Well, I hope that there's an option or, even better, a checkbox so you can control the auto merge on a per-fleet basis. I think (but am not sure) that having several fleets gives more continuity to my trade power, when one fleet goes to repair. Admittedly this is a bit of an unfair advantage over the A.I., which seems to lump everything into one fleet and subsequently has oscillations in trade power.
AUTO-MERGE. No thanks.
- Thread starter dnlnn
- Start date
-
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.
This said, I would not be against a checkbox, as long as merge is the default.
That is perfect.
That comic actually came to mind when I saw this thread. Props to WeissRaben for putting in the effort.
So... are you complaining because it costs money to actually defend your trade fleets? Because it seems like that's what you're doing. If you want to not spend the resources to defend your trade fleets that are both incredibly vulnerable and also a very attractive target, you kind of need to be prepared to pay the consequences of that. Trade should not be buckets of money for no risk.
Ships patrolling trade nodes could get a week of not being targetable when war is declared. It takes time to get the message out to them that war's started, after all. A lot better a fix than having a hundred trade fleets.
I assume "trade fleets" actually means trade protection with light ships? Or are there some options i've missed?
Most computers now have cpu temperature sensors, the program could be made to check those values.
Since there's no concept of supply use in the game, you pay the same for your heavy ships whether they are mothballed or guarding your traders, may as well assign some to guard duty.
Maybe it would save a whole lot of trouble if the development team would discuss new features before implementation rather than after, that way feedback would actually be useful.
The question for the dev team should be, how do I give the player more options on specifying unit behavior.
Since there's no concept of supply use in the game, you pay the same for your heavy ships whether they are mothballed or guarding your traders, may as well assign some to guard duty.
Maybe it would save a whole lot of trouble if the development team would discuss new features before implementation rather than after, that way feedback would actually be useful.
The question for the dev team should be, how do I give the player more options on specifying unit behavior.
...what?
Pretty sure the entire point of mothballing is that you don't pay as much maintenance for the fleet you mothballed. Being in port is not the same as mothballed.
The patch hasn't been released yet, and therefore neither has this feature. The dev team has put this information out for discussion before they've released it, and they're still capable of changing things if they think it's a good idea.
This said, I would not be against a checkbox, as long as merge is the default.
this post wins the topic.
And for the record, its when you tell them to protect trade in X node they merge, not when their just built right?
I think it is implicit in my post,. You aren't defending anything with having 1 heavy ship. It's a completely useless strategy. My example was for when you have a low force limit. If you have a force limit of say 6 in the mediterranean even 6 heavies are almost entirely useless so why would you have them? They don't generate income, in fact the reverse is true. So if 6 are useless then any fewer are also useless and therefore a complete waste of money. The only sensible thing is to have 6 light ships and the only way to have some degree of protection from stack wipe is to split them up. I cant see why this is so hard for some people to understand.
Im guessing the pro-mergers are SP players and anti-mergers are MP players. Its completely sensible from a realistic point of view also, trade isnt operated like a grand armada of one fleet with all vessels.
(I agree auto merge looks like a big problem)
I'm pro merge feature but i'm anti compulsory merge. It should be optional. That's my argument. Why would enforcing playstyle be a sensible way forward?
I remember I heard Arumba talk about wanting this feature during one of his let's plays and I almost left a comment to the effect it was ill conceived.
And yet here we are. A knee jerk change to try and appear down with the kids.
Just put in a check box, I know they think it's a christmas treat but it's a turkey.
I think that the merge should be there, but it should be optional. Some people might use their trade fleets to patrol as well, and if they don't merge, you can cover all waters around the trade node.
I think that more people will prefer the fleets to be together, but I still think that we should have an option.
I think that more people will prefer the fleets to be together, but I still think that we should have an option.
After seeing the replies here I actually hope they don't put in that checkbox, so I get to see more of these amusing posts.
Because as was stated elsewhere in this thread, a stack wipe of 6 ships is pointless and barely a setback. You're going to have a lot of trouble convincing people if you're complaining about losing 120 ducats. Not to mention that losing 6 light ships isn't going to make a significant impact in your income in any case. With that tiny a naval force limit chances are you're a small nation or OPM that isn't focused on trade and are only generating a few ducats per month of trade income anyway. If you do have good trade power with that tiny FL it's probably more from provinces than anything else anyway. You're probably better off at that size making galleys or transports anyway, because naval trade is simply not going to impact your nation that much if you can't even field a sizable fleet.
That's what people are having such trouble understanding with your argument: why you're using an extreme example to argue for the option to have the ability to do tedious micromanagement for a most likely negligible benefit. Like, I seriously doubt if the trade income generated by 6 light ships would come close to paying off the 120 ducats to build the things over a decade, even not counting maintenance.
And your argument obviously falls apart when dealing with large trade fleets, which is what most people are going to care about because that's actually a problem if they get wiped. Not only is a large trade fleet better equipped to run away with fewer losses than smaller ones that are going to get wiped completely, but when you're fielding a couple hundred light ships and actually generating substantial trade it becomes far more economically viable to lump in 20-30 heavy ships and/or some incredibly cheap galleys in the fleet.
Am I against the ability to give the players options on whether or not they want to auto-merge? Obviously not, or at least not the principle of it. But an option to do auto-merge requires some space on the interface, and AoW already has made the fleet interface incredibly cluttered. Unless you can come up with a better reason as to why not merging fleets is a worthwhile and safer option to still include for examples where a trade fleet would actually be a significant loss/worthwhile investment, I just really don't think a button to toggle merging is worth the screen real estate.
Last edited:
Plus if they're so worried about freaking enemy attacks the proposal about exiling the units is much better. Or just using a smaller "canary" fleet on patrol as I proposed 2 pages back.
Where is my argument with regards to large trade fleets? If you're going to create arguments out of thin air then there's not much point discussing things further. And "screen real estate"? Please, just listen to yourself.
Exiled ships is a great idea. Will it happen? What do you think?
Exiled ships is a great idea. Will it happen? What do you think?