Instant transports are back!

[Butan]

He would if France owned both sides of the channel.

Because auto-transports issues involves peaceful transportation between controlled regions.

[PointOfViewGun]

Because auto-transports issues involves peaceful transportation between controlled regions.

It does since requiring accompanying navy is what's proposed here. You don't get to choose peaceful or hostile waters in that scheme.

[RedGuard]

It does since requiring accompanying navy is what's proposed here. You don't get to choose peaceful or hostile waters in that scheme.

so say the navy of denmark couldn't come floating by and attack you even though you control both sides of the channel? no, no that would be impossible (sarcasm)

[PointOfViewGun]

so say the navy of denmark couldn't come floating by and attack you even though you control both sides of the channel? no, no that would be impossible (sarcasm)

I currently own all ports west of Anatolia. A better case would be if the Armenian navy, which is confined to ports in Black sea only, coming all the way up there. Which commander would care enough about that, especially with multiple Roman navies operating around Greece, to attach a navy to transports from Britain?

[Barbarian Nobility]

They should bring back the days of no navy no transport over the ocean...

[RedGuard]

I currently own all ports west of Anatolia. A better case would be if the Armenian navy, which is confined to ports in Black sea only, coming all the way up there. Which commander would care enough about that, especially with multiple Roman navies operating around Greece, to attach a navy to transports from Britain?

build a fleet in gaul like caesar. problem solved. or you can walk on water like jesus. I prefer the former.

[Butan]

I currently own all ports west of Anatolia. A better case would be if the Armenian navy, which is confined to ports in Black sea only, coming all the way up there. Which commander would care enough about that, especially with multiple Roman navies operating around Greece, to attach a navy to transports from Britain?

A commander that is close whatever its strenght?
Noone said you should bring the big guns to walk transports from A to B everytime everywhere, you're extrapolating very bizarre scenarios from our discussions...

[PointOfViewGun]

A commander that is close whatever its strenght?
Noone said you should bring the big guns to walk transports from A to B everytime everywhere, you're extrapolating very bizarre scenarios from our discussions...

It was argued before that Rome I's requirement of tying armies to navies was better. That would require you to attach warships to your transports every time every where. When I asked a simple question of when I'd want to send my transport unaccompanied by a navy it was questioned by Totalheadache as a bad thing to do. Even above your post, by the way, RedGuard is suggesting that I should build an entire navy in a region I face no naval threat from anyone to be able to transport troops. Not sure if what I did counts as extrapolation...

[Butan]

MY opinion, is that auto-transport stacks not requiring military fleets to move create an important escort problem, bigger than having 1 military boat transporting a 20 stack like in older TW. I think that whatever the sea transportation (short/long, dangerous/safe) the transports should merge with fleets before being able to move.

[PointOfViewGun]

MY opinion, is that auto-transport stacks not requiring military fleets to move create an important escort problem, bigger than having 1 military boat transporting a 20 stack like in older TW. I think that whatever the sea transportation (short/long, dangerous/safe) the transports should merge with fleets before being able to move.

The requirement to with a navy doesn't solve any problem. Requiring navy escort in cases of dangerous paths could.

[kanzy]

Honestly, the instant transport feature has never bothered me before and I think this issue is being blown out of proportion.

[Flavius Julius Nepos Augustus]

Honestly, the instant transport feature has never bothered me before and I think this issue is being blown out of proportion.

It was a problem when they could sink whole navies, that is fixed.

[RedGuard]

It was argued before that Rome I's requirement of tying armies to navies was better. That would require you to attach warships to your transports every time every where. When I asked a simple question of when I'd want to send my transport unaccompanied by a navy it was questioned by Totalheadache as a bad thing to do. Even above your post, by the way, RedGuard is suggesting that I should build an entire navy in a region I face no naval threat from anyone to be able to transport troops. Not sure if what I did counts as extrapolation...

not an entire navy but a reasonable amount of warships (2-3) to guard your precious transports from a non-existant military force. even Caesar built ships to guard his transports in case the veneti or some unknown german nation with boats decided to attack his fleet. I like how you completely ignored a logical scenario and are still going with your completely illogical straw man one.

MY opinion, is that auto-transport stacks not requiring military fleets to move create an important escort problem, bigger than having 1 military boat transporting a 20 stack like in older TW. I think that whatever the sea transportation (short/long, dangerous/safe) the transports should merge with fleets before being able to move.

sounds like a good compromise. Rome 2 had a merge fleets option, they should just make it mandatory for long voyages.

[Huberto]

So there was a minor discussion of naval combat in the developer Q&A CA had on Twitch.

No mention of transports, only that naval units are to become even more specialized, with missile, boarding and 'ramming' specialists. I assume this means that transports will be even further nerfed, which is a good thing, and which brings us closer to the old system of transport strength being so de minimus that they weren't even represented graphically on the map.

Also it was good to hear that ramming will be less effective apparently and will play less of a role in naval combat -- they should get rid of it entirely, it's a very poor substitute for raking oars.

[PointOfViewGun]

not an entire navy but a reasonable amount of warships (2-3) to guard your precious transports from a non-existant military force. even Caesar built ships to guard his transports in case the veneti or some unknown german nation with boats decided to attack his fleet. I like how you completely ignored a logical scenario and are still going with your completely illogical straw man one.

What is the straw man that I used? I'm curious.

[Roboute Guilliman]

armies cruising around like navies, is why the AI sucks on campaign maps in Rome2(limited armies make it even worse). Before 1 ship got rapped with a 20 stack army in it, now these instatransport 20 stack armies get raped by a small fleet. Not much has changed really in armies getting raped in the ocean, except for the AI having armies all over the map except for where they need em. If you want to keep a system, be my guest, but at least make the AI cope with this donkeyball system.

[RedGuard]

What is the straw man that I used? I'm curious.

that you would have to bring your navy from armenia to the english channel

[PointOfViewGun]

that you would have to bring your navy from armenia to the english channel

Never said that.

[Aenima]

I'd prefer it if the game had it so that building a fleet would not just be dangerous (as seen in them being weak to real ships) but actually cost you something. So before getting into the water some kind of window comes up telling you what it will cost to build the fleet, and/or perhaps there's an extra upkeep cost to represent the crews of the transports. I wouldn't be against that kind of system, especially if it was made so that the AI was smart about comitting its ships to water.

As it is the idea that it costs nothing, both in the short and long term, to construct a fleet of ships and to have people get them from point A to B is pretty ridiculous.

[RedGuard]

Never said that.

well your defending of crappy designs never makes any sense so I'm not surprised i'm confused about whatever example you gave.