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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hello everyone and welcome to another Europa Universalis development diary. Last week we released the 1.20 ‘Ming’ Update and the Mandate of Heaven expansion. It is almost four years since we originally released the game, and it is still growing in popularity!
We just released a hotfix to address some urgent issues, but we’re also working on a new patch called 1.21 ‘Hungary’, which will be released in late April, if all goes well.
In 1.21 we’ve worked a lot on further improving the AI, fixing bugs and balanced the game as we usually do.
You may remember the talks we had in the winter, about how we were not satisfied with Sailors. Now in 1.21, we’re solving this problem, by doing the following things. First of all, ships out on the sea, will drain 2% of their Sailor build cost each month. Now with current values and playstyles, that would not be ideal, as your sailor pool would quickly be drained.
Each development now provides 30 instead of 25 sailors.
Naval Tradition provides 20% faster sailor recovery instead of +10%.
Docks and Shipyards (both versions) have swapped placed in the technology tree.
Autonomy from Burghers Estate no longer impact sailors from development.
Sheltered Ports in Maritime Ideas group reduces Sailor Maintenance by 10%.
We are rather happy with the end result, a better naval game, where all buildings are viable choices, and you need to invest in having the support for a naval force.
We also strengthened the naval ideagroup, by making Naval Cadets also reduce morale damage from sunk ships by 33%, increase Press Gangs from 20 to 25% Sailor Recovery Speed, and changing Superior Seamanship from 15% Naval Morale to 10% Naval Morale and adding +10% Naval Engangement modifier (ie, lets 10% more ships fire each round).
A cool thing we are adding in 1.21, is a new decision to form Yuan!
In 1444, the Ming dynasty is still in its relative infancy, having taken over China from the Yuan Empire in in the late 14th century. The remnants of the Yuan still remain in our start date in the form of the Mongolia tag (something you can already see in the tooltip for previous Emperors in the Empire of China interface).
For patch 1.21 we have expanded a bit on this and added a decision for Altaic countries to restore the Great Yuan Empire and reclaim the heritage of Kublai Khan. It will require you to unite the Eastern Altaic cultures and be the Empire of China (or at least Empire rank if you lack the Mandate of Heaven DLC) and will grant claims and ideas based on the Yuan Dynasty.
Speaking of forming nations, any manchu culture nation can form Manchu in 1.21
Next week, Trin Tragula will tell you all why the patch is called Hungary...
Hungary patch? Here's my hopes and ideas:
-As many have stated, Croatia really should be in a PU at start, possibly with historical friends.
-Matthias Corvinus should have a Biblioteca Corviniara event giving support for the Renaissance. Hungary was the first non-Italian country to fully embrace the Renaissance.
-He really shouldn't have an heir except an illegitimate one from event. Historically he would be abstinent in his diplomatic marriage, but he did have a bastard.
-Why does my general disappear after the regency? Seriously WTF?
-Matthias Hunyadi should have a number of associated events/modifiers to make Hungary a very powerful nation during his reign. Historically he conquered parts of Bohemia and Austria as well as pushed back the Ottomans.
-Hungarian Succession Crisis
-already existing stuff with Ladislaus and Matthias is fine
-Matthias should have an illegitimate bastard 9/10 times
-an event/disaster should fire after his death, should his heir not have high legitimacy.
-The nobles should appoint a foreign king with low stats (someone they could easily control, historically Vladislaus II Jagiellon)
-the player should have the choice of supporting Matthias' heir against a massive amount of noble rebels who already occupy the capital or Vladislaus II, who would only have to face a minor pretender revolt.
-The amount of strength one side has compared to the other could be determined by the legitimacy of the heir with a legitimacy of 50 giving roughly equal odds for either side to win the conflict.
-Should the Jagiellons in Hungary die out (as they historically did), Hungary could become an elective monarchy, which it started resembling by this point, with all its dynasties lasting no more than a generation or two and being appointed by nobles. In fact, the nobles winning could already establish an elective monarchy, although it wouldn't be entirely historically accurate. It could perhaps be an event option.
