Attila Ship Combat - Is it better than Rome 2's?

[Sun Jetzu]

Hey guys, been a very long time that I wrote on these forums. But I did have a debate with my buddies, and I decided to come here with a question.
Are you guys enjoying Attila naval combat over Rome 2's Naval combat? And why?
I felt Rome 2's naval combat wasnt as good as shogun 2's or empires. I couldnt put my finger on it, but then I realized I starting enjoying attila naval combat more.
So I was wondering what you guys think?

[RGA]

Definitely! Ships are 10x more responsive, not to mention that reverse rowing is also implemented.

[Sheridan]

Hard to say no on this one. It's better than Rome 2, as RGA said more options are available. What I don't like much in either game is the extremely quick pace of naval combat. Let's be honest, it was pretty quick in Empire and Napoleon too. Granted, reaching the enemy fleet took a lot of time. However, ships were slower but responsive nonetheless and even if it didn't take particularly long to sink a ship or win a boarding fight, it still went on for longer than here. In Attila, it feels more like you're simply waiting for the inevitable clash of ships followed by a quick melee fight, manouvering around is rather hopeless with any larger navy as every ship moves fast enough to catch another before a manouver really even has begun. So, better, but not there yet.

[Humble Warrior]

Can`t say I was too impressed with what I saw, although I`ve only had one ship battle so far. The ships literally spin on the spot when they turn and they just basically swamp you. The speed and turn is crazy. Neither could I ram anyone, but maybe I need better ships. however, I was facing a bunch of transports and all but one got past me ( I burned its sails). I thought transport ships were supposed to be meat against anything of a military navy type?

Sails move realistic in wind though, for what it matters. I would`ve preferred a proper ship AI.

Maybe we need a `Don`t know` or `undecided` for a 3rd option.

[Keyser]

Transport ships are so slow compared to navies' one that catching and boarding them is a piece of cake. And with the "sea sickness", "marines" get the upper hand in ship to ship action quite easily. Even archer if they are boarded by troops on a transport ship will probably win the boarding...
So yes, transport are meat against any navy... Unless they outnumber the navy by a large margin.

The issue in Attila with the few choices of ramming ships is that they are so slow compared to other ships... But i guess it's a gameplay design to make each kind of ships matter rather than having one class systematically beating the others. As it happen, ramming ships in the hand of the AI are troublesome enough slow as they are...

[herne_the _hunter]

Definitely! Ships are 10x more responsive, not to mention that reverse rowing is also implemented.

Sounds good I haven't got Attila yet I would love this to be patched to R2.

Apart from a few bugs I'm loving the naval combat in Rome 2 so I'm interested in how it is implemented in Attila.


For you Attila peeps have you tried playing them in slow motion? Works wonders if it's quite busy in R2

[r3dshift]

IMHO, naval battles have been utter crap since FotS. Attila is no exception. Chaotic and way too fast.

[FrozenmenSS]

so Fast Aswer YES. Revurce rowing, less ramming ships era is better. replenish ammo for archer ships, turn. the fires off button is back, sails are back,but without winds, transport ships dies when hit 3 times from arty ship,but they will win in melle vs the naval melee shis, so sea. sickness needs buffing its debuff efects. The unit rousters are good and fleshed out. The only stupid implemented idea from CA. is the adding of the ships with greek fire from 672ad , and somehow the sassanids got them too. The greek fire was a secret formula guarded by ERE. for at least. to the late. 12th century when the formula wa lost forever. Then tell me guys how the sassanids god them.... Historicaly in 672 the. sassanids fell to the arabs before that decade.... So in rome 2s battles are faster because of the too much ramming.In Attila its the opposite too much. boarding. compared with the ramming in todays meta.

[Butan]

Still miles away from Shogun 2 / Empire/Napoleon IMO.
But yes, if you want to know, its better than R2 ( which was absolute piss )

[Fanest]

I think battles ship battles are too fast and maps are too small, its very hard to do some maneuvers when u barely have enough space to deploy your ships and then 30s later u already reach enemy ships. Battles are better than in RTW2 but just 2x bigger map would improve them alot.

Also wth CA remove Greek fire ships from barbarian rosters!!!!!!!!!! It was a national secret how these ships worked not some common knowledge u pick up in a tavern!

[Huberto]

So I was wondering what you guys think?

NTW>FotS>ETW>S2>TWA>TWR2

[jtfjtfjtf]

Is it better? Yes? Is it good? No. Ships still have magnets and auto board. I avoid naval battles as much as possible. I really liked Shogun 2's naval combat in terms of having to align ships for boarding and ships having different personalities. I think the transport fleets should have been reworked completely. The auto disembark for horses and artillery was a really bad suggestion.

[Ozymandias Maximus]

It's way better than Rome 2. The action is still too fast for my liking, but manageable. The ability to reverse row helped a ton.

The addition of sea sickness is pretty big too. Now if the enemy decides to take their full stack army and go roaming around the seas with it, they severely limit their own attacking abilities or for the Danes who are immune to sea sickness, it is a huge advantage to be able to use the navy as a land army as well.

[Legio Comitatenses!]

A bit better, but could use some refirmishment.

[Rostam_e_Iran]

I haven't actually tried a sea battle yet. Put that in the poll

[MasterBigAb]

They are slightly better but still kinda boring. Empire, Napoleon and Shogun did a way better job with naval combat imo.

[m.minkov]

They are slightly better but still kinda boring. Empire, Napoleon and Shogun did a way better job with naval combat imo.

Probably you just like ships with powder abroad better

IMO the sea battles are no less than 10x better comparing vanilla early Rome2 and Attila and no less than 5x better than latest Rome2.

I was so badly surprised when my half stack transport Alan army lead by the high king (2nd or 3rd turn in game) was attacked by 2 ships(admiral+marines) and saw the win-loose ratio - it felt so good. Then it felt even better when i tried that battle 3 times and got defeated every time.

My best try was to attack their admiral with my 2 archer units and run in circles while hitting the ship with fire arrows while my other 3 inf units(2 spears and the general) tried to kill the marines - it ended so bad. My archers ran out of arrows and the enemy admiral was barely smoking without sails and not a single casualty and my 2 spear units and the high king got annihilated by the marines - can you believe those guys had only ~50% casualties after they fought my spear units and my general one after another....

I love seasickness

[Sun Jetzu]

They are slightly better but still kinda boring. Empire, Napoleon and Shogun did a way better job with naval combat imo.

Im wondering why. maybe the controls handled better?
Or maybe is it because ship combat is only really fun when gunpowder is involved?

[Dreamw4lk3r]

NTW>FotS>ETW>S2>TWA>TWR2

Is it better? Yes? Is it good? No. Ships still have magnets and auto board. I avoid naval battles as much as possible. I really liked Shogun 2's naval combat in terms of having to align ships for boarding and ships having different personalities. I think the transport fleets should have been reworked completely. The auto disembark for horses and artillery was a really bad suggestion.

Mostly this.

R2 needs the updates from Atilla and Atilla feels like it's boarding only. Which gets annoying real fast when it's a sizeable naval engagement, ships get in eachothers way, and others get swamped by several ship at once.

In both games I do have the feeling that the most obsolete naval unit is the skirmisher/ranged type... even archers are pretty bad, anyone else has this feeling? melee boards, arty & fire does it's job but ranged ships can hardly get kills in and you need too many fire arrows to burn a ship.

previous titles with cannon ships worked so much better and even vanilla Shogun 2 did a decent job.

[Butan]

Gunships and inherent long range to short range battles with lots of inaccuracy/lucky shots in the mast/gunpowder storage/very slow disabling of canons/hull/crew makes for very interesting and slow paced battles, and this with wind to take care of, 5 different speed and 3 different kind of ammo (+ arguably more kind of ships). + being able to capture ships, use them or sell them back, or re-fit them.

With arrows/slings/javelins you only have short/very short range anti-personnel ammunition (except when using flaming shot). For "anti-structure" manoeuver you only have ramming, and this is very hard to place when counter-boarding (especially against transport fleets) is so easily done and can stuck all your ships. So 90% of the fighting is always being hella close to your enemies and very prone to boarding (especially with unrealistically high manoeuvrability across the board) which simply freeze the game.


I think its just a thing of the era, naval battles being a bit "bland". But it could easily gain more interest if manoeuvrability was tougher : slower less controllable ships, different sail/row speed - and wind system (come on CA just copy past from your older TW, you're good at that).