(Debate Area) Is the map really designed to use navigation effective?

Users who are viewing this thread

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
Z2tPi.png

Calradic Navigation Debate

Much has been said about naval combat, if it will or will not be included in the final version or if it will be enabled as downloadable content. On the other hand, there is a question that has hardly been taken up in the debate and it is the following one:

Is the Bannerlord map really designed to use navigation effectively? For maritime navigation (commercial - military), no doubt; only that if we stick to the current map, the potentially initial seafaring factions can only be Sturgia, Vlandia and Aserai as they have coastal cities, it is obvious. In the Warband lore we were told then about the imperial galleys, however in the current map the empire does not have coastal cities; therefore the power of the imperial navy is currently null. So why can't the other factions eventually become a naval power? Where would the option of river navigation fit into the current map if we decided to establish trade routes and naval military development through river-sea-land connections? That way, it doesn't fit.
And I say it doesn't fit because we have a problem, which is the nature of the current rivers themselves.

A little context:

Currently in Calradia we only have land travel to move armies or to develop economic activities through the use of trade routes. If we focus strictly on the rivers, we can affirm that they are currently a simple decorative adornment and should become instruments of border delineation and a way of commercial expansion if we really want to apply a naval system properly.
Therefore, if we want to apply a naval system properly, we must face a series of problems that arise with the current map:
gsXo_.jpg

Rivers are not border elements or delimiting elements of movement as they allow free passage through a series of points or areas such as bridges, rocks, and so on. Obviously they are not navigable. If rivers were really an obstacle and established a border landmark, natural points of strangulation and shock would be created that we could add to the existing ones. Because according to Taleworlds:
“The topography of the map is not entirely consistent with Warband, in fact Bannerlord's map is somewhat more mountainous. The effect of this is an increase in the number of choke points. It will be hard to avoid conflict, for instance, when traversing narrow passes through mountain ranges that may be riddled with ambush spots or enemy patrols. Tactically, the map offers many more options for controlling areas that serve as trade routes. Battles are often fought in the game to contest key choke points with the goal of securing passage for trade caravans and other parties. As a player, it is important to consider what kind of warfare you are likely to end up in, before sacrificing relations with a faction.”

When establishing a fluvial navigation system we must provide the Calradic rivers with a real nature in width and draught so that in this way the military and commercial expansion is developed in a natural way. Taking a look at the reality in which Bannerlord is inspired, we find a series of rivers that must be highlighted due to their high commercial and geographical interest.
qzufc.jpg

The Roman Fluvial Navy

Stella%2BNoviomagi.jpg

When we think of an imperial army, our brain evokes images of large fleets sailing the ocean, although this was not always the case. In those areas in which the Roman military dominion was not very strong and which had navigable rivers, fluvial armies divided into Classis were established.
The Classis Germanica was the largest Roman fluvial navy and had the task of supervising the Rhine, its navigable tributaries and the area of the North Sea around the delta formed by the river at its estuary, in order to maintain fluid traffic and protect trade on the Rhine.

On the Danube there was not one classis, but two: the Classis Moesica and the Classis Pannonica. The Classis Pannonica was a hundred percent fluvial navy. It patrolled (and protected) the Danube from Castra Regina (present-day Regensburg) to the Iron Gates. In this final stretch its most important base was in Singidunum (modern Belgrade). Classis Moesica was in charge of patrolling the lower part of the Danube from the Iron Gates to the Black Sea, including its northwest coast and even the Crimean peninsula.

The Galias also had their own fluvial navy patrolling the rivers of the Gaulish provinces and even some of their lakes. The most noteworthy were: the Classis Fluminis Rhodani, in the Rhone, the Classis Anderatianorum, in the Seine and the Oise and the Classis Araricae, in the Saona.

Viking Incursions

image.jpg@1.98019.jpg

They are sounded the incursions going up rivers, the most outstanding and known is the Siege of Paris (885-886) where the Vikings advanced by the Seine arriving in Paris on November 24 with 700 ships.

440px-Varangian_routes.png

In the Middle Ages, the commercial route of the Volga connected Northern Europe and Northwest Russia with the Caspian Sea. The Rus used this route to trade with Muslim countries on the southern shores of the Caspian Sea, sometimes going even further, such as to Baghdad. The route ran concurrently with the trade route of the river Dnieper, better known as the trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks, and lost its importance by the eleventh century. In addition, the most important river networks were those of the Po River, the Rhône, the Flemish river network, the Rhine and the Danube.

e20330480f144a97f42620f650791ff6.jpg

On December 31, 406, in the West of the Roman Empire; the warriors of different " barbarian " peoples fundamentally referred to the Vandals, Alans and Suevi cross the famous river Rhine, frozen by the harsh winter, which was the natural boundary and border of the Roman Empire and the Germanic tribes, starting almost officially the slow and gradual invasion of Gaul.

Thanks to conceptual art we know of the existence of different types of ships within the category of "civil ship". However, if we want to dominate both the seas and the rivers we need to develop military ships. Following the artistic line of the illustration of Oğuz Tunceli, here you have two military ships that follow the line of imperial design; the Byzantine liburna and Dromon. These ships were of remarkable size, 30-50 meters long and 5-7 meters wide so they could accommodate between 150 and 200 men among rowers, soldiers and sailors.
PNIkR.jpg

Considering the dimensions of the naval battle scenes we have in Viking Conquest and that Bannerlord bets on a remarkable increase in the number of bots on scene compared to Warband; we would need wide river scenes like those mentioned above to simulate minimally realistic conditions for a pleasant playable experience.
Fluvial scenes no smaller in size than those shown in this video:


We also know that the Calradia map in Bannerlord, will suffer the meteorological effects of the passing seasons. It is important to highlight the winter season where apparently in this video the rivers and lakes freeze.

This climatic factor is decisive as it provides a specific period of activity for the free passage (see Climatic backgrounds) and at the same time another period of inactivity or blockade of the same fluvial routes (commercial - military). Therefore, in the northern areas of Calradia there will be penalizing and enabling conditions at the same time and shock points.
IuWVf.jpg

With these arguments the space for debate is opened.
 
Your posts are always great dude, and the way you input media and info. On the topic at hand, the only proper way to see naval battles and make sense is if they make maps in a DLC that are away from Calradia. I simply do not see any reason for proper naval fleet combat in the game at the moment. I do believe most factions are made for land, otherwise it's going to be a plus side for ranged based factions like Battania and Vlandia with crossbowmen. River combat would exist, but maneuverability and actual ship 'driving' will be nothing more than just rushing onto enemy ships to board them since the rivers are narrow. I will go in depth a bit later because typing on my phone makes me have aneurysms. 
 
Rivers as part of Naval battles would not make sense with the current map for sure, and the two large lakes don't provide much scope either. The inner Sea(?) between the Southern Empire and the Aserai might provide somewhat of an arena for strategic dominance, but again it's quite limited in respect to how big an undertaking adding naval warfare would be. There's plenty of water in the western part of the map but obtaining dominance wouldn't give any advantage except perhaps to make raids down the coast. A DLC I think would extend the map to some worthwhile resources like a post 1492 landgrab rather than focus on river warfare in the base game.

 
The big issue is Calradia was designed to be entirely accessible by land. As has been pointed out, there is almost no reason to add the ability to travel over water as all but a few journeys would actually take longer by sea than by land. Additionally, any mod which adds an off coast island or whatever runs the risk of severely effecting game balance by either helping or hindering whichever faction is closest to the new landmass, while the Khuzait may never even see the new lands.
 
That seems just and thorough.
Some possible solutions:
1. There won't be naval combat DLC
2. Naval scenes won't be consistent with battlefield / castle scenes. (will have wider rivers)
3. It won't be for Calradia (again), but for a BL Viking DLC.
 
Terco_Viejo said:
...if we stick to the current map, the potentially initial seafaring factions can only be Sturgia, Vlandia and Aserai as they have coastal cities...In the Warband lore we were told then about the imperial galleys, however in the current map the empire does not have coastal cities; therefore the power of the imperial navy is currently null.

Ports don’t have to be coastal. Rivers connect lakes to the sea, making Ortysia, Bostrum and Danustica potential Imperial ports.
The Empire has shrunk. A naval DLC set slightly earlier could have Charas still under Imperial ownership, giving them a coastal city at the expense of Vlandia.




...Where would the option of river navigation fit into the current map if we decided to establish trade routes and naval military development through river-sea-land connections? That way, it doesn't fit.
And I say it doesn't fit because we have a problem, which is the nature of the current rivers themselves...

Bridges aren’t a problem. Large bridges were navigable - ships can lower their masts. The Paris bridges were obstacles in the Viking siege because they were fortified for defence. That didn’t always work as in the example of London Bridge, which the Vikings pulled down despite its defenders.
https://londonist.com/2013/02/how-the-king-of-norway-pulled-down-london-bridge

Small bridges might require portage. The Vikings used portage (lifting boats out of the water and carrying them) to connect trade routes in Eastern Europe - some carrying their boats for 5 miles.
 
I will continue the bandwagon of slobbing on your knob Terco, your posts are very high effort/quality.

I don't have much to add, will have to agree with most people- there's no way for naval movement to work with this current map. In that gif posted with the lakes and rivers freezing, you can see people crossing over that close river even when it isn't frozen. They're basically just to make the map look better and provide variety to battle scenes.

