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

[the_atm]

Ditto. Sure, it needs some tweaking still but so do other parts of the game. One thing I'd like to see is that shattered retreating armies can not get on a boat and flee that way. Maybe making it a feature of the vikings that they can do that but others can't. Also add in a cost for while the troops are on the boats as well as increased attrition to dissuade their use a bit. Right now I'm seeing nations getting on the boats and traveling all over the place. In my 867 start I'm seeing random small nations like Rugan traveling over to the British Isles and taking a patch of land. I can see the bigger nations like Sweden doing that, but not the small little nations that are a single county or duchy.

I've noticed even my playstyle being affected. "Oh? You want me to wage war with Spain while I'm still up in England? Sure!" No planning needed which is a bit... unfortunate. If I need to get there quickly to help an ally I can see myself paying for boats, but if I'm just going to war I can see myself for sure raising my navy to cut down on costs a bit.

 

[The FinitePotato]

I LOVE NOT HAVING TO MANAGE MY NAVIES PLEASE NEVER ADD NAVAL MANAGEMENT. I just wanted to get my two cents in here thank you everyone for listening <3 u.

 

[Vlad123]

I LOVE NOT HAVING TO MANAGE MY NAVIES PLEASE NEVER ADD NAVAL MANAGEMENT. I just wanted to get my two cents in here thank you everyone for listening <3 u.

Reply like i have replied to other: NOT LIKE MICROMANGMENT!? Play other simple games! Not a paradox! all those who do not want ships, say absurd things, climb on the mirrors! I'm sorry but saying "I don't want ships because I'm lazy and I don't want to strategize" doesn't add anything to the discussion!

 

[The FinitePotato]

Reply like i have replied to other: NOT LIKE MICROMANGMENT!? Play other simple games! Not a paradox! all those who do not want ships, say absurd things, climb on the mirrors! I'm sorry but saying "I don't want ships because I'm lazy and I don't want to strategize" doesn't add anything to the discussion!

Okay I'll bite you're right I'll lay out why I don't like navies. I have no issue with two types of micromanagement:

1. Small changes that lead to small "back-burner" style benefits. Basically tiny things you can do that facilitate easier game play down the line. Examples of this would be properly organizing your duchies, managing buildings and vassal relationships. All the stuff that's going to bump your gold by .01 per month is great because it makes you feel like you're managing an empire towards prosperity.

2. Instant, and sometimes instantly reversible, changes that you can make to give yourself an edge. An example of this would be changing your spousal focus to marshal before you lead your troops into battle or sending your spymaster a gift to bump your scheme chance.

What I hate about navies is that they fly in the face of both of these examples. (1) They are not a small change - you have to invest a huge chunk of money to get them up and running, then they don't confer passive benefit, but instead passive drain. So if you forget about them you just lose money and it feels bad. Then, (2) they are as far from instant as possible. You have to build them faaaaaar in advance, then after you use them once you're stuck with them.

I like to roleplay, I figure out what I want to do in a game based on who inherits the throne. I don't know whether this big chunky navy will fit into the plan, should I disband it? It takes so much money to rebuild it, should I just let it drain my money? When should I upgrade it? How much of my army do I plan on bringing to the next battle? Should I build more boats now and take the drain, or only make them if I need them? What if someone declares war on me? At the end of the day, all these questions just feel bad. Every answer to these questions is simply - which one is less harmful to me.

Micromanagement generally should lead to boosts, not drain. Do your micromanagement terribly, and bad things should happen, but with a navy, even if you do your micromanaging as well as possible, you just end up exhausted and slightly poorer.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk I hope I've added to the conversation now

 

[Jyork]

Hi,

I haven't read all posts so the things I will suggest will have already being suggested.

