Missing the point about naval ideas

[Tacticus101]

The problem with Naval ideas is not with the ideas themselves, it is in that by picking Naval ideas you don't pick another military idea group. That is less of an issue in Single player, where the AI doesn't pick idea groups well, but in a Multiplayer game or when fighting someone like France, Ottomans or Prussia the lack of discipline, moral and combat ability becomes a serious issue.

Thus, if picking Naval ideas you get the problem that Britain had often during its history; a Navy can prevent you being defeated but it does not allow you to defeat your enemies. With Naval ideas your army suffers, and in a competitive environment you will no longer be able to win on land. Obviously this is actually bad for someone like Venice, who needs a powerful navy but is very vulnerable to a strong land power invading.

The solution I feel is one of two options;

1) You add land combat bonuses to Naval ideas. Obviously they will be less powerful than a dedicated land idea group, but a 5% discipline bonus would make it possible to take Naval ideas and still compete on land. Other groups do it, Aristocratic gives a diplomatic boost, Plutocratic gives an economic boost and Quality has naval combat ideas in it.

2) Make economic damage from navies more relevant. Have blockades cause significant devastation to coastal provinces and reduce the trade power of the blockaded power in the trade region similar to embargoes. That would actually make being blockaded painful and something you want to prevent rather than something that can be mostly ignored.

 

[The Ultimate Potato]

This doesn't change that. Now insted having the larger fleet gives you a slight bonus in small number of locations.


There was a number of limited siege ships during the games time period, bomb ketches and rocket ships. Questionable effects and tended not to fight modern defences, often insted hitting the cities to do the damage.

The big argument against naval bombardment of forts isn't "the ships can't damage the forts", it's "the forts will tear the ships to pieces".

If the ship is close enough to shoot the fort, it's also close enough to be shot by the fort - and the fort will have:
A) Bigger guns.
B) More guns.
C) More accurate guns (since they're shooting from stable stone floors, not a rocking ship's deck).
D) Much, much tougher defences.

It's worth noting that this dynamic is most heavily stacked against the navy during (approximately) the first half of the period EU covers.

Earlier, in the catapult-and-ballista era, the fort's weapons are weak and inaccurate enough that they're not too dangerous to a ship that sails into range. This also means that the fleet has effectively zero chance of damaging the fort's walls, but that's less important than the fact that they can sail in and bombard the defenders without being wiped out; there's always the chance of getting a lucky hit on an enemy siege engine, killing defenders, starting fires, and just generally wearing down the enemy morale in the way only incoming fire can.

Later, with the introduction of effective mortars and explosive shells, the ship's weapons become powerful enough to be a legitimate threat to the fort as well as the other way around. Once both sides can do real damage with one good hit, 'start shooting and hope we get lucky more often than they do' becomes a viable tactic. A realistic implementation would be a lot more like the 'Assault the walls' button than the 'Artillery Barrage' one - risky, and probably painful even if you win - but it's at least possible.

There's a period in the middle, however - in EU terms from maybe Mil tech 7 through 20 - where the forts can sink a ship with just a few good/lucky hits but the ships need a few hundred hits to do any real damage in return. During that period, naval attacks on any serious land-based defenses are in 'Hahaha... no' territory.

Very informative, thanks.

You can't achieve almost anything by simple naval superiority except defense, even as Great Britain. If you face someone who has a superior army, while you have a superior navy, , they can't invade the isles, but you wont be able to conquer anything of theirs either. Meanwhile anything of yours on the mainland can be taken with ease. So unless you want to remain on the isles and build really tall the whole game, you need an army. However, the reverse isn't true, You don't really need naval superiority, or even an navy for most countries to expand. France could reach Thousands of development without ever building a ship.

OK, Naval forts are not strictly superior in most situations. First, most coastal squares don't have the same defensive bonuses of inland squares (water adjacent territories are sometimes mountains, it is pretty rare in most areas) Second, in most coastal provinces (again not all) forts have limited projection of zone of control. Much of the forts (zone) is eaten up by already impassible coastal terrain. In fact, in some cases like the agean, coastal fort zone of control can be outright ignored if the troops are landed from a sea tile. So, in reality, in most cases, by building a coastal fort, you are trading flexibility and zone of control projection for defensiveness.

Naval bombardment is very controversial. Some people think it is immersion breaking, and Sieging is absurd from a game balance perspective due to letting navies replace armies for land warfare (though an exception might be in place for unfortified one province islands.

