• 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.
M

Mowers

Guest
We all know that in SP navies aren’t quite so handy but I was wondering if anyone had had any thoughts of the role of Naval warfare in MP. My experiences are fairly limited and I was wondering if anyone had any comments/ pointers on or beyond these.

1)With the very limited numbers of troops that one can build abroad now, it seems to me that colonial warfare requires a fleet to reinforce armies abroad.
2)Naval warfare is fairly limited prior to being able to blockade
3)Prior to the full development of colonies naval warfare is only likely between England and France and the Ottomans and Venice. Both would require full time players for this to happen.
4)Due to the time that it takes to build fleets, their often high cost, that one has to maintain large fleets in the anticipation of a naval conflict.

I have had 2 significant naval conflicts.
The first was with the Dutch versus Spain on two fronts in the 1670’s, one in the channel, where a large Spanish fleet totally destroyed my smaller Dutch fleet. About 120 warships were involved. The second front was war in the East Indies where a small Dutch fleet of 15 vessels destroyed 2 same sized Spanish fleets allowing the almost total removal of the Spanish in the far east.
The second was perhaps more interesting. A Franco-English alliance versus Spain in the 1730’s/ 40’s. With better leaders and Naval tech the Anglo-French fleet blockaded the Spanish fleet in Spain allowing smaller French fleets to capture 5 Caribbean islands and supply about 60K of troops over 4 years to fight against Spanish armies in Mexico. The Spanish fleet eventually escaped during a lull in the blockade but played no part in the rest of the conflict. There wasn’t a single naval engagement despite that all three nations had massive fleets. But the result of the war allowed France to avoid having to invade Spain en masse and incur massive attrition and at the same time fight a long war in the Americas without interference.

I have seen another where the British were able to help themselves to Russian colonies in the Far East and Americas without any resistance as the Russian fleet and tech was non existent.

I would be interested to hear of others experiences of naval conflict and whether they have managed to implement an economic blockade of any sort against an opponent.
 
I'd say that unless you are a colonizing nation, or you have need for some reason of the islands in the mediterranean, having a fleet is pretty much useless. (i.e. If you are Austria or Even Naples/Denmark there is no reason to have one)
I think that fleets should be made more important somehow, for example, in the game a fleet no matter how large it is won't influence whether constantinople falls or not. Historically however, if the Venetians had sent their fleet it would have been a whole different story. - In other words, perhaps large rivers or peninsulas should be made available to fleets giving them "backdoor" access that land armies would never have.

Historically there was the battle of Lepanto - but in mp why would an Ottoman and Venetian player worry about maintaining such expensive fleets when land routes are so much easier to use?

For example whenever I play Venice I find myself constantly moving the slider from "naval to land" and I greatly benefit from each slide towards land - It's the only way I can defend my provinces from superior invading land armies esp in mp. In reality, Venice did move towards land, and ironically that was one of the main reasons they fell.

I don't know, perhaps later in the game warships should be able to fire their cannons at enemy armies on coastal provinces? It's very difficult to come up with a simple fix due to the balance of power...... but I feel that just as in Real life, there should be a strong Reason for Austria to want a port to the Mediterranean/black seas. In the game as it stands they have no reason.

And I guess most of that applies to both mp and sp.
 
Why would you want a port? So you can have a navy I guess. You cant start an overseas empire in MP without a navy or someone with a navy can just take it off you without a problem. Or has anyone managed to fight a war against a human without a fleet and win overseas?

As for Venice. Fighting my way up the Balkan coastline and all that attrition makes one wonder if such a war is really worth the effort when you could just seige a couple of the greek islands. Having said that I totally understand the pressures as Venice to develop a land force to be able to counter evil afoot in europe....

Lepanto took an awful lot of prior organisation. It would indeed be difficult to replicate well if at all in MP. What would be the equivalent in game strategic driver I wonder that drove the campaign?
 
I'm a bit puzzled by the claim that navies are usless. How do you get your armies to the battle if where you want to go happens to be across a body of water? Under many circumstances they are absolutely essential. At other times, they are merely handy.

My experience at using navies in multi-player is limited to having massive naval superiority, so these observations are from that perspective.

I've found navies can be used to gather intelligence. You can see the enemy armies on land from the ships, but, unless you have more than 5 ships they don't know you're there (if there are more than 5 your opponent will know from the blockade, if there is a port). If you decide to land troops, the first your opponent will hear of it is "our armies in Flanders are engaged in combat".
Basically, you can choose the time, place, and terms of the engagement.

This is much more useful in MP, since in SP you can already run circles around the AI and don't need the element of surprise to do it.

Also, you can usually move your armies quicker by sea than land, depending on the terrian, ports, etc., and whether you're talking about cavalry or artillery. Moving the ships straight into the port for the auto-unload really speeds things up, and is a great way to break a siege if time is pressing.