-Fall
-Should Hungary lose Pest, it should be divided among Austria, the Ottomans and Transylvania (which can be a tag switch from Hungary, so that a player can continue)
-The Austrians should have an option the claim Hungary, which if defied by Hungary leads to Austria taking western Hungary, the east becoming Transylvania.
-If this is how Transylvania is formed it should not at first be able to form Romania, they should first have to take a decision to abandon their cores in Hungary and embrace Romanian culture (they should technically stay Transylvanian culture in game). This should prevent them from ever reforming Hungary and cause them to lose stability and prestige.
- What many people forget is that medieval Hungary consisted of Upper Hungary, Central Hungary, Transylvania, Southern Hungary which also included Szerém/Szerémség AND Slavonia. What the kings of Hungary actually called Croatia would be the provinces of Lika, Dalmatia and Donji Kraji in game. One could also make an argument that the province of Zagreb should also be part of it, however, the city was part of Slavonia at the time and the border was right in the middle of the province of in-game Zagreb.
- This begs the question: should we create an OPM/2PM as a junior PU partner that has cores on Dalmatia and Donji Kraji? Personally, I believe that a permanently high autonomy would be more accurate for the region but seeing the desire for the PU I'm in the minority here.
- Hungary was not an elective monarchy. At least not by Polish standards. The Hungarian nobilty only elected a king if the ruling dynasty didn't have a legitimate male heir. Vladislaus I was elected as king because nobody knew whether the unborn child of the previous king would be boy or not.
I find the rest of your ideas pretty good but I thought this needed to be cleared up a bit.
- What many people forget is that medieval Hungary consisted of Upper Hungary, Central Hungary, Transylvania, Southern Hungary which also included Szerém/Szerémség AND Slavonia. What the kings of Hungary actually called Croatia would be the provinces of Lika, Dalmatia and Donji Kraji in game. One could also make an argument that the province of Zagreb should also be part of it, however, the city was part of Slavonia at the time and the border was right in the middle of the province of in-game Zagreb.
- This begs the question: should we create an OPM/2PM as a junior PU partner that has cores on Dalmatia and Donji Kraji? Personally, I believe that a permanently high autonomy would be more accurate for the region but seeing the desire for the PU I'm in the minority here.
- Hungary was not an elective monarchy. At least not by Polish standards. The Hungarian nobilty only elected a king if the ruling dynasty didn't have a legitimate male heir. Vladislaus I was elected as king because nobody knew whether the unborn child of the previous king would be boy or not.
I find the rest of your ideas pretty good but I thought this needed to be cleared up a bit.
I would also prefer this solution. With the current ingame standards of PU, Croatia was not under a personal union. Was an integral part of Hungary, regarding both armies and all possible economic aspects.
Surely it had a high autonomy - Hungarian Kings respected that based on the traditions established during the Arpad-dynasty - but we have a much more straightforward way to represent that.
I also absolutely agree with you about elective monarchy.
Geographically that new province in Serbia should be Macva / Macsó or Macsóság / Maçva / Matschva, with Sabac as town. And Smederevo and Branicevo as province names is confusing as both Smederevo as a town and Branicevo as a county are east of Belgrade.
Maybe call the east province Branicevo with Smederevo as a town, and the west Podrinje (by the river Drina) with Uzice or Valjevo as a town, now that Sabac has separate province.
I prefer it to the complete removal of a realistic feature which now is more accurate. Then it can always be improved further, but I see this as a step in the right direction. Considering your port suggestion, given the size of most coastal provinces, most should also have the possibility of having a port.
Except it's not a relaistic feature at least not the way sailors work today, sheer manpower was never a big deal when outfitting a navy, even on very large ships the manpower requirement was pretty low compared to the manpower of land armies and no prior sailing skill was required of the regular deckhands. Now you could have sailors in game to represent actually skilled professional sailors who were also required to have a navy but those were much fewer and you couldn't drum them up from any fishing village, those were either drawn from the civilian fleet or much more likely were naval professionals. These should not be generated from any naval province they should be generated based on certain important trade ports and your naval tradition score. Having an active trade fleet, protecting trade should be something you do to keep your number of professional sailors available up not something that drains the pool.
