No Navy?

kevinkins · Post by **kevinkins** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:04 am

Was it too early in history to sim naval/trade routes by sea?

Kevin

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:36 am

There were no naval battles at the time really, and we also did not have the resourcs to add a naval aspect to the game.

kevinkins · Post by **kevinkins** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:59 am

Last time I told them we did not have the "resourses" it did not go well at work. Nice try.

Kevin

anguille · Post by **anguille** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:28 am

kevinkins wrote:Last time I told them we did not have the "resourses" it did not go well at work. Nice try.

Kevin

You have to know that Slitherine was even smaller back then...It's a very small team...you can't expect everything. CoW is a solid game even if not perfect.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:32 am

I'm not sure what you mean - we had 3 people in the company when we made this game, doing everything from programming, to scenario design, marketing, installers, sales, web design, research and art. We had to pick and choose our fights so rather than have loads of features that half worked, we decided to make a polished game with slightly less features. No game has every feature it could have and its a design decision about what goes in and what doesn't. As naval warfare was not a major part of combat at the time, what would be the point of spending a significant amount of our resources on it? If it had gone in we would have to drop out something else. It's just common sense!

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:42 pm

You know, thinking about it, I cannot recall any significant naval actions of record prior to Salamis in 480 BC.

Don't sweat it, Iain; you guys made the right call.

kevinkins · Post by **kevinkins** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:13 pm

OK sounds like you made the right call. I just downloaded the game and trying it out. I was really just teasing.

Kevin

kevinkins · Post by **kevinkins** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:14 pm

From Wikipedia

The first dateable recorded sea battle occurred about 1210 BC: Suppiluliuma II, king of the Hittites, defeated a fleet from Cyprus, and burned their ships at sea.

Assyrian reliefs from the 700s BC show Phoenician fighting ships, with two levels of oars, fighting men on a sort of bridge or deck above the oarsmen, and some sort of ram protruding from the bow. No written mention of strategy or tactics seems to have survived.

The Greeks of Homer just used their ships as transport for land armies, but in 664 BC there is a mention of a battle at sea between Corinth and its colony city Corcyra.

The Persian Wars were the first to feature large-scale naval operations, not just sophisticated fleet engagements with dozens of triremes on each side, but combined land-sea operations. It seems unlikely that all this was the product of a single mind or even of a generation; most likely the period of evolution and experimentation was simply not recorded by history.

Vaanan1 · Post by **Vaanan1** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:23 am

kevinkins wrote:From Wikipedia

Kevin, are you actually quoting something from Wikipedia to make your point? I hope you realize that Wikipedia is a wildly inaccurate source to be quoting from. Anybody can (and does) add whatever info they wish to Wiki articles. I'm not saying that your info is wrong, just don't get embarrassed if someday somebody calls your info wrong it turns out they are right.

kevinkins · Post by **kevinkins** » Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:38 am

Most people don't cite ANY source in posting to internet forums. Are you saying un-cited posts are better than a Wikipedia cited post?
And why would I be embarrassed if the Wikipedia material is some how inaccurate? I cited the source. It's just a fast way to keep the thread moving along. Where would you suggest I get info on the earliest naval battles. And if you know where refute the Wikipedia info. Keep the thread moving if it interests you.That's how we learn these days.

- Kevin

Vaanan1 · Post by **Vaanan1** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:24 am

Kevin,

I googeled "earliest naval battles" and came up with many hits. Here is one from a South African Historical Society:

http://rapidttp.com/milhist/vol074ic.html

Sources other than Wiki can be checked up on through other sources, such as your local library. Wiki is merely somebody's idea of an info-blog sort of thing, nothing has to be substantiated in any way on Wiki.

I don't believe you realize that Wikipedia is simply "garbage in, garbage out". I ALWAYS ignore wikipedia sites, any that I have found have been wildly inaccurate and the originator of the site often has to go behind people to edit their mis statements that they have added to his site. As I said, any person can edit a Wikipedia site, even my 8 year old can go look at a wikipedia site and make a "knowledgeable" statement about some historical event that she never even heard of before.

I mean no disrespect to you in any way, I just want you to get your info from a better source than Wikipedia. You don't deserve to be mislead in any way. If I have offended you in any way with my comment, please forgive me.