Speaking of sieges, when sieging ports they take forever to fall when there is no blockade.

Economic blockades are more something to do if your ships aren't doing anything else at the time.

In many situations, navies are useless or only marginally useful. Changing the rules to make them more useful is not necessary, because in those situations where they are needed ,they really are needed. When playing an actual person, speed and intelligence count for alot more than when playing with the AI, making good use of your navies even more important for MP.
 
Well this is what happens when you rely on navies for transportation in my experience in mp.

You get to the coastal waters, with your 30 ships filled with troops and start unloading them.
Then the opposing player sends in his 15 ships, your troops, even if they were one inch from land have to return to the transports. The opposing player then pulls his ships out before significant damage to his fleet is made. No big deal you think. You unload your ships again and try to send your troops to land. your oppenents fleet then comes again and halts your progress, your troops are stuck on your ship. The opponent pulls out before you can destroy his fleet. Rinse and continue.
Basically, after three times of this attrition sets in for you are in foreign waters and you have to retreat. Hence fleets for transportation = useless.
 
Originally posted by Warspite
let me just comment that with the new version update, naval battles are much better. Ships actually sink now:D

Yes they most certainly do:) In my last Napoleonic game me as France and Eugene as Britian squared off in a rather big naval battle. I had 140 war ships he had 216. I must say ships where sinking left and right, brings back the glory days of Nelson and the battle of the Nile:D Of course the outcome in the end was sealed, me with less ships and no leader lost the fight. But I shall return, for that was not the only fleet I have up my sleeve;) England shall regret the day they challenged the might of the French fleet:p
 
Some interesting feedback.

In response to your comment Nathan FYI there was talk for a long time over the past 3 years about relative strengths and weaknesses of Naval units and there has been a strong naval units are useless camp over this period with whom I have duelled with occasionally.

Your point that naval units could be used to move troops quickly within the same strategic area is interesting. Something I have never done. (We not talking about launching colonial campaigns here)

Naval combat has undoubtedly changed. Losing a large fleet in an afternoon was certainly galling to say the least. However, has this gone too far in one direction? Where naval battles of the period really so destructive? Sure we can name Lepanto and Trafalgar but how many other truly destructive battles were there?

Finally, has anyone actually managed to implement or been the victim of a large-scale naval blockade? How effective was it? I guess I looking to hear from anyone who was really the target of such a naval effort.
 
Originally posted by Quietus
Well this is what happens when you rely on navies for transportation in my experience in mp.

You get to the coastal waters, with your 30 ships filled with troops and start unloading them.
Then the opposing player sends in his 15 ships, your troops, even if they were one inch from land have to return to the transports. The opposing player then pulls his ships out before significant damage to his fleet is made. No big deal you think. You unload your ships again and try to send your troops to land. your oppenents fleet then comes again and halts your progress, your troops are stuck on your ship. The opponent pulls out before you can destroy his fleet. Rinse and continue.
Basically, after three times of this attrition sets in for you are in foreign waters and you have to retreat. Hence fleets for transportation = useless.

It sounds like your opponent made good use of his fleets, though, and if he hadn't had them, he would have been invaded.
Stopping enemy troops unloading is something I've done often in SP, but haven't had the chance in MP yet. In your case, it sounds like you were invading a port with a major enemy fleet in it, and like you hadn't really secured your naval supremacy. In that case, invading far from your home ports, and close to his, with your opponent in full knowledge of what you're doing is a chancy proposition, even if you have more ships. As it should be; look at the Spanish Armada.

To thwart a suprise attack, your opponent needs to be ready and able to counter your invasion. Firstly, he needs to know you're in the sea zone, and that you're invading, unless he just happens through the sea zone by accident (or if he's on patrol). At low naval tech levels, he can't see you, and will only know by the blockade that you are there at all. He'll have no idea whether you are invading or not. And if you are using a small force (that can be carried on 4 ships or less, remember transports can carry double), he'll not know what hit him until too late. Secondly, his ships have to be in a port in that seazone - if not you can chase him down as he retreats all the way back to his port. Depending on how much firepower you have, it can be an expensive sortie.

Also, if you have naval superiority, you should have a fleet sitting right outside the port where his fleet is. In order to move to the zone where you are doing your invasion, he'll have to move through the blockade first, and then get chased all the way to the invasion zone.
 
Yes exactly, and that's why I gave up on fleets for transportation and saved myself hundreds of ducats by gaining a military path diplomatically to his nation in months and invading by land.

Unless you're England, if you're In Europe it doesn't matter how good your navy is, your land forces are what decide your success.

Due to the fact my oppenent had placed too much emphasis on his navy, once my troops walked to his country their was nothing but sheepherders to stop them :p
 
Just to clarify, I was not invading or trying to land troops in his port. We just met out in the middle of the Carribean on a warm and sunny day. First the midshipman in the cross trees yelled out.
"Deck there, ships fine off the larboard bow." So the French admiral hosited form line of battle and ran up the colors. The English immediatly followed suit and thus began the very bloody conflict.
 
