Missing the point about naval ideas

[Tacticus101]

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.

Its the wrong way to go about it. Its like making the Hordes use cavalry by making their infantry useless rather than buffing their cavalry or Russia into the "numbers" nation by making all their troops weaker rather than by giving them extra manpower.

Naval nations have to build a navy, that is already there. An England, Venice, Denmark, Aragon etc that lose naval control in a war are completely screwed, they need their light ships trading, they need to access their colonies and almost every province is coastal so blockades hurt them massively. They already suffer massively because their Army ideas are much weaker than say France, which means they will lose in most fair fights. The fact that they have to maintain a large army just for survival, whilst the damage they can actually do to their opponents with navies is minimal, further harms that balance.

That is also not realistic. Britain fought France on land despite having gone heavily naval ideas, the Ottomans didn't have a bad army because they had a hugely powerful navy, France didn't completely ignore a navy because they only needed armies.

I am not suggesting that all nations are created equal, but making being a naval power a negative thing is not good for the game.

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.

If they want to fix military access then they should make it almost impossible to get, wandering half way across the HRE to fight someone should be impossible. Certainly supplying that army there would be.

 

[Canute VII]

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.

I guess military access was assymmetric then. Now it is symmetric and easily achieved. If it was symmetric, but not that easy to achieve or if there was a way to get it cancel again, then this should be fine.

One suggestion as to this I posted recently:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/pay-to-cancel-military-access-etc.1007989/

 

[Honon]

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".

I love the suggestion here that it's ok to pick naval and maritime against Sweden with Quantity and Offensive, because OBVIOUSLY Norway would also pick up offensive and Quantity as well. Apparently there is a national idea for Norway I missed where they get two free idea groups that other countries don't. The reality is if Norway has 4 groups unlocked, so does Sweden in which, you would have Naval, Maritime, Offensive, and Quantity, but I would just have Quantity, Offensive, Defensive, and Quality, and I would still crush you. What is "stopping" you from picking land military ideas is the fact that those two groups you spent on naval and maritime will always be two military idea groups you don't have period. Ultimately, at any given point in the game, my army would be 2 idea groups better than yours, which is would be more than enough to beat you in any war and take all your land.

Also, while there are many kinds of "Better" out there, your not being able to play the game anymore because I ate all your provinces, would probably not count as one of them. Of course, if your idea of "better" play is being the fastest person to ever form Iceland, you might be right.

 

[Steel_atlas]

Its the wrong way to go about it. Its like making the Hordes use cavalry by making their infantry useless rather than buffing their cavalry or Russia into the "numbers" nation by making all their troops weaker rather than by giving them extra manpower.

Naval nations have to build a navy, that is already there. An England, Venice, Denmark, Aragon etc that lose naval control in a war are completely screwed, they need their light ships trading, they need to access their colonies and almost every province is coastal so blockades hurt them massively. They already suffer massively because their Army ideas are much weaker than say France, which means they will lose in most fair fights. The fact that they have to maintain a large army just for survival, whilst the damage they can actually do to their opponents with navies is minimal, further harms that balance.

That is also not realistic. Britain fought France on land despite having gone heavily naval ideas, the Ottomans didn't have a bad army because they had a hugely powerful navy, France didn't completely ignore a navy because they only needed armies.

I am not suggesting that all nations are created equal, but making being a naval power a negative thing is not good for the game.



If they want to fix military access then they should make it almost impossible to get, wandering half way across the HRE to fight someone should be impossible. Certainly supplying that army there would be.

In another thread about the sailors change it was brought up that France really did struggle to have a comptent navy and the Ottomans relied off of sailor heavy and ineffecient galleys to for their navy which is why the battle of lepento was so important, once their fleet was destroyed they struggled to rebuild it.

I think the best solution is that it should be much harder to have a strong navy, basically making a "normal" unspecialized non-naval nation have a pathetic navy like almost unreformed primitive vs western power pathetic.

If say France takes naval ideas they would be on par with vanilla Spain/England but if both specced into Naval it would be a massacre again.

As of right now it seems that the opportunity cost for not investing in naval ideas isnt big enough and countries like the Ottomans and French aren't outclassed enough for it matter.

 

[brifbates]

In another thread about the sailors change it was brought up that France really did struggle to have a comptent navy and the Ottomans relied off of sailor heavy and ineffecient galleys to for their navy which is why the battle of lepento was so important, once their fleet was destroyed they struggled to rebuild it.

I think the best solution is that it should be much harder to have a strong navy, basically making a "normal" unspecialized non-naval nation have a pathetic navy like almost unreformed primitive vs western power pathetic.

If say France takes naval ideas they would be on par with vanilla Spain/England but if both specced into Naval it would be a massacre again.

