Btw I have a classy 2nd hand Ford Pinto for u here. Excellent buy, only been used on a ship touring America.
-
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.
1) If 2 ships is too small to get back with and I start with 3 that means I can't leave my home port. So, to suggest I waited too long or whatever is nonsense. You could never explore then
2) I'm not trying to go to the Pacific; I'd settle just for getting to the Carribean and back alive!
3) I agree that we don't want to have a situation where an explorer could always cover the whole world unaffected; but the current rate is too high and needs to be adjusted downward a tad or so.
4) As per another suggestion: 'Once you uncover two or three provinces, go home.' Done that; but, is it historically accurate? I seem to recall seeing maps of where Columbus went when he arrived and it certainly seemed to me to be more than that. But, this is the only tactic that seems to work.
5) Another constructive suggestion was made: 'One thing that helps is to send a 'relief fleet' of 5 or 6 ships to link up with the explorer. If they can reach him before he craters, he will take command of the relief fleet and have a lower attrition.' Tried that; lost all of them! The above is the better way.
6) 'I thought it was common sense that the distance that has to be covered back shouldn't be too big' Well, duh! But, if you can't even do what is historical then this isn't a historical game -- it's a fantasy game. And that's not what I shelled out my bucks for.
7) 'U would prefer Columbus sailing around the world in 1498 then and having half the world colonised by 1515 ?!' No, I never ever asked for that anything remotely that nonsensical. I'd like the game to be historically acurate and be able to do what they did with what they had at the time.
Side-note: at my lady friend's school they had a sleep over for one Columbus day with an outline of the three ships laid out in tape on the ground. I think virtually anyone could have stood at the front of the ship and spat over the rear! Wouldn't catch me out on the ocean with those little dinky ships!
2) I'm not trying to go to the Pacific; I'd settle just for getting to the Carribean and back alive!
3) I agree that we don't want to have a situation where an explorer could always cover the whole world unaffected; but the current rate is too high and needs to be adjusted downward a tad or so.
4) As per another suggestion: 'Once you uncover two or three provinces, go home.' Done that; but, is it historically accurate? I seem to recall seeing maps of where Columbus went when he arrived and it certainly seemed to me to be more than that. But, this is the only tactic that seems to work.
5) Another constructive suggestion was made: 'One thing that helps is to send a 'relief fleet' of 5 or 6 ships to link up with the explorer. If they can reach him before he craters, he will take command of the relief fleet and have a lower attrition.' Tried that; lost all of them! The above is the better way.
6) 'I thought it was common sense that the distance that has to be covered back shouldn't be too big' Well, duh! But, if you can't even do what is historical then this isn't a historical game -- it's a fantasy game. And that's not what I shelled out my bucks for.
7) 'U would prefer Columbus sailing around the world in 1498 then and having half the world colonised by 1515 ?!' No, I never ever asked for that anything remotely that nonsensical. I'd like the game to be historically acurate and be able to do what they did with what they had at the time.
Side-note: at my lady friend's school they had a sleep over for one Columbus day with an outline of the three ships laid out in tape on the ground. I think virtually anyone could have stood at the front of the ship and spat over the rear! Wouldn't catch me out on the ocean with those little dinky ships!
Naval attrition has been debated here at length. Many feel that it's too high, though I think most are comfortable with the current settings once they examine how it affects the rest of the game. The design choice here is a balancing act: As you've pointed out, exploration can be too difficult if attrition is set too high. On the other hand, if it is set too low, colonization will proceed too quickly and around-the-world invasion armadas would become too common. Given all the factors involved, and all that is impacted, I think the current settings work well. They encourage the use of ports to extend naval operations and that's as it should be.
Exploration is still possible once you get used to it. I typically am able to uncover far more territories, far more quickly, than I have colonists to exploit them. Following the approach I outlined above, I haven't lost an explorer in a long time.
A couple of specific observations:
1. Add a ship to the 3 you start with. I usually take away 2 of the warships and add 3 transports. I don't know what country you're playing, but you should be able to scrounge up an extra ship with little difficulty.
2. You can get to the New World and back in one piece. You won't be able to explore the entire Carribean or Atlantic Coast in one trip, but you should be able to uncover at least a couple potential port colonies.
3. Uncovering two or three provinces in your first voyage is reasonably 'realistic' if you consider that discovery of a province entails not only sailing past it, but also opening up the interior. The results are sufficiently historical.
4. In his first voyage, Columbus landed at a small island northeast of Cuba, then explored a small piece of the northeast corner of Cuba and then part of the northern coast of Hispaniola, before returning home. (In fact, he explored so little of Cuba that he didn't even realize it was an island.) That translates to only 2 or at most 3 provinces in EU terms. For a map of Columbus' discoveries on his various voyages, check out http://encarta.msn.com/find/MediaMax.asp?pg=3&ti=04279000&idx=461514477.
5. If you look at the map, you'll see that Columbus actually needed four separate voyages and 12 years to explore what amounts to maybe 10 provinces in EU terms. If anything, exporation is too easy in EU.
Exploration is still possible once you get used to it. I typically am able to uncover far more territories, far more quickly, than I have colonists to exploit them. Following the approach I outlined above, I haven't lost an explorer in a long time.
A couple of specific observations:
1. Add a ship to the 3 you start with. I usually take away 2 of the warships and add 3 transports. I don't know what country you're playing, but you should be able to scrounge up an extra ship with little difficulty.
2. You can get to the New World and back in one piece. You won't be able to explore the entire Carribean or Atlantic Coast in one trip, but you should be able to uncover at least a couple potential port colonies.
3. Uncovering two or three provinces in your first voyage is reasonably 'realistic' if you consider that discovery of a province entails not only sailing past it, but also opening up the interior. The results are sufficiently historical.
4. In his first voyage, Columbus landed at a small island northeast of Cuba, then explored a small piece of the northeast corner of Cuba and then part of the northern coast of Hispaniola, before returning home. (In fact, he explored so little of Cuba that he didn't even realize it was an island.) That translates to only 2 or at most 3 provinces in EU terms. For a map of Columbus' discoveries on his various voyages, check out http://encarta.msn.com/find/MediaMax.asp?pg=3&ti=04279000&idx=461514477.
5. If you look at the map, you'll see that Columbus actually needed four separate voyages and 12 years to explore what amounts to maybe 10 provinces in EU terms. If anything, exporation is too easy in EU.
Last edited:
Come on now...
Look, people.
What the 'Attrition is too high' advocates, and particularly the 'Columbus should get there in one shot' guys, continually fail to realize is that the naval attrition system has to be broadly applicable, and tweaking one bit to enable their beloved Voyage of 1492 will drastically affect the rest of the game.
If you leave naval attrition as is, then yes, it's ahistorically difficult for Columbus to sail to the Americas amd back. It also leads, as has been mentioned by Olaf, to a realistic, progressive, and *historical* timeframe for the exploration of the world.
If naval attrition is tweaked to provide for reduced attrition rates, then Columbus will indeed have no problem getting over to North America. And explorers from England, Spain, and Portugal will be circling the planet in the early 1500's. Colonies would be popping up all over... between stolen maps, diplomatic overtures, and looted capitols, almost everyone would have a map of the earth. Conceivably the entire world could be colonized by 1600.
Why aren't the 'This sucks! This game was supposed to be historical!' people also worried about THE ENTIRE PLANET being mapped by the mid-1500s? I'd rather send Columbus over a bit at a time, and be mindful of attrition, than to steal England's rutters in 1543 and find that they have colonies on every continent.
Look, people.
What the 'Attrition is too high' advocates, and particularly the 'Columbus should get there in one shot' guys, continually fail to realize is that the naval attrition system has to be broadly applicable, and tweaking one bit to enable their beloved Voyage of 1492 will drastically affect the rest of the game.
If you leave naval attrition as is, then yes, it's ahistorically difficult for Columbus to sail to the Americas amd back. It also leads, as has been mentioned by Olaf, to a realistic, progressive, and *historical* timeframe for the exploration of the world.
If naval attrition is tweaked to provide for reduced attrition rates, then Columbus will indeed have no problem getting over to North America. And explorers from England, Spain, and Portugal will be circling the planet in the early 1500's. Colonies would be popping up all over... between stolen maps, diplomatic overtures, and looted capitols, almost everyone would have a map of the earth. Conceivably the entire world could be colonized by 1600.
Why aren't the 'This sucks! This game was supposed to be historical!' people also worried about THE ENTIRE PLANET being mapped by the mid-1500s? I'd rather send Columbus over a bit at a time, and be mindful of attrition, than to steal England's rutters in 1543 and find that they have colonies on every continent.
It appears as though naval attrition is a function of weather or not you are entering TI or an already explored sea lane. That would make sense. Columbus can get to the New World (tho not by Columbus Day) and get back all in one piece. If you find a colony site on the first try, send a settler immediately. That way you may have a port waiting for you on the next trip. If not, follow your original path on the second voyage and you may be able to explore a couple of other areas before returning to Spain. These other areas will have lower attrition due to coastal effect. I used the same strategy playing Portugal. You can send a Portuguese fleet of three ships from Portugal to India making only four port calls and not lose a ship.
Remember also that weather plays a key role here. A few storms at sea and even Colombus can find himself in mortal danger with battered/attrited after having made all the 'right' decisions, so saying anyone who loses Colombus is doing a 'shyte' job probably hasn't played enough or examined the game enough. After all, I've done it meself!
I think that you get a bonus for having an explorer offshore when trying to establish a colony (I keep forgetting to check for this, but the rules imply it) so an early colony and port are not unreasonable expectations after one or two visits. Of course, you will use your last available colonist just before finding the ideal colonial site (and then fail six straight times when trying to put in a colony without the explorer), but life was like that!
I think naval attrition works well as it is. It is true that the Magellon trick can probably not be duplicated, but then this is a feature of the TI naval movement cost, not attrition per se. You probably COULD get a ship around the world in the same time as Magellon took, if you didn't enter any TI spaces, and I think you might be able to get a single survivor out of five ships with Magellon's attrition bonus.
I think that you get a bonus for having an explorer offshore when trying to establish a colony (I keep forgetting to check for this, but the rules imply it) so an early colony and port are not unreasonable expectations after one or two visits. Of course, you will use your last available colonist just before finding the ideal colonial site (and then fail six straight times when trying to put in a colony without the explorer), but life was like that!
I think naval attrition works well as it is. It is true that the Magellon trick can probably not be duplicated, but then this is a feature of the TI naval movement cost, not attrition per se. You probably COULD get a ship around the world in the same time as Magellon took, if you didn't enter any TI spaces, and I think you might be able to get a single survivor out of five ships with Magellon's attrition bonus.
All too true, but if you time things poorly and try to return in January, the whole Atlantic seems to be storms! I think Colombus dies of seasickness!
Plenty of seazones so u don't have to get in storms. Esp if ur not on any of the capes. And I pay some attention to Columbus. Just check routes for storms.
i have a question about atttrition...
do warships always die before transports? whenever i send a mixed fleet out and as soon as the attrition sets in, my warships always seem to die first...
do warships always die before transports? whenever i send a mixed fleet out and as soon as the attrition sets in, my warships always seem to die first...
Assuming you want a practical approach to deal with the game 'AS IS', rather than debating what SHOULD BE, then establish a colony in the Azores first, then go to Cuba, then the mainland of America.
btw, I agree that the attrition (in both land and naval forces) for going to a new island or coastal province and unloading troops who then have to explore before conquering is considerable. So considerable, in fact, that serious resources have to be built and devoted to the operation. I find taking out a native province requires a force of 12,000, which must include at least 2,000 cav (twice or three times this in North Africa and Middle East) and 10 cannon is nice. Lesser amounts, when confronted with natives in the 7,000 range, run the risk of failure. Due to attrition, this means sending about 16,000, on 7 or more transports. Due to the inevitable naval attrit, you should avoid using warships in these operations if at all possible, due to their greater expense.
In terms of game balance, it appears that this situation is exactly what the designers wanted, so that colonizing and fighting over land will happen first closer to home before you start venturing over the globe willy nilly.
btw, I agree that the attrition (in both land and naval forces) for going to a new island or coastal province and unloading troops who then have to explore before conquering is considerable. So considerable, in fact, that serious resources have to be built and devoted to the operation. I find taking out a native province requires a force of 12,000, which must include at least 2,000 cav (twice or three times this in North Africa and Middle East) and 10 cannon is nice. Lesser amounts, when confronted with natives in the 7,000 range, run the risk of failure. Due to attrition, this means sending about 16,000, on 7 or more transports. Due to the inevitable naval attrit, you should avoid using warships in these operations if at all possible, due to their greater expense.
In terms of game balance, it appears that this situation is exactly what the designers wanted, so that colonizing and fighting over land will happen first closer to home before you start venturing over the globe willy nilly.
Must be pretty hard seeing the Azores are a Portuguese core province
Xurely u mean conquer it ?
I think that the high rate of ship attrition is extremely startling. When you play the tutorial it tells you to go from Ireland to Lebanon, as if this is no big deal. It's a huge big deal.
When I played the GC with England, I figured out that I was going to need ports or I'd never get anywhere. I was lucky enough to discover Port Royal, so I put a port there, and that let me get back and forth, usually without losing anything. My later explorers had an easier time because of this.
Eventually I stole some rutters and that let me put colonies in Dakar and Table, so I was on my way to India. This was a major challenge.
Later on the ships go faster, so they attrite less, and everything can see adjacent sea zones.
I think a possible fix for the explorer attrition problem is to make exploring a new sea zone take less time. You'd still need ports in order to get to India, but you'd be able to get across the unexplored Atlantic in less time, so you wouldn't have to go to contortions that are necessary now.
bruce
When I played the GC with England, I figured out that I was going to need ports or I'd never get anywhere. I was lucky enough to discover Port Royal, so I put a port there, and that let me get back and forth, usually without losing anything. My later explorers had an easier time because of this.
Eventually I stole some rutters and that let me put colonies in Dakar and Table, so I was on my way to India. This was a major challenge.
Later on the ships go faster, so they attrite less, and everything can see adjacent sea zones.
I think a possible fix for the explorer attrition problem is to make exploring a new sea zone take less time. You'd still need ports in order to get to India, but you'd be able to get across the unexplored Atlantic in less time, so you wouldn't have to go to contortions that are necessary now.
bruce
Inspired by EU, I've been reading up on the Spanish Armada and ran across some interesting information relative to naval attrition. Seems the English, having heard of the Armada's departure, set out to patrol the entrance to the English Channel, between the Scilly Isles and Ushant. The result:
"They were not much more than a day in this position when the wind went round to the north and it was decided to make for the Spanish coast; barely into the Bay of Biscay another change forced them back, and since provisions were again coming short and men growing sick they returned to Plymouth. It is a measure of the constraints imposed by food and the way it was stowed and prepared aboard that by the time they were back in harbour after a summer cruise of not much more than a week they had 'cast many (men) overboard' and now had so many sick that it was necessary 'to discharge some ships to have their men to furnish others.'"
Armada,by Peter Padfield.
Certainly seems to suggest that attrition was at times attrocious. And this was nearly 100 years into the period covered by EU. The game models improvements over time, so I don't mind it starting where it does.
"They were not much more than a day in this position when the wind went round to the north and it was decided to make for the Spanish coast; barely into the Bay of Biscay another change forced them back, and since provisions were again coming short and men growing sick they returned to Plymouth. It is a measure of the constraints imposed by food and the way it was stowed and prepared aboard that by the time they were back in harbour after a summer cruise of not much more than a week they had 'cast many (men) overboard' and now had so many sick that it was necessary 'to discharge some ships to have their men to furnish others.'"
Armada,by Peter Padfield.
Certainly seems to suggest that attrition was at times attrocious. And this was nearly 100 years into the period covered by EU. The game models improvements over time, so I don't mind it starting where it does.