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

[Pointyearedgit]

It's worth noting that in the era Crusader Kings is set in, there wasn't actually naval combat as we would understand it in the first place. the first recorded use of the Line of Battle wasn't until 1500, and CK ends in the 15th century. Guns used to actually try to sink enemy ships (as opposed to kill the sailors) came from the same era.

Killing people on ships is naval combat ... i mean directly attacking personnel vs sinking a ship *is* an important distinction, but it's naval combat ... as I understand it. Even in the eras you describe, naval combat still had boarding actions, pretty sure the sailors still considered this "combat".

In short, naval combat wasn't actually complicated enough to be worthwhile including in those days, since it was basically a case of two fleets trying to get close enough to board the enemy vessels. During the period Imperator is set, thye used ramming, so you got actual naval combat. During the early middle ages, though, you didn't really get warships as opposed to merchants pressed into service to transport troops. Hence, it's actually entirely realistic that Paradox don't bother with naval combat- during the period, it was just transports trying to board each other. Which means that if you have to include it, you can accurately simulate it by allowing infantry units to fight on sea provinces as well as on land.

Ok, Imperator's era actually had *three* important distinct naval combat components, making it a pretty cool era of naval history:

1) Ramming is totally a thing, yea, very favored by people who had dedicated a lot to their navies amen.

2) Boarding, probably the most famous here are the Romans and their early fleets, who rather notoriously originally failed hard at the whole navy thing.

3) Mmm, my favorite, *Naval Artillery*. Oh yea this was a thing, you've got stone throwers and such on ships and navies were fielding good numbers of these. They were expensive and required crazy optimizations like finding the cubic root and pretty specialized workshops. Of course, these disappeared when naval budgets disappeared, and I've heard the case made that *had* they survived it might have delayed the introduction of gunpowder cannons to ships by a fair amount of time.

This helps me segue onto my problem with your second point, that somehow pressing merchant ships into naval service somehow makes the naval combat less interesting. Specialized warships vs conscripting merchant vessels doesn't change the fact that the vessels in now used in a military campaign, it's more reflective of the naval technology combined with the needs and budget of the military in question. This doesn't mean the combat is automatically less interesting, it just changes how much the player should be able to build, how expensive it is, and how fast they can assemble a force. This can radically alter who is '

I think the more relevant consideration is the number of regions where naval power was important for CK (limited) and the effects it had on land warfare (also, relatively limited in this era, outside of the limited regions where naval power was important).

As an Englishman I too think its bloody stupid. France never could just magic up a fleet big enough to transport all its troops to England and vice versa. Makes being an island nation or invading one bloody stupid. Removing the link between how many troops can I raise and how many ships can I raise (or pressgang from the merchants) is just another simplification and step away from Grand Strategy in Ck3. Couple other little simplifications they are doing, like magically raising all your troops in one spot instead of having each region raise their levvy then combine, which is a real shame. Paradox seemed to have listened a little too much to the We play on fast speed and hate clicking buttons vocal minority, probably beacuse they all whined for years over Stellaris. Will be a fun RP game though. Just less depth and challenge.

Invading England from France (the feudal realms) and vice versa really wasn't all that big of a deal in this era, in terms of naval forces. Armies aren't all that big in this era, and navies can't really block armies from landing all that reliably (there were engagements, though, that shouldn't be discounted). Off the *top* of my head William the Conquerer, obviously, and Louis who took a good chunk of England in the early 1200s and was proclaimed "King" temporarily (Baron's war, Magna Carta, and all that jazz).

And lastly, clicking buttons does not a challenge make.

 

[kobreti77]

Do you recall which preview(s) showed this happening?

Yes.

Will take me some time to find the exact tinestamps.

1. Battle in east England. The AI army jumps in the water to skip 2 tiles.
2. Battle in Egypt during a crusade. The AI jumps in water only to attack from it.
3. West Scotland AI going back and forth.

This all can probably be fixed. But all the instances had nothing to do with going from A to B.

Hopefully we can see the AI naval behavior in the august gameplay if any.

 

[Knotz]

A direct port, on the other hand, of a system that was a nuisance to so many... I imagine it was perceived as a waste of effort, particularly when the focus of CK3 seems to be on really getting the player into the game. Generally, players will enjoy active play more than waiting, even if that wait brings with it time to plot.

