Sea Zones

[Penchant]

The latter was my understanding.

it seemed like the former was the proposed but the latter makes more sense to me.

[Perth]

I would assume the latter as well.

[Charles]

I don't think it should just be a set ratio of defenders vs. embarkers.  Different coasts would be easier to defend.  Would it be an all-or-nothing for the raiders?  Are the militia/troops able to keep some boats out while some slip in?  I think that might be best to be brought up later as the consequences of those events might complicate things.

[Eldargard]

Tom,

If an attacking army lands in a region with no harbor, is there a way they could retreat back into the sea from that same region? The boats got them to shore so I can imagine them waiting for their return but I can also understand the simplicity of them becoming stranded until they can gain access to a harbor.

[Geronus]

There are already trends to overcomplicate things.

SIMPLE is the word you have to keep in mind. So there will be no travel delays, field camps, there will be no effect on unit size or composition. Nothing of that kind matters when you're onboard a ship.

Yes, islands will become strong, but at the same time they will have trouble attacking the continental areas.

I already answered the landing question: If you want to land somewhere, you try it. If there are too many defending troops, the landing operation will be aborted, at the cost of some hours, and you will be told. That is what you will have in "scouting".

Hey I'm just asking questions here. In my experience with software development it's important to consider as many potential issues as possible during the design phase, even if you eventually decide that your design is fine as is. If you've already settled on exactly how this feature is going to work though, why have a discussion about it in the first place? I'm not advocating greater complexity, but there are also inherent dangers in oversimplifying things and failing to consider all the ramifications of a potential change. If the design doesn't reflect certain realities about how players play the game, or the nature of the game itself, it will end up being used (or not used) in ways you didn't intend. Such consequences are a daily part of my professional life, so I have a lot of experience with well-intentioned software features being misused, creating more problems than they solve, or not being used at all because they don't take into account the way things work in the real world.

I like where this is going, but I think armies need some way to get back out to sea from enemy territory. Otherwise, no one will ever even consider attacking an island realm unless they are heavily confident that they can seize a port before they have to refit.

Which raises another question. How does this affect takeovers? If you say "it doesn't" then I submit to you that island realms will become takeover-proof since no other realm will ever have a region directly bordering one of theirs and colony takeovers no longer exist.

[Tom]

Really, landing was not hard, you only need a little beach.

A Question... The sea travel will be 'oceanic' or all the sea-regions will be coastal? (I, personally, like the last option better!) 

See screenshot. There can be oceanic zones, it depends on the island.

Another thing. If you can embark only on a harbour...  this mean an army who land on a enemy region/realm will be 'trapped'! If they can't take a city or a town region they will never be able to 'come back home'?

At least not by sea. They might have to take the scenic route home, or at least towards the nearest friendly port.

One even more important thing to consider is that we have a couple islands in the game that consist only of rural regions. It would be impossible to leave those. We'll have to come up with a solution for that.

[Tom]

Could you expand upon this? Because I'm having trouble seeing how this change makes islands anything but impregnable fortresses who can send troops against their enemies with impunity.

An island will have no land-route towards its enemies (because it's an island, doh). So it will always have the added difficulty of finding landing spots for its armies. Establishing a beach head will become immensely important. Without that, you could be sailing your army up and down the coast until it has starved to death.

[Tom]

These sea zones will help EC realms beat Sirion and Perdan. Can you scout sea zones though? I know people in the sea zones can't but what about people on the coastal zones?

No, you can not scout into, nor out of, nor within sea zones. Absolutely no scouting whatsoever. I've said that at least twice already.

[Tom]

game text should be changed because that's not what the game says.

fixed. the original intention was for only friendly troops, so it might still be changed that way.

[Tom]

Which raises another question. How does this affect takeovers? If you say "it doesn't" then I submit to you that island realms will become takeover-proof since no other realm will ever have a region directly bordering one of theirs and colony takeovers no longer exist.

That answers your question regarding why I have this discussion. That is another good point that needs considering.


As for the other, I already said that some regions will never have a harbor, so we will have to allow embarking in different conditions anyways. That could also be used for retreating armies. However, it needs to be balanced so that it will only be used if there's no other option.

As for the landing operations - yes, the most sensible implementation would be that you set your travel, just like you do now, and at the turn the game calculates the amount of troops trying to land vs. the amount of defenders, and decides whether the landing operation succeeds or fails. If it succeeds, the invading troops land and you get a battle vs. the defending troops. If it fails, everyone loses hours and remains at sea.

We could, instead of making it a fixed percentage, have a "landing battle" where the landing troops have a massive disadvantage (CS halved or something) and if they lose they have to retreat to the ships, leaving wounded behind (i.e. most wounded are lost). But that might be too harsh on the attackers, and it would require additional coding, so again this is most likely not going to happen in the first version.

[Tom]

BT map now contains my current draft of the sea zones.

I'm looking for names for the zones now. Things like "Bay of XYZ" or "Northern Sea" or "Barbary Coast" etc. etc.

[Peri]

I'm looking for names for the zones now. Things like "Bay of XYZ" or "Northern Sea" or "Barbary Coast" etc. etc.

If there is a sunken city in a given zone, I'd give it a name connected to that city. After all, a submerged city just under the water's surface it's quite a landmark.

[vonGenf]

At least not by sea. They might have to take the scenic route home, or at least towards the nearest friendly port.

One even more important thing to consider is that we have a couple islands in the game that consist only of rural regions. It would be impossible to leave those. We'll have to come up with a solution for that.

Even if there is a harbour! A likely scenario is this: you invade a realm-island with troops, land, get defeated in pitched battle afterwards and are left unitless. Then you would be stuck on that island for as long as that realm is at war with yours. This could take months, even years.

I like the added realism this entails, but I think this is too much. What you will see is characters changing allegiance only to use the boats, and changing right back afterwards. I don't think that's right.

[Poliorketes]

Well, with my first wave of enthusiasm, I had forgot to say this: Thanks Tom! This is wonderful!!!... I know this will be big change in BM, (and most probably a ton of work) but really, this is one of the things that make this game so great!

ejem... about landings and embarks... If we want to make it easy, I think the best option would make the same rule for embark and land (e/l):

In friendly harbour: you can e/l all you want infantry, cavalry, etc... (maybe all but SE?)
In non-harbour regions or enemy regions: you can e/l (maybe) only infantry and only with 'military supremacy'.

We must work all this thing as simple as possible. This way you can get out/in rural islands (in a 'relaxed' situation e/l is not a difficult task), We make possible attack islands without get too much 'trapped'... but at the same time, if you get badly beaten, probably no one will get out of there alive!  ;D

BT map now contains my current draft of the sea zones.

I'm looking for names for the zones now. Things like "Bay of XYZ" or "Northern Sea" or "Barbary Coast" etc. etc.

Hey, they are wonderful!!!  :) Coding-wise: maybe it could be better to make the sea-region's borders to coincide with the land-regions? I don't know...  :P

Names? I would put something geographic associated to the land regions: bay of xxx, cape xxx, sea of xxx, where xxx would be a city (sunken or not) or a region... this way only knowing the name of the sea-region you can get an idea of it position.

[Tom]

I like the added realism this entails, but I think this is too much. What you will see is characters changing allegiance only to use the boats, and changing right back afterwards. I don't think that's right.

I said we need to solve that.

The rough concept would be that it is possible to embark from every coast region, but things take longer, cost more, etc. if the region has no harbor. And if you retreat from a hostile region, you may lose parts of your troops, provisions, etc.

Basically, it should be possible, but if you have a harbor anywhere near, it should always be better to travel there and embark there.