No naval battles?

[gnosis89]

I am just wondering....why are there no naval battles? They were actually quite influential.

Examples:
Battle of Sluys
Battle of Helsingborg
Battle of the Gulf of Naples
Battle of Nisa
Battle of Thasos

 

[ziamatt]

The developers didn't think them necessary, at least in the base game. We might see them if/when we see a trade DLC released.

 

[gnosis89]

Naval battles not necessary??? Wow, I don´t know how anyone in their right mind (thinking at least somewhat historically, if not entirely arcade like) would think them un-necessary. Even if it was not for the history it still seems like something that is a no-brainer to include.

Edit: And don´t get me wrong it´s a great game and I appreciate the work done, but if they actually release something like that in a DLC and make us pay for naval battles, something that should obviously be included in the base game then that´s a bit of a slap in the face as a fan of paradox games.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Naval battles not necessary??? Wow, I don´t know how anyone in their right mind (thinking at least somewhat historically, if not entirely arcade like) would think them un-necessary. Even if it was not for the history it still seems like something that is a no-brainer to include.

Edit: And don´t get me wrong it´s a great game and I appreciate the work done, but if they actually release something like that in a DLC and make us pay for naval battles, something that should obviously be included in the base game then that´s a bit of a slap in the face as a fan of paradox games.

The developers have never said, what ziamatt claims. It is not really his fault, he probably saw someone saying (assuming it) that in a previous thread and assumed that that was actually something a developer has said, while they have never said such a thing.

In fact the developers have never said anything about naval battles AFAIK.

 

[gnosis89]

And nobody has bothered to ask? I cannot posibly be the only person who finds it rather odd that there are no naval battles......Not only odd, but rather lacking. I find it extremely odd actually that people are concerned with the adition of pagan countries, republics etc....but are not demanding naval battles, without them the game is rather incomplete...no?

 

[ve3609]

naval battles certainly would help England.

 

[Chamboozer]

Naval battles were too rare to merit inclusion, they would happen ahistorically often. It's just too difficult for one fleet to catch an enemy fleet, then force it to fight. Especially in this time period, when all battles involved ramming and boarding.

 

[Kull1]

Naval Combat in EU is one of the weakest aspects of that game - if Paradox can fix it there, maybe they port some version of that over to CK2. For now, it's just better not to have it at all.

 

[Velger]

That's 5 examples you gave in /hundreds/ of years. During later periods where naval technology became more advanced, you'd have as many battles as that in the course of a single war. As mentioned by Chamboozer, they were far too rare to be included, at least without doing a ton of work to ensure that they actually happened with plausible irregularity. Naval technology was quite rudimentary and naval battles actually happening occurred at very specific landing points or by dumb luck. It's not like the Wooden Wall where you had some level of meaningful range -- you essentially had to be in 'melee range' to engage in battle, which was not easy on a boat.

Edit - 4 examples, one took place well beyond the time scope of the game. (One took place before also, but, I think that still counts for the purposes of 'rudimentary naval technology'.)

 

[Tempestra]

We need one of those little boards with removable numbers that says "It has been XX days since somebody posted a 'Why no Naval Battles' thread".

 

[ziamatt]

And nobody has bothered to ask? I cannot posibly be the only person who finds it rather odd that there are no naval battles......Not only odd, but rather lacking. I find it extremely odd actually that people are concerned with the adition of pagan countries, republics etc....but are not demanding naval battles, without them the game is rather incomplete...no?

Either new or trolling.

 

[grumphie]

problem was they were rarely decisive or common. if anything, maybe give fleets and the troops on the attrition on sea if theyre within the same sea zone as a hostil fleet.

 

[hannibal_barca]

Rarely decisive? You guys know that Constantinople fell to the Venetian and Crusaders because of a joint naval and land assault right? Plus the epic naval battles between Venice and Genoa. But really the problem is in having straights blocked off. Venice cannot block off the lagoon. Calabria/Messina straight and Gibraltar lose much strategic significance. Have the naval battles occur if the two fleets are in "brown water"/right next to land. Naval battles should be included in this game.

 

[Therion]

Never actually realised naval battles could not happen. And yet there are existing sound files (9 in total) for naval battles.