This is the preference based core of the issue. Some/the majority of people see it's inclusion as not justifying the cost of implementation, I'm not one of those people and think the final product is objectively poorer in terms of function for it's absence (at least in this boat-specific avenue). ATM it seems like CK3 is richer overall in functions I value but none of those functions fill this gap in particular.

 

[Rubidium]

Can land-locked countries create a fleet/travel into the ocean? If so that is a huge problem and they should not be able to without a county bordering water. Or they should atleast have a huge penalty and time modifier to make a fleet.

To the contrary, the inability of land-locked countries to send men by sea was one of the biggest flaws of the CK2 system, and one of the biggest advantages of the CK1/3 system. Because the Middle Ages are full of land-locked rulers traveling by ships (e.g., every Crusade from the Third on), whereas they can't do so in CK2.

And the reason they were able to do so historically? Because they didn't rely on CK2's anachronistic system of a dedicated national transport fleet, but instead built or hired boats when they needed to go somewhere, which is what the CK1/3 system represents. There was no reason to believe that the crews of the ships that, for instance Leopold V of Austria or Boniface I of Montferrat used Austrian or Montferrat sailors (given that they ruled land-locked territories) for their crusades, but both were able to hire ships in Venice to take them (although Boniface's passage was notoriously expensive).

 

[Alenarae118]

Yes.

Will take me some time to find the exact tinestamps.

1. Battle in east England. The AI army jumps in the water to skip 2 tiles.
2. Battle in Egypt during a crusade. The AI jumps in water only to attack from it.
3. West Scotland AI going back and forth.

This all can probably be fixed. But all the instances had nothing to do with going from A to B.

Hopefully we can see the AI naval behavior in the august gameplay if any.

You do realize those are early preview versions of the game, sent out months ago. Which were stated to be early footage and not representative of the final game.

I am sure issues like AI path finding will have been improved to prevent the AI from doing such things.

 

[Olden Weiss]

This is the preference based core of the issue. Some/the majority of people see it's inclusion as not justifying the cost of implementation, I'm not one of those people and think the final product is objectively poorer in terms of function for it's absence (at least in this boat-specific avenue). ATM it seems like CK3 is richer overall in functions I value but none of those functions fill this gap in particular.

I agree with that assessment. This is indeed a matter based on preference, and unfortunately, that means many people will be unhappy. It's unavoidable to a certain extent. We can only hope, for the franchise's success, that they've made the decision which the majority of players appreciate, and that the rest might be pleased by DLC down the road. One favorable possibility with excluding the mechanic is that any potential DLC can start from zero and redesign the mechanic from the ground up, making it deeper and more purposeful than ever before, if they do decide to go here with DLC.

 

[viola]

I can't believe I'm still witnessing the "naval battles never happened in this era (except for all those that actually happened) because people just forgot how to use ships apparently" argument being talked about and agreed here.

There's no great urgency to add more depth to CK's naval affairs, the game will work fine even with a very abstracted naval system like it was in CK1 and CK2, but eventually it would be only better if proper naval mechanics were added to the game, including naval warfare which of course existed in that age like it had existed in the ancient age.

The whole conflict between the Caliphate and the Byzantine Empire was also determined by naval warfare, and the reason that made Constantinople so unassailable was that the Arab fleet never managed to defeat the Byzantine one making the city able to be supplied indefinitely, you can't then go and tell me that naval warfare isn't important for the time period. Find a way to restrict naval warfare to the Mediterranean at the beginning of the game and then extend it through technology to places that didn't see much naval warfare until later on, like the North Sea, but naval warfare at least in the Mediterranean has to be included in the game at some point because it's just a sore thumb right now.

 

[DaPacemDomine]

We don't know exactly how naval mechanics will function in the game yet, nor do we know what sort of plans could already be in the works for the future that might enhance that. Let's wait and see, be cautiously optimistic (or pessimistic) if you choose, but we have less than a month and a half until we know EVERYTHING there is to know about CK3. When we do, there will be ample reason for criticism or praise. Until then, there is none.

 

[Olden Weiss]

I can't believe I'm still witnessing the "naval battles never happened in this era (except for all those that actually happened) because people just forgot how to use ships apparently" argument being talked about and agreed here.

