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

[Reckall]

The Mongols had entire armies of horse archers...so everyone should
The English had longbowmen..so everyone should
The Venetians had a sea trade empire..so everyone should
Rome was a centre of learning...so every city should be
etc etc

Potentially yes, as long as you go down a certain path over the span of centuries.

In my latest CKII game I founded the Empire of Scandinavia (from Iceland to the steppes) and reformed the German religion (which made me target of catholic crusade after catholic crusade). Neither happened in real life, but it the game it did, realistically and organically.

 

[Fallenangel85]

The Mongols had entire armies of horse archers...so everyone should
The English had longbowmen..so everyone should
The Venetians had a sea trade empire..so everyone should
Rome was a centre of learning...so every city should be
etc etc

We are talking about boats.
Something as simple as houses or spears...

And the vikings have the longboats tech to signify that they have good boats.

 

[João Beno]

Look, I think the problem here is that embarking is much cheap (1G/Unit?), so, maybe, we could make costs scale, so the bigger the army, harder and harder it gets, and the initial cost should be higher...

Maybe introduce some sort of port mechanic, where you can only embark where there is a port (Natural or Built), with some limitation on port count (Like one port per sea square, or X ports per title level), plus a passive bonus to the owner of the port (fish, toll, tariffs, etc...), so some gets built as the game progresses, and you can only embark there, and port owner embark cheap, third part are expensive, and enemies have to siege the port to embark, and to move after disembarking there...

Maybe some sort of "force limit" like scheme to limit how many troops can embark on undeveloped far away places vs high development places...

 

[Rubidium]

Look, I think the problem here is that embarking is much cheap (1G/Unit?), so, maybe, we could make costs scale, so the bigger the army, harder and harder it gets, and the initial cost should be higher...

Maybe introduce some sort of port mechanic, where you can only embark where there is a port (Natural or Built), with some limitation on port count (Like one port per sea square, or X ports per title level), plus a passive bonus to the owner of the port (fish, toll, tariffs, etc...), so some gets built as the game progresses, and you can only embark there, and port owner embark cheap, third part are expensive, and enemies have to siege the port to embark, and to move after disembarking there...

Maybe some sort of "force limit" like scheme to limit how many troops can embark on undeveloped far away places vs high development places...

Actually, the cost of embarking doesn't matter. The AI doesn't take it into account, and can go into debt to embark. This is one reason the AI is frequently in debt (and may be contributing to its inability to invest in buildings.

 

[João Beno]

Actually, the cost of embarking doesn't matter. The AI doesn't take it into account, and can go into debt to embark. This is one reason the AI is frequently in debt (and may be contributing to its inability to invest in buildings.

The AI side of things is an easy fix... Just script it to balance better the decision to embark or not... The bigger problem is balancing the prevalence of ships and when they are used so players top popping ships like crazy...

 

[hdo]

1) There were no "nations" or even "armies" (in the mondern sense") back then
No coastal defenses either
Which is why the Norse were so dominant and brought even big feudal kingdoms to their knees.
Big feudal armies were moved differently and ports were very important for that yes.
There is no good solution for now, a lot would need to change in the game to make things differently.
Nomads having faster armies with lots of horses; Feudal lords having a harder to use ships; Pirate ships; trade ships etc.
And there are/were people that could embark/disembark in hostile territory without issue: the vikings and lots of tribes + the USA today (mostly covert)

2) Somehow the AI rarely does that for me.
But I can agree that the AI needs a work on decision making for embarking, I can fabricate situations were they will constantly embark/disembark.
They should really evaluate cost, distance etc.

3) I mean terrain does work, if your capital is not at the coast they have to walk inland and eat attrition or siege coastal defense forts first.
As I'm playing as Karen right the mountains saved my bacon many times over since my neighbors are nasty and strong.

4) I want them to fix bugs first, so I can hunt achievements, but half of them is broken by bugs

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the state of current navy system. But yes I agree there is no clear cut good solution for now. Nothing that dumb AI can adjust to at least. In CK2 navy system meant that AI had a difficult time doing naval landings, too much of a difficult time actually. So in CK2 the navy system masked to an extent how dumb the AI was. With the current ease of navy system the inadequecy of AI is very apparent to me however.

And I also agree that there are many other thing besides navy system that needs to be fixed like the player not being able to be a knight, nothing to do if you are on liege council, no regent mechanics, etc. I am really enjoying CK3 and it is the best launch Paradox has had yet, but there are clearly some mechanics that are not completely fleshed out and rushed to meet the deadline.

 

[Serptimis]

We are talking about boats.
Something as simple as houses or spears...

And the vikings have the longboats tech to signify that they have good boats.

I can imagine your confusion when you read how England were never invaded. How hard could it be, it's just some boats duuude

 

[Fallenangel85]

I can imagine your confusion when you read how England were never invaded. How hard could it be, it's just some boats duuude

Is that some kind of myth?
England was invaded so often that most of the English kings weren't even English.

