Navies need fixing.
- Thread starter George LeS
- Start date
-
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.
That's good to know. Hopefully some of what's being discussed here resonates with you and others on the team.
Thanks for elaborating. The tactical DOES impact the strategic, so if you view "battles of annihilation" simply as a means to ensure that one power has total naval domination over others, that's understandable. However George, I and others do not believe the resulting force structure (all or nothing) correctly models the EU3 period - certainly not the period up to the early/mid 1700's. We've given examples aplenty so I won't reiterate. You feel otherwise, and that's your prerogative.
I will suggest that this view is at odds with the EU3 Tariff Income model, which ties a requirement for "x" number of "big ships" to ensure receipt of full income. Obviously this does require the existence of a fleet, and even though Spain, France, and Holland were periodically at war with England throughout much of the colonial period, in the beginning they only suffered disruptions to their overseas trade, not the complete elimination of it. Even in periods where they were definitely not the superior naval power. And why? Because during the periods of war, their fleets were not annihilated to the last ship. This dynamic does begin to change in the mid-1700's, as improved naval technology and tactics enable better blockades and more systematic commerce destruction, but again, none of that was true in the first 300+ years of the EU3 period.
I think the problem with the tactical side is that what ever you tried to do to it the AI would undermine you. However hard you work at making battles more ballanced and low casualty, the AI would keep on coming out of port with low morale and while damaged untill you just killed them. What it needs to learn is if it is badly outnumbered it should hole up in port, to preserve what it does have and then "build their arse off" when they can afford to to prepare for round two. The player will do this. Nations did this historically. The AI can't help itself sending out 6 ships and 2k troops to siege some island you own. However fair and ballanced you make the battles you will, and should, sink their fleets in these situations and they will lose their naval capablities by a thousand cuts. The only alternative is you nerf combat so much that its imposible to ever sink anything, a la HoI2. Where it took a lot of understanding of the system (and light carriers when they were finally introduced) to actually make battles decisive. But that was a wargame where that level of naval detail was desirable.
In an ideal world I suppose major battles would be bloody with 20-30% lossess on the losing side and every other ship taking heavy (70%) damage, and then that damage would take a year to repair or so, and cost money to be repaired, and the AI would keep its damaged ships in harbour untill they were repaired. A HoI2 style system where the ships are taken out of action and repair manually I guess. That way after a major battle you would have naval superiority guaranteed for six months, as the other sides fleet refits, but the losing side wouldn't lose its entire fleet.
I don't particularly like the tarrif model and the way it correlates your fighting navy with your merchant marine, especially now they have upped the cost of ships so much. Your navy should be there to keep away pirates, and as it stands you very nearly need 1 light ship per colony in a lot of the world, 1 per 5 in others. I think that requiring your fleet to both patrol for pirates and ship the goods back home themselves is excessive. I would be happy if pirate patrols were abstracted into tarrif efficiency in some way, that would certainly unclutter the fleet display!, or if tarrifs were got rid of but someone had to patrol for pirates. Possibly make mercantile effect your tarrif efficiency as well to give it some small advantage. You are completely right that as it stands fleet anihilations do destroy tarrif income permanently. I just want to destroy tarrif income during the blockade
What I would like though is to force any nation that goes colonial on a large scale to go naval on a large scale as well. Press Gangs needs to be made every colonial countries 4th AI NI or so...
Last edited:
One problem with that is France and Spain. They both managed, in the campaign period, to be both land and naval powers. On your system, a French player might just as well drop his fleet entirely, given that there's no way he can match England, while maintaining power on the Continent. Won't happen. So build a galley in each port, to avoid the occasional pirate, and ignore the ROTW.
Now, if a player wants to do this, fine. But the idea of making historical strategies absurd or impossible, is extremely undesireable. This isn't a fantasy map; the feel of playing historical nations does matter. For myself, I'd like a more deterministic game, but only in mods; which is one of the things mods are for. I don't want that for vanilla. I do want the ability to mod towards that.
But further, you've just added another pons asinorum for the AI. It is extremely unlikely the AI will be able to decide whether to build or forego a fleet. So it will almost certainly build away, just to provide tradition to the dominant seapower. I do agree about the AI's propensity to send out suicide missions, both on land and sea. I find it hard that cannot be programmed out, at least when on low aggression. And for both land and sea, that would make a better game. Also, remember that I've already suggested a mechanism by which neither the player nor the AI could do much with heavily damaged ships, until they are repaired.
