Navies need fixing.

[illapa]

I have not read the entire thread so forgive me if I mention things that have already been mentioned but here are my thoughts.

1) Totally agree

2) agreed I think ships should somehow be tied to something else to show how having a large navy was a large drain on the economy. Something like a penalty for manpower, production/trade efficiency seems like a good fix.

3) maybe the new patch fixed something, but personally I've had a huge range in results. I've found that when fights are one sided result in moral dissapears far faster than ships are damaged so the ships get away. In battles that are closer in size they become battles of annihilation. As a fix to this perhaps moral as a whole should be lowered for ships or the damage dealt lowered so that ships flee before being destroyed.

4) I personally like the spawning points for the navies/armies for most nations, but you are correct France's seems to be off.

5) Totally agree I hate all in game scenarios where you can never reach a certain level if you start at 1399. You will never have buildings built up in every single province like in a 1700 start if you start in 1399. Same with non christian nations "magically" gaining land in certain starts but if you start in 1399 you will never reach that because of no colonists. More events to have local provinces build buildings by themselves would be great. The events could become more common the more decentralized to give SOME benefit to decentralization.

6) To anyone who disagrees with this play as Austria...anyway I believe that non cores should give only 1/2 the naval forcelimit or it being more expensive to build ships there as opposed to can't build ships.

7) Attrition should be based on distance from friendly port. Which means distance from a nation you have military access with, have an alliance with, or yourself. I've had games as a non european nation where Castille declares war on me, blockades me for 10-20 years then offers white peace...definately not WAD.

 

[George LeS]

A point arose in another thread, & I'd like to see what others have observed. Given the length of naval battles, it is standard to reinforce your fleets. (Absurd, but that's how it is.) My own observation is that the AI is much less ready to do so than we are. Sometimes it does, but sometimes, inexplicably, it doesn't. I recently fought a battle vs the Ottos, with fairly even odds; a battle which went back-and-forth before I lost. The thing is, they had 20+ galleys a few sea zones away, with no reason not to send them in. They didn't, although it would have turned an iffy action into a sure thing. I've seen this other times, but sometimes it behaves rationally.

What have others observed?

@illapa:

-Yes, there should be costs to navy size, beyond the ordinary. One thing we could do is create triggered modifiers costing trade & MP if fleets are big enough.

-Yes, the results vary. My objection is that there are still annihilations, which often seem to be the result of morale loss, rather than ship damage. This simply should not happen. I've tried lowering morale in the tables, and it helps speed battles up some, but it leaves the bad results as is, or perhaps worsens the situation. What I've been doing is tweaking the morale, fire, & shock values, to see if it can improve things. It does work to a degree, but there are just certain problems which don't seem amenable to modding.

-Well, attrition is based on distance, in a sense. But you're right in that it's an either/or situation. A very long time ago, after EUIII was announced, but before it was released, I argued for a graded system which would work like this:

a. Assign a fleet, in a base, a blockade seazone.
b. The effective strength of the fleet would be reduced, to indicate that several ships are not present; they're replenishing.
c. The % effect of (b) is increased by distance; if you're blockading Toulon from Gibraltar, it's less efficient than from Port Mahon.

One reason for this would be to avoid the blockade dance from EUII, which was a bit of micromanagement I'm happy to live without. This has been removed from blockades within range, but remains if they're out of range. Of course, this would be a more complex system from a design perspective, but it'd surely be less so for a player.

The trouble with using attrition, simply, is that it's a micromanagement pain. That's what I was trying to get around.

An incidental point is that I said this under the assumption that EUII blockade rules would be in effect: 5 ships minimum, not 1. (Doubled for galleys). I still think that blockade size, admiral rating (including siege rating), and blocakade efficiency, shoudl be combined to make larger forces more effective than small. That is, a port's blockaded status should be not yes/no (100%/0%), but decided by the size etc of the blockading force.

Found a very old thread on this:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?234955-Improved-Lines-of-Supply-amp-blockades

 

[George LeS]

I think I already mentioned this, but it would really help if we had a "detach damaged" button for fleets. It is a real pain to page through a large fleet, after an action, to find all the ships you want to leave for repair.