AND DON'T TRUST WIKIPEDIA!!! Hee hee hee.

kevinkins · Post by **kevinkins** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:18 am

everything on the internet has to be taken with a grain of salt. the wiki info is not political and there is no axe to grind with posting info on first naval battle. that link does not refute the wiki info. the timeframe is the same.

Vaanan1 · Post by **Vaanan1** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:11 pm

Well, it looks like we just have to agree to disagree. I didn't say that the site refuted the wiki site. And to say that wiki is not political is naive at best. Wiki sites are nothing but political, each site has their own axe to grind.

kevinkins · Post by **kevinkins** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:23 am

the wiki info on the first naval conflicts i copied and pasted was not political ... seems pretty accuate ... please say otherwise with facts

Kevin

Luredreier · Post by **Luredreier** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:03 am

Althou anyone can edit the wikies anyone can also look at what changes have been made.
Atleast in the english wiki there is a editing history.
And althou smaler articles usualy ain't reliable, and the fact that there is some opineons that is more common among the editors, the larger nonpolitical articles is generaly trustworth, suprisingly enough.
As for the political ones...
Well, use common sense and always be critical and drop a coment in the debat if you find anything you don't belive is true.
I've personaly critesised the norwegian wiki because of an thing about square sails that I belive is wrong (having saile a ship with that rigg) the article was later edited somewhat to reflect the debatable subject. (why they were removed from smaler fishing boats in most of the contry and replaced with other riggs)
Btw, sorry for any bad spelling :/ I'm not good at english spelling...
Also, another thing...
Smaler wikis is less trust worthy because they have fewer people to keep an eye on it.

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:44 am

Vaanan1 wrote:
kevinkins wrote:From Wikipedia
Kevin, are you actually quoting something from Wikipedia to make your point? I hope you realize that Wikipedia is a wildly inaccurate source to be quoting from. Anybody can (and does) add whatever info they wish to Wiki articles. I'm not saying that your info is wrong, just don't get embarrassed if someday somebody calls your info wrong it turns out they are right.

Oh boy, somebody has been listening to Old Media propaganda.

Wikipedia is monitored quite closely. Inaccuracies are labelled as such, biased articles are labelled as such, unsubstantiated statements are labelled as such, and the downright false is reverted.

Vanaan, how much have you actually used Wikipedia? Do you really know whereof you speak? I use it all the time, and while I'm aware of its limitations, I am overall quite pleased with Wikipedia.

honvedseg · Post by **honvedseg** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:54 pm

There are pictures of naval encounters between the Egyptians and Minoans and other cultures dating far back long before that. One of the more "popular" images depicts mercenary "Sherdan" marines fighting for the Egyptians. Combat was man vs man, rather than ship vs ship (or boat), with bows and basic melee weaponry.

The Phoenecians had a sizable fleet during the second millenium BC, and you don't build dozens or even hundreds of expensive specialized fighting ships if you don't use them. Assyria (not even a naval power) claimed to have launched the first amphibious landing early in the first. By the time of the Persian Wars, naval warfare was highly developed, and the ships had become extremely specialized for their combat roles.

Wiki is useful as a good (and usually reliable) starting point for a serious search. Like ANY source, you need to take the information with the proverbial "grain of salt", but even many of the "original" documents on historical, political, or controversial topics need the full "shaker".

Amob_M_S · Post by **Amob_M_S** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 1:02 am

I believe navies got the "short end of the stick" in CoW simply because, although at the time they were undoubtedly used, only one or two nations (Poenicians, Minoans, whoever the Sea People were) really lived or died by the sea, and even this would not have been a matter of naval defeat, but of trade disruption. Furthermore, due to limitations of the time, you couldn't move a sizeably army by sea without an enormous fleet, so fleets were only a tactical option when the enemy relied on sea trade for much of his economy. Thus, in CoW navies would add only slightly to the realism, but would be a lot of work to program, so I think Slitherine just avoided them.

Maybe if we (fingers crossed) get a CoW 2 after Legion 2 comes out, navies will be included (thus allowing the Minoans to be included and the Sea People to be included ACCURATELY)

No Navy?

No Navy?

Citing Sources

Naval Warfare