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

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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 ?
another things: levy can turned in raider! The idea of build building can grant u ship and when click raise all ship appear in rally points choosed,are easy to do. If i want raise all ship for raid i turn my levy in raiders and move my fleet when i want and raid like ck2
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
All these people wanting more game imbalance back...
Do you want to feel superior so much?
Just because the game gives you an edge.
Psychologizing about others in a negative way doesn't really help the discussion... :(
 
  • 8
  • 2Like
Reactions:
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)

Sure but I guess I'd say that upgrading your ship capacity doesn't represent you actually building a standing fleet. Most of your ship building comes from upgrading your economic centers, namely harbors and ports in your towns. So I don't think it's a stretch to say that building these upgrades merely reflects your ability to find trade ships to press into service. Again, the upgrades are ports, it's not actually called "build fleet." Moreover, I believe the technology you need to upgrade your harbors is actually the "Trade Practices" technology, which is just more evidence that what the upgrade is doing is that by increasing the availability of port facilities, you're increasing the amount of merchant ships available to press into service.

Also, given the fact that ships have a huge gold upkeep, I think it's fair to say that you're paying for the merchant ships, or because you've put merchant ships into service, you're losing a bunch of revenue because you're hurting trade in your provinces.

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

So I guess I sort of covered this above. But also, is it really so far fetched that you wouldn't be able to press enough ships into service from the merchant fleet available, so you'd have to arrange to get ships through some other means? Like, wasn't an entire crusade delayed because they wanted to hire a mercenary fleet from Venice but there were difficulties paying for that?

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

5) ^

6) ^^

Right I guess I disagree that the after-landing combat penalty makes up for it. 2 reasons for that -

First off, I just think the tactical decision I mentioned there are for more engaging and far reaching than just a landing penalty.

Secondly, it can't really "make up for it" when the landing penalty was in CK2 as well. It's not like we traded one mechanic for another - CK2 had these tactical decision + landing penalty, and CK3 just has landing penalty. Getting nothing in return doesn't make up for it.

Just for those who were unaware - there were 2 different "landing penalties" in CK2. First, disembarked troops would disembark with only 50% morale (even if they had 100% when they embarked), so it would take them a while before they were able to fight, lest they rout due to very low morale. Secondly, if there were troops stationed where the troops were landing (so a battle was started immediately upon disembarking), the attacker would have very severe combat penalties - this combined with the morale meant that you could often win against disembarking troops 3-5x your number.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
So I guess I sort of covered this above. But also, is it really so far fetched that you wouldn't be able to press enough ships into service from the merchant fleet available, so you'd have to arrange to get ships through some other means? Like, wasn't an entire crusade delayed because they wanted to hire a mercenary fleet from Venice but there were difficulties paying for that?
The Fourth Crusade's problem is that they actually hired too many ships, not too few.

They asked the Venetians to provide them with ships for 33,000 men (for a set sum, which was maybe slightly on the expensive end, but not radically so for an army that size), but only maybe half that number showed up in Venice ready to board. As such, when the Venetians presented them with the bill, everyone was expected to pay twice what they had expected per capita (in order to match the originally agreed sum), which was more than they could afford. This eventually caused the Venetians to propose that the Crusaders help capture the (Christian, but having rebelled against Venice) town of Zara in exchange for a deferment. Which eventually led to the whole diversion (as the exiled Byzantine prince Alexios Angelos offered to provide them enough money to pay the entire debt if they'd help him claim his usurped throne).

Ironically, one of the big reasons that there were not as many Crusaders in Venice is that many of them found cheaper ships elsewhere (especially once it became clear that the original army was going to be overcharged to make up the shortfall) and sailed from places like Marseilles or Sicily instead; those folks went directly to the Holy Land without interacting with the Venetians at all.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I want to remind you that the 100 Years War. was born to defend the trade between the Guaina and England which was very profitable for the UK (it gave huge customs revenues). So temporarily hijacking commercial ships for a war to defend their interests (or expand them) is profitable in the long run. So if during the war period I lose income equal to, for example 200 coins, but I increase the income between taxes and duties by another 20 coins per year in 10 years I have paid back, ergo it is worthwhile. (I'm not talking about the raid where that is enormously profitable compared to the conquest with a looting campaign of 5/10 years I used to get 5 / 10k of gold in cash). The excuse of the French crown was born to avoid ceding the region to France (because the English king owned it as a vassal of the king of France). And so the English king declared himself true king of France (after 4-5 years the coronation of the French king). But after the easy victories (due to you longbow) he took calais to have a bridgehead to land before the eventual DOW to continue to raid France and in fact Great Britain kept its nobles with this form of "feudal external withdrawal" and it avoided the typical contradictions of the feudal government (too few lands for the nobles and therefore the risk of wars between them), in the same way that the continuous Ottoman conquests avoided economic decline. In fact, both slavery and feudal rule must at some point expand if they do not want to collapse in on themselves. The form of capitalist (and partly fascist / capitalist) "government" does not need to expand externally with the war, it can do so economically, opening up new merchants (even if during the colonial era the markets were opened with the sound of gunfire ). Instead, communism also needs to expand (the puppet states) otherwise it "dies" (China is expanding commercially by transforming the states in which it invests a lot into economic puppets) sorry for the long explanation
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The Fourth Crusade's problem is that they actually hired too many ships, not too few.

