I'm NOT on a boat!! Navy/Naval/Transport [MEGA-THREAD]

[Farfour]

I do confess the Fatimids made extensive use of a fleet, which made sense given their style of government, as did Byzantium.

In addition to many others with access to lucrative maritime trade networks. Might I say, certain thalassocratic city-states?

You're right in that the game largely revolves around feudal government and society (mixed with crusades and RPG elements of course), but if the map is to expand beyond feudal Europe, the game should incorporate the vastly different governments in realms beyond Western Europe and reflect that in their mechanics.

 

[KKrive500]

To the contrary, the inability of land-locked countries to send men by sea was one of the biggest flaws of the CK2 system, and one of the biggest advantages of the CK1/3 system. Because the Middle Ages are full of land-locked rulers traveling by ships (e.g., every Crusade from the Third on), whereas they can't do so in CK2.

And the reason they were able to do so historically? Because they didn't rely on CK2's anachronistic system of a dedicated national transport fleet, but instead built or hired boats when they needed to go somewhere, which is what the CK1/3 system represents. There was no reason to believe that the crews of the ships that, for instance Leopold V of Austria or Boniface I of Montferrat used Austrian or Montferrat sailors (given that they ruled land-locked territories) for their crusades, but both were able to hire ships in Venice to take them (although Boniface's passage was notoriously expensive).

Alright, you've convinced me it's not all that bad. I never played CK1 and only started on CK2 so it's all I know I guess.

 

[raven63]

I started a thread a few days ago which was merged with this one. It was a pretty unpopular thread and I think it's because I didn't explain my concerns well enough and/or I might have exaggerated them. So here is what I hope is a better way to say what I was trying to say.

First of all, this is not about the lack of naval combat. I'm of the opinion that the lack of that feature is better than a poor implementation of it, and ck2 was very much ok without it in my view.

Rather this is about instant transports (that is, every single army on the map can morph automatically into a transport fleet upon moving into water), which I am not very keen on. My concern is not about how we use them, that part is fine. It is mainly about how the AI uses them, and the implications of that for the evolution of the world in a typical run of the game. That evolution is governed in huge part by AI behaviour (only one human in the world vs hundreds of AIs).

Instead of describing what I don't like about instant transports, I'll describe a simple alternative. I'm not advocating for the old system of ck2 to be put back in place, since it had its own share of drawbacks.

The alternative is based on a network of waterways connecting landing sites (aka beaches). Visually it should look similar to trade routes in ck2, only more expanded. The network should be thought of as an abstraction of the idea that sea travel at the time was only possible on large scale for certain routes -- many sea routes were simply impossible for practical and logistical reasons. The ones that were possible served as significant strategic and economic assets.

In this alternative implementation of sea travel, first an army must be present in a county with a beach (not all coastal counties have beaches, which represents the fact that certain coastal regions were very remote in the sense that sea travel to them from neighbouring coastal regions was too hazardous/impractical for a whole army).

With the army in a county with a beach, we can press a button similar to the raiding button, which immediately changes the map mode so that adjacent nodes (beaches) are highlighted. You click on a node, and voila your army departs towards that beach. It is not possible to cancel once the voyage starts. It takes time for the voyage to be completed.

This allows for natural water barriers to be represented on the map itself, rather than by programming the AI to avoid attacking certain regions. As it stands I feel that sea travel is too free form. Every single AI faction with a coastal region can and WILL launch amphibious attacks in every direction.

Finally, I think it should be straightforward to program the AI to use such waterways.

 

[Tuo]

I started a thread a few days ago which was merged with this one. It was a pretty unpopular thread and I think it's because I didn't explain my concerns well enough and/or I might have exaggerated them. So here is what I hope is a better way to say what I was trying to say.

First of all, this is not about the lack of naval combat. I'm of the opinion that the lack of that feature is better than a poor implementation of it, and ck2 was very much ok without it in my view.

Rather this is about instant transports (that is, every single army on the map can morph automatically into a transport fleet upon moving into water), which I am not very keen on. My concern is not about how we use them, that part is fine. It is mainly about how the AI uses them, and the implications of that for the evolution of the world in a typical run of the game. That evolution is governed in huge part by AI behaviour (only one human in the world vs hundreds of AIs).

Instead of describing what I don't like about instant transports, I'll describe a simple alternative. I'm not advocating for the old system of ck2 to be put back in place, since it had its own share of drawbacks.

The alternative is based on a network of waterways connecting landing sites (aka beaches). Visually it should look similar to trade routes in ck2, only more expanded. The network should be thought of as an abstraction of the idea that sea travel at the time was only possible on large scale for certain routes -- many sea routes were simply impossible for practical and logistical reasons. The ones that were possible served as significant strategic and economic assets.

In this alternative implementation of sea travel, first an army must be present in a county with a beach (not all coastal counties have beaches, which represents the fact that certain coastal regions were very remote in the sense that sea travel to them from neighbouring coastal regions was too hazardous/impractical for a whole army).

With the army in a county with a beach, we can press a button similar to the raiding button, which immediately changes the map mode so that adjacent nodes (beaches) are highlighted. You click on a node, and voila your army departs towards that beach. It is not possible to cancel once the voyage starts. It takes time for the voyage to be completed.

This allows for natural water barriers to be represented on the map itself, rather than by programming the AI to avoid attacking certain regions. As it stands I feel that sea travel is too free form. Every single AI faction with a coastal region can and WILL launch amphibious attacks in every direction it can.

Finally, I think it should be straightforward to program the AI to use such waterways.

What you have is a perceptual issue - the army doesn't morph into a transportation fleet, it spends time and wealth arranging for ships from nearby area to convene at its location to embark on. This is no stranger than money apparently spontaneously being generated from your holdings - the game would bloat to hell and back if every part of every process was represented in full.

 

[raven63]

What you have is a perceptual issue - the army doesn't morph into a transportation fleet, it spends time and wealth arranging for ships from nearby area to convene at its location to embark on. This is no stranger than money apparently spontaneously being generated from your holdings - the game would bloat to hell and back if every part of every process was represented in full.

I'm not sure where you got that the point was perceptual. It is not. What I'm proposing is not very different morphing wise.

 

[Tuo]

I'm not sure where you got that the point was perceptual. It is not. What I'm proposing is not very different morphing wise.

Rather this is about instant transports (that is, every single army on the map can morph automatically into a transport fleet upon moving into water)

That aside, how does what you are suggesting affect anything about AI decisions, aside from pathfinding? The Casus Belli available to the AI dictates the wars it declares, not the de-facto time to get there, and if the AI has a legitimate CB on a target across a sea, where exactly is the problem with it performing a naval invasion? It's not as if any AI ruler can declare war on any target at any time - those limitations exist without the need for drawing pre-determined sea paths.

 

[Andrzej2]

I agree. In reality for example crusaders had trouble to get enough ships to reach holy land by sea, In Ck2 it was often a problem for realms with smaller coastline. It had strategical meaning that often you had no means to transport your whole army where you wanted it.

In Ck3 no matter how small your coastline is you will be able to transport your whole army to the other side of the map. It's ridiculous, immersion breaking and makes a game less strategic.

BTW Just recently during a Ck2 role play multiplayer campaign we had an interesting event related to naval importance when whole army of Lotharingian player couldn't go back from crusade by sea becouse Flandrian player who controlled whole Lotharingian coastline rebelled. It's kind of sad that in Ck3 controlling coastline is not that important.

In current Ck2 after Holy Fury Crusaders are OP, they completly roll over all the muslims. If they didn't change much about that imagine what will happen when every catholic will be able to easily ship his army to the crusades. At least when you are muslim in Ck2 crusaders troops arriving at your shores are limited by naval capacity.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I agree. In reality for example crusaders had trouble to get enough ships to reach holy land by sea, In Ck2 it was often a problem for realms with smaller coastline. It had strategical meaning that often you had no means to transport your whole army where you wanted it.

In Ck3 no matter how small your coastline is you will be able to transport your whole army to the other side of the map. It's ridiculous, immersion breaking and makes a game less strategic.

BTW Just recently during a Ck2 role play multiplayer campaign we had an interesting event related to naval importance when whole army of Lotharingian player couldn't go back from crusade by sea becouse Flandrian player who controlled whole Lotharingian coastline rebelled. It's kind of sad that in Ck3 controlling coastline is not that important.

In current Ck2 after Holy Fury Crusaders are OP, they completly roll over all the muslims. If they didn't change much about that imagine what will happen when every catholic will be able to easily ship his army to the crusades. At least when you are muslim in Ck2 crusaders troops arriving at your shores are limited by naval capacity.

Except there wasn't generally a problem reaching the holy land by sea - even if you were landlocked you can just hire a mercenary fleet in CK2 and meet it at a convenient port someone else holds.

Most of the big nations aren't limited by naval capacity even so. England/Britannia, France, the HRE, whichever Spanish catholic is on top at the moment, Burgundy, Italy... all of them seem to have no problems shipping everything to a crusade - and generally (from playing them) they have excess fleet capacity even by just raising the vassal fleets and completely ignoring building shipyards yourself, even if you hold large sections of the coastline. Naval capacity either completely stops you, or is utterly irrelevant as you can raise far more ships than you need.

And your Lotharingian player could have disembarked their troops in the country next door and marched back home from there.

 

[Olden Weiss]

Except there wasn't generally a problem reaching the holy land by sea - even if you were landlocked you can just hire a mercenary fleet in CK2 and meet it at a convenient port someone else holds.

It could be incredibly expensive, though. I still remember the woes of being a pious Scottish minor wishing to wet his blade in the Holy Land...

 

[raven63]

That aside, how does what you are suggesting affect anything about AI decisions, aside from pathfinding? The Casus Belli available to the AI dictates the wars it declares, not the de-facto time to get there, and if the AI has a legitimate CB on a target across a sea, where exactly is the problem with it performing a naval invasion? It's not as if any AI ruler can declare war on any target at any time - those limitations exist without the need for drawing pre-determined sea paths.

Here is an example: England attacks France, Scotland joins their allies France. Scotland send their army to the French coast using their instant transports. When the Scots get there they siege a county. Half way through the siege a raiding party lands somewhere in northern Scotland. The Scots up and leave. They get there and manage to defeat the raiders. Next? Of course they sail back to France. Attrition and casualties from the siege+battle+sea travel have weakened them by now, and they run head first into the English army who has been reinforcing. Wam it's over. The same scenario plays out in the next 3 English-French wars.

Edit: for your first point, what's between the parenthesis was meant as a definition of instant transports, and not the reason I don't like them. Sorry for the confusing wording.

 

[Oglesby]

Here is an example: England attacks France, Scotland joins their allies France. Scotland send their army to the French coast using their instant transports. When the Scots get there they siege a county. Half way through the siege a raiding party lands somewhere in northern Scotland. The Scots up and leave. They get there and manage to defeat the raiders. Next? Of course they sail back to France. Attrition and casualties from the siege+battle+sea travel have weakened them by now, and they run head first into the English army who has been reinforcing. Wam it's over. The same scenario plays out in the next 3 English-French wars.

Edit: for your first point, what's between the parenthesis was meant as a definition of instant transports, and not the reason I don't like them. Sorry for the confusing wording.

I don't see how this scenario plays out any different between what we know of CK3 and what you proposed. Other than a fancy interface.

I also dislike the portion where you state that once the destination is selected you cannot deviate. Those on the ships cannot see that the proposed landing is bad and change their minds?

 

[jumbi]

instant transports

This seems to be a common misconception that people have. We see in both previews and dev diaries that it takes a decent whack of time to embark

Here is an example: England attacks France, Scotland joins their allies France. Scotland send their army to the French coast using their instant transports. When the Scots get there they siege a county. Half way through the siege a raiding party lands somewhere in northern Scotland. The Scots up and leave. They get there and manage to defeat the raiders. Next? Of course they sail back to France. Attrition and casualties from the siege+battle+sea travel have weakened them by now, and they run head first into the English army who has been reinforcing. Wam it's over. The same scenario plays out in the next 3 English-French wars.

