Please no naval units

[Owa]

Every strategy game has AI that simply can't handle naval units correctly. Naval invasion rarely works.

HOI3, EU:R both have problems doing naval invasions correctly if at all.

PLEASE don't add navies to CK2, use the "pay gold to get there by boat" system in CK1 please so the AI will be able to invade via water. I don't think naval combat in this time period will do much to make the game better.

 

[Comrade Chaos]

Already a stated feature in the interviews.

 

[Ferrero]

Have you any idea of the importance of navies during the Middle Ages?

 

[Duzaroo]

Have you any idea of the importance of navies during the Middle Ages?

I'm gonna have to agree. Pretty much the only reason England was a European super power during this time period (or at least earlier in this time period) is because they had a great navy, which made them hard to invade. Not to mention the Vikings running up and down every sea, bay, channel, and river. Aside from the HRE's internal fighting and battles with France and Poland, and the Rus (and their kind) battling with the Golden Horde, navies are even more important than armies. Why fight a battle when you can sink the ships with the soilders before they get there.

 

[unmerged(84239)]

Pretty much the only reason England was a European super power during this time period (or at least earlier in this time period) is because they had a great navy

England was not a european superpower in the time period of CKII, nor it had a great navy (the royal navy was founded and became great in the 16th century only).

which made them hard to invade

Yes, sure, they were only invaded by vikings, normanns, french (led by Henry Tudor) and later dutch (which was renamed to glorious revolution)

, which made them hard to invade. Not to mention the Vikings running up and down every sea, bay, channel, and river. Aside from the HRE's internal fighting and battles with France and Poland, and the Rus (and their kind) battling with the Golden Horde, navies are even more important than armies. Why fight a battle when you can sink the ships with the soilders before they get there.

Navies were important for shipping troops back and forth.
However, the only (except for Genoa, Venice, which are unplayable etc.) christian battle navy in the time period is the Roman (Byzantine). Naval battle tactics and campaign strategies in the christian world were pretty much unkown during CKII timeframe.

IMHO since there should be no naval battles at all, the recruitable navies are a waste of processor time.

 

[unmerged(28803)]

I'd agree with galuska, at least for the first two thirds of the game. Richard I was the first crusading leader to ship his wholy army by sea, and even though he did do a small amphibious invasion of sorts at Arsuf (if I remember correctly), and before that had his ships follow the march south from Acre to cover his supply lines, navies weren't really seen as a weapon. They were notoriously susceptible to shipwrecking and being blown off course. Naval units were sometimes used to help block off coastal cities in sieges, but they were rather bad at that too. Supplies were smuggled through anyway and tides and winds sometimes just swept the blocking ships away. The Hospitallers later earned some fame as sea fighters, but not before they acquired Malta in 1530, I believe. The Italian city states ofc had an altogether different awareness of the value of naval power, but as far as I'm aware of they never contributed anything of note in the area of naval warfare to the crusades, specifically - even if they fought each other and other competitors.

Still, the game covers more than just the Levant and the crusades, and I'm no expert in medieval naval warfare. My impression, true or false, is that it was pretty much non-existent until the 15th century.

 

[vadermath]

I believe that it has already been confirmed that there will be no naval units ala Vicky/HOI/EU, but that some sort of new naval system will be in place.

 

[Nis Baggesen]

While I agree that naval warfare (as in battles between ships or with ships used as weapons) didn't seem to play much of a role in the period covered, I still think the CK I system left a lot to be desired. From a user friendlyness perspective there was the whole issue that one wrong click could ruin your nation. From a modelling perspective it completely ignored the fact that different nations had wildly different transport capabilities. There was no concept of raiding. And even if Venice and Genoa are unplayable I still don't think their sea power can be ignored, as it was a significant reason for their political power.

Rather than modelling individual ship units that would have to be moved around, a good model might be to have some sort of ship pool (a bit like a manpower pool). When you need to transport troops you spend from the ship pool. A nation can increase its ship pool by investing in ships and building harbors and such, or you can buy temporary increases from nations that have large ship pools (such as Venice and Genoa), or you can do temporary drafts of sailing vessels. It avoids the complications of having to coordinate unit movement (which I assume is what causes problems for the AI), while still being able to model naval capability. And since ships now come from somewhere, even when you rent them, they can play a part in the political game. Raiding could be done by spending from (or temporarily reducing) your ship pool.