And no most provinces would have a couple of dozen fishing villages, real harbours natural or man made are relatively rare in this era, especially early on. They might be at most as many as twice as many as the important centers of trade. Heck add in a few more important centres of trade make them weaker for trade purposes and make only those provinces generate naval force limit and sailors (as well as your naval tradition as I have already pointed out).
The idea of using your boats draining the sailors pool is not a bad one but as long as sailors are generated the way they are at the moment this will make thing much much worse by skewing the naval game even more in favour of countries with loads of coastal provinces such as England while leaving countries with real naval traditions such as spain portugal and the neatherlands in the the dust because they have fewer coastal provinces.
Maybe I am missing something but the sailor 'fix' seems wrong imo. The sailor pool, which arguably is on land, inside provinces should not be reduced because ships are at sea. Rather, ship 'efficiency' in terms of combat, speed of traveling, or protecting trade should be reduced as sailors on board the ships die. Only by docking for a short period, and adding new sailors from the pool, should the efficiency be back at 100 (provided the ship/s) are at 100% condition.
I i decide to leave some ships out at sea to blockade, knowing full well the risk of losing the ships - rather than sailing all the way back to my land to replenish sailors - that shouldnt impact the sailor pool. I may or may not wish to rebuild the lost ships right away, instead use the pool to repair ships that are in battle elsewhere.
What am i missing here ? Is the 'solution' Johan mentioned really a good one ?
The issue with that is the micro involved is going to be painful, constantly having to move ships into port and back out, splitting/merging fleets constantly to rotate ships back to port while keeping a blockade up, etc. It's one of those realism vs. gameplay things, probably.
My greater concern is that naval power in general doesn't play an important role for land based campaigns, as there's no need to keep naval supply lines open to keep your armies going. Sailor maintenance makes sailor numbers/recharge matter, but doesn't make dominating the sea more important in general.
I wrote an essay on the roots of the Magyars a few semesters ago, which I can't find right now - only a few notes, which is why I'm a tad bit uncertain about this - but as far as I remember, we can, with a lot of certainty, pinpoint the exact spot where the Magyars - or at least their language - originated. Some linguists disemboweled the Hungarian language and tore out all the words they took over from other peoples - mostly old Iranian tribes, especially the Sarmatians - until only the words remained that were undoubtedly of fennougric origin. They then took the words naming plants and reconstructed the climate and flora of 1500 BC from fossilized pollen. Their findings suggest that the Hungarians likely originally hail from the river Pechora region in the northern Ural region. From there (~500 BC), they slowly started migrating southwards - most of their words relating to farming are of Iranian origin - and founded the first Hungarian empire on the middle Volga in coalition with the Iranian Alans and Sarmatians at some point between 350 and 550 - no one really knows what happened in the 1.000 years inbetween. Around 750, they were forced westward by the invading Pechenegs - although Hungarian-speaking groups still existed there in 1230, when a Hungarian monk searched for them - and entered a federation with some Turkish tribes and were somehow intertwined with the Khasars. Around 840, they were, again, forced westward by the Pechenegs, now somewhere north of Bulgaria, and became mercenaries to pretty much everyone with power in Europe. Finally, in 895, the Magyars were attacked by the Pechenegs yet again and retreated - with around 500.000 people - to Pannonia, which was mostly empty ever since Charlemagne had smashed the Avar empire in 803. There, they stayed.
tl;dr: Hungarians are linguistically not slavic, the languages have literally nothing to do with each other. Maybe ethnically, but the Slavs were already well-established when the Hungarians arrived in Europe. Some of them might have been part of the huns, but since we do not really have linguistic sources of the Huns, we can only guess were they came from - as far as I know, it's most likely that they were a wild mixture of ethnicities, anyway, likely communicating in some pidgin language.
I was talking about the Huns as possibly (but unlikely) being slavs, not the hungarians.
Well the hunnic army was a mix but there was an original hunnic tribe which started that great multinational horde. And that is what we don't know what they were.
Not as out of the ballpark as you might think. That said, rowers were not real sailors they should not cost sailors, sailors should represent skilled sailors not just the regular workers on the ship. The unskilled sailors is basically a bottomless pool, dranw from the same as regular manpower but not even the largest ships came close to use the same manpower as land regiments.
Hopefully it will include a rework of elective monarchies uin Hungary and Bohemia as well, with useful "PU-like" elections
... and a few new provinces in Wallachia would be awesome !
Uh, no. I'm just American. We tend to overemphasize in the moment.
So how is naval action improved? A story from my grandpa about his ancestors... I am told we are descended from a line of proud Mexican sailors, he told about how hard the sea was, and how so many sailors would reach a port and you would never see them again.
The Manila Galleons were especially difficult. You send an silver ship from Acapulco to Manila, fill up the hold in Manila with fine China and silks and stuff, hire Asian sailors (or just take them from remote villages), sail back to Mexico. When the ships landed, many of the sailors would disappear into the jungle, taken in by locals who were not so happy by the Spanish control of the colony. You had to constantly find new sailors every year. And this was just the Galleon trade.
I didn't believe the crazy stories his grandfather told to him and he passed on to me, but I have since seen validation. My genome (checked on the DNA websites), interestingly has a small fraction of South East Asian ancestry from approximately three to four centuries ago. Lines up with the stories. Little fractions of my genome all line up with other stories, Great Great Uncle writing the music to the Mexican National Anthem, distant ancestor being one of the first Spaniard Conquistadors in Mexico... the guy might not have been lying, after all this time (at least the part about who our ancestors were).
Add scurvy and other seaborne illnesses that didn't have treatments until the 1700s or 1800s, and a little sailor attrition added to cut your ship's ability to just travel for years... elegantly, and simply, does so many things, and ties with a supposedly ancient story passed on from Grandfather to Grandson.
During the Age of Exploration between 1500 and 1800, it has been estimated that scurvy killed at least two million sailors.[31] Jonathan Lamb wrote: "In 1499, Vasco da Gama lost 116 of his crew of 170; In 1520, Magellan lost 208 out of 230;...all mainly to scurvy."
Awesome!
edit - After reading more posts, it seems people just didn't want the sailors as a feature, at all. So the feature is unpopular enough that being happy they are improving the feature would be seen as sarcasm? Understood.
I worked for 5 years for the national maritime museum of Sweden I think I have a lot more knowledge of the harshness of the conditions of sailing than you do, and yeah it was a harsh life and there was a lot of turnover, but that said this is an issue of scale, while any individual sailor might die on a journey, in fact be rather likely to do so, there were never a shortage of people to replace him. Now the argument could be made from skilled sailors to be a resource, but those have nothing to do with how much people a country has, they depend on the countries naval traditions and the size of their merchant navy.
And even that is arguable, in fact one could argue that ships in the early game should draw their sailors from your manpower pool and as you increase your naval tech it instead start using your sailor pool more and more, where sailors are generated as I stated earlier from centres of trade and naval traditions.
And the attrition of long journeys is already represented by naval attrition which when you return to port drains your sailor pool to repair the boat, this is not that.
That is an option, not a perfect one though certain countries did go to great length to have a reliable supply of skilled sailors near the end of the period, Britain and Sweden for an example, but this is very diffrent from the regular people drafted on some of the larger ships only a century before that who were the ones with a crappy life expectancy and also came from a in essence limitless pool of farmers (well actually that would be your regular manpower pool but the diffrence between it's ability to replenish itself and the silors who died means replacing the unskilled sailors sailors were virtually never an issue.
Except this does not do that, it lend an even greater advantage to large countries that they never really had in the naval aspect in reality. England gets loads of naval capacity and sailors from provinces which contain nothing but fishing villages (no the skills of a fisherman is not applicable to sailing a naval vessel) and sheep.
No the austro-hungarian empire was a modification on the austrian empire, which in turn came to be because the holy roman empire was abolished but the austrian monarch kept calling himself emperor.
It won't impact the large one and make the game even more skewed towards screwing over the small ones, despite the fact that many small nations navies did very very well in this era.
Well. Germany is out of the timeline, the Roman Empire is out of the timeline... I don't see a problem with countries forming early than they did IRL if the conditions are met.
Germany requires the HRE to be gone. And austria hungary was a loss of authority for the previous austrian empire. And the austrian empire happened because the HRE failed. Austria-hungary was the end of the line of a lot line of setbacks for the habsburgs not an accomplishment. I could see it in Vic3, get Hungarian as a accepted culture and your name changes to austria-hungary, but since accepted cultures work diffrently in EU4 it has no place there.
If anything, Austria-Hungary should be something created in the *very* late game via a disaster, with debuffs and maluses applied, not something you actually want to create. Should be representative of an Austria that is fighting to keep itself together and be the second worst of outcomes in the disaster, losing to an outright dismantlement.
A lot of people challenged Venice, very few won. Actually Venice is a perfect example of what I talked about earlier, they did not have a super great number of people, they didnät need to, they had enough population to get people working on their ships, and because they had naval traditions and was an importan centre of trade they never lacked skilled sailors. Where britain with its 1.000 coastal provinces (hyperbole) had to actually go out of their way near the end of the game to get a good pool of skilled sailors Venice never had the problem despite having only handful.
Except it's not a relaistic feature at least not the way sailors work today, sheer manpower was never a big deal when outfitting a navy, even on very large ships the manpower requirement was pretty low compared to the manpower of land armies and no prior sailing skill was required of the regular deckhands. Now you could have sailors in game to represent actually skilled professional sailors who were also required to have a navy but those were much fewer and you couldn't drum them up from any fishing village, those were either drawn from the civilian fleet or much more likely were naval professionals. These should not be generated from any naval province they should be generated based on certain important trade ports and your naval tradition score. Having an active trade fleet, protecting trade should be something you do to keep your number of professional sailors available up not something that drains the pool.
And no most provinces would have a couple of dozen fishing villages, real harbours natural or man made are relatively rare in this era, especially early on. They might be at most as many as twice as many as the important centers of trade. Heck add in a few more important centres of trade make them weaker for trade purposes and make only those provinces generate naval force limit and sailors (as well as your naval tradition as I have already pointed out).
The idea of using your boats draining the sailors pool is not a bad one but as long as sailors are generated the way they are at the moment this will make thing much much worse by skewing the naval game even more in favour of countries with loads of coastal provinces such as England while leaving countries with real naval traditions such as spain portugal and the neatherlands in the the dust because they have fewer coastal provinces.
That would require even more micro, though granted it would solve the issue with navies acting as armies which march on water.
Well if the automated ships orders handled that then people might actually use them.
Yeah this is an important issue. But first the balance of these things needs to be fixed and this I am sad to say makes things even less balanced.
I was talking about the Huns as possibly (but unlikely) being slavs, not the hungarians.
Well the hunnic army was a mix but there was an original hunnic tribe which started that great multinational horde. And that is what we don't know what they were.
Not as out of the ballpark as you might think. That said, rowers were not real sailors they should not cost sailors, sailors should represent skilled sailors not just the regular workers on the ship. The unskilled sailors is basically a bottomless pool, dranw from the same as regular manpower but not even the largest ships came close to use the same manpower as land regiments.
Most countries were sort of elective in the early period through.
I worked for 5 years for the national maritime museum of Sweden I think I have a lot more knowledge of the harshness of the conditions of sailing than you do, and yeah it was a harsh life and there was a lot of turnover, but that said this is an issue of scale, while any individual sailor might die on a journey, in fact be rather likely to do so, there were never a shortage of people to replace him. Now the argument could be made from skilled sailors to be a resource, but those have nothing to do with how much people a country has, they depend on the countries naval traditions and the size of their merchant navy.
