Straits

[unmerged(18992)]

What Brilliant Quick Wit That Was!

 

[Mork]

Scania-Sjaelland, yes in times of frozen. The Swedes managed to march across several time IIRC.

It happened once. And only because there was a small iceages. It almost never freezes solid. Freezes, yes, but not enough so that you could bring an army across.

 

[Registered]

I wish they'd show us some nice screenies of the Holy Land

One of the earliest screenshots showed the eastern med.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

One of the earliest screenshots showed the eastern med.

Yeah, I remember. Cairo and so on. But t'was an alpha - imagine how much better it looks now, with a beautiful, massive Mamluk empire

 

[Valdemar]

Scania-Sjaelland, yes in times of frozen. The Swedes managed to march across several time IIRC.

Once, they marched across once.. and it almost never ever freezes over due to currents

In fanct the straights and navy combined kept the Caital save except that once

Oh and Øresund btw Skåne and Sjælland was controlled to a large degree by land forts at its narrowest point

V

 

[Reveilled]

That would allow a player (or the AI if it hs the intelligence) to bloack passage with olny a very small army. Better to allow crossings but give the crossing army an insanely high penalty if it comes to battle.

On a strait, I think it entirely reasonable that only a very small army would be able to block passage. If you want to make an amphibious assault, use a navy.


Another idea: Strait capacity. A strait could be given a capacity to represent that there are not an infinite number of boats to make a crossing with. Say, for instance, Naples-Sicily was given a capacity of 400. That would mean that the boats in the strait could only take 400 troops across at a time. When an army is ordered to move across, it would move in lots of 400. That way, small forces could cross straits very quickly, while large armies might be better off using a navy to cross. Also, troops on the other side could pick forces off in small groups, making crossing a strait with an enemy on the other side practical suicide.

Also, maybe straits other than the Bosphorous should be uncrossable by cavalry, or slowed down hugely by cavalry? Fitting horses on a fishing boat isn't what I'd imagine to be easy.

 

[Evie HJ]

Except that army are handled at the regiment level, not the individual soldier level, no?

I think having it be "no more than one regiment may cross at a time" will work well enough for our purposes.

 

[Tunch Khan]

Yeah, I remember. Cairo and so on. But t'was an alpha - imagine how much better it looks now, with a beautiful, massive Mamluk empire

The correct name is; Turkiye.

 

[unmerged(58575)]

The best thing with straits is that the "no land connection to capitol" penalty disappears in EU2. I don't know about such modifiers in EU3 but if there is one, this is one more reason to have straits.

and to go extremely off-topic

since the programmers of EU2 lurks here now I have one queston about the
"Protestant Coastal Provinces" bonus.

What do I do to get it? (How many prot coastal provs etc?)

 

[George LeS]

I like straits and totally agree on having them, even in the very disputed areas like Kent-Calais, Sicily-Apulia, Scania-Sjaelland etc.

The point is that you shouldn't be forced to build up a big expensive fleet [...] to cross a more or less narrow body of water. [...] If the enemy has a fleet greater than yours ... they very effectively can stop you from using the strait by just putting a simple ship there. ,,, I have personally only played one game where an non-british AI nation got a taste of the British Isles (which of course SHOULD be very hard, but perhaps not THAT uncommon..?)

Uh, no, that's not how it works. Both Louis XIV & XVI DID gain naval supremacy in the Channel, for a time (the latter with Spanish help). I suppose that explains why the British speak French today. IRL, they were unable to invade because the RN still remained as "a fleet in being". (That phrase actually comes from Adm Torrington, the Brit commander in the 1st example, & specifically refers to this point.)

Sure, it'd be nice if you could give fewer orders to make amphibious movement work, but, OTOH, if micromangement is ever justified, surely it's for a truly major operation like this.

 

[_Curieus_]

Difficult, more like impossible. The last time England was invaded was a 1000 years ago by William the Conquer.

Make that a little more than 300 years ago...

William III of orange managed to land an army in the south of england.
Then with the help of the local nobles, he took over the throne....

But then i guess 1000 years ago is enough time to forget the shame

 

[unmerged(22883)]

The bosphorus must be rather impossible to go through if there are any guns and men in the fortifications.

But regarding straits like Öresund that are fairly narrow: why not make it possible to let the fleet fight the fortresses for a short moment. The fleet will loose ships, but not the whole fleet, but it will nevertheless cross with a few ships. The efficiency of the fortresses will of course depend on their size and technology.

 

[Tunch Khan]

The bosphorus must be rather impossible to go through if there are any guns and men in the fortifications.

Same can be said for the Dardanelles, the twin strait of Bosphorus which connects Marmara Sea to the Aegean Sea.

 

[Mats_SX]

Uh, no, that's not how it works. Both Louis XIV & XVI DID gain naval supremacy in the Channel, for a time (the latter with Spanish help). I suppose that explains why the British speak French today. IRL, they were unable to invade because the RN still remained as "a fleet in being". (That phrase actually comes from Adm Torrington, the Brit commander in the 1st example, & specifically refers to this point.)

Sure, it'd be nice if you could give fewer orders to make amphibious movement work, but, OTOH, if micromangement is ever justified, surely it's for a truly major operation like this.

I'm not completely sure of what you mean with the "fleet-in-being"-phrase but as I understood it the French were stopped from invading England because if they tried the English could always move in the still existing (though smaller) RN to interfere, am I right? But let's say that France really tries to keep its naval supremacy and expanding it while at the same time constantly decimating the RN; sooner or later they have a big enough naval advantage to perform an invasion. And this is IMO represented in a fairly good manner (good enough at least) through the use of straits; if the English still have some ships they can always move them into the strait passage and stop the French (of course, the smartest solution would be just to place all the army to guard the strait on the other side).

 

[unmerged(58575)]

thing is if you don't have a temporary naval supremacy of the strait you have only the strait option which is limited to 1 province and that can be easily be defended on land if EU3 programmers include a "crossing strait penalty". But if you have a real naval supremacy you get the option to land your armies whereever you want which is a lot trickier to defend ^^

KEEP the straits...

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I'm not completely sure of what you mean with the "fleet-in-being"-phrase but as I understood it the French were stopped from invading England because if they tried the English could always move in the still existing (though smaller) RN to interfere, am I right? But let's say that France really tries to keep its naval supremacy and expanding it while at the same time constantly decimating the RN; sooner or later they have a big enough naval advantage to perform an invasion. And this is IMO represented in a fairly good manner (good enough at least) through the use of straits; if the English still have some ships they can always move them into the strait passage and stop the French (of course, the smartest solution would be just to place all the army to guard the strait on the other side).

Or better yet, get rid of straits so the French actually require a navy to transport their armies across the channel. Can men walk across 22 miles of water? No. They need transports to get across. This will be reflected by not having straits.

 

[unmerged(19063)]

Or better yet, get rid of straits so the French actually require a navy to transport their armies across the channel. Can men walk across 22 miles of water?

The French might believe they can.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

The Straits rules in EU2 I find annoying sometimes - the Danes can control merchant shipping through straits and impose the Sund tolls with an event, but on the other hand, there's absolutely nothing they can do to stop enemy fleets sailing through unimpeded. Similarly, the Ottoman Empire can't prevent enemies being transported through the Bosphorus to land in Trebizond or Crimea.

 

[Featauril]

And they shoudn't if they don't control the pass..

 

[George LeS]

I'm not completely sure of what you mean with the "fleet-in-being"-phrase but as I understood it the French were stopped from invading England because if they tried the English could always move in the still existing (though smaller) RN to interfere, am I right? But let's say that France really tries to keep its naval supremacy and expanding it while at the same time constantly decimating the RN; sooner or later they have a big enough naval advantage to perform an invasion. And this is IMO represented in a fairly good manner (good enough at least) through the use of straits; if the English still have some ships they can always move them into the strait passage and stop the French (of course, the smartest solution would be just to place all the army to guard the strait on the other side).

You are correct in your understanding of "fleet in being" (as Torrington meant it). But, as many others have already pointed out, this really means that the standard invasion mechanics DO replicate this, without all the problems that unrealistic straits lead to. The solution is to win control long enough, & completely to launch a true invasion. Further, as others've said, it means that you launch to any coastal province, without one artifically favored one.

Semi-OT: Did others know this? In my current game, I'm playing VEN, allied to BYZ (that cost $). To keep the Ottos out of Europe, I've had to do the blockade dance at the Bosphorus. I tried putting a squadron on patrol, into & out of Constantinople. Didn't work; Turkish troops just walked across. I think that means that the fleet was in port at the moment they (the Turks) finished their move across the straits. I had not realized this was possible, but it adds one further objection to straits.

And note that this is one of the MOST defensible straits in the game.