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

[Shawn1066]

I thought they did a good job with Navies in Rome:Vae Victus which is very similar to this game. In the game, Navies cost a lot to build and maintain and it took a while to build a large navy. However, if you were able to build a large navy and win a decisive naval battle...then you had an advantage over the enemy even if they had a mega-army. You could often blockade strategic choke points to prevent them from attacking you and things of that nature.

There was also sea attrition and pirate fleets to spice up the sea.

I don't see why going that route again would be bad.

--Edit--

And in the same vein, you had a manpower system in Rome so that you could consistently rebuild massive armies if a campaign went badly. This game doesn't really have that, in my experience. That could be tweaked to make wars more costly affairs.

 

[Beric Dondarion]

No, removing fleets would defeat the ability to play an island county/duke. Take Malta or Iceland for example. Your solution only causes more problems. Infact, Malta already can't raise enough ships to board it's levies. Instead, how about a decision in the intrigue menu to begin the construction of a fleet, which would take X number of years and money.

And you do realize literally all ships you raise come from a city holding right? They already ARE merchant ships.

EDIT: and like others have said, how is William the Bastard going to do his invasion? Please do look at the cons of your idea!

 

[Velorian]

No, removing fleets would defeat the ability to play an island county/duke. Take Malta or Iceland for example. Your solution only causes more problems. Infact, Malta already can't raise enough ships to board it's levies. Instead, how about a decision in the intrigue menu to begin the construction of a fleet, which would take X number of years and money.

And you do realize literally all ships you raise come from a city holding right? They already ARE merchant ships.

EDIT: and like others have said, how is William the Bastard going to do his invasion? Please do look at the cons of your idea!

Actually in vanilla each castle adds 3 ships, each city 5, each temple 2 and that is without buildings, it's not just city holdings. Having the option to buy/build a fleet of your own would be great though, sort of a retinue-like system. In the current version of the game, however, you get a huge amount of ships for free, most nations can just call vassal naval levies to transport a huge army for free.

Also isn't Malta able to call 10 ships and about 400 troops on a 1066 start? If only city buildings could add naval levies it would mean some nations can't transport all their levies simultaneously unless they invest in the infrastructure to support it. Huge improvement if you ask me. If an island has unrealistically few naval levies then, you could make its city start with harbor buildings.

 

[oh_yea]

It is a very good idea. However in order to make the navies mercenary only (and/or with the addition of the venetians, genoans, etc...) manageable, I think a new diplomatic option: to arrange in advance (perhaps of some months) the use the ships, so you can have the navy ready when the war is declared. However I have no idea if the AI could handle such things, so...

 

[Shadowhope]

I'd rather see the gold upkeep of navies significantly increased and billed to the liege, and forces that are embarked given a 50% morale penalty.

That would cut down on the ability to send in the marines.

 

[unmerged(206584)]

The simple solution is ax ships from anything but cities, that way those that have a bunch of costal cities could form a fleet. Reform the habour line in the cities to be balanced for this, basically only the trade capitals should be forming real navies. Then give those that are using the invasion CB the ability to form a navy at an expense to them.

Everyone else has to pay the merchants, the hanseatic and flanders shouldn't be forming large navies though in the 1000's that should be coming later, or make the hanseatic and flanders at 30 the genoan at 70 and the venetian at 100 galleys

 

[Jaol]

I think this is an excellent suggestion. Of course, there would have to be many more merc fleets, and the AI would have to understand how to use them properly.

 

[ASPGolan]

And there is anther thing missing, apart attrition (or I think its missing). I've been at sea recently on an yacht in the Aegean Sea. In the summer its pretty cool, but in October it was a bit rough, nothing violent, 5m waves in a 12m boat (and weather changes, the waves get up to 15m, we docked before they did). Even if you take pills so you don't vomit (they probably had some remedies back then too), you're too weak when coasting, too weak to fight anyway. Attrition and sea sickness should result in a bigger penalty prior to battles.

I actually use this trick in game right now, keep my army aboard the ships so the AI doesn't see their numbers, so it doesn't move around its armies so much, and when it has its army in a coastal provence, I drop them on top of those guys -> carnage. But most soldiers wouldn't be battle ready in the first few days.

I would approach storms differently. The people there know when you can go at sea and when you cannot: so you should have a choice between risking it or waiting until the weather is optimum, but you never know how long you wait until the weather is ok .

 

[NezzeOne]

And there is anther thing missing, apart attrition (or I think its missing). I've been at sea recently on an yacht in the Aegean Sea. In the summer its pretty cool, but in October it was a bit rough, nothing violent, 5m waves in a 12m boat (and weather changes, the waves get up to 15m, we docked before they did). Even if you take pills so you don't vomit (they probably had some remedies back then too), you're too weak when coasting, too weak to fight anyway. Attrition and sea sickness should result in a bigger penalty prior to battles.

