EU4 Navy flaws

[Jarvin]

But this is only MP thing where you take ideas against other players ideas. In SP other AIs ideas don't make such a difference. because the game is totally different. You can beat AIs navies without any naval ideas. So taking a naval idea is a waste of idea slot in SP unless you play some specific setup for them. That's why it was buffed.

So are navies different between SP and MP because of some inherent differences between two modes, or is it just because the AI in EU4 happens to be extremely bad?

I totally understand the mindset of not wanting to balance the game around MP, but in this particular case it feels like if you choose to avoid improving this system, you are working under an assumption that the AI in EU4 is permanently going to stay bad, which is a pretty weird mindset to have.

Also your notion that if people couldn't outperform AIs they wouldn't play the game is a pretty weird notion. I think the majority of players want to be consistently put up against challenges that they can overcome, but not too easily. In different games that is solved by difficulty levels. For example, in Age of Empires 2, you have several AI difficulties that range from an equivalent of bottom 10% player to about top 40%, and on top of that you have a bunch of community-made AIs that go as high as top 1-2% of the playerbase in terms of skill.

That isn't really the case with EU4, as the AI is so fundamentally flawed that even giving them some arbitrary modifiers thru difficulty levels isn't that impactful, but I don't think that needs nor should be the case.

 

[_Bachus_]

So are navies different between SP and MP because of some inherent differences between two modes, or is it just because the AI in EU4 happens to be extremely bad?

It's not that navies are different in SP and MP. It's that doing some suboptimal plays in MP is just stupid. Like you would get a guy who says I'm going to play without allies and loans because of fun. It wouldn't make any sense in MP. You would need probably make rules as a whole set of players. In SP you have more flexibility for funky use of mechanics that don't fit well with MP. So balance in the MP usually needs to be higher because you don't have this flexibility to make e.g. a naval play without epxanding on your home continent. Because it's totally crap if you compare yourself against human player that doesn't do that. This comparison is what makes it different. And in SP you don't compare yourself to anybody. So the way you can use navies in SP game is totally different than in MP. Because human player in MP will act differently than an AI, most of the time eliminating most of the ways you can play the game, reducing variability of ideas / techs / concepts etc. etc.

SP is a sandbox game where you can modify rules to your liking. Give your own goals etc etc.
MP is not a sandbox game. If you try to play it like it is you will just get yourself killed in a spectacular fashion.

 

[Xary Moft]

Balancing EU IV around MP is ridiculous. A player choosing France will be at an advantage over a Player choosing Portugal from day 1.

That sounds like a really weird example. I don't understand what you trying to say. If I say a player choose hamburg doesn't Austria AI also possess giant advantage over the player from day 1? Or doesn't bc the AI is too dumb or isn't a player? Why does france having an "advantage" over Portugal from day 1 matter...
Even if you gave Castile and Portugal as examples for MP, in SP it's the same scenario. The SP balance here translates into MP. Castile posses a giant advantage over portugal to the point it can choose to let it live or not, this goes for SP and MP. But in both cases there's the diplo game, portugal can get allies from france or england, or in MP a deal with the devil (morocco).
I don't see what part of here implies that "balancing the game around MP=bad" . This only shows me that the balancing of the game (that it is around SP) is bad since it makes portugal unable to defend itself against Castile alone, leading to a cascade effect where in MP's its the same case. And I can vouch that In MP's it would be so much better if Portugal could defend itself like IRL. A bit ironic.
As a side note maybe instead of just saying "balancing the game around mp" maybe we should say, improving the game for MP. It sounds less antagonist.

 

[st360]

Seeing eu4 dev team committing to reducing power creep

So not having 120 development tribes in north america is now considered "reducing power creep".

You know there was a time when having a single military bonus in your national ideas was a big deal.

 

[Xary Moft]

So not having 120 development tribes in north america is now considered "reducing power creep".

You know there was a time when having a single military bonus in your national ideas was a big deal.

"Seeing eu4 dev team committing to balance the game, reducing power creep..." Full phrase for better context.
And yeah I guess, not having 120 dev tribes is balancing the game (and hearing the community outcry) while the addition of new NI for many nations creates a power creep since they tend to be more powerful than old NI sets. But the eu4 dev team is set to trying to fix those problems and avoiding them, trying.

Anyway what's your point?

 

[Sete]

That sounds like a really weird example. I don't understand what you trying to say. If I say a player choose hamburg doesn't Austria AI also possess giant advantage over the player from day 1? Or doesn't bc the AI is too dumb or isn't a player? Why does france having an "advantage" over Portugal from day 1 matter...
Even if you gave Castile and Portugal as examples for MP, in SP it's the same scenario. The SP balance here translates into MP. Castile posses a giant advantage over portugal to the point it can choose to let it live or not, this goes for SP and MP. But in both cases there's the diplo game, portugal can get allies from france or england, or in MP a deal with the devil (morocco).
I don't see what part of here implies that "balancing the game around MP=bad" . This only shows me that the balancing of the game (that it is around SP) is bad since it makes portugal unable to defend itself against Castile alone, leading to a cascade effect where in MP's its the same case. And I can vouch that In MP's it would be so much better if Portugal could defend itself like IRL. A bit ironic.
As a side note maybe instead of just saying "balancing the game around mp" maybe we should say, improving the game for MP. It sounds less antagonist.

I wasnt replying to you.
I agree with you that Naval needs to be worked on so a country with a coastline can choose it without being at a severe disadvantage, but for optimal and balanced MP play, you would need to have everyone starting from an equal footing, which wont happen due to obvious reason.

I consider EUIV a single player game with a multiplayer mode. It's an extra, not a thing by itself. As such it should be balanced over the single player focus.

 

[grommile]

As such it should be balanced over the single player focus.

There are many things which single player does not provide adequate evidence to judge the balance of; there are quite a few idea groups whose performance in SP is an artifact of the meatbag being so much more competent than the toasters.

 

[Sete]

There are many things which single player does not provide adequate evidence to judge the balance of; there are quite a few idea groups whose performance in SP is an artifact of the meatbag being so much more competent than the toasters.

Well it is what it is. It's just my opinion mind you. I can be wrong.

Since it's not a competitive multiplayer game, I find the idea of balancing it around multiplayer silly. But to be fair I do find the WC runs silly aswell on SP, so depends on the type of balance one is looking for.

But maybe Naval should be a hybrid of defense, naval and marine buffs.

 

[grommile]

Since it's not a competitive multiplayer game

It is not a competitive multiplayer game in the sense of "the publishers or high-profile third parties run organized prize tournaments", but it is a competitive multiplayer game in the sense of "the game mechanics and the state of the AI leads to a situation where PvP is probably more fun than cooperative PvE".

 

[RobbieAB]

The OP has correctly identified that navies are not that exciting for most play throughs.

The problem here has nothing to do with the balance of naval ideas, the problem is the lack of relevance of naval power in a game where seizing land is the primary play style (due to the lack of meaningful mechanics for anything else) and the shallow (non-existent?) logistics. Ships can’t take land, so complete naval supremacy without army power, at most, means you don’t lose land (for the most part, I am sure exceptions exist).

What was interesting for me, once, was playing a defensive posture OPM on an island and watching how hopeless the AI was at coping with a undefeatable country with no army. I don’t think I could actually play that through a second time though!

 

[Xary Moft]

Well I think the navies problems aren't just the lack of relevance of power. More of a agglomerated mess of problems, where if you fix 1 major thing, that still leaves other problem which may become more prevalent by that fix.
The thread I made is basically a cascade reaction, it starts of with the major problem of naval power being not that relevant, so if we make naval power in game more relevant then we need to balance naval combat (otherwise we have a important part of the game being frustrating). Also after making navy more relevant we will also need it to be more interesting than just using the same types of ships, but if we add types of ships it will affect naval balance and we would need to fix ship techs in order to...

It's all connected and it's funny how it snowballs more problems for trying to fix 1 thing.

 

[EarlKonrad]

It is not a competitive multiplayer game in the sense of "the publishers or high-profile third parties run organized prize tournaments", but it is a competitive multiplayer game in the sense of "the game mechanics and the state of the AI leads to a situation where PvP is probably more fun than cooperative PvE".

That's an interesting take on what means to be a competitive MP game or not. Anyway, to me EU IV MP has a lot in common with Dominions.

The Dominions series features a lot of nations, all with unique characteristics and customisation options. So much so that trying to balance them all to be competitive against each other is a fool's errant. To paraphrase what the Devs say in regards to balancing the game for MP, balance comes from players knowing what is strong or not and acting in a manner to counter what is strong.

To give a tangible example, in Dominions 3 there was this one nations called Ermor that was extremely powerful in the late game. So much so that players had three options when going against them: 1) Kill them early; 2) Ban them from the game; 3) Band with other players to take out the Ermor player. The way I understand competitive EU IV, the same is true. You have players creating house rules on what is allowed and what is banned, and you have nations which players know to be a potential threat and that have to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

That isn't to say that the Devs shouldn't try to balance the game, no. What I'm trying to get across is that true balance, as in everyone should have equal chance at winning in an MP environment, is impossible to achieve in a game where you have such unique starting position and mechanics.

 

[Aeroclub]

I think the larger question is not about the particular problems of the navy in EU4, but rather what was the navy actually used for IRL in the time period?

I remember when they introuced a trade protection mechanic that forced you to have ships in the open seas (which you always just parked in the port during war anyway). It was just such an arbitrary way to force people to invest in it! We might as well have a minimum number of ships that everyone is required to own (unless they accrue some penalty) if we keep thinking in the same direction.

Instead, we should probably look into something like naval power projection/supremacy system akin to HoI4, with penalties or bonuses depending on their relative value within a naval region. But that again depends on my understanding of the role of navy in the time period, which may be dated or incorrect. An any rate, I think abig change like that belongs in one of the EU5 discussions because of its sheer scope.

Also, it will be curious to see how are they going to implement it in Vic3. Maybe that will be a good testing ground for some ideas?

 

[JangoBunBun]

I'm surprised you didn't touch on Maritime ideas. I like many of the changes you proposed, but I'm not sure how to balance naval vs maritime ideas without making maritime just trade lite. Maybe maritime ideas should buff light ship combat, light ship trade protection, naval tradition, while naval ideas buff morale, heavy ships, and transports. Naval ideas finisher could decrease attrition at sea while increasing naval range. Maritime could keep it's current

 

[Xary Moft]

I'm surprised you didn't touch on Maritime ideas. I like many of the changes you proposed, but I'm not sure how to balance naval vs maritime ideas without making maritime just trade lite. Maybe maritime ideas should buff light ship combat, light ship trade protection, naval tradition, while naval ideas buff morale, heavy ships, and transports. Naval ideas finisher could decrease attrition at sea while increasing naval range. Maritime could keep it's current

I didn't touch maritime because I think it is kinda fine as it is. I find myself and other player always use maritime over naval. It's usually because of how much it amplifies the utility and flexibility of navies. So my line of thought was almost "well it isn't broken and it has a purpose for the naval game, does it need change?" probably not so I left at that.
I don't oppose some changes to maritime ideas, light ship combat ability sounds excellent for an idea group that's more or less already focused around what light ships do best. And the game does lack light ship combat outside of NI. Naval tradition is unnecessary (it already does that) and ship trade power would also fit quite well but I do say, lests not. It already allows you to make more ships (a lot), so unless we change the bonuses, it would be unbalanced.
I do like the idea for naval ideas to get an bigger utility bonus, it's currently lacking and would increase it's use overhaul. But I don't have any ideas of what kinda bonus it would be. Less attrition at sea, do you mean for ships or transporting troops?
Also increasing naval range would be strange. You probably don't know but naval range (naval supply range etc) its modified by just trade range modifiers (quite strange to add +20% trade range on naval ideas). That would cause a lot of confusion, and isn't that useful.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Why? You seem to argue bacause navy is useless. Don't really buying this logic. People don't use navy too much and their ideas bacause they prefer to do WC or other land-grabing strategies. You don't really need any navy to do that. In fact navy is detrimental to this playstyle. Don't see any real solution to that. How you would make navy essential for land-grabing meta? But is this even a problem in itself? I don't think so. If you want to use navy and make your game around trade, being tall, and creating trade empire without much land conquest navy is essential to do that. It is useful then. We don't need to make them so you can't do WC without the navy. It would be stupid to even try to do that.

IRL, a naval advantage meant a significant advantage in land combat capability too. This does not translate in EU 4 in most cases.

The introduction of the ongoing ZoC fort beta was one of the larger nerfs to naval in the game, though it certainly isn't the only reason a naval advantage usually doesn't mean much.

 

[Alyosha]

Just merge the best aspects of Naval and Maritime and put it in the Diplo slot.

Frees up a slot in Military where player can choose either Aristocratic or Plutocratic ideas.

 

[JangoBunBun]

I didn't touch maritime because I think it is kinda fine as it is. I find myself and other player always use maritime over naval. It's usually because of how much it amplifies the utility and flexibility of navies. So my line of thought was almost "well it isn't broken and it has a purpose for the naval game, does it need change?" probably not so I left at that.
I don't oppose some changes to maritime ideas, light ship combat ability sounds excellent for an idea group that's more or less already focused around what light ships do best. And the game does lack light ship combat outside of NI. Naval tradition is unnecessary (it already does that) and ship trade power would also fit quite well but I do say, lests not. It already allows you to make more ships (a lot), so unless we change the bonuses, it would be unbalanced.
I do like the idea for naval ideas to get an bigger utility bonus, it's currently lacking and would increase it's use overhaul. But I don't have any ideas of what kinda bonus it would be. Less attrition at sea, do you mean for ships or transporting troops?
Also increasing naval range would be strange. You probably don't know but naval range (naval supply range etc) its modified by just trade range modifiers (quite strange to add +20% trade range on naval ideas). That would cause a lot of confusion, and isn't that useful.

I'd like to see maritime and naval built for different purposes. Naval ideas should build a cross continental, ocean going navy. Maritime ideally supports a more trade and anti-piracy navy. Imagine Spain vs Genoa in use cases.

 

[Xary Moft]

I'd like to see maritime and naval built for different purposes. Naval ideas should build a cross continental, ocean going navy. Maritime ideally supports a more trade and anti-piracy navy. Imagine Spain vs Genoa in use cases.

Not sure how that works, light ships navies don't work well for an anti-piracy navy (when heavy ships are the best for anti-piracy), I think you mean maritime should give more trade and privateers. It all fits well with light ships. Still, how maritime stands right now works perfectly for that, it only lacks light ship combat ability. So is it really necessary to change maritime?
Well I'm not sure what you mean by cross continental navy but it still gave me some ideas. Something unique for naval ideas would be if it allowed troops to be reinforced while on transport ships. Or instead reduce the attrition your troops take while at sea. Not that great since marines were created simply bc of that. A different idea is naval ideas giving (an example) 10% movement speed for ships. Maybe ship's Disengagement Chance, this is a new modifier so it's very rare, still not that good for utility bonus.

 

[Xary Moft]

Also, it will be curious to see how are they going to implement it in Vic3. Maybe that will be a good testing ground for some ideas?

Well after the last vicky 3 dev diary, according to the devs navies will be not only important but maybe more important than land armies. Their approach is basically the opposite of eu4 in regards to navies. It's basically more than confirmed vicky3 will have a big supply/logistics system. While in eu4 it is basically non-existent and sadly we both know can only look forward for a better supply system for eu5.
It's a good testing ground for eu5, thats for certain.
So we are kinda stuck with the current system in eu4, with the only changes possible being on how easy/strong is to get military access (aka the transportation of troops) or blockades.