Question: Are the cliffs near the water for gameplay or really like that? They seem to be there to stop ships landing?

[Destraex]

I have no been to the med so I don't really know. But I would have imagined more landing spots for ships to beach. Instead there seems to have been huge cliffs 1km high everywhere.

[Huberto]

No there are not huge cliffs everywhere in the Med. This was CA's design choice to make it (extremely) obvious where you are not allowed to land ships. Regrettable decision, imo

[PROMETHEUS ts]

No there are not huge cliffs everywhere in the Med. This was CA's design choice to make it (extremely) obvious where you are not allowed to land ships. Regrettable decision, imo

Well it is an ugly decision , unrealistic and quite visilbe ... Perhaps if they wanted to make it not accessible they coul dhave used some other tricks like placing a wood near the shore and in a small popup when u tried to land ships it could tell you couln't land the ships near those areas or perhaps implement low and shallow waters on the coast that showed how ships can't get there , dunno , but all those big walls of rocks are just unnatural .

Though its probably done just because of the AI beeing unable otherwise to find the cities and they woudl make landings here and there and probably wander in the map withor a scope .

[terryn]

Well it is an ugly decision , unrealistic and quite visilbe ... Perhaps if they wanted to make it not accessible they coul dhave used some other tricks like placing a wood near the shore and in a small popup when u tried to land ships it could tell you couln't land the ships near those areas or perhaps implement low and shallow waters on the coast that showed how ships can't get there , dunno , but all those big walls of rocks are just unnatural .

Though its probably done just because of the AI beeing unable otherwise to find the cities and they woudl make landings here and there and probably wander in the map withor a scope .

Or, just give the non-landing coasts and outline of say red or something. Wouldn't need to be anymore than that. And the non-red outlined areas are places to land.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Or, just give the non-landing coasts and outline of say red or something. Wouldn't need to be anymore than that. And the non-red outlined areas are places to land.

or instead of the red outline that woudl cover actually 90% of the coasts perhaps a green only for the accessible areas ...

[terryn]

or instead of the red outline that woudl cover actually 90% of the coasts perhaps a green only for the accessible areas ...

Well done, sir. I didn't realize players would be that restricted with the possible naval landing areas.

[nameless]

I have no been to the med so I don't really know. But I would have imagined more landing spots for ships to beach. Instead there seems to have been huge cliffs 1km high everywhere.

This may surprise you but in real life you couldn't just "land" an army of 50,000 men anywhere on the coast. There's a series of logistics and requirements in order to do it properly, Ex. protection from waves, high winds, tides, etc. This is why nations could easily set up proper defenses in certain areas along the coast because they were the only locations suitable for naval invasions.

It's not that easy.

2nd, it may have escaped your notice that this game is trying to combine naval and land battles together so having limited areas increases the probability of amphibious battles happening.

3rd, it's to tell the player easily at a quick glance where they can see and land.

No there are not huge cliffs everywhere in the Med. This was CA's design choice to make it (extremely) obvious where you are not allowed to land ships. Regrettable decision, imo

That makes no sense, what's so great in making something so difficult/annoying for the player to figure it out? It's a game, just making something tedious doesn't make it better. Do you have a better suggestion then?

[Semper_Fidelis]

They look ugly.

In Shogun 2 where there was a body of water the exact cliffs showed up and there wasn't any sand or beaches really.

[ChairmanCrassus]

They look ugly.

This.

[Sir Robin]

I doubt it will be as noticeable zoomed out as far as I'll normally be on the campaign map. But, whenever I zoom in it will look rather fugly.

[Brudagon]

Ya they're definitely not good looking.

[Spencer]

A poor design choice imho. They could have achieved a similar effect with normal coastlines, and beaches representing the landing spots

[Huberto]

Is it still too early to pronounce it fugly?

A poor design choice imho. They could have achieved a similar effect with normal coastlines, and beaches representing the landing spots

This.

[IlluminatiRex]

IMO, the reason they have limited landing spaces is

1) You can't just land armies anywhere IRL
2) More importantly however, is that the sea is now in Tiles, rather than sail where you want. I feel it is so that an army has a place to land within the naval tile system.

[SughdianWarrior]

IMO, the reason they have limited landing spaces is

1) You can't just land armies anywhere IRL
2) More importantly however, is that the sea is now in Tiles, rather than sail where you want. I feel it is so that an army has a place to land within the naval tile system.

I think this is also done to help AI find places to land, closer to port towns. And I don't think in real life landing space is restricted that much - only near port towns. Whatever the case, I think the vertical cliffs don't look very nice popping out of the water.

[Destraex]

It would be nice if they just made it obvious in a different way that you needed a larger more protected area to land in. That is better than making the whole map look like the cliffs of dover.
Or perhaps even not dumb it down and let the player experience bad landing areas.

[dRokon100]

It would be nice if they just made it obvious in a different way that you needed a larger more protected area to land in. That is better than making the whole map look like the cliffs of dover.
Or perhaps even not dumb it down and let the player experience bad landing areas.

Yeah, and then you will complain about the new design choice. Also, some people want to have fun without getting gimped by people who want to experience bad landing areas.

[Destraex]

Yeah, and then you will complain about the new design choice. Also, some people want to have fun without getting gimped by people who want to experience bad landing areas.

Do you still play with fisher price toys because you are afraid of being gimped by bigger boys with better more complex toys requiring thought? I am guessing the answer is no.
A lot of us here are fairly saavy and looking for new challenges and game features. Having things in game that are simply symbolic with no real effort behind them to me is silly. It is like watching a bad hollywood movie where all the scenes get cut so you never know how the hero got up from hanging off a cliff. You never learn anything and your eyes just glaze over like a complacent sheep as the movies very basic story is like a summary with no depth of detail or richness to nourish the brain.
Everybody expects a level of realism in the land combat phase. But because not many know anything about naval combat a whole raft of absolutely brilliant and creative thought on the subject will probably be denied to us in favour of simple pushing around of dodgem cars with maybe one RAM button thrown in to add "flavour" and something "to do".

[ShadowMassa]

One can observe the topography/geography via Google-Earth, there are some throughout the vast region. However, tThe cliffs in-game are exaggerated, if only they will cut a lot of that down or add it where it belongs by easily studying Google Earth..

[AzureNight]

...because apparently every Total War player is such an idiot that we need a clear, obvious sign where we can't land our troops. Same thing with the projectile trails. We're too stupid to be able to see where units are being attacked from and how many are dying, so we need gamey BS to help aid out borderline handicapped minds.