There's been a lot of talk about navies, since the Mar 9 patch. I'm starting a new thread about what the game needs, so it won't necessarily die when the next patch comes out. And yes, that means I'm back on my hobby horse.
1. Obviously, maintenance needs work. It seems to be a problem that the game has to cover 400 years; what works in 1399 doesn't in 1820. To my mind, the simplest way is the best, increasing ship costs (and thus maintenance) over time, with each new type.
It would be easiest if this were put into the unit files themselves, but for now, I suppose that triggered modifiers are best. It remains true that there is a one-month gap, between the rise in tech type which enables a new type, and the firing of the triggered modifier.
Events, I suppose, could get around this. We'd really need to use sub-types as triggers, I think, although there may be a better way.
2. Another maintenance-related question would be reserves, which is how the world's fleets really worked, rather than the low-support system now in use. This is but one example of features which make sense for armies being imposed, inappropriately, on fleets. And that, again, is the result of navies being 2nd class citizens in most games. It doesn't work here because it is precisely the EU timeperiod which saw the rise of seapower to its greatest prominence. (The real "winner", IRL, is GBR, after all.) What's needed is reserve squadrons, on the province level, which can be paid for to bring into service, & which would appear as new units (ideally, often of older types, though).
To do this by modding we'd need several things: at least a disband command and a sub-type trigger. And calling them up should not just cost $, but also cost in trade values, as well, as their crews are coming out of the merchant service.
3. Another problem is combat. There are several things wrong here:
a. It's often been commented that battles just take too long. I agree. This can, in itself, be evaded by modding the tables to higher combat factors. This does have it's troubles, though. What would really help would be one- instead of 3-day phases, with again, higher combat factors.
b. A real problem is the rate of loss in naval battles, which is highly unrealistic. Annihilations are the norm; IRL, they were very rare. (Check out the really one-sided victories at sea during the period and note how many ships returned home for even the worst-beaten fleets. Never happens in EUIII).
I'd suggest that the #1 fix here would be that NO ship would be sunk because it's morale reaches 0. This would be both much more realistic, and much better for game play. There is already a good (IMO, very good) retreat mechanic. What we need is that routed ships either strike (are captured), or retreat. Period. This really comes from the fact that, unlike land units, naval units really are just that, units. On land, a regiment can cease to exist without losing a single man (at least in theory), simply by routing. Ships don't work the same way.
The trouble is that the game automatically kills units which route in the 1st 6 days. But most naval battles shouldn't take much more than 6 days. Given the way most battles went at sea, a 6-day max would be a good idea. After 6, everybody goes home, however much or little damage. One side will be deemed to have "lost" if the damage is sufficiently unequal. (Even that is a concession to the game's scale; few were more than one. But a few days is OK for game play. A month is not).
But in any case, who goes home, and who strikes should be a function of randomness and relative maneuver values. 0 Morale should, simply, never sink a ship. Never.
b. Obviously, a losing fleet must automatically cancel any amphibious ops. As it is, it's absurd to have a few beaten ships show up again for another round. If anything, transports would be the 1st to flee, not the last.
4. One other problem I have is fleet locations at start. The easiest way to see the problem is to load at France at various dates. I have done so, and have literally never seen a fleet in the Med. This is absurd. Toulon vied with Brest as the foremost French naval base, at least in the 18th C.
5. This brings up a point which is not strictly naval, but it seems to me that it's a mistake to give every city every level of building possible (except forts), at the later load dates. I'd suggest that only the capital get that, plus the richest port, if the capital is inland. Then, say, only the top half of provinces (by wealth/pop) would get the next level, and so on. Or, for an even better way, it could be in the history files.
And then deployment could be base partly on base size. I'd love to see it semi-random, but with at least 1/2 -- or more -- at home. The latter should be standard.
6. I really think it's absurd that cities without cores can never build ships. It works fine if you are ENG or CAS, but it's not uncommon for a country to conquer its way to the sea. There are modding ways around this, but why not allow the same rule as for armies, based on other countries' cores? You could increase local cost and time factors, but complete 0? Doesn't work.
7. Finally, I know many others agree with me about attrition and the AI. Complete immunity leads to Turkish or Chinese galley fleets off New York. Now, I wouldn't mind if the AI simply acted as though it were avoiding attrition, while not taking damage. And I understand that it'd need a healthy multiplier to function, so it might take 3 or 4 times as long to kick in. But it would help if it were common to both, and (as I've said many times before) for both AI and player, the EUII feature of auto-retreat to port, be restored. (And again) this threshold should be in the defines file.
That is undoubtedly too long. But I hope I'll trigger responses. I'd like to see what others find unsatisfactory, and what sorts of solutions others think wise.
Thanks.
1. Obviously, maintenance needs work. It seems to be a problem that the game has to cover 400 years; what works in 1399 doesn't in 1820. To my mind, the simplest way is the best, increasing ship costs (and thus maintenance) over time, with each new type.
It would be easiest if this were put into the unit files themselves, but for now, I suppose that triggered modifiers are best. It remains true that there is a one-month gap, between the rise in tech type which enables a new type, and the firing of the triggered modifier.
Events, I suppose, could get around this. We'd really need to use sub-types as triggers, I think, although there may be a better way.
2. Another maintenance-related question would be reserves, which is how the world's fleets really worked, rather than the low-support system now in use. This is but one example of features which make sense for armies being imposed, inappropriately, on fleets. And that, again, is the result of navies being 2nd class citizens in most games. It doesn't work here because it is precisely the EU timeperiod which saw the rise of seapower to its greatest prominence. (The real "winner", IRL, is GBR, after all.) What's needed is reserve squadrons, on the province level, which can be paid for to bring into service, & which would appear as new units (ideally, often of older types, though).
To do this by modding we'd need several things: at least a disband command and a sub-type trigger. And calling them up should not just cost $, but also cost in trade values, as well, as their crews are coming out of the merchant service.
3. Another problem is combat. There are several things wrong here:
a. It's often been commented that battles just take too long. I agree. This can, in itself, be evaded by modding the tables to higher combat factors. This does have it's troubles, though. What would really help would be one- instead of 3-day phases, with again, higher combat factors.
b. A real problem is the rate of loss in naval battles, which is highly unrealistic. Annihilations are the norm; IRL, they were very rare. (Check out the really one-sided victories at sea during the period and note how many ships returned home for even the worst-beaten fleets. Never happens in EUIII).
I'd suggest that the #1 fix here would be that NO ship would be sunk because it's morale reaches 0. This would be both much more realistic, and much better for game play. There is already a good (IMO, very good) retreat mechanic. What we need is that routed ships either strike (are captured), or retreat. Period. This really comes from the fact that, unlike land units, naval units really are just that, units. On land, a regiment can cease to exist without losing a single man (at least in theory), simply by routing. Ships don't work the same way.
The trouble is that the game automatically kills units which route in the 1st 6 days. But most naval battles shouldn't take much more than 6 days. Given the way most battles went at sea, a 6-day max would be a good idea. After 6, everybody goes home, however much or little damage. One side will be deemed to have "lost" if the damage is sufficiently unequal. (Even that is a concession to the game's scale; few were more than one. But a few days is OK for game play. A month is not).
But in any case, who goes home, and who strikes should be a function of randomness and relative maneuver values. 0 Morale should, simply, never sink a ship. Never.
b. Obviously, a losing fleet must automatically cancel any amphibious ops. As it is, it's absurd to have a few beaten ships show up again for another round. If anything, transports would be the 1st to flee, not the last.
4. One other problem I have is fleet locations at start. The easiest way to see the problem is to load at France at various dates. I have done so, and have literally never seen a fleet in the Med. This is absurd. Toulon vied with Brest as the foremost French naval base, at least in the 18th C.
5. This brings up a point which is not strictly naval, but it seems to me that it's a mistake to give every city every level of building possible (except forts), at the later load dates. I'd suggest that only the capital get that, plus the richest port, if the capital is inland. Then, say, only the top half of provinces (by wealth/pop) would get the next level, and so on. Or, for an even better way, it could be in the history files.
And then deployment could be base partly on base size. I'd love to see it semi-random, but with at least 1/2 -- or more -- at home. The latter should be standard.
6. I really think it's absurd that cities without cores can never build ships. It works fine if you are ENG or CAS, but it's not uncommon for a country to conquer its way to the sea. There are modding ways around this, but why not allow the same rule as for armies, based on other countries' cores? You could increase local cost and time factors, but complete 0? Doesn't work.
7. Finally, I know many others agree with me about attrition and the AI. Complete immunity leads to Turkish or Chinese galley fleets off New York. Now, I wouldn't mind if the AI simply acted as though it were avoiding attrition, while not taking damage. And I understand that it'd need a healthy multiplier to function, so it might take 3 or 4 times as long to kick in. But it would help if it were common to both, and (as I've said many times before) for both AI and player, the EUII feature of auto-retreat to port, be restored. (And again) this threshold should be in the defines file.
That is undoubtedly too long. But I hope I'll trigger responses. I'd like to see what others find unsatisfactory, and what sorts of solutions others think wise.
Thanks.
.png){kind=avatar}
