• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #24 - Navies and Admirals


16_9 (5).jpg

Happy Thursday and welcome back to our series of development diaries on warfare in Victoria 3! Today we talk about navies, and how we intend to make them as strategically important to winning wars as they were in history. This diary builds on the warfare vision presented in The Concept of War and many of the core mechanics presented in Fronts and Generals, so ensure those are fresh in your mind before reading on!

Your ability to sustain an empire depends, to a large extent, on how well you can compete on the high seas. This is the era of truly global trade, which also meant countries were highly susceptible to disruption of that trade - and the higher they climb, the harder they may fall. In Victoria 3, maintaining a powerful blue-water navy is a large but necessary expense if you wish to ensure the integrity of your markets, overseas colonies, and trade routes during war. And even while at peace, a magnificent fleet can provide your nation with substantial Prestige!

Our design intent for naval gameplay in Victoria 3 is that it should serve as a strategic precision instrument in conflicts between seafaring nations. The sea is not another “front” in a war. The province-based moving Front system works well to represent conflicts over territory but would be nonsensical at sea, where no nation can be said to meaningfully “control” an enormous stretch of ocean. Instead, Admirals and their Flotillas are deployed to meet specific strategic objectives to disrupt the enemy’s military operations or economy, or defend against such attempts by the enemy. A powerful navy can never win you the war on its own, but if deployed correctly under the right circumstances it can be the “ace in the hole” that lets you outsmart even a foe that’s superior on paper.

A clipper departing Luanda in the Portuguese colonial state of North Angola, representing the colony’s connection to the Market Capital in Lisbon.
dd24-1.jpg

As with land warfare and Generals, you control your navy through your Admirals. Generals and Admirals share many similarities. Both are provided with military resources originating from buildings in the Strategic Region they call home. The amount of resources they get depend on their Rank, which you can grant via promotions to reward your favorite commanders. Their Rank also lends Political Strength / Clout to the character’s favored Interest Group. Furthermore, both Generals and Admirals get Traits that affect both themselves and those Officers and Servicemen serving underneath them.

Most importantly, just like Generals are your interface to command your armies, Admirals are the interface to your navies. Admirals are given Orders, which they attempt to carry out to the best of their ability using the Flotillas they have been assigned. These Orders consist of:

Intercept any hostile navies around a certain Strategic Region’s friendly coastlines while keeping your fleets stationed close to shore
Patrol any shipping lanes between the Admiral’s home region and a remote region, intercepting any hostile navies encountered
Convoy Raid at a particular point at sea to damage enemy shipping lanes
Naval Invasion to establish a beachhead and a frontline on enemy soil, by escorting and protecting a General’s land forces in a joint operation

While it has not yet made its way into the game, we also want to add a fifth Order - Blockade - to disable enemy ports and prevent hostile forces from crossing straits.

An artistic mockup of an Admiral in the Navy panel. Admiral Ruiz and his 10 Flotillas are currently on Interception duty in the Iberia HQ, ensuring no Naval Invasions or Blockades endanger the Spanish home front.
dd24-2.jpg

Convoy Raid and Naval Invasion are aggressive orders intended to hurt the enemy in different ways, while Intercept and Patrol are defensive orders that counter the other two. But to really understand how these work we have to start by talking about Shipping Lanes and the Supply Network.

Shipping Lanes are facilitated by vessels called Convoys, which are an output of Port buildings. These are created automatically whenever it’s necessary to move goods and/or people overseas. The three main reasons this happens are due to naval Trade Routes between non-adjacent markets, remote States connecting to their Market through a Port, and Battalions sent to frontlines that can only be supplied by ship. When a player is about to take an action that establishes such a shipping lane they are warned of how many new Convoys would be required for this action, which is based on the size of the route or the army supplied.

Shipping Lanes are always established via the shortest possible path, as defined by the number of nodes in the naval network it passes through.

