Naval <-> Land: Easy Decision Since 1.04?

[JohnMK]

Naval <-> Land: [Even ] Easier Decision Since 1.04?

I appreciate the extra colonists given to most religions since 1.04, however, it's certainly made the naval <-> land slider less useful, and much more of a no-brainer. Even as England now it's highly questionable which should be the appropriate course of action, and I myself would choose Land.

Is there any plan in the works to make this a worthy slider again? I shall suggest some possibilities:

1) Positions 0 -> 10 should correspond to -10% <-> +10% naval tech cost.

2) Positions 6 -> 10 should correspond to naval morale -.10 -> -.50.

3) Positions 0 -> 4 should affect trade efficiency +10% -> +2%.

 

[Helios]

I agree. Naval wasn't that great before 1.04 and now it's quite worthless.

 

[unmerged(6303)]

How about linking the penalty on income from overseas provinces to this slider, to simulate communication problems within your empire. Maybe 10% on full naval, 50% on full land.

 

[BiB]

The shitty thing is that there is just one nation that really benefits from a good navy. This unbalance is caused by the fact armies are way more valuable in this game than navies. IF navies were as important as armies with a decisive influence on colonisation and overseas trade as it should there wouldn't be too much of a problem.

 

[JohnMK]

Originally posted by Pishtaco
How about linking the penalty on income from overseas provinces to this slider, to simulate communication problems within your empire. Maybe 10% on full naval, 50% on full land.

Interesting idea. Let me chew on that one for a while.

 

[JohnMK]

Originally posted by BiB
The shitty thing is that there is just one nation that really benefits from a good navy. This unbalance is caused by the fact armies are way more valuable in this game than navies. IF navies were as important as armies with a decisive influence on colonisation and overseas trade as it should there wouldn't be too much of a problem.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on my specific proposals, BiB. Your opinion matters to me! I like all the suggestions, but if I had to choose amongst all of them, I'd choose #3. I think linking trade efficiency to the slider has a lot of historical support.

 

[unmerged(6303)]

I had some ideas about navies, see

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29878

Many of these should work with the current blockade-happy AI.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by JohnMK


I'd like to hear your thoughts on my specific proposals, BiB. Your opinion matters to me! I like all the suggestions, but if I had to choose amongst all of them, I'd choose #3. I think linking trade efficiency to the slider has a lot of historical support.

I think adding some things to teh naval slider just to unbalance them is patching things up while not tackling the real issue.

When not playing England but a nation like France I will go full land. However I will still have the best navy in the world and rule the waves. So why should I be penalised for overseas trade and colonisation?

About trade efficiency being linked, dunno if it is possible to make it be based on overseas trade. Don't see why continental trade should be affected.

Changes like early blockading and halving maintenance costs are good moves to making navies more worth it. I'd like more of those. Sadly major overhauls aren't on the cards so we might very well be stuck with patching things.

When it comes to patching things, when I play England I go full naval. The thing that bothers me the most about that is that my army prices go thru the roof. U can really get dirt cheap armies at land if u set ur otehr sliders accordingly while at fuill naval u can be average at best (with quite some detriment to army morale). One could really make the middle worthless by not giving cost penalties for armies to naval oriented nations and perhaps vice versa.

I'd also give more colonists to naval nations to link its importance to overseas colonisation in some way. As far as patching goes trade efficiency isn't bad either, I guess.

But right now as Spain, France, Portugal and Holland, traditional overseas colonisers, having a big navy is just a waste of time. And plenty of people can be found that also think this about England.

 

[unmerged(2778)]

I totally agree. Navies are not completly useless, but not far from it. The navy should be closely tied to trade some way, there by making it more important. Traderoutes were for obvious reasons established on the sea, and relied on the navy for protection.

I think JohnMK's third idea about linking trade-efficiency to the navy-land-slider is a good one. And why not add a penalty to trade-efficiency for those countries who go "all-land"? Those who neglect their naval affairs will have to pay by loosing the war of trade.

 

[JohnMK]

Originally posted by Moonwalker
And why not add a penalty to trade-efficiency for those countries who go "all-land"? Those who neglect their naval affairs will have to pay by loosing the war of trade.

