Mats_SX said:
I like straits and totally agree on having them, even in the very disputed areas like Kent-Calais, Sicily-Apulia, Scania-Sjaelland etc.
To my knowledge it was NOT possible to block a strait with land troops...?
The point is that you shouldn't be forced to build up a big expensive fleet (heck, in the start you are unable to build transports and therefore forced into poor galleys or expensive warships) to cross a more or less narrow body of water. The main argument against using straits seems to be "naval supremacy", but that is never a problem IMO. If the enemy has a fleet greater than yours (if you even have one; f.e. a land-locked France or Austria wanting to invade England or Sweden) they very effectively can stop you from using the strait by just putting a simple ship there. Even if both sides do have a navy (say Eire vs Scotland) the strait is unuseful, since if they engage there noone of the sides can cross, and after the battle the losing side could just come again and eventually win and the strait's power is lost. IMO the strait makes for a more smooth gameplay so that (with an ounce of imagination) the game situation don't always becomes so static; 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..?)
Another thing that could be added is that troops perhaps could walk smaller non-strait areas with freezing water like Sweden-Finland or ... well basically Sweden-Finland
(it actually happended in history)
In HOI and I believe victoria straights can be blocked with land troops only.
Here is the thing you SHOULD have to build an expensive fleet to move you troops across a narrow body of water. You have to have the ships to move the men period. You can't cross the strait like a river, there is no ford to cross. You actually have to have the ships to cross the body of water. You need a physical boat to cross.
Staits are terrible representations in the game. As for just place a ship to block the troops arguement it doesnt fly. You need to assemble the ships in real life to transfer the troops on to teh ships and sail them across. That is the ONLY way to cross a strait again with the exception of teh bosferous. Which has bridges and crossing rafts that allow transfer. The straits in the game represent MILES of ocean. Thats a huge crossing period. You cant simple walk across it.
If you defeat a ship blocking a strait you still have to cross that straight in ships. You shouldn't have to worry about a nation being able to cross a body of water without ships.
Explain to me HOW you simply walk on water for miles and miles?
Keledor said:
Well, Yes, it has benefits, But with all due respect, it has created a number of other imbalances. The AI Needs to be much smarter in defending something as vital as a kent calais straight.
Add another problem to straits. Having to blockade a strait all the time even though your enemy has no ships anymore!!! Why should my resources be used to stop an ability the enemy should NEVER have.
Sute]{h said:
My main problem with removing straits is that it per default increases micromanagement. If the deployment of transports could be either abstracted or automated I wouldn't mind. I simply hate loading and unloading troops. Especially when the AI sails one ship by and stop me from loading into my huge armada. I know there are ways around this, but seriously I dislike the whole procedure.
An automation could be as simple as follows: You order an army to move across the English Channel. The nearest transports (with their escorts) automatically moves to the Channel and starts the loading and unloading. If you don't have enough transports to move the army in one go, then the army will be devided into smaller parts that your transports is capable to moving and assembled again on the other side once all the parts arrive.
People use the term Micromanagement to describe any aspect of the game they have to do that they dont like. Its not really micromanagement to move a fleet and add troops to a fleet then invade. Thats a MAJOR enterprice that takes time. People are simply lazy. They want to invade and want to be able to invade with no effort. Ivasions by sea are the most complex military actions. The game makes it painfuly simple move trasport ships over board then move to location of invasion, disembark. You are complaining about that level of work? Bodies of water are HUGE military obstacles you want to remove the obstscle for your own convience.
Sure if you could give the command and it does it for you but the game can almost do that now. Command your troops to the province move your ships. Go do other things. Whait for the pop-up and pause to tell you the troops have arrived and the ships. Board (other paradox games allow you to board in port assume EU3 allows this) Order ships & troops to invade. Its not a very hard or time comsuming sequence. The most time comsuming aspect is moving the ships and troops to the embarkation province. And that part you dont have to sit around waiting for you can do other things.
Mats_SX said:
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).
If they have such a large navy and are decimating the english then tell me why they need a strait to cross? And if they had such a navy harassing the Royal Navy wouldnt that keep their ships from making the passage? And if they Stopped attacking the RN and ammassed to transport troops wouldn't that give the RN a reasonable chance to attack the loaded ships when they are the most vulnerable?
You want to be able to use ships to do one task while gaining the benifits of a second task without having to deal with the risks or dangers. Troops that "cross" a strait as perfectly safe from the navy that blocks them. What rubbish. You attempt to cross a straight and if its block you should LOSE your army period. Fishing boats cant stop naval vessels from destroying the army. Yet I have a feeling that if that happened you would immediatly load a saved game and not continue. Perhaps you would, I just dont beleive it.
Someone please explain to me like I'm a two year old how an army with supplies, horses, men, & artillery climbs on to local fishing boats (that are no where near as large or stable as todays coastal fishing ships) sails across a strait, encounters an enemy ships and magicly teleports back on to it's own shore with no casualties ready to immediatly try again?
Straits are so far from realistic they are fantasy. They are not credible as a game mechanic, they represent nothing in real life.
[EDIT] The arguement that straights remove the tax penalty is a reason they should be in is actually an arguement why they should be removed. WHy should a nation that concentrates all its effort on land forces gain the benifits of a nation that concetrates on its Naval forces? All these arguements are all based on I want to have all the benifits and non of the concequenses. People want their cake and to eat it too. Its simply not reasonable to expect all the benifits of naval trasport without having the navy.
Multiple-posts editted into a single post the way they should be.... ~MrT 
