Johan, how much do you get to play?

[unmerged(9191)]

Originally posted by tpc
imperial army: i don't think that navies are weak, but i do think some of your ideas have merit.

i'm not sure about seeing of your coasts, though, nor a couple of cheap transports is all that's needed for troop movement -- contradicted, incidentally, by your other complaint about high attrition early in the game -- & why, b/c navies are important for some nations & not for others, navies are therefore not powerful. it has always been the case that landlocked nations weren't interested in navies & it has always been the case that island nations or nations w/ considerable overseas possessions/trading were very interested in navies. that seems adequately represented in the game, to me, at least.

if u send 1 transport at a time there is no attiriton (cant do it in war into a battle though)

As Spain or France...Italian power...Ottomans i dont focus on a navy...all with decent coasts and such but the navy I inherit and start with usually lasts..I can end up building more at soome point cause I have money but land always comes first.

The baltic naval battles arn't that important really unless your sweden going to north germany...but even then there is just a few guys going over without much of a battle.

obviously for island nations its important but historically during this period all semi colonial powers had a big intrest in there navy...even if they just traded oversees there navy was important. Navies were important for communication (which cant be simulated really), troop movement, trade, showing regional power too foreign countries and even battle support. Those can be simulated somewhat.

 

[DPS]

Originally posted by Imperial Army
hmm Nobody commented on anything else.

But anyways, I say navies are weak because:
1) You can build a huge amount of oversees troops (still).
2) A couple transports (cheap) are all you need for all troop movement.
3) Naval battles are so up in the air its hard to concentrate a naval campaign since your 20 ships can lose to 3 with lower tech...
4) Blockading (which is much better not) still is not effective enough.
5) Unless the country has just 1 or 2 ports its almost impossible to stop there trade income from oversees (England, France, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Ottomans come to mind)
6) Unless your England, Netherlands or Portugal you navy isn't really needed for homeland defence (As France, Denmark, Sweden and Spain it is nice to be able to stop some invasions but you can usually beat them off with land troops. So if my budget is tight my navy is the 1st thing cut)
7) They provide no bounus in battle (which they did historically, look at the American Revolution or even the American civil war and you will see how much they could help. England was able to just pound the american coast and demoralize them and the Union forced the confederates to march further inland..through less organized area to avoid the fire)
8) They dont help enough during a siege.
9) Early game attrition is a killer so you cant invade anyone more then 3 sea zones away without losing a ship or 2 and also a couple army units (EX: As England attacking Jutland 1 ship is usually lost atleast...)
10) The fact you cant see off your coasts at the games start makes defending the isles nearly impossible unless you want to micro ever little detail thus if you forget all that naval power isn't doing much. And wasting ships patroling your coast is a pain since if you do need to use em you lose your coast protection.

OK, I'll comment.

1) Usually overseas provinces can only build 1k or 2k troops at a time, unless the province is very rich.

2) Not true, in my experience.

3) Naval battles in my experience are no more random than early land battles, perhaps less so.

4) Arguably true, but not clearly so.

5) True, but also appropriate IMO.

6) I agree with you on this, but I also think this is as it should be. Navies were vital to some countries for their defense, but for other countries they were either an offensive weapon or a luxury.

7) I don't think naval gunfire support was nearly as effective in this era as you seem to suggest.

8) They can be very helpful during a siege. How much help they provide is a matter of taste, I think. I tend to agree that they should help more, but I wouldn't care to argue the point too strongly. Also, I have very little experience with sieging coastal provinces while blockading in 1.06, so perhaps they are more helpful now anyway.

9) True, and also as it should be, I think.

10) Well, this does give a reason to have a navy, whick contradicts your main argument.

To avoid an extremely long post which noone will read, I'll comment separately on your suggestions.

