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

No ships: a very bad design decision

Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,311
Please, note I'm saying "no ships", not "no naval battles". The lack of 3D naval battles, while regrettable, is understandable and doesn't harm the game too much. But the lack of dedicated naval assets is, according to me, the worst design decision of an otherwise well-done game. I'll briefly state the reasons why:

1) It equalizes factions on the sea, while High Elves should enjoy a very strong naval advantage, Dark Elves the benefits of a pirate strategy supported by Black Arks, and Lizardmen and Skaven should be weaker and rely more on land routes and stealth, and maybe some rare monster or mechanical powerhouse.

2) It introduces a strong and unwelcome element of RNG into the game. In the first Warhammer, sea zones were so limited that the risk of being forced into autoresolve was minimal. Here, it can be a big problem and bring about the failure of whole invasions.

3) It doesn't allow for any dedicated way to influence that autoresolve. By investing into ships, by developing characters into admirals, by deciding if the added security of an escorting fleet is worth the increased costs, or if we should risk sending transports out alone. It could have been an important strategic element for very little effort in terms of graphical assets and animations.

I would really like to know if the choice was deliberate, in which case I would strongly suggest to reconsider, or at least to provide some tools to modders in order to solve the issue, or if it was forced by a lack of the relative license, in which case, well, we can only be sad about it.

Comments

  • HexiHexi Registered Users Posts: 1,110
    Because this isn't Total War: High Seas.

    Almost nobody cared about sea battles and fleet in previous games and CA realized that it's a waste of resources.
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,311
    Hexi said:

    Because this isn't Total War: High Seas.

    Almost nobody cared about sea battles and fleet in previous games and CA realized that it's a waste of resources.

    Are you sure you've read my post, mate?
  • SquallsySquallsy Registered Users Posts: 176
    edited September 2017
    meh, i get why they did it, but im hoping somebody just mods it so every time you get attacked, there is a really convenient small island map to fight on so its 'sea battles' but not really
  • SilferSilfer Registered Users Posts: 427
    Xenos7 said:

    Hexi said:

    Because this isn't Total War: High Seas.

    Almost nobody cared about sea battles and fleet in previous games and CA realized that it's a waste of resources.

    Are you sure you've read my post, mate?
    he is just a troll
  • MrShilkaMrShilka Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 28
    I dream of Dwarf Dreadnoughts.
  • HondlisHondlis Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,254
  • HexiHexi Registered Users Posts: 1,110
    Xenos7 said:

    Hexi said:

    Because this isn't Total War: High Seas.

    Almost nobody cared about sea battles and fleet in previous games and CA realized that it's a waste of resources.

    Are you sure you've read my post, mate?
    Yes.

    Any sort of naval fleets and naval oriented things are a waste of time for the dev team. People don't care about them and the first thing most people did in Rome 2 was delete any fleets they had to save up on upkeep costs.

    Navies are worthless.
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt
  • konokonokonokono Registered Users Posts: 299
    Even without new graphical assets, introducing naval gameplay elements would require design, balance, and playtesting. Not sure if they think it's worth it. Even though, personally, I would have loved it.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,311
    Hexi said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Hexi said:

    Because this isn't Total War: High Seas.

    Almost nobody cared about sea battles and fleet in previous games and CA realized that it's a waste of resources.

    Are you sure you've read my post, mate?
    Yes.

    Any sort of naval fleets and naval oriented things are a waste of time for the dev team. People don't care about them and the first thing most people did in Rome 2 was delete any fleets they had to save up on upkeep costs.

    Navies are worthless.
    I think I've just explained why they are not worthless. If you get intercepted while going by sea you're forced into autoresolve, which can cost you the entire army. Isn't that a problem for you? And about Rome 2, it was centered around the Mediterranean Sea. Travel times were quite short, just like in Warhammer 1. Here we're talking the Atlantic, and it shows. The map has a lot of water.
  • HexiHexi Registered Users Posts: 1,110
    edited September 2017
    Xenos7 said:

    Hexi said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Hexi said:

    Because this isn't Total War: High Seas.

    Almost nobody cared about sea battles and fleet in previous games and CA realized that it's a waste of resources.

    Are you sure you've read my post, mate?
    Yes.

    Any sort of naval fleets and naval oriented things are a waste of time for the dev team. People don't care about them and the first thing most people did in Rome 2 was delete any fleets they had to save up on upkeep costs.