Originally posted by Quietus

Unless you're England, if you're In Europe it doesn't matter how good your navy is, your land forces are what decide your success.

Oh-er I beg to differ i think. :)

I would say they are a major factor but without an overseas Empire your trade income ( often halve of total income) is going to be a little disappointing. If you cant defend your overseas empire with a navy as HOL, ENG, FRA, SPA etc then you can forget all about those lovely COTS.
 
Originally posted by bmoores


Oh-er I beg to differ i think. :)

I would say they are a major factor but without an overseas Empire your trade income ( often halve of total income) is going to be a little disappointing. If you cant defend your overseas empire with a navy as HOL, ENG, FRA, SPA etc then you can forget all about those lovely COTS.

All you need is an explorer with conquistador to get there and start colonization.
If you're land tech is high and your in North America it doesn't really matter if you have a navy or not.
Then, due to your superior land tech- even if the opponent has way more colonists, you can basically trample over all their colonies and start your own :D
 
well...

But you cant raise enough troops in the New world to fight large scale and sustained campaigns without reinforcements from the old world. Colonies with of 5,000- which is a lot still cant raise more than 1-3k of troops at a time per colony. Which means that all the troops need to be gathered which is time consuming. Whilst you can tranfer 20K+ troops at a time from the old world who can intervene at crisis points.
 
Originally posted by Nathan

.
.
.
Also, if you have naval superiority, you should have a fleet sitting right outside the port where his fleet is. In order to move to the zone where you are doing your invasion, he'll have to move through the blockade first, and then get chased all the way to the invasion zone.

Finally someone who understands how to use their navy.

Most people who complain about how useless ships are don't know how to use them properly. If you don't have a navy you will never be anything more than a regional power (though you can be quite strong as a regional power)
 
Originally posted by PRINCE BUB


Yes they most certainly do:) In my last Napoleonic game me as France and Eugene as Britian squared off in a rather big naval battle. I had 140 war ships he had 216. I must say ships where sinking left and right, brings back the glory days of Nelson and the battle of the Nile:D Of course the outcome in the end was sealed, me with less ships and no leader lost the fight. But I shall return, for that was not the only fleet I have up my sleeve;) England shall regret the day they challenged the might of the French fleet:p
When do you plan to finish that game? Have you know soon I will conquer your Prussian ally and then nothing will stop me from an invasion of France.
 
Through my gaming i have found navies to be worth while.... counter to some of the comments in this forum. There speed at which the can move troops (especially in late game) is amazing and hence very well imployed when colonial or far off powers clash. Also blockades are very useful....(has anyone tried building troops in blockaded territory... it hurts) and can annoy humans (do you want a enemy fleet siting off your capital's coast?)... as for large battles at sea i have seen only one... my British Navy of 250 battleships (level 60 ) squaring off against 200 Chinese battleships (level 29ish ) the end result.... 200 Chinese warships sent to the bottom in 1 shot.
 
Re: well...

Originally posted by Mowers
But you cant raise enough troops in the New world to fight large scale and sustained campaigns without reinforcements from the old world. Colonies with of 5,000- which is a lot still cant raise more than 1-3k of troops at a time per colony. Which means that all the troops need to be gathered which is time consuming. Whilst you can tranfer 20K+ troops at a time from the old world who can intervene at crisis points.

Since this thread is reviving, I may have more to contribute soon. Likely a war coming soon in my current MP game between a Franco-Anglo alliance and Spanish-Austrians. In this case Spain has definately neglected her fleet.

It is around 1580 and the English fleet has about 100 ships total (some spread out in the colonies) and is tech 16, while the Spanish have about 20 and I think are only tech 13 or 14. The Spanish obviously have their huge colonial empire and armies.

So, the question will be can a naval power impose her will on the a land-based colonial power? I am very curious - the Spanish are very solidly entrenched in South and Central America, but don't hold too many islands, + their territory is very contiguous. So even if they can only raise 3000 men per province, having 30 or more colonial cities in a row = a big damned army.
 
Use your navy to conquer the islands that he does have. Don't attack just colonies, for the Balaraes and the Canaries are also ideal targets. Without a navy they can only hit your Portugese and French allies. An invasion of France is very hard because of the back and forth warfare in the mountains on the border. With a fleet you can send massve amounts of manpower to your colonies which are probably around 2 in manpower anyway. You can just hope Spain doesn't turn into Napoleonic France - drops the navy and finds a land route for conquest.;)
 
yes, i to think that that spanish player is in deep ummmmm stuff :p without a formidable navy and many overseas colonies does not bear well for that player, but i would bet if it was a 1492 game that he has better land tech so i would just be worried their