Are fleets really worthless?

[unmerged(2128)]

I recently ordered this game, and since I don't have it yet, I thought I'll just ask you guys:

I read this thread: 'fleets are worthless once you have maps' or something similler. Anyway, the thread's author said one can beat the game as England with no fleets. Or be a colonial power without them. When I read that, I was disheartened. Did I just buy a game that describes the age of colonies as one where fleets are useless?
Weren't fleets England's main defense against invasions?
Weren't they the only thing capable of carrying a large number of goods and soldiers from an to the colonies?
Does this game just ignore all that?

If so, I really hope Paradox will release a very major patch to change something in the game's engine, and give the fleets the importence it really had.

 

[Johan]

Fleets are needed to invade and transport troops across the seas.

When you get the blockade technology you can completely cripple an opponents economy in case of war.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Uri
I recently ordered this game, and since I don't have it yet, I thought I'll just ask you guys:

I read this thread: 'fleets are worthless once you have maps' or something similler. Anyway, the thread's author said one can beat the game as England with no fleets. Or be a colonial power without them. When I read that, I was disheartened. Did I just buy a game that describes the age of colonies as one where fleets are useless?
Weren't fleets England's main defense against invasions?
Weren't they the only thing capable of carrying a large number of goods and soldiers from an to the colonies?
Does this game just ignore all that?

If so, I really hope Paradox will release a very major patch to change something in the game's engine, and give the fleets the importence it really had.

The issue is this:

You can mount a colonial effort without a navy. On this I have no problem since settlers didn't use Ryoal Navy ships to sail about. The point the poster was making is this: once you jack a colony up enough that it becomes a city (you have to go through an expensive process of colony building) you can hire armies in the colonies. Once you can do that you do not need to transport armies overseas since they can be home coooked and the game makes no distinction between colonial regulars and European regulars. Since naval blockade is a relatively late technological development you can in fact have a thriving colonial empire without any naval presence.

Fleets are still critical in defense of your shores and in moutning amphisious assaults (although the degree of these assaults is also in question).

 

[grumbold]

I suppose it is technically possible to win with minimal fleets if you get your strategy right, but you leave yourself open to great dangers. Colonists don't need fleet transportation, but protecting or attacking armies do. You could colonise a province up to city size on every continent then use that to raise all troops to be used on that continent. If you plan to conduct any warfare around the islands or blocade ports then naval power is essential. I can understand countries like Poland-Lithuania or Russia being uninterested by naval power but none of the colonial powers can afford it unless they are in a position of total dominance before blocades become possible.

 

[daboese]

Fleets are quite valuable, but mainly later in the game. In case of war, you need them constantly patrolling your shores, but nothing can be more rewarding if you see your ships then sinking transport ships of another nation trying to invade your territory . In the beginning of the game, attrition is a too large factor for ships and they have to get to a harbor too often.

 

[unmerged(1457)]

It would help if a nation got stars for winning naval battles - this doesn't seem to be the case or maybe you currently need to sink 100 ships before you get one.

It just doesn't seem like the effort required to pull off an economic blockade is worth it. For instance, say you want to blockade all of Spain - looks like that's 5 sea areas and 6 port provinces. Just going from memory, those 6 provinces generate ~90d of province taxes per year. Say Spain is making 1200d total per year (is that a good estimate?); a blockade reduces those 90d to 45d or only a 4% effect on the nation's GNP (so from 1200d to 1155d). I've always assumed you need ~6 ships to blockade so that requires 30 ships (maybe you don't need as many). Also, splitting up the ships like this puts them in danger of encountering a large Spanish fleet and being sunk so that's an added risk you have to take into account. If you build the ships for the sole purpose of blockading then you have to deduct the maintenance costs too plus the initial investment.

There ARE military advantages in that if you're sure Spain had no large fleet sailing around you would be able to prevent her from creating one.

Edit: Note that according to what I saw in the in-game help (I could have misread it), blockades reduce Province TAX by 50%, not Province INCOME - there is a significant difference. A reduction in Province TAX by 50% is not a big deal.

 

[Mowers]

Not to worry

If you have followed the other two debates you will see that there are some players who, having mastered the AI, are effectively complaining that it is no longer a challenge, and in particular the naval aspects. There can be no doubt that after a while that the AI fails in this repect but in defence of paradox Eu has some of the best AI I have ever played and it has been a very good investment.