I believe you misunderstand the argument. It isn't predicated on the notion that people forgot how to use ships, but rather that priorities shifted. In this era, sprawling nations were replaced by smaller, much more insular demesnes of feudal lords. Everything that gave the lord his place in the world was found in the land that was his by birthright. Navies being expensive tools of power projection and little more, there was no reason for a lord to invest much wealth into their construction and maintenance. He would be better served investing in fortifications.

As a result of this, ships of the era were not generally built for battle. Not in the way their precursors were. The sails of cogs and hulks were not equipped for tight maneuvers, and these ships were rarely if ever fitted with rams. Some had castles for archers, but this itself was fairly rare. Even longships were built for transport over warfare, as vikings never anticipated resistance on the water. It was more important to have ships that could transport as many raiders and as much loot as possible over deep water.

Therefore, naval battles rarely (not never, but rarely!) happened due to the following factors:

• Centralized empires were not the standard of the day anymore.
• Most lords had no need to project power overseas.
• Most ships were not designed for combat.
• It was cheaper to press merchants and fishermen into transport service when transport was required, than to commission and maintain a standing fleet.
• There were better investments for a lord's primary goal of protecting his holdings.

We start to see all of this change when nations begin to once again calcify and centralize in the late 15th century. Power projection becomes useful again; even necessary.

 

[sstabeler]

Killing people on ships is naval combat ... i mean directly attacking personnel vs sinking a ship *is* an important distinction, but it's naval combat ... as I understand it. Even in the eras you describe, naval combat still had boarding actions, pretty sure the sailors still considered this "combat".



Ok, Imperator's era actually had *three* important distinct naval combat components, making it a pretty cool era of naval history:

1) Ramming is totally a thing, yea, very favored by people who had dedicated a lot to their navies amen.

2) Boarding, probably the most famous here are the Romans and their early fleets, who rather notoriously originally failed hard at the whole navy thing.

3) Mmm, my favorite, *Naval Artillery*. Oh yea this was a thing, you've got stone throwers and such on ships and navies were fielding good numbers of these. They were expensive and required crazy optimizations like finding the cubic root and pretty specialized workshops. Of course, these disappeared when naval budgets disappeared, and I've heard the case made that *had* they survived it might have delayed the introduction of gunpowder cannons to ships by a fair amount of time.

This helps me segue onto my problem with your second point, that somehow pressing merchant ships into naval service somehow makes the naval combat less interesting. Specialized warships vs conscripting merchant vessels doesn't change the fact that the vessels in now used in a military campaign, it's more reflective of the naval technology combined with the needs and budget of the military in question. This doesn't mean the combat is automatically less interesting, it just changes how much the player should be able to build, how expensive it is, and how fast they can assemble a force. This can radically alter who is '

I think the more relevant consideration is the number of regions where naval power was important for CK (limited) and the effects it had on land warfare (also, relatively limited in this era, outside of the limited regions where naval power was important).

My point actually was that during Imperator's time period, you had true naval combat. Which is why Imperator has a naval combat system. Wheras during the period covered by Crusader Kings, most naval forces were basically transports. Hence why I noted you can simulate the naval combat of the era by allowing land combat on the sea and it doesn't make a great deal of difference.

I can't believe I'm still witnessing the "naval battles never happened in this era (except for all those that actually happened) because people just forgot how to use ships apparently" argument being talked about and agreed here.

There's no great urgency to add more depth to CK's naval affairs, the game will work fine even with a very abstracted naval system like it was in CK1 and CK2, but eventually it would be only better if proper naval mechanics were added to the game, including naval warfare which of course existed in that age like it had existed in the ancient age.

The whole conflict between the Caliphate and the Byzantine Empire was also determined by naval warfare, and the reason that made Constantinople so unassailable was that the Arab fleet never managed to defeat the Byzantine one making the city able to be supplied indefinitely, you can't then go and tell me that naval warfare isn't important for the time period. Find a way to restrict naval warfare to the Mediterranean at the beginning of the game and then extend it through technology to places that didn't see much naval warfare until later on, like the North Sea, but naval warfare at least in the Mediterranean has to be included in the game at some point because it's just a sore thumb right now.

I'm not arguing agianst the idea that fleets fought each other. I'm arguing that during the period CK3 covers, naval fleets were fundamentally transports for armies. Hence there is no real need for a naval combat system independent of the land combat one, since the ships themselves were fundamentally terrain rather than part of the battle Battle of Sluys

 

[vnth]

I believe you misunderstand the argument. It isn't predicated on the notion that people forgot how to use ships, but rather that priorities shifted. In this era, sprawling nations were replaced by smaller, much more insular demesnes of feudal lords. Everything that gave the lord his place in the world was found in the land that was his by birthright. Navies being expensive tools of power projection and little more, there was no reason for a lord to invest much wealth into their construction and maintenance. He would be better served investing in fortifications.

