Closed Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: Naval Warfare

  1. #21
    Banned LouisXI's Avatar
    Deus VultEU3 CompleteMount & Blade: Warband

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Collective Ant Colony #53
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by Austen View Post
    Saying naval warfare was non-existent or of little significance during this period would be wrong; it's simply a case that it operated on a far different scale and in a very different manner.
    Correct. I'm actually trying to say exactly what nattai did.

    The main problem here is that almost no full-time, professional navies existed.
    A given when one understands that full time standing armies didn't exist for the majority of the period CK covers either. You had very little control of what your regiments were composed of in CK, though there was of course different types of soldiers. If navies became similar to the original CK recruitment system, I might be interested then. I just don't want to see a massive amount of ships being built by coastal counties and Kingdoms, and then see naval battles routinely where hundreds of ships clash against one another. It's bad enough you sometimes have battles that were far more epic than they actually would've been.


    There are literally dozens of examples of naval conflicts during the Middle Ages, but they're simply not well known. For example, Edward IV of England conducted a full-scale naval war against the Hanseatic league which involved numerous large fleets fighting in the North Sea.

    You can look here for a rough list of conflicts, though it's fairly slapdash as lists go.
    I notice most don't list the amount of ships present, and most are also either Italian, Byzantine or Arab. Again, seeing naval combat wouldn't be a bad thing at all and prove useful, but by no means should it be as common for most Europeans as it is in EU3 .

    I do propose though a solution to solve perhaps naval overcrowding if they add it. Place an actual hard limit you can't go past dependent on wealth of a province and perhaps prestige of the liege. For the most part, only Kings will have fleets, though very wealthy Dukes should have the ability (examples being William the Conquerer's half brothers and their donations to his overall invasion fleet) to build a fleet themselves. In my oh so humble opinion, counts should never build a fleet.

  2. #22
    Byzantophile Daimyō DarthJF's Avatar
    200k clubHoI AnthologyCrusader Kings IIDarkest HourDeus Vult
    EU3 CompleteFor The GloryFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest Hour
    Heir to the ThroneVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengoku
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae VictisCK2: Holy Knight
    EU3 Collectors Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Conquest of Paradise

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Finnia
    Posts
    3,110
    Quote Originally Posted by LouisXI View Post
    I do propose though a solution to solve perhaps naval overcrowding if they add it. Place an actual hard limit you can't go past dependent on wealth of a province and perhaps prestige of the liege. For the most part, only Kings will have fleets, though very wealthy Dukes should have the ability (examples being William the Conquerer's half brothers and their donations to his overall invasion fleet) to build a fleet themselves. In my oh so humble opinion, counts should never build a fleet.
    I think fleets should simply be so expensive that you can't afford proper fleet without being a major lord, but no hard set "counts can't have ships" restrcitions.

    But fleets definitely need to be in the game. One thing that always bugged me in CK was that you could move 10 000 men from Iceland to Egypt with just a press of a button.
    "It is because people's minds are not logical and enlightened that the Empire is in disorder. If the country is not properly ruled there will be no end to rebellions. And if anyone wishes to get the knowledge of how to rule it properly he will only find it in books. That is why the publication of books is the beginning of beneficient rule."

    - Tokugawa Ieyasu

  3. #23
    Banned LouisXI's Avatar
    Deus VultEU3 CompleteMount & Blade: Warband

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Collective Ant Colony #53
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by DarthJF View Post
    But fleets definitely need to be in the game. One thing that always bugged me in CK was that you could move 10 000 men from Iceland to Egypt with just a press of a button.
    It should definitely remain as expensive as it was in CK1 to do so with one click of a button, however. It took ages to recover from that .

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by nattai View Post
    One thing I would like to see is a representation of the technological development during the period, for the first crusade transport of large numbers of men, and particularly horses, over long distances wasnt possible, but by the 3rd and 4th crusades it was a reality and became an increasily more feasible option over time.
    I don't think this improvement was so much due to technology as it was to resources, territory, and politics.

    The First Crusade was led by a handful of prominent nobles from France and Italy. Though rich by the day's standards, they didn't have the bankroll of a sovereign, and it was cheaper to march over land and forage or rely on hospitality. Also, horses can't be on a boat for long before becoming useless, so the trick in moving them by boat was to put them ashore in friendly territory to recover. There was no friendly territory right in the Levant--they'd have to stop in Byzantium anyway. Furthermore, the crusaders were partly responding to an appeal (via the pope) from the Byzantine emperor to help him against the Turks, and they certainly hoped the emperor would give them substantial help (he didn't . . .) when they invaded the holy land.

    The Second and later crusades were often led and/or financed by sovereigns who had the means (financial and otherwise) to get the Italians to transport them all the way there (there were still some crusaders that made long overland marches, of course, like Frederick Barbarossa). Also, crusaders had secured safe places in the Levant (they still held a coastal island or two after Saladin kicked them off the mainland) by then where they could rest their horses from a sea voyage. It was also desirable to bypass Byzantium if possible by then: religious and political relations, even if shaky during the First crusade, only got worse year after year.

  5. #25
    a Relic LordofSaxony's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneRome GoldSengokuSword of the StarsVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessMount & Blade: WarbandCK2: Holy Knight500k club
    Europa Universalis IVEUIV: Wealth of NationsEUIV: Conquest of ParadiseEUIV: Res Publica

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the other side of reality.
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by LouisXI View Post
    It should definitely remain as expensive as it was in CK1 to do so with one click of a button, however. It took ages to recover from that .
    That's why once your army is in the ocean you reduce your military spending to zero.

  6. #26
    Financial Director tretii_sleva's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIHearts of Iron IIIEuropa Universalis III: In NomineEU3 Napoleon's Ambition

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    planes,trains,cars..anything that moves
    Posts
    860
    Fleets should be in, as they were in historically. Arabs have terrorised the whole mideterrenian with it's ships and bysantines were famous for using it's fleet in decisive battles.

  7. #27
    Banned LouisXI's Avatar
    Deus VultEU3 CompleteMount & Blade: Warband

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Collective Ant Colony #53
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by LordofSaxony View Post
    That's why once your army is in the ocean you reduce your military spending to zero.
    Well, then you're just asking to have virtually no men left by the time they arrive at their destination.

  8. #28
    few interesting links about medieval naval warfare

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_navy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repubbliche_Marinare

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans#Conquests

    For the Byzantines especially and also for the Saracens, it looks like the navy was actually more important in the high middle ages and then it was gradually reduced (by 1066 the Byzantines might have had no navy at all).
    Maybe the Maritime republics could be given a special bonus for naval trade and warfare? Especially if they wouldn't be playable like in CKI... so yes I actually agree that naval warfare in the LOW Middle Ages (from 1100 to 1400) was relatively unimportant for the feudal states which are the only ones playable, so Paradox choice in CKI is actually legitimate...

    Still I hope it will be present somewhat, maybe just like in Rome (2 ship types, war ship and transport, make them very expensive to build. The AI maritime republics would have a bonus for building and keeping huge fleets).
    Byzantine.Hellenistic.Ottoman.Sogdian

  9. #29
    a Relic LordofSaxony's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneRome GoldSengokuSword of the StarsVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessMount & Blade: WarbandCK2: Holy Knight500k club
    Europa Universalis IVEUIV: Wealth of NationsEUIV: Conquest of ParadiseEUIV: Res Publica

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the other side of reality.
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by LouisXI View Post
    Well, then you're just asking to have virtually no men left by the time they arrive at their destination.
    I don't remember there being attrition on the ocean with your army? In other words, I don't remember you losing soldiers from reducing your military spending to zero while your army is on a ship.

  10. #30
    Banned LouisXI's Avatar
    Deus VultEU3 CompleteMount & Blade: Warband

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Collective Ant Colony #53
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by LordofSaxony View Post
    I don't remember there being attrition on the ocean with your army? In other words, I don't remember you losing soldiers from reducing your military spending to zero while your army is on a ship.
    Even if you have the slider at the maximum for army upkeep, IIRC you take attrition of 1 to 5, just like in enemy provinces. When it's lowered, the attrition gets worse.

  11. #31
    Shadow Tribune Tecnócrata's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the Throne
    Europa Universalis: RomeSemper FiRome: Vae Victis

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Land of Thieves.
    Posts
    221
    Some kind of naval combat, even abstracted, should be in. Perhaps a control percent for each sea zone and ruler with access to it; the lesser, the heavier the attrition. Perhaps not many sea battles there were, but there were.

  12. #32
    Mare Ban al Olteniei Laur's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wallachia
    Posts
    609
    I would also like to see the ability to raise a fleet directly tied to the laws of the realm. After all, few states in that period could afford to keep a war fleet, most ships being simply merchant vessels which were hired and refitted. Who knows, maybe this way we can put a dent in the uber-powerful "feudal contract?"
    "When I lead my army against Baghdad in anger, whether you hide in heaven or in earth, I will bring you down from the spinning spheres; I will toss you in the air like a lion. I will leave no one alive in your realm; I will burn your city, your land, your self.

    If you wish to spare yourself and your venerable family, give heed to my advice with the ear of intelligence. If you do not, you will see what God has willed."

    Hulagu Khan (letter to the last Caliph of Baghdad 1258)

  13. #33
    Grand Poobah DukeWilleo1630's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultDiplomacyHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the Throne
    Europa Universalis III: In NomineEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionRome GoldSengokuMount & Blade: Warband
    CK2: Holy KnightEU3 Collectors Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    NWAR
    Posts
    1,735
    Blog Entries
    2
    I would rather see them focus on other aspects of the game. I did not mind how, in order to go oversees, you just had to pay a lump sum. Maybe more attrition on the trip though. And perhaps let two fleets transporting armies fight if they meet each other. With the battle based on perhaps a naval proficiency slider and the commanders marshal skill.

    "Keen at start, careless at the end."-Tacitus.

    Under the Scarlet Stefan: CKAAR
    The Blood of Genghis: EU3AAR

  14. #34
    No!

  15. #35
    I disagree. Naval combat will spoil the game. It didnt happen in this age its an eu4 thing.

    Crusader armies will be getting intercepted in the sea. Vikings chased down and sunk off Scandinavia, fleets will roam around fighting each other.


    No such things happened in those days. Combat was avoided easily and there were no armadas.

    If you put in fleet battles you ruin the core fuedal feel of the game. Eu4 is your navy game.

  16. #36
    True, but when I first played CK2, I was shocked that there was no fighting with huge navies I made.

  17. #37
    But this is just a joke, get out of here.

  18. #38
    They should allow republics to rent out their navy for some extra income and if they AI ends up going into debt giving them the option of either 1. Letting them keep the ships until their men depart the ships (Probably a relationship bonus) 2. Ships gone, men lost (big relationship malus) or 3. Temporary ally status (about a year, moderate relationship malus[?])

  19. #39
    You're right, but I think some mods let you rent out boats for like 50 gold??

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Dominico View Post
    I disagree. Naval combat will spoil the game. It didnt happen in this age its an eu4 thing.

    Crusader armies will be getting intercepted in the sea. Vikings chased down and sunk off Scandinavia, fleets will roam around fighting each other.


    No such things happened in those days. Combat was avoided easily and there were no armadas.

    If you put in fleet battles you ruin the core fuedal feel of the game. Eu4 is your navy game.
    Just so you know, the Vikings did get chased down and sunk. In the Anglo-Saxon chronicles there is a list of quite a few naval battles, including chasing down fleeing Vikings and destroying them at sea.

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts