Narrow Strait Crossing Bull****

[Badesumofu]

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.

You have a real talent for coming up with creative logical fallacies.

 

[ForschungsFüchse]

Qualifier: pretty new still to the game, so weird mechanics have yet to totally annoy me and not full informed.... but...
I agree with what some others have said: if naval and ground forces could interact (fight) each other in straights, that would seem to resolve the problem.
It does not currently take very many ships to block, e.g., the Bosphorus. Surely if 100,000 Turks wanted to try to cross it despite the 20 heavy ships or 50 Galleys, using fishing boats and gerryrigged crafts, they could try, but will take heavy loses and may fail. The mechanic could work like assaulting a fort after a wall breach...lots of losses, but if you win, you get across and blockade needs to reform (retreat). Modifiers for whether you control 1 side, 2 sides, or no sides of the straight. This would also then leave the player with a good choice: I can do it, but is it really worth the cost? The blockading party would also have to consider this risk, not just "blockade and forget" and send your whole army to the other side of Europe. Yes it would be annoying having to watch one more thing, but I would find it less annoying than chasing 100k Turkish armies all the way to their allies in Stockholm (assuming the AI would actually try a straight crossing).

 

[macd21]

Qualifier: pretty new still to the game, so weird mechanics have yet to totally annoy me and not full informed.... but...
I agree with what some others have said: if naval and ground forces could interact (fight) each other in straights, that would seem to resolve the problem.
It does not currently take very many ships to block, e.g., the Bosphorus. Surely if 100,000 Turks wanted to try to cross it despite the 20 heavy ships or 50 Galleys, using fishing boats and gerryrigged crafts, they could try, but will take heavy loses and may fail. The mechanic could work like assaulting a fort after a wall breach...lots of losses, but if you win, you get across and blockade needs to reform (retreat). Modifiers for whether you control 1 side, 2 sides, or no sides of the straight. This would also then leave the player with a good choice: I can do it, but is it really worth the cost? The blockading party would also have to consider this risk, not just "blockade and forget" and send your whole army to the other side of Europe. Yes it would be annoying having to watch one more thing, but I would find it less annoying than chasing 100k Turkish armies all the way to their allies in Stockholm (assuming the AI would actually try a straight crossing).

The thing is, army vs navy combat would be totally unrealistic. It just didn't happen. And the problem isn't that the army in fishing boats would fail, it's that they would just wait until the ships had to move off, or else (if the strait is narrow enough) sink them with cannon fire.

BarrosRogrigues keeps on going on about 100,000 troops flying over 200 ships, but this is nonsense. As I said earlier, the game uses abstractions. The 200 ships would not really be sitting there, watching the troops going by. Navies couldn't drop anchor and sit in a strait for months on end. If you hold both sides of the strait, then there's nowhere for the ships to resupply, to take shore leave, to shelter from storms. What is unrealistic is not the troops crossing the strait, it's the ships sitting in hostile waters without moving without taking attrition. But that kind of attention to detail would require too much micromanagement and make for an unfun game.

 

[Roubik]

There are many people in the forum that are ready to defend about anything about the game due to getting used to it so much after 3000+ hours. They sincerely believe that this is how it should be played, meanwhile new players have a better view of the "strange" mechanics in the game. But their voices aren't heard.

The irony is that, if Paradox changes those same mechanics these veterans will be the first ones to say "it is better in this new way", completely forgetting what they believed a few months ago.

We need to continue to pop new threads for every mechanic that we believe needs addressing and maybe the devs will notice the frequency and do something. Better try new mechanics that sit with one "compromise" all the time.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

You have a real talent for coming up with creative logical fallacies.

Thanks but the thing is if you think about it for a sec or two pigs driving or a cow flying makes as much sense as thousands of troops consistently crossing a straight unscathed despite the presence of hundreds of enemy warships.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

There are many people in the forum that are ready to defend about anything about the game due to getting used to it so much after 3000+ hours. They sincerely believe that this is how it should be played, meanwhile new players have a better view of the "strange" mechanics in the game. But their voices aren't heard.

Very much this. Regardeless I honestly think it is funny to see so many ppl with the imagination to defend any/all kinds of fantasy/non-sense present in-game .

 

[Dominion]

or have extra negative terrain modifiers when crossing a blockaded straight.

Fort in Edirne negates the modifier immediately by putting them as defender and we're back to square one.

I can see where you're coming from, but you can throw the idea out the window immediately.

EDIT: Okay, that instant 'I disagree' made me laugh
My comment isn't even part of your little argument, Lor. I'm just stating a fact. Are you disagreeing with reality again?
Come, tell me how 5 is bigger than 10 again. For old time's sake

This thread, I swear

 

[netherlink]

There are many people in the forum that are ready to defend about anything about the game due to getting used to it so much after 3000+ hours. They sincerely believe that this is how it should be played, meanwhile new players have a better view of the "strange" mechanics in the game. But their voices aren't heard.

The irony is that, if Paradox changes those same mechanics these veterans will be the first ones to say "it is better in this new way", completely forgetting what they believed a few months ago.

We need to continue to pop new threads for every mechanic that we believe needs addressing and maybe the devs will notice the frequency and do something. Better try new mechanics that sit with one "compromise" all the time.

Yeah, that's right! New players who encounter a problem for the first time and don't know which possibilities they have in the game to solve it ( which is totally fine, they are new to the game after all) should decide which mechanics are bad and which not. That would work perfectly and the game would be great after a patch or two... Hey, why not do the same in your company? Let the fresh hired newbies make the important decisions, because they aren't used to see flying cows or what not so they would def do a better job...

Very much this. Regardeless I honestly think it is funny to see so many ppl with the imagination to defend any/all kinds of fantasy/non-sense present in-game .

That's the Trump argument style... They defend something i oppose? that must be blind bad fanatics...


This discussion is ridiculous, as everybody who wants the old crossing rules either never played with it and don't know how ridiculous that was, or can't manage do defeat Ottos as Byz otherwise... If you struggle with a hard start, don't pledge to make the game easier for them! It's really annoying to have new threads to old topics over and over again...

 

[Lor360]

There are many people in the forum that are ready to defend about anything about the game due to getting used to it so much after 3000+ hours. They sincerely believe that this is how it should be played, meanwhile new players have a better view of the "strange" mechanics in the game. But their voices aren't heard.

The irony is that, if Paradox changes those same mechanics these veterans will be the first ones to say "it is better in this new way", completely forgetting what they believed a few months ago.

We need to continue to pop new threads for every mechanic that we believe needs addressing and maybe the devs will notice the frequency and do something. Better try new mechanics that sit with one "compromise" all the time.

This. I wish I could give this post 10 likes.
The most popular mod for EU4 is MEIOU and to simulate what historicaly happened the Ottomans have a desicion to instantly inherit Mamluks once you control there capital, no questions asked. You can be a one province Ottomans and Mamluks can own half the Middle East and Africa, but if you manage to land a cog and 1 infantry in Cairo, you can just press a button to instantly own a quarter the world.
Im sure if you went to the mod forums and asked the 1000+ hours MEIOU players you would get very simmilar responses you see here: "its not perfect but its a reasonable gameplay compromise".
Im honestly having trouble believing that there is a actual argument with people over whether armies flying over the sea with enemy ships parked is a logical screenshot or not.

Its almost like one of those questions you have on a preschool test.
What makes the most sense:
1) You can not enter the straits with your fleet if you dont control the forts and there cannons.
2) You can not pass the straits with a army if there is a fleet with cannons you have to go trough.
3) Armies can fly over enemy fleets.

Apparently 3 is the most logical to veteran players.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

This discussion is ridiculous, as everybody who wants the old crossing rules either never played with it and don't know how ridiculous that was, or can't manage do defeat Ottos as Byz otherwise... If you struggle with a hard start, don't pledge to make the game easier for them!

I guess you don´t know who you´ve quoted because if you did you´d realize how "ridiculous" (to use your expression) your statement is. Needless to say it has nothing to do with game difficulty.

 

[Chamboozer]

Surely if 100,000 Turks wanted to try to cross it despite the 20 heavy ships or 50 Galleys, using fishing boats and gerryrigged crafts, they could try, but will take heavy loses and may fail.

You've got it backwards. It should say, "Surely if those 20 heavy ships and 50 galleys wanted to try to stop the Turks from crossing, despite getting shot to pieces by shoreline cannon the whole time, they could try, but will take heavy losses and may fail."