Guys, I've had an idea about navies (though you may disagree)

[Sleight of Hand]

This may sound somewhat controversial, and do feel free to stop me if you think I'm talking nonsense, but what about removing naval levies altogether? I can think of a few reasons for doing this, but essentially most countries didn't have transport fleets anyway (which is what navies represent in CK II because they can't fight) and it's well-known that the merchant republics (Pisa, Venice, Genoa etc.) got rich off of transporting various crusader armies about.

It also makes sense in terms of the Muslims having to march everywhere, and larger Christian armies having to as well. For example, it is said that Frederick Barbarossa's army during the Third Crusade was so large that no fleet in Europe could transport it, so they had to march across the Balkans and Anatolia in order to get to the Holy Land.

We have a Maghreb Corsair fleet for the Muslims (perhaps add a second mercenary fleet for them?) and Frisian, Genoese, Venetian and Hanseatic fleets for the Christians. I think that's about right.

Yes, some European powers did have navies (France, England, the Iberian powers etc) but they were merchant marines, few were substantial during this period and as they all lack any sort of combat element I don't think it's particularly unrealistic to ditch them. It would also add more realism to crusades.

What do you all think? Please consider this as a balance decision as opposed to 'no one had navies so get rid of them'.

 

[PatrickT]

Would make Iceland extremely isolated lol

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Would make Iceland extremely isolated lol

What did Iceland contribute to European affairs between 1066 and 1453?

 

[Darkgamma]

It was conquered and christianised :wacko:

 

[Sleight of Hand]

It was conquered and christianised :wacko:

How does that answer my question?

 

[DCyDe]

How does that answer my question?

You asked a question and got an answer, if you don't understand the answer then it's your problem, simple as that.
As to the suggestion, that would be the end of all multiplayer games, there would be endless grieving involved with that system, so from a gameplay perspective it wouldn't work.

 

[Jeltz]

I agree that it feels way too easy to transport large armies by sea. I currently play as Africa and my naval levies make it possible to unite my army from all the way from Grenada to Sicily and Tunis in a very short time.

To add an historical reference point: the norwedgian king could in 1107 transport 5000 soldiers from Norway to the Holy Land. So naval levies of a degree of almost what we see in the game was available to some kings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Crusade

 

[Sleight of Hand]

You asked a question and got an answer, if you don't understand the answer then it's your problem, simple as that.

Oh, very droll.

As to the suggestion, that would be the end of all multiplayer games, there would be endless grieving involved with that system, so from a gameplay perspective it wouldn't work.

That's a very valid point, though I'd also question the likelihood and logistical possibility of (for example) an Anglo-Saxon invasion of Abyssinia.

 

[Darkgamma]

That's a very valid point, though I'd also question the likelihood and logistical possibility of (for example) an Anglo-Saxon invasion of Abyssinia.

It's impossible ATM - Abyssinia doesn't border a navigable sea.

How does that answer my question?

Simple - Denmark, Norway and the Pope invested quite a lot of resources into bringing Iceland into the fold - Iceland was often a topic of dispute between Denmark and Norway, and the pagans didn't really go away up to the late 13th century, causing trouble as their moral code didn't match that of Catholic Christendom.

There were also excursions between the Faroes and Iceland.

 

[JohnKR]

Actually i think that this is a very good idea that not only is more historical accurate but also more balanced in terms of gameplay. So there should be more mercenary ships and ship levies should be much reduced to be up to 10000 soldiers for an empire i think.

 

[ASPGolan]

Actually i think that this is a very good idea that not only is more historical accurate but also more balanced in terms of gameplay. So there should be more mercenary ships and ship levies should be much reduced to be up to 10000 soldiers for an empire i think.

Sounds about right...

However, it should be possible to change history. A king / emperor should be able to increase he's merchant fleet in order to use it for transportation, at some expense, of course. Strategically, it should be achievable to have a transport navy, easier for realms with tradition, and it shouldn't be as easy as it is now. Still, I doubt it wasn't considered when Pdox decided how to approach this...

