Why ships was removed ?

[Alenarae118]

The Mediterranean had fleets with battles, you can't deny this. Be they limited by tech or high price to make them seldom in the north of the map this SHOULD be represented.
Also as long as crap like Hellenic religion is allowed no one is allowed to use the "unrealistic" excuse for anything.

It isn't just about the mechanic being unrealistic, it was also just a bad way of doing the naval mechanic, I would rather the Devs focus on polishing the game right now, instead of implementing a bad system, that they could instead put loads of effort into later down the road.

 

[Varren]

Also as long as crap like Hellenic religion is allowed no one is allowed to use the "unrealistic" excuse for anything.

Hellenic restoration isn't a thing in CK3. I mean, you can convert to Hellenism, but only because you can convert to literally any religion that exists in the history files. As far as I know, there are no special events or decisions related to Hellenism, and Hellenism itself is just an ordinary religion rather than the top secret strongest religion in the game.

More unrealistic things from CK2 that have been cut:

• Warehouses full of magical knicknacks that turn your characters into beloved geniuses
• Immortality
• Satanists with actual demon powers
• Eighth-century firearms
• Secretly converting the entire HRE to Catharism by leaving Bibles on people's beds
• Glitterhoof, Aztecs, and other such miscellanea

(That being said, if CK3 did include a bunch of wacky stuff, how would that help your argument? Like, if the devs decided to replace their historical sources with Game of Thrones and r/crusaderkings memes, then the only criterion for their naval mechanics would be how fun they were, and boat levies are decidedly unfun.)

 

[Rubidium]

The Mediterranean had fleets with battles, you can't deny this. Be they limited by tech or high price to make them seldom in the north of the map this SHOULD be represented.

Indeed it did, as did Northern Europe, to a much lesser extent.

You know what didn't have fleet battles, and in fact couldn't? The CK2 system.

It would be one thing if CK2 had a great naval system that was being scrapped, but it didn't. It had transport ship levies only, which the AI couldn't handle and the player often found too tedious to handle. There was no naval combat, and ships were always either "way more than you need" or "essentially non-existent," while the ability to use vassal ships meant that ship transport was essentially free (as you could have the vassals pay for it), so it didn't even cost you anything to have a fleet sail from Scandinavia to the Middle East, unload your troops for the Crusade, and then have them sit there off the coast until they were needed.

 

[BrokenSky]

There is a difference between defending the dumbing down of features that were good in the previous game and will be bad now and defending a move from one unrealistic system which doesn't represent the timeframe, is complicated for the AI and annoying for the player and easy to exploit (free boats from vassals) to a system that is simpler for the AI, less work for the player (clicks for the sake of clicks are bad), generally includes the same cost-benefits analysis (we don't know how much ships cost, and if they're expensive enough it might cost more than even raising your own ships in CK2 and it will be more expensive than vassal fleets for sure)) and in some aspects fits the timeframe better.

I mean we don't know it does have the same player cost benefit analysis.

The analysis I am interested in is in developing maritime infrastructure against other things you could be focusing on, although CK2 economics did have a large problem of "just have everything" which kind of nullified it somewhat. Nevertheless I am hoping cautiously optimistic that CK3 will have addressed that, so if we don't get to see benefits of enhanced naval infrastructure (e.g. cheaper ship costs and/or faster embark times if you leave from a developed port rather than the middle of no-where, larger 'pool' of merchant ships to charter if you develop maritime trade hubs etc.), that'l be something which leaves me a little irritated.

 

[Austregisel]

Indeed it did, as did Northern Europe, to a much lesser extent.

You know what didn't have fleet battles, and in fact couldn't? The CK2 system.

It would be one thing if CK2 had a great naval system that was being scrapped, but it didn't. It had transport ship levies only, which the AI couldn't handle and the player often found too tedious to handle. There was no naval combat, and ships were always either "way more than you need" or "essentially non-existent," while the ability to use vassal ships meant that ship transport was essentially free (as you could have the vassals pay for it), so it didn't even cost you anything to have a fleet sail from Scandinavia to the Middle East, unload your troops for the Crusade, and then have them sit there off the coast until they were needed.

In fact, not even the vassals pay for the armies and boats you summon from them.

 

[Kinkness]

I think that a great deal of us are arguing quite logically about why the new system is preferable to the old one. Neither have the arguments for this been "proven wrong" just because you feel like the old system was fine. Proof is not something that is attainable when dealing with something this subjective.

Either way.. in a strategy game.. having strategy is a good thing.. removing it is bad...

removal of navies, and limitations of army crossings is a bad thing. Regardless how you "feel" about it. It's a removal of a very real strategic consideration.

