Since we really dontgiveafuck, the OE recognizes all claims to various parts of the world. Sheesh.
-
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 can CLAIM anything you want. The real trick is taking it and holding it against all comers. :rofl:
All,
In that case, the Empire of Morocco claims the following:
London
Moscow
Vienna
Paris
Madrid
Venice
Constantinople
We don't not want Stockholm because it smells there.
In that case, the Empire of Morocco claims the following:
London
Moscow
Vienna
Paris
Madrid
Venice
Constantinople
We don't not want Stockholm because it smells there.
Since the Sultan recognizes Moroccan claims on Moscow, the Tsar in all his wisdom recognizes Moroccan claims on Constantinople in return!
Or we will just claim some Siberian hut and muds for ourselves.
Or when will this claiming end?
Or we will just claim some Siberian hut and muds for ourselves.
Or when will this claiming end?
HolisticGod said:
i claim whatever prov the morocan cap is (probaly some uncivilised unpopulated region )
All,
Drake had an excellent idea to open up naval competition and make colonial wars more reasonable (since losing 300 warships to get Madagascar is a bit of a party killer). Every country can have 20 warships regardless of its total naval composition. After that, only one warship for everyone 10 galleys. So if you have 100 galleys, 10 warships. 1000 galleys, 100 warships. Etc.
It makes navies a lot less cost prohibitive and losing them isn't such a disaster that no one risks a simple colonial war. And as a bonus, ports become much more important.
Since we've already started, all floating warships would be retained but count toward the total allowable.
Drake had an excellent idea to open up naval competition and make colonial wars more reasonable (since losing 300 warships to get Madagascar is a bit of a party killer). Every country can have 20 warships regardless of its total naval composition. After that, only one warship for everyone 10 galleys. So if you have 100 galleys, 10 warships. 1000 galleys, 100 warships. Etc.
It makes navies a lot less cost prohibitive and losing them isn't such a disaster that no one risks a simple colonial war. And as a bonus, ports become much more important.
Since we've already started, all floating warships would be retained but count toward the total allowable.
HolisticGod said:
I don't like it. Basically, is up to you if want expensive or cheap boats. Well, there is more to the galley-warship option that cost, but the thing is that is an option.
If you want a galley based fleet, the rule is not that interesting because, well why you want expensive boats? And if you want a warship based fleet, well the rule means that you will need more boats and then to spend more ducats (so if you aim for a 100 WS, you could need to build besides 1k galleys that you don't want and that is to get less expensive fleets?)
Arco,
Er, well, the point is to make fleets galley-based rather than warship based.
At 40 ducats a pop (best you can do with full plutocracy and five land), warship fleets are just too expensive to be competitive. Losing a hundred ships means losing 4K. And galleys are less destructive in the late game.
Er, well, the point is to make fleets galley-based rather than warship based.
At 40 ducats a pop (best you can do with full plutocracy and five land), warship fleets are just too expensive to be competitive. Losing a hundred ships means losing 4K. And galleys are less destructive in the late game.
HolisticGod said:
40 ducats a pop is not that much more expensive than cannon (with full offensive). And I don't think that people have a lot of probems building lots and lots of cannon when they want.
And actually, for a country with holdings in Europe, NA and Asia and who knows what else, I could hate to have a galley based fleet. They are, after all, rather slow.
In general, I like the idea.
What I'm worried about is how it would be policed.
I'm thinking that if a sizeable punishment to breaking the rule like +10 inflation were to be instated, even the people who sometimes "bend" rules wouldn't be so inclined.
A peek at stats between sessions isn't THAT much work.
As for the drawbacks and merits of the idea, I can see several of the latter and only one of the former:
- Nations with widespread colonial holdings cannot protect them.
This is incorrect. Galleys don't take attrition in national provinces and local colonial holdings can thus be protected by galley fleets. This makes sense, actually, as colonies were generally not protected by ships of the line but rather smaller warships.
- Warships become an important asset. You cannot amass 700 warships and intimidate every opponent into submission. You have to pick and choose where you attack and even a sizeable fleet of ~50 warships has to tread carefully if the opponent's local galley fleet is in its hundreds.
- Colonial conflict becomes cheaper.
This obviously favours countries with long stretches of national waters like Morocco, France and Spain. I'm not sure how to deal with that. Morocco for instance could put an iron curtain along the african coast of masses of galleys and its many ports would give it a sizeable fleet..
I'm divided on this suggestion.. :wacko:
What I'm worried about is how it would be policed.
I'm thinking that if a sizeable punishment to breaking the rule like +10 inflation were to be instated, even the people who sometimes "bend" rules wouldn't be so inclined.
A peek at stats between sessions isn't THAT much work.
As for the drawbacks and merits of the idea, I can see several of the latter and only one of the former:
- Nations with widespread colonial holdings cannot protect them.
This is incorrect. Galleys don't take attrition in national provinces and local colonial holdings can thus be protected by galley fleets. This makes sense, actually, as colonies were generally not protected by ships of the line but rather smaller warships.
- Warships become an important asset. You cannot amass 700 warships and intimidate every opponent into submission. You have to pick and choose where you attack and even a sizeable fleet of ~50 warships has to tread carefully if the opponent's local galley fleet is in its hundreds.
- Colonial conflict becomes cheaper.
This obviously favours countries with long stretches of national waters like Morocco, France and Spain. I'm not sure how to deal with that. Morocco for instance could put an iron curtain along the african coast of masses of galleys and its many ports would give it a sizeable fleet..
I'm divided on this suggestion.. :wacko:
Slargos said:
kj has proven that 1can go above the limit with galleys easy to attack another you don't pay hundreds a month to maintenance if you got 1500galleys with support of 100 therefor if moroco builds a large fleet till his support spain will stil be rich enough for 1 to combat this fleet
secund is even if 1nation for a massive fleet guarding his area it will only really affect his area i mean its unlikly that youll see a spanish galley fleet of the coast of russia ect
with galleys you can go above the limit without havng to pay insane costs so the supportlimit won't be that important anymore
also if you loose a batle late game its less devestating i think
also i think its worth noting that i don't think its exactly historicle for majors to have 700-1000warships in the end either probaly had alot of lighter warships(possible for galleys to take that place) but 700-1000ships of the line or men of war heavy warships i doubt that
Rules shouldn't be added if the campaign has already started, unless everyone agrees with it.
Arco and Fred don't seem to agree, so I wouldn't do it. Save this experiment for another campaign.
Arco and Fred don't seem to agree, so I wouldn't do it. Save this experiment for another campaign.
Slargos said:
You need fleets to move troops and the like in colonial wars. That is why you could try to use warships (less fear to attrition and more speed to do that). I really could not like to fight a colonial war only with local resources (that is decide defeat against a local power from the beginning)
Regarding historical numbers. Of course they are unhistorical, they are also in land, so I don't see the problem. Trafalgar was fought with fleets that no sane person could use in MP EU2, but I guess the same is true regarding Waterloo.
In the battle of New York, August, 1776, there were 400 or so ships in New York harbor, all English, of which some 75 were warships, 8 ships of the line. 30,000 British troops and roughly 15,000 colonial troops were present. That was the biggest battle North America had seen to that date.
admiral drake said:ever heard of transports with warships escorting them ?
Transports --> Slow. I think I had said several times that I am thinking of *speed*, warships are the fastest ships around (specially at higher techs).
I was unaware that there was any speed differential between transports and warships at all in the game at any tech level. I guess it's time to test and learn again. :wacko:arcorelli said:
Edit: Test done. I think most are aware of the result.
Last edited:
That's why i normaly use only warships in the later part of the game. Transports is only useful when you cant afford war ships like in the early era of the gameDSYoungEsq said:I was unaware that there was any speed differential between transports and warships at all in the game at any tech level. I guess it's time to test and learn again. :wacko:
Edit: Test done. I think most are aware of the result.