 

[Duskey]

I think I already mentioned this, but it would really help if we had a "detach damaged" button for fleets. It is a real pain to page through a large fleet, after an action, to find all the ships you want to leave for repair.

THAT would be an awesome addition. When I use a fleet of say 10 ships to keep an 8 ship AI fleet hold up in a province, some of them might get damaged if the AI decides to risk a naval battle or get damaged from attrition. I then keep a secondary fleet to re-supply the primary fleet with fresh ships and move the damaged ones back to be repaired.

 

[George LeS]

Yes, and make it a 30+ fleet, & it really gets annoying.

 

[George LeS]

I've been trying to get clear in my mind what we do know about combat. Really, a lot is speculation. But here is what I think is true:

1. The number of cannon, modified of course by the leader, is multipled by the tech table #, for damage inflicted by fire.

2. I assume the same is true of shock, although it is just possible that each ship a unit, and somehow that, not guns, is the determinant.

3. The hull must be, I assume, the defensive factor.

4. The speed (sail_speed in the unit file), modified by the leader, increases the rapidity of finding a target. Whether this is day-to-day, or round-by-round, I am not sure. And not, this speed has no relation to the speed in the defines file, which is strategic map speed.

5. It is very clear that routing ships are destroyed by routing alone. I have seen ships with percentages in the 90's sunk on the following day, when their fleet loses. Therefore it is morale alone which causes the sinking. Which is not to say that damage--both fire and shock--cannot do so as well. Further evidence is that, you rarely see the winner losing ships, despite the course of the battle often looks as if he were going to. It must be the loss -- the route -- which does it. At least, it seems it must be. There could always be something else going on.

6. Relative to the last point, it seems there is no difference between fire and shock, except that they are based on different tables, so the same matchup may favor one ship in the fire phase, her opponent in shock. But the effects of each do seem the same. It is pretty clear that there is not one damaging the ship, the other breaking morale, as some have (reasonably but incorrectly) conjectured. However, see points (1) and (2).

7. Exactly what does cause morale loss is unclear. I have seen cases where damage and morale flat-out do not correlate, although in most cases, they do. You can see this if, after a battle, you split up your fleet into single units. It is not always true that the more damaged ships have lower morale, although again, they usually do.

8. What causes captures I do not know.

EDIT:

Abnormalmind has made an interesting naval combat mod, which I encourage all those interested, to look at.

 

[George LeS]

Yet another problem with the system, on which I've made zero progress, is the way damage ends up. The thing is that it is very common for a large squadron, which has just crushed a small force, to end up with more total damage than a large fleet which has just won a major action, annihilating the enemy's large fleet. This has to be another example of the malign influence of how positioning works.

It's not just a matter of unrealism, or looking absurd. It also really warps the way fleets work, strategically. A fleet which has just won a Lepanto/Trafalgar type action is very often in great shape, with no need to refit. The same fleet, in brushing aside small opponents.

The more I play, the more I'm inclined to think that positioning should just be eliminated, period. I'm less and less inclined to think it can be made to work in any way.

And, again, the way everyone gangs up on lightships is preposterous. That's not how anyone fought, that I've read. In fact, there was a strong desire, as much a point of honor as of tactics, to try to match flagship to flagship, and major ship vs major ship. By the 18th C, it was not uncommon (really, it was the norm) for the ships of the line to ignore enemy frigates altogether, unless the latter fired on them. And the frigates rarely did that, in major actions.

 

[safferli]

By the 18th C, it was not uncommon (really, it was the norm) for the ships of the line to ignore enemy frigates altogether, unless the latter fired on them. And the frigates rarely did that, in major actions.

Well, frigates very, very rarely actively sought combat with a MoW -- they'd be mincemeat. And a MoW in all normal circumstances couldn't really catch a frigate. That's why there were so few battles of frigate vs MoW. But if the frigates lined up in line of battle, the MoW captains would have no qualms firing on them as well.

 

[Taylor]

Can't they just do it like this: above a certain number of ships, the game realizes that the positioning is too horrible, and will decide instead that only a part of your fleet will go into battle. I.e., your entire fleet is present in the sea province, but only a part is actually fighting. If you lose a ship, it gets replaced by one of the 'non-combatant'-ships.