England can now easily mosh pit an army in the crusades no problem, France can now steam roll England no problem, Mongols can now steam roll anywhere via the water, no problem...

and the "but the ships will have upkeep" is not an argument.. becaues the moment you disembark those ships go bye bye.. Where as in CK2 a very real consideration for me for the crusades for example, was do I need to send my fleets all the way back and disband them (resulting in even more upkeep), or should I disembark my army in Italy and walk the rest of the way, allowing for a quicker return of my fleet, etc.

A very real consideration which you now don't need to do because of magical pixie fairy dust. = Bad in a strategy game... Regardless of how you feel about it..



[/quote]People have given plenty of good reasons, even if you refuse to accept them as such. [/Quote]

No... there hasn't been a single good reason.. As there is far more bad than good with this change.

I will give you my primary reasons; it is less time consuming for the player to deal with and the AI will better be able to "understand" it. Could they have made an entire navy system complete with naval combat instead?

Again this is an asanine cop out excuse...

1) They could of easily just kept the CK2 ship style and allowed it to be expanded up on through mods (which you can't now). WHich would been much easier on the development. Nobody said they had to expand on it.

2) "less time consuming for the player to deal with" is an argument I seriously wish harm to those who use it in a strategy game because of the absolute stupid levels of ignorance that come with it....

WIth that logic.. lets just make Crusader Kings 2, Total War: Medieval 3 with stupid simplistic everything, and arcade like everything..

(actually they technically already did by tremendously dumbing down the buildings and making things "Accessible" for the retards who buy it, and who are too stupid and have no patience).


------------------

Quite honestly this is all proof of how stupid people are becoming in this day and age.. If the ship system was too "confusing and difficult" to need to be dumbed down..

I could comment on the rest but quite honestly... It's a waste of time. Too much stupid on too many levels, with no actual good arguments besides "it makes it easier for me cuz I'm stupid".

Bravo...

 

[Oz3264]

Whatever your opinions on the naval system is, repeatedly telling people they're stupid is no behavior to have on a forum, respect isn't optional.

 

[Blackwhitecavias]

Either way.. in a strategy game.. having strategy is a good thing.. removing it is bad...

removal of navies, and limitations of army crossings is a bad thing. Regardless how you "feel" about it. It's a removal of a very real strategic consideration.

England can now easily mosh pit an army in the crusades no problem, France can now steam roll England no problem, Mongols can now steam roll anywhere via the water, no problem...

and the "but the ships will have upkeep" is not an argument.. becaues the moment you disembark those ships go bye bye.. Where as in CK2 a very real consideration for me for the crusades for example, was do I need to send my fleets all the way back and disband them (resulting in even more upkeep), or should I disembark my army in Italy and walk the rest of the way, allowing for a quicker return of my fleet, etc.

A very real consideration which you now don't need to do because of magical pixie fairy dust. = Bad in a strategy game... Regardless of how you feel about it..

A consideration that wasn't present as there would be no reason to send the ships back if your were using the ones of your vassals (thus costing you a grand total of 0 ducats).

E

1) They could of easily just kept the CK2 ship style and allowed it to be expanded up on through mods (which you can't now). WHich would been much easier on the development. Nobody said they had to expand on it.

They could not, the ck2 system would have to be recoded (you can't simply port a full system into a new game), the AI would have to be redone to use it and systems like buildings would have to be adapted (as they are done in a different way in CK3. All this work would then have to be redone when they eventually overhaul the naval system to work with the new system.

2) "less time consuming for the player to deal with" is an argument I seriously wish harm to those who use it in a strategy game because of the absolute stupid levels of ignorance that come with it....

WIth that logic.. lets just make Crusader Kings 2, Total War: Medieval 3 with stupid simplistic everything, and arcade like everything.

Less time consuming is definitely an argument (the old system didn't cost much time and with the embark all button it was relatively easy to use, but it still was something that did not add anything to strategy (raise boats, embark all, pick up the remaining troops with ships that still have room, click where you want to go does does not contain more choices than select your army, select where you want to go, wait for ships and the army goes there)) because a strategy game does not become a strategy game with false choices: a player with some experience would just use his vassal ships whenever he wanted to go somewhere (I have as a nation with a coast never had an issue with getting enough ships (unless I accidentally disbanded them out of port). Clicks you don't have to think about don't need to be there.

 

[GingerContingent]

Either way.. in a strategy game.. having strategy is a good thing.. removing it is bad...

removal of navies, and limitations of army crossings is a bad thing. Regardless how you "feel" about it. It's a removal of a very real strategic consideration.