Even when there are rivers too big to cross, it's not like enemy lords will sit camping the bridge 24/7 so nobody can cross. The way TW tried to make it sound in that blog quoted, was like the way Total War armies can just sit in a huge mountain pass and block the whole thing. M&B simply does not work like that.
 
Well a mechanic can solve it; making bridges and destroying bridges. So in safe zones bridges will be common, yet in natural enemy borders you need to construct a bridge to cross. You can upgrade your bridges to bigger ones to let ships pass.  Or castles having bridges...
 
Thank you for the compliments fellas, very grateful.

I am surprised at the level of unanimity reflected in the comments. I don't know if it's because of a lack of interest in the matter we're dealing with, an incomprehensible conformism or the fear that the game could be delayed even further...

What is a dlc for you? I think the question is that...For me a dlc would be for example an extension of the native one where new territories like Geroia, Balion, Lotki are discovered...but it is that for it a navigation system already should be implemented before it. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the subject, so I was surprised by the general comment: navigation has no place here, as dlc ... you just had to add ... or a modder will take care of it.

I have a set of questions for you:

What do you think of the schematic map of bottlenecks that I propose?

Is the player's experience more boring if the rivers are uncrossable milestones?

What do you think about a bridge building system similar to the siege engine building system as commented by HUMMAN?

Would you consider implementing a river blocking system like the one commented by NPC99? Could a blockade be lifted with a simple economic payment? Could you charge for "right of way"?

Do you think that naval travel should be faster than land travel?

Do you consider that the naval displacement can favor the transport more load or volume of merchandise?

Would it be annoying for you to meet with river pirates, coastal pirates operating like the land ones making incursions-raids (razzias)?

If the rivers are insurmountable, wouldn't it turn the settlements into real strategic shock points?

Would you agree to present Calradia through an interconnected river network linking the three lakes?

What do you think about conditioning wars to seasons (summer = less water flow / winter = frozen in northern areas)?

If a basic system were established in the vanilla game as a foundation, different later contents that needed this mechanics would be even easier to add.
Even modders would be happy with a basic implementation of a naval system like the one I'm telling you about.
In any case to you John.M (if you read me) in your first version of Kingdoms of Arda wouldn't you be interested in having available a basic naval system preset in the base game?

XQlVK.jpg
Maybe the campaign team has made some progress. :iamamoron:

---

Orion said:
CKyHC said:
eh. need to learn English  :???:
His English is fine. You should learn to be more polite.
Orion, I think you've misunderstood the partner... I've understood what he said for himself.  :razz:

Gab-AG. said:
I think he was referring to himself needing to learn English before being able to understand the post. :grin:
+1 .
Oh you have the veteran badge jajajaj. Now you just need to link the image to the appropriate place. Click on mine and you'll see where it takes you.  :lol:

 
The only way Naval Combat would make sense is with the addition of extra factions across the sea from the main peninsular. Without that, there's no point in even doing it.

TW have said they plan on adding it but not at release so there is hope. However, if they take too long, I can bet someone will mod it in before they do. Most likely not for the base game but for some fantasy or historical mod that requires naval combat.

Personally I feel they should have gone into this game with naval travel and combat as a core requirement. So many mods have sea travel that sometimes I forget it wasn't part of Warband.
 
I agree. I don't think the current map is made with navigation in mind, I think the best option would be to implement naval combat and transport as part of a bigger DLC which includes lands outside of Calradia that you could travel to by sea. I suppose the various lakes in Calradia could be interconnected by the rivers, although if Taleworlds decides to go for the above I think they might as well leave them untouched. I'm not sure about blocking off rivers; it might be a bit too frustrating for the player who in order to get access to the other side would be forced to attack the settlement controlling the bridge and would have to do so from a disadvantageous position as well.


Besides, I suppose medieval armies were capable of constructing temporary bridges to traverse rivers. I imagine this could be implemented as a mechanic in the game, where the construction of the bridge would depend on your engineering skill (does this even still exist in Bannerlord? I haven't kept up) much like sieges in Warband, although I feel like this might be slightly overcomplicating the game. I'd be fine with rivers working the same way as they did in Warband.
 
If I remenber well, Armagan was asked about it, and he said it probaly won't be in the vanilla, maybe in DLC. I think, that was the perfect answer, but it didn't mean that naval combat is a real planned feature. Declaring less than what the previous game already has - with DLC - would be hype killer. Maybe other forum members also feel it too fragile to dig deep into it.
It's good that devs see what fans want - not that previous deep discussion of ambushes helped that feature to make it to the final game  :sad: - but better luck with this one!
 
Back
Top Bottom