Ottomans crossing Anatolia-Greece while my fleet is blocking it.

[Chadwbacca]

What? No, really, what?

[Pozz]

If they control both sides, working as intended

[c00lizz]

If they own both sides of a strait you cannot block it.

[Chadwbacca]

Oh, ok, that doesn't makes any sense.

[Omniconda]

from a post i wrote about this yesterday

Strait Crossing

If one side of the strait is owned/occupied by the other nation and you own/occupy the other then the nation with ships blockading can cross.
If both sides owned by same nation they can always cross regardless of ships.
If one side is neutral with access assume it always belongs to the opposite nation of those trying to cross so nation ships present will block crossing
If both side neutral then ships dont matter as no blockade can be placed.

Fort ZOC from Selinka can block crossings depending on which provinces you moved in from. This is seperate to the Strait rules of Blockades

[Chadwbacca]

Thanks for the help, in EU3 you blocked the path no matter who owned the territory, it has more sense than this. You need to cross through the sea, but an enemy army is there blocking the boats, you can't pass, easy.

[c00lizz]

Originally posted by Mr.Batman:

Thanks for the help, in EU3 you blocked the path no matter who owned the territory, it has more sense than this. You need to cross through the sea, but an enemy army is there blocking the boats, you can't pass, easy.

It's kind of problematic to have to your navy sitting in a strait if there's cannons on both sides shooting you.

[Vanorah]

it was too easy to mess with the ai and get them trapped on islands

[OnlyBradParker]

Originally posted by Mr.Batman:

Thanks for the help, in EU3 you blocked the path no matter who owned the territory, it has more sense than this. You need to cross through the sea, but an enemy army is there blocking the boats, you can't pass, easy.

I actually agree. Not being able to block straights if you have a larger fleet kind of reduces the importance of fleets. Especially as, IIRC, the only reason that the Ottomans took Constantinople IOTL is that they carried their fleet overland to control the Golden Horn or some ♥♥♥♥ - the point being that fleets were of critical importance.

However, there is an argument to be made from both PoV.

[Chadwbacca]

Originally posted by c00lizz:

Originally posted by Mr.Batman:

Thanks for the help, in EU3 you blocked the path no matter who owned the territory, it has more sense than this. You need to cross through the sea, but an enemy army is there blocking the boats, you can't pass, easy.

It's kind of problematic to have to your navy sitting in a strait if there's cannons on both sides shooting you.

Cannons in the first centuries of the game weren't as important as later. For example, one of the most used cannons were ¿12 pounds? I don't know the name in english, and their reach wasn't that much in fact (Effective reach).

Originally posted by Vanorah:

it was too easy to mess with the ai and get them trapped on islands

They should have make the number of ships and strenght a variable, but that would be a lot of work, it's easier to make ships even more unuseful because Paradox doesn't care about the AI, even when this game is played more in single player.

[The Void Boy]

Admiral sir! an enemy army is attempting to ferry across the strait we are blockading. shall we fire on them?
No you see they own both sides of that strait and by the laws of chivalry we must allow them to cross unharmed.

[Shai-Hulud]

It's too gamey and easy to cheese without having to control one side.

[The Void Boy]

Originally posted by Joseph Ballin:

It's too gamey and easy to cheese without having to control one side.

not really just make sure your navy is better than your opponents, and being the Ottomans with tons of coastal provinces for sailors and naval force limit it should be easy

[Chadwbacca]

Gamey was blocking with just one ship, but I never did that, it felt like cheating. Then, trying to survive now as Byzantium should be almost impossible, right?