A zoomed-out view of the North Angolan shoreline above, showing the main route ships travel off the coast of southwest Africa. The yellow pin indicates this path is part of Portugal’s Supply Network.
dd24-3.jpg

The sum total of a country’s Shipping Lanes determine the extent of its Supply Network, and the total cost in Convoys of that network compared to the Convoy output by Ports determine the overall strength of that network. That is to say, if the total Shipping Lane cost is 500 Convoys but Ports provide only 400, the Supply Network as a whole will operate at only 80% efficiency. This impacts all Shipping Lanes, causing less trade to flow between the markets than would be optimal and impacting the supply and morale of overseas troops.

Admirals assigned to Convoy Raid a given sea node will surreptitiously try to sink any enemy transports that pass through. In effect this will do damage over time to the affected Shipping Lanes, causing both an overall drop in efficiency of the affected countries’ Supply Networks but also a larger, local drop in efficiency of the damaged Shipping Lanes. As a result, by parking your fleet in a highly trafficked part of the ocean you could do a lot of damage to your enemy’s trade or even directly impact the amount of military supplies they’re able to send to their frontlines.

A very visually un-polished view of part of Portugal’s supply network, stretching from the Azores around the African continent all the way to Portuguese Bombay. In the lower-right corner we see an additional tendril going east, which is a trade route importing Porcelain from China.
dd24-4.jpg

Admirals assigned to Patrol a certain stretch of their Supply Network will eventually be able to detect and engage the raiding navy, causing a naval battle to ensue which will not only sink ships but also send the losing side back to base for repairs for some time. Admirals assigned to Intercept all nodes along a coastline are able to do the same to any raiders along the coast. Convoy Raiding right outside a major entry/exit port, such as in the English Channel, therefore has the chance to seriously disrupt a large number of shipping lanes but also put you at greater risk of detection and interception than if you’re raiding transatlantic shipping lanes on the deep seas. The composition of your navy can also greatly impact how this plays out: a fleet with an accompaniment of Submarines can deal more damage before being intercepted, while a fleet of Monitors has an easier time intercepting raiders but may be more easily sunk if faced down by a more powerful navy.

Because the distance Admirals must patrol plays a difference, there is an inherent asymmetry to Convoy Raiding and Patrol orders. Since a chain is only as strong as its weakest link the damage done to a shipping lane by raiders is the same whether it stretches across 1 node or 10, whereas 10x as many Flotillas are needed to protect the longer route as effectively as the shorter.

Extremely unfinished breakdown of what is currently happening in the Macaronesian Sea. Look at all those juicy raiding targets!
dd24-5.jpg

Naval Invasion is an Order you give to provide naval support for a General’s landing on an enemy coastline. The size of the fleet determines two things: one, how great is the chance that you’ll be able to defeat an opponent’s intercepting fleet, and two, how many Battalions will you be able to successfully land. Even if the enemy has no defensive fleet at all, a naval invasion with a very small fleet might land too weak of an initial force to withstand the enemy’s counter-offense before the rest of the army can arrive. Since Naval Invasion is a one-time Order, once it has been completed it automatically turns into a Patrol Order to protect the shipping lane supplying the new Front.

Concept art of early Ship-of-the-Line and late-game Dreadnought class vessels
dd24-6.jpg

Navies are made up of Flotillas, which are constructed and maintained by Naval Bases. Naturally these can only be built on coastlines, where they consume military vessels such as Man-o-Wars or Ironclads constructed in Shipyards. Like Barracks they also employ Servicemen and Officers Pop, and depending on your navy configuration may need to consume other military goods as well (such as Ammunition and Radios) in order to keep in fighting condition. Flotillas differ from Battalions in how long it takes to create and upgrade them; constructing a competitive navy is not something you can begin considering when your rival has already started saber-rattling.

Another difference between Battalions and Flotillas is that your country’s navy is always considered to be in fully active service. In peacetime Generals can keep their troops on low alert, limiting their consumption and expenses. Once war breaks out, Generals can be selectively mobilized to only deploy the troops necessary. Admirals on the other hand have exorbitant needs and expenses even while at peace, so sizing and tech’ing your navy appropriately is an important consideration for imperialists on a tight budget.

On the other hand, navies provide you with considerable Power Projection which confers substantial Prestige onto your country. Having a world-class navy is not strictly a requirement to be a Great Power, particularly if you’re a large self-sustaining terrestrial empire, but it definitely helps you both gain and hold onto the title.

Artistic mockup of the Navy panel with Flotillas expanded. Admiral Alvarez de Toledo commands 20 Flotillas of Man-o-Wars on a Patrol mission to secure an important Spanish shipping lane.
dd24-7.jpg

Before we wrap up for this week, I want to say a few words about the lack of an order to just “seek out and destroy enemy forces”. In Victoria 3, your commanders - Generals as well as Admirals - are given strategic objectives which they use their manpower and resources to carry out as best they can. If in the process they get into conflict with the enemy’s forces (as they almost certainly will at some point) a battle will ensue. The outcome of that battle determines which direction the war proceeds in. The intent of this is to remove the need to babysit your commanders.

To illustrate this, assume we did have an order to seek and destroy. The optimal choice would then be to assign this order only to the strongest commander, fight the eventual battle, then revoke this order and give it to another commander while the first one recuperates, and so on.

With an order like “advance front” instead, the General’s intention is simply to capture territory as efficiently as possible, ideally while avoiding enemy interference. If it’s impossible to avoid the enemy, the imperative is to try to be intercepted by as weak of an enemy force as possible. Meanwhile the intent behind “defend front” is the opposite: prevent enemy incursions by defending it in the places where the enemy might advance, bringing to bear as powerful a force as possible. Similarly at sea, “convoy raiding” is about maximizing shipping lane damage while avoiding detection, while “patrol” is about minimizing damage to convoys by seeking out and destroying those enemy ships attacking them - not to sink ships for its own sake.

Depending on how the war is developing your priorities or overall strategy might certainly shift, causing you to change the orders you’ve assigned or make changes in your ranks to distribute resources differently. But our design intent is that this should only be necessary because your strategy is evolving, not to counter enemy movements or try to minmax your way to victory.

This is an especially important consideration for the naval part of the warfare mechanics. Naval (and aerial) warfare in strategy games commonly face the design challenge of extreme mobility options due to the lack of obstacles to movement. Usually some form of Fog of War and interception-radius mechanics is employed to counteract turtling behavior. The AI also often has to be forced to make mistakes to not become too good at dodging or intercepting the player in this environment. Even with Victoria 3’s more strategic-level decision making, the freedom of “movement” the sea provides would make a system where being in/avoiding being in the same location as the enemy so as to start/not start a battle extremely micro-heavy, annoying, and highly unfair to either human or AI players depending on implementation.

So instead, in Victoria 3, you tell your Admirals what their overall priorities should be for the war and then they try to do that, using the resources they’ve been allocated, only coming into conflict when they become aware of an enemy Admiral with an order that clashes with their own.

I hope that gives you a good idea of what to expect from the naval mechanics in Victoria 3. Next week we will wrap up this first batch of diaries on the military system by going through the many economic impacts of warfare in Victoria 3. Until then!
 
Last edited:
  • 227Like
  • 79Love
  • 30
  • 21
  • 13
Reactions:
GREAT DD.

Huh. To be honest it is the naval system I've liked the most in any PDX game insofar. Even in it's abstraction it manages to capture very well what naval strategic considerations are supposed to be.

Funny how, it its skelleton, it is basically the same system we have for land warfare, and there it caused so much insatisfaction.

As a bonus I feel I know a bit more about other mechanics as well. I knew there would be trade deals; what I didn't know was that there would be specific deals for specific goods, and they have their own sea lanes, which can be intercepted no less!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
GREAT DD.

Huh. To be honest it is the naval system I've liked the most in any PDX game insofar. Even in it's abstraction it manages to capture very well what naval strategic considerations are supposed to be.

Funny how, it its skelleton, it is basically the same system we have for land warfare, and there it caused so much insatisfaction.

As a bonus I feel I know a bit more about other mechanics as well. I knew there would be trade deals; what I didn't know was that there would be specific deals for specific goods, and they have their own sea lanes, which can be intercepted no less!
Except, trading nodes, doing the comparison to land warfare means that the naval warfare actually has split "fronts" or strategic areas and we tell the Admirals which nodes or routes we want protected/harassed (and how nodes are connected should mean that a disruption in one part of the route affects both ways). Meanwhile, for generals, all we have is. ATTACK, ATTACK AND ATTACK SOME MORE and defend...
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Except, trading nodes, doing the comparison to land warfare means that the naval warfare actually has split "fronts" or strategic areas and we tell the Admirals which nodes or routes we want protected/harassed (and how nodes are connected should mean that a disruption in one part of the route affects both ways). Meanwhile, for generals, all we have is. ATTACK, ATTACK AND ATTACK SOME MORE and defend...