As a result of this, ships of the era were not generally built for battle. Not in the way their precursors were. The sails of cogs and hulks were not equipped for tight maneuvers, and these ships were rarely if ever fitted with rams. Some had castles for archers, but this itself was fairly rare. Even longships were built for transport over warfare, as vikings never anticipated resistance on the water. It was more important to have ships that could transport as many raiders and as much loot as possible over deep water.

Therefore, naval battles rarely (not never, but rarely!) happened due to the following factors:

• Centralized empires were not the standard of the day anymore.
• Most lords had no need to project power overseas.
• Most ships were not designed for combat.
• It was cheaper to press merchants and fishermen into transport service when transport was required, than to commission and maintain a standing fleet.
• There were better investments for a lord's primary goal of protecting his holdings.

We start to see all of this change when nations begin to once again calcify and centralize in the late 15th century. Power projection becomes useful again; even necessary.

Ships' benefits are quite straightforward and immediate. Anyone since the antiquity could see the benefit in raiding, pirating, and protecting trade. Beside, the 'insular' argument may work for a local lord, but any decent sized entity inevitably had foreign interests. You may not have any interest sending your ships to Egypt, but why not to your neighbors? France and England indeed hired pirates to raid each other every now and again. Everyone certainly liked money. Naval battles were still being fought frequently in the middle ages between merchants and pirates. Why would the nobility not want to subsidize this cost for better trade return?

The simple answer is because ships were not a safe investment for the nobility in this period and they were not because marinetime technology had barely improved since Roman times. The Byz replaced rams with a bowsprit on their dromons to make boarding easier because hulls were now being made stronger. Thats the most notable improvement of the period, to fight less with the actual ships. The absolute cutting edge was still the highly unreliable greek fire. Unlike traders, the nobility had better investment opportunities, and thus the traders got stuck absorbing the responsibility for maritime warfare.

 

[Tuo]

My point actually was that during Imperator's time period, you had true naval combat. Which is why Imperator has a naval combat system. Wheras during the period covered by Crusader Kings, most naval forces were basically transports. Hence why I noted you can simulate the naval combat of the era by allowing land combat on the sea and it doesn't make a great deal of difference.



I'm not arguing agianst the idea that fleets fought each other. I'm arguing that during the period CK3 covers, naval fleets were fundamentally transports for armies. Hence there is no real need for a naval combat system independent of the land combat one, since the ships themselves were fundamentally terrain rather than part of the battle Battle of Sluys

The problem with that simple approach, though, is that it easily leads to a situation where wars over the Mediterranean end up being fought predominantly on the sea, with very little action on land - I believe this was tested in CK2, and scrapped for that reason.

 

[kobreti77]

You do realize those are early preview versions of the game, sent out months ago. Which were stated to be early footage and not representative of the final game.

I am sure issues like AI path finding will have been improved to prevent the AI from doing such things.

Of course. This issues can be fixed. Just like a lot of issues we saw with I:R that were fixed.

 

[Farfour]

Were there any significant naval battles in this time period?

EU4 has several. Lepanto and Trafalgar right off the top of my head. Not to mention Portuguese naval dominance in general allowing them to punch WAY above their weight in the East.

The closest thing I can think of in the Middle Ages is how Byzantium had Greek Fire, helping prevent the siege of Constantinople and block crossing of Islamic forces into Europe. This is less naval combat and more niche secret technology that would be very hard to model in the game.

Yes, there were significant naval battles (largely Mediterranean). Greek fire isn't always a deciding factor and did not prevent the 2nd Arab Siege of Constantinople or block the Umayyads landing on the European side of the Bosphorus, but was instrumental in preventing the Umayyad fleet from retreating without it incurring devastating losses. There were plenty more naval battles fought for supremacy over the Mediterranean once besieging Constantinople was no longer viable, and these would continue until raiding declined and fleets were disbanded in the 11th century.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

As an Englishman I too think its bloody stupid. France never could just magic up a fleet big enough to transport all its troops to England and vice versa. Makes being an island nation or invading one bloody stupid. Removing the link between how many troops can I raise and how many ships can I raise (or pressgang from the merchants) is just another simplification and step away from Grand Strategy in Ck3. Couple other little simplifications they are doing, like magically raising all your troops in one spot instead of having each region raise their levvy then combine, which is a real shame. Paradox seemed to have listened a little too much to the We play on fast speed and hate clicking buttons vocal minority, probably beacuse they all whined for years over Stellaris. Will be a fun RP game though. Just less depth and challenge.

