Please no naval units

[Nis Baggesen]

Whell the Venice, Sicily(kungdom btw), Hansa, Rus, Busantium,Vikings and Arabs were building ships for gigle i guess And funny enough America was discovered during the dark age.

No America was discovered somthing like 50000-10000 BC, presumably by tribes crossing the Bering Straight. The discovery of America however is irrelevant to this whole argument. The point was that it isn't until the period covered by EU that we see regular ocean crossing traffic connecting not only Europe and North America, but all continents except Antartica. So it is fair to argue that ships got more important in that period, than they were in the one covered by CK.

And of course people were building ships. No one is arguing that ships didn't exist. Everybody in this thread want some representation of naval power. The question is A) if naval battles were common and important enough to do detailed modelling, B) if a unit based model actaully is a good (or the best) representation and C) finding a model that the AI might handle. After all it is no use having a good model if you get weird outcomes because the AI doesn't know how to play the game.

There are two similar facts for EU,Vic,CK. Navy was importaint,for trade and some times desisive for war. Secondly thay are hard for Ai to handle.
Bit CK is apearing to be a special case because we can not have one.

Sure, sir. There were at least 2 or three naval battles between the Rus and Bysantium,
a bunch of amfibiuos invasions, and we do not know how the heck do ships fight?
lol. Just lol.

Did you even read what he wrote? The reason we don't know how the ships and crew fought was that we typically ( have some source like this http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/ctit1.htm) only know of those battles you mention from people who did not take part. Just like the Bayeux Tapestry tells us of William the Conqueror, but doesn't exactly provide us a good impression of how he looked. But hey, it sound like you have excellent sources on how they fought, so by all means provide us with some sources.

And sure there were naval battles. I don't know about the battles and invasion you mention between Byzantium and the Rus (but I'd be happy to see links), but if we look at the Hundred Years War there were two naval battles and one ongoing naval skirmish campaign vs. 33 major land battles. A quick wikipedia look up of the crusades give me 64 impornat land battles and sieages and one naval battle. I'm sure I've missed som naval battles, but there still seems to be a significant overweight of land battles.

By the way the Roman and even Greek battles can allso be seen as an example, because with no gun powder fights were same at it`s basics. And obvioustly we do not know about the ship design, Dark ages, wtf...

Actually, no, roman and greek naval battles could easily be a very poor place to look. We know that ancient battle ships had prow-rams and that medieval ships (mostly) didn't, which is just one example of a clear difference in the tactics employed. Would you also say that we can extrapolate dirrectly from ancient land battles to medievalk land battles? Because the equipment sure seemed to change to me.

 

[Onedreamer]

So you can't name a land battle that was decisive just because somebody won

You didn't ask. In the Middle Ages land battles and land troops were more important because warfare was mostly land based. Naval Battles were important only for those few countries that relied on navies, in particular the merchant republics.

but I have to name a naval battle that was? I'll go your route, take the lazy option, and quote newtype0083

Nice lazy work, but you listed naval battles, not decisive naval battles.

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.

But I haven't done it, so based on what do you claim I miss the point? I wrote that naval battles can be ignored, not that naval units should be. All the contrary.

 

[Dagda]

Why fight a battle when you can sink the ships with the soilders before they get there.

Because they weren't cheese doom stacking incompetent Artificial Intelligence.

Besides that, Paradox Navy-micro has been terrible in just about every game that has it. Might as well do away with the annoyance in a game focused on character development.

 

[SharpFish]

We do know a fair bit about how medieval sea battles were conducted. The North Sea method was to lash their vessels together to make a platform, and fight a very bloody skirmish on them. There are battles among the Nordic states in this form, and at least one succesful defense of the English coast against an invasion fleet.

The later medieval techniques are clearly indicated by the design of the ships; it was essentially a boarding melee, for which a high freeboard and tall castles were the dominant factors. Wind driven ships were very unmanouverable in this period, however, so this would be a collision-type borading action for the most part. Also lesser, often oared, vessels carrying reinforcement troops were used to reinforce the troops in a given vessel; this technique was used both at Sluys and Lepanto. The dominant weapons were bows, crossbows, darts and pikes.

The problem isn;t that its unknown how they fought at sea, but becuase as was correctly pointed out above, actually intercepting an enemy fleet was so difficult as to border on the impossible.

