My suggestion for Naval Combat

[Kaampper]

Here is my suggestion for another Naval concept for Imperator.

I dont know if PDX is open for such suggestions, i can imagine they are sick of all the suggestions, but i had some time on my hands and i had a idea which i thought i would share with you all.

So, im not a historian, or learned in any way shape or form at school about this, but from my understanding, Naval Combat in Classical/ancient times was quite basic.
You had big Ships, which were not more than transports with a ram, and a big deck. On this Deck a different number of things could stand, like Bowman, Soldiers/Marines, Siege equipment.

There is record of there being smaller and larger ships being in fleets for example the Egyptian one, a smaller or larger ship would have a stronger hull, and hold more Marines on deck, Marines who would board enemy ships and engage in a Melee.

There is also record of siege equipment mounted on ships, for example at Alexander's siege of Tyre, he levies some ships from Sidon, which would have this equipment on there shooting at the walled city and eventually breaking its defense.

There is record of archers being on ships, though i believe it was more likely that marines were these archers and, when in close range of enemy ships they would grab their melee weapon and start the ramming/boarding.

The Actual Combat
From the little that i read, mostly from wikipedia or other websites naval warfare went like this:
Ships according to their admiral had more or fewer marines on deck, these marines would fire arrows on the enemy ships, with a range up to 170 Meters. this wasnt just skirmishing and harassing, not the major part.
Second came the ramming, the ramming of the enemy Stern or Hull aiming to sink the ship, or at least destroying the enemy Oars, which would leave them immobile.
Eventually if sinking failed, and the ships would collide, a boarding would follow. (the romans made this their foremost tactic with the Corvus i believe) I also think that a Admiral might order a boarding if he had enough manpower to control more ships, so he might attempt to capture more ships, thus boarding the enemy and capturing them.
There were ships who had siege equipment, ballista, etc on them which would shoot fire pots etc to the enemy, but i believe this to be a minor factor in combat.

What i propose:

Give the game at least 4 ship types, this could be more, or less whatever is work-able.
1) Siege: This ship would give small damage to 1 ships in front of him , like artillery in EU4 but with a smaller scale and effectivenes.
This ship is primarily to assist in Coastal Sieges, where you would need siege ships similar to the fort level to get a effective siege bonus(for the sieging land army) thus a level 4 fort needs at least 4 Ships to give a certain bonus to sieging.(similar to EU4)
This ship would be weak in naval engagement and should never be unprotected. The cost should be at least Triple that of a regular trireme. also needing the stronger wood trade.

2) Heavy: This ship would be a huge ship compaired to the other ships, which would have a very big hull and deck, supporting the most marines on top(which would have a much easier time boarding)
but will have a much harder time maneuvering so they will not do well on the flanks. They should have a severe penalty to being attacked from multiple angles, because its size leaves it open for multiple ramming ships.(similar like a tank in WO2 needs infantry to protect his flanks)
The cost of these ships should be severe, maybe 5 times the cost of a trireme? also needing the stronger wood trade.

3) Medium: These ships would be the backbone of a powerfull navy, stronger in anything besides flanking than a regular trireme would be, it will have more marines on deck, but like the Heavy ship, is slower and doesnt flank very well. It however shouldnt have a big penalty as opposed to his behemoth brother, the Heavy Ship.
i would figure it to be twice the price of a trireme ? also needing the stronger wood trade.

4) Light: This would be the standard trireme that PDX had in mind? All doing basic levels of damage, but unlike its bigger friends, this one has a buff in flanking. Being able to maneuvre and row faster, he can swarm and surround other ships with ease.
This ship has a PDX designated price. whatever that envisions.

How does this come in to practice?
The ships will be lined up like a land battle in EU4. With 2 rows of ships being in formation.
Starting from the middle front line will be the Heavy ships, on his flanks will be the Medium ships, on their flank will be the light ships.
behind the heavy ships will be siege ships, who will do damage from the backrow. behind this line will be reserves.
the front lines will engage in firing/ ramming / boarding. this could be done 1 phase or 2 or 3, i am not a game designer i dont know how that could work.

the light ships on the flank will try to hit the enemy's first row from the side (similar to cav in eu4) , but unlike the combat in EU4, the ships only do damage to 1 other ship. not to multiple units.

