Naval Transport

[Olaf the Unsure]

Now that we've had 24 hours to savor the idea of EU2, it's time to start whining for things to fix.

My personal number-one must-have fix: Eliminate Warship transport capacity (except for explorers). Make Warships for war and Transports for transporting. Give folks a reason to build Transports instead of just building huge fleets of Warships.

This would:

1. Make it harder to mount massive seaborne invasions. England might actually stand a chance for a change.

2. Slow down colonization a bit by requiring more naval investment to transport troops.

3. Separate the true naval powers from the mere pretenders. If you want to be a true naval power, you will have to build Transports to haul troops and Warships to defend them, instead of just building nothing but Warships. Would add a little strategy to the naval side of the game.

Please.

 

[unmerged(349)]

Originally posted by Olaf the Unsure

1. Make it harder to mount massive seaborne invasions. England might actually stand a chance for a change.

ANother thing that might fix this problem is recognizing that in this era there would have been a major supply problem if someone tried to drop 30,000 soldiers on England's coast. To some extent they could "live off the land", but maybe keeping transports in the seazone off the coast would provide a supply link (the amount of supply determined by the number of transports and the distance from the nearest friendly harbor).

But for that, navies would actually have to be useful.

 

[unmerged(673)]

It'll be interesting to create fleets with a variety of ships:Galleons of war, Galleons,pataches,carracks, galleys,galeasses....
Different prices for different firepower and capacity.
(elite units in the army as the spanish tercios,grenadiers,mining group...)

And the commerce could be connected directly with the size of your trade fleet.
I personally would like to raise the silver fleet from America to get the ducats from my gold provinces, or the portuguese spice fleet, or a rich english fleet with furs from Canada. Something as a reward if you will be able to capture it: "you've captured 12 portuguese galleons and 4 carracks full of spices, you add these ships to your fleet and 179 ducats to your national treasure"

 

[unmerged(485)]

With all the fuss about this in the past I'm sure that Paradox has taken some of it into consideration. My hope is that they make a navy a must for anyone wanting to be a naval power rather than a "nice to have but not necessary" ornament.

 

[unmerged(592)]

"And the commerce could be connected directly with the size of your trade fleet. "

No. This isn't imperialism and you don't get workers at the expense of one train corn and two trains of tobacco. Why should suiss have less trade than Navarra just because they're landlocked and have no fleet?

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

Originally posted by Sonny
My hope is that they make a navy a must for anyone wanting to be a naval power rather than a "nice to have but not necessary" ornament.

That's my point exactly. I like the naval attrition rules (attrition is not too high) and the need to build ports along the way. But the system breaks down a bit simply because it's too easy to haul huge armies all over the map with little or no strategic planning required. Just build a bunch of warships. By eliminating warship transport capacity (except for explorers) and limiting transport capacity to one unit, you would have to make a serious investment before launching a seaborne invasion. And that would require planning.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Olaf the Unsure


That's my point exactly. I like the naval attrition rules (attrition is not too high) and the need to build ports along the way. But the system breaks down a bit simply because it's too easy to haul huge armies all over the map with little or no strategic planning required. Just build a bunch of warships. By eliminating warship transport capacity (except for explorers) and limiting transport capacity to one unit, you would have to make a serious investment before launching a seaborne invasion. And that would require planning.

A definate must even though i disagree and think the naval attrition rules are far too linear about modeling losses of ships at sea. Ships did not decline at a set rate. There is no reason a ship crossing all the way across the Atlantic (assumeing good weather etc) should have a greater chance of sinking than a ship that take a 1 month cruise about the stromy and shoal infested Carribean.