That way, it will not make much sense for the player to make 100 ship stacks (because their firepower doesn't actually increase), but large stacks will still win easily against a single ship because the game only uses part of the stack to fight. Of course the player could split up the fleets manually to avoid horrible positioning, but that seems like a lot of micromanagement which should be avoided.

 

[George LeS]

Well, frigates very, very rarely actively sought combat with a MoW -- they'd be mincemeat. And a MoW in all normal circumstances couldn't really catch a frigate. That's why there were so few battles of frigate vs MoW. But if the frigates lined up in line of battle, the MoW captains would have no qualms firing on them as well.

Sure, but since they didn't often join in the line, why set the system so that they always do so?

IMO, the simplest way to do it would be something like this:

1. One change I really like is the way units sort by general type. (I don't think I've given proper credit here before--thank you.) Extend to sub-type, so 3-deckers are on top, then two-'s, then WG's, etc.

2. Get rid of the "attempt fire at everyone" feature. Instead, the 1st ship on each side fires on its opposite, and so on down the line.

3. The process of (2) is modified by type. When the larger fleet's Bigs have engaged the smaller's, the other Bigs don't immediately engage. When they get a chance, they start again with the 1st enemy Big, and so on, until every enemy big ship is engaged by 2 bigs.

4. This is repeated, type against type, for all types, eg, galleys vs galleys, lights vs lights, etc. You could exclude transports at the start, or better, exclude them if their fleet is carrying troops.

5. In so far as positioninig/manuevre, etc matter, it's in the odds of closing (actually firing on) your assigned target.

6. Only when the 2:1 ratio is acheived in a given type, may additional units of that type attack other types.

7. The order of preference in (6) is Big-Galley-Light-Transport.

8. The 10:1 rule will be reinstated, but the ratio is not number of ships, but number of cannon. A fairly high % of these victories will result in captures, fewer in retreats. Suggested ratio: 30% capture, 50% sunk, 20% retreat.

And, of course, when a ship reaches 0 morale, IT IS NOT SUNK. It either retreats (put in an unengaged retreat pool) or strikes (the same unengaged pool for the other side.)

@Taylor: Sure, your way would make sense.

One caveat, though: I don't believe, although I cannot disprove, that multiple fleets will have better positioning once they've joined in combat. The positioning factor is for the fight as a whole, not subdivided by squadrons. The only advantage of multiple fleets is that sometimes, with some MM (as you say), you can withhold a Sq or 2. I don't think that's desireable.

 

[Taylor]

@Taylor: Sure, your way would make sense.

One caveat, though: I don't believe, although I cannot disprove, that multiple fleets will have better positioning once they've joined in combat. The positioning factor is for the fight as a whole, not subdivided by squadrons. The only advantage of multiple fleets is that sometimes, with some MM (as you say), you can withhold a Sq or 2. I don't think that's desireable.

What I meant by "manually splitting up" fleets is kind of what the player has to do now: split up fleets and keep fleets away from the sea province where the fighting is going on. I offered it as the undesirable, micromanage-y alternative to what I was proposing.

 

[George LeS]

Latest example of how it's messed up:

Just lost a battle (which is OK so far as that goes). I had 18 bigs & 6 barques vs 5 bigs, 3 barques, 6 transports. (The bigs were mixed types on both sides, but I had more than 5 of the latest type, thus more than ENG did.) Yes, they had a much better admiral, and one level of tech.

The result: all 18 of my ships sunk, 0 captures. 1 enemy barque sunk.

But I decided to change tags with the console, to see what ENG's condition was. That's what's really troubling. The other 2 barques were 14% & 1 %; the bigs were 91% through 100%.

That just should not happen. I don't object to losing. (In fact, I expected to, unless another squadron could join, which it didn't.) In fact, I think there should have been a capture or 2. But there is just no way virtually all the damage should end up on lights, while the heavies are almost unscathed. And of course, really a portion of my fleet should have fled.

You know, the way lights work in battle, you'd think they really represented fireships. They help you win battles, but they won't survive in any numbers.

But that doesn't make sense, as the fireship, like the galleass, was significant for only a fairly short time, in the mid-late campaign period. And they really weren't THAT big a factor at sea.

I don't know, is this even worth discussing? Or is it spitting to windward?

 

[Abnormalmind]

I don't know, is this even worth discussing? Or is it spitting to windward?

Doesn't matter if you're a bubblehead.

Nevertheless, continued discussion is always desirable. Many of the wars that were won/lost during this game's time period were decided on the waves. I do miss the days of playing Wooden Ships and Iron Men and Trireme. Now I'm dating myself. I've read good things about War Galley, although it was released well after my board game playing days. I hope I can write about board games on PI's forum. If not, delete!

 

[George LeS]

Doesn't matter if you're a bubblehead.

Nevertheless, continued discussion is always desirable. Many of the wars that were won/lost during this game's time period were decided on the waves. I do miss the days of playing Wooden Ships and Iron Men and Trireme. Now I'm dating myself. I've read good things about War Galley, although it was released well after my board game playing days. I hope I can write about board games on PI's forum. If not, delete!

Loved those boardgames. Hell, my 1st board wargame was Midway, 2nd was Jutland. But really, PCs are much better for naval games (and air games); they take care of all the calculations.

 

[Dorevai]

I sympathize and support y'alls attempts to change things, but it doesn't seem like PI considers this very important.

 

[George LeS]

I thought of another thing, this one fairly minor, but still...

Really, you should get extra tradition for blockading. It'd be a function, I suppose, of both how many ships are involved, but also of the % of your fleet. The arguments for are:

a-It would be historical. It was one of the reasons the RN stayed ahead in 18th C wars, that they were getting experience while their foes stayed in port.
b-It would give an incentive to using squadrons, rather than single ships, to blockade.

Against: The effect on the AI, of course.

 

[George LeS]

On the subject of battles, I've had some success lately. In my latest version, in the 15th C, I'm getting better results. The battles are still to long, and too lethal, but much less so than formerly.

Here are a few samples of values I'm now using:

1. Naval Tech.

technology = { id = 	8	average_year = 1450	range = 140	naval_maintenance = 	0.35	naval_morale =	1.22	bigship_fire =	0.93	lightship_fire =	0.93	galley_fire =	0.96	transport_fire =	0.93	bigship_shock =	0.84	lightship_shock =	1.12	galley_shock =	1.33	transport_shock =	1.09	drydock = yes	 	 	enable = galley	 	}
technology = { id = 	9	average_year = 1465	range = 145	naval_maintenance = 	0.40	naval_morale =	1.25	bigship_fire =	0.94	lightship_fire =	0.94	galley_fire =	0.96	transport_fire =	0.94	bigship_shock =	0.86	lightship_shock =	1.14	galley_shock =	1.35	transport_shock =	1.11	blockade = yes	 	 	 	 	}
technology = { id = 	10	average_year = 1475	range = 150	naval_maintenance = 	0.40	naval_morale =	1.28	bigship_fire =	0.94	lightship_fire =	0.94	galley_fire =	1.16	transport_fire =	0.94	bigship_shock =	0.87	lightship_shock =	1.16	galley_shock =	1.37	transport_shock =	1.12		 	 	 	enable = carrack	}

2. Some ship types current. Note that the very weak caravels, and the switch of carracks to a very powerful transport, is intentional.

#caravel
#03 1400
type = big_ship
hull_size =  15
base_cannons =  19
sail_speed =  8

#galliot
#2 1380
type = galley
hull_size =  12
base_cannons =  28
sail_speed =  14

#galley
#8 1462
type = galley
hull_size =  13
base_cannons =  36
sail_speed =  14

#Flute
#12 1500
type = transport
hull_size =  14
base_cannons =  32
sail_speed =  9

#carrack
#11 1483
type = transport
hull_size =  23
base_cannons =  67
sail_speed =  8

Now, I just have to see if it breaks down at later levels. I expect it will.

 

[Sir William]

I would just like to say that because the way navies are balanced now I quit playing as naval powers for the most part.

 

[Karyant]

I am rookie in EU3, I play only twice, one of my games I have a significant Navy. Dispite of my limited experience I agree that the navy units has to be modify. The level of "naval atriction" is a very serious problem in this game and in my opinion unrealistic.