Naval invasion mechanics

[kalauer]

So during Dividing the Spoils stream (day 3), we saw that after some rehosts, the attack on Sizily was repelled by Rome and Sizily. They defeated two stacks of Carthagean and Egyptian armies. What startled me was the timing around 1:25:00, where one could see that landing armies from (and embarking to) ships is actually very fast. It seems even faster than land movement for at least this case.

Now, there might be some realism-argument in there but who knows me also knows I don't give much for those. From a gameplay-perspective, this makes invasion very easy and the naval invasion combat malus (if it exists, I havn't seen it yet) almost meaningless. In previous games, we see that naval landings take much more time than land movement between provinces/cities: In CK2, it was even nerfed (much slower disembarkment) because one could easily use this mobility advantage to crush e.g. the Muslims in Crusades for Jerusalem. In HoI4, naval invasion is even more limited (which I like btw).
This does not mean it has to be the same in Imperator, but do we know why this design decision was made? Because to me it seems as if naval invasions are far too easy in Imperator (you can land anywhere, there are no supply concerns, you can get in and out fast).

The only concern one has is that if beaten back, one faces quick stack wipes; but this is always the case.

Any more insights?

 

[Skuchney]

I think it works just fine. Navies SHOULD be used this way, to quickly reinforce etc. It makes navies actually important and strategic.

Plus, there are risks, I am fairly certain there is a naval invasion penalty, probably -1 to rolls. Also, as you say, it can lead to armies getting stack wiped. Additionally, if you were concerned, you should have a fleet of your own to defend yourself against these invasions. You could wreck armies as they are being transported etc. So it can both be a great strategic bonus, or be disastrous, depending on the unique situations.

This isn't Hoi4, so you dont have to worry that a naval invasion will suddenly take your entire coast everywhere if undefended. They still have to seige forts, deal with attrition, terrain etc like any normal army. It is purely a manoeuvrability bonus, which as I said, can be countered by you having your own fleet, thus navies are important for once.

 

[Cinigs]

Naval invasion are a -2 to dice rolls. It's the same as attacking over a river into hills or having a general with 4 less martial skill. Also remember combat is less luck base than other Paradox games with the die only having 6 sides instead of 10.

 

[Skuchney]

Naval invasion are a -2 to dice rolls. It's the same as attacking over a river into hills or having a general with 4 less martial skill. Also remember combat is less luck base than other Paradox games with the die only having 6 sides instead of 10.

Ouch, -2, that is harsh. But, makes sense. Landing armies directly into an enemy force would be incredibly stupid and suicidal historically. This is not something you would want to do.

 

[kalauer]

Ouch, -2, that is harsh. But, makes sense. Landing armies directly into an enemy force would be incredibly stupid and suicidal historically. This is not something you would want to do.

Exactly, -2 is the traditional malus and makes naval invasions on defended coastlines really hard, at least against a somewhat equal enemy. However, may it be due to the increased city count or other influences, this malus is of no significance if it can be easily avoided. And as far as I noticed, you can easily avoid it even against a defended coast because it takes little time to disembark.

I do not question the importance of navies, they rightfully increase mobility. But they do so due to shorter routs and faster speed while moving the navies themself. Disembarking should still take longer in my book than moving from an adjacent province.

In the example of Sizily, I would expect that an army in the middle of the island should be able to get to any coast before a disembarking army reaches land, thus incurring the -2 malus. That's obviously just a wild guess and more of a feeling, thus my question why the disembarkment time was shortened, compared to e.g. CK2 (where the slower disembarkment speed had been added on purpose to fix an exploit), especially given the statement I heard on stream that they wanted to take lessons learned of the previous games into account.

edit: You obviously can even do shattered retreat on the navy. Which reduces stackwipe threat considerably.

 

[Sur]

Exactly, -2 is the traditional malus and makes naval invasions on defended coastlines really hard, at least against a somewhat equal enemy. However, may it be due to the increased city count or other influences, this malus is of no significance if it can be easily avoided. And as far as I noticed, you can easily avoid it even against a defended coast because it takes little time to disembark.

I do not question the importance of navies, they rightfully increase mobility. But they do so due to shorter routs and faster speed while moving the navies themself. Disembarking should still take longer in my book than moving from an adjacent province.

In the example of Sizily, I would expect that an army in the middle of the island should be able to get to any coast before a disembarking army reaches land, thus incurring the -2 malus. That's obviously just a wild guess and more of a feeling, thus my question why the disembarkment time was shortened, compared to e.g. CK2 (where the slower disembarkment speed had been added on purpose to fix an exploit), especially given the statement I heard on stream that they wanted to take lessons learned of the previous games into account.

edit: You obviously can even do shattered retreat on the navy. Which reduces stackwipe threat considerably.

Eh, we saw da9l attempting to do these naval sackings of Rome. It didn't really seem to matter, even if they land and get somewhere, its not really that much of an advantage, the better armies should win. Time in the game passes as days. It doesn't take weeks to disembark from a ship.

The only cheesy thing that the current system seems to allow you to do, is drop troops in somewhere and maybe just go and steal slaves from some provinces without forts. Potentially this is better than just playing an island and indefinitely rebuffing naval attacks and ticking warscore.

 

[kalauer]

Time in the game passes as days. It doesn't take weeks to disembark from a ship.

I don't like to indulge realism-arguments but for the sake of it: Embarking an army and make it combat-ready may take longer than you imply. I doubt its like the landing-sequence in Troy. In my book, as said, it should take much longer than marching from the next settlement to the shore. But again, these timing issues are imo not accessible by realism-arguments.

Therefore, that's not actually my point. I do approach this from a gameplay-perspective. Let me argue this way: There is the naval invasion malus for combats which indicates that invasions should be hard. This is a conscious design-decision, I would argue. Of course, making (dis)embarkment very fast may also be a conscious design decision. But if so, these decisions seem to contradict as the latter offsets the former (as pointed out above). Hence my question (and yes, implicite suggestion to change it). But I am genuinly more interested in the reasoning for the current state of the mechanic.

da9l attacked with a smaller force, actually a suicide squad, just for the lols, if I remember correctly. And he did not suffer the naval invasion penalty because he could quite freely choose where to land. The real question here would be whether it is feasible for a defender to create a situation where the invader has to take this malus. And I would argue: at the moment, it is not. At least not with reasonable forces (so ruling out the defender just has five times the cohortes because then an invasion would be pointless anyway).