Heavy ships counting as artillery is weird cause you generally don't want one thing being a replacement for another. it weakens the third, this isn't as bad as most though.

Amphibious landings. I like this idea. In fact I suggested the same thing last weak in my own proposal for naval ideas.

Coastal batteries, with the way most fleets are managed by relying on automation, this would be an endless headache for players who would be forced to either micromanage or lose ships.

2.5 % discipline, I also saw darkfire's video and I don't agree with these types of bonuses. For one, I already think that the idea groups are too similar. It creates a problem where, if they all do the same thing, one group will always be better and thus always taken. We already have that problem with the groups as it is. Also, it's naval ideas, not land ideas. It should focus on the navy. Now, there are a lot of ways you can make the navy influence the land combat, but the navy HAS to be involved. Your amphibious landing idea was a great example of that. It would heavily effect land battles in the vicinity of the coast, but it requires use of the navy to do it. For that reason, I find all your ideas better than just giving a flat land bonus.

Now if you had like a 10% moral bonus to any owned army on a coastal province adjacent to heavy ships could be an example of a land bonus dependent on the navy. (I don't like it for other reasons but it's an easy example)

Noted, I agree with pretty much all of this and I see you share the same sentiment that the navy HAS to be involved. Updated the OP.

As far as coastal forts not being superior, indeed, the Aegian region is a complete shitshow. However, my main point is that maritime nations will be able to bully knuckle-dragging continental opponents. If you build a fort in the Cape, enemies with naval ideas will be able to siege it down faster, and such nations likely have naval superiority. If the enemy gets +1 or +2 pips by defaults, and you're stuck at -2 when recapturing, you're better off building the fort 1 province inland. But then all it takes to occupy the cape is a 1k stack. Extend this example to any coastal trade centre in the world. If you are forced to build a fort next to the province, not on top of it, then it's easier to occupy. It also foregoes the default -2 pips, should you have naval superiority in the future.

As it has been pointed out before, You prevent navies from even building galleys or heavies unless they have naval ideas, and still naval ideas wouldn't be worth it because navies are not worth the investment of an idea group that could be better spent getting land force bonuses.

Well put.

I am siding with naval ideas must be picked for special purposes and not to %100 conquer runs or land battles... they may include some ideas that buffing land units (maybe idea that land units fighting near friendly ships got extra morale when defending since they can help them ONLY when defend since enemy is walking on them?)

ships means utility... not conquest. if you are picking naval ideas you want to have special utilty aganist enemy... maybe blocking their passage? or make them have hard time with blockade? stop reinforcements coming? I dont know

But if you want to pick naval ideas as ottoman to make it easier to conquer world... then its wrong way to go

Naval or maritime ideas really should be a no-brainer for nations that practice colonization and other nations that are focused around getting spawling trade empires established, like Venice and Genoa. The idea group shouldn't be changed so that anyone else benefits much from taking it.

You're missing the point. Taking naval still means NOT taking quantity or whatever else is on your mind. Even with these changes, taking naval would only make sense if you have such an overwhelming land advantage that there's no need for land ideas, but don't have access to plutocratic. It would only be for when your army is so strong, that there's no point investing in it further. Currently, even if you have the best land army the world has ever seen, it's still better to take quality for shits and giggles because naval won't make conquering Indonesia any faster. Only offensive can make conquering islands faster because of siege ability, but then again it makes everything faster.

You would effectively be taking an entire idea group for an extra siege pip against coastal forts and better amphibious landings, which is something a world conqueror would do, (in addition to the naval combat bonuses, of course - who could forget those?). It's also a small nod to nations that would take naval ideas anyway. Such as... in theory: GB and Japan. In practice: nobody.

 

[Honon]

The problem with Naval ideas is not with the ideas themselves, it is in that by picking Naval ideas you don't pick another military idea group. That is less of an issue in Single player, where the AI doesn't pick idea groups well, but in a Multiplayer game or when fighting someone like France, Ottomans or Prussia the lack of discipline, moral and combat ability becomes a serious issue.

Thus, if picking Naval ideas you get the problem that Britain had often during its history; a Navy can prevent you being defeated but it does not allow you to defeat your enemies. With Naval ideas your army suffers, and in a competitive environment you will no longer be able to win on land. Obviously this is actually bad for someone like Venice, who needs a powerful navy but is very vulnerable to a strong land power invading.

