The navy, naval manpower & logistics

[Earl Uhtred]

While EU4 is still at an early stage of development, it would be great if we could start from the beginning with the naval system.

For example, the EU series has traditionally compensated for England's vulnerability to naval attack by giving England a massive starting fleet and several naval NIs. In fact, England was backwards as a maritime and mercantile power compared to many of its neighbours for most of the period up to the 1660s. During the second half of the 15th century all control over the seas surrounding England was surrendered, foreign trade dwindled to virtually nothing, raiding was endemic and that there was no full-scale invasion during that time (other than those associated with the Wars of the Roses) has more to do with the preoccupation of England's enemies with other matters than any resistance that could have been offered at sea. Periods of strength during the reign of Elizabeth and Charles I both foundered on the state's inability to raise, and keep raising, the huge sums needed to maintain a standing fleet, the second time around with disastrous consequences for Charles I.

Pay administration and the quality of victualling arrangements remained farcically bad under the Protectorate, again with dire consequences for it when the Navy decided to look the other way at the Restoration. Seafarers were being paid in IOUs and vessels were kept at sea on pointless cruises for years on end for lack of cash to pay them off. The effective range of the Navy barely extended beyond the Narrow Seas, and even that was seasonal.

But for some reason it was trivially easy to maintain huge fleets in EU3. Vessels, once built, were at your disposal to the end of the game unless sunk or disbanded. Force limits were stratospherically high for any significant power and the base cost so low you could basically ignore them even if over the mark.

Historically, and for England, only late in the period did things decisively improve, due to more efficient taxation, improved credit arrangements and vastly improved infrastructure. So began the Royal Navy's 18th century ascendancy at a time when France, though capable of raising huge fleets (as did Louis XIV) found they could not sustain them for long.

It would be excellent if EU4 included some sort of reflection of the highly specialist nature of naval manpower - which was a finite resource closely related to English commercial strength - as more of a hard cap on the raising of ahistorical massive fleets, above which seaborne trade would be severely harmed. On the other hand, full-scale naval invasions, as opposed to raids, should be far more difficult and dangerous to pull off. French attempts to land in England during the reign of Henry VIII, and Henry's attempts to do the reverse in Gascony, miscarried horribly with poor leadership, logistics and unfavourable weather and tides having far more of an impact than enemy resistance.

Logistics too should be far more of a constraint - it was the late 17th century before the Royal Navy had any permanent establishment overseas, and that at Tangiers, soon abandoned. British colonies in the New World lacked a dedicated naval base or (IIRC) any sort of dry dock, at least in the Caribbean until the C18. By the late C18 things were very much better and the RN finally had worldwide reach, but it took some getting there. Restrictions on operations, particularly during winter, were far stricter than what the naval range limits we have in EU3 allow.

I suppose the million dollar question is what are the odds the AI can learn to cope with such restrictions - given that it ignores naval attrition as things are, probably not too good, but I can dream.

 

[jaava]

one of the biggest problems in EU3 was/is the lack of overseas logistics system. AI castile brings huge armies to russia, africa, ukraine etc. long before such invasions were possible historically. Thus some of the great powers expand a little bit everywhere in the early years of the game. Ottomans get almost destroyed by castile almost 1/2 of all grand campaign games i play and too often have i seen them continuing to the steppes. Huge castilian asia in 1500 is usually too much for me and i destroy their empire by tag switching and messing their country. I just think i shouldn't have to do such things to get historical plausibility in games like EU.

 

[George LeS]

A very good point. I think you slightly overstate England's backwardness, but only slightly. The real point is not her, but every country's inability to maintain large seagoing fleets during the period. The 2 countries which best overcame this were ENG and NED. (In the Med, you can argue for Venice, but galley fleets were inherently limited in operational range.)

It may be possible, with the new trade system, to replicate the difference between trade-protection fleets and battle fleets; now only seen in the fact that light ships are cheaper (and overrated in combat). I don't, of course, want to see the need to build and order around one's merchant fleet. But you should have to do just this with the permanent imperial navy, as Spain did. This should, however, entail building fewer of the ships you want for major naval battles, as Spain found in 1588. It would, however, give more ships available to arm for war, but at a cost.

This cost should be something you really don't want to pay, any more than necessary. Something which could wreck your economy, both directly, and in allowing 3rd parties to cut you out of your existing trade overseas.

The point about not extending beyond the Narrow Seas is an overstatement. England did send fleets to the Med before they got Tangier, although, as you say, it was impossible to maintain a permanent presence. But this is something which developed very late. It was not until the 7-Years War that a sustained blockade of Brest was possible. Earlier, this was a much more intermittent thing, and depended on MA (or NA, as it should be called now). My favorite case is Blake's squadron operating out of Vigo, against Rupert's squadron at Lisbon. Think of that: Spain (Spain!) helping the Puritan regicides. (If that were to happen in a game, we'd get complaints about historical impossibility.)

One other point, really OT, but relevant to your mention of the wars of the Roses, is that one reason England didn't pay, as they would in the game, is that no one was claiming them. It really should be harder to get a CB in the earlier part of the game, than the later, that is, the nature of CBs and claims should change over time.

Back to navies, I think the lack of American dockyard is simply explained by the lack of any need. In the 16th & 17th C, the need for fleets over here was minimal, except for Spain. The small numbers and sizes of ships involved didn't warrant that level of expense. The 2 things which changed late were (1) the increasing ability of the American colonies to build and maintain ships, because they became more involved in trade, and (2) the fact that other, non-Spanish powers now had a stake in the very valuable W Indian colonies. I would hope that the mechanics of EUIV will be such that, assuming a particular game were to follow largely historical lines here, these factors would develop naturally. (And of course, if Brittany and Brandenburg become major W hemisphere players, this would apply to them, too.)

The antepenultimate paragraph is, IMO, nearly perfect as is, and I hope it, and your whole post, gets close attention from Paradox.

 

[Uitra]

one of the biggest problems in EU3 was/is the lack of overseas logistics system. AI castile brings huge armies to russia, africa, ukraine etc. long before such invasions were possible historically. Thus some of the great powers expand a little bit everywhere in the early years of the game. Ottomans get almost destroyed by castile almost 1/2 of all grand campaign games i play and too often have i seen them continuing to the steppes. Huge castilian asia in 1500 is usually too much for me and i destroy their empire by tag switching and messing their country. I just think i shouldn't have to do such things to get historical plausibility in games like EU.

+1

I hope they listen to you!

(http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?628261-Add-supply-system)

 

[Closet Skeleton]

The problem is that without the general ridiculous ability to fund wars that couldn't have happened in real life, EU just isn't EU.

A very good point. I think you slightly overstate England's backwardness, but only slightly. The real point is not her, but every country's inability to maintain large seagoing fleets during the period. The 2 countries which best overcame this were ENG and NED. (In the Med, you can argue for Venice, but galley fleets were inherently limited in operational range.)

You forgot the Turks and their Barbary allies.

 

[George LeS]

The problem is that without the general ridiculous ability to fund wars that couldn't have happened in real life, EU just isn't EU.



You forgot the Turks and their Barbary allies.

Sure, lots had big galley fleets. But these, too, were hard to keep in service continually.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

Sure, lots had big galley fleets. But these, too, were hard to keep in service continually.

Probably why they let them roam around as pirates when they weren't needed. French and English privateers were also mainly there because they were cheaper.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

The point about not extending beyond the Narrow Seas is an overstatement.

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, 'effective range' was an overstatement, but it was still a rare year a substantial part of the fleet left home waters. Under a capable leader like Blake great things could be achieved, but always on a logistical shoestring. Prince Rupert's admirable naval resistance would not have been possible if English naval logistics were adequate - and he didn't even have a permanent base for much of his seagoing career.

 

[George LeS]

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, 'effective range' was an overstatement, but it was still a rare year a substantial part of the fleet left home waters. Under a capable leader like Blake great things could be achieved, but always on a logistical shoestring. Prince Rupert's admirable naval resistance would not have been possible if English naval logistics were adequate - and he didn't even have a permanent base for much of his seagoing career.

Range doesn't really work right in EUIII. For one thing, it's both too short, and too long. Too short in that temporarily sustained ops were possible well beyond what we can do now (POR in the East), while it's too long in that once you get to a certain level, you don't need to worry about anything within it.

Two examples of the latter: (1) As I said, it was only during the 7-Years' War that the RN could sustain a blockade of Brest. And even that was never airtight--note that the battle is called Quiberon Bay, not Ushant. (2) During the Napoleonic wars--the very end of the game period--Britain still wanted Mahon, in the Balearics, even though Gibraltar was by then a core, in game terms.

This means that fleets operate in an unrealistic manner; short blockades should be more powerful, but all blockades should be intermittent. I addressed part of the problem in another thread.

On a related point from your OP, in my mod, I've been struggling with the FL problem. Britain is just way overpowered at sea. So is Spain. Neither the Dutch nor the French can come close to what they did in the 17th C, when each, at times, had fleets which EXCEEDED the RN. In the 18th C, the British advantage in fleet size, over France, runs around 4-5:1, when it should be more like 2:1. France & Spain together should be a headache, as they were. An added problem is that the latter 2 countries have a bunch of useless galleys in the 18th C. There should be a mechanism getting rid of them for most navies, if you load a late start date.

 

[Eh up me duck]

In one of my games Spain got a union with France and as the UK I was unable to defeat their combined navies, this was in D&T. So I think you're exaggerating.