Edit: for your first point, what's between the parenthesis was meant as a definition of instant transports, and not the reason I don't like them. Sorry for the confusing wording.

In your example, you have 3 sea crossings of the entire Scottish army which the information we have so far indicate will cost a pretty penny. I'm very confused by your scenario, though

1. Why did the Scots sail to France to begin with instead of harrying the north of England? This would cost them much, much less than sailing, spare them attrition, and also leave their army in a position to defend Scotland. CK2's AI can be a little boat-happy at times, so we might take this with a decent grain of salt
2. If that short a siege and small raiding party weakened the Scottish army so much, were they even a force of significance to begin with?
3. If the English army has had a chance to reinforce, why not too the Scottish during their brief stay back in Scotland? You say that half-sieging a county was one of the major crippling factors for Scotland, so surely England would have been similarly damaged had they been in the field
4. Where is the French army in all of this? If the English have been sitting around reinforcing, presumably they haven't been in the field against France. It sounds like ticking warscore is in France's favour at this point and England will still need to pay up for ships to make the crossing. You say this crossing crippled Scotland, so it must have done the same to England in your mind
5. If the Scottish army is so much weaker than the English, why does it run headlong into them? Even in CK2 we do not see normally smaller armies try and chase down larger ones.

So in your scenario, which assumes that Scotland has the money and time to make 3 crossings and less sense than CK2's AI, it seems that all of the same woes except the raiders will hurt the English as much as the Scottish. France, meanwhile, does not need to pay for ships nor make any sea crossings and will be a formidable foe for the beleaguered English to take on

 

[Altonym]

I don't have an issue with the system as it's being implemented, but I do hope it includes something to make maritime peoples feel maritime, even if it's just e.g. norse vikings being able to embark faster. Also, sailing and being on a foreign landmass where you don't have anything sieged should imo be pretty punitive in terms of supply/attrition - assaulting islands should feel like assaulting islands. Those two elements would make the system work unambiguously for me; invading a foreign landmass should feel like a real timer to establish a beachhead before attrition starts to bite.

 

[raven63]

Ok guys I'm convinced, fair points.

 

[Cephei80]

Were there any significant naval battles in this time period?

yes they were . only 83 major battles and lot more minor ones (thats already more than antiquity until augustus) . if england and france were not part of them it didnt mean it didnt exist but sadly i keep seeing comments saying that middle ages didnt have such battles somehow .
naval battles happened mainly in the golden age sphere not the dark age one , this mean arabs and byzantines , arabs too had their version of greek fire btw made from naft oil but they threw it using a kind of molotov like grenades against ships and enemies attacking castles .

round ships are the western european warships , they have 2 towers one in front other on the back for archers .
flat long ships are the norse ones , flat enough to sail inside shallow rivers .
finally we have the ships golden age civilizations of the medival age , the galleys (arabs used same type of byzantine ships but with a chinese rudder and sometimes sails too ) who are a continuity of the antiquity ships , they are mainly triremes and quinqueremes and just from their look you can see that they are and unlike the others made for war . they have the ability to ram, they have rowers to manoeuver , they have space for catapults and they stayed succesful until the 1800s because they had the ability to carry cannons aswell on both front and broadside .
battle of masts is just one of many battles of the middle ages , and remember that the game have more than just europe . we didnt even talk about the usage of ships around india just the mediteranean .
didnt even mention the naval battles between norse kingdoms or the naval battles bewteen saxons and norse .
biggest battle of the 100 years war was a naval battle too .

