Naval Invasions-back to RTW

[amritochates]

Though I am probably not the first to notice this, I am the first to distinctly point this fact out.

Get ready for ETW's greatest feature so far:

NO NAVAL INVASIONS AT ANY DIFFICULTY LEVEL WITH ANY FACTIONS WHATSOEVER

Since no one bothers to actually read my post I shall encapsulate the analysis below into the simplest form possible:

the emphasis of my post is not on a more Agressive AI, what I am reffering to is the inability of the AI to transport units/stacks from one theatre of war or from the mainland to the islands or vice versa using naval transports.

Yes that wonderful feature from RTW is back. The much vaunted Campaign AI cannot/doesnot transport units by ship or conduct naval invasions.This leads to the following:

A. Players of Britain Total War rejoice!! no one foreign foot will ever set foot upon your native soil. You are safe for eternity or the next patch.

B.Since it cannot transport units, It tends to waste its money building up monster stacks in the Islands, for ex Martinique. Also since CA in its infinite wisdom decided to do away with the console we cannot aid the AI by transporting its stacks to wherever they are required.

C.Also it cannot reinforce units in the three campaign areas: what exists in each theatre of war at beginning of each game stays there till the end, same is the case for all units recruited in that theatre.
So even if the Spanish have 20 uber stacks in new spain(a mild exaggeration) they will never be brought over to spain to defend her in her time of need.
So viewed rom the AI point of view each of the three theatres of war are in effect three different campaigns being fought at the strategic level that are united only at the global level by common utilisation of revenue.

Update:(courtesy NimitsTexan)
D.The AI is unable to acquire new colonies until and unless it utilises the diplomatic option of either buying or bartering a settlement from a faction that is previously established there.
As NimitsTexan so rightly points out that implies effectively that the player nation is the only one to establish colonies in India, unless they acquire settlements through diplomatic means.


I wish for once that CA would do the following:
a. Hire proper playtesters instead of whover they hired this time and the time before this extending all the way back to RTW and the save-load bug.
b.Not have the same old bugs crop up in every new release.

Now all those enamored of the Game may rejoice and enjoy this brand new feature at absolutely no extra cost whatsoever, courtesy CA.

Ps. I apologise to in advance to all Orgers in advance for any dissatisfaction they experience with ETW after reading my post. I am truly sorry.

PPs. In the end a slim ray of hope- since this feature has been encountered in previous titles and rectified one may hope that the same might occur.
Though it is also important to keep in mind the following facts as well:
a. That this is a brand new engine that probably has very little in common with the previous engine.
b. That this feature was only fixed in an expansion pack(RTW-BI) and the same might be true in this case as well.

[Mailman653]

This is interesting, so I can kick France out of North America and not worry about seeing a French fleet drop off two stacks on the East Coast.

[NimitsTexan]

It also plays out that the player nation is the only one to establish colonies in India (though I have considered selling some territory to France just to make things interesting).

[Polemists]

It also plays out that the player nation is the only one to establish colonies in India

At one point sweden sold me Goa, though maybe that was from a previous deal. Also I think the Dutch own Ceyon.

Well I guess this is a game feature, who knew.

Here's hoping for a patch to fix it

[amritochates]

Also I think the Dutch own Ceylon

I believe the United Provinces start out with Ceylon.

[Wausser]

Yes that's 100% true

[Fisherking]

This is not something that needs fixing!

If the AI buys some place far away and defends it, that is great.

This is not WWII!

Who in history ever launched a major amphibious assault half way around the world?

We will wind up with the shear idiocy of M2TW and no floating log being safe from invasion.

It is silly to want it! Mod it your self and don’t spoil the game for everyone else!

If you change it you are going to have every AI army on a ship on turn one heading for god knows where…and every turn afterward.

These knee jerk reactions have spoiled more in these games than they have ever fixed.

[amritochates]

Quit shouting !! your argument does not improve if it is given in Large Font.
Large Font is suitable for emphasis but to write a post in Large font is the internet equivalent of screaming in my face and regarded as equally rude behaviour. You are entitled to your opinions as misguided as they may be, but so am I.

This isn't simply a matter about naval invasions, but also about the AI transporting units/stacks from one theatre of war to another.To recapitulate what I posted in the other thread:

It is a major problem because now there are three theatres of war instead of a single unified camapaign map, that are connected only through naval fleets. So if the AI is incapable of transporting fleets it implies that for the GC the AI factions will be restricted to their respective theatres, incapable of reinforcing one theatre from the other.I doubt that you think it desirable that I can besiege and take over Paris,France while the AI retains 20 stacks in new France.

Also since the AI is ignorant of the fact that it cannot transport units, it tends treat Islands as normal provinces building up large stacks that then do nothing for the remainder of the campaign except suck up army upkeep and will only come into play If and whwn the player decides to invade.

[Dead Guy]

The ignoring it solution isn't any better in my opinion. How does knowing this spoil the game for everyone? It was a fact before someone pointed it out.

This is absolutely something that needs fixing. Proper fixing, not some half assed "now the AI drops troops off everywhere all the time" fixing. I cannot believe that there are only two options, no naval invasions or this is sparta naval invasions. It ruins the game for a lot of factions, and removes many elements of warfare.

[knoddy]

this is not entirely true as i stated in the other thread the AI can and DOES move troops into india through Persia.

and i have a foot in both sides, i would like to see some more aggression and perhaps naval invasions BUT i dont want the sheer stupidity that was the M2 patch that made provinces launch naval invasions across the map when they were surrounded by rebels.

IF this is implemented it should be based on priorities. the ai should only do it if its surrounding borders are safe and not at war with its neighbours and it SHOULDNT BE OVER THE TOP.

my 2 cents

[Polemists]

While I don't think the Ai could stop you from invading Paris even if it had 20 stacks to spare and put them on a ship do to the 6-8 turns it would take to get there. I do see a point behind this.


There should not be massive invasions no. However the current AI's main problem is not that, after all Sweden, Russia, prussia and austria all do quite well as to Ottomans.

However Spain, England and France rely on other provinces to be strong. Even the UP.

To say there are major naval invasions is silly, but to say that the carribean should not turn into the major warzone it was during this time frame is equally silly.

Spain, England, and France should be conquering each other and using those assets to take on each other in the old world, as was the history. There is no issue with spain training 5 stacks in Cuba, do to a rebellion or some such. That happens.

It would also be quiet silly to see New France save Paris, that would be similiar to the 13 Colonies saving London.

What needs to happen is the AI needs to properly allocate resources better. This is not to say 1-2 stacks a turn need to be sent from the New World, but they need to be able to conquer and assault each other in the new world more easily. Further Paris and Spain either need more holdings or more forts, it's that simple. They should not be as easy to take as they presently are.

Again this is just my opinion.

I do think that the old world should be able to send reinforcements to the new world though. As was done in history. England sent 2 regiments to contain America before the outbreak of 1776. France, Spain and England have difficulty fighting the Pueblo, and other local minor factions and it would make sense for them to send a army here or there. Not every turn but on occassion.

Now I have no desire to see it ramped up to MTW2 levels, where Siclily is losing 5000 troops a turn because it has some divine mandate to take out Tunis.

Though the AI being able to reinforce itself overseas does make sense. Though I still feel it should only be old world to new, other way around.

While yes it could train 8 stacks in the colonies and invade Spain..it just seems silly.

[Fisherking]

@ amritochates

I took the cue form you…and I didn’t want it to be missed. As you can see I feel strongly about it. I was not trying to be rude.

Transporting armies by sea is risky! There is a lot at stake if they get sunk.

If it were the age of discovery and factions were not trying to expand insanely then I might have a problem with it. But small armies.

The AI will reinforce its overseas holdings but as I said sea invasions are risky.

We have had all the games before with mad conquers as every AI faction. This is a different age.

You are going to wind up with stupid wars and conquests if you make the AI that aggressive.

It is a personal preference, and not one everyone else should have to live with.

[AussieGiant]

Ok, so now there has been a few moment for everyone to pull their underpants back down to normal heights, lets just take a moment.

I'm unaware of any large military troop moment by any major power in this time period. Mostly it was through colonisation that enabled troops to be recruited in a particular theatre of operations. So I'm not sure it's appropriate for the AI to start moving full stacks from Europe to the America's or India.

I could be wrong but can someone please verify? This could therefore be a historical move by CA.

Having said that, in a particular theatre the AI must be able to move troops off islands and get them to other parts of the IN theatre conflict. This is similar to the RTW issue first mentioned.

This should be resolved if it is the case.

[Hollerbach]

France and England fought like cats and dogs on the east coast of present day US/Canada. Some of the troops would have been European colonists, and both sides allied with native groups, but the vast majority of troops were shipped over from Europe. In any case, it appears from all reports that the AI won't even ship troops to Britain from mainland Europe in order to invade.

I can't see how even the most myopic fanboy could suggest that this is a 'feature' of 'personal preference'. Clearly the AI is not performing a basic function that it would be expected to be able to do, leading to easy exploits.

[amritochates]

The only part of my post in large font is my singular point of emphasis, for everything else I have either used BOLD or Italics still that is beyond the point.

Now I shall say this for the last time, the emphasis of my post is not on a more Agressive AI, what I am reffering to is the inability of the AI to transport units/stacks from one theatre of war or from the mainland to the islands or vice versa using naval transports.

And if Transporting armies by sea is risky! where do you think the British Armies during the American War of Independence came from, did Dr.Who transport them over one by one in his Tardis??

The fact is in this age more so than others previous to it sea trade including bulk goods was more important than ever. And the first global war the seven-years war (1754 to 1763) was fought simultaneously in multiple theatres during this very period-
North America
Caribbean
Indian Sub-continent
Europe

All of which would have been impossible if sea trade/transport had not improved and become reliable to the point that the the british would deploy several thousand german mercenaries during the american war of indepence.

Your point about naval invasions is true to a certain degree but my post is not only about naval invasions but is a more holistic query combining elements of the Lack of Naval Invasions and the above highlighted point with the emphasis going to the latter.

[AussieGiant]

Well it does seem at this point that we have an issue with the AI. It must be able to move troops from theatre to theatre and also within a particular theatre. I've noticed in my British GC that France has large stacks just sitting on small islands in the Caribbean.

Having said that I've seen more than a few French fleets moving west from the Channel and heading omminously out to sea. I assume they will pop up in the America's soon...if they have troops on them then the issue seems less than clear.

amritochates, Fisherking, I think you two have reached a respectable stand off and we can continue on as normal.

-edit-

amritochates, did you pop this in the official Org bug thread?

[JAG]

Fisherking - you have got it all wrong. The point about this period is that armies, troops and resources were HEAVILY transported around the globe, indeed it is precisely why economies and conflict escilated to unprecidented levels.

Let me put it this way, in the American revolution, how do you think the British got their reinforcements to the new world to combat the ever increasing insurgency? Magic? .. Go look at some history books, Bunker Hill will probably be a good starting point.

This game is supposed to be about reality, hell it is the reason you give in other threads to appease the stupid AI and easy nature of the game, but this problem is anything but realistic. However more than this, the game is meant to be about the global aspect, the fighting from one continent to another - if there is no troop transportation, this is defunkt. I hope it gets fixed.

[amritochates]

Having said that I've seen more than a few French fleets moving west from the Channel and heading omminously out to sea. I assume they will pop up in the America's soon...if they have troops on them then the issue seems less than clear.

Do you have someone in that area, agents or units that could verify this??Do try and verify that any stack/unit that exists did not move from another area or was hidden in an forested region and actually did land with the fleet.

Screenshots no matter how crappy the resolution will be greatly appreciated.

Even cameraphone shots will be better than nothing.

[Kulgan]

This is correct. There was no such thing as massive invasions, givven a few exceptions.

- The invasion of England by spain's ' grande armada ' which was sunk by the weather and the english fleet ( francis drake etc )
- The invasion in the 13 colonies after declaring independence by england
- Napoleon was about to invade England in 1804 ( camp de boulougne ) but then he had to move his troops to austria to prevent a coalition between austria and russia ( battle of austerlitz )

These 3 examples are the only ones I can really recall myself, there is about 300 years between the first and the latter and only one was actually semi-succesfull.

Most battles fought overseas were troops recruited regionally or shipped in over time in small numbers.


Givven these facts I find it logical we don't see massive invasions. Although an entire lack of movement by fleets is also not correct offcourse.

Patch us!

[Namarie22]

So, how did soldiers get shipped around the world in the 18th century? I think boats were probarly a rather important part in the whole operation of shipping men and things around.. And yes, the AI not doing it in E:TW removes the risk of invasion once you control regions or areas, which I for one find ludicrous.

[Fisherking]

I agree that Sea Transport should be something the AI looks at. I think it does, but it may not be its highest priority.

I think the AI should look at protecting and reinforcing its controlled regions. I don’t think it should be launching massive sea invasions to every floating log at sea…which we had in the last game.

I think from your example the AI need some sort of priority system for the creation of its units more than it need a more aggressive naval posture.

Spamming huge armies in isolated locations seems a much larger problem in need of a fix than not attacking every where on the globe.

Transporting Fleets the AI use should be strong enough to reasonably guarantee its arrival…likely one ship for each land unit and mostly 3rd Rates with very few light ships. Both represent a large financial investment and risking that loss should be considered.

The unintended consequences of making the AI too aggressive it likely to turn everything upside-down.

There shouldn’t be a mad dash to conquer India or Iceland etc, etc. Everywhere is occupied and war should have consequences.

While you are not advocating a more aggressive AI, that is what it will most likely require to get the system you are seeking.

It is not something that should get a quick fix. Any thing needs a deeper look before the “do something quick” thing takes hold.

[Zaleukos]

This is correct. There was no such thing as massive invasions, givven a few exceptions.