There is a particular post that claims one can win the game without a navy whilst having a colonial empire. This has been proven to be incorrect as once blockaded your income would halve leading to financial ruin.

One can raise troops abroad but only so many and then one still faces the problem of transporting them.

In our experience, navies are crucial if you are to expand overseas and you would be very foolish or would have a very good strategy if you were going to survive long against even the poorest of human opposition.

 

[unmerged(2087)]

Not at all worthless

Last night I was at war with Spain. I was not doing very well in terms of conquests or burning of trade posts etc. (they had burned two of mine and taken two North American Colonies.) Yet I was able to force them to the peace table by blockading all of their home nation ports.

No Ports=No colonial Ducats

 

[unmerged(1104)]

If you wish your colonies to pay for themselves you need to colonial fleet (granted it doesn't have to be huge.)

Otherwise pirates can disrupt trade venues if they 'hangout' in adjcent waters. See - Saint Lawrence and Persian Gulf

 

[corwin]

I think the use of fleets would be greatly upgraded if the ability to raise troops in colonies was significantly reduced.
I'm not a history expert, and even less so concerning this time period, but it strikes me as odd I can raise tens of thousands of troops and massive numbers of cannons (the production of which requires some infrastructure) in a colony in which my presence is limited to a colony of 700 souls. I know this presents only the population of the city itself, but was it normal to recruit (& train) so many natives in that time? I would guess not.
The only examples which spring to (my rather ignorant) mind are the north american colonial militias (are they as effective as regular troops?) and the indian ghurka's (not sure of the pronounciation). No idea if they existed in this time period though.

IMHO it would be better if a general limit were imposed on raising troops outside of Europe. It would have the effect that if you want a genuine army in your colony, you need to transport it there, making fleets essential in a prolonged war.

Corwin

 

[unmerged(598)]

I think that since patch 1.08 a navy is much more important. Not only is it impossible to cut naval research in the hope of running away with land tech, there are key moments when you need to invade other countries, and defend your colonies.

I used to play without building a ship for 200 years, but I've found them vital now, unless playing as a landlocked German or Austrian.

For those who don't use a navy, and think the AI is too easy, try something a little different; restrict yourself to no more than a level 1 fort in colonies, a fleet is vital to get men out there and halt invasions.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

Apart from the issue of transport capacity being too high, which has been discussed at length elsewhere, the only other serious problem I have with the naval model is the fact that once you steal a rutter or trade maps, you can colonize parts of the world that are still closed to your navy. That just doesn't make any sense. I recognize that fundamentally changing this game mechanic may require too much coding, so I'd be satisfied if the percentage of colonization success of these far-flung colonies was reduced until a sea lane is open.

I'm also considering imposing a set of 'house rules' on myself to increase the challenge. (I've been doing that in Red Baron 3D for years.) 'You can't colonize it until you can sail to it' could be one such rule. I'd be interested in hearing others' suggestions on that point.

 

[BiB]

Re: Not to worry

Originally posted by bmoores
If you have followed the other two debates you will see that there are some players who, having mastered the AI, are effectively complaining that it is no longer a challenge, and in particular the naval aspects. There can be no doubt that after a while that the AI fails in this repect but in defence of paradox Eu has some of the best AI I have ever played and it has been a very good investment.

There is a particular post that claims one can win the game without a navy whilst having a colonial empire. This has been proven to be incorrect as once blockaded your income would halve leading to financial ruin.

One can raise troops abroad but only so many and then one still faces the problem of transporting them.

In our experience, navies are crucial if you are to expand overseas and you would be very foolish or would have a very good strategy if you were going to survive long against even the poorest of human opposition.

Just to say that that hasn't been proven. I have in fact won the game with England without a fleet, very easily if I may say so. (I am talking AI here, not human opposition)

Yes, the AI does very well in some respects but when it comes to this, it doesn't work. And not everyone constantly plays MP games ...

Not saying fleets can't be handy but u don't need them ...

Just being pragmatic. If I don't need to invest in naval tech/fleet to win convincingly, why should I ? If in an MP game it looks useful, I will.

 

[unmerged(598)]

Originally posted by Olaf the Unsure
I'm also considering imposing a set of 'house rules' on myself to increase the challenge. (I've been doing that in Red Baron 3D for years.) 'You can't colonize it until you can sail to it' could be one such rule. I'd be interested in hearing others' suggestions on that point.