 

[DLFebin]

Maybe it could work if they also add navy retinues, tied to technology. Pretty much similar to current army retinue system.

 

[esbenmf]

The idea sounds intriguing, but you have to allow for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades, the Danish king sucessfully invaded both Pommeranian pagans and Estonia by sea with large forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge, the Norwegian king, lost but had quite a seizable army with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings, the famous Norman upstart won, after transporting an army across the English channel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Lisbon, English (and Norwegian) crusaders captures Lisbon, by naval invasion.

Esben

 

[Voy]

Ofc the Scandinavian Kingdoms should have a great navy. It's not like they forgot how to build large ships after 1066 (which marks the end of the viking age).

 

[eranam]

I disagree, but bringing the this subject is always a good idea.

Right now navie are like magical trains that transport your troops through dangerous, pirate infested, large seas in a very short time. While I agree that it should be far quicker that going by foot navies are simply overpowered, and, most of all, unbalanced. There's tons of issues, such as a large kingdom with few coastal provinces invading an island controlled by, what you would think good seafarers, that should be able to stop them, kingdoms conquering others light years away...

First solution, reduce the number of ships available altogether. I think the dev did a good job, because it seems to me that it's been done already, as in my game as Wales, that has quite a few coastal province, I struggle to ship all my armies at once, which is a great thing. It makes for shipping armies a tougher challenge, allows the defending to smash my armies if I am not careful when landing them one small stack by one small stack,, and gives a use to mercenary fleets, representing well the cost of shipping soldiers.
Second solution, increase the time needed to embark and disembark. Having short trips with boats isn't ahistorical or illogical, but embarking takes a lot of time and ressources, and so does disembarking. This would allow for the defending force to be able to more or less see where the ennemy is going to disembark, and maybe or maybe not be able to stop them (creating a nice dynamic such as waht happened with the norman invasion of England).
Third solution: naval warfare. While not very common in that timeframe, invasions between balanced forces using navies weren't either, so I think it has a meaning to implement them if there indeed are naval invasions. I think what could be done would to give a chance for two navies containing soldiers in the same tile to fight each other. Archers and light infantry would be given a big bonuse, while heavy infantry would be given a maluse (representing the horsed warriors having to fight dismounted). Combined with fewer ships overall this gives a chance for smaller forces to defeat an invasion if it's able to field a similar number of ships as the attacking force.

What do you guys think?

 

[Comm Cody]

For Navies to work, we need naval battles, attrition at sea, and storms that can destroy a navy.

 

[TheLionHeart]

What about adding a decision to form a national navy? You should have to pay a large fee to start the decision, then have your own fleet levies for ten years or so then once it is expired you must put in the decision again to renew your fleets.

 

[NezzeOne]

For Navies to work, we need naval battles, attrition at sea, and storms that can destroy a navy.

Attrition at sea was in the game when it was still pretty new.

It was god awful, not going to lie >.<

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

I approve and really like the idea. Fleets should be only mercenary or VERY expensive until the lategame. During crusades, they would become extremely cheap; the Catholic republics though get a share of the Pope's income. Why not? This would help preventing Muslims invasions and could allow also things like always-independent Cyprus, Sardinia, Ireland which would mimick history pretty well.

In the eventual Pagan DLC one could come up with specific naval mechanics for the Norse if so wished.

 

[Velorian]

I think naval levies should be removed from all holdings, excepting the harbor buildings of cities. This way some nations can transport their armies, especially if they've invested in it (Norway/Denmark/Venice for instance), but most will have to rely on mercenaries especially if the want to move their whole army.

In the current version most coastal nations can field vastly more ships than needed for their armies. I also think ships should take time both to embark and invade from ships, both because it would be realistic and because it would make it harder to move your armies around striking lightning fast all over the place.