    Navies are worthless.
    I think I've just explained why they are not worthless. If you get intercepted while going by sea you're forced into autoresolve, which can cost you the entire army. Isn't that a problem for you? And about Rome 2, it was centered around the Mediterranean Sea. Travel times were quite short, just like in Warhammer 1. Here we're talking the Atlantic, and it shows. The map has a lot of water.
    No, it's not a problem for me because

    A ) I don't sail around with trash armies

    B ) the longest I've spent at sea is going to Ulthuan, which is a few turns.
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt
  • SchusselSchussel Registered Users Posts: 835
    konokono said:

    Even without new graphical assets, introducing naval gameplay elements would require design, balance, and playtesting. Not sure if they think it's worth it. Even though, personally, I would have loved it.

    Especially it would make it more likely that we would get naval battles later.

    I still hope for Game 3 and the "Complete Total Warhammer World War Campaign"
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,913
    yeah, the lack of any navy abilites, be it tactical or at least dedicated ships for auto resolve feels wrong.

    I didn't suffer yet from it (Tyrion was allowed to ship across to lustria unopposed), but given enough time I will.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,913
    Schussel said:

    konokono said:

    Even without new graphical assets, introducing naval gameplay elements would require design, balance, and playtesting. Not sure if they think it's worth it. Even though, personally, I would have loved it.

    Especially it would make it more likely that we would get naval battles later.

    I still hope for Game 3 and the "Complete Total Warhammer World War Campaign"
    sorry but the moment to do naval battles, was the release of game 2.

    The most famous naval powers are in game 2 and so is most of the warhammer worlds water...
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • StoreslemStoreslem Registered Users Posts: 410
    medieval 2 had you recruit ships but there was only auto resolve. i liked that system because naval combat in shogun 2 example was very boring
  • echonianechonian Registered Users Posts: 103
    edited September 2017
    I just had a problem with this myself. Lost an entire fleet of my Skaven due to it.

    The devs don't need to have ships in the game, precisely. But they need a way for you to influence what is inherently a very unfair auto-resolve system when we are not allowed to manually fight battles.

    Especially in cases where my Skaven armies are almost always destined to "lose" according to auto resolve calculations, even though when I fight said battles manually on land I often can win decisive or heroic victories.

    Not only are the auto-resolve calculations often unfair, but there's no way to influence them. The option to have naval support ships would be one potential solution, with the goal of just boosting your auto-resolve chance. However, I feel this would be a bit of a waste.

    A better solution would be to take out auto-resolve naval "combat" entirely, and replace it with navies simply having the option to blockade an enemy fleet. You could make doing this (depending on the relative sizes of the fleets) perhaps slow down the enemy fleet for some number of turns, or make them suffer heavy attrition at sea for a period of time so that when their invasion actually arrives, it is weaker.

    This would keep the tactical use of fighting enemies on the sea (stopping them from attacking you and invading your cities as quickly, and giving you time to prepare), yet wouldn't result in you ever losing an entire army that could have easily won on land due to very unfair auto-resolve calculations.

    A win-win, with the only trouble being coding in what should be a minor feature, especially in comparison to having actual fleet units.

    Edit: You could also do a lot more with a non-combat naval system for this game.

    You could have a special movement mode on the sea for piracy, such as in Rome, or to slow down enemy fleet automatically that come nearby, or to simply boost your visibility (a sort of naval "scouting" formation would be great so you can actually see navies coming). You could have fleets suffer attrition if they are on the sea for too long without finding land. You could add Lord "naval" skills to reduce attrition, or to reduce penalties (or increase them, if blockading) relative to the blockading system.

    You could very easily keep the tactical niche of naval combat without needing naval combat, without needing to deal with risking losing your fleets due to the game deciding to crunch numbers at us with auto-resolve. This would take a bit of work, so I guess easy isn't the way to put it, but it certainly would be less work than making actual naval combat. Given that moving via the sea is such an important part of this game, and comes into play very often, I really hope that naval aspects of the game get expanded upon and treated properly. Having just a basic auto-resolve with no retreat is NOT a good solution, or a good alternative to having actual naval mechanics (even if these don't involve a real-time fleet battle).
  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Registered Users Posts: 2,009
    I would invest in a somewhat in depth auto resolve feature for naval battles. Something similar to crusader kings II. Or do as the OP and other people have suggested a million times already.

