I know how the mechanic works but this... this is bullshit!!! How can this be allowed in a game like this?
Narrow Strait Crossing Bull****
- Thread starter Roubik
- 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 know how the mechanic works but this... this is bullshit!!! How can this be allowed in a game like this?
You're complaining because that old strat against the Ottomans doesn't work anymore? The game was changed so that if you blokade a strait but the opponent controls both sides, they're still allowed to cross.
Yes my image quality is godlike, serves me right...
Here is a better quality:
I am pretty sure that this topic has been covered before but I get the feeling that unless this mechanic changes, these kind of posts will continue to pop up. It shouldn't be possible for that kind of crossing. I makes navies even more useless, I mean c'mon!!!
Here is a better quality:
I am pretty sure that this topic has been covered before but I get the feeling that unless this mechanic changes, these kind of posts will continue to pop up. It shouldn't be possible for that kind of crossing. I makes navies even more useless, I mean c'mon!!!
IIRC, the strait there is very thin, thin enough that cannon on the coast would pick off your ships with ease. Strait crossings not being blocked is a gamey way of showing that. You could do it, but it would be very costly to achieve.
The Bosphorus and Dardenelles are both around a kilometre wide.
The Bosphorus and Dardenelles are both around a kilometre wide.
It is deeply counterintuitive for anyone with fresh eyes to see a army move from one province, fly over enemy ships and land in its destination, especialy in a game where you know blocking with ships exists.
If the cannons realy would obliterate the enemy fleet in those straits then its equaly absurd that youre even allowed to move your fleet into a strait untill land provinces on both sides have been taken over by you. Furthermore, im genuinley interested; would the ships be outgunned by fort cannons or field cannons? Otherwise any straits without forts should be perfectly blockable regardless of who owns what province.
...Also, im pretty sure that the developers just wanted to find a cheap fix for the Ottomans being blocked and dont realy care about military realism.
It's been said more than enough times that the mechanic has to work this way, otherwise countries like Ottos or Denmark get defeated by sea only, what is highly exploitable by Players... So this way it makes way more sense....
Yes, it could be argued that ships shouldn’t be able to go through hostile straits. Probably mess with gameplay too much though and while it would be realistic for some straits it wouldn’t for others.
What isn’t realistic is ships blockading straits. Ships of the time wouldn’t realistically be able to effectively pull it off.
Historically Mehmed II built one tower in Bosporus straits and that was enough to control who went in and out. I am with you, and I agree on the whole anti-exploit mechanic etc... But the game leaves me with a lackluster sense when I see 100% blockade and whole armies flying through the straits. Maybe allow the crossing on X < 100% blockade or something.
I don't want to make the game easier, I am sure I will find something else to exploit in order to win the otto-armies... The crossing mechanic needs some kind of reworking, again, because it is another hit to the navy owners and definitely it is not the optimal solution.
But the Ottoman Empire crossing the strait despite being blockaded is military realism. It happened.
Last time we had this discussion a dev gave us examples of this exact situation taking place.
How can you say they don't care about realism while criticizing something that happened the exact same way in reality?
Check out Google Street view to see how tight the passage really is. The castle at Canakkale really commands the area. The passage at Istanbul is even narrower.
You know, even the British couldn't safely operate in the Dardanelles during WWI with modern warships because of how narrow that strait is........
Realistically, it's your ships that should take damage over time if you stay there. But I'm totally fine with that not happening because of how annoying that would be if it's an actual mechanic.
Realistically, it's your ships that should take damage over time if you stay there. But I'm totally fine with that not happening because of how annoying that would be if it's an actual mechanic.
Either straits can be blockaded by a navy or they cant and are blockaded by armies and forts on the shore. The current "compromise" is where you can have 50 ships in a strait that is apparently realisticaly impossible to have ships in if you dont own the shoreline and those 50 ships cant block a army flying over them. Which one is it, either it should be impossible for ships to enter or for a army to cross.
The original poster is right. The screenshot he provided is narrow strait crossing bul**** to any logical person on the street seeing that picture. What is this historical example you talk about where a army crossed between the ships of a enemy fleet? And why was that example only possible if the empty province without any armies on the other side was owned by them?
Last edited:
Neither.
It should be impossible or at least difficult in some way to to enter with ships if we're going for realism.
Never happened for gameplay reasons. The current compromise is a good compromise between realism and gameplay.
I rather have the ships be unable to enter the crossing than this. At least in this way there is some form of strategy involved, while now, this compromise to keep everyone happy has removed the strategic element from this section of the game. It just doesn't matter to to keep any navy, same could be said for the straits of Gibraltar. North African nations can't stop the descend of portugal/spain in North Africa with naval superiority.... c'mon!
- "I rather have" doesn't make for a good argument. We're back to the "what's actually Turkish culture" discussion.
- How is strategy suddenly involved if ships are unable to enter at all compared to the current situation?
- Why doesn't it matter to keep any navy, but making it unable to pass straits with ships if your enemy controls the land means navy does matter?
- For that matter, being unable to cross straits if your enemy controls the land means your navy can get locked in and never leave the mediterranean. How does that sound strategic/fun to you?
Complaining about ships being useless just to demand they need to be even more useless sounds like a non-sequitor.