It is not true that the Arab states did not have the technology to sail in the North Sea, let alone the bay of Biscay and the Channel. The West copied the fore-and-aft rig from the Muslims states, and Phoenician traders had certainly been reaching the south west and north east coasts of England well before this period. Indeed, the recent discovery in Yorkshire of a burial whoses genetics originate in Tuscany or some places in the near east demonstrate that this well within Mediterranean naval capacity.

The reason it didn't happen was that military fleets in the Med were dominated by galleys, and galleys simply could not operate far from their naval bases. They can't even rely on simple friendly territory, because a sizable galley fleet that docked at some random town would dump easily 20,000 hungry and thirsty oarsmen onto its streets, which would be an utter disaster. And this situation actually got worse over time as galleys became more and more labour intensive.

All this said, though, I essentially agree with the "no naval battles" principle. While they were sometimes important events - and there were some significant naval battles in the crusades - it just isn't worth the hassle to worry about.

 

[RedRooster81]

I enjoyed reading your post, SharpFish. Even without naval battles, how would you recommend portraying the presence of a galley fleet in a given coastal province? Would a simple provincial modifier work, to deter piracy for instance? What role should a navy have in warfare in CK2 aside from the transport function that King was talking about (see my previous post)? Everything is just speculation at this point, but I thought that I would ask.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

I think events could simulate decisive naval battles while doing away with the hassle of concocting a naval system. In the Middle Ages, naval actions were generally related in some way to land campaigns--transport or interception of invading armies, reinforcement/supply for invading armies and cities under siege, or blockade of a port city concurrent with a land-based siege. Arguably we could get the most important effects of all these using events. For example, a company of knights on their way to the Holy Land could get a "Saracen Armada" or "Saracen Pirates" event which thins their numbers or even wipes them out entirely, with a lower MTTH if their commander has a low MIL. (This particular event has the added benefit of encouraging players to take the historical overland route through the Balkans and Asia Minor, rather than relying on dangerous and unreliable sea transport.)

 

[besaccia]

A few words: ships should exist phisically and all the time, it takes time to make a fleet to move a big army. 2: at least the byzantine empire should be allowed to have naval battles (greek fire) thoug i think that all countries have the potential to have naval battles. and finally, when you pay the cost to embark an army the money should go to someplace (owner of the fleet, port owner, etc) instead of just desapearing. Sorry bout bad english

 

[Storey]

Besides that, Paradox Navy-micro has been terrible in just about every game that has it. Might as well do away with the annoyance in a game focused on character development.

This says it all. It doesn't matter what the historical significance of naval warfare was if Paradox can't produce an AI that can handle it in a competent way. It's better to leave it as an abstract useless a minor miracle happens and the AI learns how to handle a navy.

 

[Emperor Basil]

I'd say that not much is lost in the game without naval units with a few notable exceptions:
Byzantium and Egypt would suffer because they had renowned navies. Byzantium's naval dominance inparticular shaped much of the Komnenian reconquest of Asia Minor which was largely on coastal areas. The political shape of the Byzantine Empire in CK1 (Third Crusade) never made strategic sense due to the limitations of the game. The lack of a naval element would cut out an important factor in Byzantium's decline.
Venice, Genoa and the other maritime Italian powers would lose all their importance. These are very difficult to properly represent anyway though because their power rested on trade which is entirely different to the rest of Christendom and the near east at the time.

 

[1alexey]

So it is fair to argue that ships got more important in that period, than they were in the one covered by CK.

The question is A) if naval battles were common and important enough to do detailed modelling, B) if a unit based model actaully is a good (or the best) representation and C) finding a model that the AI might handle. After all it is no use having a good model if you get weird outcomes because the AI doesn't know how to play the game.



Did you even read what he wrote?
we don't know how the ships and crew fought
But hey, it sound like you have excellent sources on how they fought, so by all means provide us with some sources.

And sure there were naval battles. I don't know about the battles and invasion you mention between Byzantium and the Rus (but I'd be happy to see links), but if we look at the Hundred Years War there were two naval battles and one ongoing naval skirmish campaign vs. 33 major land battles. A quick wikipedia look up of the crusades give me 64 impornat land battles and sieages and one naval battle. I'm sure I've missed som naval battles, but there still seems to be a significant overweight of land battles.



Actually, no, roman and greek naval battles could easily be a very poor place to look. We know that ancient battle ships had prow-rams and that medieval ships (mostly) didn't, which is just one example of a clear difference in the tactics employed. Would you also say that we can extrapolate dirrectly from ancient land battles to medievalk land battles? Because the equipment sure seemed to change to me.

1.Ships were importaint in CK period. Merchant republics were allso. The mediterainian was the most importaint traffic way. Allso the Baltick was. And Rus rivers. The path from vickings to greeks was. All in all navy was allways importaint.

2. a. common enought, very importaint. For example a few Rusian naval invasions failed because of lost navy.
b. A unit model is a good representation. The best repres. is allways an enemy of a good representation.
c. The AI handles navy in V2, EU3, hoi3, which all are on same engine. Why wouldn`t it do in CK?

3. We do. Ships either rammed, or bordered, or caried an artilery(catapults or balistas) piese. Or thay were equiped with a flame thrower. What is so hard to understant here?

Rus-Bz wars for ya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus'–Byzantine_War

4. Or a very good, because mediterainian ships were not that different in CK timeframe. Once again your look is to Middle-Europe centrick
For Mediterainian, Baltick and Black see naveis were most importaint.

Once again since in all PI games battles are abstracted, there in not so much need to know all the tacticks. And the reason for the lack of describing is simply due to wery low amount of lirerate people. For example even french kings not allways could write.

 

[telesien]

We do know a fair bit about how medieval sea battles were conducted. The North Sea method was to lash their vessels together to make a platform, and fight a very bloody skirmish on them. There are battles among the Nordic states in this form, and at least one succesful defense of the English coast against an invasion fleet.

The later medieval techniques are clearly indicated by the design of the ships; it was essentially a boarding melee, for which a high freeboard and tall castles were the dominant factors. Wind driven ships were very unmanouverable in this period, however, so this would be a collision-type borading action for the most part. Also lesser, often oared, vessels carrying reinforcement troops were used to reinforce the troops in a given vessel; this technique was used both at Sluys and Lepanto. The dominant weapons were bows, crossbows, darts and pikes.

The problem isn;t that its unknown how they fought at sea, but becuase as was correctly pointed out above, actually intercepting an enemy fleet was so difficult as to border on the impossible.

It is not true that the Arab states did not have the technology to sail in the North Sea, let alone the bay of Biscay and the Channel. The West copied the fore-and-aft rig from the Muslims states, and Phoenician traders had certainly been reaching the south west and north east coasts of England well before this period. Indeed, the recent discovery in Yorkshire of a burial whoses genetics originate in Tuscany or some places in the near east demonstrate that this well within Mediterranean naval capacity.

The reason it didn't happen was that military fleets in the Med were dominated by galleys, and galleys simply could not operate far from their naval bases. They can't even rely on simple friendly territory, because a sizable galley fleet that docked at some random town would dump easily 20,000 hungry and thirsty oarsmen onto its streets, which would be an utter disaster. And this situation actually got worse over time as galleys became more and more labour intensive.

All this said, though, I essentially agree with the "no naval battles" principle. While they were sometimes important events - and there were some significant naval battles in the crusades - it just isn't worth the hassle to worry about.

I am no naval historian, but I think I remember reading some books that disputed those battle reports as something comming from a person that was never there and new naval battles from the roman and greek literature and that the description didn't fit the type and character of ships used there. But than again what do I know

 

[RedRooster81]

How about being able to hire pirates, um, privateers? They could attack designated coastal provinces--even if they stay somewhat abstract--can be paid off for a while or dealt with militarily.

 

[thekonkoe]

I think the arguments relying on engine capability are far more convincing. Since the game is called Crusader Kings, some naval events from the crusades might be nice to use.

First and Second Crusade: Naval transport was not used, would have been too expensive but more importantly much to risky. Genoese in particular are important to supplying armies after the First Crusade with supplies.

Third Crusade: Transport is now reasonable for contemporary modern army. Lets the English use the Atlantic as short cut. Parts of Richard's fleet still wrecks around Eastern Med, serves as pretext to take Cyprus. Supply along coastline is crucial for English movements after Acre.

Fourth Crusade: Transport cost determined its entire course, diverted army from Egypt to Hungary then Roman Empire. If you are looking for a decisive use of naval power how about the fall of Constantinople. The amphibious assault on Chalcedon relied on swift Venetian nefs. This allowed the chain across the Golden Horn (a defense specifically against naval attack to be removed). The siege was then won by naval assault on weak points of the seawalls.

Naval power was also crucial to taking Damietta in the Fifth crusade. The capacity for naval technology also allowed for the taking of Nicaea in the First crusade come to think of it though its somewhat odd given the city is landlocked. Its a similar story as for Tenochtitlan about 500 years later. Such lake battles also factored into Italian politics on occasion.

Also as Sluys was already cited, I think it should be pointed out that it was in fact decisive. It secured English naval dominance for a couple decades during the Hundred Years War. It ensured English ability to maintain its economic ties to Flanders, and precluded any French raids on the English coast, which would prove troublesome later. Besides Crecy and Poitiers I would argue that few battles were more important in defining the course of the war for so long.

Also a while back there was a comment that we do not have information on naval combat of the period. That is a major overstatement. Naval accounts are more brief and less detailed because they figured less prominently, but there is still information to be found sufficient to reconstruct it especially later int eh period or for specific instances.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

We do know a fair bit about how medieval sea battles were conducted. The North Sea method was to lash their vessels together to make a platform, and fight a very bloody skirmish on them. There are battles among the Nordic states in this form, and at least one succesful defense of the English coast against an invasion fleet.

The later medieval techniques are clearly indicated by the design of the ships; it was essentially a boarding melee, for which a high freeboard and tall castles were the dominant factors. Wind driven ships were very unmanouverable in this period, however, so this would be a collision-type borading action for the most part. Also lesser, often oared, vessels carrying reinforcement troops were used to reinforce the troops in a given vessel; this technique was used both at Sluys and Lepanto. The dominant weapons were bows, crossbows, darts and pikes.

The problem isn;t that its unknown how they fought at sea, but becuase as was correctly pointed out above, actually intercepting an enemy fleet was so difficult as to border on the impossible.

It is not true that the Arab states did not have the technology to sail in the North Sea, let alone the bay of Biscay and the Channel. The West copied the fore-and-aft rig from the Muslims states, and Phoenician traders had certainly been reaching the south west and north east coasts of England well before this period. Indeed, the recent discovery in Yorkshire of a burial whoses genetics originate in Tuscany or some places in the near east demonstrate that this well within Mediterranean naval capacity.

The reason it didn't happen was that military fleets in the Med were dominated by galleys, and galleys simply could not operate far from their naval bases. They can't even rely on simple friendly territory, because a sizable galley fleet that docked at some random town would dump easily 20,000 hungry and thirsty oarsmen onto its streets, which would be an utter disaster. And this situation actually got worse over time as galleys became more and more labour intensive.

All this said, though, I essentially agree with the "no naval battles" principle. While they were sometimes important events - and there were some significant naval battles in the crusades - it just isn't worth the hassle to worry about.

There is an important point about fleets. It's not the battle, but the supply lines. Let us cut out a direct line between an army and the nearest friendly or occupied province, as well as setting a fleet in the sea, and we have no more supply lines, the army should die of attrition. Much more than in EUIII, because these are no professional armies.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

How about being able to hire pirates, um, privateers? They could attack designated coastal provinces--even if they stay somewhat abstract--can be paid off for a while or dealt with militarily.

Privateers existed in the XIIIth Century in the Christian world, as a way to keep waging war even when a peace deal was made.

There should be an option to "concede letters of marque". This way, you issue some privateers in an abstract setting, and against a certain nation. You get a small amount of money (the privateers usually kept most of it) but your enemy's economy is a little damaged, which is what you want.

 

[3Form]

I've skimmed through this, but I'm just curious. How is England going to keep France penned up on the continent when she can just ferry troops over to the Isles with impunity?
:S

 

[RedRooster81]

I've skimmed through this, but I'm just curious. How is England going to keep France penned up on the continent when she can just ferry troops over to the Isles with impunity?
:S

It's a long thread with 76 posts and over 5000 reads. So it's an issue that's been hashed and rehashed by fans. Official announcement is no naval battles, but there needs to be some kind of way of securing strategic straits. (This is an announced feature of Sengoku so maybe CK2 as well....)

 

[3Form]

It's a long thread with 76 posts and over 5000 reads. So it's an issue that's been hashed and rehashed by fans. Official announcement is no naval battles, but there needs to be some kind of way of securing strategic straits. (This is an announced feature of Sengoku so maybe CK2 as well....)

Thanks ^^