Would it be interesting to put naval mechanics in the game?

[Oliverjack]

On my journey in thought I came across this question, I imagine these naval mechanics being implemented in the military and commercial areas in the future, perhaps in a DLC.

I know that the idea of having a navy in this period of history was not in its best moment as it was in the past in the Roman era for example and in the future as it would be reinforced with force, in this period I would like to cite an example of navy that even remotely reminded of the old days of the Roman navy, it was the Byzantine navy that despite not being in its best moment did have a certain importance.

If this mechanic is implemented by Paradox in the future what would be the best way to implement this mechanic in the game?

 

[Leonello d'Este]

In the Middle Ages the military use of ships was basically reduced to the transport of troops, naval battles proper were exceptionally rare events. Ships could be reset to make troop movement more complex (and costly), as was the case in CK2.

 

[Lorcalus]

Well, there is probably zero chance of getting sea battles. It would take a lot of dev time for player to maybe have a battle ot two per playthrough. Also, sea blockage or any other offensive capabilities don't have sense in CK games unlike EU4 for example. Thus you really have no incentive to have sea batles really.

But having personal navies you recruit yourself like man at arms seem quite possible. Especially if devs also found some other mechanics to tie ships to. By having different ships you could even tie technology into it. Maybe have raiders cary loot that fits the cargo size of their ships etc.

Also if you could find usage for ships outside beeing only transports. In my opinion ships could be tied to future trade system for example. Sending your courtier to a trade expedition would, for example' also use your ships thus rendering them unavailable for the duration of trading while still paying for their upkeep. Maybe by sending courtier on certain other missions could also make use of your ships. Trade republics could probably in the future incorporate some sor of naval mechanics.

Options are limitless actually. The only problem is finding a way to make navies connected to other mechanics and make the fun. Otherwise if the only mechanic is just troops transport then I don't see devs investing their time into it anytime soon.

 

[klopkr]

I would love to see navies and naval battles. The current situation is just plain exploitable and bad.

I think that simple EU4 style navies with a few time period appropriate mechanics would be perfectly doable and nice. I'd simply add a mechanic for "searching for the enemy fleet" with basically no chance of finding them in non coastal waters and for certain cultural ships like longboats. Longboat and canoe cultures could portage their ships in their armies. And any ruler could try and make transport only ships on the fly as they do now. Mostly the naval battles would be for the mediterranean where they happened around the coast in the time period.

Don't forget even the vikings tried to naval blockade and battle the byzantines when they found Constantinople.

 

[Eltener]

In the Middle Ages the military use of ships was basically reduced to the transport of troops, naval battles proper were exceptionally rare events. Ships could be reset to make troop movement more complex (and costly), as was the case in CK2.

Depends on where you're looking. The Byzantines for instance had a tonne of naval battles.

 

[MathyM]

Something like HoI4, where you tell your navy to patrol a sea, and they have a chance to detect the enemy.

Only instead of a naval battle ensuing, they should just cause attrition and supply loss, similar to Vicky 3, but affecting troops in transport as well.

This could help make your realm harder to invade by sea, without properly implementing naval battle mechanics.

 

[Cyhort]

I think the horse has been beaten to actual paste by this point...

But the more people talk about naval mechanics the less I want them. In other PDX games naval warfare adds a layer of strategy, but it's never fun to interact with. For me at least. I think a lot of people just see naval levies being removed between CK2 and 3 and think they're missing something, when in reality the system we have now is better.

 

[The Shacks]

I missed how many ships you had as a polity factoring into how many troops can you ferry across a strait/sea/whatever in one go to attack the enemy. Although I realise the argument in Medieval times would really always just be with money we can draft merchant ships etc.

 

[Furleppe]

It's not that I'd like to have some elaborate naval system, but it's more that I dislike the current simplistic one (AI is pretty bad at handling it too). I liked that in e.g CK2 countries in 867 couldn't naval invade with all of their troops at the start.

Imagine if one day they will make Merchant Republics playable. Playing Venice or Genoa with the current system will be just sad.

To answer the original question, adding naval system would be interesing, but only if devs made the system interesting (and I agree that CK2 also failed in that regard). Current solution is just more like giving up.

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

Imagine if one day they will make Merchant Republics playable. Playing Venice or Genoa with the current system will be just sad.

To answer the original question, adding naval system would be interesing, but only if devs made the system interesting (and I agree that CK2 also failed in that regard). Current solution is just more like giving up.

You might have answered your own dilemma here.

