I don't see how it's any more accurate than the previous system being a representation of pressing merchant ships into service.
- 4
- 3
Why ships was removed ?
- Thread starter Scanz
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
A few ways, just off the top of my head:
- It allows landlocked rulers to fight wars and send troops overseas as they historically did, instead of Irish counts or English earls pledging to go on Crusade, raising their troops, and then sitting there forever because they can't transport them.
- It avoids the old "raise vassal ships and use them for transport, so naval transport never costs anything" approach. Now the troops' owner will pay their passage fee.
- It means that isolated island holdings like the Balearics or Faroes can actually be useful, rather than requiring extra clicks just to get those handful of soldiers to join your main army (which in practice means most people don't bother)
- It avoids the weirdness of no one except Vikings having any boats in 867, leaving open the question of how exactly the Anglo-Saxons got to England in the first place (and also leaving the British Isles weirdly isolated from the continent once the Sons of Ragnar are dealt with).
- It means we no longer have an arbitrary set of straits that people can cross without penalty, which were added because otherwise the AI couldn't handle e.g. Byzantium or Apulia having half of its territory on one side and half on the other.
- More broadly, it means the AI will no longer be such an epic fail at handling naval transport.
- 27
- 4
- 2
Should've said this earlier, but not everyone lacked a navy. I assume most of Europe and anywhere else navies were redundant or too expensive to keep did, but not everyone.
Having to develop the coast to cross your whole army at once is good though, if only to keep England somewhat isolated from the continentals to the south, represent the shipbuilding advantage that made the Viking Age, and to keep big land-based blobs like the HRE from stomping island nations too early in the game. Then again, you could just have a ship limit based on your number and tier of harbours, allowing you to embark a certain number of troops at a time, which would satisfy this, preserve the thing that made the Viking Age so named while cutting out the tedious micro of ck2 boats.
I wonder if something akin to military access will exist in ck3, being able to stomp around through neutral lands (even those belonging to heathens who think you're evil!) with no consequences was rather immersion-breaking IMO, and if the Pdox sticks with the auto-boats such a system could prevent loonier outcomes like some Irish count taking a trip to India through the Sinai. You could have a rule that to embark you'd need to be in either same-realm territory, occupied land, or in the land of someone you have mil. access with. Have the transport fleet be paid for/levied up-front, and be attached to the army until dismissed charging extra maintenance all the while. So if you're confident that your invasion force can handle any counterattack you can dismiss them the instant you land, but if you're worried you can keep them around so your troops can flee to them, embarking significantly faster than having to charter a new set of ships.
Last edited:
- 3
Thats a given. Aside the Vikings the merchant republics had been the states to rely mostly on ships so I'd say it is highly likely that they will implement a naval system with the merchant republic
- 4
851 Battle of Sandwich, Anglo-Saxon Royal Navy vs a Nordic fleet. And it has a wiki page
- 4
You keep harping on this battle for a long time... Probably was counted in the Norse vs. Norse count or missing.
One naval battle doesn't invalidate the point.
General point here is, you are mad that PDX removed a useless feature that didn't happen in CK II either, there was no battle of Sandwich.
You want apparantly everyting in it NOW.
I am happy to work witht he current no ship system until they implement proper naval mechanics with a merchant republic update or a viking update.
- 4
- 3
*Laughs in history*
here is a wiki entry. There is alot of quite interesting history books about naval warfare
Battle of Sandwich (851) - Wikipedia
- 3
- 1
From this era onwards, the Anglo-Saxon then Anglo-Norman England maintained a naval fleet. King Richard used this fleet, offerings from his leveies and then paid the merchants for the fleet he used in the Crusade. Where he sailed to Sicily, Malta, Cyprus and then the Crusader States.
- 1
- 1
Do you really think that this wiki helps?
The article is a stub and it doesn't read like it was a huge naval engagement more like some boarding action.
Again as I said on multiple occasions.
Where is the point to implement the awful CK II naval system in the game
AND why do you expect a game with ALL features at launch.
Naval engangements in those times had been few so why spend time and money on developing a feature at release
This will be included in a DLC.
Or do you alos complain as passionate about not being able to play as doge of venice as you complain about not having to click a button to raise ships?
- 5
- 5
A naval battle that involved the loss of a grand total of 9 longships is a weird case for CK2 somehow being superior with regards to navies, considering every coastal holding in CK2 is able to supply more ships than that on its own and you can't fight at sea anyway.
CK2 did not have naval combat. CK3 will potentially have it, but not a launch. I'd call that a tie.
CK2 requires you to raise "fleet levies", which cost no money and means coastal realms can ship all their troops around for free while landlocked nations cannot ship them around at all. As a work-around, straights in CK2 allow you to cross water in specific places as though you could just walk from Scotland to Ireland.
CK3 requires you to "rent" ships from whatever merchant fleets are in the province you are embarking from. This means straights are no longer necessary, as the AI can always find the boats it needs to go where it wants (economy not withstanding).
"Fleet levies" is historically accurate for some realms, "rented ships" is more accurate for others. I fail to see how choosing the more gameplay functional of two unrealistic options is some sort of grand betrayal on Paradox' part.
CK2 did not have naval combat. CK3 will potentially have it, but not a launch. I'd call that a tie.
CK2 requires you to raise "fleet levies", which cost no money and means coastal realms can ship all their troops around for free while landlocked nations cannot ship them around at all. As a work-around, straights in CK2 allow you to cross water in specific places as though you could just walk from Scotland to Ireland.