 

[Olden Weiss]

yes they were . only 83 major battles and lot more minor ones (thats already more than antiquity until augustus) . if england and france were not part of them it didnt mean it didnt exist but sadly i keep seeing comments saying that middle ages didnt have such battles somehow .
naval battles happened mainly in the golden age sphere not the dark age one , this mean arabs and byzantines , arabs too had their version of greek fire btw made from naft oil but they threw it using a kind of molotov like grenades against ships and enemies attacking castles .
View attachment 600974

round ships are the western european warships , they have 2 towers one in front other on the back for archers .
flat long ships are the norse ones , flat enough to sail inside shallow rivers .
finally we have the ships golden age civilizations of the medival age , the galleys (arabs used same type of byzantine ships but with a chinese rudder and sometimes sails too ) who are a continuity of the antiquity ships , they are mainly triremes and quinqueremes and just from their look you can see that they are and unlike the others made for war . they have the ability to ram, they have rowers to manoeuver , they have space for catapults and they stayed succesful until the 1800s because they had the ability to carry cannons aswell on both front and broadside .
battle of masts is just one of many battles of the middle ages , and remember that the game have more than just europe . we didnt even talk about the usage of ships around india just the mediteranean .
didnt even mention the naval battles between norse kingdoms or the naval battles bewteen saxons and norse .
biggest battle of the 100 years war was a naval battle too .

Your ships, and presumably your battles, are sampling from times beyond the scope of the game, though. The carrack wasn't developed until the late 13th century to 14th century, the catalan until the 15th century. The caravel likewise didn't appear until 1451, as shown here. Previous versions were fishing ships ill-suited to naval combat. In all these cases, the game has ended or is in its final century by the time the ships appear.

Many of the other ships presented in this image were very culture-specific. The liburna, khelandion, and dromon were all unique to Byzantium. The various models of longship, all unique to Scandinavia, falling largely out of use after the 11th century.

The only ships regularly used across the greatest extent of the game map and play time were the cog ("clinker" in this illustration) and hulk.

As well, consider what you've said: 83 major battles. Assuming we spread these across only the game's play time, that would amount to around seven major naval battles each year across the entirety of the known world, from Europe to West Asia. This assumes your numbers weren't including sea battles in and around East Asia, where naval activity was far more frequent. Spread across all the coastal realms in the game (estimating around 50), we can suppose this amounts to something in the realm of 0.14 major battles per realm per year, or about one major battle every ten years.

There's no denying naval action occurred. The question is whether it was frequent enough, sophisticated enough, and indeed relevant enough to the average feudal lord, tribal chief, or clan headman to warrant its inclusion in this particular game.

 

[Farfour]

The carrack wasn't developed until the late 13th century to 14th century, the catalan until the 15th century. The caravel likewise didn't appear until 1451, as shown here.

These examples are all within the late game. The 15th, 14th, 13th and so on centuries are the 1400s, 1300s, 1200s, etc. When navies are inevitably touched on, these could be unlocked by late game technological research.

The question is whether it was frequent enough, sophisticated enough, and indeed relevant enough to the average feudal lord, tribal chief, or clan headman to warrant its inclusion in this particular game.

1. You say frequency of naval battles is important but if any other age went without warfare for prolonged periods, would you use that alone to justify excluding them? Frequency increases whenever war breaks out between naval powers or raids warrant a navy to disperse them.
2. I'm not sure what the "sophistication" argument is. I can assure you, this aren't simple rafts.
3. Warships, not just transports or commercial vessels, were indeed relevant in many waters. You must realize that "feudal", "tribal", and "clan" are not flexible enough terms to cover about 35-60% of the map. So then why is the relevance of warships dependent on the "average feudal" (a term we should abolish) lord, tribal chief, or clan headman's perception of them? Though that's not to say there were no attempts to develop a more permanent naval force in feudal realms or maritime republics (after all, who's going to protect your trade networks?).

The only ships regularly used across the greatest extent of the game map and play time were the cog ("clinker" in this illustration) and hulk.

Cogs became widespread in the 1100s, despite their first mention in 948. The Hulk Hulks don't seem to have gained much use outside of the Low Countries.