The solution I feel is one of two options;

1) You add land combat bonuses to Naval ideas. Obviously they will be less powerful than a dedicated land idea group, but a 5% discipline bonus would make it possible to take Naval ideas and still compete on land. Other groups do it, Aristocratic gives a diplomatic boost, Plutocratic gives an economic boost and Quality has naval combat ideas in it.

2) Make economic damage from navies more relevant. Have blockades cause significant devastation to coastal provinces and reduce the trade power of the blockaded power in the trade region similar to embargoes. That would actually make being blockaded painful and something you want to prevent rather than something that can be mostly ignored.

Most of this has been addressed before but i'll try to reiterate the points.
the opportunity costs are a problem in single player too because it doesn't help you conquer anything. With Admin, influence, Diplomatic, and religion/humanist being near mandatory, You don't have a lot of room for idea groups that don't do anything relevant. And if you do, Economic, Trade, Maritime, Espionage, Offense, Defense, Quality, and even Innovative all are more Relevant to naval ideas.

Giving flat land army bonus on the naval idea group is more akin to giving aristocratic additional burghers loyalty or Offensive +25% fort defense. It completely ignores the whole point of the group. It's ok if a Venice player wouldn't pick Naval. Or it wouldn't be picked in Multiplayer, as long as it was worth it to pick Somewhere.

Bigger economic impact from blockades is ok. At least it is better than what Paradox is trying to do, which is coerce us to picking Naval ideas by making navies useless without the idea group at least.

 

[nkibilko]

Naval and Maritime ideas are basically insurance to be the most dominant Navy in the world in every aspect. I either take both or neither. I use them with Denmark, Norway and Netherlands every single time, the synergy is amazing and totally worth it in my opinion. I am #1 in everything i care about when i play those countries.

 

[Honon]

Naval and Maritime ideas are basically insurance to be the most dominant Navy in the world in every aspect. I either take both or neither. I use them with Denmark, Norway and Netherlands every single time, the synergy is amazing and totally worth it in my opinion. I am #1 in everything i care about when i play those countries.

You go ahead and play Norway with maritime and navy ideas, and I will pick Sweden with offensive and Quantity ideas, let's see who does better. I'm willing to bet that you will be forming Iceland before very long.

Or you can play the Netherlands with and I'll play France with the same idea groups (you have maritime and naval) and I have Offensive/Quantity, and find out who wins.

Once again, Role playing aside, A Navy doesn't do much to actually affect your ability to do the most important thing in the game, take and hold land. Therefore, an idea group that helps navies be better at doing nothing is never going to be worth not taking offensive/defensive/quality/quantity/or even aristocratic.

By the way NOBODY is arguing that naval ideas don't make navies better at fighting wars. what they are saying is that making navies better doesn't really affect the game.

 

[Big Bad France]

You're missing the point. Taking naval still means NOT taking quantity or whatever else is on your mind. Even with these changes, taking naval would only make sense if you have such an overwhelming land advantage that there's no need for land ideas, but don't have access to plutocratic. It would only be for when your army is so strong, that there's no point investing in it further. Currently, even if you have the best land army the world has ever seen, it's still better to take quality for shits and giggles because naval won't make conquering Indonesia any faster. Only offensive can make conquering islands faster because of siege ability, but then again it makes everything faster.

You would effectively be taking an entire idea group for an extra siege pip against coastal forts and better amphibious landings, which is something a world conqueror would do, (in addition to the naval combat bonuses, of course - who could forget those?). It's also a small nod to nations that would take naval ideas anyway. Such as... in theory: GB and Japan. In practice: nobody.

Well, my point was that if you are playing a game as, say, England, and manage to get yourself 100% blockaded for a year, you should suffer major effects, like lost manpower, lost tax and production base, and revolts. Blockading a continental nation with a lot of interior trade power shouldn't have the same effect. That would give some incentive for players playing a nation that traditionally had a strong navy to also have a strong navy themselves. It would allow some nations to be bled dry until they get destroyed in wars if they can't protect their shores.

 

[Honon]

Well, my point was that if you are playing a game as, say, England, and manage to get yourself 100% blockaded for a year, you should suffer major effects, like lost manpower, lost tax and production base, and revolts. Blockading a continental nation with a lot of interior trade power shouldn't have the same effect. That would give some incentive for players playing a nation that traditionally had a strong navy to also have a strong navy themselves. It would allow some nations to be bled dry until they get destroyed in wars if they can't protect their shores.

