Sounds good. More ships blockading, more seige modifier just like stacks of artillery.
Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations – Dev diary 3: Naval Improvement
- Thread starter Besuchov
- 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.
I stand by my earlier suggestion: Galleys should be able to act as Light Ships, being both Privateers and Trade Ships, but only in Inland Sea Zones, like the Mediterranean Sea.
Agree 100%. Galleys were VERY maneuverable there, zero reason for them not to act as privateers.
However, I am curious about how privateers will affect GOLD income. After all, it´s 100% production income.
It would be interesting if you had to actually transport the Gold back to your Capital through Trade Routes, and Pirates along those Routes could siphon off a percentage of that Gold based on their Power in the Node you are transporting it through.
I do like the idea of expanding the capabilities to protect trade to non-light ships. It would be good if any ship could patrol trade, but light ships might have the best modifier for it. The modifiers for effectiveness in inland seas might also make galleys more effective for protecting trade also, and they might suffer trying to protect trade in open oceans.
I suggest this because one of the gimpy issues coming up in a lot of games is that people just don't build heavy ships -- at all -- until maybe the late game, instead just spamming a lot of light ships. They'll take on a fleet of heavies with a crazy-big light ship fleet of 100+ light ships. But because they can't use heavies currently for protecting trade, and they don't want to have to scrap 40 heavies every few tech levels (about 2000 g per upgrade), they just hold off making many or any heavy ships until the three-decker era.
And the idea that heavy ships are useless is beyond idiotic in comparison to history. There was a reason the Spanish chose galleons for their treasure fleet. That was to prevent them from being taken by privateers. For the most part over the centuries, the plan worked.
I also find it ironic that East Indiamen are not used to transport goods to or from India -- at all -- but only carry troops. Funny... I thought they were *supposed* to be trade ships. But they can't really carry trade the way they are currently designed in the game.
So I support the other posters here who suggest that galleys should be able to protect trade. I agree wholeheartedly. And I think heavies and transports can play their part as well. It might require rejiggering specific points to balance out the naval game vis a vis income, but in the whole, I prefer to let players choose their optimal naval mix. Not force it towards a light-ship-only fleet because that's the only way to get ducats now.
p.s. Again, Paradox, PLEASE read over my prior posts in this thread, and make privateers a sort of "mercenaries of the sea" which nations can hire for trade wars (quasi-wars), or to bolster their fleets during wartime (a la War of 1812). Allow players to choose which nations they will issue Letters of Marque against. Just don't make them into a "pirate faction." (Gah! Even typing that makes me feel queasy.) Or if you do go ahead as planned, make sure to include a big "NO" button in the options to allow players to just play with "no privateers" in their game. Because I will want that hugely. Thank you.
I suggest this because one of the gimpy issues coming up in a lot of games is that people just don't build heavy ships -- at all -- until maybe the late game, instead just spamming a lot of light ships. They'll take on a fleet of heavies with a crazy-big light ship fleet of 100+ light ships. But because they can't use heavies currently for protecting trade, and they don't want to have to scrap 40 heavies every few tech levels (about 2000 g per upgrade), they just hold off making many or any heavy ships until the three-decker era.
And the idea that heavy ships are useless is beyond idiotic in comparison to history. There was a reason the Spanish chose galleons for their treasure fleet. That was to prevent them from being taken by privateers. For the most part over the centuries, the plan worked.
I also find it ironic that East Indiamen are not used to transport goods to or from India -- at all -- but only carry troops. Funny... I thought they were *supposed* to be trade ships. But they can't really carry trade the way they are currently designed in the game.
So I support the other posters here who suggest that galleys should be able to protect trade. I agree wholeheartedly. And I think heavies and transports can play their part as well. It might require rejiggering specific points to balance out the naval game vis a vis income, but in the whole, I prefer to let players choose their optimal naval mix. Not force it towards a light-ship-only fleet because that's the only way to get ducats now.
p.s. Again, Paradox, PLEASE read over my prior posts in this thread, and make privateers a sort of "mercenaries of the sea" which nations can hire for trade wars (quasi-wars), or to bolster their fleets during wartime (a la War of 1812). Allow players to choose which nations they will issue Letters of Marque against. Just don't make them into a "pirate faction." (Gah! Even typing that makes me feel queasy.) Or if you do go ahead as planned, make sure to include a big "NO" button in the options to allow players to just play with "no privateers" in their game. Because I will want that hugely. Thank you.
You should consider a 'war mode' option for trade fleets. Upon activating, light ship TP is cut in half, while maintainance and combat ability increase by 50%. Or something.
That way large trade fleets will be able to defend themselves better vs real threats. Right now it's not so much about the size of the fleet but the type of ships in it. A smallish fleet of heavy ships with an admiral trashes huge trade fleets any day. And no I am not expected to have admirals on trade fleets during wartime or even micromanage sending the fleets to port to attach one on them. No matter how big the trade fleet is, I don't see the benefit of having an option to let it roam the high sees unprotected when I'n never gonna use that option.
With a 'war mode' or something we can attach 3-5 heavy ships on a trade fleet and could realistically expect that it will be enough to fend off those small troll attacks. It also makes sense historically to have the merchant fleet be more battle ready during war time, eg by having more cannons/ammunition instead of trade cargo, hence the reduced TP.
That way large trade fleets will be able to defend themselves better vs real threats. Right now it's not so much about the size of the fleet but the type of ships in it. A smallish fleet of heavy ships with an admiral trashes huge trade fleets any day. And no I am not expected to have admirals on trade fleets during wartime or even micromanage sending the fleets to port to attach one on them. No matter how big the trade fleet is, I don't see the benefit of having an option to let it roam the high sees unprotected when I'n never gonna use that option.
With a 'war mode' or something we can attach 3-5 heavy ships on a trade fleet and could realistically expect that it will be enough to fend off those small troll attacks. It also makes sense historically to have the merchant fleet be more battle ready during war time, eg by having more cannons/ammunition instead of trade cargo, hence the reduced TP.
Can we sort it so you'll get some money disbanding obsolete navies? A stack of 30, newly out of date Caravels are still good ships. Governments would not, as they seem to at the moment, run their ships into the nearest cliff face and say "alright, lets go about making some new ones" - they'd sell them - at a reduced cost, of course - to their own merchantmen and traders, so you'd recoup at least half of the cost of building them. It'd make disbanding a fleet less painful. Also, with privateers, why not make them independent in an area (you'd select the spread) and let them raid? a la Walter Raleigh, and they'd bring money back for you. - you'd select a nation, and they'd hassle colonies, hamper trade and just annoy everyone. After hiring them with money, not in naval force limits, they'd just go. Also, ships should have some kind of infantry on them. there are many, well documented cases in the period of privateers engaging in land warfare, with only the crew of their ships.
EDIT: Also, colonial nations for other areas (mainly (not sub-saharan) Africa). As Spain, I annexed so much of Mali that it became an accepted culture. That should definitely not happen. And better mechanics for indian colonisation. I know it's at the very end of the game, but it'd be nicer to have the western expansion into India better supported.
EDIT: Also, colonial nations for other areas (mainly (not sub-saharan) Africa). As Spain, I annexed so much of Mali that it became an accepted culture. That should definitely not happen. And better mechanics for indian colonisation. I know it's at the very end of the game, but it'd be nicer to have the western expansion into India better supported.
A simple question that I have been asking for months and would appreciate a DEV's response on, the black flag on the masts of the ships bug...is this finally going to be fixed???? Thanks!
Please consider naming it something else than a brig. A brig is a small two-masted ship that in no way can carry 1000 troops as in the game. They were usually warships.
Though to be honest, I can't think of any class of ship to replace it with. Maybe "Early Merchantman"? Calling a troop transport a brig is just wrong, though!
Please consider naming it something else than a brig. A brig is a small two-masted ship that in no way can carry 1000 troops as in the game. They were usually warships.
Though to be honest, I can't think of any class of ship to replace it with. Maybe "Early Merchantman"? Calling a troop transport a brig is just wrong, though!
Er, I don't think there really were ships that could carry a thousand soldiers around for months on end, like the in-game ones do, so that's not really a valid concern. It needs to be that way for gameplay reasons, and if you want to rationalize it, imagine that every "Cog" or "Brig" actually represents a dozen or so ships, or however many would be required to hold that many men.
And while it does look like the Brig was used in combat, it's also noted as being commonly used as a cargo ship as well, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to use it as a transport. It's certainly not a frigate, galley, or carrack, in any case. If there's a different, more appropriate ship/name, then great, but I'd far prefer "Brig" over "Early Merchantman". I don't much care for "Early Frigate" or "Early Carrack" either, for that matter.
If you are going to make blocakdes harder by requiring more ships are you going to do anything to make them involve less micromanagement?
An extended supply range where they don't take attrition would be useful (or a way to rotate ships off station in those cases). At the moment I will blockade 3 of the 4 sea zones of an enemy but leave the 4th one that is out of supply range alone because it is too much micro to have to remember to rotate ships to cover the blockade before they sink from attrition. An auto blockade feature, which sends a few ships back to the closest friendly port and then brings them up to replace damaged ones would be very useful...
Edit also on the subject of ship names how about renaming the new great frigate a 4th rate ships of the line.
An extended supply range where they don't take attrition would be useful (or a way to rotate ships off station in those cases). At the moment I will blockade 3 of the 4 sea zones of an enemy but leave the 4th one that is out of supply range alone because it is too much micro to have to remember to rotate ships to cover the blockade before they sink from attrition. An auto blockade feature, which sends a few ships back to the closest friendly port and then brings them up to replace damaged ones would be very useful...
Edit also on the subject of ship names how about renaming the new great frigate a 4th rate ships of the line.
The issue is that now that fleets focus fire, the enemy runs out of ships before it runs out of morale and shatters. This would be solved by the player and AI retreating when they are losing a battle, but the AI is seemingly incapable of doing that at the moment. Even on land battles. The player has no excuse, if you know that you are losing a battle and you do nothing you are an idiot.
As for the "brig" being a transport... I suppose it could be. But the truth is -- ANY SHIP COULD TRANSPORT TROOPS.
For instance, HMS Endeavor, the famous bark (barque) used by Captain James Cook to explore New Zealand and Australia, was first used as a collier (shuttling coal about). After its voyage, it was again relegated to a cargo ship to ferry goods to the Falklands, and then sold to a private owner. At that time, it was renamed Lord Sandwich and was used as a troop transport in the American Revolution until it was ignominiously scuttled by the British in the harbor of Newport, Rhode Island.
One of the big problems here is that Paradox designers are trying to conflate "rigging" with "purpose." In other words, it is fair to assume that the largest three- or four-masted ships in the game are "heavy" combat ships, and that the smaller two- or three-masted ones would be "light ships," but for some reason, they are taking the cargo vessel sorts (like fluyts and East Indiamen) to mean "transports."
However, East Indiamen and fluyts were both often outfitted and armed during time of war. The British used East Indiamen as "fourth rates" (46-60 guns). Fluyts were commonly used in the Baltic sea for protecting trade.
The other problem with the current system is that a huge percentage of your fleet is useless at most times. Heavy ships and galleys are only useful during war (or for pirate suppression if they do pop up), and transports are only useful, well, when you need to transport troops. This is far from how they were historically used. Even during peacetime, you'd have your ships-of-the-line out patrolling sea zones. You'd have your "transports" doing what they normally do -- carrying cargo around the world.
So, in other words, what is happening is that Paradox is trying to make clear delineations in the purpose of ships for the sake of the game that, unfortunately, do not line up well with reality. In reality, many ships were used one way at first, then changed later in their lives, possibly over and over again as needed by their owners, whether that was a government's navy, or a private owner.
So.... In short, here's what I would propose:
If Paradox really wanted to hit one out of the ballpark, just as they are doing blockade values based on how many ships you have blockading, you could do pirate suppression based on the total "anti-piracy" values of your patrol, vs. the "lucrativeness" of the route -- which would be attracting pirates. Again, transports would get you zero anti-piracy value. Light ships would get the best. But a fleet of galleons? They might do quite swell to keep pirates away from your trade routes too.
Given this set-up, every player would likely have their entire fleets out protecting trade -- generating income and keeping pirates at bay -- all the time. And there would have to be some heavy thought given to whether you just spam light ships, or whether you want a few heavies mixed in just in case.
In the early game, a lot of nations might make an "all transport" fleet except, say, for a light or two to keep them safe from pirates.
Yes, I know this would be a radical departure from the game as it currently stands, but it is what actually makes the most sense, and it is what history would see as most logical.
As opposed to parking 80 three-deckers in Portsmouth, just in case Frenchy got feisty... >.<
For instance, HMS Endeavor, the famous bark (barque) used by Captain James Cook to explore New Zealand and Australia, was first used as a collier (shuttling coal about). After its voyage, it was again relegated to a cargo ship to ferry goods to the Falklands, and then sold to a private owner. At that time, it was renamed Lord Sandwich and was used as a troop transport in the American Revolution until it was ignominiously scuttled by the British in the harbor of Newport, Rhode Island.
One of the big problems here is that Paradox designers are trying to conflate "rigging" with "purpose." In other words, it is fair to assume that the largest three- or four-masted ships in the game are "heavy" combat ships, and that the smaller two- or three-masted ones would be "light ships," but for some reason, they are taking the cargo vessel sorts (like fluyts and East Indiamen) to mean "transports."
However, East Indiamen and fluyts were both often outfitted and armed during time of war. The British used East Indiamen as "fourth rates" (46-60 guns). Fluyts were commonly used in the Baltic sea for protecting trade.
The other problem with the current system is that a huge percentage of your fleet is useless at most times. Heavy ships and galleys are only useful during war (or for pirate suppression if they do pop up), and transports are only useful, well, when you need to transport troops. This is far from how they were historically used. Even during peacetime, you'd have your ships-of-the-line out patrolling sea zones. You'd have your "transports" doing what they normally do -- carrying cargo around the world.
So, in other words, what is happening is that Paradox is trying to make clear delineations in the purpose of ships for the sake of the game that, unfortunately, do not line up well with reality. In reality, many ships were used one way at first, then changed later in their lives, possibly over and over again as needed by their owners, whether that was a government's navy, or a private owner.
So.... In short, here's what I would propose:
- All ships should be able to be assigned to "protect trade."
- Transports should have the best rating for producing income when protecting trade -- BUT -- if they are protecting trade alone, without any other form of escort -- they should not prevent the spawning of pirates in the zone. They might be able to fight off the pirates, or then again, they might be sunk or even captured.
- Light ships should have the next-best rating for protecting trade income.
- Galleys should have the third-best rating for trade income, but their rating might be doubled, thus better than light ships, in inland seas.
- Heavy ships should have the worst rating for income.
If Paradox really wanted to hit one out of the ballpark, just as they are doing blockade values based on how many ships you have blockading, you could do pirate suppression based on the total "anti-piracy" values of your patrol, vs. the "lucrativeness" of the route -- which would be attracting pirates. Again, transports would get you zero anti-piracy value. Light ships would get the best. But a fleet of galleons? They might do quite swell to keep pirates away from your trade routes too.
Given this set-up, every player would likely have their entire fleets out protecting trade -- generating income and keeping pirates at bay -- all the time. And there would have to be some heavy thought given to whether you just spam light ships, or whether you want a few heavies mixed in just in case.
In the early game, a lot of nations might make an "all transport" fleet except, say, for a light or two to keep them safe from pirates.
Yes, I know this would be a radical departure from the game as it currently stands, but it is what actually makes the most sense, and it is what history would see as most logical.
As opposed to parking 80 three-deckers in Portsmouth, just in case Frenchy got feisty... >.<
BTW the huge late game fleets are somewhat silly. I´d expect some scaling of cost. Also somewhat dissapointing that Manpower still isn´t an issue for navies.
Welcome to the world of game design. Systems > Historical Reality
I would've really liked to see something like privateers being implemented for the regular troops as well. Your troops enter the country under the rebel flag, supporting the local rebellions; anyone interested knows who they are, giving the opinion malus towards the country who does it, as well as AE. Totaly not related to the Crimea.
I get the distinct impression Privateers is going to be one of those additions that "sounds" good but in practices nobody will ever use it much. Kind of like spies.
My guess is that they won't be used much in single player, but they might be useful in MP, where tools for undermining your rivals become much more important.