Yeah that is kinda what I meant, the same basic skelketin works well "wet". Dry, not so much. Is it possible the system was first created for the sea then exported for the land, where it doesnt quite belong?
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah that is kinda what I meant, the same basic skelketin works well "wet". Dry, not so much. Is it possible the system was first created for the sea then exported for the land, where it doesnt quite belong?
The system will also work on dry land. If only a few changes are made:
- Delayed and limited relocation along the front
- Delayed and limited change in strategic objectives.

Yes, it would mean a little more micro. But it has to be. At sea I have no changing fronts. On dry land, it makes a huge difference whether I want to prepare an offensive in Galicia or in the direction of Riga.

I just need these two changes.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
GREAT DD.

Huh. To be honest it is the naval system I've liked the most in any PDX game insofar. Even in it's abstraction it manages to capture very well what naval strategic considerations are supposed to be.

Funny how, it its skelleton, it is basically the same system we have for land warfare, and there it caused so much insatisfaction.

As a bonus I feel I know a bit more about other mechanics as well. I knew there would be trade deals; what I didn't know was that there would be specific deals for specific goods, and they have their own sea lanes, which can be intercepted no less!
The difference is that with the naval system you have control over where your navies go and there is what I would consider to be the minimal amount of granularity in orders, whereas with army warfare (as described), you have little to no control over where your armies go (they just go to automatically generated fronts, which could span an entire continent, with no control over where along that front they are), and there is no granularity in orders, effectively just stop and go.

I did notice though that the basic structure of both systems are extremely similar, but the execution for naval warfare seems significantly better than for army warfare. That gives me hope that things can be relatively easily improved.

EDIT: Also, personally, I think there needs to be more player input in the naval system as it stands. Not being able to prioritize what shipping lanes your convoys go to and not being able to manually adjust shipping lanes to avoid potentially hazardous waters seem like easily correctable omissions. There's a lot of time for them to fine tune and adjust, though, so I'm not overly worried.
 
  • 13
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah that is kinda what I meant, the same basic skelketin works well "wet". Dry, not so much. Is it possible the system was first created for the sea then exported for the land, where it doesnt quite belong?
I think they're just going overboard with the hands-off nature of the system for land warfare. There's not much direct player control over naval warfare, but what there is is significantly more than for land warfare.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
EDIT: Also, personally, I think there needs to be more player input in the naval system as it stands. Not being able to prioritize what shipping lanes your convoys go to and not being able to manually adjust shipping lanes to avoid potentially hazardous waters seem like easily correctable omissions. There's a lot of time for them to fine tune and adjust, though, so I'm not overly worried.
I’m reminded of the British in WWII redirecting their convoys around the tip of Africa to avoid the Mediterranean during WWII.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The difference is that with the naval system you have control over where your navies go and there is what I would consider to be the minimal amount of granularity in orders, whereas with army warfare (as described), you have little to no control over where your armies go (they just go to automatically generated fronts, which could span an entire continent, with no control over where along that front they are), and there is no granularity in orders, effectively just stop and go.

I did notice though that the basic structure of both systems are extremely similar, but the execution for naval warfare seems significantly better than for army warfare. That gives me hope that things can be relatively easily improved.

EDIT: Also, personally, I think there needs to be more player input in the naval system as it stands. Not being able to prioritize what shipping lanes your convoys go to and not being able to manually adjust shipping lanes to avoid potentially hazardous waters seem like easily correctable omissions. There's a lot of time for them to fine tune and adjust, though, so I'm not overly worried.

I think they're just going overboard with the hands-off nature of the system for land warfare. There's not much direct player control over naval warfare, but what there is is significantly more than for land warfare.

You are both right and I niticed that too; for two systems that seem to be "twins", the naval sibling feels a bit more involved - a step in the right direction. Only the more radical types are claiming the land system "sucks", it only needs to get a boost on the possible interactions. This DD shows me it is possible.

Don't know about everyone else but this DD made me glad, not only for itself but for the light it projects in the last one. It feels that the land system is close to being good, maybe even "very good", and if it isn't quite there yet, it may get there easily.

Heck, there may even be more to it that we are being shown.
 
  • 8Like
Reactions:
I really think there has to be an option to do battle. Have your big battle fleet waiting in port and if another enemy fleet is spotted by your units with Patrol orders you should have to make the decision on whether or not to send your fleet out to do battle. Naval battles have always had the tendency to be much more decisive than land battles (capital ships lost during wartime are extremely hard to replace), and there needs to be some way to influence a decisive battle, which is the navy’s big goal in almost every war.

I don’t know much pre-WWI naval history, but only being able to tell dreadnoughts to raid is silly: that’s not what they were designed to do. I’m really happy with the direction land combat is going but this seems to be a huge step backwards.

I mean just think about battles like Jutland and Tsushima. It’s not like they were raiding shipping lanes and happened upon the enemy. In the case of Tsushima Russia sailed across the world for the sole purpose of doing battle with Japan (well, break the blockade of Port Arthur, but this was the be achieved by battle). They didn’t sail thousands of miles to raid convoys.
 
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
You are both right and I niticed that too; for two systems that seem to be "twins", the naval sibling feels a bit more involved - a step in the right direction. Only the more radical types are claiming the land system "sucks", it only needs to get a boost on the possible interactions. This DD shows me it is possible.

Don't know about everyone else but this DD made me glad, not only for itself but for the light it projects in the last one. It feels that the land system is close to being good, maybe even "very good", and if it isn't quite there yet, it may get there easily.

Heck, there may even be more to it that we are being shown.
For me the land system is a HUGE turn off to a game I was otherwise very excited about. I think the general concepts, their pillars, have a lot of potential, and I love that they're being innovative rather than recycling a new version of the same old system, but the land system as it stands looks terrible to me. That being said, I think the basic framework has some potential, and this DD confirmed that to me. I'm hoping it just comes down to fine tuning and adjusting the level of player input/computer automation involved, rather than just throwing it out wholesale, which I'm sure some people would prefer haha. I'd hate to see all those good ideas and development hours go to waste.
 
  • 11Like
  • 5
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD Iachek, and the extra info from you and Wizzington :) It looks like a huge step up from things naval in Vicky 2, and in many ways you've done well. I'm looking forward to playing it, and I'm sure it'll be fun.

But, and I'm not trying to be mean (naval stuff is inherently more complex than land stuff, less well-known more broadly, and often not always well covered in print at all, and pre-WW1 very patchy on the internet) - all of the below is intended as constructive criticism - it's quite clear that you could be more familiar with naval developments during the period, and I'd strongly suggest some changes both to flavour elements and, where possible, the actual gameplay mechanics. This might be a couple of posts, as there's a bit to go through. You shouldn't feel bad - many people posting in this thread seem quite unfamiliar with Victorian-era naval operations/technology/combat as well - and the game you've set up looks perfectly functional and fun :). Bear in mind that naval stuff is deep - I've read over a hundred books on naval history, and I'd consider myself very much a novice, to give some indication of how much there is to it.

In no particular order.

Their Orders do not conflict, so no battle will transpire. Similarly, if all Generals on a Front are set to Defend that Front, no battles will break out. This is totally legit, since either side might be choosing these Orders because they know they have the inferior force and just want to ensure they do as much damage as possible without risking their men in an attack.

This is fair, but a bit unintuitive (generally speaking if opposing warships sighted each other at sea, the stronger side would attempt an engagement) - I'd suggest making it clear in the tooltip that convoy raiding is telling admirals to not engage with the enemy.

A powerful navy can never win you the war on its own

While this is the case against a continental power, it should absolutely be possible for an island nation, or even a continental nation that's heavily dependent on imports, to be brought to the negotiating table and surrender through economic warfare carried out by fleets. The only think that came close to pushing Britain to surrender in WW1 was the u-boat offensive - and had it not been countered, there is no small chance Britain would have surrendered. Similarly, a continental nation that is cut-off from trade (for whatever reason) and can't feed itself should be able to brought to surrender through trade warfare alone. Germany being unable to force Britain to surrender through blockade, and requiring invasion, is mechanically historically implausible (assuming reasonable surrender terms, which goes for all situations here).

I'd strongly, strongly suggest it being possible in some extreme circumstances (heavy market disruption) for nations to be brought to surrender through economic warfare alone (which in the case of islands and many nations would be naval warfare).

While it has not yet made its way into the game, we also want to add a fifth Order - Blockade - to disable enemy ports and prevent hostile forces from crossing straits.

This is hugely important - it was the number one offensive strategic impact of a navy. It's capacity to impact damage, of course, depended on the importance of waterborne and coastal trade to the nation being blockaded.

Two things here - blockade prior to the mine (a bit) submarine and aircraft (a lot) is very different to blockade after it. Close blockade more-or-less makes it very hard for ships to leave ports or conduct coastal trade. Prior to the invention of the mine, submarine and aircraft, close-blockades could shut a fleet down in port, preventing them from carrying out their mission without engaging the blockading force. After the invention of the mine, submarine and aircraft, it was too risky to close in-shore, enabling coastal trade and enemy fleets to sortie. Coastal trade (if eventually included in the game) should be enabled (with convoy raiding by flotillas allowed to intercept it) but the trade lanes should be cut off.

Whether it makes sense as two orders or one (I'd suggest two orders, to let players try close-blockading in submarine and mine-infested waters - as Japan found out to its deteriment, losing two capital ships in a day during the Russo-Japanese War) that's a question for the design team in the context of how it all works.

Bear in mind that blockades need lots of ships to be effective, and are never 100% effective (there's always some leakage - don't forget there's no radar (more or less) in the Vicky period, and intercepting ships in bad weather or at night is difficult to say the least).


“and Battalions sent to frontlines that can only be supplied by ship”

This is good and bad :) Great that overseas supply is important :) Bad that overseas supply only matters when it's the only option. During the timeframe (and for long after, including to this day in less-developed areas) waterborne supply is more efficient, high-capacity and often quicker (at least in the Vicky time period) than overland supply. I appreciate if this might be a design challenge too far, particularly for launch, but it's worth keeping in mind, as not reflecting the cost and inefficiency of overland supply in the game will lead to distortions of the strategic mechanics when compared with historical developments.

Shipping Lanes are facilitated by vessels called Convoys, which are an output of Port buildings.

Also, as per your other responses, convoys don't exist per se, they're a 'point-in-time-capacity'. This is hugely problematic in the context of commerce warfare. During WW1 (for the easiest and best-known, but hardly the only) example, Germany wasn't trying to completely intercept everything coming to Britain (they couldn't, probably even if they had destroyed the Grand Fleet and implemented a close blockade). They were trying to sink more ships than the British and Americans could build such that the strength of the supply chain to Britain wasn't enough to bring in the required food and industrial supplies. What was most important wasn't the sinking of the cargo, nor the temporary disruption of the supply chain - it was the sinking of the ships bringing the cargo in. Like warships (but less so), cargo ships take serious time and effort to build - representing them as magically appearing on-demand completely warps the strategic nature of the "tonnage war" that takes place during a prolonged conflict that involves naval economic warfare.

The main aim of a trade war isn't the sinking of cargo, but the preventing of cargo from arriving - this is often best achieved by the sinking of ships such that there's nothing left to carry the cargo.

It may be possible to still achieve this effect through the systems you have in place (but not having them as a stock inherently makes the situation less intuitive and harder to understand for players, and creates greater economic and UX challenges if you're looking to have historically-similar strategic naval challenges) but there needs to be a long delay in the replacing of convoy stock that is directly proportionate to the industrial capacity of ports to create new ships - which should take resources and workers to do so. The use of labour resources should increase the more new ships are required (finding wood or steel for new cargo ships during wartime isn't always a trivial exercise, and it absolutely should not magically appear out of nowhere), and then settle down when it isn't.

