The absurdly low cost of warships : a small example

[BaronNoir]

I'm going to try to use the cost of the main weaponry on the said ships (obviously, guns), which is itself a fraction of the cost

The bast cost of a ship of the line is 50 ducats.

An ''artillery regiment'' (something a little more sketchy to ascertain strenght wise) is 30 ducats

How many guns in an artillery regiment ? (1000 soldiers). Well, if we use Napoleon-style armies, we learn that a single gun battery (6 guns, 2 howitzers. the latter usually not there in fact) required 240 soldiers, divided roughly in one company to operate the guns and one company to move them, with an astonishing 230 horses in theory). So, it's not an exagerration to say that an EUIV era artillery regiment operate with 1000 soldiers between 24 and 32 guns

However, one of the most common warship of the era, the Temeraire class ship of the line, had 74 guns.

28 36 pounders
30 18 pounders
16 12 pounders

Indidentally, Napoleon did most of it's work with 6 pounders 12 pounders were heavy artillery on land.

So, to summarize, a 1789 warship, with 74 guns MUCH heavier than anything available on land, cost 50 ducats (and the guns are part of the cost

64 land guns (two regiments) cost 60 ducats (with, granted, 1000 horses) while being of much smaller calibre.

 

[Hernanduer]

This isn't Vicky or HoI.
I sometimes wish it was, with its own flavor, but as it is you can't try applying such specific economic examples to CK or EU.

 

[Freudia]

Heavies already aren't worth using for the most part, especially if you play in an area where the only naval combat is in an inland sea, so I don't really think I could support a nerfing of them.

 

[Chamboozer]

This isn't Vicky or HoI.
I sometimes wish it was, with its own flavor, but as it is you can't try applying such specific economic examples to CK or EU.

What he said, unfortunately.

 

[BaronNoir]

Well, in a do or die battle like Waterloo, Napoleon had 266 guns (the complement of four ships of the line...much lighter however) which amounts to, hmm, 8 artillery regiments. And he was an artillery general . So there is an imbalance somewhere.

 

[Falc]

Thing is, navies don't win wars. So I'd actually assume that the price of land troops is adjusted for that.

 

[IIWW]

Thing is, navies don't win wars. So I'd actually assume that the price of land troops is adjusted for that.

They do quite often. It's one of the best ways for ROTW to fight off the europeans, since ship types are the same for every tech group.

 

[Freudia]

They do quite often. It's one of the best ways for ROTW to fight off the europeans, since ship types are the same for every tech group.

While this is somewhat true, the AI is also able to get military access and walk all the way over to you if it so desires. The player could do this too, but it's a huge micromanagement chore to do so.

 

[IIWW]

Yeah, but they realy rarely get MA all the way to, say, India. It may be coded that they don't abuse their cheats. I beat France as Oman due to superior naval power strategy It still gave me small amount of WS, at least directly, but it was the thing that won the war (+ ticking WS and small price of what they considered overseas)

 

[Jorlaan]

I would NOT say that heavies are useless even in inland seas. Having just 5-10 of them in a galley fleet gives it some serious extra punch and I almost never lose an engagement.

 

[hajutze]

Thing is, navies don't win wars. So I'd actually assume that the price of land troops is adjusted for that.

Ask any Byz player about their opinion on the matter

 

[1alexey]

They do quite often. It's one of the best ways for ROTW to fight off the europeans, since ship types are the same for every tech group.

Since like 3 patches, the units pretty much as competitive, and it is easier to keep up in military tech than in diplomatic.

 

[DKinator]

The problem here is that the AI rarely rebuilds its fleet because of how decisive naval engagements are. Increasing the cost will only exacerbate this. Although, with how wealthy the main naval powers are now because of trade, this may not be as true as before. That has more to do with trade being way too easy and profitable right now, though.

 

[Naresh]

If England or Venice lose their fleets rarely do I see them being rebuilt...
When I played Denmark I remedied this (after taking Naval) by selling ships to England, I made a very small profit, they got a fleet...

 

[IIWW]

Since like 3 patches, the units pretty much as competitive, and it is easier to keep up in military tech than in diplomatic.

It's almost the same after westernization. And competing with French/B-brugian/Swedish NI's on land is pretty hard, whereas only 3 countries (Castille, England and Pommerania) have bonus to Haevies combat ability, and 3 have it to durability (Denmark, England and Korea).

 

[kente]

i suppose the devs should keep the navy prices low for 2 reasons: you should rebuild uìyour navy everytime you have access to a better technolgy, 2) IRL most of the navy weren't destroyed but in eu4 yes. A player can recall own navy before it sinks, but AI usually goes for "berserk navy fight" (aka they will fight to death)

 

[BaronNoir]

Please note here that EUIV sea battles are way, way, way too decisive ''in hull losses'' compared to historical battles when they involve ship of the line vs ship of the line

Battles like the Nile and Trafalgar were exception. Even crushing, decisive victories (always by the Royal Navy) involved very low number of ships actually sunk.

Example :

The Saintes : 36 British vs 33 French. 5 french losses

Lagos : 14 British vs 12 French. 5 french losses

Quiberon Bay : 24 British vs 21 French. 2 British losses, 7 french losses, 6 french ships having to ditch guns to escape

 

[unmerged(170815)]

Just off the top of my head, I know that there are more:

Four Days' Battle: British losses: 10 ships, enemy losses: 4 ships
Raid on the Medway: British losses 13 ships, 2 captured by the enemy (including the flagship), enemy losses: 0 ships. Not really a battle, more like decimation, but you have too high an opinion of the Royal Navy.

 

[-MoRiDin-]

Just off the top of my head, I know that there are more:

Four Days' Battle: British losses: 10 ships, enemy losses: 4 ships
Raid on the Medway: British losses 13 ships, 2 captured by the enemy (including the flagship), enemy losses: 0 ships. Not really a battle, more like decimation, but you have too high an opinion of the Royal Navy.

Which maritime empire lasted the longest sir? The British or the Dutch? It's no good winning well if you can't hold the field!

 

[SweetHalcyHS]

Please note here that EUIV sea battles are way, way, way too decisive ''in hull losses'' compared to historical battles when they involve ship of the line vs ship of the line

Battles like the Nile and Trafalgar were exception. Even crushing, decisive victories (always by the Royal Navy) involved very low number of ships actually sunk.

Example :

The Saintes : 36 British vs 33 French. 5 french losses

Lagos : 14 British vs 12 French. 5 french losses

Quiberon Bay : 24 British vs 21 French. 2 British losses, 7 french losses, 6 french ships having to ditch guns to escape

This has nothing to do with the system itself, but the AI which doesn't retreat upon taking severe enough losses. Those battles would have been just as decisive in terms of tonnage sunk if the losing side continued to fight with their battered hulls instead of pulling out for a retreat.

One could go for higher morale damage to force the AI to retreat, but that would be difficult to fine tune among all the numerous +morale modifiers out there, and likely cause frustration among players that battles aren't decisive enough, and that it takes too much resources to maintain any sort of appreciable naval superiority.