 

[DPS]

Originally posted by Imperial Army


Perhaps i spoke to strongly when I said very weak. But the do need to be stronger. A few improvements I can think of are:
1) If you have ships off the coast of an enemy, you get +1 fire value in battle.
2)If you ahve ships off the coast the enemy gets .10 less morale
3) combine 1&2 (which I would then make warships VERY useful) also make it tech dependent so you can only do it say naval 5.
4) Make it if you control 1/2 there ports they only make half the value of overseas trade.
5) If you control 2/3 of there ports they only get 1/3 there oversees trade.
6) If the province is being blockaded they all promotion,build orders and upgrades are halted.
7) If a province is being blockaded they cannot promote anyone, build troops or upgrade forts.
8) You see off your coasts at start.
9) further hurt overseas recruting
10) If no sea route can be traced to home land they dont receive any oversees trade income past that point (EX: Im Spain and have 1 line of sea zones to zanibar. If i go to war with france and he has ships in that line I dont get income from zanibar).

1, 2, & 3) As I said before, I don't think naval gunfire support was that effective in this era. If you want to implement something like this it shouldn't be before level 40-something at least IMO.

4 & 5) It would be reasonable to reduce enemy overseas trade as you gain control of their ports, but it shouldn't be on a 1:1 ratio as you seem to suggest; up to a limit trade could be diverted to the ports they still control.

6 & 7) That's so harsh a penalty that it's just plain silly unless the province in question has no land connection to their capital, in which case I believe it's still too harsh, but perhaps the build times or costs could be increased in that case. I will note that the amount of troops you can recruit in a blockaded province is already reduced, which can really hurt in those overseas provinces you've complained about.

8) Reasonable, but again I note that having to patrol your coasts does make a navy more valuable, so I don't know that this is something you should be advocating if you want to increase the importance of navies.

9) I've already stated that I feel this is unnecessary.

10) I'll have to think about this one some more. It would make naval contol of certain choke points (Straits of Gibraltar, The Sund, The Dardenalles, etc.) more important, and seems reasonable in such places. I'm not sure it's realistic on the open seas where you may have only explored one sea zone wide, but there's plenty of open ocean to sail around if your seas captains want to risk it.

 

[unmerged(6925)]

I don't see eye to eye with Imperial Army on his gripes about the game. From what I can see, any of the gripes which are legitimate are supposed to be there

 

[unmerged(9191)]

Originally posted by DPS
1, 2, & 3) As I said before, I don't think naval gunfire support was that effective in this era. If you want to implement something like this it shouldn't be before level 40-something at least IMO.

4 & 5) It would be reasonable to reduce enemy overseas trade as you gain control of their ports, but it shouldn't be on a 1:1 ratio as you seem to suggest; up to a limit trade could be diverted to the ports they still control.

6 & 7) That's so harsh a penalty that it's just plain silly unless the province in question has no land connection to their capital, in which case I believe it's still too harsh, but perhaps the build times or costs could be increased in that case. I will note that the amount of troops you can recruit in a blockaded province is already reduced, which can really hurt in those overseas provinces you've complained about.

8) Reasonable, but again I note that having to patrol your coasts does make a navy more valuable, so I don't know that this is something you should be advocating if you want to increase the importance of navies.

9) I've already stated that I feel this is unnecessary.

10) I'll have to think about this one some more. It would make naval contol of certain choke points (Straits of Gibraltar, The Sund, The Dardenalles, etc.) more important, and seems reasonable in such places. I'm not sure it's realistic on the open seas where you may have only explored one sea zone wide, but there's plenty of open ocean to sail around if your seas captains want to risk it.

1) Then you obviously dont read enough about naval history. The American Revoulution had huge gun support for british troops. In India those guns would scare there soilders so bad (morale) they would not want to fight. Sieges where boats were outside got ALOT of firesupport right after they learned how to fire.

If you would like an example from history: Venice was able to keep corfu and crete for so long because anybody sieging it had to deal with constart naval bombardments (eventually leading to some nice naval battles so they could actually siege). Sweeden in North Germany during the 30 years war used limited naval cannon support. Sweden fighting denmark would bomb any siegers.

England during the 7 years war bombarded French colony's into subbmission as well as any french army too close to the coast.

I think you underestimate the gun support provided. No they woudln't neccesarily turn the tide of battle...but neither will plus .10 morale or +1 fire (going 9 to quality would counter this..)

2) Actually any country very commited to oversea's trade and expansion had some pretty packed ports...pretty hard for Spain too keep there oversea's intrests going when they have 2 ports open..and yes it is pretty close to 1:1 (if u have any other suggestion im all ears)

3) Go ahead try to build a factory, recruit troops or get the peasents to listen too why its OK to tax them more while im pounding you with cannon balls...im sure that wont be a problem..

4)How am I gonna launch an invasion if I have too keep 60 dollars worth of ships watching my coast? When this is still important money isn't exactly flowing (amazingly when u start geting money you can see off your coasts). not to mention if you have too keep guys off all your coasts, all your colonies, and theres (to spy)...how is it Im going to try and attack? I cant even go to attack there navy off my coasts its so spread out..not to mention attrition and such.

5) oh yea I forgot the 20K England kept recruiting in Detroit during the American revolution.... AND YES in a couple years (like 2) i can get up 20K in colonial cities.

6) No they wouldn't.....unless they were getting paid quite a bunch (thus less profit from trade)...I highly doubt some merchants are gonna go into uncharted waters...

 

[DPS]

Originally posted by Imperial Army
1) Then you obviously dont read enough about naval history. The American Revoulution had huge gun support for british troops. In India those guns would scare there soilders so bad (morale) they would not want to fight. Sieges where boats were outside got ALOT of firesupport right after they learned how to fire.

If you would like an example from history: Venice was able to keep corfu and crete for so long because anybody sieging it had to deal with constart naval bombardments (eventually leading to some nice naval battles so they could actually siege). Sweeden in North Germany during the 30 years war used limited naval cannon support. Sweden fighting denmark would bomb any siegers.

England during the 7 years war bombarded French colony's into subbmission as well as any french army too close to the coast.

I think you underestimate the gun support provided. No they woudln't neccesarily turn the tide of battle...but neither will plus .10 morale or +1 fire (going 9 to quality would counter this..)

2) Actually any country very commited to oversea's trade and expansion had some pretty packed ports...pretty hard for Spain too keep there oversea's intrests going when they have 2 ports open..and yes it is pretty close to 1:1 (if u have any other suggestion im all ears)

3) Go ahead try to build a factory, recruit troops or get the peasents to listen too why its OK to tax them more while im pounding you with cannon balls...im sure that wont be a problem..

4)How am I gonna launch an invasion if I have too keep 60 dollars worth of ships watching my coast? When this is still important money isn't exactly flowing (amazingly when u start geting money you can see off your coasts). not to mention if you have too keep guys off all your coasts, all your colonies, and theres (to spy)...how is it Im going to try and attack? I cant even go to attack there navy off my coasts its so spread out..not to mention attrition and such.

5) oh yea I forgot the 20K England kept recruiting in Detroit during the American revolution.... AND YES in a couple years (like 2) i can get up 20K in colonial cities.

6) No they wouldn't.....unless they were getting paid quite a bunch (thus less profit from trade)...I highly doubt some merchants are gonna go into uncharted waters...

1) I've read plenty of naval history. Obviously I'm not reading the same histories as you. I just don't read that naval gunfire support was that big a war-winner in the timeframe of EUII. The British used their fleet more to land troops than to pound the defenders from my reading.

2) I have no idea how much excess port capacity may have existed during the period, but again what reading I have done suggests that unless you could blockade pretty much all of a country's ports, shipping just diverted to the unblockaded ports. Of course, even if the unblockaded ports had enough capacity to handle all of a country's trade (unlikely), there would have still been some reduction due to a portion of the nation's shipping being trapped in the ports which are blockaded. But 1:1 just doesn't seem likely to me.

3) Blockading isn't bombarding the ports, it's patroling the coast to block access by enemy shipping. No way could you afford to bombard a port long enough to prevent the building of new infrastructure, much less to keep taxes from being collected. Sure, you could bombard for a bit, and probably noone would be particularly interested in engaging in any major construction activity while under bombardment, but you couldn't sustain it long enough to actually accomplish much.

4) Again, I tend to agree that you probably should be able to see your coastal areas from the start of the game, but having to patrol them does make your fleet more useful and important, which I thought was what you wanted to do.

5) I haven't checked, so I can't dispute your statement that England can recruit 20k at once in Detroit during the American Revolution, but in general you simply can't build that much at once in overseas provinces--usually just 1-2k at a time.

6) Again, my reading suggests that blockade running was very lucrative. It also suggests that your merchant captains are probably aware of some sea routes that they don't let on about.

