Straights, but not narrows

[chegitz guevara]

Now that we can mod straights, which should we keep, which should we kick, and why?

Smyrna <-> Macedonia: toss: the reason it's in is so the Otto's don't lose 10% of their economy in Europe until Thrace falls. We can use other methods to help the Ottos. It's in geographically inaccurate. It should go.

Smyrna <-> Ionia: toss: While some Aegean islands are easy to reach from Anatolia, Ionia represents the islands of South of Euboia, i.e., the Duchy of Naxos. They were not easily reachable from Anatolia.

Albania <-> Corfu: add: The Ottomans reached Corfu by building a pontoon bridge. If you can build a pontoon bridge to reach a place, it's close enough to have straights.

 

[unmerged(11496)]

Smyrna <-> Macedonia: toss: the reason it's in is so the Otto's don't lose 10% of their economy in Europe until Thrace falls. We can use other methods to help the Ottos. It's in geographically inaccurate. It should go.

If the strait is there because of an economic problem, consensus to remove it will be bolstered by an economic solution. Maybe give the Ottos a few extra ducats at game start, or script some events for money falling out of the sky until Thrace goes down? Or just let it go and trust the Ottos to make it right on their own?

Albania <-> Corfu: add: The Ottomans reached Corfu by building a pontoon bridge. If you can build a pontoon bridge to reach a place, it's close enough to have straights.

Reference or link?

All that being said, I like all three of your suggestions.

 

[unmerged(11496)]

Kent <-> Calais: toss: The English Channel is one of history's great barriers to conquest, having last successfully been breached in 1066 or thereabouts. Adding a strait obviates the entire purpose the channel has historically served. Lose it.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Albania <-> Corfu: add: The Ottomans reached Corfu by building a pontoon bridge. If you can build a pontoon bridge to reach a place, it's close enough to have straights.

Wow
Having been to corfu I got to say that's got to have been one big pontoon bridge

Looks close enough on a satelite pic though.

 

[billiard]

Straits

Overall, I'm in favor of Straits - I hate the tedium of loading my troops onto ships, unloading them, having to bring back my navy later to pick up the survivors ... And god forbid if your navy is attacked, even by some meagre naval force already in full on retreat, then you get to start the Unload all over again. I've pulled naval forces out of contiguous sea zones just to avoid defeated enemy ships bouncing back and forth and interfering with my troops landing on some Mediterranean island for the 6th time.

That being said, please get rid of the Kent-Calais strait. If I play as England or France, it comes in real handy, but makes for the rivalry to be one sided as I crush my AI opponent - wait until they get in a war, then pounce. I don't have to worry about even having a navy at all. And if I am not playing as England or France, I end up with a super strong France that (usually) is able to swallow half of Germany as it faces no serious rival across the Channel.

So one vote for getting rid of Kent-Calais strait. Any others I'm OK keeping in place, as I haven't found them to interfere with game play to any great degree (and make my life easier if I happen to be playing as OE or any Mediterranean country - I find myself ignoring islands and grabbing only continental provinces in peace deals just so I don't have to do all of that loading and unloading to put down revolts in newly won provinces).

 

[Sute]{h]

Overall, I'm in favor of Straits - I hate the tedium of loading my troops onto ships, unloading them, having to bring back my navy later to pick up the survivors ... And god forbid if your navy is attacked, even by some meagre naval force already in full on retreat, then you get to start the Unload all over again. I've pulled naval forces out of contiguous sea zones just to avoid defeated enemy ships bouncing back and forth and interfering with my troops landing on some Mediterranean island for the 6th time.

Couldn't agree more.

That being said, please get rid of the Kent-Calais strait. If I play as England or France, it comes in real handy, but makes for the rivalry to be one sided as I crush my AI opponent - wait until they get in a war, then pounce. I don't have to worry about even having a navy at all. And if I am not playing as England or France, I end up with a super strong France that (usually) is able to swallow half of Germany as it faces no serious rival across the Channel.

So one vote for getting rid of Kent-Calais strait. Any others I'm OK keeping in place, as I haven't found them to interfere with game play to any great degree (and make my life easier if I happen to be playing as OE or any Mediterranean country - I find myself ignoring islands and grabbing only continental provinces in peace deals just so I don't have to do all of that loading and unloading to put down revolts in newly won provinces).

