MOTE WTF MOMENTS: French Navy vs British Navy...

[coando]

It looks like you lose 1% positioning per 1 frontage in your fleet. I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think that positioning for navies is becomes a flat damage multiplier to your fleet - 30 frontage meaning 70% as much damage per ship. That would mean there's actually a sweet-spot beyond which your fleet starts doing less damage when you add more ships at around 50 frontage, and only very marginal gains once you get up to around ~35 frontage. So I'd say 25-30 first-rates is about the largest fleet you actually want to put in one spot in MotE.

It certainly seems strange that there is a point beyond which more ships in the fleet literally makes the fleet worse in combat. I could see making the fleet no better (arguing "you can't bring any more ships to bear on the enemy anyways"), but worse is odd.

 

[unmerged(90249)]

It looks like you lose 1% positioning per 1 frontage in your fleet. I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think that positioning for navies is becomes a flat damage multiplier to your fleet - 30 frontage meaning 70% as much damage per ship. That would mean there's actually a sweet-spot beyond which your fleet starts doing less damage when you add more ships at around 50 frontage, and only very marginal gains once you get up to around ~35 frontage. So I'd say 25-30 first-rates is about the largest fleet you actually want to put in one spot in MotE.

It certainly seems strange that there is a point beyond which more ships in the fleet literally makes the fleet worse in combat. I could see making the fleet no better (arguing "you can't bring any more ships to bear on the enemy anyways"), but worse is odd.

Sometimes I wonder if Christ simply get it all right: They have hear, but they do not listen, they have eyes but do not read (or whatever, I know it in latin but not in english, apologies)

From wiki

Forces en présence
(allied french + spain)
33 vaisseaux de ligne
5 frégates
2 bricks
26 000 hommes

(red coats)
27 vaisseaux de ligne
4 frégates
1 goélette
1 cotre
18 500 hommes

Who had the most? But who had the tactic? Number means nothing, if they are poorly used! Materiels has value only by the men who serve them (Manual of the officer, ref TTA 105, edition 1983 if I do remenber it the year). The red coats indeed had Nelson, and while the tactic adopted by Villeneuve was sound on paper, it was a absurdity with regards to tactical consideration (mixed navies with differents training, if any; mix of captains, some aggressive too much, some at the opposite bordering the cowardise).

So, stop moaning about numbers, only poorly made games will let number decide. Here it is a paradox game, and while there are numerous problems, they know since a long time to avoid such shortcut.

Find a tactic that fit your style, I believe several were proposed in that post; use your brain, not your strong arm

 

[coando]

So, stop moaning about numbers, only poorly made games will let number decide. Here it is a paradox game, and while there are numerous problems, they know since a long time to avoid such shortcut.

Find a tactic that fit your style, I believe several were proposed in that post; use your brain, not your strong arm

I'll start by suggesting that rather than make pithy quotes on people not reading, you yourself read with a bit more discernment. I never said that naval battles should be all about numbers. I said simply that more ships should not make a fleet worse.

Since you brought up Trafalgar... it was a pretty close battle numerically. France had a small edge of perhaps 10% or so (4 first-rates and 29 third-rates, vs. 3 first-rate, 4 second-rate, and 20 third-rate). It's the sort of fight that I have no problem seeing Britain win consistently in-game.

Nobody complaining is talking about numerically close battles. Obviously Great Britain wins naval battles at parity, or even modest deficit. They had better shipbuilders, better sailors, and better officers. The question is, should Great Britain win if they're up against five times their firepower? Should they win against ten times their firepower?

The positioning mechanic does not scale well beyond about 40% frontage. If it's the judgment of the devs that ~30 first-rates is the largest force that can practically be used in one naval fight, they should automatically designate the rest of a fleet reserves and let them be brought in only as the first section is driven off, rather than forcing the player to micromanage that themselves.

 

[Herbert West]

My main prolem with the "oh, well, a hundred ships would be very unwieldy to manage" argument on why GB wins is that is does not offer any gameplay alternative.

First and foremost, this is a game. Real life means jack squat. If you ignore real life in one aspect (diplomacy, warfare, economy), then you ought to ignore it in naval combat as well.

Thus, wether or not a 10 to 1 advantage would lead to the outnumbered winning stunningly in real life is moot. What matters is gameplay mechanics.

So, what alternative do we have to outnumbering the enemy? Micromanaging lots of little fleets and hoping to whittle down their numbers: first, this introduces a level of micro not present in other aspects, and secondly, GB can and does easily outproduce their naval attrition rate.

So there is little hope for any non GB player to attain even parity with GB, even if they sink all their money into fleets and naval tech, because herpderp, GB is awesome.

 

[deadmeat1471]

-snip- because herpderp, GB is awesome.

Correct.

 

[caimen]

I think I understand frontage now. I played Great Britain over the weekend and it was immensely fun maneuvering troops around the continent with ease and destroying any fleet I ran into. However 10 ships versuses one and the one ship winning doesn't make sense. I don't care if he is the most badass admiral in the world and the other ships are run by a bunch of rabid chimpanzees. Ten ships should give a morale boost. Morale is the actual problem here, frontage is definitely a problem with 50 ships or more, but British morale is what is off the charts, especially if they get there naval ideas. However if you are France and have 10 ships versus 1, you generally start with half the morale the British would.

I understand France is the land power and Great Britain is the naval power. That isn't the argument here. We are playing a game where you are meant to alter history, in subtle but sometimes dramatic ways. The key here is the Great Britain if focused can become the dominant land power. However the reverse cannot be said without some mechanic exploitation. I'll say it again, if I spend 15 years training and focusing my navy, I should at least be able to compete on the seas. Right now that does not seem the case to me without doing a map exploit where you funnel Great Britain's navies through a gauntlet of fleets on the map to dwindle there morale lower and lower.

