Strait Control

[Codias]

Would it be historically accurate to introduce strait control like we see in HoI2 for EU3? It would truly make such areas as Gibraltar, Copenhagen and Istanbul become essential strategic objectives for controlling various sea regions. I feel it would add a lot of flavor to the game.

...but would it be historicaly accurate for enough of the time period to make it worthy of inclusion?

Are there other straits that you feel would be worthy of inclusion?

 

[unmerged(53986)]

djibouti-west yemen comes to mind (closing the red sea)
and the persian gulf at hormouz

also the malackan strait, and that area in general, fortifying the islands and managing to keep all others out.

and then theres the whole japanese islands situation, kamkatchka -kurils -japan -lots of ilands -formosa as a chain.

How about a lakonia-krita-rhodos-anatolia lock aswell?

 

[unmerged(18239)]

Are there other straits that you feel would be worthy of inclusion?

Bosporus and Gibraltar for sure. But I doubt Kopenhagen. And Malacca should be included as well.

 

[Snake IV]

Bosporus and Gibraltar for sure. But I doubt Kopenhagen. And Malacca should be included as well.

It is closer over Öresund than the Gibraltar strait.

 

[unmerged(48546)]

Controlling just one side shouldn't be enough. Control of both sides and decent fortifications should be needed.

 

[Snake IV]

Controlling just one side shouldn't be enough. Control of both sides and decent fortifications should be needed.

That could do for Bosporus but otherwise no. However, both sides should be able to block movement. If both Nations controlling the strait they both should be able to move in it. Fortifications shouldn't matter.

 

[unmerged(58317)]

The only way to make it totaly impossible to sail through a strait i the EU3 time period was to block the entire passage with ships.

 

[alvaro]

The simple menace of a blockading force would cut all commercial traffic through a strait. unfortunately with the logic of CoT only, blockading straits (as historically happened a few times during XVIII C. in Gibraltar strait, for instace) is pointless.

 

[cool-toxic]

That could do for Bosporus but otherwise no. However, both sides should be able to block movement. If both Nations controlling the strait they both should be able to move in it. Fortifications shouldn't matter.

That could also do for Øresund.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

The simple menace of a blockading force would cut all commercial traffic through a strait. unfortunately with the logic of CoT only, blockading straits (as historically happened a few times during XVIII C. in Gibraltar strait, for instace) is pointless.

Not neccesarily; depends how it's all coded. You could severely limit how effective your trader(s) in said CoT are, as well as reduce the gold thry bring in.

 

[alvaro]

Not neccesarily; depends how it's all coded. You could severely limit how effective your trader(s) in said CoT are, as well as reduce the gold thry bring in.

yeah, that's what I meant. With the "classical" CoT system blockading an strait has no effect unless de CoT is adjacent to the strait zone, but even so, for the engine you happen to be blockading the port not the strait. So in that case, setting a blockading force in an strait area has no major difference than in any other sea area.

 

[curtis]

djibouti-west yemen comes to mind (closing the red sea)
and the persian gulf at hormouz

I think those are too wide...

The Bab-el-Mandeb is 25.8 -32.2 km wide at its narrowest and the Strait of Hormuz is 33.8 km wide at its narrowest.

Compare that with the Dardanelles (1.2 - 6.4 km), the Bosporus (700 - 3,700 meters) and the Oresund (4 kilometers).

 

[Earl Uhtred]

There should be straits, but rather than completely blocking movement (which is totally unrealistic for most of the period) there should be a bonus for defending fleets if neither shore is friendly to the attacker, representing the exploitation of restricted waters, and maybe a shore fire bonus for the defender as gunnery improves if either shore is friendly to them.

 

[Snake IV]

There should be straits, but rather than completely blocking movement (which is totally unrealistic for most of the period) there should be a bonus for defending fleets if neither shore is friendly to the attacker, representing the exploitation of restricted waters, and maybe a shore fire bonus for the defender as gunnery improves if either shore is friendly to them.

When not just writing that comes to the mind at the moment that makes perfect sence. You have my support.

Still, I belive you can't sail through the bosporus without the owners agreement. It is just too narrow.

 

[Registered]

There should be straits, but rather than completely blocking movement (which is totally unrealistic for most of the period) there should be a bonus for defending fleets if neither shore is friendly to the attacker, representing the exploitation of restricted waters, and maybe a shore fire bonus for the defender as gunnery improves if either shore is friendly to them.

Absolutely agreed on that. Even the straits of Gibraltar could not be sealed without using naval power.

 

[Codias]

Possible issues with that idea...

There should be straits, but rather than completely blocking movement (which is totally unrealistic for most of the period) there should be a bonus for defending fleets if neither shore is friendly to the attacker, representing the exploitation of restricted waters, and maybe a shore fire bonus for the defender as gunnery improves if either shore is friendly to them.

A bonus for defending fleets doesn't sound too bad - but will the attacking fleet be forced to fight? It would be a poor implementation if the fleet could "sneak" past the defending fleet (possible in EU2) and continue on it's way.

I also see a potential problem if the player is able to simply choose to retreat manually and get to flee into the sea province on the other side of the strait. (Also possible in EU2, if I remember correctly)

How about this idea. More than one land province can control a strait. Gibraltar and Tangiers, for example. If Spain owns Gibraltar and Portugal Tangiers, either one can pass through the strait no matter what. If, say, England is at war with Spain but not Portugal they could pass since they could hug the Tangiers coastline. If England were at war with both then naturally they would not be allowed to pass.

Of course any hostile fleet blocking the strait should (it would be my hope at least) have a 100% chance to engage the enemy at a strait, even if the "owners" are neutral.

 

[alvaro]

in that example where a fleet sails near the friendly coast to avoid an enemy fleet on the other side of a strait, that would mean a lost battle. Not even considering the gauge of wind. If the gauge is lost that would drive to complete suicide (see the first engagement at Trafalgar, atacking side on wind and defending fleet heading across the coastline).

 

[Fawr]

Of course any hostile fleet blocking the strait should (it would be my hope at least) have a 100% chance to engage the enemy at a strait, even if the "owners" are neutral.

I don't like the 100% chance. A fleet couldn't just sit in the strait because there wouldn't be enough sea room (ships would constantly be in danger of being blown onto one shore or the other). You can sit outside the strait but then you can be in the situation where the wind won't let you get into the strait to block it on the approch of an enemy fleet.

In particular I'm thinking of Gibraltar in the Napolionic wars (and if they couldn't do it at that time then they can't do it hundreds of years earlier). The Spanish and British ships just stayed in Gibralter and Cadiz and if the wind was right then ships could go through the strait but the blockading fleets would be stuck in port.