea.

Also: AVAST YE SKURVY DAWGS! ARRRRR JIM LAD!

**Markas** · July 24, 2006, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by Chuffy

Basically in MTW2 the AI and the player should keep their navies together and not spread them out, naval battles themselves should be far far more decisive, with huge losses incurred for the losing side. This eliminates fleet hunting and trying to wear them down to 10 men like in RTW.

If a factions fleet is destroyed it should mean dire consequences, building a fleet would take a long long time and would be horrendously expensive, if you are being attacked more emphasis would be placed on the land war and so there is less of a chance of taking back the seas. Also the attacker would then be able to split their fleet up and blockade the enemies ports without having to worry about being attacked. For a faction very dependant on overseas trade this would literally cripple them and place alot of emphasis on maintaining a strong navy.

Oh chuffy how I love thee. This is what I was attempting to put across in my thread but I got side-tracked by my own bile. Naval battles should be decisive and have consequences for the loser, perhaps decreased trade or influence.

**Giurza** · July 24, 2006, 07:01 AM

"Chuffy, my man, that is great idea. we are going to do this right away. please keep in touch if you have any more ideas.
signed CA"

no, really that sounds like a plan for naval part of MIITW!

**mark0701** · July 24, 2006, 07:07 AM

Very good ideas Chuffy. As you say the biggest problem in RTW was having to hunt down ships with very low crews that the AI would use to blockade your ports rather than sending them back to be repaired.

In terms of blockading, rather than having a ship locked against the port maybe each unit can have a zone of control (the bigger the fleet the bigger the zone of control)? Any trade routes within this zone will either be blocked or will produce reduced revenue until it is clear again. This would make it much harder to completely cut off a city's trade.

**Barbarian-Bob** · July 24, 2006, 07:55 AM

I like the idea, but if you are to lose influence over losing sea battles, why not also lose influence or whatever when losing big LAND battles? They're far more important, wouldn't you say? I know, the consequence in land battles can be losing cities, but IMHO, you can already cripple a seatrade-dependant nation in RTW by blockading ports. And that's where big fleets come in, because the price of failure is that the enemy can blockade your ports freely (which they of course never do, not to me anyway, but then it's an AI matter).

About hunting down ships to the 10 last men, that was modded pretty well in the SPQR mod. I never had to hunt down those small fleets again, which of course made sea battles a lot less frustrating. So if CA does something funky about sea battles again, we can always mod it.

**Maethius** · July 24, 2006, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Barbarian-Bob

About hunting down ships to the 10 last men, that was modded pretty well in the SPQR mod. I never had to hunt down those small fleets again, which of course made sea battles a lot less frustrating. So if CA does something funky about sea battles again, we can always mod it.

God! Dont remind me off all those little biremes with ten dudes on board who kept tormenting my nerves.

**victor.** · July 24, 2006, 03:32 PM

But what about the rum and sodomy?

**Markas** · July 25, 2006, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by victor.

But what about the rum and sodomy?

Rum and sodomy will be served in the lounge area after the meeting.

**Giurza** · July 25, 2006, 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by Markas

Rum and sodomy will be served in the lounge area after the meeting.

Rum - YES! Sodomy... hmmm can I skip that one or is it obligatory?

if so I will have to pass on this party, damn it!

still promise me you will sing "fifteen men on a dead man's chest, and a bottle of rum yohohoho"

**Chuffy** · July 25, 2006, 06:00 AM

I like the idea, but if you are to lose influence over losing sea battles, why not also lose influence or whatever when losing big LAND battles? They're far more important, wouldn't you say?

Oh sure, I think losing influence, loyalty and happiness in your cities would be very logical if you lose large naval or land battles. In fact I hope that kind of thing is in.

In terms of blockading, rather than having a ship locked against the port maybe each unit can have a zone of control (the bigger the fleet the bigger the zone of control)? Any trade routes within this zone will either be blocked or will produce reduced revenue until it is clear again. This would make it much harder to completely cut off a city's trade.

I don't think the idea of fleets being able to block trade routes without actually blockading the port makes alot of sense...I mean the seas are big, even with a large fleet it would be hard to catch every ship. However, the reduced revenue idea makes alot more sense, maybe reducing the amount of cash earned through naval trade by half...or something. Also, I love the idea of having more ships giving you a bigger zone of control!

Another idea which could possibly be carried over to other aspects of recruitment...if your nation controls lots of provinces with the timber trade good or just lots of dense woodlands you either get a reduction on your ship building costs or a reduction in build times for ships. Makes sense? As for carrying it over to other areas...if your nation controls larges amounts of iron ore (or whatever) you get cost reductions on heavily armoured units?

**eltrevo** · July 25, 2006, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Giurza

Rum - YES! Sodomy... hmmm can I skip that one or is it obligatory?

if so I will have to pass on this party, damn it!

still promise me you will sing "fifteen men on a dead man's chest, and a bottle of rum yohohoho"

Yes, I agree.

**Chuffy** · July 24, 2006, 03:34 PM

Considering all the Life of Brian jokes in RTW what are the odds alongside Holy Grail jokes we'll have a few Monkey Island and PotC jokes aswell?

A pirate I was meant to be
Trim the sails and roam the sea!

**Giurza** · July 25, 2006, 06:10 AM

in such case, there should be differentiation in resources... ie like in Cossacs when you had several resource requirements for all units...
and even if I think that it is a good system, but I don't count for that much in MIITW