Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

What's wrong with GBR Navy?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
U

unmerged(721311)

Private
5 Badges
Apr 3, 2013
17
0
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • March of the Eagles
  • Semper Fi
Simple fact:
GBR is retardedly over powered.



I was playing as the Ottoman Empire... I had sunk/captured the entire Russian, Austrian, French and Spanish Mediterranean/Black Sea fleets. (And gained ALOT of experience for my 100+ ships and four Admirals, they were all +30% up to 55%. My leaders had several traits). I had my ENTIRE Armada in Istanbul, in the Port. GBR declared war on me (that also does NOT make sense, historically and strategically, that would be a disastrous mistake). My 100+ ships intercepted ONE British vessel.... and when it was halfway sunk, Nelson came with TEN FREAKING SHIPS and VIOLATED MY WHOLE FLEED... he captured 4 of them.

From that point onwards, he camped Istanbul... and each time I tried to attack Nelson... I was MISERABLY defeated and it was ALWAYS getting worse. Is there any Naval strategy that we can have against that kind of bullshit?
 
Edit thread name

Have you looked at the battles and seen what is happening to cause the loss?
 
I have posted a note about this in the bug forum, as I don't believe the ship capture is working as intended. 8 ships attacking 3 ships and the 3 ships win and capture a ship each, I know the Brits are better naval wise but 100% capture rate in that fight can't be right.
 
It's called "The world's greatest naval power of the time".
 
SBolshevik said:
It's called "The world's greatest naval power of the time".
Click to expand...

That I appreciate, but in one of the other threads there was published some very nice data showing how the occurrance of capturing 1st rate warships was rather unusual. I've been engaged in 5 naval battles since the patch and in each one ships have been captured.
If you combine this with the naval landing delay this in effect makes the Brits almost unstoppable. Takes you two months to land an army in hostile territory, the Brits sail in and destroy the transports and take off a fair chunk of your warships that try to stop them. Enemy navies get weaker while Britain gets stronger, and to be honest if the rate of capture is what I've experienced so far then as Britain you'll not really need to spend money building more warships when you can just capture extra from opponents. Britannia really will rule the waves, Britain will never be at risk of invasion and any other power that needs to take territory from them will not stand a chance of winning.
Not much fun playing a game when there is no possibility of winning
 
DSMyers1 said:
Sounds historical to me... there's a reason Napoleon never attempted it.
Click to expand...
Because his idiot admiral didn't obey orders and was massacred at Trafalgar. Seriously, that was not a battle, it was a slaughterfest.
 
Grubnessul said:
Because his idiot admiral didn't obey orders and was massacred at Trafalgar. Seriously, that was not a battle, it was a slaughterfest.
Click to expand...

It was a slaughter, but that's no the reason why Nappy didn't attempted, in fact, Napoleon decided 3 months earlier that he wouldn't invade GB, he decided continental Europe was more interesting, if you understand french, this document is very interesting about that: http://www.napoleon.org/fr/salle_lecture/articles/files/Napoleon_Angleterre_1_Napoleon.asp#ancre14
In fact, Trafalgar wasn't even necessary, though it was a real slaughter for France, this battle is part of the great myth of naval superiority, it added a lot of prestige to UK, though it was not at all a decisive battle.
 
Hargrave said:
It was a slaughter, but that's no the reason why Nappy didn't attempted, in fact, Napoleon decided 3 months earlier that he wouldn't invade GB, he decided continental Europe was more interesting, if you understand french, this document is very interesting about that: http://www.napoleon.org/fr/salle_lecture/articles/files/Napoleon_Angleterre_1_Napoleon.asp#ancre14
In fact, Trafalgar wasn't even necessary, though it was a real slaughter for France, this battle is part of the great myth of naval superiority, it added a lot of prestige to UK, though it was not at all a decisive battle.
Click to expand...
Because the French and Spanish navies could surely recover after such a minor battle despite it being a slaughter.
 
SBolshevik said:
Because the French and Spanish navies could surely recover after such a minor battle despite it being a slaughter.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't understand what I said.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, what I meant is that this battle had no direct strategic consequence because Napoleon already forgot about his naval plans of invading GB. Trafalgar was the last important naval battle of France during napoleonic wars, not because France was inferior to UK in term of naval dominance (that was true on ground, though, Napoleon won most of the times) but because french admirals were (more) afraid of UK.
 
Hargrave said:
You obviously didn't understand what I said.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, what I meant is that this battle had no direct strategic consequence because Napoleon already forgot about his naval plans of invading GB. Trafalgar was the last important naval battle of France during napoleonic wars, not because France was inferior to UK in term of naval dominance (that was true on ground, though, Napoleon won most of the times) but because french admirals were (more) afraid of UK.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the entire point of the Battle of Trafalgar to distract the British Navy for an invasion of Britain?
 
SBolshevik said:
Wasn't the entire point of the Battle of Trafalgar to distract the British Navy for an invasion of Britain?
Click to expand...

During the first paart of the year 1805, Villeneuve went to caribbean where he join forces with the spanish, then he goes back to Spain, during the same time, Nelson's fleet is just behind him, and, when Villeneuve chooses to go to north of Spain, Nelson decided to wait for him at Cadix (though he has no idea yet of what Villeneuve wants to do).
Napoleon's orders are the following: go back to Brittany, not to invade UK, simply to join forces with Ganteaume. In the same time (we are in august) the emperor decide to leave Boulogne with his troops to bring them east as fast as he can.
So, as I said, Napoleon already forgot about this plan of invasion, but Villeneuve disobey, scared by rumors about a British fleet, and go to Cadix, while Nelson bring a new fleet from Britain to Cadix. Napoleon is very angry against Villeneuve because he disobeyed, so he asks Villleneuve, who is waiting at Cadix, to go to Italy and bring troops there, once again, he doesn't, but he suddenly decide to leave when he hears about Rosily, which is going to Spain in order to replace him for his lack of ability.
On the same time, Nelson brings back his new fleet to Cadix. Villeneuve now that Nelson will attack him, the franco-spanish fleet has a superiority about the number of ships, but not in quality, neither in crew, because his men are sailing since 2 years, they are sick and tired. Villeneuve has a strategy, but a bad one, he looses while Nelson wins.

The tragic part of that battle is that such a brilliant admiral as Nelson, dies, while the unable Villeneuve is still alive, 3 days after the battle, Rosily, the one who was supposed to replace Villeneuve, arrives to Cadix.

To conclude, this slaughter was the fault of one man: Villeneuve, who didn't understand he had to follow orders: he didn't go to Brittany when they asked him to, he didn't go to mediterranea when they asked you, and instead of renouncing to command like he was supposed to, he fled from reality because he didn't want to be replaced. The Battle of Trafalgar had no point, it should have never happen if orders had been followed.
 
That is true, but also quite partial!

As stated in your document, there was the inability for Napoleon to understand the sea, there was also something difficult to understand, because it is feelings; that is the fact most of the admirals knew the time when France was the Naval Power (let say French and Indian war), but were not able to understand the true roots of the decay, neither were they able to analyze what did happend to the Royal Navy.

The similarity with the reform of the werhmacht btw 1918/1939 compared with the decay of the 'Armee de Terre' is something similaire : Mai 1940, France did have the most men, the most armor, they did have quite some good troops and because what should have been only a small event became the destruction of the country (I mean the crossing of the Meuse river by a SECTION of assault pionneer!). That is also about feelings deep inside the troops (from soldiers to generals).

Nelson is overrated in my opinion, Latouche Treville being quite better than him (3 encounters, 3 victories for L.T., that only speak louder than anything); but he does have something any french does not have amiral : faith into his materiels , his men, his country. Worst (sorry I am french), that characteristic was shared amongst many top level admirals , and almost all ships commander. Not vain bravado, but something that will make your men became giants for the time of a fight. And I believe here lay the greatness of the RN, and the fall of the 'Royale'. (french nickname used amongst the french armies to design the french navy)
 
I understand and quite agree to your point, I don't think the problems of the french navy were about quality or quantity, I think it was about commandment and morale, while GB has a insular and important navy tradition, there is only one place in France which has the same tradition: Brittany, rest of France is more focused on land army.

And about Latouche Treville, I quite don't know if he was better than Nelson, but Nelson was in the right place in the right time, and that allowed Nelson a place in history.
 
Both have different qualities, both used them at their best with that they do have at hand. But while Nelson was one amongst a cohort of gifted naval commander, L.T was One of a Kind in France (with the exception of Surcouf). The over rating part is more with relation to the many others commanders in the RN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back