Would it be interesting to put naval mechanics in the game?

[selteur]

I never said naval battles. I said a way to stop transport. Even a large chain could stop boats.

And those things you described don’t add depth, they just add extra steps for ultimately the same goal/decision: transporting troops. Sure you have to upsize your navy as your army increases in size, but that’s a no-brainer since the alternative (not increasing the size of the navy) objectively sucks.

So there is no thoughtful decision-making, just extra clicks.

So tired of people like you who just want extra clicks…

Yes sure keep your swiss army magically transform into boats when walking on the sea to go crusade at the other side of the world thats way better than ck2.

Man's so lazy he can't click if there's no special mechanic or real benefits...

 

[MathyM]

Yes sure keep your swiss army magically transform into boats when walking on the sea to go crusade at the other side of the world thats way better than ck2.

Man's so lazy he can't click if there's no special mechanic or real benefits...

Yes, I’ll take a saving on every click that does not feel particularly engaging. You might think that’s worse than CK2. I just call it good game design. Glad you’ve got the old game with that outdated UI and systems that were never fleshed out still ready for you to play at any time. I much prefer the hassle-free system that abstracts the uninteresting part, at least until we get interworking systems that add some depth to it.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Yes sure keep your swiss army magically transform into boats when walking on the sea to go crusade at the other side of the world thats way better than ck2.

Man's so lazy he can't click if there's no special mechanic or real benefits...

You're aware that historically land locked nations were able to hire boats to move armies, right - especially when it was planned in advance?

Even countries with a lot of coast (England for example) would tend to hire boats to move troops rather than maintain a standing navy.

That cost of hiring the boats is abstracted away as the fee that you pay to move troops overseas.

 

[Dionysus42]

You're aware that historically land locked nations were able to hire boats to move armies, right - especially when it was planned in advance?

Even countries with a lot of coast (England for example) would tend to hire boats to move troops rather than maintain a standing navy.

That cost of hiring the boats is abstracted away as the fee that you pay to move troops overseas.

Simply not true. English royal navies began with special arrangements with port cities to provide ships annually for set times, and progressed with Richard I who made Portsmouth his naval base and constructed many ships there. Without these naval forces, England would not have won the naval Battle of Sandwich which was the turning point of Louis' invasion of England, and thus an absolutely decisive moment in English history won because of a naval battle... and yet people will still say 'navy was never important' whereas 'China is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL'

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Simply not true. English royal navies began with special arrangements with port cities to provide ships annually for set times, and progressed with Richard I who made Portsmouth his naval base and constructed many ships there. Without these naval forces, England would not have won the naval Battle of Sandwich which was the turning point of Louis' invasion of England, and thus an absolutely decisive moment in English history won because of a naval battle... and yet people will still say 'navy was never important' whereas 'China is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL'

These ships provided annually for "set times" were essentially hired at those times rather than being a standing navy.

Royal ships were highly variable as to the number and quality maintained - but a significant proportion of those used in warfare were merchant vessels outfitted for the wars.

The Battle of Sandwich was a relatively small number of ships on both sides. Louis' invasion only succeeded in the first place due to the low numbers and quality of John's navy at the time, the navy being built up in response to this - and only being effective in cutting off Louis after John's death.

And.... I didn't say "navy was never important" or anything about China being essential. I was pointing out that especially for transport, many countries tended to hire ships rather than have the expense of building and maintaining them. *Gradually* this transitioned into a standing navy, but for much of the game period even England's navy was spotty.

 

[FishieFan]

It's been discussed at length in CK2 and now in CK3. I think the current implementation is as good as it can get. This era did not experience major naval battles, and I could not imagine what kind of naval combat would even fit into the game in a meaningful and fun way.

The Byzantines faced a few naval invasions with canoes or small boats, but these were not a match of equals. Byzantines also had their Greek fire that simple transports could not effectively combat.

The Norman invasions from southern Italy was not just canoes or small boats, it was a substantial invasion fleet that Venice had to be called in to destroy the Norman fleet

Essentially, from Justinian until the later Middle Ages, there were no significant navies to challenge the Byzantines. They were able to project naval supremacy in the Med until the Arabs started reducing their empire:

Byzantine navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What do you mean by "later middle ages", do you mean the high mediveal era? Or do you just mean after the rise of the abassid caliphate? As Arab piracy would severely reduce byzantine fortunes by 867, the earliest start date and where these game mechanics would begin

 

[FishieFan]

You're aware that historically land locked nations were able to hire boats to move armies, right - especially when it was planned in advance?

Even countries with a lot of coast (England for example) would tend to hire boats to move troops rather than maintain a standing navy.

That cost of hiring the boats is abstracted away as the fee that you pay to move troops overseas.

This is the era before standing armies so obviously there will be both levies of set time and mercs hired. Landlocked states were able to hire boats, but it shouldn't be so completely easy that the only difference between land and sea is that if you border sea you can make ports and cant fight on sea tiles

 

[selteur]

Yes, I’ll take a saving on every click that does not feel particularly engaging. You might think that’s worse than CK2. I just call it good game design. Glad you’ve got the old game with that outdated UI and systems that were never fleshed out still ready for you to play at any time. I much prefer the hassle-free system that abstracts the uninteresting part, at least until we get interworking systems that add some depth to it.

Don't get me wrong I enjoy ck3 a lot. But I think some mechanics or "game designs" were better in ck2 (and for sure the same goes for the other way around for features better implemented in ck3) but it seems like some people can't hear that. Ah yes now you are gonna call me a boomer ? One of those who say : "it was better before" ? So you are hitting me with the go back to the older game then ?

Let's just say everyone has is own opinion, not a way is better than another, only you like better your way.

 

[selteur]

This is the era before standing armies so obviously there will be both levies of set time and mercs hired. Landlocked states were able to hire boats, but it shouldn't be so completely easy that the only difference between land and sea is that if you border sea you can make ports and cant fight on sea toles

He wrote it better than me lol

 

[Kimlin1004]

Yes? It would be interesting to add naval mechanics into the game.

 

[Byzantium2000]

I prefer the CK2 system cause every army running to the sea to flee and meet up with allies is the worst part of warfare for me in this game and make want to drop the game during civil wars lol.

It’s awful in Iberia and there’s no downside for the ai, just 100% free ability to completely circumvent my Superior army positioning by sailing all round the peninsula.

Makes me feels dirty when I do it to escape a failed crusade too

Yeah the CK2 system was more tedious but it was also more immersive and fair imo.

Also people here acting like the Normans didn’t have the Single most powerful non MP or Byz fleet in Europe that could contest and defeat Venetians/Byzantium, invade and conquer Tunis, Raid and permanently take islands in Greece while surprise attacking a Byzantine fleet at Cyprus. Honestly Normans were Hax.

It's been discussed at length in CK2 and now in CK3. I think the current implementation is as good as it can get. This era did not experience major naval battles, and I could not imagine what kind of naval combat would even fit into the game in a meaningful and fun way.

The Byzantines faced a few naval invasions with canoes or small boats, but these were not a match of equals. Byzantines also had their Greek fire that simple transports could not effectively combat.

Essentially, from Justinian until the later Middle Ages, there were no significant navies to challenge the Byzantines. They were able to project naval supremacy in the Med until the Arabs started reducing their empire:

Byzantine navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It’s true the Arabs eventually stop contesting the Byzantine Fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean after the 960s....but that’s 100 years after the 867 start while Thessaloniki, the Empires 2nd largest and important city, got sacked by an Arab fleet in the meanwhile by the Emirate of Crete.

While in the central Mediterranean it remains a free for all against Muslim raids until the 1020s as Pisa, Genoa(which got sacked by a Muslim fleet), Venice and Byzantium had to defend and intercept against consistent Muslim naval raids from the various powers in Sicily, North Africa and occasional ones from Iberia in Italy and the Adriatic.

 

[Rudolf Nechvile II]

Honestly, I'd just be happy with a naval system that would prevent some random nobody shipping his army halfway around the world to invade me, or to prevent my enemy constantly skipping around my army by going to sea as soon as I approach with my army.

At this point I'd be grateful for the CK2 transport only system, with the CK3 army raising system, just because armies running away is such a huge problem.

 

[MatthewP]

Honestly, I'd just be happy with a naval system that would prevent some random nobody shipping his army halfway around the world to invade me, or to prevent my enemy constantly skipping around my army by going to sea as soon as I approach with my army.

At this point I'd be grateful for the CK2 transport only system, with the CK3 army raising system, just because armies running away is such a huge problem.

It seems like a lot of what people liked about ck2 was that the AI didn’t know how to use the naval system properly. There’s nothing about the mechanics that would prevent armies from running away to sea constantly; the AI just didn’t do it.

