Narrow Strait Crossing Bull****

[macd21]

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?

The game is filled with abstractions. This is one of them. And ships not being able to blockade a strait isn’t the the same as not being able to move through it. The latter is a lot easier than the former.

As for navies being useless because of this... just no. Navies blocking straits was always a niche activity that only applies to a small number of countries and was always a silly exploit. It’s not what navies are for and it’s never been what they were for. If navies are ‘useless’ (which I don’t agree with) then the answer is not to allow them to block straits.

 

[Roubik]

- "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.

I see that some explaining needs to be done. I will try to keep it short. Let's take for example the geography of bosporus straits. If someone controls the straits and no ships can pass through them, that means that no ships can enter or leave the black sea. This was the case back in the old days and this could be implemented. "Where is the strategy" you ask, how about control of the black sea with only a small number of ships. This is how the Turks did it for a time.

On your second argument, you really think that in the current state fleets are doing something meaningful? If Paradox wants the players to begin using the navy and maritime ideas, they better upgrade the options we can have with them or completely drop them. Right now it matters not for a Mediterranean power to have a single galley, unless of course you want to take Cyprus or Rhodes etc... One time use.

Lastly I am proposing an alternative here, and at least I throw a few thoughts, instead of defending an obvious flaw in the game.

 

[Dominion]

You can't give me an answer and act like you've never written a comment in this thread.

You said you'd prefer it if ships were unable to even enter controlled straits over the current solution, (thereby making them less useful) while continuing to reiterate "I want to make ships more useful".

You are not proposing alternatives, you are arguing against yourself, then act like my position is weaker than either of yours.

 

[Roubik]

Then you don't pay attention to my words. I say EITHER make them useful (e.g. ships control straits all the time) or let's abandon them. Simple as that.

You have to pay special attention as a new player to learn the straits mechanic, search the wiki etc. While everyone's first thought on how the straits can be blockaded is with a fleet or a control of province, or even by building a fort. In the game it takes both control and fleet which Imo it is not working so well.

 

[Dominion]

"Either make them useful (what I deem useful, no discussion needed) or kill them" is not 'presenting an alternative'.

And having to pay special attention as a new player isn't limited to ships.

It's not like you can smell how culture shifting works, which modifiers influence MTTH, how Horde nations are different from natives, etc.

I know you don't like it. You've said it often enough.
We've had the exact same discussion in reverse before it got changed.
Then it got changed to something more acceptable for the majority of players.

Congratulations, there's a part of the game you dislike. Color me surprised.
Want me to rant about Portugal's achievement?

 

[Roubik]

What has the Portugal achievement anything to do with game mechanics? and if you want to rant feel free to do it in your own thread, open it, rant and see what people think. I mean that is the point for the forum.

It just occurred to me that your stance to this topic is: "Because it has been discussed in a different thread some months ago, the topic is covered". You haven't proposed anything for a change even though you too seem unsatisfied since you didn't defend the current state.

The fact that there are other threads about "same topics" is an indicator of how well the devs have covered that specific issue, and unless they do something the frequency will persist, this is how those guys are doing their check up. So if you want to help write something useful that a dev could adopt or even use as an inspiration. If you are satisfied with the mechanic and think that it shouldn't change, then respectfully disagree and leave the thread.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Navies blocking straits was always a niche activity that only applies to a small number of countries and was always a silly exploit. It’s not what navies are for and it’s never been what they were for.

A few patches ago PDS wanted to create a strait between France and the British isles so with that in mind...

Yeah it was indeed silly and very exploitive that the Royal Navy/air force prevented "Sea Lion" because the Germans could not cross the "strait". According to EU IV the only thing the Germans had to do was to paradrop a British coastal province to control it and therefore be allowed to cross the "strait" unscathed. Had the Germans known this tactic back then the world would now be a different place.

@OP yeah I agree with you that that is BS from a RL perspective (...); I reckon it was done as a workaround to help the braindead AI.

 

[Anastasius]

"Screw you ERE"

 

[Lor360]

Anyone that can see a picture of armies flying over a enemy fleet and think "this is a reasonable compromise" is someone who has long ago replaced a normal way of thinking for a 10000+ EU 4 hours way of thinking. The original screenshot provided absolutley is a picture of bul****. Why not go further then? Lets have hostile army stacks passing trough defending armies in provinces where that happened due to outmanuvering. Then we can add screenshots of Albanian armies sharing a province with a 25k Ottoman stack they are at war with. Nothing wrong with that. Its a reasonable compromise between realism and gameplay.

 

[Zephyrum]

You know, if we're removing abstractions, then let's remove the big-doomstacks-moving-around abstraction and replace them with more realistic local levies, so you can get your capital swarmed by ottoman soldiers poopping out of nowhere in both sides of the bosphorus and you can't do jackshit because all of your armies are protecting your city of the world's desire...

