I agree with that... I never saw any country seiging in English mainland (apart from Scotland)
Straiten up the straits!
- Thread starter Fishman786
- 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.
I agree with that... I never saw any country seiging in English mainland (apart from Scotland)
Strait is a fine abstract way to describe that you can walk across the danish strait during the winter dont you think?
I wasn't defending all the straits in the game, just the ones I named. Mostly, though, I was putting forth what I think is the correct criterion. I definitely agree that Rhodes should go.
Denmark? Is there a way to make a strait passable during winter only?
Another variable strait option would be to have them passable only if both sides are controlled.
But the last 2 suggestions are up to Johan.
EDIT: Yes to the Water Line. I'd say that it could be enhanced forts, except that it's too easy to walk through them, & hit the stuff beyond. Perhaps there should be something preventing that. Fort lines do not really exist in the game.
That's fair enough, I also haven't seen an army sieging The British Isles when at war with England/GBR, but thats mostly because it didn't occur in history. The last successful invasion where an army was landed on the English Coast was either The Norman Conquest in 1066 or the Glorious Revolution of 1688, depending on whether you class the Glorious Revolution as an invasion or a revolution, as William III Nassau was in fact invited by the Houses of Parliament.
Historically there hasn't been a successful invasion of England from the French coast, since 1066, so I don't see why a straight should be created across the English Channel.
I agree, there's little historical reason to create an easy passage across the Channel. Though I think it would be nice if Wales was a vassal from the start so it could be released in a war more easily, much like France has vassals all over. Not that Wales would exist very long, but it would result in more wars on english soil and perhaps GB forming less swiftly.
And even if you would class the Glorious Revolution as an invasion, it took a significant fleet and it didn't cross over from Calais to Dover, but from the Netherlands.
This is more an issue with the AI not massing navies and ferrying larger armies across (while doomstacks are waiting for the invasion force). I guess it's also why France has it so easy to pick on the British continental territories since they only ever send a few troops over.
If you would add one though, the first to suffer from this would probably not be the UK, but the lower countries and Burgundy since armies would mass in Calais. Large backland, nice chokepoint, rich provinces, good navy, hmm.
And even if you would class the Glorious Revolution as an invasion, it took a significant fleet and it didn't cross over from Calais to Dover, but from the Netherlands.
This is more an issue with the AI not massing navies and ferrying larger armies across (while doomstacks are waiting for the invasion force). I guess it's also why France has it so easy to pick on the British continental territories since they only ever send a few troops over.
If you would add one though, the first to suffer from this would probably not be the UK, but the lower countries and Burgundy since armies would mass in Calais. Large backland, nice chokepoint, rich provinces, good navy, hmm.
1. You know, I understand that a lot of people get into our country from Cuba via raft, but that's not all at once. If it were this simple, "Bay of Pigs" would've been a cakewalk.
2. As if AI Japan didn't have an easy enough time conquering Korea as is...:wacko:
Agreed. If the game frequently produced a successful AI invasion of England, that would mean something is wrong with the game mechanics.
The Bering Strait is also a strait: you can see Russia from Sarah Palin's house!
This one made my day. :rofl:
For #1 you could make the time for crossing a strait of that kind substanstialy higher if you have a larger army. It's one thing to cross the channel or from cuba to florida with 1000 people and it's another thing to cross it with 30k.
And I think that this should work for every strait. Larger times for crossing, for higher armies.
Or instead, that the army arrives in parts.
Just slowing down would still mean you've got an insta doomstack to the other side of a sea and honestly I don't care if say a Frog stack of 40.000 takes 25 days or 29 days to cross the English channel (or wherever this applies).
The main reason a bridgehead is easy to defend is because not all troops can traverse it in one go. It's a chokepoint afterall and shouldn't have too many benefits over those who invested in a navy.
This would hamper doomstacks, but less so small, flexible armies. Could also make it so only few can cross at one time, so the player or AI can decide how to break up the army.
Still prefer having to build up a navy though.
Neither, it was Darius I, the Great.
-edit-
No, I was wrong, Xerxes had one built as well. But it was across the Hellespont.
-edit-
No, I was wrong, Xerxes had one built as well. But it was across the Hellespont.
Last edited:
Would it even be possible to code this in-game? I don't see how it could be done.
The idea of making an army spilt to cross is good, but it can only come from P'dox, I believe. And that would happen only if there were a serious attempt to fix combat, in general. Maybe EUIV. Maybe.
"Earlier on today, apparently, a woman rung the BBC and said she heard there was a hurricane on the way... well, if you're watching, don't worry, there isn't!" -Michael Fish, British weather forcaster, shortly before the devastating 1987 storm.
As I don't know the code that well, I can't write up a bit of code, however, I can help by musing on the workings.
I'm wondering though, are you refering to rewriting the AI to split up its armies a bit, or the way a strait works?Would it be possible to use a similar check to the Transport Capacity check of a fleet, by assigning a fixed transport capacity to a waterway? Basically, as if you'd model in a fixed, neutral or two allied transport fleets alligned to those who control either coastal province, then add a check where the waterway must be clear of hostile vessels, or risk being destroyed/pushed back to your own shores. Say these 'phantom invasion fleets' would be 7 cogs worth.
In that case, you would not have to force the AI itself to split up its doomstacks, but give the AI the option to utilise the 7 cogs, thus if they traverse, they would split up armies by themselves.
(Perhaps there could be events that increase the capacity over time, but that's for another time.)
I'm pretty sure the english channel was a strait in EUII in one of the really late patches. But I think that had more to do with giving England tax income from its French holdings than anything else. I can't really remember to be honest
As I don't know the code that well, I can't write up a bit of code, however, I can help by musing on the workings.
Would it be possible to use a similar check to the Transport Capacity check of a fleet, by assigning a fixed transport capacity to a waterway? Basically, as if you'd model in a fixed, neutral or two allied transport fleets alligned to those who control either coastal province, then add a check where the waterway must be clear of hostile vessels, or risk being destroyed/pushed back to your own shores. Say these 'phantom invasion fleets' would be 7 cogs worth.
In that case, you would not have to force the AI itself to split up its doomstacks, but give the AI the option to utilise the 7 cogs, thus if they traverse, they would split up armies by themselves.
(Perhaps there could be events that increase the capacity over time, but that's for another time.)
I honestly have no idea. I tend to doubt it, but I don't know much about writing AI.