![]() ![]() Transport ships in EU4 can't fight for shit anyway, so in practice how is building 30 transport ships any different to putting a bunch of guys on the sea in Civ 5? Actual ships still kill them in either one so they need an escort. Personally I don't care about troops magically turning into transport ships. HoI4 is slightly different because a big part of that is being able to plan your logistics and things but that's because HoI is more focused on a shorter time frame and only on making war. The strategy bit was how you ended up at war and why, what army you have and what army they have, and where you chose to land. There's nothing grand or strategic about clicking a button a few times to create a template for 20 transport ships in EU4 and then moving your guys from one country to another with another couple of clicks. I know someone is going to come back and say "but that's what paradox games are about!" but remember theses are grand strategy games. It's because inevitable Paradox attracts a hardcore group of gamers who don't see that micromanagement isn't a good thing and most people don't want to minutely manage every aspect of their empire or country down to "how many transport ships do I need". It works with EU, Victoria or HoI because those games have proper navies and naval battles in them. Really your argumentation doesn't work for CK. And also a good reason to cross the seas for an invasion, which wasn't a very common occurrence. And without control over the seas, you just need to ability, time and money to build ships. ![]() Yes there are counter examples, mostly in the Mediterranea with Venice or the ERE, but the vast majority of the states on the map weren't able to maintain navies powerful enough to control the sea. The British Isles were invaded and attacked all the time, as well as Mediterranean islands. In fact the defensive capabilities and the general value of islands is often overestimated in Paradox games. And anyway, CK2 had transports and it never prevented blobs to cross the sea. I doesn't change anything to blobbing either. You're also confusing the lack of transport ships with the lack of naval combat. The Seljuks didn't invade France from Syria because it would have been stupid, and not featuring transport ships won't change anything to this. The Persians didn't continue their attack on Greece largely because it just wasn't worth it - they were after an easy, fast victory. You're reducing a lot of situations to the inability to use fleets to invade islands, when it's actually just a difficulty, and there were always other reasons. That's not exactly right, quite often armies would be able to build their own ships.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |