Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

IF naval combat makes it in TWW, will there need to be a separate economy system?

2»

Comments

  • CanuoveaCanuovea Registered Users, Moderators Posts: 15,480
    Makes one wonder if we can post a suggestion in the suggestion forum regarding this?
    -Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
    -New Rules: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287645/new-forum-rules#latest
    -Rules FAQ: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287650/total-war-forum-faq#latest
    -Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
    -5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
  • RifugioRifugio Member Registered Users Posts: 1,226
    MrJade said:

    Rather than hard-capping the number of ships, what if the number of ports and the level of the ports decreased the upkeep/recruitment of ships? The current economy is balanced around not having ships, so I understand the need to increase that. Adding in more lucrative naval trade routes, sea raiding, and lower upkeep should do the trick.

    Yes I agree trade would need be expanded making ports and trade more profitable, I don't think many races should be unable to trade but for those that don't currently piracy should also be very lucrative.

    If they also add trade routes from distant lands these would be routes could be worth more than a fully stacked fleet. Of course you still need to protect them from piracy, and they are very long routes. Also the position of the High Elves and Ulthuan would need to play an important part.

    I'm not sure about additional ports lowering the upkeep if they already generate a lot more wealth than most inland cities. My problem with requiring people to capture ports in order to build bigger fleets is that actually it goes badly against the trade mechanic in the game - marginalizing it further. Why should I bother trading for very low amounts of gold to maintain small fleets when I can capture ports and make large fleets? Not all ports are equal in terms of trade and wealth, so it also seems a very arbitrary mechanic.
  • hendo’hendo’ Registered Users Posts: 2,850
    edited March 2017
    I really like the ideas people are providing. I agree with most that ports should play a key role. I'm very curious to see if/what CA does.
    @setrus when you say navies shouldn't attack settlements, what about the implementation of port battles-where you can attack from land and sea?

    I'm leaning more towards the adding economic mechanic. Where players have to invest to attain navies, but they do eventually get a "return".

    Maybe CA could work it where people aren't "forced" to invest heavily in navies (especially since some players do not like naval combat).

    IMO an adjustment or a revamp is needed, because I don't think the current money system could support a capable navy and army forces,at least not without constantly disbanding- which I guess adds to the strategic element (i.e. Choose wisely where, when and what to invest), but I think it could get a little ridicualous and frustrating without an adjustment.

    @Rifugio I really like the idea of your suggestion for navies and trade line interaction. Warhammer is suited for that type of piracy theme.
  • SetrusSetrus Senior Member SwedenRegistered Users Posts: 18,767
    hendo1592 said:


    @setrus when you say navies shouldn't attack settlements, what about the implementation of port battles-where you can attack from land and sea?

    Well I thought those fun at times back in Rome 2/Atilla, but they didn't always work that well, did they? :)

    However, if the pathfinding and such was dealt with, it still leaves a strategical issue if you have the Skaeling with tons of fleets. If those could actively attack cities on the coast, they could probably smash Marienburg, not to mention every town near the coast would be easy prey unless they have walls. (well, depending on how such battles work.)
    Autoresolved AI vs AI would likely lead to the already strong northmen smashing everything on the coast much easier than now.
    I guess I fear for the consequences, simply.

    As such, if they're too great, I'd actually prefer it if the navies themselves can only blockade, raid via stances and sink other fleets and transport fleets and leave the burning and pillaging of cities to the armies. :)
    Don't worry.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,913
    I think the problem is simply that the navies of Warhammer not necessary fit "landings", they way they have been done in Rome/attilia.

    A Greatship beaching is a odd though isn't it.

    Thou it would be interesting, if you look at Red Dox pictures, if CA could pull it off somehow.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • hendo’hendo’ Registered Users Posts: 2,850
    Setrus said:

    hendo1592 said:


    @setrus when you say navies shouldn't attack settlements, what about the implementation of port battles-where you can attack from land and sea?

    Well I thought those fun at times back in Rome 2/Atilla, but they didn't always work that well, did they? :)

    However, if the pathfinding and such was dealt with, it still leaves a strategical issue if you have the Skaeling with tons of fleets. If those could actively attack cities on the coast, they could probably smash Marienburg, not to mention every town near the coast would be easy prey unless they have walls. (well, depending on how such battles work.)
    Autoresolved AI vs AI would likely lead to the already strong northmen smashing everything on the coast much easier than now.
    I guess I fear for the consequences, simply.

    As such, if they're too great, I'd actually prefer it if the navies themselves can only blockade, raid via stances and sink other fleets and transport fleets and leave the burning and pillaging of cities to the armies. :)
    Good points. Your points made me wish walls didn't take up a building slot. That might alleviate navy advantaged races from steam rolling.
    SiWI said:

    I think the problem is simply that the navies of Warhammer not necessary fit "landings", they way they have been done in Rome/attilia.