If you want to embark and have a port in your realm:

• When your navy is on standby in your ports you pay a low maintenance cost
• When the navy is raised, the army + navy total maintenance cost is approximately the same than it is now when your armies have embarked.
• Navies have a supply stock and can be refilled in a friendly port
• When you want to embark you move your navies close to your levies and they embark more quickly than it is now
• You can decide to have boats at 0% to 150 or even 200% of your boat limit so you can increase or decrease the limit of levies who can embark
• The boats above 100% of your boat limit have a higher maintenance cost

If you want to embark without having a port or having a port without (enough) boat :

• Same way than it is maybe with higher cost time to build the boats
• If you want to embark from a forest, it’s cheaper than from a desert because more wood to build the boats (don’t know if it is already the case)

And something nice could be to have the opportunity to rent and hire boat to others (like mercenaries but with your own navy), so we have the opportunity to gain money instead of having a constant drain in our economy.

This add some micro-managements, but this add a faster embark time and the option to make profits by renting your navies and if you don’t want to bother with managing navies you can by not hire navies and only “build” boat on the counties you want to embark.

 

[Vlad123]

Okay I'll bite you're right I'll lay out why I don't like navies. I have no issue with two types of micromanagement:

1. Small changes that lead to small "back-burner" style benefits. Basically tiny things you can do that facilitate easier game play down the line. Examples of this would be properly organizing your duchies, managing buildings and vassal relationships. All the stuff that's going to bump your gold by .01 per month is great because it makes you feel like you're managing an empire towards prosperity.

2. Instant, and sometimes instantly reversible, changes that you can make to give yourself an edge. An example of this would be changing your spousal focus to marshal before you lead your troops into battle or sending your spymaster a gift to bump your scheme chance.

What I hate about navies is that they fly in the face of both of these examples. (1) They are not a small change - you have to invest a huge chunk of money to get them up and running, then they don't confer passive benefit, but instead passive drain. So if you forget about them you just lose money and it feels bad. Then, (2) they are as far from instant as possible. You have to build them faaaaaar in advance, then after you use them once you're stuck with them.

I like to roleplay, I figure out what I want to do in a game based on who inherits the throne. I don't know whether this big chunky navy will fit into the plan, should I disband it? It takes so much money to rebuild it, should I just let it drain my money? When should I upgrade it? How much of my army do I plan on bringing to the next battle? Should I build more boats now and take the drain, or only make them if I need them? What if someone declares war on me? At the end of the day, all these questions just feel bad. Every answer to these questions is simply - which one is less harmful to me.

Micromanagement generally should lead to boosts, not drain. Do your micromanagement terribly, and bad things should happen, but with a navy, even if you do your micromanaging as well as possible, you just end up exhausted and slightly poorer.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk I hope I've added to the conversation now

Ops! YOU NOT BUILD SHIP!

Okay I'll bite you're right I'll lay out why I don't like navies. I have no issue with two types of micromanagement:

1. Small changes that lead to small "back-burner" style benefits. Basically tiny things you can do that facilitate easier game play down the line. Examples of this would be properly organizing your duchies, managing buildings and vassal relationships. All the stuff that's going to bump your gold by .01 per month is great because it makes you feel like you're managing an empire towards prosperity.

2. Instant, and sometimes instantly reversible, changes that you can make to give yourself an edge. An example of this would be changing your spousal focus to marshal before you lead your troops into battle or sending your spymaster a gift to bump your scheme chance.

What I hate about navies is that they fly in the face of both of these examples. (1) They are not a small change - you have to invest a huge chunk of money to get them up and running, then they don't confer passive benefit, but instead passive drain. So if you forget about them you just lose money and it feels bad. Then, (2) they are as far from instant as possible. You have to build them faaaaaar in advance, then after you use them once you're stuck with them.

I like to roleplay, I figure out what I want to do in a game based on who inherits the throne. I don't know whether this big chunky navy will fit into the plan, should I disband it? It takes so much money to rebuild it, should I just let it drain my money? When should I upgrade it? How much of my army do I plan on bringing to the next battle? Should I build more boats now and take the drain, or only make them if I need them? What if someone declares war on me? At the end of the day, all these questions just feel bad. Every answer to these questions is simply - which one is less harmful to me.