They asked the Venetians to provide them with ships for 33,000 men (for a set sum, which was maybe slightly on the expensive end, but not radically so for an army that size), but only maybe half that number showed up in Venice ready to board. As such, when the Venetians presented them with the bill, everyone was expected to pay twice what they had expected per capita (in order to match the originally agreed sum), which was more than they could afford. This eventually caused the Venetians to propose that the Crusaders help capture the (Christian, but having rebelled against Venice) town of Zara in exchange for a deferment. Which eventually led to the whole diversion (as the exiled Byzantine prince Alexios Angelos offered to provide them enough money to pay the entire debt if they'd help him claim his usurped throne).

Ironically, one of the big reasons that there were not as many Crusaders in Venice is that many of them found cheaper ships elsewhere (especially once it became clear that the original army was going to be overcharged to make up the shortfall) and sailed from places like Marseilles or Sicily instead; those folks went directly to the Holy Land without interacting with the Venetians at all.

Yeah interesting stuff. So the point I was making - that people would hire mercenary fleets to supplement what they could press into service, is borne out here.
 
Yeah interesting stuff. So the point I was making - that people would hire mercenary fleets to supplement what they could press into service, is borne out here.
Sure, but I always took that as being abstracted by the "embarkation" cost in CK3. Rather than the CK2 mercenary fleets, which were always a fixed size (the Fourth Crusaders' problem wasn't that the Venetians couldn't have provided a smaller fleet when they were making the original arrangements, it's that they had specifically requested a fleet that was too big) you ended up hiring local ships automatically and that's where the embarkation cost comes in.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Sure, but I always took that as being abstracted by the "embarkation" cost in CK3. Rather than the CK2 mercenary fleets, which were always a fixed size (the Fourth Crusaders' problem wasn't that the Venetians couldn't have provided a smaller fleet when they were making the original arrangements, it's that they had specifically requested a fleet that was too big) you ended up hiring local ships automatically and that's where the embarkation cost comes in.

Okay, you wandered into the middle of a back and forth between me and somebody else, the point wasn't really about CK3 embarkation costs.

I said I missed the strategic decision, should I not have enough boats I could press into service from my own realm/vassals, of whether to hire a mercenary navy or not. The person responded to me saying that separately hiring mercenary navies should not be a thing in the game, because you should have sufficient mercenary navies from your own lands. I responded that hiring mercenary navies from others actually is historical: see Fourth Crusade and Venice, so CK2's depiction was not anti-historical. (AS an aside, while being anti-historical is definitely a thumb on the scale, I don't think it should overwhelm good gameplay. For example, the supernatural events in CK2 were very fun, but of course anti-historical, but the game was better for them).

You point out that CK3's system also represents hiring a mercenary fleet. This is a non-sequitur.
You point out that the CK2 system only allows you to hire big fleets. As far as I can tell, this is not a criticism the CK2 concept of specially hiring mercenary fleets as non-historical, but rather is a criticism of its specific execution in that it only allowed you to hire huge ass fleets, and should have offered smaller fleet options.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
At the beginning of the game (earliest start) I played with the Norse, with some money made from the raids you have neighbors, taxes and some wars I took the mercenaries with the 40 boats, I eliminated the land army and I kept the ships (which cost more upkeep) but I could raid with ships even before I had the ship bonus and that even if the upkeep cost was X2 or X3 I earned the same so much that I had always collected no less than 1000-2000 coins and often going forward I had I thrive on all my personal domains and paid only mercenaries as soldiers, so much so that I could immediately declare with 10k strong armies of mercenary-only men! Then due to the snowball effect, I became unstoppable. But this was my personal strategy. But the ships are needed, they are HUGE strategic! Ships are not a nuisance! So, do they have to be put back, perhaps more easily to use? That is! But the ships must be there! Both because they simulate trade via sea (which was often the only large income of the sovereigns, through customs duties in addition to the income from their own properties, the feudal taxes on the vassals were usually the lower% of the revenues, because the feudal lords often paid in the form of levy.If one did not want to engage in warfare, he paid a substitute tax, but this was seldom.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I was feeling *okay-ish* about the boat situation, until tonight.

