Supremacy at sea (not for fun)

[Brasidas]

Typical EB campaign:
First turn: disband all navy ;)
Some turns later: build single and the cheapest ship and transport your army wherever you want...

There is no reason to maintain navy. It is rather expensive whim.

I know it is banal truth: AI is stupid. AI uses navy chaotically and incidentally blocks player's ports. As a result trade by sea routes doesn't suffer regardless of lack of any naval forces you own.

So, why don't encourage players to invest in navy by establish severe money fine each time AI blockades player's port. It could simulate economic sea blockade quite well.

What is your opinion? Any hardcoding limits? Any script alternatives?

[Dhampir]

If a city is on an island, the majority of any income it gets will be from trade and under blockade a city receives no trade from the sea.

I always maintain at least a small navy to ensure that I can clear any blockades that last more than a couple of turns.

[Parallel Pain]

I disagree, at least if you are Sab'yn.

You need ships to go into Africa (and anyone trying to go into Africa by marching up the coast is not very smart IMO as it'll take too long and you'll be too easily ganged up without a place to retrain OR reinforce). Now try to win a campaign against the Ptolemy without reinforcements by sea and let the Ptolemy control the red sea after you land your army and see how well you do without reinforcements. Now try the same thing but with you controlling the red sea and able to reinforce your army regularly.

But then of course I was playing on VH/VH

I like the penalty idea though. Will probably work for easier factions like the Helens or Rome.

[beatoangelico]

if you use bi.exe you always need a strong navy...isn't much better to destroy the navy of the enemies than facing costant invasions?

[Parallel Pain]

Where's the thread for BI.exe?

And how does it compare to ALEX.exe?

[Dubius Cato]

As Rome you need a navy to secure the reinforcement of your national troops.

[pezhetairoi]

Agreed. Even during the early Marians you need the navy because your farflung garrison cities haven't got the MIC needed yet.

[Brasidas]

But You don't need a big fleet to supply your distant troops. So, the title of this subject is about SUPREMACY and how force players to keep big and very expensive navy.

Look at history, e.g. naval supremacy was key and pivotal factor during wars between Rome and Carthage.

Huge money penalty could support awkward and uncoordinated AI actions at sea.

So it will be your choice: suffer from economic blockade or engage in expensive warfare at sea.

[Parallel Pain]

supremacy is relative

if none of the other factions have ships, all you need to have spremacy is enough to prevent pirates from sinking you.

but if you are unlucky like me

[pezhetairoi]

problem is, blockading one port is not enough to hurt income unless you are an archipelago faction dependent completely on sea trade, or a faction on the brink of going into the red. factions are rarely rich enough to support multiple fleets to hurt more than one city at once. Even when I controlled all Europe with 5 Marian fullstacks and top-level mines, i could only afford to blockade all African Qarthadastim ports with one oneraria each. But to increase enemy faction income enough to build enough fleets to devote even one oneraria ship to each port would be overpowering them beyond, because, on the Vanilla engine at least, there's no guarantee the budget would be spent on naval matters.

My two cents.

[zooeyglass]

problem is, blockading one port is not enough to hurt income unless you are an archipelago faction dependent completely on sea trade, or a faction on the brink of going into the red. factions are rarely rich enough to support multiple fleets to hurt more than one city at once. Even when I controlled all Europe with 5 Marian fullstacks and top-level mines, i could only afford to blockade all African Qarthadastim ports with one oneraria each. But to increase enemy faction income enough to build enough fleets to devote even one oneraria ship to each port would be overpowering them beyond, because, on the Vanilla engine at least, there's no guarantee the budget would be spent on naval matters.

My two cents.

i found waiting and then building two fleets of 3 triremes each means you are never going to lose those fleets, and they can be retrained/roam the waters at will. in my mak campaign i have them, plus 1 large bireme fleet (4 units) plus at least a couple of oneraria fleets knocking around for transport from homeland to the fronts (italia/asia minor). but i think i went over the top with naval power - in theory i could split up my fleets and blockade every still ptolemaioi port if i wanted...

does anyone know how much a port city loses in terms of a blockade? would they lose up to 50% income? more? less? any idea how to calculate it?

[Dubius Cato]

You don't need a large navy against all enemies, but in my game I waged war against the Ptolies, and they had a sizable navy themselves. I had a fleet of one quinquireme and two triremes under a 5 star admiral with very nice retinue, and he could kill anything because the AI didn't bother to create a single large fleet to attack me. Maybe they just rebuild in a port I did not have under watch, and then sent their single fleets against me, I don't know. I also had three of four smaller ships to blockade Ptoly ports, but they had to flee when the AI sent their quin or tri fleets.

[Brasidas]

What do you think about decreasing value of pirate_spawn_value in decr_strat (which effects in increasing the spawn of rebels at sea)?

It could cause more blockades from pirate fleets and finally force players to support larger fleet, but from the other hand could be pain in ass for AI factions.

[Watchman]

No. Just no. Unless you want the seas literally teeming with pirate fleets that is.

[General Appo]

In my Sweboz campaign I actually had to use auto_win to get anywhere. Yes, had to! There were 6 fleets all with more then 5 ships in them roaming the Baltic Sea, and each of my ships costs a fortune plus the pirate ships are so much better I´d probably need 3 full stacks of ships just to take down a single one of the pirate fleets. I gave up and used auto_win after my 5th attempt to reach Gotland had failed, surely it can´t have been that hard?

[Brasidas]

I know, I know. It was a semi-provocation, semi-desperation to keep this thread alive.

What can I say. My idee fixe is to make EB harder and harder

If only I could impel CA to release another patch for RTW... or to bribe them!

Sorry guys, this is just side-effect of lifelong EB addiction.

[Danzifuge]

large fleets are more of a bane than any kind of supremacy at sea. using them for more than transport purposes is pointless. the ai don't build much of a fleet to contend with. the only thing you have to contend with is an endless number of pointless pirate battles. blockades don't matter when the ai gets huge money bonuses. although naval battles were a huge part of mediterranean conflicts, there role in this mod is marginalized to transport and anything beyond that is just an annoyance.