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

[unmerged(88697)]

Hey, I'd like to see Greek fire and its effect on maritime control of the Black Sea too, but naval combat is a roll of the dice, not something one can plan and execute with any regularity.

The way it is now everyone gets a free pass, that's fair.

 

[Arizal]

This game lacks naval battles simply because it is exactly what allows one of the most gamey tactic in the game (the teleportation troops via-fleet to drown the AI (also the only way to win against a Horde, I think...)). Also, naval battles would mean more difficult "Sea Lions" and possibly a Byzantine empire that doesn't lose Greece.

 

[Sir Tornado]

I think instead of naval warfare, some sort of coastal defence system should be introduced. I think 2 buildings should be introduced,

1) Coastal defence, which would prevent the enemy from attacking across straits
2) Coastal fortress (level 1-5) which would increase the defender bonus against "enemy" units launching amphibious attacks from the Sea

For example: Venice builds Coastal defence and Sea Fortress level 1... it prevents HRE from just marching its armies across the venetial lagoon. Now HRE has to raise a navy to cross over to Venice. Because of the Sea fortress it also gains a 50% bonus. Level 2 will give another 25% bonus, and so on to level 5 by which time you will have a cumulative 150% bonus against enemy. However, this "defence bonus" should be reduced if the attacking units have a navy much larger than required... for instance, HRE attacking Venice with 10k units and only 100 ships will have to face full defence bonus, but on the other hand, if HRE attacks with 10k units and 300 ships, the defence bonus could be completely eliminated... the ships carrying the disembarking army should be occupied throughout the battle.

This will force the attacking force to get a larger navy and thus simulate the importance of navies, as well as giving the merchant republics some advantages of having large navies.

 

[Wallain]

How does it not add anything to the game? I seriously do not get this argument. Of course it adds something to the game. It makes you able to isolate yourself with a fleet if you want, or worry that your invasion army might get intercepted by warships. I want naval combat in the game, even if it is just a single kind of warship we can use.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

I think instead of naval warfare, some sort of coastal defence system should be introduced. I think 2 buildings should be introduced,

1) Coastal defence, which would prevent the enemy from attacking across straits
2) Coastal fortress (level 1-5) which would increase the defender bonus against "enemy" units launching amphibious attacks from the Sea

For example: Venice builds Coastal defence and Sea Fortress level 1... it prevents HRE from just marching its armies across the venetial lagoon. Now HRE has to raise a navy to cross over to Venice. Because of the Sea fortress it also gains a 50% bonus. Level 2 will give another 25% bonus, and so on to level 5 by which time you will have a cumulative 150% bonus against enemy. However, this "defence bonus" should be reduced if the attacking units have a navy much larger than required... for instance, HRE attacking Venice with 10k units and only 100 ships will have to face full defence bonus, but on the other hand, if HRE attacks with 10k units and 300 ships, the defence bonus could be completely eliminated... the ships carrying the disembarking army should be occupied throughout the battle.

This will force the attacking force to get a larger navy and thus simulate the importance of navies, as well as giving the merchant republics some advantages of having large navies.

Right.... on our quest to implement borderline ahistorical sea battles (at least ahistorical when considering the large scale they would happen in CK2 if they were possible) we then introduce absolutely ahistorical coastal defenses and sea fortresses? It is one thing to protect a single harbor with fortifications, but it seems you're thinking about some "Atlantic Wall"-style defense line, which would be almost impossible to construct, man, and operate in medieval times (watchtowers, which were quite common, don't really hinder any landing operations) - don't forget, coastlines ingame range from dozens to hundreds of kilometers length.

The whole idea sounds a bit too much like HoI3 and D-Day, and less like the middle ages imho...

 

[DLFebin]

Ye, I wish there were naval retinues for sea battles. But I guess current "Naval Express" teleportation is fun enough.

And scale wouldn't be so large, if there was disctiction between battle and transport fleets.

 

[Negru Voda]

The whole idea sounds a bit too much like HoI3 and D-Day, and less like the middle ages imho...

^this^

 

[Arizal]

Naval retinues seems a good idea, but they should rename them, in that case, and give them a building probably to enable them. I still find it strange that retinues are so big in the game, when it should be far lighter.

 

[Hackworthy]

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 ?

No.

 

[Spartanlemur]

To be honest, I don't know why Paradox doesn't just add modding tools to allow the community to develop some form of naval combat. Once the naval combat mod team(s) manage to balance it well enough, perhaps they can add it into the game themselves in a similar fashion.
Obviously PI don't want to release some half-baked system which ruins the game, so why not let mod teams have a go at it and as an option, create a system which works well and adds rather than takes from the game.

 

[spinoza013]

I could live with Naval retinues. Theres nothing worse than countries spamming navies and creating a total micromanaging headache. If only the richest coastal counties could afford a couple of War-ships then combat could take place but on a limited scale.

 

[Ordo Impavidus]

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 ?

Insufficient funds. Nuff said.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Probably someone has said this before, but the point of Medieval naval combat since the Greeks until the broad adoption of naval cannonfights, is that ships:

a) block ports and straits.
b) distribute supplies.
c) Transportation of troops.

There is a fourth too

d) Transporation of goods, usually to trade.

Paradox' ships do none of those, except c). Naval combat was not ships lining up and shooting cannon, unleasing hell. It was much less interesting or spectacular: it was archers fireing from the small wooden castles on both sides of the ship while foot soldiers attacked other ships, trying to take control of them. Not for the lulz, but because they needed to let the troops pass throught the straits, or because they had to destroy the supply fleet.

The division between warships and trade ships was very blurred, and although lords had war galleys and warships built, their numbers were usually low in comparison with trade galleys and cogs that were enlisted by contract.

I agree that there's no easy way to represent this, but putting EUIII-like ship combat in CK2 will be a disaster, bot for fun and accuracy.

 

[Sir Tornado]

Right.... on our quest to implement borderline ahistorical sea battles (at least ahistorical when considering the large scale they would happen in CK2 if they were possible) we then introduce absolutely ahistorical coastal defenses and sea fortresses? It is one thing to protect a single harbor with fortifications, but it seems you're thinking about some "Atlantic Wall"-style defense line, which would be almost impossible to construct, man, and operate in medieval times (watchtowers, which were quite common, don't really hinder any landing operations) - don't forget, coastlines ingame range from dozens to hundreds of kilometers length.

The whole idea sounds a bit too much like HoI3 and D-Day, and less like the middle ages imho...

The Naval fort will not contain cannons or stuff like that, it will represent ships used for defence of the city. Think of it as a naval garrison.

 

[DCyDe]

I agree that there's no easy way to represent this, but putting EUIII-like ship combat in CK2 will be a disaster, bot for fun and accuracy.

i tend to agree with you for the vanilla game but one word: mods!

 

[Wallain]

i tend to agree with you for the vanilla game but one word: mods!

You can't mod in naval combat.

 

[DCyDe]

You can't mod in naval combat.

you missunderstood, i know that you can't mod it in but possible mods where naval combat would fit more in then in vanilla CK2 are the thing why PI should actualy develop naval combat.

 

[Wallain]

you missunderstood, i know that you can't mod it in but possible mods where naval combat would fit more in then in vanilla CK2 are the thing why PI should actualy develop naval combat.

Well, that and it would fit in the base game.

 

[ASPGolan]

I've seen this in Total War series. In Rome and Medieval2 TW, it was a joke. They added it just because it had to be there. Bah. In Empire TW they did something amazing. It looks and feels great. But that can't apply to board games such as CK2. Not saying its impossible, maybe they're just keeping it for EU4 and CK3.

 

[spinoza013]

I've seen this in Total War series. In Rome and Medieval2 TW, it was a joke. They added it just because it had to be there. Bah. In Empire TW they did something amazing. It looks and feels great. But that can't apply to board games such as CK2. Not saying its impossible, maybe they're just keeping it for EU4 and CK3.

It was exactly this I had in mind when I made my comments. Naval warfare was just a mess in M:TW.