Privateers Require CB to Attack... WTF?

[Beagá]

I've posted the solution repeatedly, and have found this "feature" to be one of the stupidest things ever to come out of Paradox. (Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings over yonder. I am a really big fan and supporter. I just find this system indefensible historically or simulation-wise...)

Anyway, the solution:

1. Privateers should be given a "Letter of Marque" -- a pop-up window which allows you to designate which nation(s)' trade they are going to be hampering. It should not be for "everyone in the node" -- unless you want to actually do that. Privateers were targeted towards specific nations. Say, France, or the Netherlands, or Spain. Or a short list, like "Spain and France." Not sent out to attack all-and-sundry. But hey, if you think you can deny trade to everyone, go do it! Flag against everyone else in the node. Just expect this to lead to conflict.

2. Privateering should indeed give a "Trade War" CB for anyone targeted by it. Such deprivations were not a "Mission Impossible" secret, where the secretary would disavow any knowledge of your actions.

3. Privateers should NOT come out of the standing navy, but should come from a sort of "mercenaries of the sea" stockpile similar to land mercenaries. This would represent the number of merchant marine captains who would be willing to undertake the hazards of being a privateer. The standing navies of these nations did not "reflag" themselves to become buccaneers.

4. Privateers would need to pay for themselves through the losses they take out of a trade node. If they cannot sustain themselves, then they should "die off" (go back to other commercial ventures) over time.

5. All targeted nation's ships should be able to attack the privateers (or be attacked by the privateers) without directly going to war with the sponsoring nation. After all, they are "hostiles" operating in your territorial waters.

This is what I have been arguing from the beginning. It is far more historical. It is far more competitive. It is far more understandable than the current "state-sponsored pirates with a Klingon cloaking device" that we currently have now.

Some things are good but others not as much.

The main problem is that ships here don´t operate like subs in Hearts of Iron, where they can or not encounter convoys, and can or not be attacked by fleets. Instead they are auto-detected. Result? Got 10 privateers in a node?

I send 20 and kill your fleet. So no - under the current naval system, you have to make ship destruction only possible by war. One solution that can be used is large ships decreasing privateer efficiency and even damaging them.

Also totally disagree they shouldn´t come from your naval forcelimits.

 

[jackalope81]

Sources or it didn't happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada

The Spanish Armada (Spanish: Grande y Felicísima Armada or Armada Invencible, literally "Great and Most Fortunate Navy" or "Invincible Fleet") was a Spanish fleet of 130 ships that sailed from A Coruña in August 1588 under the command of the Duke of Medina Sidonia with the purpose of escorting an army from Flanders to invade England. The strategic aim was to overthrow Queen Elizabeth I of England and the Tudor establishment of Protestantism in England, with the expectation that this would put a stop to English interference in the Spanish Netherlands and to the harm caused to Spanish interests by English and Dutch privateering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

European powers agreed upon the need to suppress the Barbary corsairs entirely and the threat was largely subdued, although occasional incidents continued until finally terminated by the French conquest of Algiers in 1830.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

The turning point in the war was the Battle of Derna (April–May 1805). Ex-consul William Eaton, a former Army captain who used the title of "general", and US Marine Corps First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon led a force of eight U.S. Marines,[30] 500 mercenaries—Greeks from Crete, Arabs, and Berbers—on a march across the desert from Alexandria, Egypt to assault and to capture the Tripolitan city of Derna. This was the first time in history the United States flag was raised in victory on foreign soil. The action is memorialized in a line of the Marines' Hymn—"the shores of Tripoli".

 

[FredricBastiat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada

The Spanish Armada (Spanish: Grande y Felicísima Armada or Armada Invencible, literally "Great and Most Fortunate Navy" or "Invincible Fleet") was a Spanish fleet of 130 ships that sailed from A Coruña in August 1588 under the command of the Duke of Medina Sidonia with the purpose of escorting an army from Flanders to invade England. The strategic aim was to overthrow Queen Elizabeth I of England and the Tudor establishment of Protestantism in England, with the expectation that this would put a stop to English interference in the Spanish Netherlands and to the harm caused to Spanish interests by English and Dutch privateering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

European powers agreed upon the need to suppress the Barbary corsairs entirely and the threat was largely subdued, although occasional incidents continued until finally terminated by the French conquest of Algiers in 1830.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

The turning point in the war was the Battle of Derna (April–May 1805). Ex-consul William Eaton, a former Army captain who used the title of "general", and US Marine Corps First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon led a force of eight U.S. Marines,[30] 500 mercenaries—Greeks from Crete, Arabs, and Berbers—on a march across the desert from Alexandria, Egypt to assault and to capture the Tripolitan city of Derna. This was the first time in history the United States flag was raised in victory on foreign soil. The action is memorialized in a line of the Marines' Hymn—"the shores of Tripoli".

I'd like to add the first two Anglo-Dutch wars to the list. And the Ottoman attack on the Knights of Rhodes. Anglo-Dutch attack on Calais. Probably more I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

 

[PeterCorless]

Someone understands exactly how I feel.

Thank you.

Welcome!

Yes, countries did actually declare war and physically invade or try to invade a country for sending privateers against them. In fact a successful invasion was about the only thing that would make it stop. Given the size and speed of privateer forces and the small size of navies combat elimination was impossible.

Sources or it didn't happen.

The Quasi-War between the French and the nascent United States was due to France declaring a privateering war against the U.S. Due to the Anglo-French conflicts after the French Revolution, the French privateers captured hundreds of U.S. merchant ships that were bound for English ports. The French tried to get a bribe for the end of the war (the "XYZ Affair"), but the resulting scandal only made the U.S. resolve to military means to end the deprivations.

This was the Quasi-War, where the U.S. Navy and American privateers went back after the French ships. So you had French and American Privateers, and the American and French navies all in conflict -- but no formal DOW occurred, and no land battles were engaged.

Peace was eventually settled between the U.S. and France, but news of the truce arrived too late to save the re-election of John Adams.

Sources:

• Louisa (Quasi-War privateer) (Wikipedia)

• Privately Funded and Build U.S. Warships in the Quasi-War of 1979-1801 (The Independent Review, v. XII, n. 1, Summer 2007; PDF format)

• XYZ Affair (U.S. Department of State)

p.s. This was not truly a "war" -- and does not really bolster the argument of the poster. The more likely candidates were the War of 1812 -- where the U.S. declared war due to the forced conscription of American sailors into the British navy -- which was sort of "privateering", but capturing crew instead of cargo. And then the Barbary Wars -- but those were at best limited land engagements, and mostly naval wars to counter piracy.

 

[macd21]

Wilbry, thanks for responding.

I understand that the game concepts are abstracted.

However, the real issue here is that to clear up trade routes from privateers, there has to be a war between countries that will be waged on sea and land.

This is nonsensical, no matter how the trading mechanics are abstracted.

There must be a way to resolve piracy in a nation's sea lanes without going to war with the nation that has enlisted the privateers.

The only thing that is really nonsensical about this is that a war will allow you to clear out the piracy in your sea lanes. If anything, a war should make it more difficult, not less, to deal with pirates, as your ships should be busy dealing with the enemy fleet or blockading ports, leaving the pirates free to do as they will.

Again - the system is abstract. Your enemy is not actually sending 6 invincible ships to harass your trade. He is issuing letters of marque, encouraging ship captains to raid your commerce. Your light ships do occasionally sink or capture some of these privateers, but they are simply replaced by other ones. You can't get rid of them completely, as there will always be someone willing to risk his neck for the prize money, but you can make the privateer's lives more difficult by increasing the number of patrols (add more light ships).

 

[DerOstkonig]

much wiki source

I was aware of these, however, none of these prove that an invasion was required to attack privateers. Is it also true that the Spanish were magically shielded from engaging English privateers without a formal declaration of war?

Were Mediterranean navies of the period magically shielded from from any engagements with the Barbary corsairs until they made a formal declaration of war against the Ottoman Empire, who largely empowered the corsairs during their wars with Austria in the 16th and 17th centuries? After all, you can't actually declare war on the privateers themselves because they are magically shielded from conducting diplomacy...

I don't mind that the CB exists, I only mind that it is the only way to get rid of privateers.

 

[PeterCorless]

The problem is that "adding more light ships" does not get rid of the privateers; it just shifts the pie chart ever-so-slightly.

Privateers were not invincible, and many privateers had precariously precipitous ends of their careers. While many times privateers could be replaced, there were also blockades effected, such the British did during the War of 1812, which often kept many privateers from even venturing out to sea. For instance, once the flood of American privateers began their work at the start of the war, by the end of the war, it was far more difficult to launch a successful raid on British shipping.

A good article to read that debunks many myths of the privateer can be found here: ‘A Word Of 'Captain Caution': Myths About Privateers In The War Of 1812.

The real cost to doing business that privateers caused was the rise in insurance rates. Insurance for crossing even the Irish Sea increased by 13% due to American privateers. French privateers before the Quasi-War caused American insurance rates to climb 500%.

But the thing is -- trade was targeted. It was not open piracy against any flagged vessel. The current system does not allow for privateers to direct the loss of trade power against a single nation or set of specified nations. It punishes friend and foe alike.

Another curious thing to note in the article is that British and Canadian privateers were also employed. It was not just the British navy that was responsible for cutting American trade by 80% during the War of 1812. A lot of it was due to privateers operating on the other side.

This is a very insightful quote from the article:

It appears that privateering by itself may not substitute for a navy, as Hickey puts it. But the practice is most effective when used in a strategy that complements the navy. The success of the USS Constitution and USS United States in capturing British frigates forced the Admiralty to issue an order that discouraged single-ship combat with their slightly larger American counterparts.[57] By forcing a "buddy" system for British frigates and putting pressure to develop large squadrons to hunt and destroy the American capital ships, it freed up the privateers to wreck havoc on British commercial shipping, even in English waters.[58]

Further evidence came from a British officer, exhausted from pursuing those U.S. Navy ships. "We have been so completely occupied looking for Commodore Rodgers's squadron, that we have taken very few prizes," he complained.[59] British Admiral Warren added that chasing those U.S. frigates freed up "swarms of privateers" to attack British shipping, in his appeal for reinforcements.[60]

The Americans were hardly the only ones with a plan to meld the naval warship with the privateer. The British sought to blockade the Americans, with sizable squadrons attempting to bottle up American frigates in their ports, freeing up Canadian privateers to ravage American shipping. During this time, Hickey writes that more than 40 such ships sailed from Nova Scotia to take more than 200 prizes during this time.[61] Like the Americans, Canadian privateering meant a lot of success for a small number of ships, as three alone took 80 American merchantmen as prizes.[62] But the two-part strategy was quite effective, grinding American trade to a halt.[63] This joint British-Canadian effort nearly convinced New England to secede, owing to the ineffective American government response, which was the goal.[64] As Hickey best put it "privateering, in short, was a weapon that both sides in the War of 1812 used to good advantage."[65]

So, again, privateers should be a) a force drawn from beyond your flagged standing naval vassels, b) they should be able to target specific countries, not just deprive all trade in a zone, and c) they should be able to engage, or be engaged, by ships of the nation(s) they are targeting. Not stealth-cloaked Klingon/Viking warships.

 

[WoollyMammoth]

You only get a trade CB when you have 20% or more value in the trade node. Ouchi and Korea probably have, while the other Japanese states don't.

Just checked, and that appears to possibly be the case. The other countries have a trade value below 20% (next lowest being around 19%).

...But the thing is -- trade was targeted. It was not open piracy against any flagged vessel. The current system does not allow for privateers to direct the loss of trade power against a single nation or set of specified nations. It punishes friend and foe alike....

...So, again, privateers should be a) a force drawn from beyond your flagged standing naval vassels, b) they should be able to target specific countries, not just deprive all trade in a zone, and c) they should be able to engage, or be engaged, by ships of the nation(s) they are targeting. Not stealth-cloaked Klingon/Viking warships....

I like this idea. In the Ming example, I'm also targeting Korea, who is an ally. I don't want to hurt their trade.

Also, so far what I've seen is that a privateer CB only gives a -15 relations penalty for having a CB. While maybe a growing penalty the longer that you privateer someone would be more effective? Yeah, you can privateer someone, but your relations could end up at -100 for example. Which would maybe lead the country to join a coalition for example, or make other diplomatic actions with that country more difficult. So, while you may be hurting the trade in the short run, and gaining succes, it could affect a long term strategy. (and maybe make the A.I. think twice about which countries to privateer as well.)

 

[FredricBastiat]

I was aware of these, however, none of these prove that an invasion was required to attack privateers. Is it also true that the Spanish were magically shielded from engaging English privateers without a formal declaration of war?

Were Mediterranean navies of the period magically shielded from from any engagements with the Barbary corsairs until they made a formal declaration of war against the Ottoman Empire, who largely empowered the corsairs during their wars with Austria in the 16th and 17th centuries? After all, you can't actually declare war on the privateers themselves because they are magically shielded from conducting diplomacy...

I don't mind that the CB exists, I only mind that it is the only way to get rid of privateers.

No, but unless naval mechanics are seriously overhauled this is the only way to do it in the game engine. If your navies can engage the privateers, then they will have to go toe-to-toe with your capital ships, a fight they will loose quickly and easily. The current navel engine has no way to represent how hard it is was to track down a small ship in the big ocean. If we allow big ships to fight the privateers as you suggest they may as well no be in the game.

 

[PeterCorless]

The U.S. privateer General Armstrong was a 7-gun 2-mast schooner given a letter of marque during the War of 1812. She was unfortunately in the port of Horta in the Azores at the same time on a late September sunset as the British ships HMS Plantagent, a "seventy-four" ship-of-the-line, HMS Rota, with 38 guns, and the recently-launched 1813 Cruizer-class 18-gun brig-sloop HMS Carnation.

The attempts to board the General Armstrong and the brief exchange of fire between the Carnation and the General Armstrong were thereafter called the Battle of Fayal. The bigger ships took no part in the action, and indeed, the entire combat took place in a neutral Portuguese port. However, the General Armstrong was caught. Had she tried to make it to sea she would have surely been decimated by the bigger British ships. So, the American captain aimed his own swivel gun downward and shot through the deck. Thus, the General Armstrong was scuttled rather than be captured by the British ships.

The captain, Samuel Reid, who survived, sued Congress for compensation for the loss of his ship. He was denied, and legal action continued unsuccessfully for 41 years. Congress felt that it would set a bad precedent to try to compensate every privateer for their losses. It was a risk they undertook, well-understood by anyone without a feeble mind, and with a very clear potential reward if successful.

So, yes, ships-of-the-line could catch the unlucky privateer, especially as they tried to slip into or out of ports. In this case, it was a random yet very unlucky encounter.

Edit: Also check out the Battle of Rappahannock River (1813) for another case where the British successfully bottled up four privateers and captured them using boat attacks with Marines.

 

[WoollyMammoth]

The current navel engine has no way to represent how hard it is was to track down a small ship in the big ocean. If we allow big ships to fight the privateers as you suggest they may as well no be in the game.

That is an interesting point. Not discounting that in any way, that goes for every navy or army battle in EUIV. There is some abstraction.

Having said that a country would have to be able to raise a fleet large enough to take on the privateers. And it is the question whether a country would send privateers to a nation with a navy large enough that the privateers would be outgunned and outmatched. So Austria sending a privateer fleet to a trade nation, could use some fine tuning. I don't know how many privateers would volunteer for a suicide mission, just because the country has a large army. Besides Austria would still have to get past France and Castille. Neither of which may be thrilled for a member of the HRE to get such a large plot of land, and control of their trade.

It would seem a counter measure could be to send a privateer fleet to Austria's trade ports, but that could get you CB's with other countries as well, such as Venice or Hungary. Escalating the issue, without solving the original problem. It also wouldn't work if a country has mostly land based trade nodes, and has for example one province which borders the sea, and has a port. Then you should be able to take out or blockade that port, without starting an entire war? This way if the privateers needed to come in for repairs you could fight them then, or they would die off attrition, surrender, or there could be a naval battle.


I keep thinking of Sid Meier's Pirates during this whole discussion. Awesome game. They had this part done really well.

 

[Beagá]

Just make big ships in a node reduce privateer efficiency, problem solved to na extent.

Right now they are only useful in war, when they were also used as escorts.

 

[FredricBastiat]

The U.S. privateer General Armstrong was a 7-gun 2-mast schooner given a letter of marque during the War of 1812. She was unfortunately in the port of Horta in the Azores at the same time on a late September sunset as the British ships HMS Plantagent, a "seventy-four" ship-of-the-line, HMS Rota, with 38 guns, and the recently-launched 1813 Cruizer-class 18-gun brig-sloop HMS Carnation.

The attempts to board the General Armstrong and the brief exchange of fire between the Carnation and the General Armstrong were thereafter called the Battle of Fayal. The bigger ships took no part in the action, and indeed, the entire combat took place in a neutral Portuguese port. However, the General Armstrong was caught. Had she tried to make it to sea she would have surely been decimated by the bigger British ships. So, the American captain aimed his own swivel gun downward and shot through the deck. Thus, the General Armstrong was scuttled rather than be captured by the British ships.

The captain, Samuel Reid, who survived, sued Congress for compensation for the loss of his ship. He was denied, and legal action continued unsuccessfully for 41 years. Congress felt that it would set a bad precedent to try to compensate every privateer for their losses. It was a risk they undertook, well-understood by anyone without a feeble mind, and with a very clear potential reward if successful.

So, yes, ships-of-the-line could catch the unlucky privateer, especially as they tried to slip into or out of ports. In this case, it was a random yet very unlucky encounter.

Edit: Also check out the Battle of Rappahannock River (1813) for another case where the British successfully bottled up four privateers and captured them using boat attacks with Marines.

While your knowledge of US naval history is impressive, you are missing my point. I don't deny that navy ships would take hostile privateers if they got a chance, or that it happened. But they never stopped privateering from happening in general. The only way to model it currently would be to have the privateers fight the navy ships en masse as soon as they were in the same sea zone. Privateers never went toe-to-toe with ships of the line to try to win control of a 'sea zone' and it would have ended badly for them if they tried. The only way for them to play a role in the game is to not let the navy ships sink them outright. The only way to do that in the current model is to not let the navy ships fight them. I agree it is an abstraction for gameplay purposes and that from a historical POV they should be scattered and hard to catch but legitimate targets. Since we can't really do that in the current model, this is the best we can do barring a major rehaul of navel mechanics.

 

[Santôka]

Just make big ships in a node reduce privateer efficiency, problem solved to na extent.

Right now they are only useful in war, when they were also used as escorts.

That's actually a simple and elegant beginning of a solution, without having to change entirely or overhaul the whole system.

 

[WoollyMammoth]

Just make big ships in a node reduce privateer efficiency, problem solved to na extent.

Right now they are only useful in war, when they were also used as escorts.

That's actually a simple and elegant beginning of a solution, without having to change entirely or overhaul the whole system.

Definitely.

 

[PeterCorless]

While your knowledge of US naval history is impressive, you are missing my point. I don't deny that navy ships would take hostile privateers if they got a chance, or that it happened. But they never stopped privateering from happening in general.

Thanks! I hope I am not missing the point. Given the suggestions of others, I'd be amenable to having the "big ships" simply decrease privateer effectiveness if patrolling a trade node... if the light ships could also engage them.

I'd agree that if you just let a fleet of heavies engage every stack of commerce raiders, the raiders won't stand much of a chance.

 

[TyrannisUmbra]

I asked why I should have to start a land invasion of the 3rd biggest country in Europe to stop 6 ships (who don't even fly their flag or belong to their nation...technically)

This is where the problem lies. If you're talking historical plausibility, then you have to remember that privateers would fly the flag of their country up until the point they found a merchant ship they could raid, and only THEN did they swap flags. If you were to attack another nation's privateers while they were patrolling for targets, then you're not attacking pirates, you're attacking ships flying the flag of their nation, which would without a doubt constitute a declaration of war.

Along that note, remember that Light Ships in this game aren't trade ships, they're light warships that patrol the seazones and protect your merchant ships. It does make some sense that light ships in this case would defend against privateers, but in terms of game mechanics it would probably necessitate some inherent mechanic to prevent total losses of fleets, since in this game you simply stack all your ships up together.

 

[PeterCorless]

Er... no. Privateers continued to fly their own flag. They did not hoist a "Jolly Roger" or the like.

For example, England:

"Saving that for the better Distinction of such Ships, as shall have Commissions or Letters of Mart (sic) or Reprizals against the Enemy, [...] Our Royal Will and Pleasure is, That all such ships as have Commissions of Letters of Mart or Reprizals shall besides the Colours or Ensign hereby Appointed to be Worn by Merchant Ships, Wear a Red Jack with a Union Jack Described in a Canton at the upper Corner thereof next the Staff;". -- From the Royal Proclamation of 28 July 1707 (Source: Flags of the World)

Edit: This is the ensign they are speaking about:

(Source: Bucklins Society)

 

[FredricBastiat]

Flying a false flag was actually pretty common, but you would hoist your own before attacking and nobody used a 'jolly roger'

 

[Earmuffs]

I don't believe it needs to be fixed, I quiet like the system and think it should remain the same for the most part.

However, if it was to change I suppose a simple solution would be to tack a percentage chance for ships protecting trade nodes to engage privateers every time they land on the same sea province. Say 5% of whatever. It's espionage so it should have a sort of espionage, chance to discover, kind of solution.
Plus, at a low percentage it stops blatant abuse (ie: England using their superior navy as privateers to smash Frances light ships protecting trade.) because it would take time for the event to trigger, enough time for someone to react accordingly. I suppose though the obvious problem with that is France can no longer protect trade if England has privateers in their trade nodes France is trying to protect (ie: the one in the Atlantic, I forgot it's name, you lot know the one I mean).

I dunno. I think it should remain as is anyway.