Ships not Blocking Straits is Dumb

[hoot hoot]

So if I don't control one of the sides of a strait, my massive naval blockade on the strait/coastline is absolutely irrelevant?

What? The whole point of naval dominance in an area with islands (i.e. the Malayan area) is that I can control my enemy's movements across all the islands and straits. I have a massive navy that eclipses everyone in the region, including Ming, as Brunei. So, aside from naval battles and trade power, it's damn useless when here I was thinking it was a massive asset in conquering the islands south of China.

Imagine my surprise when my 25k stack marched towards a 10k stack, with visions of an easy victory, when 20k enemy allied troops marched from Malacca to Siak while my 40 light ship fleet sat useless and doing nothing after destroying their combined navies.

I guess this is a learning experience for me, but it feels really stupid that this is how the mechanic works. Controlling two sides of a strait shouldn't make an enemy army magically immune to the naval fleet that's blockading the entire coastline. It's ridiculous. It's so counterintuitive that it seems like new players will only learn that this is how the mechanic works by being blindsided like I was.

My ideas and policy choices were geared towards naval dominance and now I see that it's not nearly as useful as I was thinking. >_>

[Omniconda]

i made a guide for how blockades work,

[Fellini_Fiend]

Just occupy one side of the strait and they can’t pass between both sides it’s not difficult if you have the naval dominance that you claim you have. This is a very small thing to nitpick on. And it only really exists this way to nerf Byzantium players.

[Shai-Hulud]

This is one of those times where game balance has to trump total realism.

[Tulduil Iphukiir]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Jumbo Chumbis:

This is one of those times where game balance has to trump total realism.

Depending on the strait (and time period).
There are straits where a blockade can (theoretically) easily be prevented if one nation owns both sides. You simply cannot prevent an army crossing e.g. the Elbe Estuary (Stade-> Dithmarschen), the Bosporus, Sealand->Fyn or other (rather narrow) straits in small vessels when your blockading fleet can be attacked by coastal batteries on both sides (which, being land-locked and maybe stationary) can (theoretically, depending on nation/time) punch much harder than ship cannons).

As said, this works only for some straits (probably not for e.g. Gibraltar) but it is at least not completely ahistorical.

[tonypa]

The previous way of single fishing boat blocking 100k of armies was simply an exploit.

If you want more realism, even Roman Empire was able to build bridges over narrow straits within days. You could say that ships can stop armies crossing the strait when there is certain number of ships compared to size of the enemy army. For example blockade power of your Navy in the strait (having 1 ship has no effect, but 10 ships could stop army of 10k crossing no matter who controls the land provinces).

[Omniconda]

i think the idea behind it is
a strait is only a thin strip of water between to points - shore defences would have decent range from both sides to cover any landing boats and harrass any blockade ships during the crossing.
the strait crossing penalty would allow for any disarry in landing units should they run into landing combat.

if you controled one side of teh strait there wouldnt be full shore defence coverage so your ships could stop a landing while out of range

tho the reason for this in game is balance and exploitation

[gingerboyz4]

yeah without this anyone could play as byzantium and just trap the ottos on one side of their strait with a superior fleet

[Raider Deci]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Fellini_Fiend87:

And it only really exists this way to nerf Byzantium players.

I am 100% sure of that.

Diposting pertama kali oleh tonypa:

If you want more realism, even Roman Empire was able to build bridges over narrow straits within days. .

The Roman Empire really used buildings & fortifications to control the battlefield like no other ancient army. Sure lots of others could build fancy forts but few rarely used them in offensive ways.

Diposting pertama kali oleh tonypa:

You could say that ships can stop armies crossing the strait when there is certain number of ships compared to size of the enemy army. For example blockade power of your Navy in the strait (having 1 ship has no effect, but 10 ships could stop army of 10k crossing no matter who controls the land provinces).

Agree. They already have a percentage for coast-blockade so they could expand on that. Say that they make it that 100% blockade ensures blocking passage of armies, maybe above 50% twice as slow crossing as otherwise and below 50% unable to cross. But I doubt they even consider putting effort into anything thats naval

[Pozz]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Commander Deci:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Fellini_Fiend87:

And it only really exists this way to nerf Byzantium players.

I am 100% sure of that.

Diposting pertama kali oleh tonypa:

If you want more realism, even Roman Empire was able to build bridges over narrow straits within days. .

The Roman Empire really used buildings & fortifications to control the battlefield like no other ancient army. Sure lots of others could build fancy forts but few rarely used them in offensive ways.

Diposting pertama kali oleh tonypa:

You could say that ships can stop armies crossing the strait when there is certain number of ships compared to size of the enemy army. For example blockade power of your Navy in the strait (having 1 ship has no effect, but 10 ships could stop army of 10k crossing no matter who controls the land provinces).

Agree. They already have a percentage for coast-blockade so they could expand on that. Say that they make it that 100% blockade ensures blocking passage of armies, maybe above 50% twice as slow crossing as otherwise and below 50% unable to cross. But I doubt they even consider putting effort into anything thats naval

Personally I'd rather see severe attrition penalties to crossing a blockades strait, maybe not 1:1 with blockade percentage but a fairly hefty one none-the-less maybe scaling up to a maximum of 40% attrition at 100% blockade or something.

[Raider Deci]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Pozz:

Personally I'd rather see severe attrition penalties to crossing a blockades strait, maybe not 1:1 with blockade percentage but a fairly hefty one none-the-less maybe scaling up to a maximum of 40% attrition at 100% blockade or something.

That could work.


But speaking of crossings, I would love to see some straits especially up in the north freeze during really harsh winters, also making them impassable to ships. Very doubtful the game can make those changes on the map but it would be real nice.
Realize those crossings of the danish belts ingame, epic stuff imo^^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Across_the_Belts