Playing as Byzantines, between Biga to Edirne the Ottomans didn't get a strait crossing penalty even though my leader there had a higher maneuver value
Last edited:
Strait crossing question.
- Thread starter ForVictory
- Start date
-
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.
Biga to Edirne or Edirne to Biga?
Because Edirne is a fort and if it's under their control then you would've gotten the penalty.
Your maneuver value negated that effect.
Because Edirne is a fort and if it's under their control then you would've gotten the penalty.
Your maneuver value negated that effect.
Didn't they remove crossing penalties for fort battles awhile back? Would be pretty stupid if you got a crossing penalty for the battle despite not even crossing anything.
But yeah, forts would prevent crossing penalties for the country being sieged.
And why am I unable to block the Ottomans from crossing from Biga to Edirne if I have a fleet in the Marmara sea?
Because you don't control either side.
If they control both sides of a strait you can not block it anymore.
If they control both sides of a strait you can not block it anymore.
That diminishes the use of being a naval power and its not historical.
Holding the a straight this thin with ships against forts would be suicide historically. You at least got to keep your ships.
Building a bride for an army to pass while having hostile ships threatening to attack is not possible. The place has to be secured first before engineers can start building.
The mechanic has to work for both.
There's plenty of places you could use to criticize the current strait crossing rules, but the Dardanelles, or even worse the Bosphorus, aren't it. They are rather the place where the "new" (over a year old now) rules make the most sense.
Any ship this close to land would be sunk, not hindering an entire army from crossing.
The Crusade of Varna, the very event which marks the starting point of the game, involved an incident in which the Crusaders placed a fleet in the Dardanelles and failed to stop the Ottomans from crossing due to both the challenge of coordinating such a fleet and the fact that the Ottomans were able to use cannon placed on both sides of the strait to drive away the hostile ships.
Colin Imber, The Crusade of Varna, 1443-1445. Crusade Texts in Translation. (Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2006), 30.
Right... would be sunk... even before fire weapons were a thing (at least in the game).
Oh, and thank you for admitting that there are non-sensical strait crossings.
Emm... :/
They might be referring to one of these**.
You pointed it like it was never discussed or mentioned by any of the devs before.
**though, for granted reasons, I would count them as artillery.
Last edited:
Yes. Extremely accurate weapons against moving targets.
Really? The devs have already admitted that there are a number of non-sensical mechanics in the game? Must have been not long ago, since those mechanics are still in place.
As you can read right above your own post gunpowder both existed and was used to shoot at ships in the Dardanelles at our start date.
They weren't widespread enough for us to have unit types based on them at start but they certainly existed at least from the Mediterranean to India. This is well documented and should not be a controversial statement.
And there are certainly straits were it make more or less sense, like any system in the game that applies uniform rules across the globe.
The new rules make a great deal more sense than the old all in all in my opinion (as they allow the owners of straits to get something out of them rather than be a constant liability) but like all other game systems we review and try to improve them if we find better ideas.
irrelevant - if in a "thin" strait. --> "shooting fish in a barrel".
Nice one. But you were referring to straits [mentioned specifically]. To your point, mechanics are changed when better ones become available.
Not going to debate on this. You had a flaw in your argument. It was pointed out to you. That's all it was.
Whether the current behavior is good/bad is irrelevant.
Identifying a problem is not the same as finding a solution is it?
As you might have noticed we have a whole sub forum devoted to listening to the ideas of the community.
That said I personally don't find straits particularly problematic right now (not that it falls on my table, it's game design rather than content design, I am here because I thought it'd be nice to expand on why the rules changed once more. Not everyone reads everything after all).
This is an abstract game in many ways and as a result it has abstract rules. You can still block movement, just not against someone who controls both sides of the strait. These rules makes a much better job of handling the various places on the map were units could cross without a proper fleet than the "old" rules did, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that they are perfect for every such place we have (or indeed that all such places are guaranteed to be correctly identified).
Having a 100,000 man army unable to cross from one controlled province to another across a strait because someone parked a single transport there was even sillier, IMHO.
Identifying a problem is not the same as finding a solution is it?
As you might have noticed we have a whole sub forum devoted to listening to the ideas of the community.
That said I personally don't find straits particularly problematic right now (not that it falls on my table, it's game design rather than content design, I am here because I thought it'd be nice to expand on why the rules changed once more. Not everyone reads everything after all).
This is an abstract game in many ways and as a result it has abstract rules. You can still block movement, just not against someone who controls both sides of the strait. These rules makes a much better job of handling the various places on the map were units could cross without a proper fleet than the "old" rules did, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that they are perfect for every such place we have (or indeed that all such places are guaranteed to be correctly identified).
I can't understand why people still fight against this. Realism and such aside, it's a hell of a better game mechanic now than it was before. And I think there's a lot more strategy involved when you have to think about capturing a province before your ships can blockade the strait. Compared to just bringing all your ships into place before the war.