Navies for sucking economies...

[III.Selim]

- Navies should hurt the province income which provinces have coastal (at war of course). <-- Like the privateers

- You should loot a coastal province by using navy. ( at war of course )

- Privateers should not appear in one second. You should wait for a month. (like merchants) . Or it should depend on the distance from the capital city.

- Shipyards should help to improve trade.

- If enemy occupies your national waters, you should lose trading income percentage temporarily; depend on how many percent of your national waters are occupied (at war of course).

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

Depending on how trade and trade routes are implemented, using navies to protect those will make them much more useful, though most of your ideas aren't too bad.

You should loot a coastal province by using navy. ( at war of course )

I can't think of any naval actions that looted an area as extensively as a marauding army would. There were coastal raids (John Paul Jones looted some silverware from a few British aristrocratic homes, for example), but they weren't very devastating.

 

[III.Selim]

though most of your ideas aren't too bad.

You mean they're bad, but not too bad ? o

 

[HisMajestyBOB]

You mean they're bad, but not too bad ? o

No, I mean they're pretty good, though some do depend on just how Paradox plans to implement features like trade, warfare, etc.

 

[unmerged(8568)]

IMO, trade routes should actually be represented on the map, perhaps as a little merchant ship or wagon following a line of your countries' colour, which you turn off, or view all, or view only your own.

If you have a navy in a seazone of an enemy, and the little merchant ship comes (like the colonist icon, but associated with the 'send merchant' action) then there is a chance to intercept it based on enemy naval tech and escort or lack of.

Success: Enemy loses a merchant, you gain one.

Simple, and it simulates such things as emargoes, capturing enemy merchant vessels, etc.

 

[Emre Yigit]

I can't think of any naval actions that looted an area as extensively as a marauding army would. There were coastal raids (John Paul Jones looted some silverware from a few British aristrocratic homes, for example), but they weren't very devastating.

Drake at Cadiz? Nelson at Copenhagen? Just off the top of my head.

 

[Daunus]

IMO, trade routes should actually be represented on the map, perhaps as a little merchant ship or wagon following a line of your countries' colour, which you turn off, or view all, or view only your own.

If you have a navy in a seazone of an enemy, and the little merchant ship comes (like the colonist icon, but associated with the 'send merchant' action) then there is a chance to intercept it based on enemy naval tech and escort or lack of.

Success: Enemy loses a merchant, you gain one.

Simple, and it simulates such things as emargoes, capturing enemy merchant vessels, etc.

I kinda liked how tried worked In Rome total war, how building a shipyard (and I think a trade center or something) would create a merchant, and you could see how some trade routs were really busy because there were all these little merchants on them.

 

[unmerged(8915)]

maybe instead of paying money for privateers, you could make your own fleets pirates. so you could post them where you wanted the pirates to be active, but one they become pirates, you loose control over the units and they would attack your ships too.

i dont think you should be able to loot provinces with only your fleet. sorry man

 

[unmerged(25822)]

Wasnt Drake who looted Cartagena in North part of South America?
Cartagena was the main export port of spanish empire , heavily fortified with cannons and walls on small islands sourounding the port etc , but Drake (or whoever this guy was) managed to siege , conquer and loot it , also english got new amsterdam trading post from holland only using navy.
To make this system work in EU there should be a way to have navy vs land army fighting and/or bombardmend from both sides.
Tortuga should be a pirate port

 

[unmerged(53986)]

Depending on how trade and trade routes are implemented, using navies to protect those will make them much more useful, though most of your ideas aren't too bad.


I can't think of any naval actions that looted an area as extensively as a marauding army would. There were coastal raids (John Paul Jones looted some silverware from a few British aristrocratic homes, for example), but they weren't very devastating.

General plunder.. err.. admiral plumridge at the crimean war did plunder and destroy the baltic coast.
His goal being to annihilate the russian ability to produce naval equipment, and in the process burning the homes of the coastal population..

 

[Rhion]

In the Carribians it was quite customary that ports and coastal settlements were raided by navies, but these were mostly fights involving only a couple of hundred men and little to no fortifications.
In EU2 these kind of raids actually already exist, who of you didn't put one thousand cav on a boat and went burning down all his enemy's trade posts

 

[unmerged(52850)]

IMO navies must affect the economy much more! (As they often did)

During war navies often "stole" trade taxes, looted, even captured cargoes etc. You should be able too get some cash in a war just putting your navy outside COTHs, for example, in a war with that nation.

Historically navies had two main objectives:

1. Search and destroy the enemies' ships
2. Control and protect trade/maintenance

In EUII only #1 is represented. #2 is a must in EUIII IMO. Now the army is much more valuable than the navy to most countries (not the biggest colony powers). You can even totally ignore the navy and be successful in Europe, and that's just not OK. I hope for much more improvements on this area!

 

[Kurdistani]

-
- Shipyards should help to improve trade.

That is the best idea... IMHO....

 

[unmerged(9313)]

Yes, more naval focus, please.

Denmark, one of the major countries in this era, was absolutely dependant on its strong navy, from as early as the 16th century and forward. Not only to control the Baltic sea through some years, protect the islands (from Sweden mostly) etc, but also due to the possession of Norway, across the sea. Without the navy, the Swedes would probably have taken Skåne from us much earlier than 1658

Sweden only succesfully invaded the Danish inner islands due to a freak ice winter, that neutralised our navy and froze up the Belts so that they could march over the frozen waterways. Navies need to be able to at least give a country like Denmark some security for its islands.

