After reading the Dev Diary further and coming across the Naval Combat section, I don't know what to say. Am I further disappointed? Is the change any good? Concerning marines in particular and the +5 naval attrition building.
Basically if Britain transports, troops from London to Sydney, regular troops, during peace, that has the potential to wipe out their entire manpower pool? Am I reading this right. So the only logical way to ferry troops is none, ferry marines instead, and if you want to ferry marines then enjoy taking more Shock Damage, it's like you're purposely setting yourself into a Horde like shock phase. Someone please tell me I am reading it wrong. I see no reason why a journey from say California to Sydney of 40,000 regular troops should result in more casualties than troops available.
You might tell me to use marines as spearheads and then building troops on the newly acquired overseas territory after the war. Cool say my forcelimit is 60k, 40k regulars, 20k marines. I manage to claim Sri Lanka as Britain using my marines, all good I saved my manpower by avoiding the ferrying the regulars into the cesspit of manpower. Now I have Sri Lanka in my control, how am I supposed to send my regulars across? Do I build new regulars? I am forcelimit constrained. Do I disband the troops at home? More manpower loss? Someone please explain to me what's going on here.
And with naval attrition buildings so France will lose ships in the channel if Wessex has naval attrition buildings? Do they stack so 5 buildings in 5 provinces in one naval tile, 5x5 = 25 naval attrition???