CK3 requires you to "rent" ships from whatever merchant fleets are in the province you are embarking from. This means straights are no longer necessary, as the AI can always find the boats it needs to go where it wants (economy not withstanding).
"Fleet levies" is historically accurate for some realms, "rented ships" is more accurate for others. I fail to see how choosing the more gameplay functional of two unrealistic options is some sort of grand betrayal on Paradox' part.
- 10
- 4
I think the problem of the CK2 AI not using the boats will become the AI of CK3 overusing it.
The AI doing stupid embarking will be there.
And before you go (yOu DoNt kNow tHat, YoU hAvENt plAid tHE gAme) remember: there is only so much resources and dev time.
Almost all issues the community pointed out with Imperator were there at launch.
- The AI will be using the water route just to skip a province.
- The AI will be going on boats and then back on land non stop.
- Straights will become irrelevant.
- What will be the difference between the Vikings and some landlocked Slavs never seen a boat ? Money ? Time ?
- With some money the Bavarians conquer south India.
The AI doing stupid embarking will be there.
And before you go (yOu DoNt kNow tHat, YoU hAvENt plAid tHE gAme) remember: there is only so much resources and dev time.
Almost all issues the community pointed out with Imperator were there at launch.
- 8
- 5
- 3
It will cost money, so as long as the AI is reasonably frugal they will only use boats if the cost in ducats is acceptable versus the strategic needs. Sure, a massively wealthy lord might sail everywhere they can for expediency, but so would the player if money was not an issue.
That is actually also one of my concerns. Straights in CK2 made attacks come from somewhat reliable directions, as the AI would try to use them whenever possible. Even if you had a reliable navy, you would generally land troops across the shortest possible distance that offered a good place to disembark. I don't know if the embarkation cost in CK2 is dependent on travel distance, but perhaps that could be used as a way to encourage the English to not land on the far side of Ireland.
It has been mentioned that cheaper boats and ability to navigate rivers will be part of the cultural/regional specific technologies that enable some cultures to make more use of sailing than others. But yes, if Austria turns up in Venice with chests full of gold they will now be able to hire ships to take them across. Rather than sit impotently on the shore as they do in CK2.
Sure. They just have to walk to Egypt first, considering there is no Suez canal.
In CK2 anyone who was not a viking was physically unable to get to or from the British isles in 867. Hardly an ideal solution either.
- 3
- 2
- 1
I don't mind having no transport ships in the game, as there is no way to attack them anyway. Would love the whole naval warfare/diplomacy or nothing at all.
However I wonder if the costs are the same for Burgundy and England to ship troops. Which would not make sense (less coastline for the first)
However I wonder if the costs are the same for Burgundy and England to ship troops. Which would not make sense (less coastline for the first)
Unless it bankrupts the AI, having the AI use boats to skip where it's faster is fine. People used boats all the time. Up until the coming of the railroad, boats were by far the cheapest and easiest way of moving people any appreciable difference (and especially avoiding nasty terrain).
As for your second concern, that's a matter of the pathfinding algorithm. If they are marching back and forth between the same two provinces (land or water) it's a problem with the algorithm regardless of if it's land or sea.
A lot of the straits already in-game are somewhat questionable, to be honest. While crossing the Dardanelles or the Strait of Messina was common and strategically important, the ones to Ireland (for example) are transparently an effort to allow the AI to move between Ireland and Great Britain without going nuts. It's not along the main paths people would take to and from Ireland, it's just based on what would be nearest. They might be able to add provinces modifiers to some of them to make them important (sort of like how EU4 represents the Sound Toll). But this is a valid concern.
This doesn't bother me so much; everyone has at least heard of boats (for river travel, if nothing else), and they would hire them normally if the need arose. Baltic Slavs proved just as capable of sailing around the Baltic and raiding everyone else (including Scandinavia) as did the Vikings.
That said, given that we have unique cultural fascinations/technologies, I suspect the Vikings will get one for cheaper/faster travel (either a unique one, or just starting with it unlocked already in 867)
It's not the boat system preventing this in CK2. It's the CB system (and to a lesser extent the attrition system). There's already a CK2 achievement for a Norse to conquer India (and Haestein of Nantes is regularly used to set up a Viking empire anywhere the player chooses).
Agree that the AI will still be stupid, but it will be less so than the CK2 boat system, if only because it will have fewer things to juggle. And the other benefits are worth it.
- 6
- 2
I do wonder if some poor guy at the Dev Team is now doing overtime to somehow scramble a Dev Diary together that adresses the ship issue tomorrow instead of a well written Dev Diary about how hairstyle works with the nakedness option
- 4
- 1
most people don't seem to care about the "issue" and how naval transportation worked was announced months ago.
- 4
- 2
- 2
We have a link of OPB who also looked into the matter.
According to his research most of the naval was ad-hoc based aside of some obvious exceptions. So ironically the CK3 system is more realistic because having ship levies was uncommon and they often just chartered or conscripted ships from merchants and fishermen for the cause or build it before the invasion started.
- 8
To be fair i suspect if you looked closely this could describe the vast major naval aggression except in a few areas and cases in the general time period!
The ironic part is, people think it's ironic that ck3 mechanic is closer to realitiy than ck2 mechanic.
- 6
- 1
- Status