Micromanagement generally should lead to boosts, not drain. Do your micromanagement terribly, and bad things should happen, but with a navy, even if you do your micromanaging as well as possible, you just end up exhausted and slightly poorer.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk I hope I've added to the conversation now

OPS! You not build the ship! You build the building for ship cannot cost manteinance. And i want remember can in ck2 exist a button for unraise all levy/mercenaries/navy no problem! Other explain good are only 2-3 click or 1 with ALT! Sorry,but if you are too lazy for planning a strategy not play strategy games!

 

[Liljagare]

If you would lift the naval + economy from EU IV into CKIII, you'd have the neigh perfect game..

 

[Vlad123]

If you would lift the naval + economy from EU IV into CKIII, you'd have the neigh perfect game..

I prefer Victoria style economy

 

[Fallenangel85]

Or you just stand at the coast with the army and do nothing, since you don't have access to ships.
Or you have to send you army in 10+ smaller grps over to the enemy since you only have one harbor.

So much fun!!!....

 

[Reckall]

Or you just stand at the coast with the army and do nothing, since you don't have access to ships.

If you and your vassals don't invest in ships, this is what you deserve. I see nothing strange in this.

 

[vandevere]

If you and your vassals don't invest in ships, this is what you deserve. I see nothing strange in this.

Problem is, in CK2, a Land-locked Ruler, a Ruler without access to coastal counties, can't build ships. That option literally wasn't available in the County Building Options. enforcing that in CK3 would cause all sorts of problems for land locked Rulers...

 

[Reckall]

Problem is, in CK2, a Land-locked Ruler, a Ruler without access to coastal counties, can't build ships. That option literally wasn't available in the County Building Options.

This was a historical problem for landlocked rules and, later, for landlocked nations. Having access to the sea is almost vital for any country. Russia, historically, suffered for her problematic access to the seas across all her existence: in the Baltic and the Black Sea they were bottled by geography; up North by ice and bad weather; and in the Far East Vladivostok was only a partial solution. One could say that gaining access to warm water harbours with oceanic access was a main quest for Russia/Soviet Union during all her existence (and even today).

So, if you are a landlocked ruler, though luck - but at least you know what one of your main aims should be.

 

[Rubidium]

This was a historical problem for landlocked rules and, later, for landlocked nations. Having access to the sea is almost vital for any country. Russia, historically, suffered for her problematic access to the seas across all her existence: in the Baltic and the Black Sea they were bottled by geography; up North by ice and bad weather; and in the Far East Vladivostok was only a partial solution. One could say that gaining access to warm water harbours with oceanic access was a main quest for Russia/Soviet Union during all her existence (and even today).

So, if you are a landlocked ruler, though luck - but at least you know what one of your main aims should be.

That only really becomes an issue once standing navies were a thing though, and you needed secure naval bases for your warships. In the medieval period, it was expected you'd hire merchant ships to transport you, and standing naval forces were a rarety.

The later Crusades essentially all went by sea, and tended to feature plenty of lords without coastlines. They hired boats in Italy/Provence and sailed to the Holy Land just fine.

In CK2, they either marched all the way to Jerusalem, or (in the case of folks like landlocked English or Irish counts) raised their armies but were unable to participate at all.

 

[Zhetone]

That only really becomes an issue once standing navies were a thing though, and you needed secure naval bases for your warships. In the medieval period, it was expected you'd hire merchant ships to transport you, and standing naval forces were a rarety.

The later Crusades essentially all went by sea, and tended to feature plenty of lords without coastlines. They hired boats in Italy/Provence and sailed to the Holy Land just fine.

In CK2, they either marched all the way to Jerusalem, or (in the case of folks like landlocked English or Irish counts) raised their armies but were unable to participate at all.

I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. standing navies were the exception, not the rule, in most of the world in the game's time period. why do people refuse to believe that standing navies weren't common?

 

[Reckall]

I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. standing navies were the exception, not the rule, in most of the world in the game's time period. why do people refuse to believe that standing navies weren't common?

You still had a merchant fleet, which could be easily converted into a military one (given how rudimental the tactics were in this period). And if you went up enough with your tech progress you got greek fire.