And yet it was trivial for England to do exactly this in CK2.
It was slightly awkward, but France could get almost the entire army onto boats as well (I've done it for crusades) thanks to the vast amount of coastline, and the sheer number of ships that can be raised by your vassals.

So in practical terms, the result for these two will be about the same.

Meanwhile an army raised on one of the small islands off of Scotland won't need a boat to be sent for it specifically, just because the lord there has raised 1 more levy than he can provide boats for.

Can land-locked countries create a fleet/travel into the ocean? If so that is a huge problem and they should not be able to without a county bordering water. Or they should atleast have a huge penalty and time modifier to make a fleet.

As happened historically, they can hire boats. They do not need to make a fleet themselves.

 

[sstabeler]

As happened historically, they can hire boats. They do not need to make a fleet themselves.

Exactly. Not least since the King wouldn't actually need many vessels most of the time. So massive peacetime fleets were rare, since the King's vassals would get grumpy about the taxes necessary to keep them maintained.

EDIT- not to mention that to use England as an example, before the Royal Navy the ships were commanded by their normal Captain. Who had the right to decide that actually, he'd prefer to keep plundering this ship his crew had captured rather than help the Admiral out who'se ship is fighting agianst two other ships and could really use the help.

 

[Olden Weiss]

Ships' benefits are quite straightforward and immediate. Anyone since the antiquity could see the benefit in raiding, pirating, and protecting trade. Beside, the 'insular' argument may work for a local lord, but any decent sized entity inevitably had foreign interests. You may not have any interest sending your ships to Egypt, but why not to your neighbors? France and England indeed hired pirates to raid each other every now and again. Everyone certainly liked money. Naval battles were still being fought frequently in the middle ages between merchants and pirates. Why would the nobility not want to subsidize this cost for better trade return?

The simple answer is because ships were not a safe investment for the nobility in this period and they were not because marinetime technology had barely improved since Roman times. The Byz replaced rams with a bowsprit on their dromons to make boarding easier because hulls were now being made stronger. Thats the most notable improvement of the period, to fight less with the actual ships. The absolute cutting edge was still the highly unreliable greek fire. Unlike traders, the nobility had better investment opportunities, and thus the traders got stuck absorbing the responsibility for maritime warfare.

I agree. I wager the number one justification for lack of naval activity was almost certainly the fact that nobles had better things to invest their wealth in. Fortifications and gifts to the right religious leaders could do so much more to protect one's holdings than a navy could in those days. Why invest in ships to keep the enemy from landing when you could instead invest in knights to run down invaders on land while they're still losing their sealegs? The knights could also resist land invasions, where ships would be useless, so it was far more martially expedient to strengthen one's land assets.

 

[Farfour]

There were exceptions, of course, particularly in parts of the Arab world, but they were just that. Exceptions.

worldwide feudal condition

Feudal Europe was more of an exception than a rule, with similar, semi-feudal systems in India and Japan being the other two. Wholly bureaucratic governance was not uncommon.

 

[Olden Weiss]

Feudal Europe was more of an exception than a rule, with similar, semi-feudal systems in India and Japan being the other two. Wholly bureaucratic governance was not uncommon.

Worldwide, no. However the only continent the game covers in full is Europe. I do confess the Fatimids made extensive use of a fleet, which made sense given their style of government, as did Byzantium. The vikings did as well, though around 1066, they began to adopt the feudal system and became a bit more like the other Christian kingdoms. That said, all three of these together account for less than half the playable map at their greatest historical extents. I may not be completely correct in saying so, but I believe Crusader Kings, at its heart, to be a game of feudalism.

 

[Rubidium]

I think there should atleast be a build time for a army per the size and a maintenance cost to do so or a one time payment, just embarking into the sea whenever seems a bit ridiculous to me.

We know there is a gold cost and that it takes time to embark in the CK3 system.