If a ship sinks/get captured it will be replaced by a ship from the second row, with mediums and heavies always being in the center if there is space.

I dont know how a Admiral will effect this combat but im sure PDX or you guys know something about that, maybe more ships in first contact (larger line) or more chance of succesfull ramming etc./ succesfull capturing of a ship.

Naval policies and ideas can be easily made up of things like Capture ability, the width of the first line, the amount of marines on ships (raising maintenance, strengthen against boarding). Having stronger hulls, Stronger rams, etc.



im sure, if i forgot anything, or if i am making grave mistakes in my explanation, or analysis, you will let me know.

I mean no disrespect to PDX, i will buy the game even with just 1 type of ship., but seeing the large discontent in the community , i doubt PDX will not upgrade the current system.


I dont know what such ships would be called other then the dull names i gave them, but again this is for the proffesionals, historians, this basic idea for naval combat just came to me, but isnt that far fetched i think..

let me know what you think

 

[caesarian]

I like it. Nicely done! Hopefully someone from Paradox sees this. I will still buy the game even with 1 ship type but it is probably the weirdest design decision I have seen Paradox make. I mean they had to know people wouldn't like it. It isn't like naval combat is all that complicated in previous games, there is no need to simplify it further. And if paradox does expand on it I really really hope they don't tie it to paid DLC. I am all for paradox's DLC policy normally but it would be a kick in the teeth if they did that with this.

 

[Cephei80]

lets just hope so , i dont want to wage a Cape Ecnomus like battle with only trirems spam and leave the outcome to be decided by the one who have a better doctrine ( carthage in this case with their pure naval doctrine ) + ideas and skilled generals . more diversity mean different results and higher chance to win a war against a formidable enemy .

 

[Vogelwiese]

The siege ships really make no sense in the context you're using them in. Most siege weapons of the era wouldn't have been able to do much damage unless at very close range (400-500m effective range for the landbased variety of an antique Ballista). The only thing they were probably were used for were as additional larger weapons to target ships with since the ones placed on ships would have to be smaller as well which would lead to an even smaller range. At a significantly shorter range Ballistae probably could be used against walls but would be almost useless against anything more than Palisades it would also be a range where ships would be in serious danger of running on ground as well as being shot at by the defenders.

All in all i would scratch the Siege ships and just use the heavy ships for the more long range combat it is also the only really useful role for a ship that slow. They wouldn't be able to ram or get close enough to board most ships effectively and archers have a more limited range than Ballistae.

Edit: I'm also still not entirely convinved the naval system really needs that much of a change or if inventions etc. are enough to make it interesting.

 

[Kaampper]

The siege ships really make no sense in the context you're using them in. Most siege weapons of the era wouldn't have been able to do much damage unless at very close range (400-500m effective range for the landbased variety of an antique Ballista). The only thing they were probably were used for were as additional larger weapons to target ships with since the ones placed on ships would have to be smaller as well which would lead to an even smaller range. At a significantly shorter range Ballistae probably could be used against walls but would be almost useless against anything more than Palisades it would also be a range where ships would be in serious danger of running on ground as well as being shot at by the defenders.

All in all i would scratch the Siege ships and just use the heavy ships for the more long range combat it is also the only really useful role for a ship that slow. They wouldn't be able to ram or get close enough to board most ships effectively and archers have a more limited range than Ballistae.

Edit: I'm also still not entirely convinved the naval system really needs that much of a change or if inventions etc. are enough to make it interesting.

Well like I stated, there is record there were ships used successfully in sieges like at Tyre, but Tyre was an island fort, so it might be an exception, and I stated that they would be next to useless in naval combat other then inflicting minor damage from the back row.

If there Is no historical presence for them other than at Tyre, than perhaps jus make them Ballistae ships, which were used by Roman's at least a lot more.

 

[Vogelwiese]

Well like I stated, there is record there were ships used successfully in sieges like at Tyre, but Tyre was an island fort, so it might be an exception, and I stated that they would be next to useless in naval combat other then inflicting minor damage from the back row.

If there Is no historical presence for them other than at Tyre, than perhaps jus make them Ballistae ships, which were used by Roman's at least a lot more.