 

[unmerged(9191)]

Originally posted by DPS
1) I've read plenty of naval history. Obviously I'm not reading the same histories as you. I just don't read that naval gunfire support was that big a war-winner in the timeframe of EUII. The British used their fleet more to land troops than to pound the defenders from my reading.

2) I have no idea how much excess port capacity may have existed during the period, but again what reading I have done suggests that unless you could blockade pretty much all of a country's ports, shipping just diverted to the unblockaded ports. Of course, even if the unblockaded ports had enough capacity to handle all of a country's trade (unlikely), there would have still been some reduction due to a portion of the nation's shipping being trapped in the ports which are blockaded. But 1:1 just doesn't seem likely to me.

3) Blockading isn't bombarding the ports, it's patroling the coast to block access by enemy shipping. No way could you afford to bombard a port long enough to prevent the building of new infrastructure, much less to keep taxes from being collected. Sure, you could bombard for a bit, and probably noone would be particularly interested in engaging in any major construction activity while under bombardment, but you couldn't sustain it long enough to actually accomplish much.

4) Again, I tend to agree that you probably should be able to see your coastal areas from the start of the game, but having to patrol them does make your fleet more useful and important, which I thought was what you wanted to do.

5) I haven't checked, so I can't dispute your statement that England can recruit 20k at once in Detroit during the American Revolution, but in general you simply can't build that much at once in overseas provinces--usually just 1-2k at a time.

6) Again, my reading suggests that blockade running was very lucrative. It also suggests that your merchant captains are probably aware of some sea routes that they don't let on about.

1)I said it didn't make and break battles just gave an advantage.

2) Its not 1:1 per say...as in just cause i have 1/10 ports blocked u dont lose 10%...but when i get 5 blocked you lose 50% and if I have 7 blocked you lose 66%...again maybe not the most accurate but Im open to suggestions.

3) Its not too hard to tell when they start building stuff and just bomb then (which they would). As I said before the people arn't going to be open to paying more tax's while they are being deprived goods and getting shelled. Its not neccesarily that they couldn't collect tax's, they could COLLECT more tax's then they were before the blockade started.

4) We arn't neccesarily aruguing the same thing here. My point is even if you see them comming, your fleet is so spread out that you couldn't react to it anyways and having to constantly patrol them makes them that much more less attractive. After all even if you saw off your coast how could help if you didn't have ships to begin with?

5) They cant do it at once. But in 2 years or so they can. Plus if they work in a few provinces it can be 20K in 9 months or something.....the same time it takes to ship them to the battle...so why would I risk shipping them? Also most wars last over 2 years....

6) Its not really blockade running...there not patrolling..they wouldn't even know the navy was there till they are caught. EX: If at the begging of the game portugal only knows 1 sea zone line to ivoria...if there at war with Spain...Spain drops a fleet off Guinea the portugese merchants wouldn't know there even there...let alone about the war...or that there gonna be aggressive.

I mean navies have NO effect on the economy and they definately should. They do help in sieges and support limit now which makes it neccessary to have some navy..I never said have no navy...but being a naval power if your not playing England, Portugal or Netherlands is just useless. I mean Sweden, Denmark, Hanseatic League had some great naval battles and wars in this time...and they just arn't neccessary now. There is no need for a new America to build a navy as the cost of getting up a new navy to beat the brits back isn't worth what it would get you... As Spain or France..Italian powers.. or Muslims there isn't even a point in trying to build a nice navy..the former 2 can never top England and the later 2 will never have a real need for one...just getting up enough war ships to seek out some little navies for a war score boost and enough to fairy troops to colony's and trading posts is all thats needed..and that only requires 3 to 4 transports.

 

[Rio]

IIRC, there are penalties to incomes derived from coastal provinces when opposing naval forces are in the related sea lane. I know pirates inflict these losses, and I believe I have seen the same from non piratical opposing naval forces.

Aside from this, it is clear that increased siege speed is a step in the right direction, and perhaps adequate to indicate the effects of a naval squadron off the coast of a besieged province. Keep in mind, this is a PROVINCE-full of potentially defended locations, not all of which might have been in los lof of naval squadrons available, and not all of which might have been highly effected by the limited ordinance of the periods.

On the other points, I think I may be a bit apathetic.

 

[N Katsyev]

As for the name of your thread, read through this thread...