 

[newtype0083]

There were naval battles, and not all were solely the province of the Italian states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Les_Formigues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Meloria_(1284)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_La_Rochelle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brest_(1342)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Channel_naval_campaign_(1338%E2%80%931339)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sluys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Gulf_of_Naples

Just a little info for ya'll.

 

[Nick B II]

Navies were important for shipping troops back and forth.
However, the only (except for Genoa, Venice, which are unplayable etc.) christian battle navy in the time period is the Roman (Byzantine). Naval battle tactics and campaign strategies in the christian world were pretty much unkown during CKII timeframe.

You could say a lot of the same about land troops. They were used almost entirely for sieges and raids. Raids are below the RADAR for a CK player, and siege-armies could be greatly simplified.

Think about it. Richard I is the Lionheart because of a siege. Joan of Arc didn't fight a battle at Orleans, she lifted a siege. Hastings was decisive not because it was really that big a deal, but because one of the claiments to the throne was killed there. Would the game really lose anything if, instead of an elaborately simulated battle, with multiple stages, and various troops types, you rolled the dice based on each siege armies rating? You could keep all the character development crap with events. All you'd lose would be the knowledge that your regiment has precisely 152 light cavalry.

IMHO since there should be no naval battles at all, the recruitable navies are a waste of processor time.

My problem with this argument is that the CK1 system was ridiculous, it clearly needs to be changed, and it's impossible for me to understand how you could fix all the system's problems without having a physical transport ship appear when you send troops overseas.

Especially the whole Arabs invade Scotland problem. Even if their ships were physically capable of making the trip, they don't have any captains who know what to do when you see an iceberg, and in the North Sea there are icebergs. You add a ship pool, some province techs re: icebergs and similar North Sea crap, and the problem is solved.

Keep the CK system and they'll just pay a fee. Making Gibralter impassable won't work because under the CK system they'd just land at Granada, walk past Gibralter, and get on new ships that magically appear.

Nick

 

[Onedreamer]

Galuska while I totally agree with you, you have to recognize that the only real rich of maritime republics were exactly their navies. Thanks to them they would trade with otherwise unreachable places, defend from piracy, and rent them for troop shipping. So I think a system where you still use ships that have been ordered/built and are kept track of would be ok. This doesn't mean there must be naval battles, and piracy can very well be taken care of with events.

 

[Onedreamer]

You could say a lot of the same about land troops. They were used almost entirely for sieges and raids. Raids are below the RADAR for a CK player, and siege-armies could be greatly simplified.

Think about it. Richard I is the Lionheart because of a siege. Joan of Arc didn't fight a battle at Orleans, she lifted a siege. Hastings was decisive not because it was really that big a deal, but because one of the claiments to the throne was killed there.

I don't see how your comparisons can make sense. Name a medieval naval battle that was decisive in a war. Land troops WERE decisive. The fact that they laid sieges or not is irrelevant. The fact that at Hastings a claimant to the throne died is again not so relevant. The relevant part is that none of the two happened due to a naval battle or naval siege.

 

[Negru Voda]

Sea-ways based on trade-ways between Merchant Realms and their friends

the CK1 system was ridiculous

Pretty much agree with you here. I don't think we need any navies or naval battles.

I think the seas should be a way of faster travel from one place to the other. Ports reducing the costs and timetravel. Perhaps a few nice techs that make your ships movement faster, simulating a realm with naval traditions. But ultimately it's all about the troops.

It would be nice to have something like: You march your army to Venice and then hire their fleet to land you to either certain predefined destinations (Konstantinopole, Crimea, Gibraltar etc) or pay a bit extra for a specific landing in a hostile region such as the holy lands during a crusade.

The predefined destinations should be realms that are on good terms with Venice. Thus simulating that you are almost hitching a ride on a pre-established stable trade route rather than performing an amphibious operation. Thus, if Gibraltar or Palestine is in friendly Christian (or Arab) hands, it is more likely that you'll have an easy ride to it, if not, then it will cost you extra and maybe take longer, with higher attrition.

These predefined destinations should be based on historical trade nodes (such as Alexandria I assume). This would also open up ample fertile ground for any expansions when playing Merchant Republics: You benefit from befriending Arab lords, as they allow you to trade. This makes your "travel" fleet reach places faster and more efficiently, which lures Christian lords to employ it against Muslims. If you take their gold and help them wage their war, you suffer penalties against your former Muslim trade partners. If you refuse to help the crusadering lord, it might cause some Papal wrath.

sounds like an interesting choice game to me.

 

[Nick B II]

I don't see how your comparisons can make sense. Name a medieval naval battle that was decisive in a war. Land troops WERE decisive. The fact that they laid sieges or not is irrelevant. The fact that at Hastings a claimant to the throne died is again not so relevant. The relevant part is that none of the two happened due to a naval battle or naval siege.

So you can't name a land battle that was decisive just because somebody won, but I have to name a naval battle that was? I'll go your route, take the lazy option, and quote newtype0083

There were naval battles, and not all were solely the province of the Italian states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Les_Formigues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Meloria_(1284)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_La_Rochelle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brest_(1342)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...–1339)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sluys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...Gulf_of_Naples

Just a little info for ya'll.

Regardless you're missing the point. The point is that anyone saying we should ignore naval units completely because we can, but we should have light cavalry who fight in the skirmish phase, is applying a double-standard. Land battles just were not that big a deal, which means the front phase is simply a waste of processor cycles better spent on events.

OTOH the naval system many on this board are advocating -- anybody pays cash and goes anywhere -- does hurt the game because it allows Moslems to invade Norway. It also makes the Merchant Republics act like really rich provinces, introduces interesting situations where your entire war budget goes away because you clicked the wrong province, etc.

If you had the system I mentioned there'd be no naval battles, but the Moslems would have to really work their asses off to get to Norway and merchent republics would be subtantially different then the Viscounts of Carcassone because they'd have a million ships.

Nick

 

[jamhaw]

I hope they add ships, and I hope that there are naval battles, after all there were a number of sea battles historically during the period. Naval ships should be simple, perhaps only three different ship types so as to keep it easy for the AI.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

I see Nick B II is still making the baseless claim that the era of Courtrai, Crecy, and Cassel (to name just three early 14th century battles fought in the same region and starting with the same letter) was one where battles were unimportant.

 

[Nick B II]

I see Nick B II is still making the baseless claim that the era of Courtrai, Crecy, and Cassel (to name just three early 14th century battles fought in the same region and starting with the same letter) was one where battles were unimportant.

For one thing you aparently didn't read my post. Cassel was decisive because one of the claiments to the County was killed, which ended the war, not because battle itself was always decisive in this era.

For another the whole point of this debate is relative importance of land battles to everything else.

If you're gonna claim land battles were more important then sieges, raids, or naval battles you're gonna have to do more then list three that happen to start with the same letter and be in the same region. Especially if you're including battles like Cassel, which were decisive because one side lost it's claiment to the throne, and his opponent was also his heir. Because my claim is that those battles are irrelevant.

So if you want to claim that land battles are more important then sieges, naval battles, and all that other crap be my guest. Go right ahead. Prove that there are multiple eras where major militay figures made their reputations at sieges. Show that battles of the HYW actually allowed poeple to conquer vast tracts of territory, rather then move a handful of counties in peace negotiations because they didn't have time to besiege everything. Try to avoid battles where one claiment to the throne died.

And, since this thread is about naval battles, please tell us what you want to see in CK2's Naval system.

Nick

 

[unmerged(84239)]

And, since this thread is about naval battles, please tell us what you want to see in CK2's Naval system.

It was not aimed at me, but:

- no recruitable battle navy and no sea battles
- moving big armies by ship should be with ship rent
- small armies should be able to use own ships for short distances (like crossing a strait. These ships representing the ships borrowed from whalers/trade ships etc for the campaign)
- some kind of limit on force projection (I don't like the muslim naval invasion of Ireland as in CK1, I turned off crusades because of that)

edit:
- I don't know how (maybe events) but pirate/slaver activity in the meditteranian should be represented somehow

 

[ZhugeKongming]

For one thing you aparently didn't read my post. Cassel was decisive because one of the claiments to the County was killed, which ended the war, not because battle itself was always decisive in this era.

Yes, I'm sorry Cassel wasn't some pure Platonic battle that was decided entirely by tactical superiority, where only the unwashed masses died. In the real world, battles are often decisive because important people are killed in them. I don't know why you take this to mean that the battle itself is unimportant, since it was the means through which the important people were killed.

 

[gela1212]

I feel bad for the poor Byzantines, though. They won't get to rip apart transports if there's no naval battles.