 

[Chamboozer]

No one's saying naval battles held no importance, but rather that it's very difficult to simulate the circumstances under which they would occur. They were too easy to avoid; both sides could easily escape if they didn't want to fight. So naval battles only occured if both sides believed they were stronger than the other (a rarity) and were willing to take the extreme risk of committing their forces to battle (an even greater rarity).

 

[ziamatt]

Rarely decisive? You guys know that Constantinople fell to the Venetian and Crusaders because of a joint naval and land assault right? Plus the epic naval battles between Venice and Genoa. But really the problem is in having straights blocked off. Venice cannot block off the lagoon. Calabria/Messina straight and Gibraltar lose much strategic significance. Have the naval battles occur if the two fleets are in "brown water"/right next to land. Naval battles should be included in this game.

I would agree, as long as manpower is a necessity for naval battles. Since naval battles of this time period essentially involved boarding enemy ships to kill the soldiers on those ships, you should need armies on board ships who would fight and be killed too. You'd probably have to add a technology branch for navies too to develop true superiority in the ocean, maybe it could share its focus with the army technology branch so that you have to decide how to focus.

Even with all of this taken under consideration, you still have to remember that naval battles were rare during this time period. With how often the AI transports troops by navy there will be naval battles almost every time a nation with navies goes to war. How could something ahistorical like this be avoided?

 

[grumphie]

Rarely decisive? You guys know that Constantinople fell to the Venetian and Crusaders because of a joint naval and land assault right? Plus the epic naval battles between Venice and Genoa. But really the problem is in having straights blocked off. Venice cannot block off the lagoon. Calabria/Messina straight and Gibraltar lose much strategic significance. Have the naval battles occur if the two fleets are in "brown water"/right next to land. Naval battles should be included in this game.

where do i claim that there didnt exist decive naval battle's? name me all the truly important naval battles between 1066 and 1453. compare that to th eamount of truly decisive land battles. NOT a large percentage. while they certainly did exist, it was an exeptional event and not something that happened often. it also werent the battles between ships like in the classical times, it were mainly battles between armies on ships. nations also rarely had a strong fleet of their own which would require a complete overhaul of ships and trade in general to properly smulate. while i'd like blockades and naval battles, the game in the current state would end in constant naval battles. so i say rather no naval bttles than a a-historic amoun of them

 

[Kaiser Ludwig]

At this point I think that the difficulties in getting the AI to fight well using this might be too extreme. Hell, even now with just land combat they insist on sending a hundred soldiers over to a crusade...

 

[ziamatt]

where do i claim that there didnt exist decive naval battle's? name me all the truly important naval battles between 1066 and 1453. compare that to th eamount of truly decisive land battles. NOT a large percentage. while they certainly did exist, it was an exeptional event and not something that happened often. it also werent the battles between ships like in the classical times, it were mainly battles between armies on ships. nations also rarely had a strong fleet of their own which would require a complete overhaul of ships and trade in general to properly smulate. while i'd like blockades and naval battles, the game in the current state would end in constant naval battles. so i say rather no naval bttles than a a-historic amoun of them

To be fair, a complete overhaul of ships and trade is possibly warranted and something I'd like to see as a DLC. So I wouldn't be surprised if naval battles were properly simulated as a part of a new DLC that changes ships and trade, though as you say the number of truly decisive naval battles during this time is so limited as to make me wonder if it would be worth the effort to simulate it. However, regardless of how you feel about naval battles, just setting fleets up as floating doomstacks with no changes to the current gameplay mechanics is something that should be absolutely be avoided.

 

[grumphie]

To be fair, a complete overhaul of ships and trade is possibly warranted and something I'd like to see as a DLC. So I wouldn't be surprised if naval battles were properly simulated as a part of a new DLC that changes ships and trade, though as you say the number of truly decisive naval battles during this time is so limited as to make me wonder if it would be worth the effort to simulate it. However, regardless of how you feel about naval battles, just setting fleets up as floating doomstacks with no changes to the current gameplay mechanics is something that should be absolutely be avoided.

duh. did you miss the part where i said that ididnt want a ahistoric amoutn of them. if itsincluded ina trade overhaul ill welcome it, but with the current mechanics its just too easy to have a strong fleet and would only result in more annoyances.