    A Greatship beaching is a odd though isn't it.

    Thou it would be interesting, if you look at Red Dox pictures, if CA could pull it off somehow.

    True, maybe restrict what ships can beach land?
  • az88az88 Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    SiWI said:

    I think the problem is simply that the navies of Warhammer not necessary fit "landings", they way they have been done in Rome/attilia.

    A Greatship beaching is a odd though isn't it.

    Thou it would be interesting, if you look at Red Dox pictures, if CA could pull it off somehow.

    You could have some assault vessels and some support. Or maybe big ships could send out launches.

    So you'd get some ships coming in to beach and providing your main force, then the heavy ships offering fire support and maybe sending out a unit of their own using small boats.

    An empire Greatship putting broadsides into city defences could be formidable.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,913
    edited March 2017
    hendo1592 said:


    True, maybe restrict what ships can beach land?

    But that would open a big tin of worms on its won.

    Some races have fleets were no ship should be beaching (dwarfs), some have all ships with this ability (Norsca) and the Empire itself is a mixed of those 2.

    It would be really messy balance wise.
    az88 said:


    You could have some assault vessels and some support. Or maybe big ships could send out launches.

    So you'd get some ships coming in to beach and providing your main force, then the heavy ships offering fire support and maybe sending out a unit of their own using small boats.

    An empire Greatship putting broadsides into city defences could be formidable.


    Maybe have each race its own form of "naval support"? Dwarfs like FotS and Norsca the Rome II style.

    The balance between land and navy forces, all 16 of them will be though thou the "unlimited tower range" maybe will help here.

    Point being that if CA does this it would require alot of workload as well.
    They can't really take Rome II system.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • az88az88 Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    I agree, it's a lot of work for CA. Sieges are dreadful, as things stand, and if they weren't for putting time and money into land sieges (a major part of the game) then naval sieges have little hope.

    One thing that'd be easy to handle is siege hold out time. Ports should massively add to siege hold out time. Blockading with a fleet should be essential to besieging a port city.
  • SetrusSetrus Senior Member SwedenRegistered Users Posts: 18,767
    az88 said:


    One thing that'd be easy to handle is siege hold out time. Ports should massively add to siege hold out time. Blockading with a fleet should be essential to besieging a port city.

    Errr, don't they? I think ports get double the hold out time...? With sieges halving that number in turn? :confused:

    Anyway, I'd put fleets like this in the bigger picture:
    They work like armies, recruitment slots like normal, maybe even requiring to be in a port to build or replenish.
    They'd cost little, so wouldn't affect your economy too much, allowing nations to still have powerful armies with the current nations. (and nations like High Elves would be able to focus heavily on the navy without having attrocious income, when they're supposed to be rather rich)
    However, to counter the threat of huuuuge fleets being produced, say by the AI, there's a cap to the number of ships available that increase by the number of ports, and in what quality, you have them. In fact, the cap could be a value-number rather than a ship-cap. So rather than a cap of say 30 ships due to your docks, you could have the cap be 400, with the largest ship being worth 100 points while the smallest is 15, forcing you to choose between size and numbers, or at least find a balance.

    They can raid a sea-region (already exists) which basically steals some of the trade income from those nations bordering that region that you're not allied with.
    They can blockade ports, which will make them more vulnerable to sieges from land, as well as possibly blockading all naval trade for a nation if it's their only port.
    They can attack and destroy other fleets and, more importantly since smashing fleets together for the heck of it is pointless, transport fleets carrying armies.

    This will make them enough of a problem for a nation that they'd want to create their own fleet to push back such piracy, without harrassing navies turning entire coastlands into ash.
    This will make them great in stoping naval invasions before they even begin, and so essential for ensuring a naval invasion occurs.

    From a design-point, that sounds fairly straight-forward. :)
    Don't worry.
  • az88az88 Registered Users Posts: 3,065
    Setrus said:

    az88 said:


    One thing that'd be easy to handle is siege hold out time. Ports should massively add to siege hold out time. Blockading with a fleet should be essential to besieging a port city.

    Errr, don't they? I think ports get double the hold out time...? With sieges halving that number in turn? :confused:

    If it's already in the mechanics then that's cool. I hadn't noticed.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,873
    To be honest if the map is going to expand to 3x it's current size (ish) and you can't afford navies. You're doing something wrong. They should be self sustainable even as a more difficult race if all you did was sack norscan towns with them.
    MarcusLivius: You are indeed a lord of entitlement.
  • KlausTheKatKlausTheKat Registered Users Posts: 584
    If naval combat were to become a feature I assume it would be linked to creating a stronger naval economy therefore increasing the importance of trade ports. This would require certain factions (Angrund, Crooked Moon) to be able to have a port linked to their capital to be able to maintain parity with seafaring nations surely?
  • AttercopAttercop Registered Users Posts: 113
    How it's worked in previous versions of TW is Ports provide trade routes that increase your finances but ports and trade routes can be raided and blocked requiring expensive fleets to protect them.