    Or do full fledged naval battles as an expansion and give the people what they want! haha
  • ValeliValeli Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,106
    Xenos7 said:


    1) It equalizes factions on the sea, while High Elves should enjoy a very strong naval advantage, Dark Elves the benefits of a pirate strategy supported by Black Arks, and Lizardmen and Skaven should be weaker and rely more on land routes and stealth, and maybe some rare monster or mechanical powerhouse.

    2) It introduces a strong and unwelcome element of RNG into the game. In the first Warhammer, sea zones were so limited that the risk of being forced into autoresolve was minimal. Here, it can be a big problem and bring about the failure of whole invasions.

    3) It doesn't allow for any dedicated way to influence that autoresolve. By investing into ships, by developing characters into admirals, by deciding if the added security of an escorting fleet is worth the increased costs, or if we should risk sending transports out alone. It could have been an important strategic element for very little effort in terms of graphical assets and animations.

    1) I don't think this is a problem. I never played Man 'O War much, but I imagine that the factions actually were equalized at sea in order to make it work. Other interpretations of fleet strength rely soley on fluff, and go down the "my dragon should kill your whole army" type of path in more cases than not.

    2) You know what. I really agree with this, actually. I'd support having Med 2 style ships for this purpose. I don't like having to autoresolve at sea if I'm caught.... So I guess I more or less agree with you in general.

    3) Same issue as two sort of, in my eyes. And, as said, I think it makes sense to give people a way to avoid army autoresolve where possible.

    ... I've heard before that maybe we have no ships (at all) because that part of GW's IP has been licensed to another company/video game? Don't know if it's true or not, but I find it believable if unfortunate.
  • ThorrkThorrk Registered Users Posts: 118
    I could not agree more with OP great post.

    BY FAR the biggest miss on this game.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,311
    Storeslem said:

    medieval 2 had you recruit ships but there was only auto resolve. i liked that system because naval combat in shogun 2 example was very boring

    Just add a short skill tree for developing lords as admirals, some techs, and you've a functional mechanic right there.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Registered Users Posts: 31,171
    It's a fair point.
    "There's no fun in picking on the weak. If you must, go for the mountain high, the language most foreign, target the strong." - Kenny Florian

    "I like small words" - Winsy C

    Forum Terms & Conditions

    I am The Beast, Son of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, Conqueror of Mountains, purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, Greater Demon of the Ogre Kingdoms, Teller of Truths, Enemy of Lies, Emperor of a lost Empire

  • LolTHELolLolTHELol Registered Users Posts: 1,105
    Well I personally would be happier if we got a DLC which added sea battles instead of some very minor lore faction.

    Lets face it after playing the game and seeing how important is sea travel is I feel very sad that we just got auto resolve.

    However, sea battles are going to be in the same category as the missing beast men units. So we will never get them in total war warhammer.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 7,311
    Valeli said:


    1) I don't think this is a problem. I never played Man 'O War much, but I imagine that the factions actually were equalized at sea in order to make it work. Other interpretations of fleet strength rely soley on fluff, and go down the "my dragon should kill your whole army" type of path in more cases than not.

    Well, I see it as a further element of specialization. Like Dwarfs having a strong artillery.
  • JavorJavor Registered Users Posts: 910
    This is the only way I would want navies introduced in the game.
  • The_SpiderThe_Spider Registered Users Posts: 3
    I suspect, and to be clear this is an opinion, the lack of any ships is due to Games Workshop's licencing issues or something similar.

    CA clearly have permission to use all factions and flesh out races without official roster, all of this would be under the Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

    Man O War is a separate game from WHFB. If this is the case then they would be under separate licenses, with CA holding the license and permission to use all models and artwork etc for WHFB and Evil Twin Artworks, who released Man O War Corsair in April 2017, therefore have the license for everything related to Man O War.

    To answer your question my guess would be that CA don't have permission to use any artwork or models relating to Man O War, obviously this doesn't include the models used for the troop transports on the campaign map, but would stop them having dedicated navies, as with Medieval 2.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,913
    The theory of licensing goes not just against the fact that models are used for the campaign map (what kind of licence agreement says "you can use them on your campaign map but not in battles"?), but also against comments made from CA.

    Besides:
    I'm pretty sure that CA right now is the biggest partner for Warhammer games, including 40k, while the guys who made a MoW game are pretty much nobodies, so i see no way why GW woould give them to right to make the only MoW game, instaed of allowing to make A MoW game.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
Sign In or Register to comment.