I will also point out that making fleets at sea invisible, at least in all-sea zones, did help the AI a lot in EUII. In the Europa Portugalis mod, I still was sweating in 1700, vs several enemies. Here, it would let some of their kamikazes get through.
Any comments or criticisms? I hope you're at least mentioning this to the High Command.
Now, if a player wants to do this, fine. But the idea of making historical strategies absurd or impossible, is extremely undesireable. This isn't a fantasy map; the feel of playing historical nations does matter. For myself, I'd like a more deterministic game, but only in mods; which is one of the things mods are for. I don't want that for vanilla. I do want the ability to mod towards that.
But further, you've just added another pons asinorum for the AI. It is extremely unlikely the AI will be able to decide whether to build or forego a fleet. So it will almost certainly build away, just to provide tradition to the dominant seapower. I do agree about the AI's propensity to send out suicide missions, both on land and sea. I find it hard that cannot be programmed out, at least when on low aggression. And for both land and sea, that would make a better game. Also, remember that I've already suggested a mechanism by which neither the player nor the AI could do much with heavily damaged ships, until they are repaired.
I will also point out that making fleets at sea invisible, at least in all-sea zones, did help the AI a lot in EUII. In the Europa Portugalis mod, I still was sweating in 1700, vs several enemies. Here, it would let some of their kamikazes get through.
Any comments or criticisms? I hope you're at least mentioning this to the High Command.
I don't see why no one could match england, as you maintain. You need 1 maybe 2 NIs to go naval. And the British isles themselves aren't very rich French continental wealth is greater. The riches of colonial wealth are there for those that have a navy to take them. Why can no one else match their fleet? I want GBR/France/Spain all to be trying to compete with one another, and Netherlands/Portugal/Scandinavia/Italy to be in a second wave trying to compete amongst themselves. Nothing I've suggested would make one country unstopable, it would just mean that if someone wanted to compete they would have to pay for it. And if they do pay for it they get rewarded for doing so. You seem to want their to be no rewards for trying to build a navy as you can't do anything with it, even kill off your oponents.
Because all you seem interested in is making it harder to do anything... You want to make the naval tactics more challenging and engaging but I don't see what strategic benefits come with it.
Take that, Octavio!
Thanks for the reply Captain Gars, you always were my favorite Dev(along with King, Johan, Kallocain, Artfox, and Doomdark.)
Well, if you don't see at this point I see the point of disputing with you.
Back on topic, one idea I'd very much like to see implemented, is changing strategic speeds over time, for different unit types. It is simply and undeniably true that this is historically accurate, and for reasons which go beyond simply hull design and sail plans. Provisioning mattered, as did improvements in navigation; there were many factors.
The trouble is mostly with light ships. A speed of 10 is simply unrealistic, and it is a major factor in the over-fast exploration we see. I work around this in my games by reducing speeds to 3, 5, and 7.5, while delaying the lights until about 1600. But this isn't really satisfactory.
A related point is that prevailing winds should work both ways. Yes, you go faster when they are in your favor, but it takes much longer to sail into them. This was, in fact, of strategic importance. It is why there were different routes to and from the E Indies, and why the Brits maintained both a Windward Island and a Jamaica squadron. Now, I don't much see the need to replicate the latter, but it would be useful if, on the grander strategic scale, certain ports would be useful because of their position on the trades. Ideally, this could lead to a better replication of how trade routes worked.
Good insight from the "Patch" thread. Maintenance cost reductions allow the player to build affordable, "over-the-limit" galley fleets. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't seem to realize this (recognizing that I'm commenting on a sample size of one). It's good that the maintenance changes might have addressed one of the desires listed in this thread (make galley's competitive-to-dominant in the early game), but it's not a complete fix unless the AI can take advantage, too.
Well, just the fact he wrote means he noticed, and if he noticed then the idea must be fleeting in his mind somewhere, that's how a subliminal message starts.
(please do not ban me, I promise to drink only when I'm awake!
)I decided to test out the reported improvements in Galley capabilities, and noticed something very interesting. The "Fire" modifiers for Galleys and Cogs were adjusted upward. Not sure exactly when this occurred, but it definitely came in after the 2-8 Beta, and seems to be referenced by this comment; "Normalised gun damage in naval battles. Guns on each ship type now do the same damage in fire phase." Anyway, here's the change:
(2/8 Fire - Shock)
Carracks: .25 - .25
Galleys: .10 - .70
Cogs: 0 - .50
(3/30 Fire - Shock)
Carracks: .25 - .25
Galleys: .25 - .70
Cogs: .25 - .50
So right off the bat, it appears that Galley/Cog Navies should be a lot more competitive. Assuming that Offense is largely generated by "number of cannons", it also seemed likely a Carrack fleet would still have a sizable advantage since there's 40 per Carrack and only 10 each per Galley and Cog. As a Test, I loaded a 1399 Campaign game, gave the English basing rights in Sicily, and moved a 10 Carrack fleet there, following which I declared war on the Ottomans, who start with 10 Galleys and 5 cogs:
1) Test #1 (5 English Carracks vs. 10 Ottoman Galleys and 5 Ottoman Cogs):
Leaders: None on either side
Cannons: 200 (Eng) vs. 150 (Ott)
Battle Length: 2+ Months
Result: English Loss
Damages: Carrack damage ranged from 34-45%. Only 5 Galleys suffered damage, and the range was 42% to 65%
Analysis: Having seen small numbers of Carracks dominate much larger Galley fleets, this was VERY encouraging. Especially surprising to see such relatively light damage on the Ottoman fleet. One caveat. The English are far outside supply and were suffering from 6% attrition by battle's end. Still, although some of the Carrack damage is due to this, it didn't change the result.
2) Test #2 (10 English Carracks vs. 10 Ottoman Galleys and 5 Ottoman Cogs):
Leaders: None on either side
Cannons: 400 (Eng) vs. 150 (Ott)
Battle Length: 5+ Months
Result: English victory
Damages: All Carracks suffered damage, which ranged from 40% to 80%. All Galleys suffered similar damage, although the range was 40% to 60%. All the cogs took hits as well, but it was fairly light - 85% to 95%
Analysis: I expected the English to win, but it was surprisingly close - the English fleet had only a sliver of green morale at the end. The incredible length of this battle meant the English were suffering 11% attrition by the end, so that might be why it was so close.
Even so, the takeaway seems to be that Galleys truly are a force to reckoned with in the early game. It seems very likely that a 2-to-1 advantage of Galleys over Carracks should be enough for victory, at least for "inland sea" battles. The other takeway is that battle length is crazy long between relatively even strength fleets. Since this is a computer game, can't the "Fire-Shock" phases be sped up in the background? Given a choice between *seeing* the graphic result of a dice roll and being informed that the phase has now changed from "fire" to "shock" (and vice versa), I'm sure most people would opt for "faster cycles" instead.
EDIT: To clarify, the "damage percentages" noted above are actually the "ship health" percentages following each battle.
(2/8 Fire - Shock)
Carracks: .25 - .25
Galleys: .10 - .70
Cogs: 0 - .50
(3/30 Fire - Shock)
Carracks: .25 - .25
Galleys: .25 - .70
Cogs: .25 - .50
So right off the bat, it appears that Galley/Cog Navies should be a lot more competitive. Assuming that Offense is largely generated by "number of cannons", it also seemed likely a Carrack fleet would still have a sizable advantage since there's 40 per Carrack and only 10 each per Galley and Cog. As a Test, I loaded a 1399 Campaign game, gave the English basing rights in Sicily, and moved a 10 Carrack fleet there, following which I declared war on the Ottomans, who start with 10 Galleys and 5 cogs:
1) Test #1 (5 English Carracks vs. 10 Ottoman Galleys and 5 Ottoman Cogs):
Leaders: None on either side
Cannons: 200 (Eng) vs. 150 (Ott)
Battle Length: 2+ Months
Result: English Loss
Damages: Carrack damage ranged from 34-45%. Only 5 Galleys suffered damage, and the range was 42% to 65%
Analysis: Having seen small numbers of Carracks dominate much larger Galley fleets, this was VERY encouraging. Especially surprising to see such relatively light damage on the Ottoman fleet. One caveat. The English are far outside supply and were suffering from 6% attrition by battle's end. Still, although some of the Carrack damage is due to this, it didn't change the result.
2) Test #2 (10 English Carracks vs. 10 Ottoman Galleys and 5 Ottoman Cogs):
Leaders: None on either side
Cannons: 400 (Eng) vs. 150 (Ott)
Battle Length: 5+ Months
Result: English victory
Damages: All Carracks suffered damage, which ranged from 40% to 80%. All Galleys suffered similar damage, although the range was 40% to 60%. All the cogs took hits as well, but it was fairly light - 85% to 95%
Analysis: I expected the English to win, but it was surprisingly close - the English fleet had only a sliver of green morale at the end. The incredible length of this battle meant the English were suffering 11% attrition by the end, so that might be why it was so close.
Even so, the takeaway seems to be that Galleys truly are a force to reckoned with in the early game. It seems very likely that a 2-to-1 advantage of Galleys over Carracks should be enough for victory, at least for "inland sea" battles. The other takeway is that battle length is crazy long between relatively even strength fleets. Since this is a computer game, can't the "Fire-Shock" phases be sped up in the background? Given a choice between *seeing* the graphic result of a dice roll and being informed that the phase has now changed from "fire" to "shock" (and vice versa), I'm sure most people would opt for "faster cycles" instead.
EDIT: To clarify, the "damage percentages" noted above are actually the "ship health" percentages following each battle.
Last edited:
Comments/information on the most recent Naval changes:
- The naval maintenance factor is now separate per ship type
- Lowered maintenance factor for galleys, and, especially, transports.
- Naval Maintenance is now scaled on tech level.
1) Factor per ship type (in "defines.txt"):
Was:
0.025 #_EDEF_NAVAL_MAINTENANCE_FACTOR_
Is:
0.08 #_EDEF_BIG_SHIP_MAINT_FACTOR_
0.08 #_EDEF_LIGHT_SHIP_MAINT_FACTOR_
0.03 #_EDEF_GALLEY_MAINT_FACTOR_
0.02 #_EDEF_TRANSPORT_MAINT_FACTOR_
2) Scaled on tech level (in "naval.txt"):
Was:
technology = { id = 3
("naval_maintenance" was not a factor)
Is:
technology = { id = 3
naval_maintenance = 0.25
The above is GREATLY simplified, since there's a different factor for every Tech Level. I was initially concerned that the maintenance changes would destroy some of the traditional naval powers (exactly what happened with the 3-9 beta release). However, that seems not to be the case. Let's do a "before-after" comparison of England to see the net effect of these changes on the 1399 start position:
Before: 41 ships x .025 = 1.025
Now: (29 Carracks x .08 x .25 = .58) + (12 Cogs x .02 x .25 = .06) = .64
The math isn't exact (I must be calculating something wrong), because the actual maintenance amount of the 2-8 Beta was 3.2/mo versus 2.5/mo in the 3-30 beta, but the bottom line is that Naval support is actually CHEAPER than it used to be, at least at the start. By Naval Tech Level 10, the fleet cost is roughly back to the unmodified start cost, but after that it rises slowly and steadily with every tech level increase. Kudos to Paradox, as they seem to have gotten this exactly right.
One caveat: The maintenance factor in naval.txt jumps from 2.2 to 3.3 between Tech Levels 43 and 44. Looks like a pretty clear error, so players might want to edit their file until Paradox releases a fix with the next Beta release.
- The naval maintenance factor is now separate per ship type
- Lowered maintenance factor for galleys, and, especially, transports.
- Naval Maintenance is now scaled on tech level.
1) Factor per ship type (in "defines.txt"):
Was:
0.025 #_EDEF_NAVAL_MAINTENANCE_FACTOR_
Is:
0.08 #_EDEF_BIG_SHIP_MAINT_FACTOR_
0.08 #_EDEF_LIGHT_SHIP_MAINT_FACTOR_
0.03 #_EDEF_GALLEY_MAINT_FACTOR_
0.02 #_EDEF_TRANSPORT_MAINT_FACTOR_
2) Scaled on tech level (in "naval.txt"):
Was:
technology = { id = 3
("naval_maintenance" was not a factor)
Is:
technology = { id = 3
naval_maintenance = 0.25
The above is GREATLY simplified, since there's a different factor for every Tech Level. I was initially concerned that the maintenance changes would destroy some of the traditional naval powers (exactly what happened with the 3-9 beta release). However, that seems not to be the case. Let's do a "before-after" comparison of England to see the net effect of these changes on the 1399 start position:
Before: 41 ships x .025 = 1.025
Now: (29 Carracks x .08 x .25 = .58) + (12 Cogs x .02 x .25 = .06) = .64
The math isn't exact (I must be calculating something wrong), because the actual maintenance amount of the 2-8 Beta was 3.2/mo versus 2.5/mo in the 3-30 beta, but the bottom line is that Naval support is actually CHEAPER than it used to be, at least at the start. By Naval Tech Level 10, the fleet cost is roughly back to the unmodified start cost, but after that it rises slowly and steadily with every tech level increase. Kudos to Paradox, as they seem to have gotten this exactly right.
One caveat: The maintenance factor in naval.txt jumps from 2.2 to 3.3 between Tech Levels 43 and 44. Looks like a pretty clear error, so players might want to edit their file until Paradox releases a fix with the next Beta release.
@Kull1:
Good work. I take it there were no captures or sinkings?
In my own games (with my tweaked tables for faster battles), I too have seen that galleys are better. I even won a battle vs 12 French transports, with 7 galleys & 1 big. Admittedly, I had an admiral, and they hadn't. That last point brings up something I've noted before: The AI simply needs the ability to assign admirals (& explorers) to fleets at sea. It doesn't have the sense to go back to port and pick one up. Thus, in a long war, you'll see most AI fleets commanded early on, but often leaderless later, although they do have commanders. Similarly, it's common for an AI exploration to stop where the explorer dies, and sit there for decades, doing nothing at all.
Good work. I take it there were no captures or sinkings?
In my own games (with my tweaked tables for faster battles), I too have seen that galleys are better. I even won a battle vs 12 French transports, with 7 galleys & 1 big. Admittedly, I had an admiral, and they hadn't. That last point brings up something I've noted before: The AI simply needs the ability to assign admirals (& explorers) to fleets at sea. It doesn't have the sense to go back to port and pick one up. Thus, in a long war, you'll see most AI fleets commanded early on, but often leaderless later, although they do have commanders. Similarly, it's common for an AI exploration to stop where the explorer dies, and sit there for decades, doing nothing at all.
No sinkings in either test, but the English did capture one Cog in the second battle. In addition to demonstrating the new "powered-up galleys", both battles were effectively draws. Yet they took a combined 8 months to play out, and are thus "poster children" for the concept of either the "max cycle" or "faster cycle" concepts. I still prefer the former, as it should be simpler to implement and doesn't require any change in the graphics.
Good point on the Leaders. I'm usually pretty leery of AI cheats, but that one sounds fine.
I'm just glad there are people on this forum intelligent enough to realize that the naval system needs improvement.
Another idea: a "detach damaged" button which works similarly to the "detach mercs" button for armies. It can be a pain paging through a big fleet to get rid of all the damaged ships you want to leave in port for repairs.
Positioning is a factor that Paradox included in Naval combat to reduce the effectiveness of large, cumbersome, poorly led fleets. Without getting into whether this is or is not a good idea, the original implementation led to some horrible results. For those reasons (and possibly others, which we'll discuss), Paradox implemented the following Beta Patch changes:
- Positioning is now properly capped in naval battles.
- Positioning cap now defends on the amount of cannons on the ship in the fleets. 100 cannons = 1% less in cap.
The positioning formulas are hardcoded, but per the devs:
In naval combat, the higher your positioning number, the better. So when the patch notes speak of "positioning caps" the implication is that you will no longer see the awful disparities of the past (100% postioning vs. 1%). And apparently the cap is now reduced by the number of cannons in the fleet as a whole. So a ten Carrack fleet would have it's cap reduced by 4% (400 cannons/100 x 1%), whereas a 10 galley fleet would only see a 1% reduction (100 cannons/100 x 1%).
Since Galleys are also significantly faster than Carracks, one might assume that's another reason we are seeing better performance by Galley fleets in the latest beta patches, although as discussed below, that's questionable. Another issue is that anecdotally, several folks have reported that Naval battles are taking even longer than before, which might be an unintended side effect of the added positioning calculations. Certainly something for Paradox to look into, because Naval Battle length is seriously problematic (as discussed at length in this thread and others).
Anyway, all that sounds interesting, but let's see what it actually looks like in-game. I went back to my "England vs. Ottomans" test game and ran three more tests to look specifically for the positioning numbers, and how they might alter as fleet sizes change. And what I found was quite surprising:
1) Test #1 (10 English Carracks vs. 10 Ottoman Galleys and 5 Ottoman Cogs):
As you can see from the graphic below, both fleets had positioning values of 41%. When the battle starts, the postioning values begin at a lower number and then rise up in increments of 2 or 3 per phase until they reach a final value, where they remain until the battle ends. I know from a previous test (posted above) that this was a very even force composition, so it wasn't that surprising to see similar positioning values for each fleet. The tooltip also confirmed that the max value for the English is 96%, which ties into the new cannon-quantity-based positioning reduction. Not that it mattered in this case.
