Naval Power...

[unmerged(22753)]

I don't really use navies, only for landing.
I almost in every game even russia i have a minimal navy of 120 warships
just because you can destroy every on at sea and you can transport many troops. i transport mostly some 100k troops over the to the enemy. :rofl:
I make the AI fear me.

 

[unmerged(22939)]

I like having a navy, in my games as Portugal, I create two special big fleets, one to protect OPorto and Tago, and other to Protect Algarve, this way my capital is protected agains almost every enemy, and Spain is the only one that can attack me by land, so I'm usually allied with them, of course I create smaller fleets to protect my colonies, and to transport my army. This way I can have a smaller army, that is easely transported to were I need it. :rofl:

 

[unmerged(21523)]

In my game as Austria, I used my fleet to keep Spanish armies from Iberia away from Italy when I fought on Italian soil (which was quite often) . The fleet also proved useful for keeping the Russians away my Italian possesions later in the game (did I mention I did a lot of fighting in Italy?)

 

[KingCharlesXII]

I only use my navies if I have to. No wars are won on the seas anyways, not in this game.

France- 35 warships, 10 transports and 50,000 men venture out to cross the English Channel and invade England. Problem? Nah, just the 50 English warships waiting to sink the fleet and watch that beautiful French army either drown or get stranded in Normandy. Result: The English fleet pounds the French one- they lose most of their ships and most of their men. England now blockades the port with France's largest fleet a wreck and now the army has no way to reach England since it will take forever to rebuild the lost ships. END RESULT: War OVER. on land and on sea. Naval power CAN have a positive impact in the game just as long as you use your fleets wisely and have a good enough tech to keep the rest at bay.

I remember a long long time ago we ran a poll of what players prefer naval or land. most people chose land I chose naval and those who also did always reported to have more than successfull games. True that naval power doesn't have an underlying significance in EU and EU II. I always said that it would be cool if they introduced something like they do with "Claim Defender of the Faith", the religious option but instead make it " Claim Sovereignty of the Seas", or something like that. Something to work for and be awarded points for doing so when you've reached a certain stage in your naval power. ie. strength of numbers, tech, shipyards, etc. I think it would be cool and add a really nice flavor to the game.

 

[cymruwarrior]

Hmm, "Sovereignty of the Seas", i like it

 

[KingCharlesXII]

Hmm, "Sovereignty of the Seas", i like it

Thanks Now if I could only get Paradox or even Johan to notice it since I've brought it up half a dozen times in the last 2+ years to maybe consider it. lol Claiming "Sovereignty of the Seas" can give you benefits such as increased blockade ratings (bonus), combat modifiers, increased naval tech and most of all points! I also always believed that merchant fleets should be added to the game in the way of an economic slider that would enhance your economic success and enable you to trade with nations around the world. I mean seriously how could Bavaria effectively conduct trade with say Japan if they have no access to the sea and no merchant fleet. Anyone say "caravan" or "charter"? Ofcourse this would be for both EU1 and EU2 though I think it would best be used in EU2.

 

[Braedonnal]

It really is a shame that naval warfare isn't all that decisive a factor in this game. It would be great if merchant's income was blocked and you couldn't send more out to far away CoT's, not too mention blocking colonists and traders. The blockade effect is weak and doesn't cripple a nation as much as it should. Britain ruled the waves and when they did they basically ruled the world but in EU you can um, blow up enemy fleets and transport soldiers.

I build navies only for invasions but after that I keep them around to mangle enemy fleets. It's a sort of economic warfare against the major powers because they do rebuild their fleets and that gets to be a costly project. Other than that, I find navies pretty worthless.

 

[unmerged(25223)]

How do I -sink- ships?

I know, it sounds obvious.

However, my naval combat has seemed to "always" be decided on morale. There've been very few actual sinkages in those battles.

For example ...

Last night, (my) Spain was DoWd by Denmark & Burgundy.

They kept sending fleets down the French coastline, and my 20 warships kept 'beating them'. But nothing was sunk.
The small-mercy part was that the fleets turned around and went home as soon as they lost, rather than carrying on and disembarking any troops, but I'd have liked to sink some of those transports.

Is this a matter of naval tech level? (I was on about level 4, and I'd imagine they were at a similar level - my neighbour bonus was +1.)

 

[Rex Francorum]

I am a pro-navy in case of bordering many maritime zone. e.g.: Brandenburg having provinces bordering Baltica Sea and provinces bordering North Sea; France :Manche and Atlantic Coast. As Spain: Atlantic coast and Mediterrannean Sea (vs Ottomans).

I like also to own, rather as a preventive/defensive weapon, small fleets in important colonies.

 

[Braedonnal]

Later on when ships start to have a decent fire value and morale you sink more ships. Early on, it is almost completely shock value and it seems to result in less sinkings and your morale is so low the battles don't last long so that forces navies to flee faster so there are less sinkings.

That's been my experience on naval fights anyways.