There probably already is a modifier for blockaded harbour so i don't see any need to further that. A city on a very small island (like Tyre) is probably the only case where a siege ship would have been useful. The wikipedia article for the siege also suggests that the siege weapons on the ships were only really used to shoot at defenders probably to secure the building of the moat which is what siege weapons (outside of rams, ladders and siege towers) in general were mostly used for at the time as far as i know.

 

[hkrommel]

1) Siege: This ship would give small damage to 1 ships in front of him , like artillery in EU4 but with a smaller scale and effectivenes.
This ship is primarily to assist in Coastal Sieges, where you would need siege ships similar to the fort level to get a effective siege bonus(for the sieging land army) thus a level 4 fort needs at least 4 Ships to give a certain bonus to sieging.(similar to EU4)
This ship would be weak in naval engagement and should never be unprotected. The cost should be at least Triple that of a regular trireme. also needing the stronger wood trade.

I think the role effectiveness should be reversed here. Using ships with siege weapons in a siege was just a bonus to their regular use: blockade. As previously stated the actual weapons one could fit on a ship are rather small compared to the land-based artillery. The artillery mounted on ships, as best I can tell, was more like field artillery. This would actually make these sorts of ships more effective against other ships, not less. Smaller siege weapons would be more accurate (less shifting with the sea because shorter, etc.), quicker to reload, you could carry more ammunition, etc. So I'd say they should provide a small bonus to siege, but be fairly effective in naval combat.

 

[Tyson_48]

Mare Nostrum DLC ;-)

 

[Kaampper]

I think the role effectiveness should be reversed here. Using ships with siege weapons in a siege was just a bonus to their regular use: blockade. As previously stated the actual weapons one could fit on a ship are rather small compared to the land-based artillery. The artillery mounted on ships, as best I can tell, was more like field artillery. This would actually make these sorts of ships more effective against other ships, not less. Smaller siege weapons would be more accurate (less shifting with the sea because shorter, etc.), quicker to reload, you could carry more ammunition, etc. So I'd say they should provide a small bonus to siege, but be fairly effective in naval combat.

yeah i dont know about combat effectiveness, just thinking about it, i dont think a Ballista is capable of sinking a ship with Bolts, but there is records of using fire pots, which perhaps lighted a ship on fire? it would at least kill the marines on the ships.

All in all, i think ships with ramming/boarding capacity were much more effective, but they did it with risk of their own ship, while a siege ship would keep its distance and be safe from boarding.

 

[hkrommel]

just thinking about it, i dont think a Ballista is capable of sinking a ship with Bolts,

Ballistas in this time period generally used stones or other such projectiles. You're thinking of a scorpio. Ballistas could fire heavy rocks (which would structurally damage a ship and sink it with multiple hits or a good enough hit that causes a leak), pitch-covered projectiles (which would roll across the deck, lighting it on fire), or fire pots (which would splash fuel and start a fire).

All in all, i think ships with ramming/boarding capacity were much more effective, but they did it with risk of their own ship, while a siege ship would keep its distance and be safe from boarding.

It depends on what you mean by "effective." For trained crews in an experienced navy, keeping one's distance and sinking enemy ships before they can board is a perfectly efficient tactic. The Romans opted for boarding in the earlier Punic wars since they didn't have a naval tradition with experienced sailors, so they wanted to make it a scrum, which was "effective" for their situation. It's also cheaper in terms of materials, if not manpower. Later they adopted a more traditional navy, which included boarding and ramming, but also peltast and archer-manned ships for short and medium range, and artillery ships for long range.

As always, combined arms was the way to go.

Edit: I understand sources are limited in this area, and those that do exist can be short on crucial information, but the repeated use of ballista and catapult-bearing ships across this time period in purely naval capacities indicates that they were useful in naval combat. Otherwise, why build them?

 

[Chipmunk216]

The Romans opted for boarding in the earlier Punic wars since they didn't have a naval tradition with experienced sailors, so they wanted to make it a scrum, which was "effective" for their situation.

Suggestion in line with this: army tradition (or whatever the Imperator equivalent is) affects boarding action but not ramming, so more land-based countries might want to focus on their marines when they do deploy a navy.

 

[LoLLarN]

I really like this thread, I got one thing to add though.

That the ship types that can be built depends on your civilization value, so Rome, Carthage and the former parts of Alexander's empire can build all of them at the start but less civilized nations like the Scandinavians, Germans and the other not so civilized people from this era could only build light and medium ships.