Russia says otherwise. For most of the EU4 timeframe they didn't even have a major port; and even when St.Petersburg was founded; it was frozen for a large part of the year.
Also Austria didn't exactly have much of a navy.
EU4 fails to recognise the importance of the navy historically.
- Thread starter Balt
- 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.
Russia says otherwise. For most of the EU4 timeframe they didn't even have a major port; and even when St.Petersburg was founded; it was frozen for a large part of the year.
Also Austria didn't exactly have much of a navy.
And look at Russia, it was never the richest or the most advanced country, it might make top 10 by sheer size, but in every other metric Britain was ahead of it. Austria might be a fair point.
I have to admit that I do not see problem in peacetime naval activity. Light ships protecting trade have massive impact on the money earned from trade nodes - and this is IMHO very nice abstraction of general anti-piracy activity that allow local traders to grow and flourish. Why there should be merchant fleets? All that is done behind the scenes, and handled through modifiers and values. After all, trading operations are not done on the level of state government - trade values are, in fact, taxes gathered by the state from money earned by traders (that's why there is -50% malus to collecting in nodes other then home node)
Was there really great impact of blockade running on major wars? Or small scale privateering? All those things are fun and fluffy, but it results in good stories rather than have observable impact on clashes between nations.
Like the great story of four large ships that broke through Ottoman blockade in 1453 to reach Constantinople carrying men and supplies. But what was the impact? Was it more substantial than adding single tick to the siege duration?
Was there really great impact of blockade running on major wars? Or small scale privateering? All those things are fun and fluffy, but it results in good stories rather than have observable impact on clashes between nations.
Like the great story of four large ships that broke through Ottoman blockade in 1453 to reach Constantinople carrying men and supplies. But what was the impact? Was it more substantial than adding single tick to the siege duration?
well the British Blockade of the main European ports in the Napoleonic wars comes to mind and how it caused Europe-wide shortage of goods such as cotton and greatly damaged various manufacturing jobs at the time in Europe. and though it did also damage British economy it was far more damaging for Napoleon and the damage British economy lessened greatly once the French were forced to slacken the Continental System.
Similarly British work as a great example as their Privateering captains were costly for the Spanish crown and worked as great way to damage the Spanish income from new world by sinking and robbing of the Spanish treasure fleets and disturbing the Spanish trade routes.
Similarly most of the Dutch wars, be it the Anglo-Dutch wars and the Dutch-Spanish wars were mainly fought with the control of the sea rather than land warfare.
As for your question on Siege of Constantinople, the relief those Ships were able to give for the Byzantines was indeed significant, and while in the end Constantinople did fall it did aid the defenders more than by a simple tick. Perhaps by 2 or 3 ticks even
well the British Blockade of the main European ports in the Napoleonic wars comes to mind and how it caused Europe-wide shortage of goods such as cotton and greatly damaged various manufacturing jobs at the time in Europe. and though it did also damage British economy it was far more damaging for Napoleon and the damage British economy lessened greatly once the French were forced to slacken the Continental System.
Similarly British work as a great example as their Privateering captains were costly for the Spanish crown and worked as great way to damage the Spanish income from new world by sinking and robbing of the Spanish treasure fleets and disturbing the Spanish trade routes.
Similarly most of the Dutch wars, be it the Anglo-Dutch wars and the Dutch-Spanish wars were mainly fought with the control of the sea rather than land warfare.
As for your question on Siege of Constantinople, the relief those Ships were able to give for the Byzantines was indeed significant, and while in the end Constantinople did fall it did aid the defenders more than by a simple tick. Perhaps by 2 or 3 ticks even
Ha, it seems I did not phrase my point properly
I wasn't denying effects of the blockade - in fact, I was responding to earlier posts suggesting the game lacks blockade running mechanic and things that are abstracted in the trade system. Indeed, just as French corsairs and blockade runners had no major impact on British Blockade, we do not need them to have impact in game.
British privateers could be easily represented by sending a fleet of light ships to enemy colonial trade node, and steal their trade.
It could be argued that this event from the siege of Constantinople could be represented by 4 heavy ships beating crap out of a blockading fleet of galleys and transports (as Ottoman fleet was mostly composed of small ships) and forcing them to port, thus removing bonus to siege progress.
"Land nations like Russia didn't focus on navy"
3 or 4 Crimean Wars had the objective of finally get a port that, as said before, wasn't frozen for half year. Because of this wars and the ports it provided to Russia, it could finally enter the international trade system and sell his surplus of fur, grain and other stuffs directly. A big buyer? France. Who financed Russian industrialization later? France.
For three entire centuries Russian government wanted to conquer Constantinople. Not because it was a nice high dev province or because of a religious importance, but because it controlled the Bosphorus and could close the Russian trade anytime the Ottomans had force to resist Russian pressure to keep it open. This was one of the reasons of the tragic Galipoli front on World War 1 because Russia was on verge of collapse without international trade and would be a reality if the Turkish hadn't fought their Independence War. To end this, Russian navy was enough to force Britain and France to cooperate in Mediterrean.
About Austria, most of the trade was made under Venetian or Ragusan flag so there was no need to invest in one. The first a naval power itself for half of EU4 period, the second a trade neutral nation under Ottoman protection that became rich everytime there was war on the region as its ships could fill the trade gaps of the beligerants with impunity. After the dissolution of both due to Napoleon, Austria started to invest on navy and had the Adriatic as a particular lake until the later part/end of World War 1.
About the Ottomans, they had the first "marines" of Europe, men dedicated only to board operation and zero work on ships. And the biggest fleet of the Mediterranean for a good part of period. I think they faced 5 or more nations in Lepanto paid by the entire America weight in Spanish silver. The Ottomans also waged many wars with Venice for three or four centuries.
About France, definitely a "land nation", was the biggest threat to the Royal Navy for the 2nd half of the game period. Must be a coincidence match with their colonization AND Atlantic trade becomes an important thing...
One could say ASIAN land nations didn't focus on navy, but they never needed. The others would move their asses around the entire world to buy goods from India and China anyway and their empires were the size of Europe.
3 or 4 Crimean Wars had the objective of finally get a port that, as said before, wasn't frozen for half year. Because of this wars and the ports it provided to Russia, it could finally enter the international trade system and sell his surplus of fur, grain and other stuffs directly. A big buyer? France. Who financed Russian industrialization later? France.
For three entire centuries Russian government wanted to conquer Constantinople. Not because it was a nice high dev province or because of a religious importance, but because it controlled the Bosphorus and could close the Russian trade anytime the Ottomans had force to resist Russian pressure to keep it open. This was one of the reasons of the tragic Galipoli front on World War 1 because Russia was on verge of collapse without international trade and would be a reality if the Turkish hadn't fought their Independence War. To end this, Russian navy was enough to force Britain and France to cooperate in Mediterrean.
About Austria, most of the trade was made under Venetian or Ragusan flag so there was no need to invest in one. The first a naval power itself for half of EU4 period, the second a trade neutral nation under Ottoman protection that became rich everytime there was war on the region as its ships could fill the trade gaps of the beligerants with impunity. After the dissolution of both due to Napoleon, Austria started to invest on navy and had the Adriatic as a particular lake until the later part/end of World War 1.
About the Ottomans, they had the first "marines" of Europe, men dedicated only to board operation and zero work on ships. And the biggest fleet of the Mediterranean for a good part of period. I think they faced 5 or more nations in Lepanto paid by the entire America weight in Spanish silver. The Ottomans also waged many wars with Venice for three or four centuries.
About France, definitely a "land nation", was the biggest threat to the Royal Navy for the 2nd half of the game period. Must be a coincidence match with their colonization AND Atlantic trade becomes an important thing...
One could say ASIAN land nations didn't focus on navy, but they never needed. The others would move their asses around the entire world to buy goods from India and China anyway and their empires were the size of Europe.
I thought Romans already had dedicated naval soldiers?
Agree with the rest. Water was really important back then even for mainly "land" nations (IIRC at some point 2 navies behind the Royal Navy were French and then Russian).
One minor(!) problem I see with the navy is that the way navies operated in the late 1400s and in the 1800s changed quite a lot during the time. It's hard to comparew a late-15th century navy (if such a thing actually existed and didn't consist of temporarily converted merchant ships) and a fleet from the classic Age of Sail, not to mentipn the way they operated.
But as it is just a game, that might not even be necessary.
However I agree: The importance of a navy is woefully underappreciated in EU4. I can only think of one war that was won solely by naval action - that being the Anglo-Hanseatic war in the 1470s which would correspond to a Trade Conflic CB in EU4 - and yet I feel there must be more. However I believe one can't win even a Trade Conflict war ingame without using anything but ships - but since I never tried, please correct me if I'm wrong.
But as it is just a game, that might not even be necessary.
However I agree: The importance of a navy is woefully underappreciated in EU4. I can only think of one war that was won solely by naval action - that being the Anglo-Hanseatic war in the 1470s which would correspond to a Trade Conflic CB in EU4 - and yet I feel there must be more. However I believe one can't win even a Trade Conflict war ingame without using anything but ships - but since I never tried, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Point of a trade war is full blockades giving 25% warscore and demanding cash is cheaper.
Declare, fully blockade, grab half their money, peace out before the year is over.
Sounds great on paper, doesn't it?
Whoever came up with its design has never played the game, sadly.
Length of war + ally in war modifier means fully blockading someone doesn't give enough warscore to demand anything from them unless they're warleader.
It will barely suffice for a white peace, oftentimes not even that.
Meaning trade war cb only lets you take cash from your target and nothing from their allies.
Saves you 2 years compared to walking into their land and sieging down their capital.
Except sieging down their capital allows you to take much, much more.
A huge design flaw.
I want to lower warscore for demanding cash so I can ask for more, but the warscore gained from blockades means I can ask less than someone who sieges them down could? What?
Why would I need a warscore reduction on something that's below 100%?
It's like someone handing you a single grape and telling you not to eat it all at once while your brother has five cakes and twenty steaks on his table.
You can use trade war cb against Lübeck as Brandenburg or Denmark to farm cash early on when half their treasury can already exceed 100% warscore because you're able to siege them down with either nation.
That's it. These are the only two nations who are able to make use of the cb. One of these nations won't even get a ticking warscore since it has no navy.
On top of that you won't get enough with trade war cb to justify building a navy early on.
The main idea behind the cb (build ships, blockade, become a naval power) will get ignored.
Not even as Denmark if you want to invade England since it's easier to invade Scotland first and you can do that with the navy you're starting with.
Potential fix could be that you can demand unlimited amounts of cash once your ticking warscore hits 25, additional trade efficiency for winning a trade war or similar.
Sadly those ideas go beyond what PDX is willing to do with any kind of cb. Any kind of suggestion players have come up with has been thoroughly ignored.
Trade cb is worthless and will always stay worthless.
Last edited:
1) to be fair, that was practically the only reason to have light ships in eu3
Not exactly to patrol, you needed to have at least a light ship for every colony to get 100% of the tariffs (the only income from colonies, or near so) they could sit still at port (even while under a blockade) and they still counted.
To be fair, I think navies in eu4 are more important than in eu3, at least they are of some use for trade, but it still not enough. Maybe for EU5
Last edited: