Going back to 3.2 combat would be a terrible idea IMO. For one thing, you still can and do wipe out armies in 3.2, it just take 20 tedious battles until you manage to get them with the 2-1 0 morale at battle start rule and wipe them out at last despite the other side not having had a chance since they lost the first battle.
I agree that naval combat is much deadlier than it was in history, but I tend to assume most of the "losses" are actually captured ships. Why don't you get the "captured ships"? Game balance. Just imagine if you actually captured all the ships you sink in the game, you'd soon have more ships than you know what to do with. Especially since you don't have to worry about manpower for ships or dealing with captured cannon of different calibres or any number of other factors that prevented every captured ship being returned to service. Reduce the rate of losses/capture? You'd end up with ping-pong navies like you used to have with armies which would just be frustrating to most players. Re-do the entire game to make these things possible? Could do, but they'd need the money, time and motivation to do so.
There's not going to be capturable artillery or PoWs or archers that fire from the rear row either. I say this because they've had 3 expansions they could have changed combat in, and the only major change has been to let arty fire from the rear row, so clearly they're fairly happy with the combat model in the game. They're not going to start tracking the ammo useage of ships or armies either, both for the previous reason and because EU is a game, a game based on a board game, not a simulation.
I know some prefer the new combat; I hate it. It does disrupt wars, making them depend far too much on chance. I do agree that 3.2 was imperfect, but given the choice, I prefer it, by far, to HT. The fact is that, although, usually, the victor in the 1st big battle did end up winning, in 3.2, it was far from certain. Haven't you ever lost a follow-up battle? I have. As it is, the wipeouts are just a flaw.
As for the sea battles, well, captures in 3.2 were flat-out not unreasonable. Yes, in 2.2, they were, but no longer. And in 3.2, we could tweak the tables & change the balance. I don't see how we can in HT.
Of course, the question of whether Paradox has the will to address sea power seriously is, as always, in doubt. The most I can do is argue how much the use of a land-mirrored system just distorts the game, & hope some of it takes. We did get captures reinstated from 3.0 to 3.1. And the fact, that HT gave us a combat overhaul, is evidence that some posts did get through. I just think they vastly overdid it, to the detriment of the game.
So far as the rest, well, we could give archers a higher maneuver value, easily. I'm not sure if they use them, but that just takes testing.
No one advocated tracking ammo use; I merely advocated a feature which would prevent following defeated ships, & used ammo as one of the reasons why it just did not happen at sea, the way it did sometimes on land. If you look at history, prolonged (multi-day) pursuit after a pitched naval battle was extremely rare. So don't have it in the game. You need to distinguish between what I & others are proposing, & the rationale we give for proposing it. To do otherwise just confuses the question.
As for capturing guns, well, it was frequent enough at the time, & it'd be one way for backward countries to get some. Which they did from time-to-time.
Finally, the game/simulation issue is, IMO, a red herring. Yes, it's a game. But without being, to some extent, a simulation, it would not have the following it has. You can see this from the extent of historical debate thoughout the forum. If EUI-II-III were not at all a simulation, this just would not happen. And the game would be poorer for that.