 

[Serptimis]

Is that some kind of myth?
England was invaded so often that most of the English kings weren't even English.

Leaving aside the defintion of "being English", the last invasion from an outside force that completely usurp the entire ruling class was 1066 I believe.

 

[Blackwhitecavias]

Leaving aside the defintion of "being English", the last invasion from an outside force that completely usurp the entire ruling class was 1066 I believe.

Glorious Revolution? (1688) (Definitely an invasion considering it involved landing half the Dutch army in England)

 

[Rubidium]

Leaving aside the defintion of "being English", the last invasion from an outside force that completely usurp the entire ruling class was 1066 I believe.

In addition to the Glorious Revolution, for successful overseas invasions since 1066 we had the Restoration before that (restoring the monarchy after Cromwell died and installing Charles II as king), multiple invading rulers during the Wars of the Roses (Henry VII at Bosworth, Edward IV for the Barnett-Tewkesbury campaign, Henry VI's supporters who landed and freed him for his brief readeption, even Richard of York launched his campaign to be Lord Protector from Ireland), Henry IV's overthrow of Richard II, Mortimer and Isabella (the She-Wolf of France), the Anarchy, and I'm probably missing a few more. Sure, some of these had internal support, but that was common in almost all wars during the period (even the Crusades succeeded in large part due to various rival Muslim rulers providing direct or indirect assistance). All of these involved overseas invaders gathering an invasion force, landing in defiance of the government in London, and eventually deposing that government and establishing their own rule over the country.

And I'm ignoring several invasions which made significant landings and headway and eventually had to be defeated on land, such as Louis of France's brief stint as English king in opposition to John.

The claim that England has never been invaded since 1066 is English propaganda and national myth, but like most such national myths, it doesn't stand up to even modest scrutiny. Even the Royal Navy as a major power really mostly dates back to Cromwell's pretendership (the Stuarts had essentially allowed the Tudor navy to decay, and no pre-Tudor effort to sustain a serious naval force had really lasted more than a generation before the next monarch mostly scrapped the warships to save money).

 

[Serptimis]

In addition to the Glorious Revolution, for successful overseas invasions since 1066 we had the Restoration before that (restoring the monarchy after Cromwell died and installing Charles II as king), multiple invading rulers during the Wars of the Roses (Henry VII at Bosworth, Edward IV for the Barnett-Tewkesbury campaign, Henry VI's supporters who landed and freed him for his brief readeption, even Richard of York launched his campaign to be Lord Protector from Ireland), Henry IV's overthrow of Richard II, Mortimer and Isabella (the She-Wolf of France), the Anarchy, and I'm probably missing a few more. Sure, some of these had internal support, but that was common in almost all wars during the period (even the Crusades succeeded in large part due to various rival Muslim rulers providing direct or indirect assistance). All of these involved overseas invaders gathering an invasion force, landing in defiance of the government in London, and eventually deposing that government and establishing their own rule over the country.

And I'm ignoring several invasions which made significant landings and headway and eventually had to be defeated on land, such as Louis of France's brief stint as English king in opposition to John.

The claim that England has never been invaded since 1066 is English propaganda and national myth, but like most such national myths, it doesn't stand up to even modest scrutiny. Even the Royal Navy as a major power really mostly dates back to Cromwell's pretendership (the Stuarts had essentially allowed the Tudor navy to decay, and no pre-Tudor effort to sustain a serious naval force had really lasted more than a generation before the next monarch mostly scrapped the warships to save money).

"an outside force that completely usurp the entire ruling class "
So, no examples of this then. And certainly no examples of an invasion that didn't involve a build up of naval forces and a bit of luck

 

[Rubidium]

"an outside force that completely usurp the entire ruling class "
So, no examples of this then. And certainly no examples of an invasion that didn't involve a build up of naval forces and a bit of luck

Invasions by "an outside force that completely usurp the entire ruling class" are extremely rare historically regardless of whether you are talking about navies or not. I can't actually think of any Western European nation in the 1066 through 1453 timeframe that had one outside of Moorish Spain getting conquered by the Reconquista. Conquerors almost always make use of the local ruling class in their initial invasions and then post-conquest governance, by necessity. Even William the Conqueror retained several Anglo-Saxon earls in his service for years after the conquest.

By contrast, England had multiple overseas invasions that overthrew the ruling monarch. That's actually incredibly rare; France in the 1066-1453 period didn't have a single monarch get overthrown by foreign invasion (although Henry V of England came close, incidentally through a naval expedition), despite being a nation surrounded by hostile land powers. And with the exception of the 1600s ones, the English invaders generally did it with minimal naval forces, because England had essentially no standing navy for most of the time period, so I'm not sure what your second sentence is talking about.

 

[Mogsam_]

Smart of the AI, the only way it could have won and it did.
It's totally your mistake for letting this happen.

Btw, if you lead your own Army that cannot happen

Yup cause my club footed cowering
shy militarily inept guy would definitely lead the army all the time rather than hide behind his high walls. Role play isn't as important as mechanics.

It wasn't smart of the AI. It was ridiculous as it was land locked. It was the equivalent of Switzerland fighting a defencive war by invading Scotland and taking it within a few weeks.

The old AI did this alot Game of Thrones MOD frequently had people invading Dragonstone to defend against Aegons Dragons, but at least it required boats and couldn't be done in a bum rush. CK2 at least had an interface that showed you that a siege was taking place.

 

[Allarchy]

I am really enjoying the game and the focus on the stories you create and the RPG elements make the game really entertaining

I absolutely hate the boats/pathfinding of the AI in war though, sailing straight to my capital without fail in every war, embarking constantly when only moving a couple of provinces ie Connacht embarking and sailing round to Dublin then when I beat In a battle them sailing away forcing me to march back and forward over Ireland over and over again in a very annoying game of cat and mouse

I would mirror calls for a limitation on embarking, maybe only from provinces with ports and a limit on the amount of troops that can be embarked linked to the building level of the port

AI should not ignore the world and constantly beeline for my capital, there is no strategy here, in every war I can just wait for the army to disembark on my capital, beat them due the the debuff, chase them around for a while beating them up then finally when they are no longer a threat go and siege them down, it’s boring and annoying and I’m sure not how the devs wanted the system to work

Again, I’m Really enjoying the game but this is an issue that needs to be looked at again by the devs as it’s currently not an enjoyable part of the game

 

[mikeroweaggressions]

I know that I'm just preaching to the choir, but *please fix* this path-finding issue. Overall, this is a *great* game and one of the best launches PDX has ever had (and I've been playing PDX games since the OG EU. I remember when I had to edit the game files to give my nations cores), but this is just brutally bad.

As an example, I left a game midway through a crusade for Jerusualeam to write this post. We were winning handily, and had most of the kingdom sieged down, when suddenly 12k Christians pitched tents and marched into the deserts of the Suez. I followed, not wanting my own 2K stack left out exposed, and realized the AI was chasing 2K down and around the Suez mountains into Egypt (without catching them). Then, when they got to Egypt, instead of walking up Gaza which we already controlled and relieve an ongoing siege, the entire army *embarked* and sailed to Lebannon, where they were promptly met by a 14K stack which smashed them, thanks to the recently disembarked penalty.

Literally *none* of that makes any sense:

1 -- Lift sieges of the war target to chase down an inconsequential stack that *should* be hidden by the fog of war.
2 -- Run in mountains and dessert, over forts, taking attrition all the while in a futile attempt to catch a stack several provinces away.
3 -- Embark.

I don't use this phrase lightly, but it's actually a game-breaking issue. I had to stop an HOI IV campaign because of similar AI issues of allies loading up on a front after a naval landing and eating up all the supply, which made certain nations virtually unplayable. After that experience, I have not gone back to that game (or bought the recent expansion), as I am waiting for a fix on this fundemental issue.

Paradox, please don't do the same thing to this wonderful game -- which, to be clear, is *otherwise* great.

 

[Deshiba]

As a new player the "lack" of any naval worries makes the game more accessible, because there's one less layer for me to comprehend.

It might be fun if some form of naval management gets added later down the road trough a DLC or something. Which would be an optional layer on top of the existing base, so the additional things to learn get added gradually.

 

[hdo]

As a new player the "lack" of any naval worries makes the game more accessible, because there's one less layer for me to comprehend.

It might be fun if some form of naval management gets added later down the road trough a DLC or something. Which would be an optional layer on top of the existing base, so the additional things to learn get added gradually.

I mean...the extent of 'mirco-managing' in CK2 people complain about is literally clicking three buttons. 'Set Rally point' and 'Raise all Navy' and 'Attach to Transport' There was no complex system you had to learn for navy because it was the exact same mechanism as the army but with separate button for ships. But to each their own I guess.

 

[Fallenangel85]

Yup cause my club footed cowering
shy militarily inept guy would definitely lead the army all the time rather than hide behind his high walls. Role play isn't as important as mechanics.

It wasn't smart of the AI. It was ridiculous as it was land locked. It was the equivalent of Switzerland fighting a defencive war by invading Scotland and taking it within a few weeks.

The old AI did this alot Game of Thrones MOD frequently had people invading Dragonstone to defend against Aegons Dragons, but at least it required boats and couldn't be done in a bum rush. CK2 at least had an interface that showed you that a siege was taking place.

So when you are landlocked you are supposed to sit there and be unable to defend yourself?
Where is the fun in that...

There is a RED message that tells you that you are being sieged...

 

[Deshiba]

'Set Rally point' and 'Raise all Navy' and 'Attach to Transport'

If that is all that needs to happen then that's not a mechanic, that's a trivial action which was rightfully removed. If there was actual shipbuilding where you have to invest in navy, maintain ships, research new ship types, etc. that's a completely different story.