Some Naval Ideas(Revisited)

[unmerged(5122)]

Sme naval ideas

First of all, congrats to Paradox for the excellent game, though they must have heard this a zillion times by now...

I have -as everyone- a few comments on the naval rules, which can be summarised as following:

1. Closed straits: Historically the owner of specific straits could close them, effectively denying access from one sea zone to another. This was usually the case for cities built on two sides of a strait, such as Constantinople. Its owner could effectively command at will who was passing form the Med. to the Black sea and vice versa. Actually one of the big fears of Britain in the nineteenth century was for Russia not to gain control of Constantinople so its Black sea fleet could be released into the Mediterranean. I think the Calmar straits could dominate the passage to and form the Baltic in a similar fashion. Why not allow the countries that control specific cities (i.e. Constantinople, Copenhagen, Skane) to allow passage through the straits as a diplomatic lever?

2. The ability for a fleet to blockade the army movement in specific areas, say between Kerch and Calmuk, or between Italy and Sicily (a straight cut EiA chip).

3. This is a long shot, but I have to say it. The naval history of this period is about wind. Magellan, Cabot and the rest discovered not new lands, but new sea lanes. By sea lanes I mean a series of map tiles where the wind favours a fast movement from one side to the other, and not vice versa. It is certainly not an exaggeration to say that the whole economic system of the period was built on the direction of the wind, and secondarily, of the sea currents. These two should enhance the movement of fleets from one direction to the other, and prompt players/explorers to discover new "seal lanes", and this should be the real exploration challenge. Thus, a ship will not come back to Spain by the same way that it came from America. Over time, one-way lanes should be clearly drawn on the map, which is pretty historical.

4. What about the state encouraging privateers acting against specific nations?

Well, these for a first contribution to the found. Hope did not become boring.

 

[Admiral Howe]

I really, really like #3. Don't know how hard it would be to code, but it would be a wonderful idea.

I like 1 & 2 also, and you'd have to make #1 susceptible to diplomacy and peace terms.

And I remember privateers being mentioned, so #4 may be in there.

 

[unmerged(2540)]

Also like the idea of privateers. Hell, one of the things about the Carribbean at the time was the fact that privateers were all around the place.

And the other ideas are also intriguing. Wasn't one of the reasons for the Crimean War to ensure the Russians did not have a Black Sea(it is the Black Sea, right?] port. So would love to see all ideas implemented. Would add something different to the game.

 

[unmerged(3420)]

Closing straits and restricting troop movements across narrow straits is probably too much to expect from most military forces of this era. The Turks took Gallipoli from the Byzantines in 1306, but were never able to close the straits; Venetian and Genoese aid reached Constantinople right up until the end in 1453. As for restricting troop movements, that assumes fleets could remain on station indefinitely, something not perfected until the British pioneered close blockade in 1804.

The wind concept is more intriguing. But how to incorporate it? Different movement costs for entering sea tiles, depending on which direction you entered the tile from? It might work for the big ocean tiles, but in closer waters (North Sea, Baltic, Mediterranean) the tiles are too big to capture the wind zones. Nice idea, but perhaps not worth the trouble.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

With #1, doesn't the game somewhat provide for this with the home port advantage in naval combat (or am I deluding myself here? I think there is such a thing) and supply?

Constantinople/Istanbul didn't always control the straits did it? Otherwise Venice/Crusaders would have had a hard time sacking the city.

#2 would be very nice and is necessary for some historic realities.

#3 could have the added benefit of directing some colonial powers to their usual stomping grounds. It's nice for there to be a good reason for France to settle in Quebec rather than Virginia (though would it have that large an effect?)

 

[unmerged(2514)]

Good Ideas...but an even more fundamental question is to find a viable use for the navy except as a troop transport.

Even when I`m a "Naval Power" like England Or Sweden I never research Naval Tech as transports are tech 1 or Build Warships except as Cross Ocean Attrition Fodder...Even in the Late Game Where Embargoes come into play the VALUE of the Navy is still questionable.

Ships are expensive esp.warships but the strategic uses for them are almost non-existent due to the high attrition rate and cost it is just about impossible to Effectively patrol your waters and it is hard to intercept the invasion as most times they can slip by anyway.

Example:England

From the Spanish to Napoleon`s Invasion Plans the Royal Navy was essential defensively it provided a screen for England even in port the sailors were considered part of armed forces and expert gunners in case of attack in port Yet as England it`s terribly hard to patrol the channel and incredibly easy as France or Spain to "slip" across.

In attack not only did the Royal Navy ferry the troops but they raided enemy ports on there own or if a major invasion was planned on the ports acted as off-shore artillery a role the navy of every country performs to this very day.

Why can`t EUII restore these traditional roles to the Navy...perhaps they could damage ports and kill some of the garrison ie: Besieging screen as a raid but can`t sieze the port province on there own well during an "invasion" which means there is an army also within the province the navy off-shore cannon could be added to the attacker cannon total during the SIEGE PHASE ONLY to simulate the naval bombardment role as it could be ruled during an attack of the fort the risk of "Friendly Fire" is too great BUT in Both "raid and invasion" the fleet would take opposing fire from enemy cannon from an Enemy Fleet,Fort or Army if they had cannon.

These options would provide a strategic role to warships they lack in EU plus provide the historical danger of living on the coast rather then in-land and at the same time justify the expense of the navy if you felt this would unbalance the game/or any other reason you could restrict these "Naval Features" to ports alone...historically one of the reasons ports were especially heavily fortified by there countries was to defend against enemy naval raiding parties and enemy naval bombardment...comments.

 

[unmerged(4876)]

Paradox could add a "patroll" feature to the game, which allows you to set aside a number of ships for patrolling your coast. The ships have a chance of intercepting incoming ships. The more ships patrolling, the higher chance of interception. This would help England, as now you don't have to spend hours every game micromanaging the route of every ship in your armada protecting you from France.

 

[Rex Francorum]

and to ease the destruction of these @(?±@/$?$/ pirates

 

[unmerged(5115)]

I agree with Vosk. It could be really interesting if ship could help besieging ports. Maybe England would no alway be invaded by France and Scotland then.

 

[unmerged(2540)]

Great Idea Vosk! And since the time is being expanded, it makes far more sense. Navies as they exist now, they are nothing more than gloirified troop transports. They cannot bombard an enemy's port, which is a real pity. If this idea could be implemented, it would make one heck of a difference with navies. And of course, there would be losses on both side(perhaps relevant to the level of the fort being bombard, naval tech level, type of ship being used-galleon or warship, and so on.)And if you truly wanted, you could have a navy able to take a coastal province, but unable to keep it(in effect, your navy destroys the fort, and the fort would be reduced accordingly, even done to none, but your marines are needed on the ship you have no troops able to carry the fort)
Dunno, is this feasible? Would be really cool if it were.

 

[unmerged(5122)]

I think that an "active" sort of blockade whould appear nice in the game.
As for my previous #1 proposal, and as far as Constantinople is concerned, a chain was traditionally drawn, the city being built on both sides of the straits. The owner of the city could effectively command the communication between Black sea and the Mediterranean. This is why, even during the last stages of the siege in 1453, Mehmet II had to transport overland (!) part of his fleet to the other side of the straits because the Greek fleet was hiding in the Black sea side.
And some additional proposals:
5. By the way, why don't the rules allow for the capture of defeated enemy ships? (esp. transports, and an occasional warship maybe).
6. Why not allow to set activity levels in fleets (Like in Inmperialism and WiF)? In blockades this should come down to Vosk's ideas.

 

[Besuchov]

Maybe a speacial sollution for the Bosporus is in order. To my knowledge noone has ever succeded to seal the entry to the baltic sea with a chain. Doing it with a fleet is another matter and is allready covered by EU1.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

patrol feature

I posted this in another thread, but I'm not sure I see the need for a patrol feature. It would be nice, yes, but essential? no.

Typically as England I set up my own patrol routes, usually from Kent to Munster (at a minimum), and maybe from Ulster to Lothian or something to that effect.

That is more than enough to keep France from invading. Once your ships arrive if you have the pop-up set for arriving at your destination you just order them back.

It really isn't that tedious.

I think most people who have trouble with naval attrition are leaving their ships in one sea zone.

What I *would* really like to see is some sort of pop-up for army embarkation. I have lost ships to attrition because of that

 

[unmerged(5115)]

Yes the pop-up for embarking is really essential. I've lost some war just because my troops and fleet just died in front of my ports instead of the glorious invasion i was planning. That's why I didn't try England yet

 

[Emre Yigit]

Re: chains in the Bosporus and control of the straits

AFAIK, there were, in Byzantine times two chains. One across the Golden Horn (which effectively sealed off Constantinople's port) and - for a limited period only - a chain across the Bosporus too. This latter chain proved unmanageable and fairly useless.

Again AFAIK, the Ottomans never used chains, forts and guns being substituted.

It was always possible to force the Straits, but you needed a hi-tech navy, and hoped that the Ottomans hadn't recently upgraded their forts in the Bosporus and Dardanelles.

Therefore, the correct implementation could be a sharp rise in naval attrition for enemy fleets passing these Straits, and the degree of attrition would depend on controlling versus enemy power land and naval tech respectively.

 

[Spruce]

I really like the bombarding idea about navies.

Nevertheless, the naval side from EU should be worked out better. I guess some very good ideas already popped op in the forum.

In addition I would like to link the whole situation of low impact of navies to the army building model of EU I.

During the area ships were equiped with marines (=regular troops), that were able to make landfall. Even ships, packed with regular troops did exist.
The ships off course were also able to fire at forts.

The navies should become more important (=strategical value goes up) because they can ship regular troops over water. So in colonies, lower quality troops should be recruited as a default value.

The whole problem is that shipping high quality troops does not pay off. This is due to the fact that you better recruit in a simple colony, even quality troops.

 

[Alexandre]

Re: patrol feature

Originally posted by satan
I posted this in another thread, but I'm not sure I see the need for a patrol feature. It would be nice, yes, but essential? no.

Typically as England I set up my own patrol routes, usually from Kent to Munster (at a minimum), and maybe from Ulster to Lothian or something to that effect.

That is more than enough to keep France from invading. Once your ships arrive if you have the pop-up set for arriving at your destination you just order them back.

It really isn't that tedious.

I think most people who have trouble with naval attrition are leaving their ships in one sea zone.

What I *would* really like to see is some sort of pop-up for army embarkation. I have lost ships to attrition because of that

I'd much rather see a patrol option, where I can manually set up the patrol root that an individual navy takes. I can therefore set my navy to defend me where I feel that the threat is, and not have to keep manually redoing the same orders.

100% agree on troops boarding/disembarking, but I'd also add when an explorere dies: I've lost ships to attition because I didn't realize that the guy who died was an explorer rather than a conquisidor helping some colonists set up a colony.

I really like the sea lanes idea. It would greatly increase the need to explor the oceans, and would make it possible to set up patrols that block an enemy from reinforcing its colonies during a colonial war. The more strategic thinking involved, the better.

Alexandre

 

[unmerged(5222)]

Originally posted by Vosk
Good Ideas...but an even more fundamental question is to find a viable use for the navy except as a troop transport.

Even when I`m a "Naval Power" like England Or Sweden I never research Naval Tech as transports are tech 1 or Build Warships except as Cross Ocean Attrition Fodder...Even in the Late Game Where Embargoes come into play the VALUE of the Navy is still questionable.

Ships are expensive esp.warships but the strategic uses for them are almost non-existent due to the high attrition rate and cost it is just about impossible to Effectively patrol your waters and it is hard to intercept the invasion as most times they can slip by anyway.

This depends on your nation and your strategy. As France say, I never had a need for a Navy as a weapon of war, but I found it essential in my most successful GC so far as Turkey. I basically took over the Belearic Isles and Placed the bulk of my Warships there (with some cheap Caravels for fodder and maybe what I call an 'expeditionary forde') and when I declare war on Austria say, I block off reinforcements or at least delay them for some time via the sea routes from Spain, Netherlands, England, etc. I therefore could take my time forcing capitulation of my enemies on the other side!

On the Cape of Good Hope, I stationed a Navy on Table or Ciskei and on outbreak of war, just had them stationed on the Cape to block reinforcements to the colonies! Same principles in closing off the Adriatic, the Black Sea, the Red Sea, Persian Gulf and even the Indian Ocean with maybe 2 navies available.

So navies do have thier strategic uses in the game, depending on your overall strategy. The whole effort to make it worthwhile is major though - attacking those islands in the Med were expensive!! So the navy must be protected if you see they've been cut to peices. Never sacrifice them for the short term.

 

[Daztek]

Re: Sme naval ideas

Originally posted by cooldude
I have -as everyone- a few comments on the naval rules, which can be summarised as following:
1. Closed straits
2. blockade army
3. wind, fast movement from one side to the other, not vice versa
4. privateers acting against specific nations?

these are all * very * good ideas

also, late in the game when people have big colonial empires, especially in human MP games players have so many things to do all over the world that they sometimes forget their fleets . . . especially if they are interrupted in movement while the player's fighting battles elsewhere . . . they don't notice the fleet's battle report and it ends up wasting away at massive cost

somehow, i don't think a fleet ever historically suicided because it forgot to go back to port to get water and food. there should be an auto-back-to-port order for fleets? after a certain time - a 6 months or year say - or at a certain fatigue level. soon enough to save most ships or half the ships so that the player is punished but gets most/half his ships back to port

cheers

 

[unmerged(5131)]

I hope they lower the naval attrition for fleets commanded by good leaders. As it it stands now, I dont think columbus in EU1 can sail with 3 ships to hispaniola and make it back to spain alive, or have Magellan sail around the world in 1520 with only 5 ships!