Originally posted by Petrus
I figured so much...so have you graduated to circular needles yet?
No, never tried them - gave up that stuff many years ago - right after I got my first Apple computer.
-
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.
No, never tried them - gave up that stuff many years ago - right after I got my first Apple computer.
O.K. not as great a colonizer as those countries you mentioned (plus England) but they did have colonies in NA, Carribean, West Africa and India. So they got around more than say, Venice or the Baltic countries.
Maybe you will be able to go all the way LAND and still colonize and set up trading posts as France but you won't be able to defend them in a war with a naval power.
Originally posted by BiB
Not like France excelled at that
True. Maybe that was their problem - they went all the way for LAND.
Why would going land or naval for that matter reflect on how many Colonists you get?? I would have thought it should be tied to the religious sliders. If your religion is not 100% supported then some people might not want to stick around...if its only at 50% then lots of people would want to emmigrate....and below 50%....well the country will empty fast. This would also br reflected in stability. If a country was stable and had a very good Toleration for its religion then who would want to leave...things are looking pretty rosy here. If your Stability is a -1 or a -3 and the religion is only barely tolerated well you can bet people would not even be packing their bags in a rush to leave.
I agree an adjustment to overseas income in Naval sliders would be beneficial...I dont know why one is even there ( 10% no land connection with Capital ) This sucks for any Island Nations or heavy colonial powers. I would go one step further and Prohibit ( or at least greatly reduce ) troop building out of CB Shielded areas...then having a good navy would become real important. It would become important to nations that have to deal with overseas possessions or at least for nations like the Netherlands to conquer some of those Spanish and Portugese colonies.
If we take England as an example here...one reason they were able to flourish was because with a strong Navy they could send ships with their troops anywhere in the world. The French and Spanish downfalls can also be linked to this...even the Americans defeated the Spanish because they could not re-inforce their positions in Cuba or the Phillipines. In modern times...Rommel was left to defend himself with no support from Germany or Italy because The British controlled the Med. Imagine if you are France and at war with Austria would it not be better to sail from Provence to Capture Istria or Venice near Vienna, instead of slugging your troops through the countryside to get there suffering horrible attrition.
In a world theatre you should be dead if you dont have a navy...If you are a land creature like Russia...who cares
I agree an adjustment to overseas income in Naval sliders would be beneficial...I dont know why one is even there ( 10% no land connection with Capital ) This sucks for any Island Nations or heavy colonial powers. I would go one step further and Prohibit ( or at least greatly reduce ) troop building out of CB Shielded areas...then having a good navy would become real important. It would become important to nations that have to deal with overseas possessions or at least for nations like the Netherlands to conquer some of those Spanish and Portugese colonies.
If we take England as an example here...one reason they were able to flourish was because with a strong Navy they could send ships with their troops anywhere in the world. The French and Spanish downfalls can also be linked to this...even the Americans defeated the Spanish because they could not re-inforce their positions in Cuba or the Phillipines. In modern times...Rommel was left to defend himself with no support from Germany or Italy because The British controlled the Med. Imagine if you are France and at war with Austria would it not be better to sail from Provence to Capture Istria or Venice near Vienna, instead of slugging your troops through the countryside to get there suffering horrible attrition.
In a world theatre you should be dead if you dont have a navy...If you are a land creature like Russia...who cares
Last edited:
I agree with both points, however, it might be easier to patch things on attrition not by changing the time since you were last in port, but rather by having the naval/land slider modify the number of months that you can be out of port before you start getting atrition.
Alexandre
Food for thought -
I'm a navalist and will build a competitive navy under any circumstance. But historically in the the 15th & 16th centuries large standing fleets weren't maintained by any of the powers outside of the large Mediteranean galley fleets. I got this from Geoffrey Parker's The Grand Strategy of Philip II:
"...in 1588 Elizabeth's capital ships constituted the most powerful navy afloat anywhere in the world...she posessed eighteen capital ships...Philip boasted slightly more: ten Potugese galleons... eight recently built guardships of the transatlantic convoys...and four Neopolitan galleasses..."
For the Armada campaign the English also used privately-owned vessels which were built to navy standards, having been constructed as privateers. The Spanish rounded out the Armada by adding guns to the convoy galleons and snatching any worthy ship in their reach in the period before the campaign was launched, such as the "Gran Grifon, a 950-ton grain transort from Rostock on the Baltic..." Each also fielded many smaller, non-line vessels.
The point is that the two largest high-seas naval powers maintained a total of 40 vessesl that could be considered ships-of-the-line in their standing navies in the period leading up to the greatest naval conflict that had occurred up to that time outside the Med. In the game, of course, there are probably hundreds of ships in the Atlantic theater during this time period.
Ships are way to cheap to build and maintain in this time period in the game. So any game mechanics that work against reasons for building them probably serves an unintended historial purpose.
I'm a navalist and will build a competitive navy under any circumstance. But historically in the the 15th & 16th centuries large standing fleets weren't maintained by any of the powers outside of the large Mediteranean galley fleets. I got this from Geoffrey Parker's The Grand Strategy of Philip II:
"...in 1588 Elizabeth's capital ships constituted the most powerful navy afloat anywhere in the world...she posessed eighteen capital ships...Philip boasted slightly more: ten Potugese galleons... eight recently built guardships of the transatlantic convoys...and four Neopolitan galleasses..."
For the Armada campaign the English also used privately-owned vessels which were built to navy standards, having been constructed as privateers. The Spanish rounded out the Armada by adding guns to the convoy galleons and snatching any worthy ship in their reach in the period before the campaign was launched, such as the "Gran Grifon, a 950-ton grain transort from Rostock on the Baltic..." Each also fielded many smaller, non-line vessels.
The point is that the two largest high-seas naval powers maintained a total of 40 vessesl that could be considered ships-of-the-line in their standing navies in the period leading up to the greatest naval conflict that had occurred up to that time outside the Med. In the game, of course, there are probably hundreds of ships in the Atlantic theater during this time period.
Ships are way to cheap to build and maintain in this time period in the game. So any game mechanics that work against reasons for building them probably serves an unintended historial purpose.
I know the HMS Warrior...abit outside this period ( past 1820 ) cost in todays dollars the equivalent of 3 modern Aircraft carriers...granted it would have sailed through any navy in the world for the next Ten years...but the money spent on these things is atrocious....I dont think many people are arguing the cost it is the use of the Navy and its role when it is created. In the game at present....it has a very limited role....more as a ferry ship than anything....even that is not involved all the time. For the other arm of a nations military might it does not add alot to the game.
Playing as England....perhaps the penultimate naval power I still find more use in going over towards Land in a large way...because you have to fight France Spain Portugal Netherlands forces across the sea...where they for the most part dont need a navy because they can create troops there already in the thousands. For me this is the most troublesome aspect of the game.
Playing as England....perhaps the penultimate naval power I still find more use in going over towards Land in a large way...because you have to fight France Spain Portugal Netherlands forces across the sea...where they for the most part dont need a navy because they can create troops there already in the thousands. For me this is the most troublesome aspect of the game.
Exactly. Those folks that argue that by not raising troops in colonies you make the navy a ferry system miss the point that with a fighting navy you can disrupt the enemy ferry system thus forcing the enemy to build more warships and so the historical arms race begins.
As you stated LAND makes a difference because no matter how strong your navy, you still have to fight those powers on land because they don't need a navy to build colonial troops.