 

[the_genius]

IMO navies must affect the economy much more! (As they often did)

During war navies often "stole" trade taxes, looted, even captured cargoes etc. You should be able too get some cash in a war just putting your navy outside COTHs, for example, in a war with that nation.

Historically navies had two main objectives:

1. Search and destroy the enemies' ships
2. Control and protect trade/maintenance

In EUII only #1 is represented. #2 is a must in EUIII IMO. Now the army is much more valuable than the navy to most countries (not the biggest colony powers). You can even totally ignore the navy and be successful in Europe, and that's just not OK. I hope for much more improvements on this area!

Perhaps the change of the vision of the economic approach is that now there must be trade routes instead of only a big trade hub easy to trade. That way for a country that depends on trade, it's a must to build a fleet to protect their merchants. Another possibility is that the player choose the construction of more merchant fleets, and designate the routes you want to cover. A similar approach of HoI2.

 

[unmerged(52850)]

Perhaps the change of the vision of the economic approach is that now there must be trade routes instead of only a big trade hub easy to trade. That way for a country that depends on trade, it's a must to build a fleet to protect their merchants. Another possibility is that the player choose the construction of more merchant fleets, and designate the routes you want to cover. A similar approach of HoI2.

Anything that gives the navy more power is good. I also want trade routes, but I don't think that will make it justice enough.

Denmark, one of the major countries in this era, was absolutely dependant on its strong navy, from as early as the 16th century and forward. Not only to control the Baltic sea through some years, protect the islands (from Sweden mostly) etc, but also due to the possession of Norway, across the sea. Without the navy, the Swedes would probably have taken Skåne from us much earlier than 1658

Sweden only succesfully invaded the Danish inner islands due to a freak ice winter, that neutralised our navy and froze up the Belts so that they could march over the frozen waterways. Navies need to be able to at least give a country like Denmark some security for its islands.

Exactly my point! Denmark is often in EUII beaten by Sweden thanks to this unbalance. Sweden had during this time a better army, but Denmark had a better navy. Thanks to the overpowered army, over navies, EUII gets a bit unbalanced. The navy and army should be equal, now the army is far more powerfull. There's just some nations who gain on going naval in EUII. You can rule europe totaly ignoring the navy, and that's something we have to do something about...

 

[unmerged(485)]

..............................................

You can rule europe totaly ignoring the navy, and that's something we have to do something about...

Austria might disagree with you.

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

Wasnt Drake who looted Cartagena in North part of South America?
Cartagena was the main export port of spanish empire , heavily fortified with cannons and walls on small islands sourounding the port etc , but Drake (or whoever this guy was) managed to siege , conquer and loot it , also english got new amsterdam trading post from holland only using navy.
To make this system work in EU there should be a way to have navy vs land army fighting and/or bombardmend from both sides.
Tortuga should be a pirate port

I wouldn't say a navy should be able to fight a land army, but there should definately be such a thing as coastal fortifications, and navies should be able to fight those for control of the coast/ports/loot. I remember, in the revolutionary wars of france, the british navy conqured the port of marsielles for a long time. Navies should definately be given more importance.

 

[the_genius]

Anything that gives the navy more power is good. I also want trade routes, but I don't think that will make it justice enough.

Exactly my point! Denmark is often in EUII beaten by Sweden thanks to this unbalance. Sweden had during this time a better army, but Denmark had a better navy. Thanks to the overpowered army, over navies, EUII gets a bit unbalanced. The navy and army should be equal, now the army is far more powerfull. There's just some nations who gain on going naval in EUII. You can rule europe totaly ignoring the navy, and that's something we have to do something about...

A bit relation between the scenario you post about SWE/DEN and navy/trade routes. Another thing that disbalanced the situation between the two of them in EU2 is the total inhability of DEN to prove them powerful by controlling the skane and the skagerrak, which where the foundation of the economic wealth, not quite showed in EU2 atm. That's another reason for trade routes and such.

 

[unmerged(6766)]

Yes, more naval focus, please.

Denmark, one of the major countries in this era, was absolutely dependant on its strong navy, from as early as the 16th century and forward. Not only to control the Baltic sea through some years, protect the islands (from Sweden mostly) etc, but also due to the possession of Norway, across the sea. Without the navy, the Swedes would probably have taken Skåne from us much earlier than 1658

Sweden only succesfully invaded the Danish inner islands due to a freak ice winter, that neutralised our navy and froze up the Belts so that they could march over the frozen waterways. Navies need to be able to at least give a country like Denmark some security for its islands.

I don't think that is the only reason Sweden overpowers Denmark in this game .
However, I do completely agree with this thread that the navy needs to play a much more important role. I think Paradox has not given it the attention it deserves because it was not able to overcome the range issue, which is of the utmost importance to solve in order to make a realistic navy.
If they are able to solve that or come up with another way to handle it, then they can give the navy the focus it deserves. I agree that the navy, and merchant marine in general, should play a much larger role in this time frame. That is where the wealth came from by the mid to late part of this game and so it needs to be modelled acurately so that the appropriate countries can dominate.

(ie, I think the big white blob is much bigger than historically because it's able to make so much money from trade, whereas historically, they didn't and couldn't without access to maritime trade).