The power projection portion is what's broken right now. I don't think anyone really disputes the ability to gather a merchant fleet up in Calais and invade England. It's when a 'fleet' transports 10000 troops from the Central Med to England that the broken mechanics are in force. There's a reason the 1st crusade didn't just appear in the holy land but had to march around. Even the later crusades had to island hop around when making their way to Acre.
Instead of adding in naval mechanics I'd rather add in a cultural 'tech' that limits/extends the range of transport as well as 'blue water' capability or not and add in more supply usage. The cost entailed should also be a lot more for the nations without the right cultural tech like it is with the longboats. Ships were still mostly coastal crafts during the period of CK3, no one embarked from Constantinople and sailed direct to Norway to participate in crusades.
I totally agree, the naval situation in CK3 could definitely be improved by limiting the range of naval transportation (with actual range based on tech like you suggested).
I disagree, after crushing defeat at La Rochelle by genoese castillan admiral Ambrosio Boccanegra it took like...5 years or something only to rebuild a fleet. French historians tend to say it had temporary benefits but it couldn't be exploited by french. So after years the victory was nullified by England capacity to rebuild a fleet, where France was hardly able to maintain a mercenary fleet for decades, cost problems.
I'm not saying the navies had no effect whatsoever, just that there effect was minimal, except relating to trade.
Also I don't think this is really a good example of why naval battles are needed. The English were able to rebuild most of the fleet in a year which is really short in game term.
The naval battle is really an attempt by the English to lift the French siege of La Rochelle, which was countered by the Castilians. This can be modeled in game with the various armies joining into battle on the land (while yea not 100% perfect, it will do a pretty good job at simulating the results). Especially since medieval naval battles centered around boarding and so winning with the same soldier you'd use on dry land (though towards the very end of the middle ages this starts to change with the introduction of cannons). Also the battle was fought in the shallow waters of an inlet, not the open sea. If it was on the open seas the English would have probably been able to easily escape, as intercepting other ships on the open seas was very hard in the middles ages (meaning naval combats hardly happened in the main zone you find ships in CK3, sea zones).
And while the lose was bad, most of that was because the lost of La Rachelle to the French combine with the lose the English army that was fighting on the boats was a major set back. Both of which can already be modeled in game as is.
And the repercussion of the lost navy didn't mean England was suddenly invaded as their only defense was lost or that England was cut off from the mainland. Navies just aren't as strong in intercepting enemy invasion as some seem to be arguing and so the lose of the English navy didn't really change the French decision on where to fight (the French mainly stuck to the mainland as that was what the war was about).
Also lastly this represents the extremes of the effect of naval combat on a war as it was a complete and utter defeat. It's not really talking to the norm of the influence of naval battles of medieval warfare. And that is what I think a lot of people miss, while there are quite a few important naval battles in the middle ages, their numbers and effects are minor compared to the huge length of time that is the middle ages. So inclusion as an important part of warfare in CK3, is not backed up by their role in the middle ages IMHO. And adding something as a minor effect while still making it engaging and fun to play is hard.
The french raids during HYW are very irrelevant In comparison to english chevauchées, you're trying to make them equivalent and reciprocal I guess but the truth is that France has no initiative and was bound to defense. Not a chance If most decisive battles were fought In France and not in England.
I wasn't talking about French raids. I was talking about raiding of the trade routes, especially naval powers like the Byzantines, Venice, and Genoa. That's were I think, if naval combat is going to be added, it should focus. I think naval combat's roles in the Hundred Years War is too minor for inclusion.
Though if Paradox wants to make it work for the Hundred Years War (without causing problems like Crusades being decided at sea), I won't complain. I'd honestly just be happy to get some late game content.
I'm mainly just pointing out that strong navies in the middle ages didn't allow for the type of naval supremacy most people seem to think of when they think of English naval supremacy, that of a strong navy that protects the island of Britain from invasion. I bring this up as that seems to be what a lot of people who want naval combat in the game want (at least what I've taken away from reading this thread): the ability to stop invasions by intercepting them at sea. And I think that role for naval combat is ahistorical.