• 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.

Froonk

Major
1 Badges
Jun 23, 2020
503
2.659
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
While I completely agree with the current ad hoc embarkment system, it makes naval warfare even more necessary because of mobility of armies through sea. Currently there is no way to do anything to an embarked army before they land, often at their leisure to their chosen location.

I would suggest here that two embarked armies should be able to fight at sea if they engage each other, much like at land. This is accurate to how naval warfare occurred in this period, which were often just similar to land armies and fought in boarding action. Here to diversify it paradox could add some buildings, such as a "shipyard" which could improve the toughness and pursuit of embarked armies and "arsenal" which could improve the damage and screen of embarked armies.

They could further add some innovations such as Greek fire that adds damage, Genoese and Venetian galleys that would improve toughness, Viking innovation for speed, Arab innovation for maintenance and everything else possible. They could add some specific men-at-arms regiments as well such as "sailors", "naval raiders" or "naval crossbowmen" that would perform better at sea than land.

Overall I think this would be very easy to implement for paradox, be in general lightweight and fun in gameplay and fit very well with current embarkment system. It would also help fix the current issue of complete impunity of embarked armies. It does represent most of the naval warfare fought in this period, like that of between Byzantines and Arabs, Venetians and Genoese and occasional others well.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 4Like
Reactions:

Froonk

Major
1 Badges
Jun 23, 2020
503
2.659
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
A certain problem regarding this could be levies at sea, which is not completely accurate. However here levies could get a large penalty to their combat statistics at sea, representing the fact they are being transported rather than being marines. There can also be innovations regarding levies for states that had sailor conscription or in general adept sailors. Such as Genoese, Venetians, Dalmatians, Greeks and possibly certain North Afrcan, East African and West Indian factions.
 

Froonk

Major
1 Badges
Jun 23, 2020
503
2.659
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
It has been over a year and there is still no naval combat, however with change to bonuses being switched from innovations to cultures, I think implementing naval bonuses to certain cultures should be easy. Hopefully there will eventually be "naval combat" in the game in form of embarked armies being able to engage each other like they do on land.
 

pcuser1584789

Captain
On Probation
34 Badges
Jan 5, 2017
341
170
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Prison Architect
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
i think there should be naval warfare but not out on the open sea, perhaps only adjacent to coasts and limited to certain cultures like in the mediterranean only. Not sure how much naval warfare went on during these early start dates. Towards the end game i guess it might have been more prevalent because unless i am mistaken europe wasn't really conducting naval warfare on a large scale until gunpowder came around. Maybe I am wrong but dont remember ever reading about naval battles from this early period... other than greeks and persians.

edit:

found a map of a bunch of naval battles between the byzantines and arabs and they all seem to take place near land. So if they do add naval battles i think it wouldnt make much sense to allow you to intercept ships anywhere you like because think about it, without modern technology like radar how are you going to intercept a fleet... you could sail right by them in the night

Byzantine-Arab_naval_struggle.svg
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:

Froonk

Major
1 Badges
Jun 23, 2020
503
2.659
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
i think there should be naval warfare but not out on the open sea, perhaps only adjacent to coasts and limited to certain cultures like in the mediterranean only. Not sure how much naval warfare went on during these early start dates. Towards the end game i guess it might have been more prevalent because unless i am mistaken europe wasn't really conducting naval warfare on a large scale until gunpowder came around. Maybe I am wrong but dont remember ever reading about naval battles from this early period... other than greeks and persians.

edit:

found a map of a bunch of naval battles between the byzantines and arabs and they all seem to take place near land. So if they do add naval battles i think it wouldnt make much sense to allow you to intercept ships anywhere you like because think about it, without modern technology like radar how are you going to intercept a fleet... you could sail right by them in the night

This is the case with naval battles in all eras, nearly all naval battles were fought close to shores and very few naval battles are in open seas until 20th century. However the idea that "naval battles" didn't happen is a falsity, there wasn't conducting "naval warfare" because most countries didn't have a "navy" until age of sail but battles certainly took place in sea. I think CK3 could definitely limit them to "coastal areas" as it would indeed be easier for Paradox to just create "coastal provinces" next to land where if two hostile armies enter at the same time they would conduct a battle, much like on land. If you can embark an army into sea, they can engage in a naval battle.

I honestly doubt we'll ever have naval combat. And I'm perfectly fine with that. I hated naval combat in every paradox game that had it.

There is no need for a separate "naval combat system". It's simply letting embarked armies engage in in combat in sea, much like in land. This would be most easily accomplished by introducing coastal provinces that would be designed around shores of the map. Only extra would be that combat bonuses would be supported by different buildings.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:

Froonk

Major
1 Badges
Jun 23, 2020
503
2.659
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
As a reference point, there are roughly 80 naval battles and engagements, not counting anything too minor, with at least 20 major engagements during the timeline of CK3. These also include Byzantine conflicts with Muslim powers, as well as Venetian and Genoese naval assistance during crusades that defeated Muslim navies. The latter is especially relevant to the game, as currently it is not possible to do what Venetians and Genoese did during crusades, which is defeating enemy navies to prevent reinforcements to lift ongoing sieges of coastal cities and towns.
 

InsidiousMage

General
11 Badges
Mar 4, 2021
2.376
9.440
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
As a reference point, there are roughly 80 naval battles and engagements, not counting anything too minor, with at least 20 major engagements during the timeline of CK3.
Just FYI but the game covers a 400-600 year time span which gives you, on average, a naval battle of note at like once every five to ten years. Naval warfare was important in the Mediterranean at very specific times and places. There is a reason why it is limited to the Byzantines, the major Islamic powers and Venice/Genoa - its because they were the only ones who could afford it. Maintaining a navy was incredibly expensive which is why the vast, vast majority of rulers never brother with one. CK3 covers a far, far larger geographical span than just the Mediterranean and it's naval powers so naval mechanics are something that the vast majority of rulers will never use and that is why they shouldn't be included in the game. There are better things for the devs to spend their time on.
 

Froonk

Major
1 Badges
Jun 23, 2020
503
2.659
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
Just FYI but the game covers a 400-600 year time span which gives you, on average, a naval battle of note at like once every five to ten years. Naval warfare was important in the Mediterranean at very specific times and places. There is a reason why it is limited to the Byzantines, the major Islamic powers and Venice/Genoa - its because they were the only ones who could afford it. Maintaining a navy was incredibly expensive which is why the vast, vast majority of rulers never brother with one. CK3 covers a far, far larger geographical span than just the Mediterranean and it's naval powers so naval mechanics are something that the vast majority of rulers will never use and that is why they shouldn't be included in the game. There are better things for the devs to spend their time on.

If you do read the OP, I am not asking them to add "navies" or "ships". I am asking them to allow embarked armies to engage in combat, and to add buildings to influence the modifiers of such combat. I doubt adding such a mechanic would be very costly in terms of developer time since all the mechanics of combat and embarking are already in the game. All they would really have to do would be to add coastal zones where embarked armies would engage in combat. Open seas, including areas far off the coast in Mediterranean, can be excluded from this.

However let me explain the faulty logic in your argument. The argument that putting men to sea was expensive, which made naval battles rarer than land battles is indeed true. However this isn't an argument against naval battles, this is an argument against putting men to sea in the first place. We are instead talking about the interaction between two armies already at sea, the cost of which has already come to pass the moment they have embarked. Unfortunately in CK3 the reality of expense of putting men to sea isn't very relevant at all and you can easily ship men around. In such a world, where every count can put their men to sea you would see much more naval combat. Naval combat is a natural result of armed men on board of vessels at sea, not some sort of independent occurrence that manifests when enough money is accumulated in a state's treasury.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:

InsidiousMage

General
11 Badges
Mar 4, 2021
2.376
9.440
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
If you do read the OP, I am not asking them to add "navies" or "ships". I am asking them to allow embarked armies to engage in combat, and to add buildings to influence the modifiers of such combat. I doubt adding such a mechanic would be very costly in terms of developer time since all the mechanics of combat and embarking are already in the game. All they would really have to do would be to add coastal zones where embarked armies would engage in combat. Open seas, including areas far off the coast in Mediterranean, can be excluded from this.