If we're going to provide that strong of an incentive in regard to trade efficiency, we'll have to provide yet more incentive to go Land, something like positions 6-10 might reduce land tech cost 1-5%.

 

[boehm]

Originally posted by Henrik
I agree. Naval wasn't that great before 1.04 and now it's quite worthless.

1) Non-christian nations still dont get any extra settlers! so its not completely useless

2) control of the seas are now more important than before!

....So if playing a non-christian nation I wouldnt say that the slider has been made more of a sure choice! ...the basic problem I think...and which is also illustrated by the fact that people now think navel is useless is that the major reason for choosing navel was for the extra settlers!

...a fix, I believe might relieve this is to make the cost of new ships mean more...one way to do this is quite simply to make ship combat much more lethal eg. make looser be anihilated! 50% of time...this will not only dramatically increase the number of ships lost and thus make people spend more money on replacing these...it will also make players much more cautios to avoid engaging in sea battles on bad odds...thus encouraging the construction of more ships to avoid being outnumbered...

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by JohnMK


If we're going to provide that strong of an incentive in regard to trade efficiency, we'll have to provide yet more incentive to go Land, something like positions 6-10 might reduce land tech cost 1-5%.

Boosting the land side will not make the slider more balanced

 

[boehm]

also I would like to see something done so the middle part of the slider becomes slightly more attractive ...at the moment there really is only one good place to be and thats at one of the extreme settings either at 10 or at 0

 

[unmerged(7518)]

I fully agree that trade shouold be tied to your land/naval slider. I also believe naval combat should be more lethal. Make these two changes, and you will see more cautious humans.

O.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Perhaps a strong naval tendency could boost population growth and income in overseas colonies?

Being able to go further from the nearest port (or the last port of departure) without suffering attrition would also help a lot, as it would make it much easier to seriously blockade hostile nations in a conflict. Naval attrition could be changed from depending on how long you've been at sea, to how far away from a port you are (with the naval/land slider being VERY important as a modifier of some kind).

 

[chegitz guevara]

Okay, how about reducing the cost of colonizing with the naval slider?
Keep the slider linked to trade, regardles of whether the country is land locked or just ignoring the seas. Most trade moved by ships, using rivers, lakes, and costal waters.

Don't make Navies have a 50% chance of being anihilated, that would be way unbalancing and completely ahistorical.

Don't make blockading 100%, but base it on the two nations naval ratings. (Don't know if you can do this.)

Allow navies to seize trading posts, colonies, and unfortified cities, provided they have ports and have no garison.

Make more pirates and get rid of bad boy for privateers made during war.

Make naval support of troops battling in costal provinces mean something.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Am I the only one that prefers Naval?

In early versions I, along with most others, would go towards land. But starting in 1.03 I would start heading towards Naval in order to get more random explorers (since I haven't played a major that gets explorers for a long time).

Now in 1.04 I think Naval is even more important! Armies are still fairly inexpensive, no matter what your setting (well except for full quantity - serfdom - land). But the difference in warship prices is quite significant.

Am I missing something here? I think naval is a very viable option unless you're a land-locked country.

BarristerBoy

 

[JohnMK]

Well the fact of the matter is most players spend much more money on armies than navies, and most of the game depends on your performance on land, hence the extra land morale is quite useful. When I first started playing Eu2 frequently, I too liked naval, mostly because I liked the extra colonists. But I've come to realize that you can have a successful, sprawling overseas empire with a mere 2-3 colonists per year, and you should get at least that in 1.04 given the extra colonists given to monotheistic religions. A lot of people feel as I do, and yes, I think you're quite alone in your opinion. But hey, who am I to tell you how you enjoy to play the game? Obviously, the powers-that-be agree with me, for in 1.02, I believe, they sweetened naval to give extra settlers. Since in 1.04 they've increased the number of settlers independent of this slider, therefore diluting the sweetener they added in 1.02. So once again, it's back to the drawing board for them.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

But the #1 reason I like Naval is for the explorers. If you're playing a country that wasn't historically much of a colonizer you just won't get the explorers you need to start a colonial empire until it's far too late in the game.

Well, unless you sack Porto...

BarristerBoy

 

[JohnMK]

Well at least you'll still get them, you're just twice as likely if you're at least one tick towards naval. But even a land == 10 domestic policy will get you explorers.