I know I'm a minority on this issue, but I actually like the Kent-Calais strait. While I don't disagree with any of the arguments against it, I can see why Johan added it...

 

[Sute]{h]

Svealand <-> Finland: add: This strait will hopefully pull fighting away from northern Scandinavia, and increase the importance of naval power in the baltic region.

 

[Toio]

HAHA, LOL :rofl:

I told you ALL so:

Its too much trouble with the naval issue, lets make all straits passable..

NEXT SCENARIO/complaint will be

1. My Cavalry cannot push out the enemy from mountainous areas, lets make all areas in the whole of EU2 ,plains.

AND THEN it will be

2. The rivers prevent me from taking over an area because its defensive bonuses are too strong. Lets remove all rivers.

It just too hard to dominate the world, booho.

HIGH COUNCIL - To fix this you need to close all these openings and make a statement.

I suggest

[B]1. ALL STRAITS TO BE UNPASSABLE[/B]

regardless of past opinions, leave one door open and you will be unable to prevent the above happening.

Make all facets of the game playable. Say to them, want that island, build a navy.

And I do change my views on the one I wavered on and that is the Sicily to Italian Mainland strait.

After thinking about this strait (sicily one) , I think it will lead to a better game. imagine Naples and the Papal states lasting longer. food for thought.

 

[Sute]{h]

This isn't a matter of removing barriers to world domination. Which can by the way already be achieved. No this is a matter of removing boring and tedious micromanagement where none is needed. That being said a strait should only appear if an easy crossing is possible OR that including the strait in question will improve the historical preformance in the region generally.

Taken your Sicilian example. A strait might not be realitic, but on the other hand not including in hurts to preformance of Naples. So were they really such pushovers, or is it better to include a strait? IMHO if a strait makes for a better outcome on average it should be included.

 

[Toio]

This isn't a matter of removing barriers to world domination. Which can by the way already be achieved. No this is a matter of removing boring and tedious micromanagement where none is needed. That being said a strait should only appear if an easy crossing is possible OR that including the strait in question will improve the historical preformance in the region generally.

Taken your Sicilian example. A strait might not be realitic, but on the other hand not including in hurts to preformance of Naples. So were they really such pushovers, or is it better to include a strait? IMHO if a strait makes for a better outcome on average it should be included.

For clarity, are you saying easier for Naples or Aragon.

a passable strait favours Aragon and not Naples.

Does "boring" mean to you, that you not like to build fleets ???

I have a friend, that only likes using Cavalry. Shall we help him out to dominate the world. Or do we do it historically and get people to grind out a WIn, use your brains , manage your funds, control your revolts etc etc etc,

Hope you are not the kind of person, that if something goes wrong in the year you are playing oyu RELOAD the saved game..They are wimps and spoon fed players who do NOT like A challenge.

 

[Sute]{h]

No boring means when I have a fleet of around 50 warships that I'm trying to load with troops. Then the AI comes around with 5 ships preventing the loading. Now the defeated AI fleet starts continually assaulting the 50 warships until they finally a couple of years later are annihilated. Thus preventing loading of troops for two years with 5 ships. Had there been a strait my ship would have guarded the seazone in question and the troops would have passed.

I'm actually in favor of increasing naval importance, by cutting of land access to Finland from Sweden for example. Leaving only a strait. That would make Sweden more dependent on a navy to defend Finland. See the Scandinavian Map thread for more on this...

However I don't think straits equals loss of naval importance. It very much depends on how you use straits. Also my suggest strait between Svealand and Finland actually makes Sweden more dependent of naval power, if they want to stop Russian invasions of their mainland.

 

[Sute]{h]

I have a friend, that only likes using Cavalry. Shall we help him out to dominate the world. Or do we do it historically and get people to grind out a WIn, use your brains , manage your funds, control your revolts etc etc etc,

I don't mind advanced gameplay. Actually I love it. I do hate click-fest games though, and playing a game of catch-the-rebels isn't fun IMHO. I like that Johan toned down the number of revolts and increased the strength of the rebels insted. It made the gameplay better... less micromanagement is good.

Ohh... and if your friend enjoy doing World Conquests then let him. Your way of playing the game isn't the only one. Personally I focus on historical gaming myself, rarely expanding much beyond my core provinces.

If you play MP a strait will actually make naval power even more important. Since a human player is better at defending it with ships, than an AI.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I think Svealand-Finland could be worth a try. The straight to Corfu also makes good sense. What I don't like is the Gibraltar straight: I have seen more wars across that straight, often Morroco declaring war on Granada. Spain can get manpower across it, which is the biggest problem of them all. I think the arguements for not including the Messina straight are rather convinceing.

 

[chegitz guevara]

Wow
Having been to corfu I got to say that's got to have been one big pontoon bridge

It wasn't the first big pontoon bridge. Remember the Ottomans had massive amounts of manpower. Other huge pontoon include one built across the bay of Naples by Caligula, Darius' pontoon across the Dardenelles, and a pontoon built across the Yellow River by one of the Three Kingdoms. All of these were easily longer than building a bridge to Corfu.

I'll see if I can't track down the source. It was during Beyezit II's assult on the island.

 

[Toio]

I don't mind advanced gameplay. Actually I love it. I do hate click-fest games though, and playing a game of catch-the-rebels isn't fun IMHO. I like that Johan toned down the number of revolts and increased the strength of the rebels insted. It made the gameplay better... less micromanagement is good.

Ohh... and if your friend enjoy doing World Conquests then let him. Your way of playing the game isn't the only one. Personally I focus on historical gaming myself, rarely expanding much beyond my core provinces.

If you play MP a strait will actually make naval power even more important. Since a human player is better at defending it with ships, than an AI.

I like the micromanaging, the naval, trade ,different terrain types. Basically all the game.
I know I will never dominate the world in the system I play. But I like the game for its historical aspects. I do not like to see someone getting a free ride. The straits issue is good if you can deny it to human players. Human players do not like to grind out a win. Eg I like towin Like everybody else, but I like to win by 1 point. My friend likes to win by 100 points, he wants NO hassles as he marches through lands, he wants no thinking all on auto.

Your last comment is what people do not want the AI to do. But I agree with u on the last para

 

[Toio]

It wasn't the first big pontoon bridge. Remember the Ottomans had massive amounts of manpower. Other huge pontoon include one built across the bay of Naples by Caligula, Darius' pontoon across the Dardenelles, and a pontoon built across the Yellow River by one of the Three Kingdoms. All of these were easily longer than building a bridge to Corfu.

I'll see if I can't track down the source. It was during Beyezit II's assult on the island.

The only pontoon I have found was the one for the Negoponte campaign.

Please supply a reference.

regards

 

[Sute]{h]

Your last comment is what people do not want the AI to do. But I agree with u on the last para

I don't have a problem the AI using ships to defend themselves. I do have a problem with the AI or a human player using a vastly inferior fleet to prevent me from loading soldiers. That is nowhere near historical or realistic.

 

[unmerged(29041)]

Most late straits have been added by Johan to cater the MP crowd. England-France, Granada-Morocco, these and other straits add nothing historically for the AI nations involved, and a lot for human players involved. They should all go. The Aegean straits are there to help the Ottos, since they recruit most of their armies in Anatolia. If you take out the Smyrna-Macedonia strait and they lose passage through Byzantium they are screwed in Europe. The proposed Corfu strait will make the loss of Corfu by Venice a fact in every game, while it did not happened in history, pontoon or not pontoon.

The human player should get his act together and plan a decent landing or otherwise keep out of it. The straits should benefit historic behavior by AI nations, and not represent geographic distance, or sea deapth, or continental platforms, or sand banks or that many other things not related with a good EU2 game.

 

[unmerged(11496)]

I don't have a problem the AI using ships to defend themselves. I do have a problem with the AI or a human player using a vastly inferior fleet to prevent me from loading soldiers. That is nowhere near historical or realistic.

Uhhh...modern amphibious landings are notoriously easy to disrupt if you can get a fox in among the chickens, I would think more primative ones would be even more so.

Besides, you already know the answer: Have fleets cover your adjacent sea zones. 'Round these parts we like to call that "strategy."

Don't like having to work for it? Go play Risk

 

[chegitz guevara]

Albania <-> Corfu:

This should be Hellas <-> Corfu, not Albania.