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.
I agree from an historical perspective, but naval warfare Is not fun in any strategic game. So, from a gameplay perspective, it Is not así bad

I do agree from an historical perspective, but naval warfare Is not fun in any strategic game. So, from a gameplay perspective, it Is not that bad.
Agreed. I don't want naval battles for this reason. I've read quite a few posts in this thread, and while I don't know enough to contribute to the discussion about whether adding naval battles would be historically accurate or not, I just sit here keeping my fingers crossed that they don't add them. :)
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
I really liked how ships worked in ck2. I imagine it might work well having a combination of ck2 ships and also paid transport.

Personally I don’t like the idea of naval combat.

Post release edit:

So after release and having played this game, I decided to reword my contention to be more accurate.

My opinion is that the game still needs some form of naval mechanics. Currently the status quo is probably just as inefficient as it was in CK2. The main problem I see is that transporting troops require no planning or preparation. It seems like there will always be troops that instantly magically appear (in unlimited numbers) for you to transport your troops wherever you like. This also makes the AI willing to ship over their troops to wars far away from home.

I strongly disagree with this notion that military navies weren't a thing in medieval times. This article can help shed some light on that: https://www.medievalchronicles.com/medieval-battles-wars/medieval-warfare/medieval-navy/

But I do agree, that not all countries had navies. And generally those who don't would just make temporary use of merchant ships and such. Perhaps for nations that can't afford having a navy we can introduce the concept of "leasing" just like mercenaries.

As for naval tactics fitting for the time, here are some examples from that same article:

The Byzantines invented underwater rams that were used to sink ships
The Byzantine navy used “Greek Fire” which was fired from a Siphon
Greek Fire was used to set alight enemies ships, targeting sails and hulls
A Siphon was a very advanced weapon that could set sails alight on impact
The Byzantines invented underwater rams that were used to sink ships


Moderator note:
This is now the naval megathread. Understand that we reserve the right to ban folks from replying if we feel they are dominating the discussion. All users are still required to be respectful to those who disagree, and I highly recommend walking away rather than dragging the thread down, as if it becomes the sort of topic that the community cannot handle civily, we will just close the thread and all subsequent threads will be removed for disregarding moderator actions/decisions.

Have fun. Be respectful. Feel free to report posts/users that are causing trouble or if you just have concerns or questions.
 
  • 11
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
From the new Embarkation mechanics I “love” two facts:

1) Who needs a Suez Channel which was impossible to build up until the 19th century technology?
You can disembark in the Red Sea, and embark in the Mediterranean Sea, regardless of anyone holding all the land in between.
Bartolomeu Dias and Vasco da Gama cry silently in the corner.

2) Mongolian Horde can send all their 70k troops to the sea from one neutral province.
Father Tengri-Sky holds their horses above the water surface better than J.
 
Last edited:
  • 8Haha
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
1920px-Byzantine-Arab_naval_struggle.svg.png

 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
the problem with adding a navel system to the game is it would require a civilization like system to be fun and thats not somthing i think paradox wants since the only nations that could actually field significant navy's were the Arabs and the Byzantines if they do add something i would make it part of a DLC that is specifically tailored at them
 
  • 4
Reactions:
the problem with adding a navel system to the game is it would require a civilization like system to be fun and thats not somthing i think paradox wants since the only nations that could actually field significant navy's were the Arabs and the Byzantines if they do add something i would make it part of a DLC that is specifically tailored at them

No also Italian Republics from the very late 10th cent. to the end of the game(Turks also in very late game). In early game(if you start in 867) Its true the thalassocracy would be shared between ERE and muslims, but by 1066 Italians had the initiative in western med and gradually parasited the ERE to the point the latter almost completly relied on north italian fleets.

Now what is fun in every nation being able to do the same thing? Which is the case now regarding fleets. Blaming navies for being something specific isn't different than blaming mongols or Seljuks for their horse archers at the end.

If I play France in the 1350's I know I can't really compete with english fleet on sea and thus I wouldn't have the initiative but...Its part of the game to deal with historical limitations.
Same with playing as carolingian from 867 bookmark, they had no fleet able to control the sea and in consequence they were pretty much forced to defensive stance against vikings.
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
After reading some of the posts on this thread, it sounds like there is some contention between those who want greater realism in the game and those who want reduced player management. Based on that, I have come up with a proposed embark/disembark system that would hopefully be a good compromise between the two. I would appreciate some feedback on this idea in the thread listed below.

Proposed Improvement to Naval System - Add Embark/Disembark Time | Paradox Interactive Forums (paradoxplaza.com)
 
In my opinion naval combat should be included in the game, with option to disable naval combat in game rules (without disabling achievements).
Despite the fact that there could be lack of sources/or significant naval battles of this period, i think it is quite strange to assume naval warfare wasn't a thing in this period or i didn't play a role, also we have a thing to note - that in game periodically preceding CK3 - so Imperator Rome - and after period of CK3 - Europa Universalis 4 - there is naval combat, so it's like thinking that people stopped fighting on sea/ and generally on water for some reasons.
As people before me said, there was ongoing warfare in this period between various people - English v French , Byzantines vs Muslims, Maghrebi Arabs vs Mediterranean Europeans, which could surely be of significance in gameplay of CK3 (for example preventing Crusaders from disembarking on land by defenders or giving North African Muslims a chance from being conquered by Italians or HRE).
Also naval combat would surely be great for some of modifications like: AGOT (Making Kingdom/or Lords of Iron Islands a formidable force on sea), WtWSMS (Late antiquity and Early Medieval period could be treated the same in terms of Naval warfare as Imperator Rome - if anybody disagrees than you are free to do so, but i see naval combat could also be fun in this mod) or EK2 (Pirate navies of Redguards or Nords dominating sea, Alinor (Summerset Isles) being a real challenge thanks to it islander location and quite isolationism in lore [so lets say playing tall] or having a hard time invading Akavir because of horrendous attrition and fighting with fresh navies).
I don't know if naval system working exactly like in I:R or EU4 would be good for CK3 but i think it could implemented in some way.
 
  • 6Like
  • 3
Reactions:
In my opinion naval combat should be included in the game, with option to disable naval combat in game rules (without disabling achievements).
Regardless of one's position on whether or not naval combat should or shouldn't be included in CK3, I think it's very safe to say that whichever route is taken should be adhered to and not game rule'd. Making something as fundamental as the naval game's core mechanics would require two parallel combat balances, AI behaviours, and any tie-ins to other mechanics (e.g. overseas raids in the existing mechanics, merchant republics and trade if/when they are introduced spring immediately to mind for future systems) to be maintained every update in parallel. Game rules certainly have a very useful place in CK3 but they're far more practically served for smaller preferential matters rather than a band-aid for when there's a disagreement about the existence of an important game system.
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Regardless of one's position on whether or not naval combat should or shouldn't be included in CK3, I think it's very safe to say that whichever route is taken should be adhered to and not game rule'd. Making something as fundamental as the naval game's core mechanics would require two parallel combat balances, AI behaviours, and any tie-ins to other mechanics (e.g. overseas raids in the existing mechanics, merchant republics and trade if/when they are introduced spring immediately to mind for future systems) to be maintained every update in parallel. Game rules certainly have a very useful place in CK3 but they're far more practically served for smaller preferential matters rather than a band-aid for when there's a disagreement about the existence of an important game system.
Didn't look at that from this perspective, but after you presented it, I think you are correct. Nonetheless i stay with my opinion that Naval Combat in CK3 would be a great feature which could affect positively game both in strategic sense (taking sea into consideration during conquest etc.) and historical-realistic sense (Making historical boundaries for certain countries [in conquest] which were present because of naval warfare and which could be shown in game by naval combat [so i said earlier French v English, Byzantines/Crusaders vs Arabs etc.]).
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If I play France in the 1350's I know I can't really compete with english fleet on sea and thus I wouldn't have the initiative but...Its part of the game to deal with historical limitations.

But that's the problem, England didn't have naval superiority during the middle ages. When other rulers had a reason to invade England, they had no problem invading it over seas. There were multiple invasions of England that were launched from France throughout the middle ages (in fact, Isablella of France launched a successful invasion of England in 1362).

And a strong navy wouldn't really have helped England in the middle ages. A strong navy in the middle ages didn't allow for the power projection and defense that it did in other eras. Naval powers in the middle ages where still able to be invaded by non-naval powers, even over seas. Navies in the middle ages seemed to really only help with raiding and protecting trade, so any naval combat should probably be limited to that functionality. And since trade isn't even in the game yet, there's not much point for naval combat currently.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't dislike the current mechanics. I think they can be improved vastly over time though.

Embarkment costs should have higher tiered costs for cavalry and siege MAA. I'd also like to eventually see some chance of bad luck at sea happening too, specially on months known to be stormy in certain areas. Different attrition rates... just spit balling here. That'd make you think about when to move at sea and where.

Right now it's just too cheap and completely safe to just go towards the nearest war goal, pay a little bit of gold and have not care at all about anything else. It's basically free movement on land with a gold toll and no attrition for ignoring provinces.

Don't know how I feel about sea combat. Suppose it's like anything else, if it's well implemented and fun, I'm in. if it ends up being just a doomstack mechanic that ends up taking development time from more important parts of the game, maybe we're better off without it.

I'm quite curious to see how the AGOT mod devs are going to go about designing the Ironborn.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
But that's the problem, England didn't have naval superiority during the middle ages. When other rulers had a reason to invade England, they had no problem invading it over seas. There were multiple invasions of England that were launched from France throughout the middle ages (in fact, Isablella of France launched a successful invasion of England in 1362).

And a strong navy wouldn't really have helped England in the middle ages. A strong navy in the middle ages didn't allow for the power projection and defense that it did in other eras. Naval powers in the middle ages where still able to be invaded by non-naval powers, even over seas. Navies in the middle ages seemed to really only help with raiding and protecting trade, so any naval combat should probably be limited to that functionality. And since trade isn't even in the game yet, there's not much point for naval combat currently.

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.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
But that's the problem, England didn't have naval superiority during the middle ages. When other rulers had a reason to invade England, they had no problem invading it over seas. There were multiple invasions of England that were launched from France throughout the middle ages (in fact, Isablella of France launched a successful invasion of England in 1362).

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.

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.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:

Actually the benefits of this victory lasted for more than one year for french on lands, but on medium terms has no effect on an eventual invasion of french forces in England. It was important but not for long.

You cannot reflect this battle without superior manoeuver capabilities of galleys near coasts Like Ambrosio playing with atlantic reflux cycles which he was good at. Substitutes won't reflect it. You need actual naval battles.


Also posted some scandinavian transport ships vs fatimid galleys consideration posts earlier. The same could happened in favor of France with a permanent Navy mostly made of genoese mercenaries.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I remember before CK3 i said This new boat system is horrible Since it needs 0 planning and Every faction has unlimited boats and This lead to Ai conquering everywhere on the map
Am I the only one that sees AI going bankrupt from navy and then disintegrating a few years later do to rebellions.
 
  • 1
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.