England can now easily mosh pit an army in the crusades no problem, France can now steam roll England no problem, Mongols can now steam roll anywhere via the water, no problem...

and the "but the ships will have upkeep" is not an argument.. becaues the moment you disembark those ships go bye bye.. Where as in CK2 a very real consideration for me for the crusades for example, was do I need to send my fleets all the way back and disband them (resulting in even more upkeep), or should I disembark my army in Italy and walk the rest of the way, allowing for a quicker return of my fleet, etc.

A very real consideration which you now don't need to do because of magical pixie fairy dust. = Bad in a strategy game... Regardless of how you feel about it..

People have given plenty of good reasons, even if you refuse to accept them as such.

No... there hasn't been a single good reason.. As there is far more bad than good with this change.



Again this is an asanine cop out excuse...

1) They could of easily just kept the CK2 ship style and allowed it to be expanded up on through mods (which you can't now). WHich would been much easier on the development. Nobody said they had to expand on it.

2) "less time consuming for the player to deal with" is an argument I seriously wish harm to those who use it in a strategy game because of the absolute stupid levels of ignorance that come with it....

WIth that logic.. lets just make Crusader Kings 2, Total War: Medieval 3 with stupid simplistic everything, and arcade like everything..

(actually they technically already did by tremendously dumbing down the buildings and making things "Accessible" for the retards who buy it, and who are too stupid and have no patience).


------------------

Quite honestly this is all proof of how stupid people are becoming in this day and age.. If the ship system was too "confusing and difficult" to need to be dumbed down..

I could comment on the rest but quite honestly... It's a waste of time. Too much stupid on too many levels, with no actual good arguments besides "it makes it easier for me cuz I'm stupid".

Bravo...

My dude, you can call us stupid, you can bitch and whine and moan, but the vast majority of people agree that the game is better, more realistic, and more strategic with this change. We've pointed out dozens of reasons for this over the course of this thread, and you just ignore every point and come back with nothing but repetitive insistence that your opinions are the only ones that matter.

What do you think you're accomplishing? When you act like this, it actually makes it less likely that people will take your suggestions seriously. Even you have to realize that the devs aren't going to take the opinion of someone who just keeps whining and calling them retards in the forums over, y'know, everyone else, and it certainly doesn't endear you to others in the community.

The crazy thing about Paradox is that, if you communicate with them openly, they're actually really receptive. If you can get a big enough group of people to say that they want something closer to the old boat system, I have no doubt they would at least consider it. And if they didn't do it, if there's enough demand I'm sure there will be a mod eventually.

And as I said before, if you really really want it, you can mod it yourself, since clearly you're so brilliant and the devsand the whole rest of the CK player base are all stupid in comparison. Or you can keep playing CK2 if you think they've dumbed CK3 down so much, but it looks to me like they've made CK3 easier to look at and understand without really taking out any of the genuine complexity and strategy required. I guess we'll see when the game comes out. I'll be upset at that point if it feels like they made it super simplistic. Until then, insulting people isn't going to change anything, so maybe chill out?

 

[TheSeraphim]

The crazy thing about Paradox is that, if you communicate with them openly, they're actually really receptive.

Tell that to Imperator pre-release.

 

[Kinkness]

And as I said before, if you really really want it, you can mod it yourself, since clearly you're so brilliant and the devsand the whole rest of the CK player base are all stupid in comparison. Or you can keep playing CK2 if you think they've dumbed CK3 down so much, but it looks to me like they've made CK3 easier to look at and understand without really taking out any of the genuine complexity and strategy required. I guess we'll see when the game comes out. I'll be upset at that point if it feels like they made it super simplistic. Until then, insulting people isn't going to change anything, so maybe chill out?

Except you can't mod it. As the Ai need to know how to use it, and that particular part of the code has never been available and isn't going to be available to the modders.

Sure you can add it so players can use it.. but that'd be pointless if the AI can't be taught how to use it.

That being said, no paradox is not that partial to suggestions.. Tell the Imperator Rome, and Hearts of Iron 4 people that... TONS of stuff many were outspoken against and they did nothing to change it..

Like it or not.. the game is superbly dumbed down for the masses, and paradox is destroying is the very reason they got so popular to begin with.. great deep and intricate strategy games...

Crusader Kings 3 while still deeper than Imperator, or Hearts of Iron 4 in many ways.. is not remotely as deep as CK2.. Many things have been simplified because as you stated in your own words...

"It's too difficult for the average moron to understand".

 

[AndrewT]

Closing due to impending toxicity.

OP or others are welcome to open a new thread on the topic.