Olaf, I agree with that, I usualy don't colonize until I have soldiers in the province. Not only for realism, but also because wasting the one measly settler some countries get per year to native attack is too risky.

I wouldn't mind seeing stolen maps removed from the game. It only takes one lucky sea battle with Spain, or sacking defenseless Tago to render your next 200 years of explorers worthless.

Maybe the known world should expand gradually to simulate the eventual 'leakege' of sea routes, and knowledge that would spread through Europe via trading.

You bring up another subject for debate, early colonization. While I have nothing against nations trying to settle India in 1540, maybe it should be harder to erect those colonies earlier in the game. The success % could be reduced to the point of making attempts worthless, with that % rising each year in the game until it reaches the current levels.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

Originally posted by sean9898
You bring up another subject for debate, early colonization. While I have nothing against nations trying to settle India in 1540, maybe it should be harder to erect those colonies earlier in the game. The success % could be reduced to the point of making attempts worthless, with that % rising each year in the game until it reaches the current levels.

I suggested in another thread that the success percentage for colonization ought to be affected by the presence of a friendly fleet in the adjacent sea zone or an adjecent friendly port. Their absence should be a serious negative factor. This is consistent with the existing game mechanic (and thus perhaps easier to code?). The game already models an advantage if an exlporer is present; just extend it to any fleet so that attempts later in the game run a greater risk if no fleet is present. This would reward naval development in a more realistic way.

 

[unmerged(1548)]

Originally posted by Johan

When you get the blockade technology you can completely cripple an opponents economy in case of war.

Well, just exactly what are the effects of a blockade that are so crippling? What are the game mechanics here?

 

[Mowers]

Re: Re: Not to worry

Originally posted by BiB


Just to say that that hasn't been proven. I have in fact won the game with England without a fleet, very easily if I may say so. (I am talking AI here, not human opposition)

Yes, the AI does very well in some respects but when it comes to this, it doesn't work. And not everyone constantly plays MP games ...

Not saying fleets can't be handy but u don't need them ...

Just being pragmatic. If I don't need to invest in naval tech/fleet to win convincingly, why should I ? If in an MP game it looks useful, I will.

BiB, I totally agree with you about the AI. But repeating that you can beat it doesn't really bring the debate along much- I think we have got your point.

Pragmatically, you are making perfect sense and all I am saying is that in an MP game they make lots of strategic sense if you want your colonial empire to last more than 10 years. And I'm happy to accept your experience that you have got by without them against the AI.

The real debate is this- What effect does blockading have. We have 2 answers- One of 2-5% decrease and one of 50% decrease. Both seem incorrect, I would have thought that in the economy of the time it would be about 25% leading up to 50% over time. Does anyone actually know the real answer? I know the boardgame but don't have the programming experience to 'go in' and have a look.

 

[BiB]

Re: Re: Re: Not to worry

Originally posted by bmoores


BiB, I totally agree with you about the AI. But repeating that you can beat it doesn't really bring the debate along much- I think we have got your point.

Pragmatically, you are making perfect sense and all I am saying is that in an MP game they make lots of strategic sense if you want your colonial empire to last more than 10 years. And I'm happy to accept your experience that you have got by without them against the AI.

The real debate is this- What effect does blockading have. We have 2 answers- One of 2-5% decrease and one of 50% decrease. Both seem incorrect, I would have thought that in the economy of the time it would be about 25% leading up to 50% over time. Does anyone actually know the real answer? I know the boardgame but don't have the programming experience to 'go in' and have a look.

People should stop questioning it and bringing it up then

I'd love naval power to be a force. If it is I will near always go for it as I love historic ships and such.

Dunno what blockading exactly does but it doesn't seem too bad from experience.

 

[unmerged(2334)]

maybe if naval attrition was reduced... even just slightly, people would be able to use fleets more. They are too costly, and they don't do enough accounting on how high their attrition is

 

[unmerged(2470)]

Fleets not useless

I have found out the hard way about fleets playing England in the GC. About 50 years into the contest, with only a small fleet guarding the home country I had war declared on me by France, to get calaise most likely. When I put to sea with my 30 ship home fleet, there was a 50 ship french invasion fleet in the channel and after promptly kicking my A## out of the channel they invaded England. Now maybe that was a fluke but the costs of maintaining a viable fleet for war or expansion is small compared to the cost of trying to liberate the home country from frenchman! I may never be an ace at defeating the AI but do appreciate using historical ways of playing the game!