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

Naval Battles in the future?

Aram_theheadAram_thehead Registered Users Posts: 999
Hello, I just watched this video from RepublicOfPlay, which describes the history of total war naval battles. He also says that the licence is not an issue. The naval battles absence is based purely on the resources side of things. During the video, he shows a quote that says:
"Any chance we'll ever see naval combat? The thing really is we have finite resources. In the case of the ships I've seen comments that it's due to Man o' War. The main focus is land battles, and the man hours it takes to create this game, naval battles are just a thing that we can't do, because if we did we couldn't do it justice enough. So we'll focus our resources ...For now! There are some ideas being floated around but that's stuff that I definitely can't talk about. " (this quote is at 26:54 in the video).

This leaves the naval battles door open. However I think that their addition is unlikely, because it would completely scrap the Island battles that we already have in the game. I would certainly like to have naval battles, but I wouldn't like them to be simply transports crashing into each other, I'd rather keep the land-based battles over that.

At the end of the video, Darren goes on saying that the studio should take its time before releasing games and perfect them, instead of releasing a new game every year and then dodging the questions regarding the naval battles matter. In future games, I would personally like naval battles to be there in some cases and I wouldn't mind if they weren't there in other cases. For example, if they were to release a 40k, a late medieval game or an empire2 game, then I would certainly love void or sea battles. If they were to release a 30 years war title, I actually wouldn't mind if naval battles were not included.

What do you think about this whole thing? Is it absolutely impossible that the warhammer series will get naval battles? Will we see naval battles again in other titles in the future?
«1

Comments

  • DerPhonixDerPhonix Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 476
    Naval battles in this game would be awesome. Even if they released it as a DLC I think it would do pretty well.
  • innerpinnerp Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 579
    i prefer the island battles
  • LolTHELolLolTHELol Registered Users Posts: 886
    I would love to see naval battles but do not think we will see them. Honestly it was such a big wasted opportunity. Now everyone is complaining how Black-Arks are useless. Well they are useless since they are a naval unit in game with massive oceans and no naval battles. Plus, Vampire pirates make no sense if you think about it. They should have been just called jungle vampires or vampire who finally learned to use range weapons.

    Anyway, with no new races, only LPs to look forward to I cannot help but feel as I do not care anymore. I am just waiting for a major update, or game 3 now. And even Troy will not have naval battles, sadly I will pass on that game as well. CA is just being lazy now.


  • RJdioRJdio Registered Users Posts: 46
    I don’t seem to need them. It’s better to implement more factions and heroes.
  • FossowayFossoway Registered Users Posts: 3,022
    I'm actually surprised at how well island battles are working. TBH, I don't think they'll manage to make naval battles satisfying to play, and even if they did, that would still cost a lot of ressources, which could be instead used for more units and/or better mechanics. The latter is more important, in my opinion.
  • ArneSoArneSo Registered Users Posts: 6,657
    No thanks, island battles are more fun!
    Never really liked naval battles and I rather see CA not wasting resources.
  • Lord_DistamorfinLord_Distamorfin Registered Users Posts: 750
    Naval battles are good in gunpowder eras, and pretty tedious in ancient periods. That's not an issue with Warhammer because every races has access to either gunpowder or powerful magic. Not to mention the possibility of melee naval warfare for races that would use monstrous ships.

    Naval battles would be amazing if giving the attention they needed. I hope to see them added at some point int he future.
  • JowenJowen Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 387
    innerp said:

    i prefer the island battles

    Ditto.

    I enjoy them a lot more than I anticipated, and now fully agree on CA’s prioritization of resources.
  • neodeinosneodeinos Registered Users Posts: 4,716
    Still won't happen no matter how much people ask.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 4,220
    Love it....

    Empire... It was great... Except for the Buggy AI...
    Shogun 2.... It was great.... Except for the Buggy AI....
    Rome 2.... It was great.... Except for the Buggy AI....

    LOL..... CA listen to this man.
    Give us Doombull, Great Bray-Shaman, Wargor, and Tuskgor Chariot.

  • ChristianT82ChristianT82 Registered Users Posts: 70
    They dont need to take away the island battles. Just make it an option to go island or naval.
  • Bonutz619Bonutz619 Registered Users Posts: 2,017
    While I would LOVE to have naval battles in Warhammer, I just don’t think they’re likely, or even possible, at this point.

    CA would have to create multiple ship types and units for every single race which warrants being an entire game all on its own as far as the sheer amount of resources needed.

    How would monsters work? How would magic work? How would you integrate with the campaign map? What about DLC races? What about races that have no navies in the lore, do we create navies for them from scratch? Just a drop in the bucket for all the things CA would have to consider with naval battles.





  • Bonutz619Bonutz619 Registered Users Posts: 2,017

    **** Darren. Shouldn't be allowed to be posted.

    Regardless of whether you like Darren or not or agree with his opinions is irrelevant. Everyone is allowed the freedom to say what they want. Just like you are.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 19,287
    Naval Combat would take up an entire game worth of resources at least. It's not an option.
    Malakai is the best choice for a Dwarf LP. Give us Slayer lords so we may form a Slayer host and revel in our destruction!
  • ThorrkThorrk Registered Users Posts: 44
    Also keep in mind that flying units would also make naval battles a lot more enjoyable.

    You just have to take a glimpse at Man-o-war roster to realize the insane potential of naval combat in Warhammer. With that being said it would be insanely expensive to develop and I would rather see CA work on the future factions. But hopefully someday we will see naval battle coming to WTW.
  • CrajohCrajoh Member Registered Users Posts: 1,796
    Bonutz619 said:

    While I would LOVE to have naval battles in Warhammer, I just don’t think they’re likely, or even possible, at this point.

    CA would have to create multiple ship types and units for every single race which warrants being an entire game all on its own as far as the sheer amount of resources needed.

    How would monsters work? How would magic work? How would you integrate with the campaign map? What about DLC races? What about races that have no navies in the lore, do we create navies for them from scratch? Just a drop in the bucket for all the things CA would have to consider with naval battles.





    Yea would love it. But Agree with B619 it would be very tough to do right and no matter what CA did there would be an unhappy cohort.
    Live your life and try to do no harm.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 19,287
    OdTengri said:

    Love it....

    Empire... It was great... Except for the Buggy AI...
    Shogun 2.... It was great.... Except for the Buggy AI....
    Rome 2.... It was great.... Except for the Buggy AI....

    LOL..... CA listen to this man.

    I found it quite mediocre.

    Ships are all micro intensive. 20 ships is way too much to control in real time, it requires a lot of pausing. Sure they were pretty but they weren't actually an enjoyable part of the game.
    Malakai is the best choice for a Dwarf LP. Give us Slayer lords so we may form a Slayer host and revel in our destruction!
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,372
    Naval combat, like land battles, encompass two types of units: ranged and melee. You'd need to have both in order to fulfill relevant gameplay scenarios, or you just leave it at ranged since you otherwise have an option to go Neanderthal Caveman versus US Marines inside a tank.

    Which was the problem ever since Empire where it was first introduced...but in Empire you at least were expecting nearly every battle to involve man of wars running around blasting eachother to pieces: closing the distance was suicidal and only attempted after manouvres like first disabling a ship.

    Shogun2's naval battles were lackluster since they were largely arrow shooting, the use of galleons and other specialist Bune ships really made things different...but other than that you were still ranged, it was a matter of teching up first for an advantage.
    Fall of the Samurai changed all that, but not in a revolutionary sense, rather it was back to Empire's mechanics, only more useful since things were much easier and simpler.

    Rome2's naval battles was where they really went for melee and ranged, with a greater emphasis on the former. Problem was, this isn't how naval battles were typically fought, and certainly not with so many ships at once in close proximity. The result was that everything was a cluster fudge. Worse, there wasn't even anything historical about it. And you know how to solve this problem? Go ranged with artillery ships and blast everyone to pieces from afar. So what made naval battles in this game actually bearable, was to play in a very unintended manner. And being high up the tech list, it was still just a matter of arms race than tactics.

    The fact that they opted for island battles instead credits CA with the hindsight that naval battles were an awful concept simply because
    1) there is lack of historicity to fall back upon, so they'd have to literally make stuff up to make it remotely viable
    2) naval battles negated armies' abilities, that is to say, an elite army on land could easily be defeated by a much more inferior army at sea.
    3) fleets, being separate entities from armies, were basically half of what an army does but costs more while doing less; while they can take cities in Rome2, they were of course useless without an army to garrison or to prevent take-backs. Black Arks in Warhammer2 cannot attack settlements

    So I do not agree with the assertion that lack of naval battles were due to lack of resources. CA simply has very little in comparison to the rest of Total War experience to rely upon to build up their naval battle expertise. You can't just make a land army and try to translate them into naval units, otherwise you have idiotic things like Pegasus units standing in transport ships or monsters in dinghies trying to smash Dwarf ironclads.