I actually use this trick in game right now, keep my army aboard the ships so the AI doesn't see their numbers, so it doesn't move around its armies so much, and when it has its army in a coastal provence, I drop them on top of those guys -> carnage. But most soldiers wouldn't be battle ready in the first few days.

I would approach storms differently. The people there know when you can go at sea and when you cannot: so you should have a choice between risking it or waiting until the weather is optimum, but you never know how long you wait until the weather is ok .

I always thought physical complications that come with extended sailing were represented by the god-awful penalties you get from amphibious assaults. But you make a pretty good point.

 

[Munglik]

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

This is what I would like. If they cost quite a bit it would be possible to choose a more land or sea based empire.

 

[DensleyBlair]

This is a good idea. Im not sure naval levies should be done away with competely, but they could defininitely be improved.To be honest, I think something would need to be done for the simple reason that organising ships can be really awkward - especially towards endgame if you have an empire complete with access to a large coastline. Selecting the ships is awkward, and often requires a few clicks, but, annoyingly, I not really see a way that could be done. Perhaps an option to set rally points, similar to the system in Victoria?

I like the idea of naval retinues. That would make it more challenging to field a navy, and would make invading over sea more of a logistical challenge without being outright annoying (i.e., attrition.)

Landing troops should also definitely inflict more of a penalty. As far as I'm aware, the penalty is minimal at the moment - either that or my armies have been too big to have a noticeable effect - and should be more prevalent.

 

[OrdepNM]

I like the OP idea, playing off centered regions like Portugal, ive used navies in such gamey ways it starts feeling unfair at some point, like when my grandsons in Novgorod start having troubles and call me for help. "No worries! Ill just automatically raise a navy, load a few thousand knights and I'll meet you in a couple of months!" IRL this operation would be so much more complicated, borderline impossible for a petty king like me. Also remember how much trouble crusading armies had reaching the holy land, think 4th crusade. In my games I just raise my navies, raise my levies and off I go!

I realise this may be abit of an unwelcomed change with the more casual players, which is probably the main reason why itll never come into being, but besides the historical aspect, it'd certainly help in reigning on those absurd disparate empires on opposite parts of the map, as armies wouldnt be able to teleport on magic navies all around the map. This could also be built as a feature around a possible expansion centered on republics.

 

[Yellowjacket]

My favorite is to taunt an enemy with a small force in the coastal hills so he moves his doomstack in.

Then I move my doomtack in from the ships parked offseas... Uh oh, he's got an even numbers fight in crappy terrain.

If he retreats to another coastal province, I can move my doomstack back to the ship and then back to the province before he arrives, so I can get the D bonus again.

Woot.

 

[Yxklyx]

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

Wow it took them nearly three years! In CK2 it will take them something like 1-2 months. This part of the simulation is way off.

I do like the idea of removing ships entirely but naval transport could be done by an entirely different mechanism. Suppose you select a number of troops and destination and then execute the decision. The troops are removed from the map and appear at its destination some realistic time later

 

[Beric Dondarion]

Wow it took them nearly three years! In CK2 it will take them something like 1-2 months. This part of the simulation is way off.

I do like the idea of removing ships entirely but naval transport could be done by an entirely different mechanism. Suppose you select a number of troops and destination and then execute the decision. The troops are removed from the map and appear at its destination some realistic time later

This was in ck1 but nobody liked it and you had to pay 400 gold to cross the english channel.

 

[unmerged(218998)]

Barely anybody likes factions but they made thier way in.

 

[chimosh]

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?

Yeh I agree here, I currently use the navy to snipe the AI forces. Basically I will be at war with a large empire, while a small force of about 10k is attacking lands, ill have my navy sitting by with my 20k+ troops waiting to reinforce straight from the sea, once the AI hits my force I attack with the sea army, then put them back on the boat straight after so as they don't take attrition damage. This is far too quick, and I believe I am miss using a game mechanic to win easily.

 

[Isaios]

Well... Why not make the fleet a part of the Retinue?

The Leidang system in Scandinavia saw the defense of the realm divided into regions where each region was to provide one ship, with enough armed men to man it. Sure, in Denamrk and Sweden this was mostly changed to a special tax, but it was heavily used in Norway (and codified as far back as the Elder Gulating Code). I've encountered many concepts where a few new laws might be good, this might be one of them.

 

[RustyTurban]

Just gonna throw this out there. What if navies worked much in the same way as retinues? Feels more natural to me.

Only cost money when replenishing, costly to build, only a decently sized realm can get them. No idea what it contributes to your argument though.

 

[grumphie]

nah. it would break more things than it would fix. realms as malta ect. really need their fleets, just as mediterenian based realms need it. and while were at it, why not fix land combat as well? thats possibly even more broken atm.

to properly fix this wihtout ruining gameplay(and as the devs said, gameplay>history) you'd need to create a system where realms like france need to depend on merc fleets, where realms with some sort of naval tradition dont, whewre realms have cheaper fleets, a form of creating a national levy unconnected to retinue's, trade, naval warfare destroying ships and more. waaaaaaay to complex to "just" add to the game.