• 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.

unmerged(495009)

Sergeant
3 Badges
May 24, 2012
59
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
I would like to see the introduction of naval warfare. I dont think it would have to be a fleshed out thing either, maybe just the ability to add an "admiral" whose benefits are based of martial skill and let it fly from there.

Thoughts?
 
Inmho its essential. It would help stop jihads in silly places and also things like the HRE expanding all over the show, as in many cases troops would get sunk by a superior force.
 
oh hi you have a bigger army but smaller navy? i think i'll just destroy it lollololol

Jokes aside this is a terrible idea.

I disagree, simply bc you would have to consider your naval options before launching halfway across the map. But I recognize the problem that you presented with your joke. Bigger army on smaller navy being destroyed by a "naval power" could present balance issues.
 
I don't see how they can viably add naval combat into the game atm.

I would definitely support any nerfing of the boats, boats are way too strong atm and unless you force yourself to play with house or RP rules are entirely OP and make winning most wars trivial.
 
I disagree, simply bc you would have to consider your naval options before launching halfway across the map. But I recognize the problem that you presented with your joke. Bigger army on smaller navy being destroyed by a "naval power" could present balance issues.

A better but more complex idea would be to implement Trade ships that could carry troops but not fight, and fewer 'war ships' that can fight and 'possibly' carry troops
 
Don't see how its a joke? Naval superiority should be a factor. EU3 does this perfectly fine. France can't beat England with its thousands of troops as it can't get a cross the water. At the moment, boats are troop teleporters. That's a joke
 
I don't see how they can viably add naval combat into the game atm.

I would definitely support any nerfing of the boats, boats are way too strong atm and unless you force yourself to play with house or RP rules are entirely OP and make winning most wars trivial.

A question: How are boats OP? Seeing as the do nothing but carry troops and give you sight on otherwise fow territory the only thing I can think of is the ability to quickly load troops onto ships and move them to adjourning counties after you have won a battle.
 
Don't see how its a joke? Naval superiority should be a factor. EU3 does this perfectly fine. France can't beat England with its thousands of troops as it can't get a cross the water. At the moment, boats are troop teleporters. That's a joke

I'm talking about how lets say the Caliph, who has lots of coastal provinces would be untouchable to anybody except a france with fully upgraded buildings, which is like very late game
 
I'm talking about how lets say the Caliph, who has lots of coastal provinces would be untouchable to anybody except a france with fully upgraded buildings, which is like very late game

Ah, yes, that would pose a problem. But they just need to balance it, so the dock improvement is next to nothing for them or something like that...... I dunno. But naval dominence should be in the game imo
 
Ah, yes, that would pose a problem. But they just need to balance it, so the dock improvement is next to nothing for them or something like that...... I dunno. But naval dominence should be in the game imo

Which is where war ships and trade ships could be implemented. You get lots of trade ships to carry troops, and few war ships to battle
 
Which is where war ships and trade ships could be implemented. You get lots of trade ships to carry troops, and few war ships to battle

This could be an good solution as in medieval naval warfare more than not merchant ships were used quite often. I think the question would then be "Can the trade ships be attacked?" as my thoughts on naval warfare within the game stem from the fact that in the current game you can just transport troops no problem without worry. A good example we can look at is the Battle of Sluys in 1340 between Edward III of England and Philip VI of France.
 
This could be an good solution as in medieval naval warfare more than not merchant ships were used quite often. I think the question would then be "Can the trade ships be attacked?" as my thoughts on naval warfare within the game stem from the fact that in the current game you can just transport troops no problem without worry. A good example we can look at is the Battle of Sluys in 1340 between Edward III of England and Philip VI of France.

I doubt a war fleet would realise a bunch of merchant ships were carrying soldiers but then again it would make fleets even more overpowered. So yes, they can be attacked, but as long as they outnumber the warships by a significant margin that could win, and take heavy losses to both ships and men. You would HAVE to put your war ships ahead of your merchant ones a la 'convoy' style
 
I doubt a war fleet would realise a bunch of merchant ships were carrying soldiers but then again it would make fleets even more overpowered. So yes, they can be attacked, but as long as they outnumber the warships by a significant margin that could win, and take heavy losses to both ships and men. You would HAVE to put your war ships ahead of your merchant ones a la 'convoy' style

I would agree with this as cannons werent being used and thus defense and offense were down to the men on the ship attacking with projectiles and eventually boarding.
 
A question: How are boats OP? Seeing as the do nothing but carry troops and give you sight on otherwise fow territory the only thing I can think of is the ability to quickly load troops onto ships and move them to adjourning counties after you have won a battle.
The AI is horrible a naval combat, so amphibious landings completely confuse it. For example, you can pretty much beat the Fatimid Caliphate with 2 smallish armies and a couple of fleets, just by attacking provinces on the opposite side of the coast. When the AI doomstack gets together and marches to attack one of your armies, you move it back onto your boats. Meanwhile the other army is capturing provinces. Rinse and repeat.

Don't see how its a joke? Naval superiority should be a factor. EU3 does this perfectly fine. France can't beat England with its thousands of troops as it can't get a cross the water. At the moment, boats are troop teleporters. That's a joke

The problem is, EU3 represents a time when naval battles were considerably more important (and advanced) than in the CK2 timeframe. Naval power certainly was important in the middle ages (it's one of the reasons the Crusaders were able to reach the Middle East rather than vice-versa), but there weren't all that many naval battles. Keeping ships as pure troop transports probably represents that better than including warships.

Personally, I think the CK1 approach worked even better. That way you couldn't keep a fleet waiting off the coast to evacuate your troops in case of an emergency.
 
I would love a game with Crusader King's strategic depth and Total War's tactical depth. Part of that would be having naval battles. Hopefully we'll see some magic mixture of the two at some point but, for now, I can live without naval skirmishes.