• 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.
HolisticGod said:
lawkeeper,

And also because the Terror had claimed a huge number of officers, Captains and Admirals. You're not disputing my point at all. Hell's bells, you now appear to be arguing for it.

If any man who could be a foot soldier could be a sailor, he wouldn't have had this problem. ;)
No. Because sailors don't need more training from the state. No more, or even less, than infantrymen. They already got their training earlier, but they don't need more.

HolisticGod said:
And galleys are used for grunt work now and then, but in combat? Bah.
Enough people claim they use them even in combat, even late game, especially if they're land-aristocrat rather than naval-plutocrat.

Another point : look at the costs of warships and galleys. Even now, many people say galleys are cost-effective, as you may have several galleys for one warship. If you increase the cost of a warship, quite dramatically if I understood you, you'll make galleys even more cost-effective than now, so even more useful. Unless you either a) vastly increase the power of warships, thus imbalancing the game, especially with the other suggestion of needing shipyards and/or higher naval tech to build warships, or b) increase the cost of galleys, thus lowering the amount of naval warfare in early game.

More generally, if I understand well this thread and the other related thread's main complaints, is that human players get way too many ships, especially compared to the AI I suppose. Well, did you ask yourself why ? I did. And the answer is : because human players are far better economical and naval managers than the AI. Human players will always have greater navies than the AI, even if you increase ships and shipyards' costs, or times of constructions, or whatever.
 
Lawkeeper,

You're completely missing the point.

First of all, sailors required far more training and were a far rarer breed than infantrymen. As I said to begin with-and as you confirmed. The revolution wrecked the naval corps and Napoleon couldn't reconstitute it because it was a tradition, of both the state and private families.

Where it comes from doesn't matter-sailors were hard to come by.

Secondly, cite MP players who use galleys in the late game as combat vessels.

Thirdly, reread my first post. You don't seem to understand what's being proposed here in the least. Warships will have a higher efficacy than even frigate-class galleys, and one way or another anyone with any experience whatsoever understands that, at the upper tech levels, warships annihilate galleys. No contest.

Lastly, no, that isn't the point. The point is that naval combat is a war of attrition. It was never a war of attrition.
 
HolisticGod said:
First of all, sailors required far more training and were a far rarer breed than infantrymen. As I said to begin with-and as you confirmed. The revolution wrecked the naval corps and Napoleon couldn't reconstitute it because it was a tradition, of both the state and private families.

Where it comes from doesn't matter-sailors were hard to come by.
Come on, sailing is not hard to learn, you know. Not much harder than learning to load handguns correctly, to march and counter-march, to react on the commands of the officers. If sailors came mostly from Britanny, it's because of that : tradition. But not a tradition out of the reach of others, just a tradition followed by more people on average than in other parts of the territory (especially inner-land).

HG said:
Secondly, cite MP players who use galleys in the late game as combat vessels.
I don't care about MP. MP is apart. Refer to the other thread.

HG said:
Thirdly, reread my first post. You don't seem to understand what's being proposed here in the least. Warships will have a higher efficacy than even frigate-class galleys, and one way or another anyone with any experience whatsoever understands that, at the upper tech levels, warships annihilate galleys. No contest.
Done. And I confirm my analysis.

HG said:
Lastly, no, that isn't the point. The point is that naval combat is a war of attrition. It was never a war of attrition.
Indeed, and land battles never gave as much casualties IRL than in-game, and NA-colonists were of a different religion than english monarchs, and Siberia was not only a tunnel, and no country was ever so rich compared to its neighbours than any human-played country is. Come on, EU2 is a game, and you must accept some generalization. The attrition you speak of, the fact that navies sometimes spend months to end a battle, also represents the fact that they have to maneuver to find themselves.
 
I personally never build galleys - I'll keep them if I get a "naval enthusiasm" event (unlike transports, which I don't view as worth the cost of maintenance), but I don't build them. Can't take them in open water without heavy losses, can't transport troops. Maybe this means I'm just not a very good player however - more likely it tells the truth in that I'm playing this as a game and hate the micromanagement aspects of keeping galleys and warships separate so I use them appropriately. Or both. I want to be the King of the country, not a clerk deciding which ships stay by the coast and which go across the ocean - I should be able to delegate that job (likewise, sending merchants and colonists, but that's another gripe).

That being said, IF a separate type of ship was available that modelled a frigate (as the word is being used in this discussion) or other smaller vessel that could traverse open seas but was cheaper than a warship, I'd welcome the option to build these - I couldn't transport troops, but at least I wouldn't be penalized every time during the heat of a war that I sent a navy out into open water without checking first if it included galleys.

I used to avoid building navies like the plague - I'd rarely play colonial powers (see above gripe about tedium of sending out colonists), and my naval tech was always pathetic. However, I've changed tack (ugh) of late for two reasons. One is the aforementioned pathetic AI regarding navies. Even as Burgundy, I've clobbered England's entire fleet (which, admittedly, was much smaller than mine and was never concentrated in one place because of that poor AI) which allowed me to expand into Kent (that land bridge needs to go). The second reason is the penalty for advancing too quickly in tech - I can no longer get to Revolutionary land tech while most others are in late Baroque or War in Laces because the AI was trying to have it both ways with balanced land and naval research.
 
lawkeeper,

All of which has already been addressed. Sailing isn't hard to learn now. On a ship-of-the-line? Heh. Get your facts straight.

Whether you care about MP or not, we're proposing changes that better that aspect of the game without harming (and in some cases helping) the SP experience. Hence, General Discussion.

If we did it exclusively in MP and the changes were made, wouldn't you be irritated? I would be, in your place.
 
HolisticGod said:
we're proposing changes that better that aspect of the game without harming (and in some cases helping) the SP experience. Hence, General Discussion.
That's your opinion.

The only things that are really crippling naval warfare, are the naval AI and the human economy-sense.
 
In MP, only the shitty poor or landed nations use galleys after around about 1650. IRL, these were the type of nations that used frigates instead. The ones who couldn't afford to have SoLs but still wanted a workable navy. Works perfectly.
 
lawkeeper,

Not so.

Fleets can generally strike anywhere in the world past around 1580, because ports are everywhere. Don't have one? MA. It's devoid of strategy.

Fleets can generally be replaced wholesale. This is grossly ahistorical-but more importantly, it distorts the realities of naval warfare and maritime strategy. Fleets were longterm investments. They were small. They were almost always irreplaceable. Having a respectable squadron and the port of Malta or Corfu or Cadiz was immensely important. In EU II?

Build a shipyard. Pump out hundreds of warships. Send them wherever you want. Lose them. Replace them.

Moreover, it's another money sink. And at this point, any money sink is good. If ships and the means of production cost more, it diminishes the problem of too much cash always encountered in the late game.

Oh, yes, and what Bocaj said. :D
 
As for the US frigates being virtual ships of the line - they weren't. I could show you the details, but the point is, they were overpowered frigates. Yes, they carried slightly more (36-44 instead of 24-36) and slightly heavier (18 and 24 pounders instead of nines and twelves) guns than a standard British or French frigate, and were built tougher (both heavier construction and better timber), but they were not even close to being equivalent to the 100-36 (or 42)-pound gun Napoleonic-period ships of the line such as the Victory, being built at the same time in Europe.

The point was, unless galleys can be somehow converted into representing frigates, I seriously think that warship costs should NOT be determined based solely upon the rarity and cost of ships of the line, because unless galleys are used to represent frigates, the frigates are also being represented by "warships".