While defending England from a Catholic crusade, I did a double-take at the English Channel as 24 thousand troops sailed by with an unfamiliar flag.

Looking at them more closely, I saw that Sweden had somehow formed an alliance with Ghana ... and Ghana had summoned 24K troops on their 1 province north of the Mare Incognitum, a tribal desert holding ... where they proceeded to put 24K troops on ships, and sail up to join their allies in fighting over ... Finland. SMH

Yeah. That's a bridge too far for me. I'm all in favor of alternate history. But Ghana sailing 24K troops to fight over Finland? No. Just ... no, PDX.

I'm officially onboard now with this thread.

This infinite magic ship BS needs to be removed.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I was feeling *okay-ish* about the boat situation, until tonight.

While defending England from a Catholic crusade, I did a double-take at the English Channel as 24 thousand troops sailed by with an unfamiliar flag.

Looking at them more closely, I saw that Sweden had somehow formed an alliance with Ghana ... and Ghana had summoned 24K troops on their 1 province north of the Mare Incognitum, a tribal desert holding ... where they proceeded to put 24K troops on ships, and sail up to join their allies in fighting over ... Finland. SMH

Yeah. That's a bridge too far for me. I'm all in favor of alternate history. But Ghana sailing 24K troops to fight over Finland? No. Just ... no, PDX.

I'm officially onboard now with this thread.

This infinite magic ship BS needs to be removed.
And bring the "diplomatic range" to Ck2. He prevented these absurd things.time passes and more and more people will be against this naval method ... you just have to wait and dear "pro magic ships" you will be even less!
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I was feeling *okay-ish* about the boat situation, until tonight.

While defending England from a Catholic crusade, I did a double-take at the English Channel as 24 thousand troops sailed by with an unfamiliar flag.

Looking at them more closely, I saw that Sweden had somehow formed an alliance with Ghana ... and Ghana had summoned 24K troops on their 1 province north of the Mare Incognitum, a tribal desert holding ... where they proceeded to put 24K troops on ships, and sail up to join their allies in fighting over ... Finland. SMH

Yeah. That's a bridge too far for me. I'm all in favor of alternate history. But Ghana sailing 24K troops to fight over Finland? No. Just ... no, PDX.

I'm officially onboard now with this thread.

This infinite magic ship BS needs to be removed.

Because you don't like Ghana, the biggest trade Empire in Africa?

Just play with diplomatic range on "restricted" to reduce the chance of such an alliance between those two.
But if Sweden has an exclave in Spain or Africa it's not unreasonable to think they have a connection to Ghana.
They might have even lend some insights into ship building to Ghana, so they can improve theirs for a long journey.
 
  • 8
  • 5
Reactions:
But if Sweden has an exclave in Spain or Africa it's not unreasonable to think they have a connection to Ghana.
They might have even lend some insights into ship building to Ghana, so they can improve theirs for a long journey.
I mean at this point you are just bending over backwards to justify a problematic mechanic.....

Keep the current magically appearing boat mechanics. All I am asking is realms shouldn't be sailing halfway across the world with tens of thousands of men in medieval times to do a naval landing in an area they know little about in terms of navigation. Such journey not only should be expensive, but risky. The current system needs to bump up naval attrition way up the farther the journey. Or keep the current system, but please do something about the accessibility of boats. It should not be this trivial to transport 20k men halfway across Europe. The current system is stretching all kinds of credulity.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I was feeling *okay-ish* about the boat situation, until tonight.

While defending England from a Catholic crusade, I did a double-take at the English Channel as 24 thousand troops sailed by with an unfamiliar flag.

Looking at them more closely, I saw that Sweden had somehow formed an alliance with Ghana ... and Ghana had summoned 24K troops on their 1 province north of the Mare Incognitum, a tribal desert holding ... where they proceeded to put 24K troops on ships, and sail up to join their allies in fighting over ... Finland. SMH

Yeah. That's a bridge too far for me. I'm all in favor of alternate history. But Ghana sailing 24K troops to fight over Finland? No. Just ... no, PDX.

I'm officially onboard now with this thread.

This infinite magic ship BS needs to be removed.

Most of the time I'm okay with the ships - but like you I had a WTF moment. I had inherited a small land-locked county in Germany as the King of Scotland which suffered a peasant revolt. It took some time for me to notice it as I was in the middle of a complicated three way war in Ireland. By the time I had resolved that war, the county had been captured by the peasants and the peasant army had gone. I thought they must have moved into an adjacent county or something. So I collected all the troops and headed out into Germany to retake my lands. Only to find half way through the siege that the peasant army had appeared on top of my home province of Gowrie and was besieging the castle.

Now I can suspend alot for the 95% of the time that this game is brilliant. But there needs to be some limits on who can hire those boats!
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Because you don't like Ghana, the biggest trade Empire in Africa?

What? Who said anything about "liking" or "disliking" any particular country? Certainly not me.

My incredulity is at the distance traveled, the speed of that travel, the ease of that travel, and the utterly trivial cost of doing so.

No country should be able to teleport 24K troops over the Sahara, put them on boats, and sail to Finland in under a year---with *ease*--- in the 10th century.

Also, the diplomatic range has nothing to do with the preposterous notion of a ruler in the 10th century sending 24K troops aprox. 4k miles / 6.4K Km away (as the bird flies). The actual travel distance by foot & boat would have been much higher.

Such a voyage strains credulity past the breaking point.

Should it be *possible* in the game ... maybe, though I don't think so ... but if so, then it needs to be f-ing *difficult*, and even *harder* to get those troops home. How in the world would an army of 20K+ troops ever find the supplies to travel back 4K miles. They wouldn't. They would all have died or deserted on the snowy shores of Finland, or maybe just conquered some duchy under the rule of their general. Regardless, the ruler of Ghana would *never* have seen those troops again, and thus, IMHO, never have agreed to send them 4K miles away in the first place.

This is a historical GSG about characters and exploring alternate histories --- not alternate realities.

And before anyone says, "but ... but ... the crusades!" None of the crusades crossed the Sahara on foot.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
Reactions:
I still think these issues could be resolved by 1. lessening CB range and 2. making it so the AI doesn't do this weird province hopping. Yesterday I had a game where Lappland conquered a province in Pomerania and then went all the way to Pisa right after that and conquered it.

First of all in this case I think CB range should take the sea into account because they realistically are not going to walk from Pomerania to Pisa, and second, why did they want either of those provinces when they can instead try to take land closer to them? AI behavior is just weird and they keep doing this thing where they have scattered provinces all over the place.

My hypothesis is that they find the "weakest" target and attack it whenever they can, which means they take isolated provinces from defenseless smaller rulers. But this is stupid and we've seen the results ourselves now, where you have Sweden for example with exclaves all over the world because they just want "land" regardless of if it's anywhere near the core of their realm or not.

Basically, weigh AI decisions so they prioritize land close to them. No one wants to see Lappland conquering Pisa. They couldn't even defend it properly because it took them a year or so to get to Pisa with their troops, how on Earth would they communicate with a vassal there?
 
  • 5
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Because you don't like Ghana, the biggest trade Empire in Africa?

Just play with diplomatic range on "restricted" to reduce the chance of such an alliance between those two.
But if Sweden has an exclave in Spain or Africa it's not unreasonable to think they have a connection to Ghana.
They might have even lend some insights into ship building to Ghana, so they can improve theirs for a long journey.

So, sorry if I'm being rude, but everyone has a limit to patience ...
I'm fed up with all those people who make these speeches just to keep the "magic boats"! I AM REALLY STUFFED! TIRED, BORED, IRRITATED BY THESE COMMENTS! Do you know who (along with the others) you remind me of? Do you know who !? A super toxic community to the tip of your hair and you know what it did? he threw down all the suggestions to make the game balanced with various excuses, like yours but the catchphrase was "eeeh so it's no longer [game name or game theme]" and everyone whimpered because otherwise they wouldn't win easy. And you know what happened in the end !? YOU KNOW THAT!? YOU ALL CRYBABY !? THAT GAME IS FAILED! And it practically had NOTHING to envy a paradox. NOTHING! If I really want to say it was a somewhat simplified paradox (it was an MMO) but it was GORGEOUS! So if you'd like to avoid making excuses by scrambling for mirrors, do me a favor! Your comment is on the verge of trolling.