As of right now it seems that the opportunity cost for not investing in naval ideas isnt big enough and countries like the Ottomans and French aren't outclassed enough for it matter.

It doesn't matter if you're out-classed or not as in the vast majority of cases the results of any war are solely determined by how good your army is. Until that changes, naval will be a trash tier idea group.

 

[Steel_atlas]

It doesn't matter if you're out-classed or not as in the vast majority of cases the results of any war are solely determined by how good your army is. Until that changes, naval will be a trash tier idea group.

I think making blockades much more impactful, like causing morale, attrition and movement speed penalities would help.

 

[Seelmeister]

A few individuals in this thread need to think about how to disagree without insulting other members.

Insulting posts deleted.

 

[wolk94]

Blockading an island nation that produces fish should create a revolt and other major issues for that island. It would cause the nation to lose land, though probably not to you directly, without you having to drop a single soldier. Blockading trade companies on the African coast and in India should have a similar effect.

Doesn't blockade increase the WE(and indirectly unrest) already?

 

[Tacticus101]

In another thread about the sailors change it was brought up that France really did struggle to have a comptent navy and the Ottomans relied off of sailor heavy and ineffecient galleys to for their navy which is why the battle of lepento was so important, once their fleet was destroyed they struggled to rebuild it.
.

I thought it was the opposite with the Ottomans? They completely rebuilt their fleet after the battle of Lepanto and once again began contesting the western Mediterranean, their biggest loss was in the troops that were part of the fleet and some of the experienced crews. They didn't lose naval dominance until much later when Galleons became the dominant ship.

 

[Yxklyx]

Doesn't blockade increase the WE(and indirectly unrest) already?

Yes, but not enough IMHO.

 

[brifbates]

Yes, but not enough IMHO.

Not to mention the fact that unrest isn't that hard to deal with anyway...

Particularly with stacked land ideas...

 

[Benghi Bon]

The problem with naval ideas is that naval gameplay is just lackluster in overall regard.

Like, England? Redundant outside of MP as you alread have the best navy in the game by default. And for any other nations it's very rarely worth it to dedicate an entire idea group to naval domination when sheer numbers can often win, and in the rare cases where you need quality to beat a navy you can usually cheese it (like attacking England). And then again, it's not worth an entire idea group to take down a single nation.

 

[Steel_atlas]

I thought it was the opposite with the Ottomans? They completely rebuilt their fleet after the battle of Lepanto and once again began contesting the western Mediterranean, their biggest loss was in the troops that were part of the fleet and some of the experienced crews. They didn't lose naval dominance until much later when Galleons became the dominant ship.

From what I understand the Turks would crank out a ton of new galleys but they lost most of their best crews which really effects galleys due to being reliant off of crews to move.

Im not an expert but I haven't seen any major naval victories by the Ottomans afterwards, Venice was worried about being invaded by the Turkish Army so it surrendered Cyprus and parts of Dalmatia, and Morcco and Tunis became thralls for the Ottomans due the Holy Alliance not doing anything.

 

[Isaios]

I've got issues with the entire naval set-up in the game, it doesn't make as much sense as I'd think it should, even taking into account the abstractions needed for any of it to be fun.

One of the main reasons for maintaining a large navy was to project power. It just so happens that we have a value called something eerily similar I'd LOVE to see Heavies provide PP for instance.


As for the Idea group itself, I like several of your suggestions OP, but none of them really changes how navies aren't integral in most cases. Light Ships are good, but conquering the node is better, Heavies/Galleys are good for some Warscore but they do nothing outside of war, the only ship that's really a part of the entire game is the Transports, and that's just because sometimes there're annoying islands that need a good solid flag-planting.

If Naval Ideas was at least partially changed to affect things that weren't ships, like PP or Coring Range, or Diplomatic Reputation, that'd both make sense, and make the Idea-set not horrid (possibly).

 

[ThatRabidPotato]

I've got issues with the entire naval set-up in the game, it doesn't make as much sense as I'd think it should, even taking into account the abstractions needed for any of it to be fun.

One of the main reasons for maintaining a large navy was to project power. It just so happens that we have a value called something eerily similar I'd LOVE to see Heavies provide PP for instance.


As for the Idea group itself, I like several of your suggestions OP, but none of them really changes how navies aren't integral in most cases. Light Ships are good, but conquering the node is better, Heavies/Galleys are good for some Warscore but they do nothing outside of war, the only ship that's really a part of the entire game is the Transports, and that's just because sometimes there're annoying islands that need a good solid flag-planting.

If Naval Ideas was at least partially changed to affect things that weren't ships, like PP or Coring Range, or Diplomatic Reputation, that'd both make sense, and make the Idea-set not horrid (possibly).

If heavies provide power projection, then what happens when a large naval power is running around sitting at 100 PP permanently? That's not really fair.

 

[gia257]

Your ideas are cool and ideas that give you enhanced mechanics are much better (gameplay wise) than spreadsheet modifiers, but I am playing as Ryuku, an island, and while I havent yet taken naval ideas, I have been oogling at them since 1444. Thing is at the time, I am a small nation, that WILL need a navy to move around (if I neglect navy then the AI will be able to just blockade me and do as it wishes as my troops wont be able to move at all), and theres two idea groups that increase my naval forcelimit, which is perfect for me, as otherwise I wont match up to bigger nations ever (basically quantity for ships)

I did go with exploration first instead of the two naval ideas, because I thought, hmm! if I fail maybe I should have colonists as a backup to be able to expand slowly that way. I couldnt get Ming to ally me and the indepence battle in japan sided me with Ito so I couldnt expand that way either so it helped given my play, optimal or not.

As a small country I am desperate for money to be able to pay armies and navies that match my bigger opponents, and having almost no good land means I dont get much from it. So a good source of income is trading, a merchant/privateer fleet specifically, but this fleet would be weak on the inland sea. So again I need extra forcelimit to be able to have lots of light ships while still enough of the others, so again +50% forcelimit sounds awesome. Only problem is the cost to upgrade to the next ship version.

As my army is rather weak what I do most of the time is either use an alliance to have them pummeled while I get some quick warscore and close the war with small gains, or manage to trap the enemy in an irrelevant island while eating the war exhaustion and conquering their stuff. But you need a bigger fleet to have theirs hide and leave their troops stranded to do so.

Now that the europeans arrived I am so behind on tech I would love to have filled the military naval ideas as well, as they add a lot of combat bonuses that I desperately need. Not sure if that would be enough to offset 3 levels difference though, I have double the numbers as they send but a portion of their fleet and a decent admiral, yet my entire fleet (9heavy 40light 40galley 30transport) just got demolished by 4 heavies and 40 transports, only destroyed 3 of the transports, rest at 90-100%.

One thing naval ideas could use from my point of view is heavier maintenance/cost/upgrade reductions, I never use/need sailors so its an irrelevant number atm and its sad to see one idea wasted on improving that, I either overwhelm my enemy (even if only on numbers) and they hide at port until the end of the war where I peace out before we get to fight (no need to waste ships when even numbered), or get pushed out and instantly killed. In either case the sailors never mattered as rebuilding a navy will take a long long time, more than the sailors will take, and money will be the bigger issue on your mind, or you never had a battle so you never lost sailors.

Also I need a sentry mission where a ship or group of ships will keep sight of a region, even deep seas, and alternate on going back for repairs so that none of them dies (from attrition, they can still get hunted), yet the region is always under surveillance (if you sent enough ships for the shifts to be possible). Then I need a message alert whenever the enemy is sighted (any enemy, sighted by anything) so that I know and also so I can move them out of the way if needed. That way I could have an easier time keeping advanced scouting information without having to manually do it. Its good to know when a transport fleet is coming several months in advance, and from where.

 

[3ishop]

Blockade Changes
We have also added some aspects to blockades in 1.22. Now blockades will increase devastation, just like sieges does, and blockades block devastation recovery in the same way.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...us-development-diary-5th-of-may-2017.1019361/

If heavies provide power projection, then what happens when a large naval power is running around sitting at 100 PP permanently? That's not really fair.

You could always have it so like all other ways to gain PP it is capped.

 

[Big Bad France]

If heavies provide power projection, then what happens when a large naval power is running around sitting at 100 PP permanently? That's not really fair.

You could always try to sink their heavies before they get out of control.

 

[No idea]

In eu III if you were a colonial power you would better have a large navy, because the tariiffs depended on the amount of combat ships you had compared with the amount of provinces you owned, iirc. I know this doesnt tie with the naval ideas per se. But more ships on the seas will mean that naval ideas become more useful.

Instead of tying ships to tariffs only tie it to everything we get from colonies and/or to liberty desire and then the navy becomes more important for any colonial nation, thus, naval ideas will become more important. Their porblem comes not becuase the bonus they give arent good, but because land units are too preminent and ships too few, except for some very few nations.

 

[Nikotinlaus]

In eu III if you were a colonial power you would better have a large navy, because the tariiffs depended on the amount of combat ships you had compared with the amount of provinces you owned, iirc. I know this doesnt tie with the naval ideas per se. But more ships on the seas will mean that naval ideas become more useful.

Instead of tying ships to tariffs only tie it to everything we get from colonies and/or to liberty desire and then the navy becomes more important for any colonial nation, thus, naval ideas will become more important. Their porblem comes not becuase the bonus they give arent good, but because land units are too preminent and ships too few, except for some very few nations.

I would say the more ships you have on the seas the less useful naval ideas are after a certain point since when you already dominate the seas you dont need them anymore.