What does naval attrition add to game?

[IIWW]

First of all AI can't handle it at all, thus they do not get it, which is extremly annoying (seing Kilwa Navy blockading Lubeck, why I can't blockade them for a month or I'd risk loosing whole fleet). So distance during blockades is counterproductive, as it only punishes player cause "he should be able to handle the attrition".
But players also has hard time handling it, as they simply forget about fleets. I doubt if there is single person on this forum who never lost some ships for this reason.
In fact it almost never matters, aside from explorers, It only forces You to pay some minor fleet-basing fees if You want to move Your fleet to the other side of the world.
As for the explorers, it's really the only case in which it really plays any role, but it could surely be done with a less annoying mechanism. It's a small gain for a large amount of frustration. (maybe add damage for entering TI).

 

[Zqrfmb]

naval attrition is annoying enough that I don't bother with blockades unless myself and my target are in the Mediterranean.

 

[Galindo]

As most mechanics the answer I belive is Multiplayer. And ofc that would change exploration drastically, also I belive the reasoning of "the AI is imune to it" always will receive the "AI is already way to easy" motive.

 

[Halaberiel]

Attrition isn't my problem wrt blockades, fog of war is, which the AI also doesn't have. To blockade properly you need to spread out your ships into small groups which leaves them vulnerable. The enemy can then pop out of fow to kill them easily. I just find the whole ship combat too much management and mostly avoid it.

Attrition however does make sense, and makes it harder to explore. It's annoying but I understand why the mechanic is there and don't really want them to remove it. Same with FOW, annoying but it needs to be in the game.

 

[AP85]

I don't have a problem with naval attrition, it's easy enough to get fleet basing rights from a nearby ally. What I don't understand is why I don't get supply ships from occupied provinces. If I'm Netherlands and I'm sieging down half of Italy, I don't see why I should take attrition in the Mediterranean.

 

[IIWW]

Attrition however does make sense, and makes it harder to explore. It's annoying but I understand why the mechanic is there and don't really want them to remove it. Same with FOW, annoying but it needs to be in the game.

It's the only reason at all attrition makes sense, but I don't believe it's enough to counterweight the irritation coming from it. FoW is different, without it the game would be easier, while NA doesn't really increase the level of dificulty.

 

[AP85]

It's the only reason at all attrition makes sense, but I don't believe it's enough to counterweight the irritation coming from it. FoW is different, without it the game would be easier, while NA doesn't really increase the level of dificulty.

I disagree, naval attrition is definitely something that increases the level of difficulty, especially if you mothball your heavies in peace time, which you should. Even from a realism perspective, of course there should be naval attrition. It's not realistic for fleets to be sailing around for months on end in the middle of an ocean in the 16th century without losing men.

 

[IIWW]

I disagree, naval attrition is definitely something that increases the level of difficulty, especially if you mothball your heavies in peace time, which you should. Even from a realism perspective, of course there should be naval attrition. It's not realistic for fleets to be sailing around for months on end in the middle of an ocean in the 16th century without losing men.

What does it have to do with mothballing? You shouldn't move Your 25% strengh navy to fight even without attrition. I agree that its realistic, I just don't think it good gameplaywise.