1) Test #2 (5 English Carracks vs. 10 Ottoman Galleys and 5 Ottoman Cogs):
Now things start to get a little squirrely. Even though the English fleet was halved in size, their positioning value remained exactly the same! The Ottoman reduction from 41% to 40% is not significant, since another 5 vs. 15 test showed them at 41% (thus a 1% variation is probably just rounding). The tooltip change shows the max value for the English has now increased to 98% (which further validates the formula mentioned in the patch notes), but again it was irrelevant in this case.
1) Test #3 (1 English Carrack vs. 10 Ottoman Galleys and 5 Ottoman Cogs):
This seems to make no sense at all. Even though the English fleet is now 1/10 the original size, and despite the fact that "fleet size" is supposedly a major factor in determining positioning value, it remains unchanged at 41%. The tooltip max value for the English has now increased to 99%, but again it's irrelevant.
So I'm stumped. What's really curious is that both the Ottoman and English fleets have identical positioning values, regardless of fleet size or (apparently) composition. I'd be interested to see what kinds of values others come up with - that may provide insight into what's really going on here.
- Positioning is now properly capped in naval battles.
- Positioning cap now defends on the amount of cannons on the ship in the fleets. 100 cannons = 1% less in cap.
The positioning formulas are hardcoded, but per the devs:
In naval combat, the higher your positioning number, the better. So when the patch notes speak of "positioning caps" the implication is that you will no longer see the awful disparities of the past (100% postioning vs. 1%). And apparently the cap is now reduced by the number of cannons in the fleet as a whole. So a ten Carrack fleet would have it's cap reduced by 4% (400 cannons/100 x 1%), whereas a 10 galley fleet would only see a 1% reduction (100 cannons/100 x 1%).
Since Galleys are also significantly faster than Carracks, one might assume that's another reason we are seeing better performance by Galley fleets in the latest beta patches, although as discussed below, that's questionable. Another issue is that anecdotally, several folks have reported that Naval battles are taking even longer than before, which might be an unintended side effect of the added positioning calculations. Certainly something for Paradox to look into, because Naval Battle length is seriously problematic (as discussed at length in this thread and others).
Anyway, all that sounds interesting, but let's see what it actually looks like in-game. I went back to my "England vs. Ottomans" test game and ran three more tests to look specifically for the positioning numbers, and how they might alter as fleet sizes change. And what I found was quite surprising:
1) Test #1 (10 English Carracks vs. 10 Ottoman Galleys and 5 Ottoman Cogs):
As you can see from the graphic below, both fleets had positioning values of 41%. When the battle starts, the postioning values begin at a lower number and then rise up in increments of 2 or 3 per phase until they reach a final value, where they remain until the battle ends. I know from a previous test (posted above) that this was a very even force composition, so it wasn't that surprising to see similar positioning values for each fleet. The tooltip also confirmed that the max value for the English is 96%, which ties into the new cannon-quantity-based positioning reduction. Not that it mattered in this case.
1) Test #2 (5 English Carracks vs. 10 Ottoman Galleys and 5 Ottoman Cogs):
Now things start to get a little squirrely. Even though the English fleet was halved in size, their positioning value remained exactly the same! The Ottoman reduction from 41% to 40% is not significant, since another 5 vs. 15 test showed them at 41% (thus a 1% variation is probably just rounding). The tooltip change shows the max value for the English has now increased to 98% (which further validates the formula mentioned in the patch notes), but again it was irrelevant in this case.
1) Test #3 (1 English Carrack vs. 10 Ottoman Galleys and 5 Ottoman Cogs):
This seems to make no sense at all. Even though the English fleet is now 1/10 the original size, and despite the fact that "fleet size" is supposedly a major factor in determining positioning value, it remains unchanged at 41%. The tooltip max value for the English has now increased to 99%, but again it's irrelevant.
So I'm stumped. What's really curious is that both the Ottoman and English fleets have identical positioning values, regardless of fleet size or (apparently) composition. I'd be interested to see what kinds of values others come up with - that may provide insight into what's really going on here.
Excellent post. I'm now testing higher ship speeds (tactical, that is), and have seen more good battles mixed in with the bad ones.
Unfortunately, with the TT showing, one cannot see the damage. Perhaps damaged ships cannot reach full positioning values, if positioning is penalized for the damage (or morale?) done to the ships. Just a speculation.
What kind of shape was the Turkish fleet in, after the fight?
Unfortunately, with the TT showing, one cannot see the damage. Perhaps damaged ships cannot reach full positioning values, if positioning is penalized for the damage (or morale?) done to the ships. Just a speculation.
What kind of shape was the Turkish fleet in, after the fight?