    Oh, and don't forget the AI. You can make the perfect naval battle simulator, only to have the AI not know how to use it effectively. CA doesn't stand a chance in producing EITHER option, let alone both for a single product that may not even translate over to future titles.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 4,220

    OdTengri said:

    Love it....

    Empire... It was great... Except for the Buggy AI...
    Shogun 2.... It was great.... Except for the Buggy AI....
    Rome 2.... It was great.... Except for the Buggy AI....

    LOL..... CA listen to this man.

    I found it quite mediocre.

    Ships are all micro intensive. 20 ships is way too much to control in real time, it requires a lot of pausing. Sure they were pretty but they weren't actually an enjoyable part of the game.
    Never played it... More into TWWH for the WH than the TW... I do like RTS games though and coming into the franchise I expected a focus on Macro game play to go with the Regimental Combat.... I prefer Macro Gameplay to Micro so... there's that. I'd rather be controlling and directing my troops than spamming abilities, you know like a general.
    Give us Doombull, Great Bray-Shaman, Wargor, and Tuskgor Chariot.

  • Aram_theheadAram_thehead Registered Users Posts: 999
    Shogun 2 already solved the micro management issue by simply allowing 10 ships in a fleet instead of 20. Yeah, it's far from being the best solution, but I actually prefer it over the unmanageable 20 ships of empire.
  • SephlockSephlock Registered Users Posts: 2,366

    But of course people would still follow a Neo Nazi pandering **** who encouraged the rape and death threats against CA Ella, with the Rome 2 fiasco.

    Citations needed
    #JusticeForUshoran #RuneGolems #RuneGuardians #ShardDragons #Thunderbarges #Stormfiends #BigMonsters #MoreDakka
  • UagrimUagrim Registered Users Posts: 867
    One problem is making the navies so that its somewhat balanced so that you aren't completly screwed when your tiny norscan ship run into an fleet of dwarf ironclads. Not even including those races that have no actual navy.

    The other and more pressing one is making navies for the horde factions which do not have a port so to speak unless you make each horde consist of two armies one for land and one for sea (with corresponding upkeep.)
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 2,394
    How would you balance it?

    Norscan Longships vs Skaven Gunboats (who have multiple ratling guns) to literal sea monsters.
  • kasunrathnatungakasunrathnatunga Registered Users Posts: 3,087
    Amonkhet said:

    How would you balance it?

    Norscan Longships vs Skaven Gunboats (who have multiple ratling guns) to literal sea monsters.

    same arguments can hold for land battles. they should do a naval battle dlc some ware down the line it may be expensive but there will be players willing to buy.
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia
  • ArneSoArneSo Registered Users Posts: 6,657
    To make naval battles right we need a full game and not just a DLC. It would be so much work and most players don’t even like naval battles. So yeah would be a waste of recourses.
  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 4,220
    ArneSo said:

    To make naval battles right we need a full game and not just a DLC. It would be so much work and most players don’t even like naval battles. So yeah would be a waste of recourses.

    Agreed.... IT would be = to a stand alone title if not more... A half dozen or so boats for what 18 separate factions.
    Give us Doombull, Great Bray-Shaman, Wargor, and Tuskgor Chariot.

  • bobbobinsenbobbobinsen Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 19
    I would love to sea naval battles added into the game and if they added it in as a big dlc say 20 pounds I reckon it would sell really well.

    As for the waste of resources argument. It seems to me that right now historic games are a massive waste of resources. Thrones of britannia bombed. Three kingdoms isn't doing as well as warhammer. And Troy.....i really don't know anyone who is excited about Troy.

    Put historic games on hold for now. Maybe keep a small team a to do dlc for current historic games that are out.
    And put this resources to naval battles and warhammer in general.

    Troy looks pants BTW ca.
  • SephlockSephlock Registered Users Posts: 2,366
    Wouldn't it require a monumental amount of effort, considering that each race has their own approach to naval warfare, with their own skeletons and units and such... ?

    #JusticeForUshoran #RuneGolems #RuneGuardians #ShardDragons #Thunderbarges #Stormfiends #BigMonsters #MoreDakka
Sign In or Register to comment.