    Economies that relied heavily on marine trade could be very unstable. Someone could block your trade route on the other side of the map making it very difficult for you to get a fleet there before you went bankrupt.
  • hendo’hendo’ Registered Users Posts: 2,850

    To be honest if the map is going to expand to 3x it's current size (ish) and you can't afford navies. You're doing something wrong. They should be self sustainable even as a more difficult race if all you did was sack norscan towns with them.

    This was a possibility I mentioned. More territories might be enough, but with expansion comes more areas needing protection. Using my current experience as a case, I have all of bretonnia, estalia and nordland (acting as
    "Outpost province"), I have 2 great armies and one medium force roaming locally. My economy is barely afloat, I don't see how I would be able to wield a decent navy. I'm sure I've done several things wrong, but still, point kind of remains.

    Hey !! @KlausTheKat
    I'm not sure how the design would "help" out those factions that are land locked. Are you suggesting CA add rivers so they can also have ports? Ps. Thanks again for grombrindal-The first 5 custom matches I was "cursed" and I won them but he was a eaten..lol

    For those land locked factions it would be nice if there was an option to invest in navy, so the landlocked player would not have to start from "square one" when the player eventually acquires a port.

    I like how TWW is more challenging for expansion (I also think it helps keep more AI factions alive in the game) but IF navies are implemented I'd hope for more economy buffs.

    Thanks for those sharing how past TW handled navies, although I've played them, I primarily just focused on battles in the campaign or just played custom battles.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 14,873
    hendo1592 said:


    For those land locked factions it would be nice if there was an option to invest in navy, so the landlocked player would not have to start from "square one" when the player eventually acquires a port.

    Honestly that's just part of the challenge. It's like how some starting positions are weaker so the game is harder, or how some LL's are weaker, etc.

    In Shogun 2: FoTS there was one faction in particular that didn't get a port in the early game and by the time you got one all of your rivals had established navies. Actually building up a navy from that point was quite difficult initially as your own ports were destroyed/bombarded constantly by theirs but the pains I went through to establish a navy made it all the sweeter once I was the one blowing people up from the water.
    MarcusLivius: You are indeed a lord of entitlement.
  • AttercopAttercop Registered Users Posts: 113
    I've played the Brits in Empire and initially being an island faction meant enemy fleets could completely block my trade routes, leaving me bankrupt in a few turns. Maintaining fleets to protect against that was an expense that had to be paid.

    Marine trade isn't necessarily an advantage, it's more another layer of complexity to be dealt with.
  • hendo’hendo’ Registered Users Posts: 2,850

    hendo1592 said:


    For those land locked factions it would be nice if there was an option to invest in navy, so the landlocked player would not have to start from "square one" when the player eventually acquires a port.

    Honestly that's just part of the challenge. It's like how some starting positions are weaker so the game is harder, or how some LL's are weaker, etc.

    In Shogun 2: FoTS there was one faction in particular that didn't get a port in the early game and by the time you got one all of your rivals had established navies. Actually building up a navy from that point was quite difficult initially as your own ports were destroyed/bombarded constantly by theirs but the pains I went through to establish a navy made it all the sweeter once I was the one blowing people up from the water.
    Good point. I wouldn't want any buffs I'm proposing to take the challenge away or to water it down significantly. When people talk about the "busy/redundant work" of the old games I think about the current "busy work" of recruiting to disband in a few turns, I guess I don't want this to intensify as we expand map size or if/when navies are implemented.
  • WolverineStarkWolverineStark Registered Users Posts: 11
    i like all of these suggestions.
    I would love to have some navel combat.
    or at least navel units

    perhaps some monstrous sea creatures as well.
    It would really put this franchise over the top as one of the best.
  • VessingerVessinger Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,007
    I don't think we'll need an entirely separate economic system, but maybe just bump up the income and provide a discount for having a timber resource, assuming of course that the ships are made of wood. I've never really looked into WH navies.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    Vessinger said:

    I don't think we'll need an entirely separate economic system, but maybe just bump up the income and provide a discount for having a timber resource, assuming of course that the ships are made of wood. I've never really looked into WH navies.

    Most are. Dorfs are ironclad, so they would still use timber frames.
Sign In or Register to comment.