It's one abstraction that makes some sense. Winning games by galley-spam is a massive no-brainer. The AI won't mercspam on the other side to counter it, so the only solution is nerf the navies.

There's many ways navies can become useful, but that strategy coming back is not one of them.

If you're so upset about getting defeated, try going with the Ottomans next time, then forming Romania, and then back into Byzantium.

 

[Fishman786]

The OP is right IMO. Not because of realism, but because ships blockading straits and cutting countries in half makes for an interesting game. Straits being closed for ships if a hostile power controls one or both sides is also interesting and should be in the game too IMO, HoI4 has it. The naval part of EU4 would be greatly improved IMO if ships interacted more with the land by getting rid of stuff like 'blockade efficiency', having them able to seriously damage the economy of neighbouring provinces, letting them impede the movements of armies and even allowing them to strike undefended provinces from the sea. Ships need to be made nastier and more destructive to those stuck on the land, both at peace and at war patrolling the coastline should not be optional.

 

[macd21]

A few patches ago PDS wanted to create a strait between France and the British isles so with that in mind...

Yeah it was indeed silly and very exploitive that the Royal Navy/air force prevented "Sea Lion" because the Germans could not cross the "strait". According to EU IV the only thing the Germans had to do was to paradrop a British coastal province to control it and therefore be allowed to cross the "strait" unscathed. Had the Germans known this tactic back then the world would now be a different place.

@OP yeah I agree with you that that is BS from a RL perspective (...); I reckon it was done as a workaround to help the braindead AI.

WW2 was outside of the EU4 period.

A few patches ago PDS wanted to create a strait between France and the British isles so with that in mind...

Yeah it was indeed silly and very exploitive that the Royal Navy/air force prevented "Sea Lion" because the Germans could not cross the "strait". According to EU IV the only thing the Germans had to do was to paradrop a British coastal province to control it and therefore be allowed to cross the "strait" unscathed. Had the Germans known this tactic back then the world would now be a different place.

@OP yeah I agree with you that that is BS from a RL perspective (...); I reckon it was done as a workaround to help the braindead AI.

So your argument is that ships should be able to block straits because an out-of-game-period fleet could block a ‘strait’ that paradox decided not to add to the game?

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

WW2 was outside of the EU4 period.


So your argument is that ships should be able to block straits because an out-of-game-period fleet could block a ‘strait’ that paradox decided not to add to the game?

I just gave an example of how realistic EU IV is WRT naval blockades. If you want to live in wonderland that is fine too.

 

[macd21]

I just gave an example of how realistic EU IV is WRT naval blockades. If you want to live in wonderland that is fine too.

Your example is outside of the EU4 period (when naval capabilities were completely different) and wouldn't even be valid if it was, because Paradox didn't put in the strait in question.

There's nothing wonderland about it. The best example you could come up with is rubbish.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Your example is outside of the EU4 period (when naval capabilities were completely different) and wouldn't even be valid if it was, because Paradox didn't put in the strait in question.

There's nothing wonderland about it. The best example you could come up with is rubbish.

What is "rubbish" (to use your expression) is the way the blockades currently work. Hundreds of thousand men can somehow cross straits completely unscathed despite the presence of 200 ships of the line in those waters; those very ships that are according to EU IV too weak to kill even a fly apparently are strong enough to give provinces huge amounts of devastation (…) that will need several decades to be "fixed" without the (magic) intervention of fortifications but I digress. It is pure and unadulterated fantasy designed to compensate for a terribad AI.

 

[Nunn45]

Could just go for a middle ground and have armies take attrition or have extra negative terrain modifiers when crossing a blockaded straight.

 

[Badesumofu]

What is "rubbish" (to use your expression) is the way the blockades currently work. Hundreds of thousand men can somehow cross straits completely unscathed despite the presence of 200 ships of the line in those waters; those very ships that are according to EU IV too weak to kill even a fly apparently are strong enough to give provinces huge amounts of devastation (…) that will need several decades to be "fixed" without the (magic) intervention of fortifications but I digress. It is pure and unadulterated fantasy designed to compensate for a terribad AI.

So suggest an implementation that would make sense in all situations. That would be more helpful than giving us examples from 2 centuries after the game's timeline that involve the use of straits that aren't actually in the game and never have been. It tuns out that whatever set of rules you come up with will fit some situations very very poorly. The current rule is a passable abstraction that works very well in gameplay terms. It's far better than the previous rule.

If you can come up with another improvement, suggest it!

 

[Lord Zsinj]

In regards to the guy talking about the Brits & French being unable to force the Dardanelles, it wasn’t just long range coastal artillery, it was massive mine fields that were the main problem. Which did not exist in EU timeframe.

 

[peleliu]

Considering the strategic scope and scale of the game, I think the current solution works well enough.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

It's far better than the previous rule

Yeah I can understand that after seeing cows flying or pigs driving for a while one gets used to it and eventually think it is better that way.