Seriously , please tell me why Paradox still thinks naval battle is a bad idea ?

[whitewolfmxc]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/08/crusader-kings-iis-next-expansion-announced-the-republic/

taken quote from the above article about the new DLC for republic game play

"What benefits do you get by controlling trade, and how do you defend your trade routes? Will we finally be seeing naval combat?

Trade posts are a lot like regular holdings (cities, castles and temples), but they can be built in any coastal province, not just your own (though the cost increases with the distance from your territory). Only one trade post can exist per province. Bigger trade zones (areas of connected trade posts and controlled sea zones) yield more money, so you want to try to maintain chains of trade posts and to hold trade posts in a majority of the ports around a sea zone. If someone wants to take or destroy your trade posts, they normally have to win a war against you first – though Patricians within the same republic can also plot to take each other’s trade posts. You can upgrade your trade posts with various buildings (again like other holdings), which can, for example, increase the maximum size of your Retinue. There is no naval combat involved; we still feel that it would not suit Crusader Kings II very well."



ok , now anyone might tell me why its a BAD idea for naval war in CK2 ? wasnt that the thing for these trade merchant states and even the Byzantium ? has Paradox really try explain WHY they think is a bad idea ?

 

[spinoza013]

Naval combat is a pain. I'm glad it isn't in CKII

 

[Cymsdale]

It's a pain. It's boring. Naval AI is notoriously bad. It doesn't add enough to be worth the effort.

 

[Maukka]

The sad fact is that Paradox simply has no idea how to do it, every time they have tried to make naval combat in their past games it has sucked.

 

[Darkgamma]

Not only was that the thing for the merchant states and Byzantium, we even have it in the Jómsvíkings' battles in slightly before this time period.

 

[Jeltz]

The sad fact is that Paradox simply has no idea how to do it, every time they have tried to make naval combat in their past games it has sucked.

Yeah, I am pretty sure this is the primary reason. Combined with the fact that the way Paradox normally does naval combat is that you build individual ships which does not fit well with a levy system.

 

[vv2]

Yeah, I am pretty sure this is the primary reason. Combined with the fact that the way Paradox normally does naval combat is that you build individual ships which does not fit well with a levy system.

The reason is that they do it very straightforward. Sea battle, we should be for the units must be clashes. But that did not need to do.

You can just add to the game lineup of marine technology and additional buildings. The more they are developed, the more income from trade in the trade of the Republic, as well as the more losses will be borne by the enemies of the sea crossing. Now the loss of enemies = 0. It distorts reality, and contrary to common sense.

 

[Spartanlemur]

I don't see why we don't just get a ship retinue system which allows us to build warships which have a far higher battle power than levy boats. Levy boats would be worth, say, 1 attack with retinue ships worth around 5 each, depending on price/tech. This would allow Venice to compete with other nations with larger coastlines, as wealth and tech would buy them clunky medieval sea-fortresses.

Battles can then play out as normal, with martial skill and naval traits affecting confidence in commanding ships (medieval naval warfare was mostly boarding anyway, so martial skill on land would have been at least somewhat applicable to water, comparing a tightly packed ship battle to an assault on a keep.

Perhaps events can even radically alter the course of the battle. It would be cool to see naval warfare done, and I hope it does get added.

Troop numbers would of course play a part as well.

 

[Negru Voda]

The AI is a big challenge, and it would mess up even more what little balance there is now.

it might eventually be implemented in a much later DLC. but I don't miss it.

 

[vv2]

I don't see why we don't just get a ship retinue system which allows us to build warships which have a far higher battle power than levy boats. Levy boats would be worth, say, 1 attack with retinue ships worth around 5 each, depending on price/tech. This would allow Venice to compete with other nations with larger coastlines, as wealth and tech would buy them clunky medieval sea-fortresses.

Battles can then play out as normal, with martial skill and naval traits affecting confidence in commanding ships (medieval naval warfare was mostly boarding anyway, so martial skill on land would have been at least somewhat applicable to water, comparing a tightly packed ship battle to an assault on a keep.

Perhaps events can even radically alter the course of the battle. It would be cool to see naval warfare done, and I hope it does get added.

Troop numbers would of course play a part as well.

Developers are trying to get away from mass units. When adding warships, will have a sea chase enemy ships. It does not add to the gameplay, but adds micromanagement. It is better if the fighting at sea will be hidden from the player.

For example, you are fighting an enemy alliance, which includes trading republic with high marine technologies. This means that if you send your army in ships to enemy shores can not swim nobody. If trading republic in your alliance, then perhaps will get 100%.

This system is well simulated to the events of the Middle Ages, and not compromise gameplay superfluous entities.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

The reason is that they do it very straightforward. Sea battle, we should be for the units must be clashes. But that did not need to do.

You can just add to the game lineup of marine technology and additional buildings. The more they are developed, the more income from trade in the trade of the Republic, as well as the more losses will be borne by the enemies of the sea crossing. Now the loss of enemies = 0. It distorts reality, and contrary to common sense.

??? I have no idea what you are trying to say. :blink:

 

[vv2]

??? I have no idea what you are trying to say. :blink:

I'm trying to say how it should be done. Add a line of marine technology. In trading republics it is more developed. This allows them to protect their maritime borders from invaders. Marine units on the map display is not necessary.

To cross the player must choose his army, then the province purpose. It then displays the price of passage. Then begins the process of crossing. If you or your allies marine technology less developed than that of enemies, you will incur a loss at the crossing. If the difference is huge, the shore, no warrior gets.

 

[DCyDe]

The one feature that would allow a tonn of new mods and they don't include it, i think nobody can argue that the statement that it's not got included is not because it wouldn't fit but because of the very poor ai that couldn't handle it and probably because they want to prevent mods that would be a concurrence to EU4.

 

[Talq]

I think hes trying to suggest ships in the same area cause naval attrition. I'll leave the good/bad to others.

My view (leaving aside all the naval AI issues and the levy system issue) is one basic problem is that you couldn't really blockade a sea zone in this era. There were numerous examples of troops crossing despite the 'presence' of enemy fleets, simply because the technology of the time didn't let them stay on station (Guiscard managed to cross an army from Italy to Greece despite byzantine & venetian opposition in part through luck with the weather). The problem then is to similate this you would have to let hostile fleets sit in the same sea zone and 'maybe' engage, but this confuses the player(why aren't they automatically engaging?). There are also issues with ships outfitted for war/vs for transport and its very hard to model one or the other (for example, the english had only a handful of 'war ships' and requisitioned the rest, mainly as transports. Despite that they won a few sea battles.

 

[Rhyus]

It would suit me fine if when when enemy ships transporting troops meet in the same sea zone there was an event about the 2 fleets bumping into each other and then a quick battle between both armies. As others have pointed out sea battles in this period were mostly boarding each others ships and fighting it out. So i think this idea would work fine enough for me

 

[vv2]

I think hes trying to suggest ships in the same area cause naval attrition. I'll leave the good/bad to others.

My view (leaving aside all the naval AI issues and the levy system issue) is one basic problem is that you couldn't really blockade a sea zone in this era. There were numerous examples of troops crossing despite the 'presence' of enemy fleets, simply because the technology of the time didn't let them stay on station (Guiscard managed to cross an army from Italy to Greece despite byzantine & venetian opposition in part through luck with the weather). The problem then is to similate this you would have to let hostile fleets sit in the same sea zone and 'maybe' engage, but this confuses the player(why aren't they automatically engaging?). There are also issues with ships outfitted for war/vs for transport and its very hard to model one or the other (for example, the english had only a handful of 'war ships' and requisitioned the rest, mainly as transports. Despite that they won a few sea battles.

However, there are also countless examples of sea battles. Genoa against Venice for example. The game is not. Is this normal?

Crusades without the active participation of Venice. Is this normal?

Full naval blockade was not possible. However, the ability to drown some of the ships, with the army of enemy, has always been.
And in the game of the Crusades, this possibility must be.

 

[lockey04]

your forgetting the fact that naval unkeep is extremely high and while raising your vassal fleets dosnt cost you a thing, it hurt your economy as your vassals dont have that money to upgrade their holdings.

 

[whitewolfmxc]

I think hes trying to suggest ships in the same area cause naval attrition. I'll leave the good/bad to others.

My view (leaving aside all the naval AI issues and the levy system issue) is one basic problem is that you couldn't really blockade a sea zone in this era. There were numerous examples of troops crossing despite the 'presence' of enemy fleets, simply because the technology of the time didn't let them stay on station (Guiscard managed to cross an army from Italy to Greece despite byzantine & venetian opposition in part through luck with the weather). The problem then is to similate this you would have to let hostile fleets sit in the same sea zone and 'maybe' engage, but this confuses the player(why aren't they automatically engaging?). There are also issues with ships outfitted for war/vs for transport and its very hard to model one or the other (for example, the english had only a handful of 'war ships' and requisitioned the rest, mainly as transports. Despite that they won a few sea battles.

The maybe encounter shouldn't be a problem HOI3 and any previous game of that has that and no one complains about it , its just realistic anyway tech can adjust it of course , i dont see how it will confuse a player.......

 

[DCyDe]

your forgetting the fact that naval unkeep is extremely high and while raising your vassal fleets dosnt cost you a thing, it hurt your economy as your vassals dont have that money to upgrade their holdings.

that thing can be changed by using the left mouse button exactly 6 times and the following keys exactly once: g a l l e y (backspace)

 

[Cymsdale]

The fact we have to load units onto boats is already too much naval annoyance. They should just auto-boat on water, with an maintenance cost while they are sea bound, and a huge multiplier to the maintenance penalty applied to landlocked realms. The effect on maintenance can go up or down based on number and quality of coastal holdings. Higher costs represent the hiring of boats you can't provide yourself.