And even that is arguable, in fact one could argue that ships in the early game should draw their sailors from your manpower pool and as you increase your naval tech it instead start using your sailor pool more and more, where sailors are generated as I stated earlier from centres of trade and naval traditions.
And the attrition of long journeys is already represented by naval attrition which when you return to port drains your sailor pool to repair the boat, this is not that.
That is an option, not a perfect one though certain countries did go to great length to have a reliable supply of skilled sailors near the end of the period, Britain and Sweden for an example, but this is very diffrent from the regular people drafted on some of the larger ships only a century before that who were the ones with a crappy life expectancy and also came from a in essence limitless pool of farmers (well actually that would be your regular manpower pool but the diffrence between it's ability to replenish itself and the silors who died means replacing the unskilled sailors sailors were virtually never an issue.
Except this does not do that, it lend an even greater advantage to large countries that they never really had in the naval aspect in reality. England gets loads of naval capacity and sailors from provinces which contain nothing but fishing villages (no the skills of a fisherman is not applicable to sailing a naval vessel) and sheep.
No the austro-hungarian empire was a modification on the austrian empire, which in turn came to be because the holy roman empire was abolished but the austrian monarch kept calling himself emperor.
It won't impact the large one and make the game even more skewed towards screwing over the small ones, despite the fact that many small nations navies did very very well in this era.
Germany requires the HRE to be gone. And austria hungary was a loss of authority for the previous austrian empire. And the austrian empire happened because the HRE failed. Austria-hungary was the end of the line of a lot line of setbacks for the habsburgs not an accomplishment. I could see it in Vic3, get Hungarian as a accepted culture and your name changes to austria-hungary, but since accepted cultures work diffrently in EU4 it has no place there.
Actually Yuan does exist in the timeframe.
Thus far no tag change happens involuntarily. I think that is a fair thing to keep going with.
A lot of people challenged Venice, very few won. Actually Venice is a perfect example of what I talked about earlier, they did not have a super great number of people, they didnät need to, they had enough population to get people working on their ships, and because they had naval traditions and was an importan centre of trade they never lacked skilled sailors. Where britain with its 1.000 coastal provinces (hyperbole) had to actually go out of their way near the end of the game to get a good pool of skilled sailors Venice never had the problem despite having only handful.
Only if you are at zero sailor and trying to repair your boats or build up more of them.
Otherwise you are more likely to suffer from lack of sailor if you only have one port and lot of cash. I don't really see any other issue beside the galley taking up more sailors that I have mention earlier.
Only if you are at zero sailor and trying to repair your boats or build up more of them.
Otherwise you are more likely to suffer from lack of sailor if you only have one port and lot of cash. I don't really see any other issue beside the galley taking up more sailors that I have mention earlier.
It depends on what the numbers are. Though the latter being the case is why I have a problem with the system people with loads of cash usually could field large navies even when only in control of relatively few ports.
It depends on what the numbers are. Though the latter being the case is why I have a problem with the system people with loads of cash usually could field large navies even when only in control of relatively few ports.
I often run ironman game for achievement for all kind of various goals.
I play everything from a tiny island to huge blob inland (switzerlake) etc...
I can tell you that even if you had LOT of cash. You are still limited by how much sailor you have on hand.
There is also a tiny thing where if you queue more than 1 boat per port. The sailor will be pull from the pool and pool will not grow above this limit. IE if you have 200 maximum sailor pool (not really but as an example) you queue up 4 trade boat and they all take 50 sailor each. So your maximum goes down to 50 because 3 trade ship are queued.
This is to prevent people from queue up lot of boat and use an event to replenish sailor pool back to full.
Your sailor pool is dependent on how big your total development is across ports. So you are right to some degree that the more money you have compared to how many port you have. The more likely you will run out of sailor if doing a massive upgrade/ship production. On the flip side you will not suffer from this problem as badly if your empire had LOT of ports (England as an example).
I don't remember the exact formula for figuring out your maximum sailor pool. I do know that port in 1.12.1 will give more maximum sailor per development (25 up to 30 from this DD). In additional to other buffs to naval/maritime idea group.
Now the argument could be made from skilled sailors to be a resource, but those have nothing to do with how much people a country has, they depend on the countries naval traditions and the size of their merchant navy.
And even that is arguable, in fact one could argue that ships in the early game should draw their sailors from your manpower pool and as you increase your naval tech it instead start using your sailor pool more and more, where sailors are generated as I stated earlier from centres of trade and naval traditions.
And the attrition of long journeys is already represented by naval attrition which when you return to port drains your sailor pool to repair the boat, this is not that.
Interesting points. I especially like the idea of manning your navy by pulling manpower or sailors based on the naval traditions (I am hearing naval ideas in there too), with the sailors being more effective, and more selectively pulled from parts of the world that had a supply (important ports and naval supplies provinces?)
Edit - Example like 10 sailors from coast, 30 from naval supply, 50 from important port, numbers subject to balance of course.
Have you considered modding the game? I've found making meaningful tweaks (i.e. tweaks I found meaningful) are not very difficult. The wiki and the forums combined are great resources if you want to engineer a particular dynamic when you play.
I often run ironman game for achievement for all kind of various goals.
I play everything from a tiny island to huge blob inland (switzerlake) etc...
I can tell you that even if you had LOT of cash. You are still limited by how much sailor you have on hand.
There is also a tiny thing where if you queue more than 1 boat per port. The sailor will be pull from the pool and pool will not grow above this limit. IE if you have 200 maximum sailor pool (not really but as an example) you queue up 4 trade boat and they all take 50 sailor each. So your maximum goes down to 50 because 3 trade ship are queued.
This is to prevent people from queue up lot of boat and use an event to replenish sailor pool back to full.
Your sailor pool is dependent on how big your total development is across ports. So you are right to some degree that the more money you have compared to how many port you have. The more likely you will run out of sailor if doing a massive upgrade/ship production. On the flip side you will not suffer from this problem as badly if your empire had LOT of ports (England as an example).
I don't remember the exact formula for figuring out your maximum sailor pool. I do know that port in 1.12.1 will give more maximum sailor per development (25 up to 30 from this DD). In additional to other buffs to naval/maritime idea group.
I wasn't talking about in game I was talking about reality and how the game failed at allowing for something that has happened a lot in reality.
In reality wealthy port cities could field navies that could hold their own fairly well against navies of entire kingdoms, in game the sheer number of coastal provinces is what matter which means that England will always be on top. While in reality it took the combined effort of the British and the dutch to dethrone Spain as the dominant naval power.
Have you considered modding the game? I've found making meaningful tweaks (i.e. tweaks I found meaningful) are not very difficult. The wiki and the forums combined are great resources if you want to engineer a particular dynamic when you play.
Yeah I have modded the game quite a lot but actually creating mechanics is a bit over my level. Also I should not have to mod the game to make the naval game not terrible in a game that is about the age of sail.
Nándorfehérvár is the Hungarian name for Belgrade. Belgrade belongs to the Mačva province. So yes, it is going to be Nándorfehérvár in the Macsó province.
Interesting, a Hungarian dude from this forum told me it meant 'the key of Hungary' or 'the gate of Hungary' if i'm not mistaken?
Might be the gate to Hungary as well, one does not simply walk into Mordor. Mountains on all sides, just missing a big f**king volcano next to Buda castle.
whats the problem with sailors again? And whats the problem with naval combat please?
The problem is that navies are pretty useless during wars. Slight buff would be nice, like actually looting/devastating blockaded provinces, at certain technology there should be some naval bombardment imo when sieging coastal forts. Also why not allow navies capture unguarded (without any forts in the area) provinces at a cost of sailors?
whats the problem with sailors again? And whats the problem with naval combat please?
The problem is that navies are pretty useless during wars. Slight buff would be nice, like actually looting/devastating blockaded provinces, at certain technology there should be some naval bombardment imo when sieging coastal forts. Also why not allow navies capture unguarded (without any forts in the area) provinces at a cost of sailors?