Dromon galleys (successors to the liburna of earlier times) were introduced in the Byzantine Empire, and are said to be their most important warship while the chelandion had a dual-use as cargo transport. You've got the Norse with the knarr as a commercial vessel, which would of course have a significant presence due to Norse merchants travelling... well, anywhere they could bring ships.

(...I'm just now realizing you already said that.)

 

[monsterfurby]

These examples are all within the late game. The 15th, 14th, 13th and so on centuries are the 1400s, 1300s, 1200s, etc. When navies are inevitably touched on, these could be unlocked by late game technological research.

I suppose it's one for the Republican or the Byzantine overhaul expansion then. From my limited knowledge and this thread so far, it seems like there's two specific contexts in which navies are reasonably important: the Byzantine Empire, which retained some of the Roman naval tradition; and the Hanse and its major trading partners, whose members didn't really engage in any major naval military action until the late 1400s but were quite active in counterpiracy (whether Störtebeker was historical or not, he at least points towards piracy being an issue in the 1300s) way before then.

With how important and dominant the land movement system is, though, I would argue that that doesn't really warrant building an entire top-tier mechanic for naval combat. It seems to be a very specialized and specific system. Maybe we could have a system of naval dominance, where resources can be invested in "controlling" sea provinces, blocking them for rivals and allowing quicker embarkation and passage on those provinces as well as benefiting trade. That way, troop transports would still be treated as units without completely ignoring that some naval action could conceivably have benefits even without an organized navy. It would also tie in more with feudal gameplay in that the concern for a coastal count would no longer be "can I use my navy for power projection" as in CK2 but rather "are my shores safe enough for trade to benefit my realm and for my guards to spot approaching enemies?"

 

[Rubidium]

I suppose it's one for the Republican or the Byzantine overhaul expansion then. From my limited knowledge and this thread so far, it seems like there's two specific contexts in which navies are reasonably important: the Byzantine Empire, which retained some of the Roman naval tradition; and the Hanse and its major trading partners, whose members didn't really engage in any major naval military action until the late 1400s but were quite active in counterpiracy (whether Störtebeker was historical or not, he at least points towards piracy being an issue in the 1300s) way before then.

With how important and dominant the land movement system is, though, I would argue that that doesn't really warrant building an entire top-tier mechanic for naval combat. It seems to be a very specialized and specific system. Maybe we could have a system of naval dominance, where resources can be invested in "controlling" sea provinces, blocking them for rivals and allowing quicker embarkation and passage on those provinces as well as benefiting trade. That way, troop transports would still be treated as units without completely ignoring that some naval action could conceivably have benefits even without an organized navy. It would also tie in more with feudal gameplay in that the concern for a coastal count would no longer be "can I use my navy for power projection" as in CK2 but rather "are my shores safe enough for trade to benefit my realm and for my guards to spot approaching enemies?"

The Byzantines are somewhat important navally, but were significantly weaker than the Arab (and later Norman and Italian city-state) fleets. By the CK2 period the Byzantine navy is a shell of itself, barely adequate to protect Constantinople itself from raiders (and even there it was declining; by the Fourth Crusade the Venetians would have no difficulty sailing essentially right up to Constantinople). I mentioned earlier, but the Normans in 1081 had no problems invading the Balkans and the Byzantines had to beg the Venetian navy to bail them out, while an Arab emirate controls Crete in 867 (as they had since the 820s) and would cheerfully thwart multiple Byzantine reconquest attempts for another century.

The biggest group in terms of missing out without naval combat are the Italian city-states (Venice, Pisa, Genoa and lesser states as well), for whom navies were extremely important, both due to their extensive overseas holdings/interests and due to their high trade volume resulting in large numbers of merchant ships being needed (and consequently both available for wartime service and tempting prizes for commercial rivals). It's no coincidence that they were involved in most of the noteworthy Mediterranean naval conflicts during the CK2 period (against each other, against the Normans, against the Byzantines, against various Muslims both on their own and as part of Crusades). But given that they won't be in at launch in any meaningful form, that's a bigger issue than naval combat.