What? Who said anything about "liking" or "disliking" any particular country? Certainly not me.

My incredulity is at the distance traveled, the speed of that travel, the ease of that travel, and the utterly trivial cost of doing so.

No country should be able to teleport 24K troops over the Sahara, put them on boats, and sail to Finland in under a year---with *ease*--- in the 10th century.

Also, the diplomatic range has nothing to do with the preposterous notion of a ruler in the 10th century sending 24K troops aprox. 4k miles / 6.4K Km away (as the bird flies). The actual travel distance by foot & boat would have been much higher.

Such a voyage strains credulity past the breaking point.

Should it be *possible* in the game ... maybe, though I don't think so ... but if so, then it needs to be f-ing *difficult*, and even *harder* to get those troops home. How in the world would an army of 20K+ troops ever find the supplies to travel back 4K miles. They wouldn't. They would all have died or deserted on the snowy shores of Finland, or maybe just conquered some duchy under the rule of their general. Regardless, the ruler of Ghana would *never* have seen those troops again, and thus, IMHO, never have agreed to send them 4K miles away in the first place.

This is a historical GSG about characters and exploring alternate histories --- not alternate realities.

And before anyone says, "but ... but ... the crusades!" None of the crusades crossed the Sahara on foot.
As I repeated with a narrow limit, by default ghana does not know Finland, it does not even know that it exists! it is already a lot if he knows that besides the Muslims above him there are other nations! Seriously! The diplomatic range at the time was VERY STRICT! Did Byzantium Know Brittany !? Yes! Did he have diplomatic relations? NO! It was too far away and above all it would have been useless! Nations with ships, can have a little "wider" relations than you have land locked (for example, Genoa can marry an English duke), but always a limit! I strongly doubt that in the Middle Ages by ship it was possible to go safely from Egypt to India without too many problems. That is, knowing that I have a giant allied kingdom on the other side of the world doesn't help. Because by the time the help message arrives there, he organizes the troops and leaves to save me, the war is probably already over when it arrives! Especially in the Middle Ages! It was already difficult to keep a continuous connection between Europe and America in 1500 (only in 1700/1800 it will become more regular) let alone in the Middle Ages, where only the Vikings had some worthy naval knowledge (and the maritime republics). but the Vikings also came to plunder Sicily and Sardinia, after they had Normandy as a base (therefore a little closer) but having an exclave (otherwise small) does not do you much as a springboard / bridgehead. especially for immense armies (for the Middle Ages). 20K of men is a huge army for the Middle Ages (late Middle Ages, towards the end). The early Middle Ages, 20k of men often didn't even know how many there were during the Italian war. The whole of France put less than 15k of soldiers for a war! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fornovo
 

Attachments

  • 1024px-Viking_Expansion.svg.png
    1024px-Viking_Expansion.svg.png
    260,8 KB · Views: 0
  • 8
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I don't know if it has been brought up, but a major gameplay issue right now in regards to navy is when you try to have your capital be on an island, like Sardinia. You have to stock up a lot of gold before you go to war, as you'll be bouncing back and forth, back and forth in order to siege mainland nations due to needing to chase down the troops they send to your island, then going back to siege more stuff before going back to fight their troops, and so on. Could easily spend >70% of your money in the war just in hiring the boats and it kinda just seems like you'd make your own transport fleet at that point.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't know if it has been brought up, but a major gameplay issue right now in regards to navy is when you try to have your capital be on an island, like Sardinia. You have to stock up a lot of gold before you go to war, as you'll be bouncing back and forth, back and forth in order to siege mainland nations due to needing to chase down the troops they send to your island, then going back to siege more stuff before going back to fight their troops, and so on. Could easily spend >70% of your money in the war just in hiring the boats and it kinda just seems like you'd make your own transport fleet at that point.

It might be worth leaving 1/2 your troops there and building Outposts where you can. Anyone attacking will have 30+ penalty to their battle advantage. You should be able to clean up even outnumbered 2:1 as long as your troops are elite, especially w/ archer retinues, which will probably stack wipe them in the first phase with 30+ advantage. And again, I'm not familiar w/ Sardinia's geography, but if you can build outposts, you would be able to even more decisively demolish anyone attacking you from sea.

Or, if you don't have the manpower to split your forces, and are spending hundreds of gold every war on embarkation, it would be a much better use of gold to just hire some elite mercenaries w/ archers and leave them on guard duty.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.