- The invasion of England by spain's ' grande armada ' which was sunk by the weather and the english fleet ( francis drake etc )
- The invasion in the 13 colonies after declaring independence by england
- Napoleon was about to invade England in 1804 ( camp de boulougne ) but then he had to move his troops to austria to prevent a coalition between austria and russia ( battle of austerlitz )

While not exactly D-Day scale operations you also have, among others:

- the glorious revolution of 1688 (William the third brought a Dutch army along)
- the Spanish invasion of Ireland in support of the O'Neill rebellion of 1604
- Pretty much any English operations in continental Europe (or is it only a naval invasion if it goes from Europe to Britain?:p) from the failed intervention in the Dutch war of independence to the Napoleonic wars...

I think any of these are of at least the same scale as the planned armada invasion (12000 soldiers under the duke of Parma IIRC). Vastly improved naval transport is a defining feature of the period.

I've had serious naval invasions conducted against me in Rome btw (in the same predictable order as in M2 whoever holds Greece goes for Rhodos, and whoever holds Rhodos goes for Halicarnassus in Turkey), but I guess that was only added in a patch.

[Polemists]

While i'm as much for a patch as the next guy I fear the later

That we'd end up seeing armies from Iceland save denmark, and armies from Souther Lousiana save Paris.

Implementing it is fine but it does need to be more of a one way naval system. Not Quebec suddenly invading the world (Who gets gigantic navies anyway)

[Malkut]

Somehow, after I went to war with France in my UK game, the Colonies ended up with Newfoundland and the Leeward Islands.

Still trying to figure that out.

[Fisherking]

This is correct. There was no such thing as massive invasions, givven a few exceptions.

- The invasion of England by spain's ' grande armada ' which was sunk by the weather and the english fleet ( francis drake etc )
- The invasion in the 13 colonies after declaring independence by england
- Napoleon was about to invade England in 1804 ( camp de boulougne ) but then he had to move his troops to austria to prevent a coalition between austria and russia ( battle of austerlitz )

These 3 examples are the only ones I can really recall myself, there is about 300 years between the first and the latter and only one was actually semi-succesfull.

Most battles fought overseas were troops recruited regionally or shipped in over time in small numbers.


Givven these facts I find it logical we don't see massive invasions. Although an entire lack of movement by fleets is also not correct offcourse.

Patch us!

I agree that it should be a considered option for the AI but it needs to be something not lightly undertaken!

The Armada failed and had lasting consequences. Calculated Risk!

The British attempted to reinforce a rebellious region in the 13 Colonies, not launch a major invasion of another nation. Transport to its own region!

Napoleon was thwarted by the British Fleet who blockaded his ports. He was not foolish enough to risk his troops at sea against a superior force. Didn’t take the risk!

As I said, something needs to be done about the AI spamming troops in isolated places and not using them. It should also look at reinforcing threatened areas by sea. It should not be looking to invade every island and country on the seashore.

[Polemists]

Somehow, after I went to war with France in my UK game, the Colonies ended up with Newfoundland and the Leeward Islands.

Still trying to figure that out.

The Ai is pretty region trade happy in certain instances. Newfoundland is often a country france is eager to give away. Probably was a AI to AI trade.

[Belid Hagen]

It's quite obvious that this is a bug. As Maratha, once i had removed the protugese from goa, and the dutch from Ceylon I never once in the 75 remaining turns of the short campaign did ANYONE try invading india. I ended up in russia and the middle east, and controling the entire carribean - and i was trying my best to go as slow as possible.

[Polemists]

India is usually just a duke out between Mylore, Mughals, and Martha's, all of whom get pretty large armies as the game goes on. Along with Persia.

I got Goa from Sweden, so nations will trade other nations away when they want.

[Belid Hagen]

India is usually just a duke out between Mylore, Mughals, and Martha's, all of whom get pretty large armies as the game goes on. Along with Persia.

I got Goa from Sweden, so nations will trade other nations away when they want.

oh yes, sure they will. but when I control all of india, what do you think the chances are that ill sell any part of it to the europeans?

oh, and BTW, can we please get a patch to stop all the trade spam. I got requests to buy my regions from half the major nations EVERY SINGLE TURN.

[Sir Beane]

Just a small announcement before I begin. Please don't size text up for emphasis, people will read it anyway. It just ends up making your post read like an attempt at a Newspaper or a post by some kind of raving madman . It seems to have stopped now, but keep it in mind in the future please.

I think this is probably a bug. While it may be true that naval invasions were really undertaken, moving troops by the sea was frequently done.

No naval invasions mean that India and America will never switch hands. Austria could grow huge and own half the ports in Europe and it will never make any attempt at all at grabbing some colonial riches. Is this realistic?

It also means that Britain is compeltely invulnerable to France and other European powers, which is silly.

However, you shouldn't let this ruin your game. I know full well this is a problem and I still think that the game is fantastic. I don't see why someone poiting it out somehow makes it worse. If you hadn't notice that this was a bug then did it really effect your enjoyment of the game that much?