 

[Olden Weiss]

These examples are all within the late game. The 15th, 14th, 13th and so on centuries are the 1400s, 1300s, 1200s, etc. When navies are inevitably touched on, these could be unlocked by late game technological research.

1. You say frequency of naval battles is important but if any other age went without warfare for prolonged periods, would you use that alone to justify excluding them? Frequency increases whenever war breaks out between naval powers or raids warrant a navy to disperse them.
2. I'm not sure what the "sophistication" argument is. I can assure you, this aren't simple rafts.
3. Warships, not just transports or commercial vessels, were indeed relevant in many waters. You must realize that "feudal", "tribal", and "clan" are not flexible enough terms to cover about 35-60% of the map. So then why is the relevance of warships dependent on the "average feudal" (a term we should abolish) lord, tribal chief, or clan headman's perception of them? Though that's not to say there were no attempts to develop a more permanent naval force in feudal realms or maritime republics (after all, who's going to protect your trade networks?).

Cogs became widespread in the 1100s, despite their first mention in 948. The Hulk Hulks don't seem to have gained much use outside of the Low Countries.

Dromon galleys (successors to the liburna of earlier times) were introduced in the Byzantine Empire, and are said to be their most important warship while the chelandion had a dual-use as cargo transport. You've got the Norse with the knarr as a commercial vessel, which would of course have a significant presence due to Norse merchants travelling... well, anywhere they could bring ships.

(...I'm just now realizing you already said that.)

Regarding timeframe: Absolutely, however if something only becomes prevalent right near the end of the game, I wonder about the necessity of the game investing CPU resources into it as a mechanic. I can certainly see the argument for it as DLC, of course, but I speak mostly within the confines of the OP stating that it's a "MAJOR issue" that these mechanics aren't in the game at launch.

Regarding sophistication: What I refer to is the sophistication of the naval activity itself. Rams were mostly done away with, and Greek fire was only prevalent in the Mediterranean. In other parts of the world, naval combat essentially amounted to ground combat on ships. I believe another user mentioned that this could be easily simulated by simply allowing armies to fight on the sea as they do on land. Though, with a few modifications, it could be done a bit more justice than that.

Regarding warships: I certainly understand this, and you make a good argument. However, I feel this argument would apply better to a game with the scope of an Imperator or a Europa Universalis. The reason I mention our government types is because we mustn't lose sight of the fact that the scope of this game is on individual characters. In the end, every nation is driven by the lords and lord-like characters who make up its power base. Even if I play as Byzantium, I'm not playing as Byzantium really, but a dynasty currently ruling Byzantium.

For the reason, I personally view mechanics through the lens of, "What would be most relevant to the average lord-like character at any given level of the societal structure?" For instance, to my knowledge, if I were to play a lesser aristocrat in the Byzantine Empire, I wouldn't realistically be called upon to maintain a private fleet. That power would rest with the emperor and his administration. In this case, either history must be waived for Byzantine aristocrats governing coastline, or I gain nothing from being a "coastal power" unto myself because my empire's ships are my emperor's to command.

Likewise, how relevant is a standing navy to an African tribal chief? A Norman duke? Why would a duke invest in a fleet when he could instead pay merchants to take his troops over the channel? That fleet will be useless if a rival from the south or east comes for my lands... Yet fortifications allow me to safely protect my lands with less troops while I invest forces to press a claim abroad. More men-at-arms will allow me to not only project power when I please (which was somewhat rare for most dukes anyway), but also to protect my duchy from land-based threats.

This is what I mean when I say the "average" feudal lord, tribal chief, so on. I mean this not to say that feudal lords had identical experiences across the world, but rather that it was not typical for those holding the vast majority of posts our characters can hold to maintain a navy, nor to project power over the sea.

In other words, while I understand that the historical context is a bit broader, the way the game of Crusader Kings places us into the world, it does so via those who rarely had use or control of a standing navy in history. For this reason, I believe the mechanic is not relevant enough to the game to yield returns on development time and CPU investment.