However let me explain the faulty logic in your argument. The argument that putting men to sea was expensive, which made naval battles rarer than land battles is indeed true. However this isn't an argument against naval battles, this is an argument against putting men to sea in the first place. We are instead talking about the interaction between two armies already at sea, the cost of which has already come to pass the moment they have embarked. Unfortunately in CK3 the reality of expense of putting men to sea isn't very relevant at all and you can easily ship men around. In such a world, where every count can put their men to sea you would see much more naval combat. Naval combat is a natural result of armed men on board of vessels at sea, not some sort of independent occurrence that manifests when enough money is accumulated in a state's treasury.
No, I got that but "navies" is a convenient shorthand. But, again, its not going to be used a lot. How often you do see your opponents navy much less actually cross paths with them? I will occasionally see an enemy navy on route somewhere but I've rarely, if ever, actually crossed their path when at sea. What's the point of adding the potential of naval combat when it would almost never happen anyway? That's the problem with this. You would have to add something that makes it more likely that navies will encounter each in order to have an actual battle because if you don't then they are basically never going to happen and thus a pointless addition to the game. And, again, this would be primarily used in the Mediterranean, if its used at all, and therefore useless for the vast majority of the map. Adding any kind of naval mechanics are going to have the same problem with niche case uses for a tiny portion of the map and therefore, by my definition anyway, a waste of dev resources. No historical game can realistically cover every element of the time period it is portraying so some things are either going to have either highly abstracted or just not dealt with. Navies in CK3 are a perfect example of that.
 
  • 1
Reactions:

Froonk

Major
1 Badges
Jun 23, 2020
503
2.659
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
Argument you are making is as vague to be senseless. Yes, there is limited development time and yes there will be cutoff points where scope of the topic will be too small for more potential gameplay detail. However the line drawn is arbitrary without actually putting it to comparison.

For example significant amount of development time went to elaborating on mechanics of trial-by-combat specifically for Norse culture group. How many relevant trials-by-combat were there in 600 years covered by CK3 timeline, especially between nobility? How relevant were these trials-by-combat in Normandy and Scandinavia to rest of the world? Is the scope of trials-by-combat in Normandy and Scandinavia more important than all the naval battles in Baltics and Mediterranean? Are the many naval engagements between Byzantium and Caliphates, some crucial ones which possibly saved Byzantium losing its capital to a Muslim invasion during most of the timeline less important? Is the region of Mediterranean less important than Normandy and Scandinavia, if so by what metric? Are duels much more important in this time period than naval battles? Is the fate of states around Mediterranean, which were arguably wealthiest and most powerful states at various points in the timeline and also include much of the crusades in the titular Crusader Kings less relevant than duels? Venetians and Genoese preventing reinforcement of Muslim armies to Levant by defeating their navies, letting crusaders actually capture cities in coast of Levant less important the possible duels between dukes? Can you list me 80 relevant duels in this time period?

Nobody is asking for a system covering intricacies and specifics of naval warfare, which could be argued as unnecessarily detailed. However they already went as far to develop a system of embarking including adding cultural traits that manipulate it, doing 80% of the job of "naval warfare" as suggested. Rest is simply letting two armies in sea next to same land province engage much like on land. In detail, if there are two embarked armies and they both arrive next to duchy of Cilicia, they engage in combat much like any other combat in the game. So anyone who puts an army for practically free from Delta can't land in Constantinople with no opposition, bypassing all of Levant and Anatolia.

Lack of naval engagement creates a significant problem of embarked armies essentially being free to move wherever they want and being so cheap to do so with no drawback whatsoever. This is problematic in game where warfare practically revolves around movement between provinces. If putting men to sea is expensive and it is, then it should have been made prohibitively expensive to do so except perhaps except of Vikings for gameplay purposes. If there was going to be any sacrifice of developer time then they could actually do that at letting armies embark at all. However since we didn't stop it at that point and then the developers should definitely strongly consider whether adding sea provinces exactly next to duchies that border the sea for embarked armies to engage in combat.
 
  • 1
Reactions:

InsidiousMage

General
11 Badges
Mar 4, 2021
2.376
9.440
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
For example significant amount of development time went to elaborating on mechanics of trial-by-combat specifically for Norse culture group. How many relevant trials-by-combat were there in 600 years covered by CK3 timeline, especially between nobility? How relevant were these trials-by-combat in Normandy and Scandinavia to rest of the world? Is the scope of trials-by-combat in Normandy and Scandinavia more important than all the naval battles in Baltics and Mediterranean?
Um.....duels are available to anyone as long as A) they have a rival and B) they have they first perk from the Gallant tree in the Martial lifestyle. Like, the DD introducing duels doesn't feature a single Scandinavian or Norman character and doesn't feature the words "Norman," "Norse," or "Scandinavian" at all. Also, they fit in really well with the game's character-centric nature, hence their inclusion, and meshes well with the Norse hence its introduction alongside the North Lords DLC. No idea where you got the idea that it was limited to just the Norse and Normans.

In detail, if there are two embarked armies and they both arrive next to duchy of Cilicia, they engage in combat much like any other combat in the game. So anyone who puts an army for practically free from Delta can't land in Constantinople with no opposition, bypassing all of Levant and Anatolia.
Serious questions - One, why would two armies be landing at Cilicia at the same time instead of one already being there and the other invading by sea and two, if you already controlled Cilicia why wouldn't you just attack when they land when you have the advantage from the disembark penalty? And, again, how often have you actually seen two enemy armies actually cross paths at sea because, again, if they don't then this feature is pointless. If they don't regularly cross paths and you want this feature in the game then you have to find a way to force them to cross paths.

Lack of naval engagement creates a significant problem of embarked armies essentially being free to move wherever they want and being so cheap to do so with no drawback whatsoever. This is problematic in game where warfare practically revolves around movement between provinces. If putting men to sea is expensive and it is, then it should have been made prohibitively expensive to do so except perhaps except of Vikings for gameplay purposes.
This is because it is possible for a Duke in Southern France have an alliance with a Duke in southern France to have an alliance with a Duke in Anatolia and that they can call each other to war. For that to function properly they need to be able to get from one end of the Mediterranean to the other in a way that a) doesn't take too long and b) isn't ruinously expensive. The naval system works the way it does because there are other factors that have a higher priority in the game. There aren't always going to be enough characters in the local area for each ruler to find a suitable marriage for all of their children and will therefore have to go farther out than was historically necessary to do so which is going to create certain issues, ie. marrying someone on the other side of the Mediterranean and potentially have to assist in their wars. Since finding suitable partners is more important to CK3's core game elements than crossing the Mediterranean, navies have to be abstracted in some way and since warfare in and of itself isn't super important to the game's core elements its just reduced to an embark cost and higher maintenance while at sea. Could the costs be increased and when you can embark to be more restricted? Maybe but, overall, it is more important for a ruler to be able to answer the call to arms of an ally who is at at a distance in a reasonable way than how it comports to the dynamics of historical naval warfare.
 
  • 2
Reactions:

InsidiousMage

General
11 Badges
Mar 4, 2021
2.376
9.440
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
For example significant amount of development time went to elaborating on mechanics of trial-by-combat specifically for Norse culture group. How many relevant trials-by-combat were there in 600 years covered by CK3 timeline, especially between nobility? How relevant were these trials-by-combat in Normandy and Scandinavia to rest of the world? Is the scope of trials-by-combat in Normandy and Scandinavia more important than all the naval battles in Baltics and Mediterranean? Are the many naval engagements between Byzantium and Caliphates, some crucial ones which possibly saved Byzantium losing its capital to a Muslim invasion during most of the timeline less important? Is the region of Mediterranean less important than Normandy and Scandinavia, if so by what metric? Are duels much more important in this time period than naval battles? Is the fate of states around Mediterranean, which were arguably wealthiest and most powerful states at various points in the timeline and also include much of the crusades in the titular Crusader Kings less relevant than duels? Venetians and Genoese preventing reinforcement of Muslim armies to Levant by defeating their navies, letting crusaders actually capture cities in coast of Levant less important the possible duels between dukes? Can you list me 80 relevant duels in this time period?
I actually want to come back to this because I think it illustrates a problem some people are having with the game - that just because it takes place during the Middle Ages it is about the Middle Ages but that's not true. The game is about characters and dynasties and the games major mechanics mostly revolve around that. This is why duels are actually a really good mechanic for the game because they about the interactions between characters while naval mechanics aren't because they are tangential to the primary concerns of the game. Warfare obviously needs to be in the game but it is also fairly simplified with larger and better armies essentially determining who wins. Religion and culture a kind of middle ground that have to exist but also allows for gameplay that while not necessarily adding to the core elements doesn't also distract from them. Sins and Virtues of course help shape what kinds of characters you interact with and culture ties into several systems, including warfare, while also adding some more character based elements to the game with Royal court so that is fine in that regard. They also allow for players to a degree of self expression to the game, which is good for people who want. Even the Court mechanics are about the characters with the big selling seeing your characters and many of the mechanics revolving around characters. Naval warfare does none of that. People want it in because it was in the time period not because it actually connects to any of the game's core elements. Obviously, not everything is going to directly connect to the characters but so many of the things people want added to the game are so tangential to what the game is about. This is why introducing a church hierarchy is good because it about characters and maneuvering members of your dynasty is key positions of power whereas playable merchant republics make no sense is a game about landed dynasts. Same with trade. It is obviously an important element of the time period but most rulers didn't have like a trade policy and barely interacted with it beyond taxing when it could or trying to encourage is what few ways they had access to. The game is fundamentally about the characters and the dynasties and the mechanic should and need to revolve around as much as possible it is what is going to make the game better, not cramming in any as many elements that relate to the Middle Ages as possible which is only to mechanical bloat that adds nothing substantial to the game.
 
  • 2
Reactions:

Froonk

Major
1 Badges
Jun 23, 2020
503
2.659
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
I actually want to come back to this because I think it illustrates a problem some people are having with the game - that just because it takes place during the Middle Ages it is about the Middle Ages but that's not true. The game is about characters and dynasties and the games major mechanics mostly revolve around that. This is why duels are actually a really good mechanic for the game because they about the interactions between characters while naval mechanics aren't because they are tangential to the primary concerns of the game. Warfare obviously needs to be in the game but it is also fairly simplified with larger and better armies essentially determining who wins. Religion and culture a kind of middle ground that have to exist but also allows for gameplay that while not necessarily adding to the core elements doesn't also distract from them. Sins and Virtues of course help shape what kinds of characters you interact with and culture ties into several systems, including warfare, while also adding some more character based elements to the game with Royal court so that is fine in that regard. They also allow for players to a degree of self expression to the game, which is good for people who want. Even the Court mechanics are about the characters with the big selling seeing your characters and many of the mechanics revolving around characters. Naval warfare does none of that. People want it in because it was in the time period not because it actually connects to any of the game's core elements. Obviously, not everything is going to directly connect to the characters but so many of the things people want added to the game are so tangential to what the game is about. This is why introducing a church hierarchy is good because it about characters and maneuvering members of your dynasty is key positions of power whereas playable merchant republics make no sense is a game about landed dynasts. Same with trade. It is obviously an important element of the time period but most rulers didn't have like a trade policy and barely interacted with it beyond taxing when it could or trying to encourage is what few ways they had access to. The game is fundamentally about the characters and the dynasties and the mechanic should and need to revolve around as much as possible it is what is going to make the game better, not cramming in any as many elements that relate to the Middle Ages as possible which is only to mechanical bloat that adds nothing substantial to the game.

Your entire argument comes down to that this is not worth development time because you don't personally care about it and what you care about is what everyone should care about. People play the game for different reasons and clearly warfare is part of it. As duels may be part of the interaction between characters, so is warfare including naval warfare and as trials-by-combat were added particularly to add flavor to Norman and Norse, there is plenty of flavor to be added to around Mediterranean. Here is an example, I don't care for landed dynasts of Europe but I am very interested in playing in Byzantium or playing as political dynasties of republics both of which were added to CK2 at some level. If anyone wants to play Byzantines, Italian Republics or Caliphates then naval warfare can be and is something important how they perceive their character's interaction with the world. You are not some arbiter of what counts as substantial or what counts as character driven. Try to get some perspective.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
Reactions:

InsidiousMage

General
11 Badges
Mar 4, 2021
2.376
9.440
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
Your entire argument comes down to that this is not worth development time because you don't personally care about it and what you care about is what everyone should care about.
No, my argument is that the game is about characters and dynasties not the Middle Ages. It is literally the first design goal from the first DD.

