• 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.
Monkii-sama said:
Wasn't most of the straits added so the AI could wage war properly? The AI is extremly bad at naval transportation so I think this was the main reason.

Yes, but sadly the players always make better use of everything. More tools for the ai actually translate to more tools for the player.

Frustrating, isn't it.

The only solution is that player's could agree to NOT use the straights, that only the ai can use them.
 
Yes, this is true but removing the straits is quite a big step. It means adjusting the game for better MP or keeping them to keep the AI in SP more challenging.
 
Monkii-sama said:
Yes, this is true but removing the straits is quite a big step. It means adjusting the game for better MP or keeping them to keep the AI in SP more challenging.

I'm not sure. To what extent does the AI need multiple paths to pass between Greece and Anatolia?
 
Garbon said:
I'm not sure. To what extent does the AI need multiple paths to pass between Greece and Anatolia?

Occasionally the AI will constantly block a particular sea province so its not unreasonable that this could stop another AI nation from being able to cross. I still think we should remove it though as choke points should be blockable unless in Interregnum the continents didn't form in the same way.
 
Never support the passage between Ionia and Anatolia

BUT

for game reasons, a passage between Smyrna and Macedonia is reasonable
 
Last edited:
Garbon said:
:D

@Toio - Very different nations are at play here.

yes , true, but the concept is far better than a Anatolia - ionia passage

it would be just as stupid as an english channel passage
 
Garbon said:
I'm not sure. To what extent does the AI need multiple paths to pass between Greece and Anatolia?
Well, I'm not entirely sure but all the straits, even the english channel one, were added to make the AI better.

I guess they playtested this before they added it in.
 
Monkii-sama said:
I guess they playtested this before they added it in.
:D

Considering when the straits were added, I don't think a lot of care was given to whether or not they were a good idea. After all, the england-french connection makes no real sense post the HYW.
 
Garbon said:
:D

Considering when the straits were added, I don't think a lot of care was given to whether or not they were a good idea. After all, the england-french connection makes no real sense post the HYW.
Well there are economic reasons as well. Manpower, stability and tax decreases are logical to be removed if the distance is the mere channel (and England controls both sides, or part of both sides), as to differ from the colonies, or another far off port (for which I believe the overseas penalties were implemented in the first place anyway).

This applies to the Bosporus as well. The distance is small enough to not have manpower/tax/stability issues across it, but moving troops is of course another matter.
 
Garbon said:
:D

Considering when the straits were added, I don't think a lot of care was given to whether or not they were a good idea. After all, the england-french connection makes no real sense post the HYW.
But the HYW was quite one-sided before the straits were added.
 
Garbon said:
Like real life? Did it make more sense with France repeatedly taking parts of England?
Huh? In most of my vanilla games French victories aren't decisive. They usually reconquer all of France except for 1 or two english provinces up by dover or normandy that they then keep for the rest of the game.
 
Monkii-sama said:
Huh? In most of my vanilla games French victories aren't decisive. They usually reconquer all of France except for 1 or two english provinces up by dover or normandy that they then keep for the rest of the game.

And you are playing with the land-bridge in those games or not?
 
MattyG said:
And you are playing with the land-bridge in those games or not?
I am.