To me that feels exploitative, but I'm going to try it eventually nonetheless. It is possible like that's the way it's meant to be, but somehow I doubt that is an intended mechanic. Like someone said before it is possible to battle GB navy, then have another navy standing by to battle them again to actually defeat them after your first navy knocks there morale down a bit. It doesn't seem like that should be the main way to defeat GB, but it seems the only way.

 

[Emmanuel_M]

Press Gang is OK : it's a britsh naval idea that gives a BIG advantage to perfide Albion on the sea, especially when trying to maintain a huge fleet.

But the other bonuses : insane admiral quality gap (with Nelson being depicted as the king ), brutal naval combat (expensive ships captured by the winner create a vicious feedback loop, whereas land battles cause losses on both sides) ,insane base morale bonus for british fleet mean that the game should be renamed "Sail of the Roastbeefs"

SAS-Edited for offensive language.

 

[unmerged(90249)]

I still disagree, with both the OP and my fellow countryman (Emmanuel_M), and would beg to disagree with their analysis.

Having play numerous games with France, I never had troubles to invade UK, assuming the following :

1) I do distract their fleets, before they regroup, usually it mean hit them hard with my best (Latouche Treville) near little Brittany. They will come piece meals, so it is not that hard, I am close to my ports, so I can easily back up and take care of the wounded ships.

2) I let them , invite them even, to invade northern germany,

3) I proceed BEFORE jully 1804, past that date (plus or minus), they will produce more ships than it is possible to sink.

4) the invasion goal being to capture a sea port close enought to reduce risk of interception.

Let say out of 30 games, I was able to do it 29 times (the missing one being the first i played, before I came with that strategy).

But Time if of the essence, you can do it only during the first 6 month, after that is too late.

So how to do it ?

1) Day one, ask Spain to honor the alliance, Nelson will wste time in the Mediterannean sea

2) regroup your fleet in Rochefort, hit and run untill they are regrouped

3) move your army in Germany against BRunswick, and let it there (do not make peace with them). UK will send an invasion force.

Results during a lasps of time , UK fleet will be spread into 3 theaters, while you will be grouped in the channel; so arrange for naval battle , and during it cross with the transport, take a sea port, back up your remaining ships.

While your invading force start to take provinces, your flleet will reinforce, and you will able to transport some more troops (if needed and if disponible).

Good timing, set up a strategic trap, and audacity are paramount and will lead your forces to victory. If not, as in history, you will simply loose on the long run. Going bull head against the RN is also wrong, the French navy did not have the capacity at that time, and that is reflected accuratly in the game, maybe too much for many of us, but it is the sad historical truth, any encounters (but the 3 lost by Nelson) were defeats, because moral superiority, technical superiority, training superiority, command superiority. Those 3 defeats from Nelson were due to the cunning of the french commander, so you have to be cunning too.

P.S. I do propose a strategy, but others here did propose other strategy; mine work for me, but others are fine too. The only real point being : you must find a strategy that will allow you to by pass the RN superiority.

 

[Cymsdale]

That strategy sounds fine before the latest patch, when it didn't take months to invade a province from sea.

 

[Hootieleece]

It sounds sorta like what Napoleon intended with the lead up to Trafalgar.

 

[caimen]

There's always the make buddy buddy with GB, get military access and put your stack on there islands and dec them. However there is no honour in a hollow victory.

 

[konjad]

Seriously... there are no limits to this -_-

 

[No idea]

The brithish navy is absurdly overpowered since 1.0, but thta seems to be how the game works

 

[Hydra01]

The brithish navy is absurdly overpowered since 1.0, but thta seems to be how the game works

On the flip side of things british economy is absurdly underpowered....

 

[Cymsdale]

Seriously... there are no limits to this -_-

No see, it totally makes sense for 3 ships to drive 102 away because ***TRAFALGAR***. ***TRAFALGAR*** means that the British should win every naval victory no matter the odds.

Also stacking penalty. It makes perfect sense. Imagine if you had like a thousand ships come across a lone vessal. The stacking penalty would be huge, those thousand ships would not know what to do with themselves. Out of all the chaos and confusion, the crews would be leaping overboard and hanging themselves. Also, if the lone ship has a British admiral, then ***TRAFALGAR*** bonus applies and I expect no less than half the thousand ships to be captured.

 

[balooooooo]

Well I've just seen it the other way round. One Frenchie just saw off 44 Brits (11 transports). All the British did was search for their target while the French ship bombed around picking them off. After the British had lost 6 ships they ran away without hitting the French once. Oh, and I'm not exactly sure, but the battle lasted at least 3 to 4 months. Seemed an awful lot longer.

 

[caimen]

I want to believe balooooooo.

 

[balooooooo]

I should have added that this was with a modded version of the 1792 mod. I've changed a few things now so hopefully this won't happen. Don't know what I can do about this "searching for target" nonsense though. I don't remember this from before, so I expect it is new, and also at the root of everybody's naval combat woes.

 

[Cymsdale]

I think whatever the math is behind the stacking penalty is just wrong. All else being equal, more ships should be better than less ships, but more ships should have diminishing returns. So having twice as many ships shouldn't mean you do twice as well, and three times should mean.. etc. etc.

However, it seems to go into overdrive. Instead of diminishing returns, you get negative returns.

 

[Ivashanko]

Exactly. What would happen in real life if 1000 ships went up against one? Obviously, in real life the thousand ships would be completely useless because of stacking penalty and the lone ship would mow them all down and come out on top. The implementation of stacking penalty in this game is completely realistic.

I love your sarcasm.

And EricB, most of what you said (at least in your first post) has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand (so I'd say you aren't being much of a 'smart' ass).