Character Focus: Crusader Kings is clearly and unequivocally about individual characters, unlike our other games.
Warfare and the Middle Ages are mentioned nowhere in those design goals but designing the the game's mechanics around characters to the greatest extent possible is mentioned. The devs have a) explicitly stated what they want the game to be and b) the vast, vast majority of the game's mechanics and elements fit firmly with in that vision and the things that don't (warfare) exist because they need to exist in the game.

Here is an example, I don't care for landed dynasts of Europe but I am very interested in playing in Byzantium or playing as political dynasties of republics both of which were added to CK2 at some level.
Just because something was in CK2 doesn't mean it is going to be in CK3. Given that Vicky3 radically reworked warfare to fit within its vision for the game I think people expecting there to be playable republics in CK3 aren't paying attention. They could be added to the game but since go so radically against how the game functions a a core level no one should take that as a given. Again, the game is not about the Middle Ages it is about characters and dynasties so those are going to be the main focus of the game.

If anyone wants to play Byzantines, Italian Republics or Caliphates then naval warfare can be and is something important how they perceive their character's interaction with the world.
Yeah, this is a massive stretch and we both know it. Naval warfare does not interact with characters at all and, as seen already, the devs didn't considered it a necessary element to be added to the game from the start.

Also, you still haven't answered my question of how often you've seen embarked armies cross paths and, if they rarely or never cross paths, how you would get them to do so so this mechanic isn't a pointless addition to the game.
 
  • 3
Reactions:

Froonk

Major
1 Badges
Jun 23, 2020
503
2.659
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
This is an entirely unnecessary discussion and I am not going to add to it further because you are unable even process that other people may have different perceptions of their gameplay flow and what they find substantial. You speak in entirely vague and non-comparative terms, with your argumentation one could argue that warfare shouldn't be in the game at all and while I am not lacking perspective to consider that indeed could be something someone might wish for, you are unfortunately lacking in such perspective realize warfare in this game is part of character interactions. Beyond that, I doubt just adding coastal provinces where embarked armies can engage in combat would be too difficult to add compared to potential gameplay interaction it generates, considering that embarking and combat are already in the game.
 
  • 3
Reactions:

Sizano

Corporal
48 Badges
Jun 6, 2014
28
106
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
While I completely agree with the current ad hoc embarkment system, it makes naval warfare even more necessary because of mobility of armies through sea. Currently there is no way to do anything to an embarked army before they land, often at their leisure to their chosen location.

I would suggest here that two embarked armies should be able to fight at sea if they engage each other, much like at land. This is accurate to how naval warfare occurred in this period, which were often just similar to land armies and fought in boarding action. Here to diversify it paradox could add some buildings, such as a "shipyard" which could improve the toughness and pursuit of embarked armies and "arsenal" which could improve the damage and screen of embarked armies.

They could further add some innovations such as Greek fire that adds damage, Genoese and Venetian galleys that would improve toughness, Viking innovation for speed, Arab innovation for maintenance and everything else possible. They could add some specific men-at-arms regiments as well such as "sailors", "naval raiders" or "naval crossbowmen" that would perform better at sea than land.

Overall I think this would be very easy to implement for paradox, be in general lightweight and fun in gameplay and fit very well with current embarkment system. It would also help fix the current issue of complete impunity of embarked armies. It does represent most of the naval warfare fought in this period, like that of between Byzantines and Arabs, Venetians and Genoese and occasional others well.
Looking at this is a game heavily focused on the age of crusades and the vikings as of now I find this point very important and am quite puzzled that this has only this few upvotes. I mean who doesn't know of the sea battles of harald hadrada, the naval battles between the kievan-rus and byzantium before the walls of their grand city (including greek fire!, how awsome would greek fire be as a greek exclusive innovation tied to naval warfare) or the role of ships especially built by the venezians during the crusades. This could all now as well be tied to traditions and would really add to the currently kinda one-dimensional warfare imo.
 
  • 1
Reactions: