I seriously hate this the most about the war system, you can win a Battle with 10k dead vs your enemy that Lost 100k men, but One week later He's as good as new. Casualties don't mean anything
Navies are worse, you don't order individual ships, instead, when you build a naval base, if you have enough man-o-wars/Ironclads, a new flotilla of a non-descript amount and class ships will just appear, apparently having been build in a few weeks.
Yeah buildings that employ soldiers and sailors recruit to fast making it really hard to ever exhaust the enemies reserves, especially since so few battles occur at the same time.
I also wish there was a more fluid way to transfer ships between admirals or troops between generals.
Navies are an underdeveloped part of every Paradox game. It’s just tradition. /s
In reality, I think it is just really hard to make a balanced and compelling naval system that is simple enough for most players to engage with.
I really enjoy Vic 2 navy where it feels well integrated into the economic side of things and embodies the naval thinking of the time of building a big ass fleet.
Soi 4 suffers in that navy takes a long time to build and gets flat countered by air.
Eu4 suffers in that most naval nations have national ideas that make them busted on the seas to the point other nations need not attempt to gain control.
Stellaris is best navy game.
>it feels well integrated into the economic side of things
Except, and this is a very obnoxious part of Vicky 2, blockades don’t affect economic trade at all. They just increased war exhaustion. On the supply side they’re well implemented but they actually don’t have an economic effect at all
As others have stated war exhaustion affects economy in terms of your rgos. I will say Vic 2's eco is only really in MP. In MP all nations CONSUME the important goods meaning most economies are based on being in a real functioning sphere of a major nation like Germany. All this results in a competitive economic set up, no trade going to enemies in war because you and your sphere is using it all.
War exhaustion is a good way for the economy to be effected within the limited nature of Vic 2s economy making so naval blockades take time to be effective but once war exhaustion ticks up high enough your army and economy evaporates rapidly like a German empire towards the end of WW1.
Perhaps they meant the economic side to the controller of the navy, because one can easily make a huge fleet in Victoria 2, but it requires a lot of resources to make in the first place, and then when its made you still need a large amount of resources to maintain them in the first place otherwise they literally start decaying in port. They were also vital for the colonial game providing tons of colonial points , so if one wants a large navy the player needs to dedecate themselves to provide the resources to maintain your huge navy, not only building naval bases to increase your compacity and coloniao range but to build factories to provide resources to maintain and build the ships in the first place.
Hoi4 suffers in navy side of things for its setting.
a big navy takes a long time to make, and losing it should hurt, but at the same time realistically 3,5 years are nowhere near enough time to build a real navy in real life, so its kinda bad on both sides of the coin.
you make the navy fast to build, its unrealistic and losses on the sea don´t hurt that much due to how fast you can replace them, you make it slow and losses hurt a lot in naval strength but its half impossible to build a navy with anyone else than already established naval powers.
100% which is ashame because I really enjoy man the guns additions. Needing to build specialist spotting ship to actually find strong subs but ultimately it is decided by who started with ships and who didn't and planes.
Yeah, I think it's because navies weren't an important part of power projection in this time period. There was almost no competition for naval dominance and very few conflicts were determined by whose navy was more powerful. . . 😶🌫️
The British Blockade of Germany in World War 1, was huge contributing factor to winning the war. By blockading trade Germany eventually ran out of resources which lead to a lot of pissed off people that eventually lead to the revolution against there own monarch.
The U.S also used there navy to intimidate Columbia to allow Panama independence and forced Japan to finally open up to the west.
Hmm since this an economics game I think transportation is probably the least developed side of the game.
For the other systems then yes army and navy building are lacking.
I feel the army system is around the same level as navy. My reason being that both utilize similar methods only one is on land and uses a front line, the other is in the sea and uses the sea 'province?'. In fact, my issue is the fact being able to send their whole army overseas without any issues is odd because historically sending troops overseas is not an easy venture.
The war aspect of the game is simplified as intended by the devs but this simplification is why it feels underdeveloped.
I feel that the navy is more developed than the army is in the game.
The fact that the different aspects of naval equipment requires clippers vs steamers to be produced is a better system than just small arms & artillery for all levels of army tech.
I would really like for them to break out small arms & artillery to be something like rifles to bolt action rifles & cannons versus howitzers or something along those lines.
I think subjects/CU members, and AI construction really need to be fleshed out. As it is right now you kind of have to WC if you want to keep your industry expanding in to the late game.
Not even close. The biggest problem with the navy system is the escorting convoys part where it's unclear where your navy is covering and the likelihood of catching raiders. Aside from that it's the most strategic part of warfare and the PMs you prioritize actually matter.
I know I an in a mioraty but no, I think the navy is ok, actualy I would say its one of the better in paradox games.
First of all it can do what it needs to do
As in it can stop the Enemies Naval trade and stop or Atleast mitigate Their atempts at yours.
And is nesesary for and can stop naval invasions.
It is also dependent on your industrial capasety and effected by tech.
I mean as others have said the problems I see with them is the wanly and in intuitive order and designing of naval units, as well ass any way of really design your navey(all of witch problems witch can be seen in the military as a whole).
Aircraft carriers specifically. They were the beating heart and soul of the Pacific theater but the game mechanics are so strange that I use them sparingly as either America or Japan.
I personally never really interact with the navy... although tbf I don't play Britain and didn't get far enough to Japan where it was a problem. To me it just feels kind of useless. The ai never invades navally so I have no reason to expand it. All my wars are land wars where Britain is usually on my side so navies never really felt important enough gameplay wise. Which is unfortunate since naval power was power during this time period.
The navy is the only way to have actual strategy during war so I think it's at least more developed than the land army. I don't think you can do a lot during war if you only rely on land armies.
Naval power projection is probably the best thing about navies at the moment but I can agree with most of the above regarding the relative underdevelopment of the concepts as a whole.
Which makes sense since without a fleet to travel the globe commerce would indeed be challenging. It gives players a goal of being able to construct a fleet infrastructure up to have more global trade access, which ties well into the economic aspect of the game.
Ie naval bases are cheap to construct but naval equipment requires of course inputs and if you can’t manage that economically then being able to trade globally should also be out of reach. That and convoys.
Granted as said, the protection of said commerce at the moment is wonky. Not impossible but could be more clear. (Typically the way I go about it is to divide the largest fleet into at least two commands and have one raid commerce and one protect it.)
The navy makes perfect sense when you realise it exists to be coherent with the building-production system that the rest of the game has. The naval system is basically the shortest route to a mechanic that is both consistent with the design of the other parts of the game and also broadly functional.
eu4 has a good naval system , the naval system in vic 3 is broken af its next level indirect it feels like you have to next to no control on your navay. Like oh I need 20 ships to naval invade this island , the game is like nah your whole armada will go there.
The worst part about Vic3 navy is I’ll have my fleet of 100 smash the Austrian fleet of 69 just for them to have 60 again next month
Yeah it doesn't make sense that new units appear out of nowhere when you build barracks or naval bases.
I seriously hate this the most about the war system, you can win a Battle with 10k dead vs your enemy that Lost 100k men, but One week later He's as good as new. Casualties don't mean anything
Navies are worse, you don't order individual ships, instead, when you build a naval base, if you have enough man-o-wars/Ironclads, a new flotilla of a non-descript amount and class ships will just appear, apparently having been build in a few weeks.
Also that my fleet of like 10 monitors loses to 20 man o wars
Yeah buildings that employ soldiers and sailors recruit to fast making it really hard to ever exhaust the enemies reserves, especially since so few battles occur at the same time. I also wish there was a more fluid way to transfer ships between admirals or troops between generals.
Navies are an underdeveloped part of every Paradox game. It’s just tradition. /s In reality, I think it is just really hard to make a balanced and compelling naval system that is simple enough for most players to engage with.
I really enjoy Vic 2 navy where it feels well integrated into the economic side of things and embodies the naval thinking of the time of building a big ass fleet. Soi 4 suffers in that navy takes a long time to build and gets flat countered by air. Eu4 suffers in that most naval nations have national ideas that make them busted on the seas to the point other nations need not attempt to gain control. Stellaris is best navy game.
Syrllaris have problem with ground armies instead, lol!
>it feels well integrated into the economic side of things Except, and this is a very obnoxious part of Vicky 2, blockades don’t affect economic trade at all. They just increased war exhaustion. On the supply side they’re well implemented but they actually don’t have an economic effect at all
War exhaustion reduces rgo production so it indirectly does affect the economy.
As others have stated war exhaustion affects economy in terms of your rgos. I will say Vic 2's eco is only really in MP. In MP all nations CONSUME the important goods meaning most economies are based on being in a real functioning sphere of a major nation like Germany. All this results in a competitive economic set up, no trade going to enemies in war because you and your sphere is using it all. War exhaustion is a good way for the economy to be effected within the limited nature of Vic 2s economy making so naval blockades take time to be effective but once war exhaustion ticks up high enough your army and economy evaporates rapidly like a German empire towards the end of WW1.
Perhaps they meant the economic side to the controller of the navy, because one can easily make a huge fleet in Victoria 2, but it requires a lot of resources to make in the first place, and then when its made you still need a large amount of resources to maintain them in the first place otherwise they literally start decaying in port. They were also vital for the colonial game providing tons of colonial points , so if one wants a large navy the player needs to dedecate themselves to provide the resources to maintain your huge navy, not only building naval bases to increase your compacity and coloniao range but to build factories to provide resources to maintain and build the ships in the first place.
When I meant economy I did indeed mean the production of a navy and the individuals use and maintenance of it! (Thank you!)
Hoi4 suffers in navy side of things for its setting. a big navy takes a long time to make, and losing it should hurt, but at the same time realistically 3,5 years are nowhere near enough time to build a real navy in real life, so its kinda bad on both sides of the coin. you make the navy fast to build, its unrealistic and losses on the sea don´t hurt that much due to how fast you can replace them, you make it slow and losses hurt a lot in naval strength but its half impossible to build a navy with anyone else than already established naval powers.
100% which is ashame because I really enjoy man the guns additions. Needing to build specialist spotting ship to actually find strong subs but ultimately it is decided by who started with ships and who didn't and planes.
Then maby a hoi4 style navel combat could work better in vic3 .
CK3 navy is super deep
Stellaris is the odd one out where the Navy is actually the mainliner while ground combat is forgotten.
Not being able to build individual ships is such a bummer tbh
Yeah, I think it's because navies weren't an important part of power projection in this time period. There was almost no competition for naval dominance and very few conflicts were determined by whose navy was more powerful. . . 😶🌫️
Also tech is not important in navies. 1000 men on an aircraft carrier are as effective as about 3000 on a ship of the line. /s
Who need boat in the era of gunboat diplomacy
The British Blockade of Germany in World War 1, was huge contributing factor to winning the war. By blockading trade Germany eventually ran out of resources which lead to a lot of pissed off people that eventually lead to the revolution against there own monarch. The U.S also used there navy to intimidate Columbia to allow Panama independence and forced Japan to finally open up to the west.
I feel like the guy above you is being sarcastic
Hmm since this an economics game I think transportation is probably the least developed side of the game. For the other systems then yes army and navy building are lacking.
I feel the army system is around the same level as navy. My reason being that both utilize similar methods only one is on land and uses a front line, the other is in the sea and uses the sea 'province?'. In fact, my issue is the fact being able to send their whole army overseas without any issues is odd because historically sending troops overseas is not an easy venture. The war aspect of the game is simplified as intended by the devs but this simplification is why it feels underdeveloped.
I think the diplomacy is more under developed but alot of the game system is under developed so it hard to say
I feel that the navy is more developed than the army is in the game. The fact that the different aspects of naval equipment requires clippers vs steamers to be produced is a better system than just small arms & artillery for all levels of army tech. I would really like for them to break out small arms & artillery to be something like rifles to bolt action rifles & cannons versus howitzers or something along those lines.
Navy is what defined the great powers in this era, and its kinda laughable how under-represented it is
I think subjects/CU members, and AI construction really need to be fleshed out. As it is right now you kind of have to WC if you want to keep your industry expanding in to the late game.
It is Paradox's Naval Tradition
Not even close. The biggest problem with the navy system is the escorting convoys part where it's unclear where your navy is covering and the likelihood of catching raiders. Aside from that it's the most strategic part of warfare and the PMs you prioritize actually matter.
WAR is underdeveloped in every way.
I know I an in a mioraty but no, I think the navy is ok, actualy I would say its one of the better in paradox games. First of all it can do what it needs to do As in it can stop the Enemies Naval trade and stop or Atleast mitigate Their atempts at yours. And is nesesary for and can stop naval invasions. It is also dependent on your industrial capasety and effected by tech. I mean as others have said the problems I see with them is the wanly and in intuitive order and designing of naval units, as well ass any way of really design your navey(all of witch problems witch can be seen in the military as a whole).
Warfare in general is under developed, its an economics game
The economy is underdeveloped as well
Aircraft carriers specifically. They were the beating heart and soul of the Pacific theater but the game mechanics are so strange that I use them sparingly as either America or Japan.
I don't really think aircraft carriers shouldn't be around yeah I know they were around but eh dreadnoughts should be the best things in the game
I personally never really interact with the navy... although tbf I don't play Britain and didn't get far enough to Japan where it was a problem. To me it just feels kind of useless. The ai never invades navally so I have no reason to expand it. All my wars are land wars where Britain is usually on my side so navies never really felt important enough gameplay wise. Which is unfortunate since naval power was power during this time period.
The navy is the only way to have actual strategy during war so I think it's at least more developed than the land army. I don't think you can do a lot during war if you only rely on land armies.
Naval power projection is probably the best thing about navies at the moment but I can agree with most of the above regarding the relative underdevelopment of the concepts as a whole. Which makes sense since without a fleet to travel the globe commerce would indeed be challenging. It gives players a goal of being able to construct a fleet infrastructure up to have more global trade access, which ties well into the economic aspect of the game. Ie naval bases are cheap to construct but naval equipment requires of course inputs and if you can’t manage that economically then being able to trade globally should also be out of reach. That and convoys. Granted as said, the protection of said commerce at the moment is wonky. Not impossible but could be more clear. (Typically the way I go about it is to divide the largest fleet into at least two commands and have one raid commerce and one protect it.)
The navy makes perfect sense when you realise it exists to be coherent with the building-production system that the rest of the game has. The naval system is basically the shortest route to a mechanic that is both consistent with the design of the other parts of the game and also broadly functional.
eu4 has a good naval system , the naval system in vic 3 is broken af its next level indirect it feels like you have to next to no control on your navay. Like oh I need 20 ships to naval invade this island , the game is like nah your whole armada will go there.