Battle for Middle Earth 2 1.06

The naval battle feature is an interesting addition to BFME 2 but what will be the point of building a navy in multiplayer games.

The answer to this question, IMO, will depend on answers to a few more questions:

Ship's Attack and Defense: How will ships engage ground forces? What ground troops will be able to target ships (archers/crossbow, siege weapons, fortress defenses, etc.) and how effectively can they damage them? Will ships be vulnerable to air attack and will they be able to attack air units? Will heroes onboard be able to shoot missiles and cast spells?

My guess is all missile units will be able to target a ship in range. Siege weapons would need the ship to be still or use bombard on a spot the ship will likely cross. I figure if a trebuchet can hit cavalry they should be able to hit a ship. Same goes with fortress defenses with siege being effective only by chance bombardment and hitting stationary ships. How effective missile troops are in sinking ships will have a big impact on land/sea engagements. My guess is that battleships will go the way of Nazgul vs massed fire arrows. You use speed and surprise to take advantage of weak spots in your enemy.

It has been said that ships will be able to attack all units on the ground as well as buildings. Fortifications vulnerable to fire arrows would also probably be vulnerable. With the new flammability of terrain and buildings, a battleship with fire arrows could cause a lot of trouble on the coastlines. Imagine trapping your opponents massed forces between two fires started on either side of them by ships that came out of no where. They would be flanked by fire on two sides, by water and battleships on the third, and your ambushing forces on the north.

Nazgul and eagles would be able to tear into ships easily with claws being able to rip up rigging to shreds. However, a ship armed with fire arrows might effectively deter any such air attacks. Transport ships, however, if unable to attack at all would be sitting ducks from air attack. Air units, when faced with well armed battle ships might still play a crucial role as reconnaissance air patrol. They could stay just out of reach of a ships archers but still be able to see what is going on, especially at docks to prevent the loading and discharge of troops.

Since Mordor will have both Nazgul and corsairs, they will be a formidable combo in taking control of the sea battle. So will the Goblins with Drogoth the dragon and corsairs.

It has been stated that archers can be loaded onto battleships to bolster their attack ability. How about heroes with missile or spell ability? If heroes can, then that will be a dramatic additional attack capability but might make that hero also vulnerable to drowning should the ship sink beneath them.

Ship Patrol to defend structures/fortifications/travel routes: Will you be able to construct buildings and fortifications along the coastline to allow ships to patrol and defend them vs land attack? Can natural map features be exploited to allow ships to defend choke points in travel routes?

It seems, from information put out there, that it is possible to construct buildings and fortifications along the shore. This can mean that a player can gamble to win the naval battle and just keep all their buildings and forts on the shoreline so that their navy can defend them. Players will be able exploit map features to plan their building activities around proximity to the coast. Ships are supposed to have a good missile range. Deep bays and inlets will mean access to ship to interior terrain and will limit an opponent's use of travel routes to attack.

The use of coastline defense in combo with naval dominance would be limited to particular maps. A player can still win easily if they invest solely in ground troops and keep them out of reach of sea attack in travel routes and attacking directions. If the conditions in map features are not right, naval dominance will be a waste of money from perspective of patrolling coastlines.

However, if ground missile units can be powerful enough to go head to head with battleships in land/sea engagements then battleships will effectively be countered and their usefulness limited. I have a strong feeling this will be the case in the interest in game balance. It might not be worth the risk to build everything on the coast simply because battleships will not ensure absolute superiority in land/sea conflict. Battleships might then play the role of Nazgul when an opponent has massed fire arrows. You use speed and surprise to take advantage of weak spots in your enemy. Heck, set fire to terrain to cause problems, especially if you could lure their troops out on a peninsula!

Terrain separated by water: Will ships be the only way to access some playable areas of terrain? Will island fortifications be possible? Will docks be the only way to disembark and land troops on transport ships?

The naval battle demo started out with corsairs engaging archers on an island. I don't know what docks look like but there was a building on the southern side of the island. If maps can be divided by water and islands can be playable terrain, then naval battles will be necessary and unavoidable. If you can build things on islands, especially your fortress, then the only way your opponent can win is to build a navy and attack by sea and/or land troops to attack by siege.

It might be that only some maps will give this opportunity, forcing the navy as the win or lose factor. In these water based maps, the battles could be ferocious with battleships and land based missiles and flying units all fighting for control of the sea to enable transports to unload ground troops to siege each other's home fortress. Docks will become the ultimate choke points and the effectiveness in fire arrows vs ships will determine how easy it will be to hold and take docks from land.

Dwarves and Goblins might make full use of their tunnels and mines to travel below the sea or the lake as long as they can land a porter on the opposite shore to build a mine.

It definitely seems that terrain separated by water would make for very interesting games.

Transport and battleship capacity and vulnerability: How many units will transports and battleships be able to carry? How vulnerable will they be to attack and complete loss of the ship and cargo of units? Will heroes be able to be transported and risk loss at sea due to sinking of their ship? Will battleships have to load archers to fire arrows and, if so, will they be able to unload them again?

If units or heroes on a sinking ship are drowned automatically, then transport of great numbers of forces in the same ship will have serious risks. It might be one of the most devastating losses possible in the game next to a well placed mine explosion from Isengard, a Word of Power from Gandalf, or a Balrog breathe fire. It will be the easiest way to take out some heroes.

All this will be affected by how many units can fit on a ship. It seems clear from the information out there that battleships will also be able to transport. I'm assuming a smaller carrying capacity though. If fewer troops can be transported at a time, then the loss of one ship will not be as devastating. If the capacity is significant, like six or eight units, (which could be very expensive, upgraded units), then you just shouldn't expose yourself to that much risk unless you are sure that your opponent can't touch them.

Assuming that you build a bunch of transports to send your forces (units and heroes) to another shore, you could have extra empty ships to and give your opponent the opportunity to play the shell game. Which ship has the hero? Which ship has the expensive FU elves? You could use decoys to limit your risks. All this could get expensive though if transports are not cheap.

For that matter, will their be any visual clues of a transport ships contents so that your enemy will know you are carrying Gandalf in ship number one and nothing in ship number two. If they look the same, decoys would be a valid strategy.

If ships are costly and troop transport is risky, then I don't see much ferrying of forces going on without being in complete control of the air and sea.

Conclusions:

I'm sure there are many more questions to ask but the answers to the above questions should give a good foundation to understanding the role the naval battles will play in Multi-player games.

Navy or Not? One thing for certain is that players will need to decide whether to invest in a navy at all. Some maps would make it totally unnecessary and a distraction. If playable terrain can be separated by water then a navy might be unavoidable and will dominate the game result. Most maps, I have a feeling, could go either way. The crucial thing is the result of the early game. If players are locked in early and constant rushing and defending, then the navy will be irrelevant. Naval battles in contiguous land maps will tend to happen more in the middle and late game, if at all. I don't really think that any naval "rush" will be a game winner in such maps. The navy will just be an option to keep your opponent on their toes.

Importance of air power! Nazgul and Drogoth might have a big impact on control of the water. Eagles will too when MotW can summon them. Battleships might be able to defend and retaliate vs air strikes but it really takes the equivalent of massed fire arrows to count them. The result of ships vs air units will be a crucial issue to fine tune for game balance. However this is worked out, air units will function quite well in support of ships. Only Mordor, Goblins, and to a lesser extent, MotW will be able to use this combo and it could be a strong one.

Also very important is the ability of air units to do reconnaissance. If air units can stay over the land just out of reach of battleships arrows then they could keep an eye on the shoreline but be invulnerable to attack by sea. They can also quickly fly across the water to sight enemy ships to so you can plan your own naval attack.

Battleships like Nazgul It seems that since ships have exclusive freedom of movement on the water, just like Nazgul have exclusive movement in the air, that ships will be limited in power when faced with massed ground based missiles. Missiles and spells are the only way to attack from a distance and whether it be from ground to air as in archers vs Nazzies or ground to sea as in archers vs battleships, balance is maintained when massed missiles should counter the flying or sailing unit. Games played vs an opponent that has an enemy that is bothering you with their navy, massed archers/heroes with spells will be necessary to counter them.[font=Arial] Battleships would be used for their speed and surprise to take advantage of weak spots in your enemy.

Limit risks in transporting Be very careful with the level of risk you expose yourself to in transporting troops in ships. Losing expensive troops and heroes would be a terrible blow that most might not be able to recover from.

Ships won't be able to fully defend coastal buildings My guess is that battleships will not be able to fully defend coastal buildings due to their vulnerability to massed archers. You will still need ground troops to defend yourself. If massed archers are the counter to battleships then a combination of cavalry and battleships might work as an effective team to control coastlines. Unless, of course, the massed archers also happen to be super elven pikeman.

Dock control will be crucial in games where the naval battle is crucial Since a navy can only be build at a dock and troops can only be loaded and unloaded from a dock, then the control of the limited and neutral docks will be the ultimate choke point.

Battleships with fire arrows could strategically set fires The high mobility of ships and the restricted movement of ground units on the water will mean that surprise fire setting ambushes could become a popular strategy along coastlines. Map features would be fully taken advantage of. Think of luring your enemy's army onto the tip of a peninsula and setting fire to the forest behind them.


Edited 10/12 to correct font to make it legible

This post has been edited by Sumeron: Oct 12 2005, 17:23 PM

I think that the main reasons stated for the importance of naval combat is control of the waterways, which lead to speedier transportation and overall beternessness. Waterways are meant to be "short cuts", and opportunities for flanking and the whatnot.

Check out one of the numerous articles in the Portal about this subject.

The importance of naval battles and the focus will be determined by how accessible naval units are made to both players. If there is only one dock in the game, it's feasible that no naval combat will ever take place as one person can "camp" the dock with one warship and maintain control of it. If there are multiple docks such that each player has access to them, we'll see more use of navies in MP games.

All that reading made me tired.

...did i have to read it?

importance
-flanking
-easier transport
-opotunities too find places to build (secondary base no one can get 2 )
-just plain fun

just look at your avatar dude... ur sleepy 24/7

hehe...

i thought that font was wierd to look at though, my opinion..

Map design will determine everything imo. If the popular maps don't offer much in the way of navy we probably won't see much of it. Aaron or Mike Verdu said that when you put archers on a battleship the number of arrows coming out of the ship is "greatly multiplied" so I assume that we will only be able to load one squad of archers onto a ship. I wonder if the dwarven "watcher" whatever spell can be used on water, since the thing lived in a lake in the books.

I'm curious about map design as well. waterways will take plenty of space, less room for land. I wonder if it would be possible for 4v4 to have ships involved. lol I wonder what the maximum number of players can be in one game. 8? 6? 4?

i would luv to see island wars... but small island that don't allow walls

Sorry for the length of the post and the font. I couldn't figure out how to change the font. I wrote the post in Word then copied and pasted into the posting but the formating was messed up. The more I thought about how the navy will impact BFME 2, the more interesting things I discovered and hence the length.

All that aside, I'd love some feedback on my conclusions.

Of primary interest to me is the fact that, due to balance, battleships in attacking the shoreline will be pawned by massed missile units just like Nazgul are. They will be used to press the advantage when the opponent is caught unprotected but ships will need to flee when faced with overwelming firepower in missile unit masses.

Of secondary interest is the role that air units will play, with Drogoth of the Goblins, Nazgul of Mordor, and Eagles from FOL factions. I think that they will play a serious role in naval battles. What will be the balance of power between air units and a FU battleship. It takes a lot of missiles with fire to threaten Nazzies and Eagles. If Battleships are as powerful as massed ground missile units then they might be over powered vs ground based units, especially their only ground based counter, missile units. If transports are defenseless then they will be sitting ducks to air threats that can seek and destroy them.

The third point I would like to highlight is if my prediction of massed missile units being the shore based counter of battleships is true, then a great strat to control shore lines is to use calvary with battleship support or vice versa. All massed missile units besides the elves, of coarse, would be mowed down by the calvary.

The main point of my posting was to look at naval combat in combination with the rest of the game and all the interactions with other units in forming strategy. Naval combat won't just be ship to ship combat and the flanking idea being the only key to success. There are lots of interesting things that come into play and even more interesting is how EA resolves the balance issues between ships, air units, and missile units on shore.

sumeron....eh nice essay how long time did it take to write all that

Couple three hours or so . . . when I should have been working on my house. Oh well.

How about some comments on my conclusions anyone??

ummm i didn't read it... sry

Do I need to give the Readers Digest version?? LOL. Oh well.

Im still waiting for some people to read and comment.

I like some of your ideas especially about the one where u lure enemies than set the place on fire. Never thought of all these possibilities. Good work!

Thanks for your comments.


I don't want to seem anxious for comment on my article but I guess I am. I'm really interested in constructive comments/critique on my article.

I think folks were scared away from reading it initially since I originally had it in a wierd font but I fixed it recently so it should be much easier to read.

So, lets hear it. What do you think of my conclusions? Am I on mark or a mile off?

Its one of the most interesting articles ive read. I never thought of half of those. Before i read this i thought navy battles wouldnt be great but now i think itll be awesome

Great article! It's been a while since I read it but I'll do my best.

I think that heroes on board ships should be able to use their spells that would apply. In the context of a naval battle (i.e. Gimli shouldn't be able to use his jump power but should be able to use his axe throw).

I think air units will have a large roll in naval battles. You don't want ships that are killed by one air unit hit but you don't want something that's totally immune either. I think an air unit like a nuzgul or an eagle should be able to kill about one and a half ships before dying (unless spells are used of course).

Also, how far away should air units be able to go from land? If a person can just play as Mordor and build three or four winged Nazgul it is possible you could get full domination of water without needing any ships. Because of this I think it would be nice to have a limit on how far a winged unit can go from shore. If there is a map where two large bodies of land are separated from each other by lots of water there should always be enough islands to get air units in between major landmasses.

When it comes to the risk of transports I agree with you (Sumeron). There shouldn't be a huge amount of risk moving units across the map. If these ships were perhaps very fast, or have lots of health it could reduce how vulnerable they are. Another thing that could be useful is allowing Heroes on board to use their spells. This would give you an advantage but also tell your opponent who you have on board.

I agree with you also that ships should not be able to crush any costal castles and will need land support for coastal control.

Lastly, docks should be crucial. I think it would be ideal to have two or three large land masses completely separated by water each with one or two docks on them. This would ensure naval battle and prevent it from being over looked.

Once again, great article!

Good read, very nicely put together.

Thank you. It took forever for anyone to respond though. I don't think I even remember what I wrote. lol