That could work but difficult to implement? What about slowing down the time it takes for troops to cross the straits?
November 1444: State of Byzantium
- Thread starter Alerias
- 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 could work but difficult to implement? What about slowing down the time it takes for troops to cross the straits?
I think that'd be actually easy to implement. Slowing down is useless per se, it still lets the enemy get across sooner or later; it only makes sense if they also take immense attrition in the process. The point is that trying to cross a strait controlled by an hostile navy means most of your troops will die trying. If they want to code, that, awesome. If not, then, a full "you shall not pass" is the best representation available. The notion that you can walk over a strait at all is after all an abstraction to reduce the micromanagement involved in loading them into transports and getting across, something thats not normally possible if you dont control the sea. If its allowed through an hostile sea zone, the cost should be immense.
This is probably worth discussing in another thread though, as it ultimately has little to do with Byzantium. Its not like the 2-province Byzantine navy has a huge edge on the Ottoman fleet or anything (Which owns easily what, 15 coastal provinces?). If a player gets in a position where he can sink the Ottoman navy, he deserves his win.
Its much more relevant when it comes to discussions regarding say, the HYW or the strait of Gibraltar.
Last edited:
Byzantium shouldn't even have a straight,constantinople's influence was on both sides and this is how it should be represented(with no strait)
The strait is also an overkill considering catholicism messes in Turkey
The strait is also an overkill considering catholicism messes in Turkey
What does influences and Catholicism has to do with the fact that there's water and that armies cant swim across it without leaving their weapons behind?
No strait has influenced Europe more than this one except the Channel. Of course it should be there. Unless you're suggesting ships shouldnt be able to reach the Black Sea
With regards to the cores issue:
AT start (1444) I would only give Byzantines cores on Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace (Morea, Achaia, Athens, Naxos, Epirus, Thrace, Edirne, Albania, Macedonia, Kozani, Larissa, and Rhodes provinces in DW) If Byzantium secured these areas they could enact decisions to give them cores on venetian possessions, Bulgaria, and the Anatolian Coast, and Serbia.
With regards to the religion issue:
Byzantine submission to Catholicism was mainly just lip-service, but it did cause unrest nonetheless. Byzantium should start with a modifier that gives additional revolt risk but boosts relations with all catholic countries, and can be removed via decision at the cost of killing relations with said catholic countries.
With regards to the straits issue:
While it should be remembered that the Ottomans never really built a significant navy until they set out to conquer Constantinople, a hallf-dozen Byzantine galleys should not be able to block both the Dardanelles and the Bosphorous. I'm in favor of the heavy attrition suggestion, with a fleet only able to block a strait completely if the number of ships is equal to the number of regiments.
With regards to Orban:
for those who don't know Orban was the Hungarian gunsmith who designed and built the ottoman heavy artillery for the siege of Constantinople. However, he initially offered his services to the Byzantines. There should be an event in-game where Orban offers his services to the Byzantines in 1452 and for 100 gold they can get research points invested into the Land Technology category. For 160 gold the Byzantines should also be able to upgrade the Fort Level in Constantinople. If the Byzantines decline then it should trigger an event for the ottomans where they get the same options.
AT start (1444) I would only give Byzantines cores on Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace (Morea, Achaia, Athens, Naxos, Epirus, Thrace, Edirne, Albania, Macedonia, Kozani, Larissa, and Rhodes provinces in DW) If Byzantium secured these areas they could enact decisions to give them cores on venetian possessions, Bulgaria, and the Anatolian Coast, and Serbia.
With regards to the religion issue:
Byzantine submission to Catholicism was mainly just lip-service, but it did cause unrest nonetheless. Byzantium should start with a modifier that gives additional revolt risk but boosts relations with all catholic countries, and can be removed via decision at the cost of killing relations with said catholic countries.
With regards to the straits issue:
While it should be remembered that the Ottomans never really built a significant navy until they set out to conquer Constantinople, a hallf-dozen Byzantine galleys should not be able to block both the Dardanelles and the Bosphorous. I'm in favor of the heavy attrition suggestion, with a fleet only able to block a strait completely if the number of ships is equal to the number of regiments.
With regards to Orban:
for those who don't know Orban was the Hungarian gunsmith who designed and built the ottoman heavy artillery for the siege of Constantinople. However, he initially offered his services to the Byzantines. There should be an event in-game where Orban offers his services to the Byzantines in 1452 and for 100 gold they can get research points invested into the Land Technology category. For 160 gold the Byzantines should also be able to upgrade the Fort Level in Constantinople. If the Byzantines decline then it should trigger an event for the ottomans where they get the same options.
Nah, in game terms the Byzantines didn't revoke their vassalization, Mehmed II invaded anyway. It would be good to represent it via decision.
Those penalties are nothing compared to what would be necessary to accurately represent local resistance. The two biggest historical errors in EUIII were, IMO, the trade system and the effect of the opinion of the locals on politics. Glad that the first of those is being fixed.
I mean, there really is no way for us to know what a core is supposed to represent without it being split into two systems, for cores and claims.
This is exactly what I would suggest. Coastal fortresses would prevent an enemy navy from stopping a crossing. They'd have to land and take one of the two sides in order to create an effective block.
I'm sure the Turks would have loved having a rule like that in the game book during the WW1 blockade of the Dardanelles
The capabilities of WWI ships are so dramatically different from those of the early EUIII period that this isn't really comparable situation.
What does influences and Catholicism has to do with the fact that there's water and that armies cant swim across it without leaving their weapons behind?
No strait has influenced Europe more than this one except the Channel. Of course it should be there. Unless you're suggesting ships shouldnt be able to reach the Black Sea
You mean to say that is was possible for any number of ships to block of a strait of this size?
I do think you should be able to BUILD coastal defenses that cancel out blockades by a modifer of ships. So let say a level one can stop a blockade of 10 ships, and then a level two could do a 20 ship thing. Also transports shouldn't count ot blocking a straight, only war ships. At this point though the Ottomans had alreayd erected some so they should be able to start out with it. Aswell as it applies attrition to ships in the straight weakning them.
I really don't know where this urban legend that "nationalism didn't really begin until the end of the Napoleonic wars" comes from. I'm no great expert with primary sources, but even my very limited knowledge of Shakespeare, John Dee, and Machiavelli tells me that nationalism was alive and well in Elizabethan England. When do you think the term "British Empire" was coined, after the Napoleonic Wars?? No, it was coined by one of Elizabeth I's advisers. How do you have a concept like "British Empire" without nationalism? As for the EU3 culture system, it could be pretty much copied and pasted from "The Prince", where Machiavelli explains that subjects who don't share the prince's language/culture are more likely to revolt. Except that Machiavelli says that Brittany is part of the French culture group
.No, they would have established a local Greek OPM. I'm serious - this was something that helped the Ottomans expand at the Byzantines' expense in the 1300's. Every local Greek ruler would rather be his own petty king than subject to any overlord, even another Greek one.
Uhm, by having a concept like monarchy and a desire to rule foreign lands for power and profit? Empires don't require nationalism, in fact, nationalism is their bane. Empires dates back millenia, and have become a defunct concept only after the rise of nationalisms.
I've always thought that blockading the dardanelles was cheap, and just taking advantage of AI stupidity.
How so? Isnt it something youd do in MP too? I certainly would, if I was able to acquire naval supremacy. Its not cheap because it requires a large investment in naval power.
The Ai would just send all of his armies across the bosphorus to fight an OPM, if the byzantium empire tried to blockade, it would take them a couple of weeks to build some sailboats and just sail across, the sultan had a lot of soldiers
It's cheap because the AI is bad at responding to it. It's too easy for the player to do, and the AI does poorly at responding to it. As Byzantium, all you need to do is set up a patrol, and the AI can't respond, Ship goes out, cuts off troops movement, fleet goes out to intercept, but when your ship goes back in again, then the fleet cancels it's move. If you're another power, it makes the fight too easy.
In MP I have no problems with it. Humans don't do stupid things like not build enough fleets (or delete all your fleets when you unlock a tech), or move all your armies to one side of the strait. The AI is also incapable of properly using naval transports, and always uses marching and never tries to transport by sea.
Too easy to exploit.
Has the strait ever been controlled by a foreign navy stopping an opposing army from crossing?
Well I don't think it should be impossible. If an enemy fleet is able to blockade a strait like that, it should be a major problem. The problem from a balance perspective (and really a historical one, too) is that's it's simply too easy to achieve this. Getting the AI to be a bit better at naval management, and at seeing the critical need to keep straits open, as well as perhaps representing coastal defenses in some way, should do much to improve the Ottomans' situation.
Edit: I like the idea of coastal defenses causing attrition to adjacent fleets, so they could blockade for a short time, but would have to withdraw before long to repair. This would also leave them more vulnerable to other fleets. This way, blockading defended straits is still possible, but the blockading force would need to move quickly to achieve its objective, rather than just sitting there for years at a time.
Last edited:
WW1 it was attempted, most have slowed it down, but never completely stopped transportation
Maybe blockading a strait shouldn't completely stop land units from crossing, but cause them to take a varying amount of damage as they make the attempt? This could be modified by the number of ships in the blockade, and maybe the relative tech levels of the two countries. So if you try to cross against a large, advanced enemy fleet, you could lose a significant chunk of your army.