The devs said soon after CK3 was launched that Merchant Republics would not be playable because they did not like the CK2 implementation. Delaying MRs might well have reinforced their decision to code the simplest naval system possible (it's just enough to differentiate sea provinces from land provinces). It was better to use their time elsewhere. Hopefully we'll get a slightly more complex naval system at the same time as MRs. And I agree that the CK2 solution to naval warfare was not ideal either, not least because AIs always struggle with pathfinding (it's infamous as a problem that's simple for humans but mathematically hard for computers), so hopefully the devs come up with something better because I can't.

 

[helveticadomes]

I think a lot of people just see naval levies being removed between CK2 and 3 and think they're missing something, when in reality the system we have now is better.

i don't miss them, beside the fact that i have to pay full fleet cost. (where at CKII i could use only vassals fleet, and save money)
and yeah, to ship only a part of the full army over the sea and repeat it when you had not enough fleet was partly risky.

personally i don't need it back, because i don't see any advantage for a fleet system an naval battles.

 

[FishieFan]

I think the horse has been beaten to actual paste by this point...

But the more people talk about naval mechanics the less I want them. In other PDX games naval warfare adds a layer of strategy, but it's never fun to interact with. For me at least. I think a lot of people just see naval levies being removed between CK2 and 3 and think they're missing something, when in reality the system we have now is better.

It might not be fun for you, but having crusades work properly rather than going on holiday to yemen would be nice, not instantly being able to sail off as whatever warlord with your whole 10k army would be good as well

 

[Riaman98]

All cultures shouldn't even have boats, some naval mechanics could make islands more viable.

 

[selteur]

I think the horse has been beaten to actual paste by this point...

But the more people talk about naval mechanics the less I want them. In other PDX games naval warfare adds a layer of strategy, but it's never fun to interact with. For me at least. I think a lot of people just see naval levies being removed between CK2 and 3 and think they're missing something, when in reality the system we have now is better.

It's better now just because YOU think it is ? lol nice way of thought.

It would have fit well in ck3 especially with culture innovtions etc...

I understand you may not like it but saying that what we have now is better is nonsense. Tbh it's not better or worse, in ck3 they just decided to cut it switching for a easier way like a shortcut. Ck2 naval system was just more in depth and that's all.

 

[Ian001022]

It's better now just because YOU think it is ? lol nice way of thought.

It would have fit well in ck3 especially with culture innovtions etc...

I understand you may not like it but saying that what we have now is better is nonsense. Tbh it's not better or worse, in ck3 they just decided to cut it switching for a easier way like a shortcut. Ck2 naval system was just more in depth and that's all.

No, naval mechanics should only come when paradox already developed an accompanying trade system and their new implementations of the merchant republic.

 

[heliostellar]

It's been discussed at length in CK2 and now in CK3. I think the current implementation is as good as it can get. This era did not experience major naval battles, and I could not imagine what kind of naval combat would even fit into the game in a meaningful and fun way.

The Byzantines faced a few naval invasions with canoes or small boats, but these were not a match of equals. Byzantines also had their Greek fire that simple transports could not effectively combat.

Essentially, from Justinian until the later Middle Ages, there were no significant navies to challenge the Byzantines. They were able to project naval supremacy in the Med until the Arabs started reducing their empire:

Byzantine navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MathyM]

Ck2 naval system was just more in depth and that's all.

It had about the same amount of depth, since the ships were just for transporting troops and nothing else. You couldn't defend against enemy transport ships anyway.

 

[selteur]

No, naval mechanics should only come when paradox already developed an accompanying trade system and their new implementations of the merchant republic.

Thats actually true I do agree.

It had about the same amount of depth, since the ships were just for transporting troops and nothing else. You couldn't defend against enemy transport ships anyway.

Thats not. I'm tired of people like you, why does it has to do with war, ofc you couldn't bc there was no NAVAL BATTLE??? Yes it was more in depth because not everyone had access to them and you had to build the building chain.

You also had to manage how much need depending your army etc...

So yes it was.

 

[Arcvalons]

It just need two things:
A naval capacity system, based on coastal buildings or something. The higher your naval capacity the more troops you can ship at once.
Some system which models how difficult it was for invading armies to cross from Anatolia to Greece, or to invade Venice, because of the Byzantines/Venetians naval superiority.

 

[MathyM]

Thats actually true I do agree.


Thats not. I'm tired of people like you, why does it has to do with war, ofc you couldn't bc there was no NAVAL BATTLE??? Yes it was more in depth because not everyone had access to them and you had to build the building chain.

You also had to manage how much need depending your army etc...

So yes it was.

I never said naval battles. I said a way to stop transport. Even a large chain could stop boats.

And those things you described don’t add depth, they just add extra steps for ultimately the same goal/decision: transporting troops. Sure you have to upsize your navy as your army increases in size, but that’s a no-brainer since the alternative (not increasing the size of the navy) objectively sucks.

So there is no thoughtful decision-making, just extra clicks.

So tired of people like you who just want extra clicks…