Even then, in most situations, you could strengthen your navy enough with offensive and exploration ideas to be unchallenged on the oceans.

 

[Tacticus101]

Well, my point was that if you are playing a game as, say, England, and manage to get yourself 100% blockaded for a year, you should suffer major effects, like lost manpower, lost tax and production base, and revolts. Blockading a continental nation with a lot of interior trade power shouldn't have the same effect. That would give some incentive for players playing a nation that traditionally had a strong navy to also have a strong navy themselves. It would allow some nations to be bled dry until they get destroyed in wars if they can't protect their shores.

The problem with that is it is a huge nerf to naval nations that are already rather weak. You would be making it so that nations like England have to take Naval ideas or suffer, whilst nations like France to completely ignore a navy, that is completely the opposite of what needs to be encouraged.

 

[Canute VII]

One other possibility along the general theme of "make naval bonuses that impact land warfare" would be improved strait blocking. Basically, bring back the old style of strait blocking exclusively for nations with naval ideas.

Trin Tragula said:

You can, since many patches now, not prevent a crossing by someone who controls both sides of the strait.
It never made sense that putting a ship in the bosphorus could stop anyone from moving across when in reality that ship would've been shot to pieces immediately by the forts on land.

Unfortunately, to deny crossing a strait, no forts are actually required according to the current game rule. Maybe, it would be a good move to add this requirement?

Requirement to enable unhindered crossing:

• Have controlled forts on both sides of the strait

Requirement to deny crossing in all other scenarios:

• Have 100% blockage of the strait, i.e. this requires to deploy several ships and would be helped by maritime ideas

 

[fyfaendeluxe]

Navies will never be relevant unless you re-introduce EU2's supply mechanics. AI can't handle that though, so basically we're stuck.

I like the idea of letting navies raid unfortified coastal provinces (Empty loot bar, +10 devastation, 5/10 year CD), similar to berber raiding but without the stealing of sailors and only while at war. Add it to a later tech level, or to either naval or maritime ideas.

 

[SirHindsight117]

My proposals.

Base naval change:

1) When blockaded, coastal province production = (grand total after applied positive bonuses)*0.4 - a true 60% reduction
2) When blockaded, coastal province trade power = (grand total after applied positive bonuses)*0.3 - a true 70% reduction

Maritime idea change:

Change the effect of Naval Fighting Instruction (the last idea) from +50% Blockade Efficiency to further enhance blockade effects so that coastal province production suffers by true 80% and trade power suffers by true 90%.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Numbers will have to be tweaked by testing or compromised by people yelling OP or UP, naturally. Reasons why I say true prior to my percentage numbers is because currently the blockade effect is calculated in a stupid way where the percentage is not of the grand total but is just one small debuff on top of all the other buffs of buildings, events etc. after the base number (iirc), which I don't think is WAD. It's quite sloppy actually.

I would love to just smash trade power by 100% straight off the bat for gameplay reasons (in terms of promoting the necessity of the navy) but I'm sure if farmer joe in coastal province wanted to trade by horse & cart because no ships were leaving the harbor, he has that choice. He just can't move as much volume. Just saying.

Personally, I never liked that naval embargoes affected production. From a reality POV, parking the Royal Navy in the Bay of Biscay is not going to stop a Frenchman in Bordeaux from making his Cabernet Sauvignon or Merlot but we've got to do something to entice the land power bros to the naval side right?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the more crazier ideas in my head would be for naval embargoes to not cause production reductions at all. What would happen is you have a mission selection for the fleet - Blockade coast/[select province]/[have enough ships + proper ratio of heavy and frigates yes/no check like the explore mission] and once the fleet arrives to blockade the coast, not only does it rob 90% of said coastal province's trade power, it also transfers the lost trade power to the blockader (as if they were physically occupying it with an army).

This is to make someone realize that when they go to war with a naval power major, or said power is one amongst multiple enemies in an upcoming war against a land major with a colonial/coastal trade empire (France, Spain, Portugal, Venice, Ottomans for example), they open up their entire trading network to interdiction by the enemy and they better have a strong navy to contend with the enemy or suffer the consequences of just sitting idly by. Not only do you lose your trade, but you are literally being robbed.

I don't know how ahistorical that may be (I'd imagine quite a bit) but that would be a pretty powerful change to naval gameplay I believe.

Once all these economic hard hitting effects become essential to play (if they can be hard hitting enough), and coastal powers then become obliged to build navies simply to establish naval superiority in their territorial waters to prevent themselves coming under embargo, then we'd hopefully see more of a naval arms race?

 

[Big Bad France]

The problem with that is it is a huge nerf to naval nations that are already rather weak. You would be making it so that nations like England have to take Naval ideas or suffer, whilst nations like France to completely ignore a navy, that is completely the opposite of what needs to be encouraged.

This isn't a game where all nations are created equal. I think nations that are built on maritime trade needing to focus on having a strong navy would add some realism to the game, and that would be a good thing.

 

[bbqftw]

One can also add ideas that for example increase warscore gain from blockades, and war exhaustion increase from blockades, etc.

 

[lawrence2069]

The real issue with naval and maritime ideas is that currently navies are too good without any investment at all. All you need to do is stay on top with diplo tech and numbers, and you are basically okay. Contrast this with land armies: while staying on top with tech and numbers surely helps, you also need to do investments in morale/discipline in order to stay competitive. If you don't, you'll feel the disadvantage in morale and discipline compared to nations who did actually invest in ideas to improve those modifiers. You don't need to do this on the naval side because it is too good without investment.

Naval unit changes

I think that in order to make naval combat, and by extension naval ideas, be a factor we need to heavily nerf base morale, building speed and trade power for all ship types while increasing costs and/or ship maintenance at the same time with the exception of transports. Maybe also put in a malus to naval tradition and colonisation range for those nations without anything naval related in their ideas.

This forces players who want to have an actual navy to invest ideas and policies in it in order to compete. Those who do not are forced to be limited to be land based powers only, with all advantages and disadvantages that entails. This has some historical basis as well: nations were either strong on the high seas, or they weren't, and those nations who were naval powers happened to be the trading/colonising nations as well. There weren't any middling powers in a naval sense. This would also serve as a soft buff to trade ideas: with those light ships suddenly being more expensive and giving less base trade power, the bonuses from the trade idea group don't look so mediocre anymore, especially for those land powers.

Blockade changes

At the same time make it more of a consequence being fully blockaded: events ("grain shortage") with a regular pulse giving stabhits and/or war exhaustion to nations who are 100% blockaded could be a thought, as is a malus to trade efficiency ("black market on the rise") that increases the more a nation's ports get blockaded. Nations who control many food provinces such as grain, fish, livestock, ... could be (partially) exempt from this, as are nations who have a very low percentage of coastline provinces compared to their total provinces: these represent (quasi) landlocked nations whose economy doesn't depend on the oceans. Nations with many ports compared to their total provinces should be more vulnerable to these blockade events as they represent maritime trading nations whose economy is very much dependent on maritime access. Suddenly being blockaded doesn't seem so nice any more for nations with important coastlines on top of the penalties already in the game.

It could also serve to tick off the burghers estate, giving additional unrest in those provinces controlled by the burghers.

 

[ThatRabidPotato]

Naval and Maritime ideas are basically insurance to be the most dominant Navy in the world in every aspect. I either take both or neither. I use them with Denmark, Norway and Netherlands every single time, the synergy is amazing and totally worth it in my opinion. I am #1 in everything i care about when i play those countries.

You're playing the Netherlands wrong then. You don't need any ideas that buff Navy as them to give your navy OP bonuses, it's already in your National Ideas and the Dutch Republic government. It is entirely feasible to have a navy stronger than the next five powers put together while still taking Quantity and offensive/defensive/quality/plutocratic as the Netherlands by 1575. I know, that's what's happened in my current campaign.
Yet, that same campaign also provides graphic evidence of how relatively unimportant fleets are. I got attacked by Spain & Portugal, and France, who was supposed to protect me, dishonored because they were fighting the Incas, leaving me to face Spain alone. I completely erased the Spanish navy within the first six months and chased down the Portuguese within a few months after that, leaving me the undisputed ruler of the world's oceans. IT DIDN'T MATTER. I had the whole enemy coast under blockade, they couldn't get anything back and forth from their colonies to the Old World, and I still lost because I was screwed on land.
The best and easiest solution in my opinion, the one that sticks closest to the true power of fleets in this era in history, is to give them more economic impact. Make blockades more impactful. Make enemy ships of all kinds, heavies, lights, galleys and transports, disrupt your trade in a node that they are in. Make treasure fleets easier to be picked off and destroyed. Make it so that if your enemy has massive land superiority but still relies heavily on the seas for their economy, you can at least force a white peace with your fleet alone.

 

[Canute VII]

The key to more importance of the naval game is to get military access right. If you can't move your armies from spain to the netherlands, from turkey to france and so on through NEUTRAL countries, then fleets will be the only way, these wars can be won - or lost. The naval game, naval ideas etc. can be tweaked and there have been some sensible suggestions in this forum, but without making it harder to get your land troops anywhere, the naval side of the game will just not be able to shine. Add a system of military supply that relies on your ability to access trade streams in a region to buy supplies for your troops - there you go: a fully loaded naval game!

 

[nkibilko]

You're playing the Netherlands wrong then. You don't need any ideas that buff Navy as them to give your navy OP bonuses, it's already in your National Ideas and the Dutch Republic government. It is entirely feasible to have a navy stronger than the next five powers put together while still taking Quantity and offensive/defensive/quality/plutocratic as the Netherlands by 1575. I know, that's what's happened in my current campaign.
Yet, that same campaign also provides graphic evidence of how relatively unimportant fleets are. I got attacked by Spain & Portugal, and France, who was supposed to protect me, dishonored because they were fighting the Incas, leaving me to face Spain alone. I completely erased the Spanish navy within the first six months and chased down the Portuguese within a few months after that, leaving me the undisputed ruler of the world's oceans. IT DIDN'T MATTER. I had the whole enemy coast under blockade, they couldn't get anything back and forth from their colonies to the Old World, and I still lost because I was screwed on land.
The best and easiest solution in my opinion, the one that sticks closest to the true power of fleets in this era in history, is to give them more economic impact. Make blockades more impactful. Make enemy ships of all kinds, heavies, lights, galleys and transports, disrupt your trade in a node that they are in. Make treasure fleets easier to be picked off and destroyed. Make it so that if your enemy has massive land superiority but still relies heavily on the seas for their economy, you can at least force a white peace with your fleet alone.

I play for fun; to me Denmark, Norway and Netherlands with Naval + Maritime = fun

 

[nkibilko]

You go ahead and play Norway with maritime and navy ideas, and I will pick Sweden with offensive and Quantity ideas, let's see who does better.

In terms of this game "better" is one of the most subjective words ever. Better how? In your opinion? That may be so, but you're opinion isn't innately "better" just because it's your opinion. Nor is mine. It's personal preference. Also, what would stop Norway from taking quantity and offensive as well? Or quality and innovative? Or a myriad of other combinations of ideas... There are 8 options, i am not sure how knowing 2 of 8 gives you enough info to know that i'd perform "poorly".

 

[Keizer Karel V]

The key to more importance of the naval game is to get military access right. If you can't move your armies from spain to the netherlands, from turkey to france and so on through NEUTRAL countries, then fleets will be the only way, these wars can be won - or lost. The naval game, naval ideas etc. can be tweaked and there have been some sensible suggestions in this forum, but without making it harder to get your land troops anywhere, the naval side of the game will just not be able to shine.

I completely agree, for improving the navy this is the most important thing to be done, without overcomplicating the issue by adding too many new mechanics too soon. Simply, the Developers need to make military access much harder in situations where the belligerent powers and their allies have ports.

In games where the warring countries don't share a common land border, why are navies still unimportant? -->They aren't needed because the blockade effect is weak, and you don't normally need to ship an army because military access is easily acquired by any of the warring countries. -->So we remove the easiness of military access, no more marching across neutral countries. -->Countries will now have to build a navy to ship their army to war. -->This makes control of the seas important, because countries with weak navies (or bad naval strategy) can't ship their armies to war. -->A grounded army means a country can't invade or aid their ally.

This would give an important and realistic advantage to some medium and minor countries against much larger but distant countries fighting over a particular province (ticking war score should be faster to reflect this). At least for Europe in wars fought between countries with a medium to long distance the navy was often crucial in determining if the army would land to achieve the war aim. Therefore my point is that naval warfare can still be made important just by modifying the existing mechanics that currently make it useless unless you're an island.

 

[Yxklyx]

I completely agree, for improving the navy this is the most important thing to be done, without overcomplicating the issue by adding too many new mechanics too soon. Simply, the Developers need to make military access much harder in situations where the belligerent powers and their allies have ports.....

This is how the game used to be. For instance, if Spain and Netherlands were at war, France might give access to Spain but not to Netherlands so only Spanish armies could enter France. The current rules were put in place to help the AI.