And a lot of the added depth was very theoretical because after the very early game you would just raise vassal fleets and be able to transport your whole army anywhere for free (other than the cost of all the clicks).

In short: it might be cool to have naval mechanics. But please don’t ask the devs to just port over the ck2 version. It would be especially absurd with the rally point system as basically the only good feature was how it made coastal nations much quicker at concentrating forces (which is probably already baked into rally point travel times though idk for sure).

 

[FishieFan]

It seems like a lot of what people liked about ck2 was that the AI didn’t know how to use the naval system properly. There’s nothing about the mechanics that would prevent armies from running away to sea constantly; the AI just didn’t do it.

Fleets couldn't cross suez yet so you couldn't do the syria to Iraq to oman to Yemen to gaza route ai crusaders can get stuck in. Ai peasant revolts couldn't just flee to see and make you wait out the timer like they do now. Landlocked or those with strips of coastline wouldn't be able to ferry whole armies across (cough revolts around the caspian sea cough)

And a lot of the added depth was very theoretical because after the very early game you would just raise vassal fleets and be able to transport your whole army anywhere for free (other than the cost of all the clicks).

For an opinion debuff for all the time spent raised and fleets had to stay raised to be used whereas at present you just need to bank money and then whenever you want to use it you can

In short: it might be cool to have naval mechanics. But please don’t ask the devs to just port over the ck2 version. It would be especially absurd with the rally point system as basically the only good feature was how it made coastal nations much quicker at concentrating forces (which is probably already baked into rally point travel times though idk for sure).

It wouldn't be perfect but it would work far better than present where island exclaves are quickly reinforced and their attackers thrown away by 10k byzzies

 

[MatthewP]

Fleets couldn't cross suez yet so you couldn't do the syria to Iraq to oman to Yemen to gaza route ai crusaders can get stuck in. Ai peasant revolts couldn't just flee to see and make you wait out the timer like they do now. Landlocked or those with strips of coastline wouldn't be able to ferry whole armies across (cough revolts around the caspian sea cough)

Suez is weird, true. And peasant revolts. But I don’t think landlocked powers twiddling their thumbs with their armies raised and nowhere to go rather than hiring some ships is an upgrade. I’d say there’s a slight realism upgrade overall.

For an opinion debuff for all the time spent raised and fleets had to stay raised to be used whereas at present you just need to bank money and then whenever you want to use it you can

The opinion didn’t stack with raised armies, so practically the cost was generally 0.

It wouldn't be perfect but it would work far better than present where island exclaves are quickly reinforced and their attackers thrown away by 10k byzzies

I see, this isn’t about navies you just want to scrap the whole ck3 army system. Well, good luck with that. BTW, if the Byz AI used fleets like a player they would get reinforcements there faster in ck2.

 

[klopkr]

@Byzantium2000 Don't forget that the AI knows to snipe your capital so if it's on any shoreline they'll just avoid your army, pack up and siege your capital hoping they can insta beat you by capturing you. Ultimate AI noob trap.

Good map too.

It seems like a lot of what people liked about ck2 was that the AI didn’t know how to use the naval system properly. There’s nothing about the mechanics that would prevent armies from running away to sea constantly; the AI just didn’t do it.

And a lot of the added depth was very theoretical because after the very early game you would just raise vassal fleets and be able to transport your whole army anywhere for free (other than the cost of all the clicks).

In short: it might be cool to have naval mechanics. But please don’t ask the devs to just port over the ck2 version. It would be especially absurd with the rally point system as basically the only good feature was how it made coastal nations much quicker at concentrating forces (which is probably already baked into rally point travel times though idk for sure).

They used them fine. They just couldn't abuse them because fleets actually were limited and had to be raised and even cost a lot of money sometimes, plus you gotta plan ahead to park em where you need them inorder to do the terrible CK3 AI behaviour of running away from battles into the sea. Actually doing that and tactical naval landings were kinda considered exploits in Ck2 because how cheaply they gamed war.


Inevitably big empires got more ships than their armies could ever need though so navies did get trivialized around the kingdom level.

I for one loved the Imperator naval mechanics and think they're just fine for CK3 with a simple screening phase before the battles for small ships to evade, especially easily on open ocean tiles.

 

[daniloy]

I have yet to see a strategy game where the navy did not go bonkers with the AI, tedious or was boring stuff.
Yes, naval mechanics could make the game more interesting, but the implenmentation was always lacking.

 

[Unknown Unknown]

No.