• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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 :eek:o.
 
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.
 
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. :D
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?"
 
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.
 
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.
 
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[?])
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.