Humanity's progress is more often than not driven by needs and wars. WWII started with biplanes and refitted WWI/1920s ships, and ended with jet planes, strategic missiles and nuclear weapons - in six years!

I said what follows six years ago, after my first CKII playthroughs, and my opinion hasn't changed: "If you are a 800AC ruler molested over and over by seafaring enemies, you call your Marshal and some experts and order them to find a solution - exp. if your fleet is strong in numbers."

Then maybe you are still mauled because you go against a tech 5 enemy with your numerous tech 1 cogs - but at least is a start. And it would reflect that the war at sea didn't disappear during this period; which is the simple truth that many, it would seem, choose to ignore.

 

[Grave Digger]

raise navies -> clicking a ship -> holding shift and making a frame across the other ships -> gathering them in a sea province -> embarking your army -> moving the navy -> disembarking your army -> dissolving your ships instantly / sending your ships back and then dissolving them

This is just a hassle and not added depth.
A complex navy system like in EUIV doesn't make sense and the CK2 system was just obnoxious.

I'm happy with the return to the CK1 system.

 

[Fredmonroe]

raise navies -> clicking a ship -> holding shift and making a frame across the other ships -> gathering them in a sea province -> embarking your army -> moving the navy -> disembarking your army -> dissolving your ships instantly / sending your ships back and then dissolving them

This is just a hassle and not added depth.
A complex navy system like in EUIV doesn't make sense and the CK2 system was just obnoxious.

I'm happy with the return to the CK1 system.

Right but I'm not sure people are complaining about losing the "depth" of what you described.

Here's what I miss

1) The long term strategic decision of whether I want to spend resources to develop a navy capable of carrying my army. If you start in the Charlemagne or Old Gods start date, you won't just naturally have a navy big enough to carry your army. (Though apparently in the 1066 start, most countries do start with big navies?).

2) The tactical in war decision of whether to keep my navy raised throughout the war and next to the county where I landed so I can quickly evacuate by sea should I need to. (Some people say there's no decision here because it's just vassal navies you keep raised, but again, unless our play experience is very different because you start in 1066 and I start earlier, there's simply no way vassal navies are anywhere nearly numerous enough to transport my army by itself)

Then there's a whole bunch of tactical in war decisions related not not having a big enough navy:

3) The decision of whether to hire a mercenary navy to transport my whole army at once because I don't have enough ships to transport my troops piecemeal.

4) The decision of deciding where to land my troops because I only have enough ships to transport my army piecemeal, and I don't want my split stacks to be crushed by the enemy army while I'm only midway crossed.

5) The decision of whether to march by land or go by sea if my target is very far, so that I don't have to worry about the split stack problem above

6) The decision of whether to retreat my navy back to home to pick up reinforcements, and thereby leave my troops stranded without a naval escape option temporarily

All of that is distinct from the "micro" you're pointing out that is bad with navies. But for what it's worth, I don't even think all micro is bad. To the extent that you have a nation with a bunch of far-flung ports, I don't really think the "having to gather navies from all over" is bad - it presents you with an interesting tactical decision of whether you want to wait for all your ships to gather and thus delay your troops, or you want to favor time and make an attack with not your full troop count because you don't have your full navy.

Like for example, suppose you hold a kingdom in Brittany as well as a kingdom in the south of Italy. I like how in CK2, if I wanted to fight an enemy, my armies would be understandably split - I'd have an italy army and a brittany army, and there'd be interesting tactical and strategic considerations for both me and my opponent regarding whether to merge the armies, whether to take fights with the split armies, trying to attack quickly while my armies are split, and so on. Now compare this with the CK3 system, where I just set a rally point in whatever province I want, click one button, and boom all my armies from everywhere spawn there. If I get outmaneuvered and attacked at a different kingdom than the one where my troops are, in CK3 I can disband my troops and then reraise my entire army where the enemy is - I magically teleport my army, no problem. Is this a hell of a lot less micro than in CK2 where you had armies everywhere and would have to actually be bothered with the hassle of moving your troops? Absolutely. But did we pay a steep cost with regards to the strategy of the game - I would say yes, and it certainly wasn't worth it. So too with navies.

 

[wikifirelord]

Why not mix two ideas in to one?

CK3 uses CK1 Method of ships transport from my understanding.

CK2 you had to build buildings to have some.

So why not combine the two in to one? Add in Army screen how many ships are available which you can get trough building buildings. And they only activate when army is placed on water. You still get rid of busywork of CK2 but you keep with realism.

I belive this would also fix issues that people have of non seafearing nations magicly geting ships. And AI abusing the said fact.

Thoughts ?

 

[Nicolas-]

I reworded my original contention to reflect my thoughts having now played the game. I also included some thoughts from this article which discusses medieval naval warfare:

Medieval Navy

Medieval Navy Facts, Information and Images. Learn about the Byzantine Navy, Arab Naval Power, Venetian Navy, English, France and Spainish Naval Power During Medieval Times!

www.medievalchronicles.com

 

[Blackwhitecavias]

Right but I'm not sure people are complaining about losing the "depth" of what you described.

Here's what I miss

1) The long term strategic decision of whether I want to spend resources to develop a navy capable of carrying my army. If you start in the Charlemagne or Old Gods start date, you won't just naturally have a navy big enough to carry your army. (Though apparently in the 1066 start, most countries do start with big navies?).

2) The tactical in war decision of whether to keep my navy raised throughout the war and next to the county where I landed so I can quickly evacuate by sea should I need to. (Some people say there's no decision here because it's just vassal navies you keep raised, but again, unless our play experience is very different because you start in 1066 and I start earlier, there's simply no way vassal navies are anywhere nearly numerous enough to transport my army by itself)

Then there's a whole bunch of tactical in war decisions related not not having a big enough navy:

3) The decision of whether to hire a mercenary navy to transport my whole army at once because I don't have enough ships to transport my troops piecemeal.

4) The decision of deciding where to land my troops because I only have enough ships to transport my army piecemeal, and I don't want my split stacks to be crushed by the enemy army while I'm only midway crossed.

5) The decision of whether to march by land or go by sea if my target is very far, so that I don't have to worry about the split stack problem above

6) The decision of whether to retreat my navy back to home to pick up reinforcements, and thereby leave my troops stranded without a naval escape option temporarily

All of that is distinct from the "micro" you're pointing out that is bad with navies. But for what it's worth, I don't even think all micro is bad. To the extent that you have a nation with a bunch of far-flung ports, I don't really think the "having to gather navies from all over" is bad - it presents you with an interesting tactical decision of whether you want to wait for all your ships to gather and thus delay your troops, or you want to favor time and make an attack with not your full troop count because you don't have your full navy.

Like for example, suppose you hold a kingdom in Brittany as well as a kingdom in the south of Italy. I like how in CK2, if I wanted to fight an enemy, my armies would be understandably split - I'd have an italy army and a brittany army, and there'd be interesting tactical and strategic considerations for both me and my opponent regarding whether to merge the armies, whether to take fights with the split armies, trying to attack quickly while my armies are split, and so on. Now compare this with the CK3 system, where I just set a rally point in whatever province I want, click one button, and boom all my armies from everywhere spawn there. If I get outmaneuvered and attacked at a different kingdom than the one where my troops are, in CK3 I can disband my troops and then reraise my entire army where the enemy is - I magically teleport my army, no problem. Is this a hell of a lot less micro than in CK2 where you had armies everywhere and would have to actually be bothered with the hassle of moving your troops? Absolutely. But did we pay a steep cost with regards to the strategy of the game - I would say yes, and it certainly wasn't worth it. So too with navies.

1) Shouldn't be a thing as ships last at most around 30 years and don't last trough the centuries (shipbuilding capacity might be able to simulate something, but not all)

2) This is in my opinion one of the actual qualms in the new system although the fact that you have to wait again every time you want to embark mostly makes up for it from a realistic points of view (but not from a tactical point of view).

3) Should also not be a thing as most if not all ships of most rulers should be mercenaries/ merchant ships pressed into service.

4) A decent point although it is mostly made up for by having a combat penalty after landing.

5) ^

6) ^^