Navy??

[scottytsr]

Is there any talk about a navy update? I like the transport troops if you don't have a navy. But there were still navy's fighting and raiding. Also they could prevent a troop transport from landing. You could surround a coastal city to help with a siege. I assume this has been answered, but I'm just curious because I have not read anything about it yet.

[Beatbeat Goodbeat]

Imperator: Rome exists

[Desert_Dweller]

I dunno man, It would be a good addition for navy battles if two embarked fighting armies have a navy battle if they crash into each other. But as a wise man once said:

Originally posted by SDuster:

Imperator: Rome exists

[SP1]

its funny how Imperator Rome takes place 1000 years before the earliest CK3 bookmark and has naval battles but CK3 has none.

Seriously? Did the dark ages make people forget how to do naval battles within that 1000 year gap? Is that the reason why CK3 has no naval battles?

[scottytsr]

Right?!

[RENIZ]

I think they didn't implement naval battles to let move the troops across the sea more easily. Naval battles and boats were a feature in CK2, but I reminder it was something I had trouble figuring out how it works back then, such as many people had.
Just the fact of having boats to manage and control made playing viking and raiding more fun, I hope Paradox will consider adding this feature, because I think they can make it user-friendly quite easily.

[scottytsr]

I was thinking of a hybrid, Navy ships to fight and then leave the troop transports as is. So navy would fight navy, navy would fight transport, but transport would not fight other transport.

[Beatbeat Goodbeat]

During the classical era and early Iron Age, large fleet engagements were more common and impactful. I'm having a hard time remembering any such large scale naval battles in the 1100s, let alone any that decided the outcome of a war. Unlike the First Punic War and many more like ones that gave rise to such legendary figures as Lysander.

CK2 naval mechanics is tedious and pointless. No combat. Only outcome is slowing down the player by requiring more clicks and microing sprites for boarding/unloading. Anyone that wants naval mechanics within ck3 does so with uninformed intent, either from lack of perspective on defining characteristics of the setting or fundamental misunderstanding of what Crusader Kings is about.

[Sanktai]

Originally posted by SP1:

its funny how Imperator Rome takes place 1000 years before the earliest CK3 bookmark and has naval battles but CK3 has none.

Seriously? Did the dark ages make people forget how to do naval battles within that 1000 year gap? Is that the reason why CK3 has no naval battles?

There were a lot more naval battles in those times as opposed to CK3's timeframe. Medieval naval battles were fairly rare, outside of very specific years and maybe the Mediterranean.

[Jerubius]

Originally posted by SP1:

its funny how Imperator Rome takes place 1000 years before the earliest CK3 bookmark and has naval battles but CK3 has none.

Seriously? Did the dark ages make people forget how to do naval battles within that 1000 year gap? Is that the reason why CK3 has no naval battles?

I mean, kind of, yeah. As I recall, there were few nations that had anything of a dedicated navy. This was prior to cannons, technology like Greek fire had been lost, and ships of the time were really designed to accommodate boarding. Also, I think ships of the period were designed to handle open sea, as opposed to merely coastal waters/inland sea, meaning it was a lot harder to just force an engagement. Pretty sure that's why the like 2 or so naval "battles" recorded in a roughly 600 year period after the end of the dark ages were more like naval accidents that just happened to occur between hostile nations, and as such resulted in a brief conflict.

[Abacus]

Originally posted by SP1:

its funny how Imperator Rome takes place 1000 years before the earliest CK3 bookmark and has naval battles but CK3 has none.

Seriously? Did the dark ages make people forget how to do naval battles within that 1000 year gap? Is that the reason why CK3 has no naval battles?

Actually that is literally what the Dark ages implies (IIRC its actually a reference to the severely oppressive state of religion of that time.)

Ships, forts, army organization, medicine, even the freakin' concept of cuisine. Also remember...the context pf the Dark ages primarily takes place from the perspective of Europeans.

[scottytsr]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles#11th_century
there were still naval battles. And cannons on ships came in the 1,300's. So why not have raiding vessels that can damage the transport ships and then have them evolve to early carracks

[Rialm]

In some sort of way I'm glad there is not. Would it be interesting if they put a big update about trade. Yeah maybe. But in general, I prefer in CK that combat ends up being easy. for example it actually make no sense to go around with your army in neutral territory. Imperator does a good job, you need to start diplomatic actions with nations that are not at war with you. I imagine on the long run they could do the same thing, instead of using nation opinion, you have to build relationship or promises with those countries so you can pass through their territory. And the same with navy.
I'm glad that at the moment it's not a priority.

[Beatbeat Goodbeat]

Originally posted by scottytsr:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles#11th_century
there were still naval battles. And cannons on ships came in the 1,300's. So why not have raiding vessels that can damage the transport ships and then have them evolve to early carracks

A dozen naval engagement through out a century really warrants a major game mechanic introduction. Yes. Tell me more how important naval battles were to the medieval era when nearly all were from a handful of city states and Byzantines.

[scottytsr]

Until the 14th century, Then the battles starts, since the game ends in the mid 15th century....

[Beatbeat Goodbeat]

Originally posted by scottytsr:

Until the 14th century, Then the battles starts, since the game ends in the mid 15th century....

There are 16 battles listed, from your own link, under 15th century. 15 Battles within the 14th. 31 recorded engagements within 200 years. Yes, Paradox should dedicate time and resource they do not have to create and implement naval combat for the last few centuries that hardly anyone plays in.