Seems a pretty big immersion miss, though.
No, that is not really correct.

It is actually very immersive that land units in a city hardly get damaged by sea bombardment of a single ship.
It would definitely never be possible to kill all men - at most hurt or maybe kill a few men by debris (wood or stones) flying around.

In many cases such villages or cities simply gave up before an enemy ship actually openend fire - the threat itself was enough to surrender.
But not to protect their lives but to protect their homes (or stores) which were incredible effort and expensive to rebuild.

Also most of these colonial cities hardly had any loyalty to their home country anymore - or only very little.
They hardly cared who they had to pay taxes to - as long as it was not more than what they had to pay before.

And what you also do not consider:

Normally the ships did not even want to shoot into the city center where most of the troops might have been placed.
Shooting a city if at all would have hurt the civilians that would never have forgiven such a crime, not really the troops that may not even have lived there.

The attackers / conquerors normally wanted to capture the city intact with all infrastructure, all workers and also all stored goods.
Why destroy something so valuable if you can simply destroy the less valuable defenses and then capture the city by killing the 50 defending land troops?

We are not talking here about "large scale" war in the early days of colonization in 16th century. The major goal was to destroy the enemy troops at all costs but to conquer with little damage.
We are more or less talking about a crew of maybe 80 sailors and 50 professional soldiers conquering a small village or city with a few professional soldiers defending it and a few colonists maybe also taking arms.

------

As @Nightinggale explained ships with cannonballs could hardly really attack Land Units in a City because a City is too much space.
Or the colonists simply moved a few 100 meters further inland - e.g. behind a hill out of reach of the cannons.

The only thing that then could still be damages were the walls, the harbour and maybe even the city center.
We are not talking about explosive wide range rockets or wide scale artillery bombardment of the modern age with massive kill potential.

It was basically a waste of ammunition trying to hit small moving troops 100 meters away in a city center with cannonballs.
As I tried to explain, the only thing you could really hit and damage with certainty was big non-moving objects like e.g. walls or fortifications.

Once own troops were approaching the city walls the ship could not continue to fire anyways.
It would have weakened the moral of the own troops just the same to have debris (stones and wood) flying around.

And troops outside the walls without any houses were in much bigger danger to be hit by debris (stones and wood).
Mostly because the debris exploded to the outside side of the walls where the cannon balls hit and not to the inside.

------

And even if it was immersive:
Sometimes immersion needs to stand back behind gameplay.

If it was possible that Man-O-Wars would bombard the troops in a city to death,
there would be no chance to defend a City against REF in War of Independence.

The REF Man-O-Wars would simply lay waste on all defenses and then only 1 REF Unit could easily conquer all Cities on the Coast.
Also AI could not cope with something like that - a Human player would easily kick the butt of any AI if this would become possible.

------

Summary:

No, it is not immersive that a ship on the coast could really do any serious damage to troops on land.
Doing damage to walls or fortifications is very realistic though and weakening moral is realistic too.

On the other hand, cannons in a fortification of the city doing serious damage to a ship at the coast is very realistic.
It was simply big and slow enough to be hit by cannons and holes in a ships hull were often deadly for the ship itself.

------

And even if it was immersive that Ships bombarding a City could damage Units:
Very bad idea for gameplay and AI. (Sometimes a game needs to simplify a bit.)

------

Thinking similar to the civ4 road to war mod.
That is a modern warfare mod and thus naturally plays by totally different rules.

Please do not try to always think in "modern logic" for a mod that plays in 16th century.
Modern artillery bombardment and real explosives did not exist in 16th century.

At most you had shrapnel ammunition which was basically only a "close combat" ammunition for open terrain and complete nonsense to use at a distance of e.g. 200 meters against a city with walls.
Chain-balls would have been equally stupid because their direction was hard to calculated and they were basically only used to destroy sails of ships and thus immobilize them.
Normal cannon balls were only effective as I said against big unmoving objects and you needed to fire really masses of them to have a chance to hit a human - which was simply too expensive.

------

Even the actual effectiveness of cannon balls on open terrain combat of e.g. 18th century is heavily disputed. (Which is the reason most armies had so few of them in usage.)
Most historician agree that they only were effectiv against moral and discipline and very ineffective considering actual human live tolls.
Only close combat shrapnel really caused live tolls but was normally also consider a last means when otherwise everything was lost since it could hit own troops just as easily.

Again "fire", "gas" and "explosive" ammunition of the modern age were simply non-existent ...
Only once they existed and were cheaply produced in indutrialized ways real bombardment of land troops on open terrain or in cities became a thing.
 
Last edited:
I feel like I failed to convey a specific detail. *during settlement bombardment*

Bombarding a unit on the countryside, yeah they'd just move out of range. In a settlement that is besieged by warships or artillery, they can't just move. And you can't tell me that troops on or behind walls wouldn't be slowly killed by cannonballs raining on them. I wouldn't expect it to be a large portion of damage (at least from a single bombarding unit) but once defensive protections (walls ie bonus) are depleted, a 2-10 percent hit per bombardment (10 being mortar or man o war units, if that high even)seems realistic. One bombarding unit will probably not be able to erode faster than unit heals, and maybe that makes the whole thing not worth it. But stacking 5 SotL and a half dozen or more artillery on shore would surely make a dent. 4 or 5 turns of that seige, the defending units /wouldn't be at full strength, would they? Right now you could surround and pound with 100 manowar on a coastal town, for 100 turns, and that town guard won't have a scratch

Well, realistically a ship in one square should not be able to hit the broadside of a barn, nor even a whole city that is in another square. Even in gigantic maps the distance from midpoint of square 1 to square 2 is *kilometres* not metres.

Historically in the early game ships were still expected to board each other after they had fired their (short-range) cannons (of many different sizes and calibers but too small to hurt stone walls a kilometre away). Quite similar to infantery tactics of a later age - one musket volley and then charge them with bayonets to rout them when they falter due to the impact of the volley. Those "cannons" were mostly antipersonnel weapons to deter boarders or to clear the enemy ship´s deck for boarding and most not even able to punch through a ships hull because fielding a heavy gun on a high fore- or aftcastle of a ship could mean that the own ship would founder if that heavy gun would be fired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_artillery#Age_of_Sail
They had still to develop several decks and gun ports in ships.

That got better after bronze cannons were introduced and spread during the late 15th/early 16th century.

From the 17th century onward heavier guns were used on lower decks, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36-pounder_long_gun
and even those could fire at maximum 3700 metres but effective range was half of that.

So - if technically possible - no ship whatsoever should be able to bombard anything on land at the start of the game and only in a later age/era/technology level e.g. "Bronze Cannons"+"multiple shipdecks"+"gun ports"
should major warships gain that ability.
 
Please note... this is NOT a thread to discuss if slaves should be allowed in game or not!
That is a different topic.

This is a simple request:
When king offers slaves or criminals we currently have 2 options:
1. Buy them
2. Don't buy them

Can we add a 3rd option:
3. Don't buy them and DON'T ASK ME AGAIN!

Kind of like we have an option about sailing to EUROPE or ships sitting at port in EUROPE.

Is this possible?
 
Is this possible?
Is it technically possible: Yes.
Will somebody implement it: I strongly doubt it.

I could give reasons like "such an answer to your King is not immersive".
But the simple truth is that I am not motivated to invest the effort.

If you do not like that feature:
Why not simply go into GlobalDefinesAlt.xml and deactivate it? :dunno:
(No effort for implementation at all.)
 
Last edited:
Please note... this is NOT a thread to discuss if slaves should be allowed in game or not!
That is a different topic.

This is a simple request:
When king offers slaves or criminals we currently have 2 options:
1. Buy them
2. Don't buy them

Can we add a 3rd option:
3. Don't buy them and DON'T ASK ME AGAIN!

Kind of like we have an option about sailing to EUROPE or ships sitting at port in EUROPE.

Is this possible?

If that would be ever implemented I could only envision it with a much larger penalty in relations to the King and his taxes than simply refusing the trade once. After all you do not only deny him but pretend to be able to order him around like he was your secretary and make demands on his future behaviour - all that while you are still only the governour of HIS colonial empire...
 
I cannot make sense of the auto transport mechanics, as I can't simply make it work and the transports (I have tried Treks or Wagon Trains) just go to my only coastal city and just remain there without doing anything. At first, I believed it was because I was using the vanilla storage mechanics, but it still happens when I turn on again the new storage mechanics. I saw the video about auto transport, but still I cannot establish a single route between two cities, even less between more cities.
 