Also - best to call them trade ships, merchant ships, cargo ships or similar. Convoys (generally) didn't exist in peacetime (nor always in wartime, nor at all times in wartime), and it looks pretty odd having "convoys" in a peacetime maritime trade network. I'd suggest "merchant ship(s)" when referring to them individually, and "merchant fleet" for the collective.

Shipping Lanes are always established via the shortest possible path, as defined by the number of nodes in the naval network it passes through.

I'm sure others will have raised this, but while it's super-important to avoid the design challenge you've noted of players and AI 'bouncing around' between sea zones, it's also important to avoid the situation where a nation's trade lanes have to travel right out the front of an enemies' major naval bases. As I read it, Germany's trade from America in WW2 would be going through the English Channel - making it ridiculously easy for the British or French to intercept. I'd strongly suggest at least some kind of automatic rule where trade lanes do not pass within a certain distance of enemy ports unless absolutely impossible to do otherwise, to prevent some historically implausible trade-lane seal-clubbing by the stronger naval nation, to the frustration of the weaker naval nation.
 
Last edited:
  • 18Like
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
You mentioned adding navel blocking into the game, which sounds like a great mechanic that reflects important events of the time. As much as it was less impact full in the era are you considering adding navel bombardment into the game?
 
Actually - probably more than two posts - I'm very sorry - it's all intended to help, please ignore any that isn't and all that :)

a fleet with an accompaniment of Submarines can deal more damage before being intercepted, while a fleet of Monitors has an easier time intercepting raiders but may be more easily sunk if faced down by a more powerful navy.

I would strongly, strongly suggest not allowing combined submarine/surface fleets. The communications and speed differences of the ships of the day more-or-less didn't allow it. Plus, having submarines near the fleet doesn't make those coal-burning dreadnoughts any less visible! Submarines also travelled far more slowly than surface ships, and often had less range (particularly early on - most early submarines weren't good for much beyond coast defence - ie patrol or intercept off a friendly coast).

On this note, one of the issues with HoI4's naval search routine is the naval search capacity is the average of the ships in the fleet. This is wildly implausible - the more ships, the easier it is to cover a lot of sea area. Similarly, a fleets 'visibility' shouldn't be an average. Adding subs to a fleet shouldn't add much to its visibility but a submarine does not magically make another ship disappear. I'm not suggesting this is what you're planning, but given the HoI4 implementation wanted to mention it as early as possible.

Also - monitors should never, ever be intercepting raiders. Monitors were slow, low-freeboard ships that generally weren't fit for blue-water operations - if they survived the journey to sea (which is by no means guaranteed - there was no small risk of foundering at sea in bad weather) they were too slow to catch anything. I cannot emphasise the importance of changing the name of whatever you call your "raider intercepters" to something other than monitors. I'd suggest "cruisers" as the simplest option - it covers cruising ships of sail (frigates, sloops), wooden with steam (paddle and screw frigates and sloops that are still wooden and use significant amounts of sail power) all the way up to the cruisers of the 1920s and 1930s. The cruisers themselves can have different names as tech rolls on (ie "sail frigates, paddle frigates, screw frigates, iron screw sloops*, protected cruisers, armoured cruisers, etc.) but please, for the love of all that is maritime, don't call them monitors :)

* Because it only had one gun deck, Warrior was technically a frigate, although it was also the most powerful line-of-battle ship at its time of launch.

late-game Dreadnought class vessels

I'm not trying to sound patronising, or rude - but that's is categorically not a dreadnought (the mixed main battery gives it away) - that's a very nice model of a pre-dreadnought class vessel (with French styling) - a type that started more-or-less with the British Admiral class, and continued to be built until the early 1910s (by the nations that were a bit slow in the shift to dreadnoughts).

“Since Naval Invasion is a one-time Order, once it has been completed it automatically turns into a Patrol Order to protect the shipping lane supplying the new Front.”

This sounds great - great work :) Easy for players and AI, historically plausible and a huge step up from Vicky and an improvement on HoI4.
 
Last edited:
  • 18Like
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Overall, really happy with this. Playing largely as Japan in Vic 2, all of the micro to prevent enemy naval landings was really annoying.