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78833

I'm not going to argue the navy stuff right now, I just don't have the energy.

 

[Impi]

navies would seriously come into their own (and be more historical and accurate) if the HOI trade, supply and convoy system were implemented in EU2. the true function of navies as guardians of ocean going trade routes and interceptors of enemy supply routes would quickly be revealed. economic warfare was just as effective then as now, especially for maritime powers like holland and england. it would also quickly delineate between maritime and land based powers, and make the land/navy sliders that much more useful.

that would be a major effort, so i can't see it happening.

it would be nice if it did, though.

 

[Johan]

Last time I checked, navies severly crippled income when blockading.

 

[Languish]

Originally posted by Johan
Last time I checked, navies severly crippled income when blockading.

I tend to agree with the developer of the game

 

[N Katsyev]

I think Johan would like to check out my suggestions in this thread:

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78800

Which in itself would add a bit more balance once again to the land/naval slider. I think we've come up with something really good here.

 

[Elijah]

Interesting idea. I like it alot.

 

[Johan]

Originally posted by N Katsyev
I think Johan would like to check out my suggestions in this thread:

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78800

Which in itself would add a bit more balance once again to the land/naval slider. I think we've come up with something really good here.

Technically its possible.

However, I'm not too sold on the idea.

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Johan
Technically its possible.

However, I'm not too sold on the idea.

Hmmm... maybe you'll feel better about it in the morning? Would it be better if we kept the slider change alone? Or left the slider thing out completely and kept the continental part?

 

[unmerged(9191)]

Originally posted by Johan
Last time I checked, navies severly crippled income when blockading.

Hurt yes....severly cripple no.

still no comments on anything else.....

Basically to sum it up Navies cant have crippling effects on an economy. I cant do much too effect trade...blockading is just half the tax income.......not enough to criple a country unless i keep a full blockade for 5 years...hardly possible vs country's like France, England, Spain, Venice.

Untill something more is done the game is missing out on a very important aspect of this time in history.....

 

[Gwalcmai]

I tend to agree with the "underpowered navies" idea. When the portuguese got to India, they very quickly got pretty good control of trade there, just by using the superior navy to dominate the trade routes.
There is however some distance from slightly underperforming to almost useless. When you say "transports are all you need" you should remember that those transports have to get to shore and unload the troops. In my ongoing GC playing Portugal I got in a war (was dragged into it by my allies) with an alliance of Genoa, Denmark and some others. The Danes kept trying to send troops into the Med to help out Genoa, and my fleet (with some occasional help from England) kept denying them passage through Gibraltar. When I finally agreed to a separate peace, they managed to get through, and when the war ended Denmark had Italian provinces.
But I must agree on weird battle results. It's just strange for a fleet of 20 warships of the highest tech in Europe to lose to 3 warships of inferior tech. Naval tech was extremely important when it came to battle decision, to a point where 6 portuguese warships were able to go into Ormuz harbour, face a fleet of 60 large ships and 100+ small ones and sink most of them with very limited losses. (I'm not making this up, it happened in 1507) As it is now, that superior naval tech seems to play a very limited part in the outcome of battles.
Which brings me to another point. Ships in EU2 seem almost unsinkable. In real life, I doubt any naval battle involving 20+ ships would end with no losses on either side. Ok, at least not until the ship-of-the-line tactics of the 18th century.
And it should be possible to capture enemy ships. That, at least, was extremely common.
Hmmm... getting too long, I better stop.

 

[Zander]

Yes. I don't mind the randomness (well, I do, it drives me crazy, but it makes sense), but battle losses are way too low in naval combats. So far as I recall, it was not unheard of for ships in the Middle Ages to be able to sink other ships from time to time, whereas most naval battles in EU2 pass without a single ship going beneath the waves.

 

[SJG]

Originally posted by Gwalcmai
Which brings me to another point. Ships in EU2 seem almost unsinkable. In real life, I doubt any naval battle involving 20+ ships would end with no losses on either side.

I think the ships being nigh-on unsinkable might be to offset the fact that they are so expensive. Would it really cost the yearly GDP of a small (say two or three provinces average provinces) country to build one warship? I have no idea, but it seems a little high. If they sunk too often having a reasonable sized navy could be very, very expensive.