@Jorge Tamay
You'll have to start a new game if you change any setting in GlobalDefinesAlt.xml since those settings are not parsed and reloaded when loading an existing save (they are effectively per-game constants). I agree that this should probably be documented somewhere...
 
Regarding the recent discussion on combat I'd just like to state that both me and @raystuttgart are very keen on remaking the combat system. Specifically, ranged combat (and a lot of other novel mechanics) is something we both want to introduce but we're currently too busy to work on that.
 
Is there a consequence to denying the King's offer/request for you to purchase units other than not receiving the units? I never take the units outside the Noble because the negatives usually outweigh the positives (especially since I typically have no issues with population growth that can't be solved by buying units in Europe.)
 
Is there a consequence to denying the King's offer/request for you to purchase units other than not receiving the units?
No, there is no negative consequence if you deny. :thumbsup:
(You simply do not get these cheap workers.)
 
Regarding the recent discussion on combat I'd just like to state that both me and @raystuttgart are very keen on remaking the combat system. Specifically, ranged combat (and a lot of other novel mechanics) is something we both want to introduce but we're currently too busy to work on that.
Count me in on a wish for that as well. I might not have been vocal about it recently, but I have talked about it once in a while over the past years.
 
Specifically, ranged combat (and a lot of other novel mechanics) is something we both want to introduce but we're currently too busy to work on that.
Given that each tile represents enormous amount of land/sea, won't it break immersion? I personally hate the direction Civilization series went after IV, and it would be very disappointing one of its distinguishing (and very stupid, in my opinion) features being introduced to WTP.
 
Given that each tile represents enormous amount of land/sea, won't it break immersion? ...
I personally hate the direction Civilization series went after IV, ...
Please read this here before directly panicking. ;)
You are imagining a "ranged combat" that I have no intention to create.

I am not planning to duplicate Civ5 / Civ6 Combat System.
That is also why I call my system "Attack Ranges" and not "Ranged Combat".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nci
Having considered this, and with my experience with the game.

Some RNG events (especially with King) occur too frequently.
 
Some RNG events (especially with King) occur too frequently.
Simply change their balancing in GlobalDefinesAlt.xml to your liking. :dunno:
That is why this xml exists - so everybody can easily adjust the balancing of some global features.
 
Simply change their balancing in GlobalDefinesAlt.xml to your liking. :dunno:
That is why this xml exists - so everybody can easily adjust the balancing of some global features.

I could not agree more. However, threads like this are a good indication that a minor tweak might not be a bad idea. If the event in question occurs less frequently this thread would not exist.
 
If the event in question occurs less frequently this thread would not exist.
We are discussing again about tiny details in XML balancing instead of actually creating new content ...:(
In the end this is just "personal taste discussion" again.

From my side:

1. What is the problem to simply say no, if the King offers you those slaves ?
2. I have internally (in branch "Plains") rebalanced the Slaves (and posted about it here)
3. I plan to create several features like this here that expects slaves to exist in the colonies.
4. I plan a pretty big rebuild on "Triangle Trade" called "Actual Triangle Trade"
5. In my Promotion Overhaul I intend to introduce Promotions "Slave Hunter" and "Slave Master"
6. ...

"Slavery Concept" is an important part of my game design, since it was simply an important factor in historic realities of the colonies.
And with a bit of micro-management it is actually a quite valuable feature. (Cheap Labour.)

----

Considering my personal fun with this feature:

I accept those slaves every single time I get them offered and the frequency is just fine for me.
Because it is simply part of the immersion for me and adds fun.

----

Summary:

Let us stop wasting time with personal taste disussions. :thumbsup:
Simply adjust the mod to whatever you personally like best.
 
Last edited:
Edit:

Agreed, I checked the XML in the release version and it was every 20 turns. :thumbsup:
(Which was probably a testing value - at least it was too low.)

I have set it back to 30 turns as default.
(Which is a bit more balanced - even 40 would be ok for me.)

----

Since I play / develop a fully customized "ray's private version" with personal settings and content, I do not notice such stuf anymore. :)
(Thus I hardly care what values the release versions have in XML.)

----

Comment:

Next time, simply give me the XML value. ;)
Will save us a lot of time discussing.
 
Last edited:
Im trying to read up on some game mechanics of wtp. Can someone explain to me if its possible to gain founding fathers annother nation has already aquired? Is this possible and how?
 
Top Bottom