That said, I do really hope the player has options for whether to seek naval engagements or not for the convoy raiding option. A simple "seek engagements y/n" option would be great! Because if you aren't really confident in your fleet's ability to take on the enemy then I absolutely see why no engagement should happen sometimes. But if you have a giant navy and your goal is to try and lure the enemy into a naval engagement (which happens) then why should you be reliant on the enemy raiding your stuff before fighting? It would make sense that if you are trying to seek and destroy the enemy fleet, you hold something over them (such as raiding their supply lines).

It is just really wonky if you don't have some sort of option like that. Of course, the enemy still needs to take the bait. But if you know you have the superior fleet, you should be able to encourage your admirals to engage in these situations.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'd strongly, strongly suggest it being possible in some extreme circumstances (heavy market disruption) for nations to be brought to surrender through economic warfare alone (which in the case of islands and many nations would be naval warfare).
Despite the wording, I think this is technically possible already. We'll know more about the economic impact next week, but the replies in this DD indicate you can inflict major damage to a nation's economy by raiding critical imports/exports. If a nation decides a war is too costly, they'll try to get out of the war, and from DD21 I believe they're forced to surrender the wargoal to do so.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Captain on the bridge! Absolutely loving the sound of warfare in V3, the naval play in particular has me excited. All too often naval power is side-lined, but because of the more strategic view being taken here, that will implicitly improve its station.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Getting there - hopefully no more than one or two posts to go :)

“Another difference between Battalions and Flotillas is that your country’s navy is always considered to be in fully active service.”

While navies tended to have a larger proportion of their total naval capacity "active" than their army, during the period (and after) there were substantial amounts of reserve forces. I would expect you could still accurately model the historical choices you're looking to get to while having this represented in the game (indeed, modelling things historically without representing this in the game would be difficult).

To give an idea of early-game peacetime force levels, for ships of the line in 1838, the data below are nation - ships in commission - ships in reserve ("in ordinary")


Britain - 20 / 58
France - 10 / 10
USA - 2 / 5

Very roughly, I think (but I'd need to check) later-game navies tended to have a higher proportion of "active" to "reserve" ships later on, but even at the start of WW1, both Britain and Germany had to mobilise substantial reserves to fully crew their fleet for war. The USN still had a substantial reserve into at least the 1960s and I think the 1970s (Britain dropped theirs, with the stated reason that it was too vulnerable to nuclear attack, but it's not clear whether this was an excuse for cost-cutting given their financial situation post-WW2).

It should be fairly easy to model this with what you have in-game with whatever mobilisation mechanic you have for armies, and it should still be plenty expensive to maintain a fleet even in peacetime (reserve ships aren't cost-free - they need maintenance and some people), but it shouldn't be easy to be able to have "full navy" all the time, nor make sense of this to be the case.


“Before we wrap up for this week, I want to say a few words about the lack of an order to just “seek out and destroy enemy forces”. In Victoria 3, your commanders - Generals as well as Admirals - are given strategic objectives which they use their manpower and resources to carry out as best they can. If in the process they get into conflict with the enemy’s forces (as they almost certainly will at some point) a battle will ensue. The outcome of that battle determines which direction the war proceeds in. The intent of this is to remove the need to babysit your commanders.”

That's not entirely true - both patrol and intercept task fleets with intercepting and destroying enemy forces. What didn't (and shouldn't) happen is that fleets sortie for no reason other than happening to luck on the enemy. Fleets were always used with a reason - they were going somewhere, intercepting something, raiding something (more on this in the next post) and so on. The Battle of Tsushima was an encounter by one fleet effectively trying to break a blockade. The Battle of Jutland was the interception of a raiding fleet (Germany) by a patrolling fleet, and so on. There are very, very few naval encounters in history that are purely two fleets fighting for the sake of it (I literally can't think of one off the top of my head). So your move here makes a lot of sense. That it needs explaining just goes to show how sea-blind the general population is.

As others have mentioned, though, it may well be worth having HoI4-like "rules of engagement" - to give admirals some idea of how much risk they should take.

Edit: Not done yet - they'll be a naval pic at the end - getting there.....
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions: