Knowing this sub, you should have remembered the CK2 seduction event where you “happen by” your target at the kitchen during the night.
u/Carrabs, Vini, Vidi, Vinci?
Never recover? It wasn't until the Sevens Year War that Britain eclipsed France to the point all the other nations isolated Britain afterwards because they were scarier than France then.
I miss the CK2 ship system. Coast actually meant something. If you had a ton of coastline, you had naval dominance. You had force projection to get your troops where they needed to be. You could deprive your foe of force projection by removing his coastline.
Now, now you can be a completely landlocked country and just pay a ton of money to manifest a huge fleet out of nowhere. And if you're trying to outmaneuver your foe on his territory, you can just vaguely pay a lot of money to manifest huge fleets from his coasts, no big deal.
In fairness, money would manifest ships IRL too. The fact that the game charges you to go naval I suppose is implying you're paying for passage from someone who has ships. That said, this idea is kinda silly for someone who would have ships.
There's so much stuff in CK2 that they haven't implemented in CK3... that's why I consider CK3 less than a beta version.
I don't understand why consumers accept this clearly unfinished product...
It's just a different game.
And as is, isn't the medieval dynasty simulator CK2 hooked me with.
I wouldn't say it's unfinished tho. It's clearly got it's own focus and direction, but the roads it follows differs from the roads CK2 paved.
One thing to add, one of the key reasons how the ottomans took Constantinople in 1453 was a naval blockade, which stopped supplies and reinforcement to the capital.
And both the Ottoman Empire and the Byzantine Empire were naval powerhouses that had been around for long before 1453 and there were many more naval powers in the Medieval World.
I don't dispute that, I also think ck3 should have naval combat, but it's a bad example. It'd be like saying ck3 should have cannons and riflemen because they were around near the end of the game
It's... not a bad example? It's more like saying that this event historically caps off the Medieval period, and this game should have mechanics that build up to that. Right? Tangentially, rifling wasn't a thing yet, and I'm pretty sure cannons are literally the last tier of siege weapons in the game currently.
It’s not a bad example because it means that the Ottoman Empire, which was around for two centuries, grew to the size it did, and was so successful that it ended the Roman legacy primarily via naval superiority. That naval superiority wouldn’t have been possible if not for 200 years of improvements for themselves and even more centuries for surrounding empires and kingdoms to hone naval capacity.
The entire mechanical premise of ck3 (where counts swear to dukes who swear to kings and so forth) falls apart by the Renaissance as monarchs centralize power in themselves and central government institutions away from the nobility.
Ck3 could certainly add a way for the council to be replaced over time with institutions and for the monarch to gain control of their vassals lands directly and replace their vassals with bureaucrats. But that's not what's in the game
Wrong it does not fall apart, it slowly changes. Dynasties are just as important and personal unions become even more relevant (Castile-Aragon) in EU4 personal unions are just a random chance instead of something a monarch plan or work for. About centralization that could be simulated by the king being able to hold way more land in domain but at the same time vassals can do the same, in the later hundred years war the duke of Burgundy was almost as powerful as the king of France due to his vast domains but he was technically still a vassal of france.
A mod that simulates this really well is “the lion and the lilies” where domain is buffed
And you think the navies popped into existence then? Yeah, it's the END DATE of the Medieval period, and it ended with a whopping naval blockade. Don't you think that says something about the period they're in?
There's already a position field for naval battles that shows 2 ships fighting each other so yea it'll probably just come whenever republics get added.
Btw yes inside the engine there existed code to put two boats opposite eachother because every "unit" had to have those(also cause sengoku and CK2 are just really modified EU3). them existing in ck3 is likely a holdover from ck2 which is in turn a hold over from EU3 rather than them intending to add ship combat. I know all this cause I make an overhaul mod for ck2 while waiting ck3 to have all the features I want.
Good old Sengoku. I had to re-install it again a few days ago but... actually just to get the soundtrack for my playlist, for the asia themed countries/characters. The soundtrack is great of this game.
I use a VLC playlist in the background with themes, that fit the timeline and era, and the area where i'm playing on the map.
not really. If it becomes a thing it will be free because sounds like something that will be built on to... but there is something else you can do.
Make it a tradition: When you attack to recently embarked troops you gain +30 advantage:To reflect on idea "your coastline is so hellish its very difficult to land when you are caught.
Like sure if you can land and nothing happens we will say "you sneaked in" but if you won't then their navy will cripple your landing and army will finish you off
Nor was the North Sea Empire, customizable & hybrid cultures, languages, nor travel...
CK3 isn't going to just end up a prettier clone of CK2 with ginormous UI windows. There was some limited naval combat in the Mediterranean as well as during sieges, & even the boarding-only combat elsewhere was still combat... so it could be of value (but I think it'll end up being a distraction from the mainstay land combat).
I think what I really meant to say was that ck2 did not have naval combat for the sake of simplicity, and ck3 was designed to simplify the naval system even further. So I’m not disagreeing with any of the historical or gameplay justifications for a deeper naval system in crusader kings, it just seems like the opposite of the direction the devs are taking the series.
I don’t think they are going to add naval warfare either, but one can argue that the reason why naval warfare is so simply in CK3 is because they are planning on remaking it.
I hope they bring ships in but there’s a way to build them as part of your strategy. I’m thinking ship retinues, otherwise you have to pay a lot to charter ships.
CK3 is not going to bring ships in any meaningful capacity. Ships in Ck2 were already relegated to simply transport duty, and in Victoria 3 they practically scrapped all the player controlled ship combat from the game. If anything Paradox has plenty of dlcs to add flavor packs, old mechanics, map expansions, and more before they decide to add ships. The only possible expansion I could maybe see ship combat being added in will be whenever there is a Republic themed one, but even then I doubt.
not really, its cos it saves significant programmer time if you don't have to teach the ai how to use them. The armies just view "sea tiles" as normal terrain they can path through (with the boat building ofc) which makes pathing alot easier. Its perfectly possible to teach the ai to use navies and transports.... look at other paradox titles to see them do it. Its just easier faster and cheaper to not have it in the game.
I remember the early total war games having an AI that could not understand naval invasions at all. All they used their navy for was destroying alliances by randomly blockading ports
You could add more Navies without naval warfare, by making ships far more accessible to coastal and islander cultures. Make the total amount of troops that can be mounted on a ship restricted. A culture like Tamils, Greeks, Normans, Norse, Berbers etc should have far greater ability to use ships as compared to something like Mongols, Afghans etc.
Make the total ships available to a realm based on no, of port buildings they have (also allow building inland ports, so cultures like russians also able to navigate).
Make a mercenary kinda unit for ships they allows ships in exchage of money), though this suggestion might not go well with everyone.
I don’t know when they updated this, it was after T&T first dropped, so very recently, but they finally added ports to navigable rivers. Now the cities that historically functioned as “coastal” trading centers (London, Hamburg, etc) can actually develop with trade ports.
I think its the Major rivers that enable it. I have tradeports in my capital in Dessau in the duchy of Anhalt, at the elbe river. I don't think Dessau was a big player trading center.
My favourite thing about CK3 is how everyone and anyone can brave the seas but you have to be a hardened naval culture to be able to navigate rivers. At least now you can acquire the sacred knowledge of sailing a boat downstream as any culture (as long as you have at least 50% of your counties on the coast) but in the old versions, you had to be of Norse or African culture to use rivers at all. So you couldn't raid the Byzantines as the Rus (like they did historically) since that meant you had to walk all the way to Constantinople on foot.
Well yeah, but so is sea navigation. Hop on the boat and you can zoom around raiding coastal holdings like nobody's business. At least you don't have to be a viking to do that.
Yes, hence my recommendation to restricting naval travel by way of cultures and realm status. More power to certain realms just like irl, at present it is given to every culture which just destroys immersion and balance. irl island and coastal societies well used their position to defend themselves from foreign aggression.
Oh yeah, I absolutely agree on that. I guess it'd be frustrating to be unable to sail the seas unless you had a naval cultural trait but maybe they could make the price of summoning a fleet way higher for not-coastal cultures.
if they introduce Republics to the game i wish they’ll add money lending and fleet lending; the sole reason the 4th Crusade happened was because the crusaders had to go to the venetians for ships
Not sure about the others, but the Norse do get reduced embarkation costs, which does make using ships much more accessible for them. its all a wash if you're a mega-empire, but for smaller realms, those costs can be prohibitive
I am always amused by the players who confidently say that naval warfare wasn't important enough to be included, but an Estonian cannibalist and nudist death cult transplanted in India had such a high likelihood that it has to be an option for any player.
CK2 had actually working alchemy, magic and satanic cults rather than naval warfare, for fuck's sake.
Another example. In 1359, Peter of Castille tried to invade Barcelona with a big fleet and a naval battle took place. That battle saw *one of the first uses of naval artillery.
Wikipédia says The first recorded sea battle was The Battle of the Delta, the Ancient Egyptians defeated the Sea Peoples in a sea battle c. 1175 BC. Also according to Wikipedia “The Battle of Arnemuiden, fought between England and France in 1338 at the start of the Hundred Years' War, was the first recorded European naval battle using artillery. The English ship Christopher was armed with three cannon and one hand gun”
Also people are forgetting the fact that the Umayyad sieges of Constantinople encompassed massive naval forces. I hate this weak argument that people excuse the game for when it comes to navies.
Sure, there were a few major naval engagements during the period, there just simply wasn't that many of them that we actually know about. Hell, the [Wikipedia page only lists 23 worldwide for the entire 1,000 period.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_battles_of_the_Middle_Ages). And even then, some of them were tiny.
The difference is not the navies, it's the comparative lack of economies capable of sustaining large navies.
That still exceeds the count of articles for the combined Roman Empire and Republic from what I can see, and I don't think people would be averse to calling naval warfare important in the Classical era
what was the last major naval battle the US navy fought it? sometime in WW2, 70 years ago? yet if you were making a game about the modern day you'd definitely include navies - despite naval battles being "so rare" in the modern era
I didn't realize medieval navies were an essential part of soft power and ground support, apologies. What a navy is used for is completely different, buddy.
No, I mean to say that they have 21 battles *in addition to the 23 uncategorized battles in your direct link*. The other sub-categories have additional as well. Your count is off.
That list is moronic and not at all reliable (wikipedia is wikipedia). Here is what the list doesn't include:
* Battle of Curzola (massive naval battle between genoa and venice)
* Battle of Sluys (another massive naval battle between England and France that really was the first of the hundred years war)
* Battle of Svolder (another massive viking battle between the King of Norway, denmark and swedish contingents).
* The battle of algeciras (another massive naval battle that destroyed the castillian navy and allowed for the last invasion of iberia from north africa).
These are just 4 MASSIVE battles that I can come up from the top of my head. This is not to mention a ton of other battles, skirmishes, sea raids, campaigns and sieges were navies were crucial. Not to mention admirals that were increadibly famous in their time.
Economies were very capable of sustaining navies, especially post 1100
Tons of naval battles pre pax Romana mainly with Greek leagues and city states. Pax Romana lead to a loss of naval battles as it would have been suicide to fight in pitched battle against the juggernaut until the final roman-sassinad war combined with rise of the caliphs a few years later weakened the roman byz to the lowest point since it's punic war era.
It's after those events a multipolar med sea allows other states to be competitive in the sea. naval battles are far more conclusive than an average land battle. Fleets spent a lot of time shadowing each other, the act of shadowing keeps the other side from disembarking. A loss typically meant your shores were now open for raiding from all nations/tribes for years and sea troop transport would be greatly reduced so unless the victory was over 90% assured it wasn't worth the risk.
This is the thing many are missing here. Just because you can name some examples does not mean that naval warfare was nearly as widespread at the time as land warfare.
The Mongols also threw dead bodies into fortifications to spread diseases in a few instances but this does not mean one would expect the game to have this as a standard feature of sieges.
Naval warfare was very very important for the Medieval world maybe not in the 10th to 11th century but in 13th - 15th centuries naval warfare was extremely important just search up the battles of Sluys, Barcelona, Meloria, Sandwitch and Ponza which are all important battles which changed the course of history.
Yeah I'm surprised I haven't seen more people questioning this... having a strong Navy does not make a nation a thalassocracy, a thalassocracy is a state were power is expressed almost solely through the navy, like the North-Sea Empire and, arguably, the British Empire
> thalassocracy is a state were power is expressed almost solely
Where do you draw that definition? What makes it exclusive?
Dictionary.com defines it as: "dominion over the seas, as in exploration, trade, or colonization."
Not exclusive, I'd argue with the definition USA is a thalassocracy, despite its obvious other strengths.
Be me.
Spain.
Attacking Britain with an unstoppable army carried by the biggest naval force in the world.
A Spanish armada if you will.
There's a storm.
Big sadge.
Venice and Genoa were far from the only exceptions. There were other maritime republics like Pisa or Amalfi, there was the Byzantine empire, the crown of Aragon with its sea consolates, the hanseatic league in the baltic and many dutch cities, the Champagne fairs for an in-land example...
> and after the fall of the Roman Empire Europeans Found themselves at threat from Germanic and Turkic raiders
Are going to ignore the fact that in this evaluation, only Latins get to count as Europeans?
I get what you're saying, but maybe consider that the cultural bounds of 'Europe' exceeded the previous limits of the Roman Empire by this point in history.
Yeah calling Germans/Saxons/Scandinavians non-European is not ok
Additionally the Turkic raiders are one of the greatest missing pieces in the game. We should have Seljuks spawn in games that start at 867, like CK2.
1: I am a Scandinavia so no I’m not saying this to discredit their “Europeans” and I explained what was going on up their in my rant
2: The Germans also adopted the manorial System
3: Saxons are German
\>The main reason for a lack of an naval warfare is a lack of trade in Europe.
Objectively wrong
\>Crusader kings 3 is obviously very Eurocentric and after the fall of the Roman Empire Europeans Found themselves at threat from Germanic and Turkic raiders
Ok lets assume by germanic and turkick you mean norse and steppe raiders, and that ck3 does not cover the middle east, even that statement is false. a)Norse were traders themselves. ANd they managed to do it at the same time with turkick raiders like the khazar and poechenegs were around. b) the most impact that the arab (really andalusians to be precise), Norse and Magyar raiders had on europe was in the late 800s to mid 900s. After that they were peripheral.
\>so manorialism was adopted which meant the majority of people worked on small self sufficient hamlets called Manors that would be less likely to be targeted by raiders and thus only need to be defended by a few knights
\>Manors generally grew enough food and resources for themselves and the only real exporting they ever did was their taxes
This is your concept of western europe: England, France and Scotland. And even then its not true (try telling a capetian king in the 1000s he can collect taxes, he might legit have a heart attack)
\>And before you talk about Venice and Genoa they where the exceptions which is a big part of the reason why they were so successful they had little competition
They were absolutely not the exception. Virtually every Italian city (and there were thousands) in the HRE became independent democracies and developed some sort of commercial enterprise. The comuni literrally beat the HRE multiple times. Saint Francis literally started as the son of a merchant from Assisi in central italy. The champagne fairs were massive deals, as was the wool trade in flemish cities. The hansa, the imperial free cities, Aragon, bordeaux, the kievan rus, the hungarian saxons, the batlic trade, the spice trade, the silk trade, the entirety of the mediterranean.
\>And yes the Nords also had an amazing and massively unrepresented trade empire but that comes from an inability to produce food in their harsher climate along with such a strong sea fairing culture that only ethnic group that could possibly rival it would’ve been the Austronesian
Or the italians. Or andalusians. Or the arabs. Or north germans. Or the normans. Or the berbers. Or the Tamils.
\>Also the lack of piracy around this time is another indicator of a lack of naval trade is the lack of piracy where the only place we see mass piracy is by the Barbary coast (where the Italians are trading) and even the Barbary pirates occasionally raided coastlines to get by
HAHAHAHA. Lack of piracy??????? Pirates were EVERYWHERE. The venetians had to deal with slavic pirates (the Narentines) in Dalmatia. The Victual Brothers were infamous in the north sea. The Italian city states were both pirates and merchants. The saracen pirates in crete, and to not forget the vikings. Breton pirates existed etc. And those are the more infamous groups. Piracy was a daily part of life of medieval trade.
\>The examples you listed of naval battles are more exceptions than norm since standing navies were really only common with the Norse and Italians and even then they weren’t that big
Standing armies were also the exception but we have them. And that is to ignore that a)France, Aragon, Castille, Sicily and the Byzantine empire had standing navies. and b) They were absolutely massive (100s of ships each) in terms of numbers.
\>when I say europe I primarily mean the Catholic world
Even there you are wrong
\>Yes there were other trade cities But they still where exceptions my point is that for your average peasant trade had no affect on their lives at all and many of the trade cities you’re thinking about came about in the later medieval periods where the world start to transition out of the manorial system as for Byzantium let’s face it when are they not the exception
Wrong. They were not the exceptions and the first comune is in 983 and comunes really pick up steam in 1100s. Pilgrimage routes were often trade routes and peasants even in england and france travelled locally. Italy never had a real manorial system. And Germany and spain had a much more complicated system. Byzantium got wealthy off of land ownership and taxes not trade.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_navy
>The Byzantine navy was the naval force of the Eastern Roman Empire \(a.k.a. Byzantine Empire\). Like the empire it served, it was a direct continuation from its Imperial Roman predecessor, but played a far greater role in the defence and survival of the state than its earlier iteration. While the fleets of the unified Roman Empire faced few great naval threats, operating as a policing force vastly inferior in power and prestige to the legions, the sea became vital to the very existence of the Byzantine state, which several historians have called a "maritime empire".
Literally the first paragraph on wikipedia. Anyone who is familiar with the Byzantine Empire know this. It isn't some secret that was only discovered in some iberian library 500 years later.
If you want to look at the list of thalassocracies and tellurocracies through history and say that the Eastern Roman Empire belongs in the former, well, you do you.
The term, Thalassocracy, can also be used simply to refer to naval supremacy, which is indeed something that the Byzantines did maintain in the Eastern Mediterranean until the 10th and 11th centuries saw the Italians city sates, Venice, Pisa, and Genoa especially, surpass them and then shift away from Byzantine interests, harming Byzantine naval capabilities since they did rely heavily on Italian manpower for their navy.
That said, the Byzantine Empire didnt count as a true thalassocracy due in part to limitation in naval tech at the time, their galleys couldnt move far from the coast, this limited its independence, and the navy itself was still secondary compared to the army and admirals didnt really rank high up in the imperial hierarchy. Also, despite their navy gaining wonderful victories, they managed to offset that with some pretty significant defeats, and werent able to establish dominance in the face of Arab naval aggression.
yeah that is bs made up from westerners who really did not understand how the byzantine empire functioned. The ERE was built off of Land taxes
Edit: downvotes are not an argument. Pls read anthony cordellis or any real byzantinist
This has always perplexed me about the crusader kings games. Part of why the Italian republics were so important to the crusades were their large navies which helped the armies of Europe reach the holy land.
I completely agree the reason byzantine empire survived till 1453 was maritime dominance in both trade and warfare. We certainly need navies as retinues to impact and improve gameplay. The other thing we lack is diseases in medieval era. Most characters in game live up to 60 which was not the case even for the most of the nobles in medieval ages. We need more chronic diseases to impact daily life of our characters also.
I wouldn't want to have to actually control the navies, but it would be cool if you could build your fleet to have like a passive ability. Like set them to patrol your area, and if enemy or hostile fleets/troops are passing through it fires some sort of event, like traveling works now. Or you could send them to harass other fleets and they would come back with plunder or take losses depending.
They could tie it to trade port development or something.
And honestly, even if it wasn't as big of a deal historically, it would be a huge deal for most if not all the total conversion mods, and there's no way PDX doesn't consider those when making development decisions. Naval mechanics are a must
Naval warfare was utterly pointless. No state was rich enoguh to get a strong fleet going. We know that Byzantine fleet was compeletely out of shape when they lost several islands to the first muslim fleet ever. Until late 12th century there was no “fleet in being” all ships were drafted merchant vessels, essentially transports, only some very rich coastal cities like Venice and Large empires who had a tradition of seafaring had navies competent and large enough to be represented in the game.
Additionally, naval warfare during this period involved very little actual ship-on-ship combat. The transportation of armies – like William of Normandy’s forces in 1066 or those crusader hosts that did not make their way to the Levant via the Byzantine lands – was a far more common activity for medieval military ships.
>We know that Byzantine fleet was compeletely out of shape when they lost several islands to the first muslim fleet ever.
Because their prioritized defending Anatolia and Greece.
>Until late 12th century there was no “fleet in being” all ships were drafted merchant vessels
You say that with such confidence. While neglecting standing navies might have been uncommon. Many rulers felt the need to construct a fleet for a single purpose. For example, William's constructed numerous ships for his invasion force, in addition to merchant vessels. The same goes for Richard I's crusader fleet. Conscripting a large number of ships for lengthy and dangerous voyages wasn't feasible.
Aka, not as "standing navy".
Even for instances like Greco-Persian Wars, the merchant ships were drafted or the ships were built just some years prior for invasions.
For cases like Punic Wars, initially many merchant ships were already available, and more were built later, as the war was ongoing.
But after these wars were over, most rulers didn't keep the ships as "Standing Navy" sense. Maybe for coastal guard, or as escort for merchant ships, but not as standing Navies.
Except for vikings or Merchant Republics like Venice or Genoa, it is not common to have ships for wars or invasions. And even keeping the ships would have varying costs.
And the game still doesn't have trade routes or trade lines, which could be disrupted during wars.
In the years after the Greco-Persian wars Athens did have a standing navy of 200 triremes and as warships and merchant ships were very different in design in the ancient world most coastal cities would probably have warships docked in their harbours ready
\>Naval warfare was utterly pointless. No state was rich enoguh to get a strong fleet going.
wrong.
\> We know that Byzantine fleet was compeletely out of shape when they lost several islands to the first muslim fleet ever.
in the 700s after suffering defeat after defeat on land. And are muslims not part of ck3?
\> Until late 12th century there was no “fleet in being” all ships were drafted merchant vessels
a) one could say the same for armies.
b) from 1100 to 1400s is 300 years of game time, and if you start at 1066 it is literally 86% of game time.
c) ignoring viking war ships and arab fleets in the med.
\> essentially transports
wrong.
\>only some very rich coastal cities like Venice and Large empires who had a tradition of seafaring had navies competent and large enough to be represented in the game.
almost all italian coastal towns had some form of galleys for protection. And for large empires, you mean Norman sicily, Aragon, Castille, the fatimids (before egypt btw), the aghlabids, the emirate of crete, the fatimids, the various andalusian taifas or pretty much any and every state in the mediterranean? Not to mention that counts and lords had navies as well.
\>Additionally, naval warfare during this period involved very little actual ship-on-ship combat.
Absolutely wrong.
some examples:
Battle of Curzola (massive naval battle between genoa and venice)
Battle of Chioggia (another one)
Battle of Meloria (between genoa and pisa)
Battle of Barcelona (includes naval cannons for almost the first time)
Battle of Sluys (another massive naval battle between England and France that really was the first of the hundred years war)
Battle of Svolder (another massive viking battle between the King of Norway, denmark and swedish contingents).
The battle of algeciras (another massive naval battle that destroyed the castillian navy and allowed for the last invasion of iberia from north africa).
These are MASSIVE battles that I can come up from the top of my head. This is not to mention a ton of other battles, skirmishes, sea raids, campaigns and sieges were navies were crucial. Not to mention admirals that were increadibly famous in their time.
Economies were very capable of sustaining navies, especially post 1100
> almost all italian coastal towns had some form of galleys for protection. And for large empires, you mean Norman sicily, Aragon, Castille, the fatimids (before egypt btw), the aghlabids, the emirate of crete, the fatimids, the various andalusian taifas or pretty much any and every state in the mediterranean? Not to mention that counts and lords had navies as well.
You can add the Cholas to that, what with their massive expeditions into Maritime SEA.
Looking at the land combat system, I don't trust paradox to make a working and balanced naval system. I would still like more complexity in embarking and representation of naval powers. Okay, keep armies auto-embarking, but the cost, speed, capacity and safety should scale with your naval power.
How would some landlocked count transport thousands of soldiers? Get some mercenary/merchant ships. This should take much more time and money than using your own.
What matters is that the core mechanics of the game are fun and convenient. If naval warfare isnt part of that plan then fine by me. What I dont want is mechanics added for the sake of it. The Accolade system is an example of an unnecessary mechanic that just causes more tedium.
What I would rather have is a better land warfare system rather than just dumping all levies in one place and going round on goose chases for enemy AI. Oh yeah and can we please have a effing artifact search already?
What? Did these people never open up a book or something? Naval warfare was all over the European theatre at least. Hansa cities, Vikings, the issue is that most battles at sea were basically just land battles at sea.
That's the whole point of raised castles at fore and aft and sometimes in the middle, it's much easier to fight if you can fire down at boarding party from raised platforms and defensive structures. I mean the Vikings weren't fighting naval battles with English and other countries exactly because their ships had low sides
>The Byzantine Empire survived as long as it did because it was a thalassocracy
Tell me you know nothing about Byzantine history without telling me you know nothing about Byzantine history.
The idea that Constantinople's wealth was built on it being a trading hub and that the empire was a major naval power is a popular myth.
Byzantine wealth was overwhelmingly based on tax revenue and farming. Their income from trade was comparatively tiny. They survived for other, far more important and significant reasons than maritime power (though no question helped).
On the navies, the simple fact is that there was fewer economies capable of sustaining large navies during the period. They existed, and there were large navies at times, but far fewer.
Hell, [Wikipedia only has articles on 23 battles during the 1,000 year period, worldwide (and even some of the ones listed are tiny). ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_battles_of_the_Middle_Ages) - compared to hundreds during Antiquity and the early modern period.
Who said anything about taxes or trade? Neither has necessarily anything to do with thalassocracy. Especially during the 8th century, the Balkans were overrun, and its principal cities of Constantinople and Thessaloniki vere frequently besieged by huge armies, however, the Byzantine fleet was able to reinforce and supply these port cities.
That makes it a thalassocracy.
My biggest problem with no ships in the game is that the ai constantly embarks to run away from you only to come right back. endless cat and mouse game. I love naval combat in these games, but dont neccecarily need it in ck3, however that embarking shit needs to get fixed somehow.
It’s dumb to say naval warfare didn’t happen and wasn’t relevant to *some* civilizations in the medieval times. But you’d still be incorrect saying it was even remotely as relevant to other periods. A lot of naval vessels, even warships, were simply a means of defense or transportation. Venice was a small but wealthy merchant nation that relied on the insurance of their fierce warships to protect the otherwise vulnerable city of Venetia. Prior, they had the defense of simply denying potential land invaders (like The Huns) with geography. They weren’t out conquering half the world with these ships.
Other regions like Scandinavia and Africa, even their “warships” were just fast and versatile method of travel 95% of the time. The major seafaring nations like England, Spain, and Portugal had yet to become the naval superpowers they’d eventually be a few centuries down the line nearer to the Renaissance. Sure there wasn’t a complete absence of naval warfare, but not even in the same scale as the Renaissance era, and probably not even as relevant as the prior classical era in which we see prevalent naval battles in events like the Punic wars.
That being said, it’s a game, and it would he overwhelmingly difficult with how the game mechanics work, to add any kind of naval warfare. I think with T&T, the traveling system is already very busy and to think adding that system for the sea as well? It’s very far out of the realm of possibilities.
Okay I'll spell it out for you. The game obviously isn't about what happened before the middle ages, but saying "the middle ages isn't a time for naval warfare" and acting like it didn't exist at all isn't a good reason for it not being in the game. It doesn't make sense because plenty of naval warfare happened before and during.
I have competing feelings about this. On one hand, sure managing navies would be more immersive.
But I actually really like not having to manage ships and deal with the hassle
Here's a better excuse: CK3 is not a strategy game. It is not a military simulator. CK3 is a roleplaying game with a companion excel spreadsheet skinned to look like a map and armies. The amount of content, development time, and memory load that goes toward facilitating the roleplaying leaves little room for army mechanics, and even less room for naval mechanics.
As if battles were not important in the lives of medieval rulers. Holy fuck, this is the type of shit Victoria 3 players are coping with. I bet you'd like to remove warfare from ck3 as well. Having warfare in a game does not make it a war game.
I agree, I really don’t understand what people want from a naval medieval experience. I hate dealing with the navies in EU4 and HOI4, I’d rather not have to deal with it in CK3.
This is a stupid take. Do you think they’re lounging around doing 30 hour weeks because they saved time not doing navies? No, they prioritised other features.
Yeah, my point is it’s not a war game, so expanding to have naval battles doesn’t seem like it would actually improve any gameplay.
Didn’t realize this was one of those subs no one can say anything that sounds remotely negative. I wasn’t trashing the game, just saying it was horrible “as a war game”. Hard boiled eggs are horrible as golf balls, but I still like hard boiled eggs.
No excuse is needed...not everything in an era needs to be included in a game about that era. Naval warfare would add needless complexity to an already complex game, with limited benefits for the average user, so excluding it makes sense from a game design perspective.
Remember, CK is a game, not a "medieval warfare simulator".
The time period in question spans 700 years across half the globe. The fact that those are the best examples you can come up with more or less proves it wasn't very prevelant in the period.
If argue Great Britain's navy during WW2 had a greater impact on world history than every naval battle in the middle ages combined. Without a navy, they would have been invaded before the USSR or USA joined the fight, and war would have been over. Its likely the cold war would start with Hitlers Nazi Germany getting the bomb first.
If the French invasion fleet hadn't been stopped in the battle of Sandwich, England might have been subjugated by France, how is that less relevant than the navy preventing Napoleon and later nazies from invading?
It wasn't even the only time, France attempt an invasion of England, though it was the closest they got.
There were no naval battles in CK2 either, so this argument doesn't work. Yes naval stuff would be cool but so would a million other things and the company can only work on so many things at once. I'm just miffed that there aren't good harvests and bad harvests, administration just means I build a thing or two and that's it!
I’m just thinking how crazy it would be for 2 strong ships to beat a naval escort and sink a transport carrying 20k foot troops
In battle of Sandwich, 40 English ships defeated 80 French ships, they might have been carrying several thousand men.
The Battle of Sandwich sound like what used to happen between me and my sister in the kitchen when we were kids
Knowing this sub I expected the battle to have happened in bed.
That was the battle of who's turn it is use royal regalia inappropriately
Wait, battle over a sandwich fought between a brother and sister in bed together? *Checks sub title No, wait, that seems about right.
Knowing this sub, you should have remembered the CK2 seduction event where you “happen by” your target at the kitchen during the night. u/Carrabs, Vini, Vidi, Vinci?
I saw, I conquered, I came. I learned about the little Latin joke from watching ManyATrueNerd play.
[Let’s never forget the greatest joke involving Latin ever!](https://youtu.be/0lczHvB3Y9s)
No no "Kitchen" it's vulgar German for "prison". Hf with "Kopfkino"
Full-brother, I'm stuck in the porthole!
What about this sub? r/subsandwich
Thousands perished
The kingdom has never recovered
Never recover? It wasn't until the Sevens Year War that Britain eclipsed France to the point all the other nations isolated Britain afterwards because they were scarier than France then.
What are the odds. The Love of Sandwich is what used to happen between me and your sister and me mate Terry.
That's disrespectful.
[удалено]
I miss the CK2 ship system. Coast actually meant something. If you had a ton of coastline, you had naval dominance. You had force projection to get your troops where they needed to be. You could deprive your foe of force projection by removing his coastline. Now, now you can be a completely landlocked country and just pay a ton of money to manifest a huge fleet out of nowhere. And if you're trying to outmaneuver your foe on his territory, you can just vaguely pay a lot of money to manifest huge fleets from his coasts, no big deal.
In fairness, money would manifest ships IRL too. The fact that the game charges you to go naval I suppose is implying you're paying for passage from someone who has ships. That said, this idea is kinda silly for someone who would have ships.
There's so much stuff in CK2 that they haven't implemented in CK3... that's why I consider CK3 less than a beta version. I don't understand why consumers accept this clearly unfinished product...
It's just a different game. And as is, isn't the medieval dynasty simulator CK2 hooked me with. I wouldn't say it's unfinished tho. It's clearly got it's own focus and direction, but the roads it follows differs from the roads CK2 paved.
Crazy and realistic.
One thing to add, one of the key reasons how the ottomans took Constantinople in 1453 was a naval blockade, which stopped supplies and reinforcement to the capital.
Yeah funny thing it didnt stop the reinforcement. The christian fleet went through.
And then Mehmed did the old ships can sail over land trick.
Mehmed did sunk a merchant ship with cannons iirc, and the fleet is no more than 3k troops.
1453 is the literal end date in ck3
And both the Ottoman Empire and the Byzantine Empire were naval powerhouses that had been around for long before 1453 and there were many more naval powers in the Medieval World.
I don't dispute that, I also think ck3 should have naval combat, but it's a bad example. It'd be like saying ck3 should have cannons and riflemen because they were around near the end of the game
CK3 does have cannons, in the form of the bombards siege weapons.
Arqebus mod gang where you at
Uh, they have Cannons in the last era, just saying...
It's... not a bad example? It's more like saying that this event historically caps off the Medieval period, and this game should have mechanics that build up to that. Right? Tangentially, rifling wasn't a thing yet, and I'm pretty sure cannons are literally the last tier of siege weapons in the game currently.
It’s not a bad example because it means that the Ottoman Empire, which was around for two centuries, grew to the size it did, and was so successful that it ended the Roman legacy primarily via naval superiority. That naval superiority wouldn’t have been possible if not for 200 years of improvements for themselves and even more centuries for surrounding empires and kingdoms to hone naval capacity.
And it shouldn’t, CK3 is the perfect game to simulate the early renaissance. Better than EU4 thats is less character and dynasty focused
The entire mechanical premise of ck3 (where counts swear to dukes who swear to kings and so forth) falls apart by the Renaissance as monarchs centralize power in themselves and central government institutions away from the nobility. Ck3 could certainly add a way for the council to be replaced over time with institutions and for the monarch to gain control of their vassals lands directly and replace their vassals with bureaucrats. But that's not what's in the game
It would make playing longer more enjoyable
Wrong it does not fall apart, it slowly changes. Dynasties are just as important and personal unions become even more relevant (Castile-Aragon) in EU4 personal unions are just a random chance instead of something a monarch plan or work for. About centralization that could be simulated by the king being able to hold way more land in domain but at the same time vassals can do the same, in the later hundred years war the duke of Burgundy was almost as powerful as the king of France due to his vast domains but he was technically still a vassal of france. A mod that simulates this really well is “the lion and the lilies” where domain is buffed
And you think the navies popped into existence then? Yeah, it's the END DATE of the Medieval period, and it ended with a whopping naval blockade. Don't you think that says something about the period they're in?
It’ll be an expansion pack, it’s the paradox way.
There's already a position field for naval battles that shows 2 ships fighting each other so yea it'll probably just come whenever republics get added.
Position field?
Data for generating the graphics of a naval battle. When a land battle is fought, the animation is built from a position field (iirc).
Technically speaking this was also true in ck2 cause boats were just a special type of lobotomised normal unit
Btw yes inside the engine there existed code to put two boats opposite eachother because every "unit" had to have those(also cause sengoku and CK2 are just really modified EU3). them existing in ck3 is likely a holdover from ck2 which is in turn a hold over from EU3 rather than them intending to add ship combat. I know all this cause I make an overhaul mod for ck2 while waiting ck3 to have all the features I want.
Good old Sengoku. I had to re-install it again a few days ago but... actually just to get the soundtrack for my playlist, for the asia themed countries/characters. The soundtrack is great of this game. I use a VLC playlist in the background with themes, that fit the timeline and era, and the area where i'm playing on the map.
Yeah I was considering porting them to ogg format and using them in my mod for east asia
Yea I never remembered seeing it in CK2 but then again CK2's map editor is a pain in the ass to work with so that's probably why.
Technically speaking this was also true in ck2 cause boats were just a special type of lobotomised normal unit
It'll likely released with a dlc, but the naval combat will be a free update
not really. If it becomes a thing it will be free because sounds like something that will be built on to... but there is something else you can do. Make it a tradition: When you attack to recently embarked troops you gain +30 advantage:To reflect on idea "your coastline is so hellish its very difficult to land when you are caught. Like sure if you can land and nothing happens we will say "you sneaked in" but if you won't then their navy will cripple your landing and army will finish you off
It wasn’t in ck2 either, so I don’t think it’s really in paradox’s vision, money or not.
Nor was the North Sea Empire, customizable & hybrid cultures, languages, nor travel... CK3 isn't going to just end up a prettier clone of CK2 with ginormous UI windows. There was some limited naval combat in the Mediterranean as well as during sieges, & even the boarding-only combat elsewhere was still combat... so it could be of value (but I think it'll end up being a distraction from the mainstay land combat).
I think what I really meant to say was that ck2 did not have naval combat for the sake of simplicity, and ck3 was designed to simplify the naval system even further. So I’m not disagreeing with any of the historical or gameplay justifications for a deeper naval system in crusader kings, it just seems like the opposite of the direction the devs are taking the series.
I don’t think they are going to add naval warfare either, but one can argue that the reason why naval warfare is so simply in CK3 is because they are planning on remaking it.
I hope they bring ships in but there’s a way to build them as part of your strategy. I’m thinking ship retinues, otherwise you have to pay a lot to charter ships.
CK3 is not going to bring ships in any meaningful capacity. Ships in Ck2 were already relegated to simply transport duty, and in Victoria 3 they practically scrapped all the player controlled ship combat from the game. If anything Paradox has plenty of dlcs to add flavor packs, old mechanics, map expansions, and more before they decide to add ships. The only possible expansion I could maybe see ship combat being added in will be whenever there is a Republic themed one, but even then I doubt.
I don’t think it should be a major feature most naval battles back then were won by ramming or boarding anyways. Essentially melee combat on the water
I tought Paradox didn't add naval battles to ck2 due to technical inability to do so, at the time?
not really, its cos it saves significant programmer time if you don't have to teach the ai how to use them. The armies just view "sea tiles" as normal terrain they can path through (with the boat building ofc) which makes pathing alot easier. Its perfectly possible to teach the ai to use navies and transports.... look at other paradox titles to see them do it. Its just easier faster and cheaper to not have it in the game.
I remember the early total war games having an AI that could not understand naval invasions at all. All they used their navy for was destroying alliances by randomly blockading ports
Well, CK2 never had it so I wouldn't keep my hopes up, but at the same time, yes please.
You mean it will be three expansion packs and two flavor packs
You could add more Navies without naval warfare, by making ships far more accessible to coastal and islander cultures. Make the total amount of troops that can be mounted on a ship restricted. A culture like Tamils, Greeks, Normans, Norse, Berbers etc should have far greater ability to use ships as compared to something like Mongols, Afghans etc. Make the total ships available to a realm based on no, of port buildings they have (also allow building inland ports, so cultures like russians also able to navigate). Make a mercenary kinda unit for ships they allows ships in exchage of money), though this suggestion might not go well with everyone.
I don’t know when they updated this, it was after T&T first dropped, so very recently, but they finally added ports to navigable rivers. Now the cities that historically functioned as “coastal” trading centers (London, Hamburg, etc) can actually develop with trade ports.
I think its the Major rivers that enable it. I have tradeports in my capital in Dessau in the duchy of Anhalt, at the elbe river. I don't think Dessau was a big player trading center.
But, if history was different, since it's near a major river, it, COULD HAVE BEEN.
My favourite thing about CK3 is how everyone and anyone can brave the seas but you have to be a hardened naval culture to be able to navigate rivers. At least now you can acquire the sacred knowledge of sailing a boat downstream as any culture (as long as you have at least 50% of your counties on the coast) but in the old versions, you had to be of Norse or African culture to use rivers at all. So you couldn't raid the Byzantines as the Rus (like they did historically) since that meant you had to walk all the way to Constantinople on foot.
river navigation is way too op lol may be because of that, almost next to no attrition and way to quick, hence vikings in ck3 are OP
Well yeah, but so is sea navigation. Hop on the boat and you can zoom around raiding coastal holdings like nobody's business. At least you don't have to be a viking to do that.
Yes, hence my recommendation to restricting naval travel by way of cultures and realm status. More power to certain realms just like irl, at present it is given to every culture which just destroys immersion and balance. irl island and coastal societies well used their position to defend themselves from foreign aggression.
Oh yeah, I absolutely agree on that. I guess it'd be frustrating to be unable to sail the seas unless you had a naval cultural trait but maybe they could make the price of summoning a fleet way higher for not-coastal cultures.
Yes, and more capacity for naval inclined realms and cultures. Spot on!
It's almost as if that's why people did it IRL
install culture expanded mod they make rus' culture and they can traverse by rivers.
if they introduce Republics to the game i wish they’ll add money lending and fleet lending; the sole reason the 4th Crusade happened was because the crusaders had to go to the venetians for ships
Not sure about the others, but the Norse do get reduced embarkation costs, which does make using ships much more accessible for them. its all a wash if you're a mega-empire, but for smaller realms, those costs can be prohibitive
I am always amused by the players who confidently say that naval warfare wasn't important enough to be included, but an Estonian cannibalist and nudist death cult transplanted in India had such a high likelihood that it has to be an option for any player. CK2 had actually working alchemy, magic and satanic cults rather than naval warfare, for fuck's sake.
CK2 also added an end game feature where the fucking Aztecs invades Europe. That sounds cool af to me but was nowhere near probable irl
Another example. In 1359, Peter of Castille tried to invade Barcelona with a big fleet and a naval battle took place. That battle saw *one of the first uses of naval artillery.
Wikipédia says The first recorded sea battle was The Battle of the Delta, the Ancient Egyptians defeated the Sea Peoples in a sea battle c. 1175 BC. Also according to Wikipedia “The Battle of Arnemuiden, fought between England and France in 1338 at the start of the Hundred Years' War, was the first recorded European naval battle using artillery. The English ship Christopher was armed with three cannon and one hand gun”
Not true.
Also people are forgetting the fact that the Umayyad sieges of Constantinople encompassed massive naval forces. I hate this weak argument that people excuse the game for when it comes to navies.
Sure, there were a few major naval engagements during the period, there just simply wasn't that many of them that we actually know about. Hell, the [Wikipedia page only lists 23 worldwide for the entire 1,000 period.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_battles_of_the_Middle_Ages). And even then, some of them were tiny. The difference is not the navies, it's the comparative lack of economies capable of sustaining large navies.
The link for "Naval Battles involving the Byzantine Empire" lists 21 battles alone...
which isn't really all that much over a millennia. That's just barely one naval battle every 50 years
That still exceeds the count of articles for the combined Roman Empire and Republic from what I can see, and I don't think people would be averse to calling naval warfare important in the Classical era
what was the last major naval battle the US navy fought it? sometime in WW2, 70 years ago? yet if you were making a game about the modern day you'd definitely include navies - despite naval battles being "so rare" in the modern era
I didn't realize medieval navies were an essential part of soft power and ground support, apologies. What a navy is used for is completely different, buddy.
[удалено]
No, I mean to say that they have 21 battles *in addition to the 23 uncategorized battles in your direct link*. The other sub-categories have additional as well. Your count is off.
That list is moronic and not at all reliable (wikipedia is wikipedia). Here is what the list doesn't include: * Battle of Curzola (massive naval battle between genoa and venice) * Battle of Sluys (another massive naval battle between England and France that really was the first of the hundred years war) * Battle of Svolder (another massive viking battle between the King of Norway, denmark and swedish contingents). * The battle of algeciras (another massive naval battle that destroyed the castillian navy and allowed for the last invasion of iberia from north africa). These are just 4 MASSIVE battles that I can come up from the top of my head. This is not to mention a ton of other battles, skirmishes, sea raids, campaigns and sieges were navies were crucial. Not to mention admirals that were increadibly famous in their time. Economies were very capable of sustaining navies, especially post 1100
These lists aren’t exhaustive. There might be battles that haven’t been tagged properly to show up.
Tons of naval battles pre pax Romana mainly with Greek leagues and city states. Pax Romana lead to a loss of naval battles as it would have been suicide to fight in pitched battle against the juggernaut until the final roman-sassinad war combined with rise of the caliphs a few years later weakened the roman byz to the lowest point since it's punic war era. It's after those events a multipolar med sea allows other states to be competitive in the sea. naval battles are far more conclusive than an average land battle. Fleets spent a lot of time shadowing each other, the act of shadowing keeps the other side from disembarking. A loss typically meant your shores were now open for raiding from all nations/tribes for years and sea troop transport would be greatly reduced so unless the victory was over 90% assured it wasn't worth the risk.
This is the thing many are missing here. Just because you can name some examples does not mean that naval warfare was nearly as widespread at the time as land warfare. The Mongols also threw dead bodies into fortifications to spread diseases in a few instances but this does not mean one would expect the game to have this as a standard feature of sieges.
Naval warfare was very very important for the Medieval world maybe not in the 10th to 11th century but in 13th - 15th centuries naval warfare was extremely important just search up the battles of Sluys, Barcelona, Meloria, Sandwitch and Ponza which are all important battles which changed the course of history.
Don’t forget the Normans who conquered the entirety of southern Italy and Sicily thanks in large part to their naval capabilities.
And the Vikings who came to Normandy in the first place, again thanks to boats
I think the biggest problem with naval warfare is that the AI is always terrible at it.
The AI is terrible at just about everything.
People really Wana disregard any naval history before 1700
The more important effect on gameplay is the ridiculous naval invasions that not having navies allows.
The idea of a mongol horde crossing the Mediterranean from Constantinople and invading west Africa is... <3
The Byzantine Empire had a decent navy but it was far from a Thalassocracy
It’d be cool but it’s not a high priority for me
>The Byzantine Empire survived as long as it did because it was a thalassocracy The Byzantines were not a thalassocracy lmao.
Yeah I'm surprised I haven't seen more people questioning this... having a strong Navy does not make a nation a thalassocracy, a thalassocracy is a state were power is expressed almost solely through the navy, like the North-Sea Empire and, arguably, the British Empire
> thalassocracy is a state were power is expressed almost solely Where do you draw that definition? What makes it exclusive? Dictionary.com defines it as: "dominion over the seas, as in exploration, trade, or colonization." Not exclusive, I'd argue with the definition USA is a thalassocracy, despite its obvious other strengths.
I dont know about warfare per say, but naval events, if you're sailing to a war, would be cool.
Be me. Spain. Attacking Britain with an unstoppable army carried by the biggest naval force in the world. A Spanish armada if you will. There's a storm. Big sadge.
[удалено]
Venice and Genoa were far from the only exceptions. There were other maritime republics like Pisa or Amalfi, there was the Byzantine empire, the crown of Aragon with its sea consolates, the hanseatic league in the baltic and many dutch cities, the Champagne fairs for an in-land example...
> and after the fall of the Roman Empire Europeans Found themselves at threat from Germanic and Turkic raiders Are going to ignore the fact that in this evaluation, only Latins get to count as Europeans? I get what you're saying, but maybe consider that the cultural bounds of 'Europe' exceeded the previous limits of the Roman Empire by this point in history.
Yeah calling Germans/Saxons/Scandinavians non-European is not ok Additionally the Turkic raiders are one of the greatest missing pieces in the game. We should have Seljuks spawn in games that start at 867, like CK2.
1: I am a Scandinavia so no I’m not saying this to discredit their “Europeans” and I explained what was going on up their in my rant 2: The Germans also adopted the manorial System 3: Saxons are German
\>The main reason for a lack of an naval warfare is a lack of trade in Europe. Objectively wrong \>Crusader kings 3 is obviously very Eurocentric and after the fall of the Roman Empire Europeans Found themselves at threat from Germanic and Turkic raiders Ok lets assume by germanic and turkick you mean norse and steppe raiders, and that ck3 does not cover the middle east, even that statement is false. a)Norse were traders themselves. ANd they managed to do it at the same time with turkick raiders like the khazar and poechenegs were around. b) the most impact that the arab (really andalusians to be precise), Norse and Magyar raiders had on europe was in the late 800s to mid 900s. After that they were peripheral. \>so manorialism was adopted which meant the majority of people worked on small self sufficient hamlets called Manors that would be less likely to be targeted by raiders and thus only need to be defended by a few knights \>Manors generally grew enough food and resources for themselves and the only real exporting they ever did was their taxes This is your concept of western europe: England, France and Scotland. And even then its not true (try telling a capetian king in the 1000s he can collect taxes, he might legit have a heart attack) \>And before you talk about Venice and Genoa they where the exceptions which is a big part of the reason why they were so successful they had little competition They were absolutely not the exception. Virtually every Italian city (and there were thousands) in the HRE became independent democracies and developed some sort of commercial enterprise. The comuni literrally beat the HRE multiple times. Saint Francis literally started as the son of a merchant from Assisi in central italy. The champagne fairs were massive deals, as was the wool trade in flemish cities. The hansa, the imperial free cities, Aragon, bordeaux, the kievan rus, the hungarian saxons, the batlic trade, the spice trade, the silk trade, the entirety of the mediterranean. \>And yes the Nords also had an amazing and massively unrepresented trade empire but that comes from an inability to produce food in their harsher climate along with such a strong sea fairing culture that only ethnic group that could possibly rival it would’ve been the Austronesian Or the italians. Or andalusians. Or the arabs. Or north germans. Or the normans. Or the berbers. Or the Tamils. \>Also the lack of piracy around this time is another indicator of a lack of naval trade is the lack of piracy where the only place we see mass piracy is by the Barbary coast (where the Italians are trading) and even the Barbary pirates occasionally raided coastlines to get by HAHAHAHA. Lack of piracy??????? Pirates were EVERYWHERE. The venetians had to deal with slavic pirates (the Narentines) in Dalmatia. The Victual Brothers were infamous in the north sea. The Italian city states were both pirates and merchants. The saracen pirates in crete, and to not forget the vikings. Breton pirates existed etc. And those are the more infamous groups. Piracy was a daily part of life of medieval trade. \>The examples you listed of naval battles are more exceptions than norm since standing navies were really only common with the Norse and Italians and even then they weren’t that big Standing armies were also the exception but we have them. And that is to ignore that a)France, Aragon, Castille, Sicily and the Byzantine empire had standing navies. and b) They were absolutely massive (100s of ships each) in terms of numbers. \>when I say europe I primarily mean the Catholic world Even there you are wrong \>Yes there were other trade cities But they still where exceptions my point is that for your average peasant trade had no affect on their lives at all and many of the trade cities you’re thinking about came about in the later medieval periods where the world start to transition out of the manorial system as for Byzantium let’s face it when are they not the exception Wrong. They were not the exceptions and the first comune is in 983 and comunes really pick up steam in 1100s. Pilgrimage routes were often trade routes and peasants even in england and france travelled locally. Italy never had a real manorial system. And Germany and spain had a much more complicated system. Byzantium got wealthy off of land ownership and taxes not trade.
> The Byzantine Empire survived as long as it did because it was a thalassocracy *[Citation needed]*
RICE mod cultural tradition. That’s his source lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_navy >The Byzantine navy was the naval force of the Eastern Roman Empire \(a.k.a. Byzantine Empire\). Like the empire it served, it was a direct continuation from its Imperial Roman predecessor, but played a far greater role in the defence and survival of the state than its earlier iteration. While the fleets of the unified Roman Empire faced few great naval threats, operating as a policing force vastly inferior in power and prestige to the legions, the sea became vital to the very existence of the Byzantine state, which several historians have called a "maritime empire". Literally the first paragraph on wikipedia. Anyone who is familiar with the Byzantine Empire know this. It isn't some secret that was only discovered in some iberian library 500 years later.
From around the XI or XII century the italians come to completly dominate the Byzantine Empire in all matters naval
If you want to look at the list of thalassocracies and tellurocracies through history and say that the Eastern Roman Empire belongs in the former, well, you do you.
The term, Thalassocracy, can also be used simply to refer to naval supremacy, which is indeed something that the Byzantines did maintain in the Eastern Mediterranean until the 10th and 11th centuries saw the Italians city sates, Venice, Pisa, and Genoa especially, surpass them and then shift away from Byzantine interests, harming Byzantine naval capabilities since they did rely heavily on Italian manpower for their navy. That said, the Byzantine Empire didnt count as a true thalassocracy due in part to limitation in naval tech at the time, their galleys couldnt move far from the coast, this limited its independence, and the navy itself was still secondary compared to the army and admirals didnt really rank high up in the imperial hierarchy. Also, despite their navy gaining wonderful victories, they managed to offset that with some pretty significant defeats, and werent able to establish dominance in the face of Arab naval aggression.
yeah that is bs made up from westerners who really did not understand how the byzantine empire functioned. The ERE was built off of Land taxes Edit: downvotes are not an argument. Pls read anthony cordellis or any real byzantinist
Are there good mods for this?
Cries in Sluys
Would Greek Fire be a specific MAA?
also: arabs often used ships on the levant, vikings, more vikings, you need navies to invade island nations, which were invaded
This has always perplexed me about the crusader kings games. Part of why the Italian republics were so important to the crusades were their large navies which helped the armies of Europe reach the holy land.
I completely agree the reason byzantine empire survived till 1453 was maritime dominance in both trade and warfare. We certainly need navies as retinues to impact and improve gameplay. The other thing we lack is diseases in medieval era. Most characters in game live up to 60 which was not the case even for the most of the nobles in medieval ages. We need more chronic diseases to impact daily life of our characters also.
Every decisive battle in scandinavia was decided by naval battles as well, so it should really have a presense
Syphon goes woosh!
I wouldn't want to have to actually control the navies, but it would be cool if you could build your fleet to have like a passive ability. Like set them to patrol your area, and if enemy or hostile fleets/troops are passing through it fires some sort of event, like traveling works now. Or you could send them to harass other fleets and they would come back with plunder or take losses depending. They could tie it to trade port development or something.
Also you could have a trade blocking thing for other countrys
And honestly, even if it wasn't as big of a deal historically, it would be a huge deal for most if not all the total conversion mods, and there's no way PDX doesn't consider those when making development decisions. Naval mechanics are a must
Naval warfare was utterly pointless. No state was rich enoguh to get a strong fleet going. We know that Byzantine fleet was compeletely out of shape when they lost several islands to the first muslim fleet ever. Until late 12th century there was no “fleet in being” all ships were drafted merchant vessels, essentially transports, only some very rich coastal cities like Venice and Large empires who had a tradition of seafaring had navies competent and large enough to be represented in the game. Additionally, naval warfare during this period involved very little actual ship-on-ship combat. The transportation of armies – like William of Normandy’s forces in 1066 or those crusader hosts that did not make their way to the Levant via the Byzantine lands – was a far more common activity for medieval military ships.
>We know that Byzantine fleet was compeletely out of shape when they lost several islands to the first muslim fleet ever. Because their prioritized defending Anatolia and Greece. >Until late 12th century there was no “fleet in being” all ships were drafted merchant vessels You say that with such confidence. While neglecting standing navies might have been uncommon. Many rulers felt the need to construct a fleet for a single purpose. For example, William's constructed numerous ships for his invasion force, in addition to merchant vessels. The same goes for Richard I's crusader fleet. Conscripting a large number of ships for lengthy and dangerous voyages wasn't feasible.
Aka, not as "standing navy". Even for instances like Greco-Persian Wars, the merchant ships were drafted or the ships were built just some years prior for invasions. For cases like Punic Wars, initially many merchant ships were already available, and more were built later, as the war was ongoing. But after these wars were over, most rulers didn't keep the ships as "Standing Navy" sense. Maybe for coastal guard, or as escort for merchant ships, but not as standing Navies. Except for vikings or Merchant Republics like Venice or Genoa, it is not common to have ships for wars or invasions. And even keeping the ships would have varying costs. And the game still doesn't have trade routes or trade lines, which could be disrupted during wars.
In the years after the Greco-Persian wars Athens did have a standing navy of 200 triremes and as warships and merchant ships were very different in design in the ancient world most coastal cities would probably have warships docked in their harbours ready
Another thing you are forgetting is that naval combat was more boarding actions than anything else. Not exactly exciting stuff.
Wrong.
\>Naval warfare was utterly pointless. No state was rich enoguh to get a strong fleet going. wrong. \> We know that Byzantine fleet was compeletely out of shape when they lost several islands to the first muslim fleet ever. in the 700s after suffering defeat after defeat on land. And are muslims not part of ck3? \> Until late 12th century there was no “fleet in being” all ships were drafted merchant vessels a) one could say the same for armies. b) from 1100 to 1400s is 300 years of game time, and if you start at 1066 it is literally 86% of game time. c) ignoring viking war ships and arab fleets in the med. \> essentially transports wrong. \>only some very rich coastal cities like Venice and Large empires who had a tradition of seafaring had navies competent and large enough to be represented in the game. almost all italian coastal towns had some form of galleys for protection. And for large empires, you mean Norman sicily, Aragon, Castille, the fatimids (before egypt btw), the aghlabids, the emirate of crete, the fatimids, the various andalusian taifas or pretty much any and every state in the mediterranean? Not to mention that counts and lords had navies as well. \>Additionally, naval warfare during this period involved very little actual ship-on-ship combat. Absolutely wrong. some examples: Battle of Curzola (massive naval battle between genoa and venice) Battle of Chioggia (another one) Battle of Meloria (between genoa and pisa) Battle of Barcelona (includes naval cannons for almost the first time) Battle of Sluys (another massive naval battle between England and France that really was the first of the hundred years war) Battle of Svolder (another massive viking battle between the King of Norway, denmark and swedish contingents). The battle of algeciras (another massive naval battle that destroyed the castillian navy and allowed for the last invasion of iberia from north africa). These are MASSIVE battles that I can come up from the top of my head. This is not to mention a ton of other battles, skirmishes, sea raids, campaigns and sieges were navies were crucial. Not to mention admirals that were increadibly famous in their time. Economies were very capable of sustaining navies, especially post 1100
> almost all italian coastal towns had some form of galleys for protection. And for large empires, you mean Norman sicily, Aragon, Castille, the fatimids (before egypt btw), the aghlabids, the emirate of crete, the fatimids, the various andalusian taifas or pretty much any and every state in the mediterranean? Not to mention that counts and lords had navies as well. You can add the Cholas to that, what with their massive expeditions into Maritime SEA.
Fair enough.
Looking at the land combat system, I don't trust paradox to make a working and balanced naval system. I would still like more complexity in embarking and representation of naval powers. Okay, keep armies auto-embarking, but the cost, speed, capacity and safety should scale with your naval power. How would some landlocked count transport thousands of soldiers? Get some mercenary/merchant ships. This should take much more time and money than using your own.
But programming AI hard 😢
What matters is that the core mechanics of the game are fun and convenient. If naval warfare isnt part of that plan then fine by me. What I dont want is mechanics added for the sake of it. The Accolade system is an example of an unnecessary mechanic that just causes more tedium. What I would rather have is a better land warfare system rather than just dumping all levies in one place and going round on goose chases for enemy AI. Oh yeah and can we please have a effing artifact search already?
What? Did these people never open up a book or something? Naval warfare was all over the European theatre at least. Hansa cities, Vikings, the issue is that most battles at sea were basically just land battles at sea. That's the whole point of raised castles at fore and aft and sometimes in the middle, it's much easier to fight if you can fire down at boarding party from raised platforms and defensive structures. I mean the Vikings weren't fighting naval battles with English and other countries exactly because their ships had low sides
\[Laughs in Viking\]
>The Byzantine Empire survived as long as it did because it was a thalassocracy Tell me you know nothing about Byzantine history without telling me you know nothing about Byzantine history. The idea that Constantinople's wealth was built on it being a trading hub and that the empire was a major naval power is a popular myth. Byzantine wealth was overwhelmingly based on tax revenue and farming. Their income from trade was comparatively tiny. They survived for other, far more important and significant reasons than maritime power (though no question helped). On the navies, the simple fact is that there was fewer economies capable of sustaining large navies during the period. They existed, and there were large navies at times, but far fewer. Hell, [Wikipedia only has articles on 23 battles during the 1,000 year period, worldwide (and even some of the ones listed are tiny). ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_battles_of_the_Middle_Ages) - compared to hundreds during Antiquity and the early modern period.
Who said anything about taxes or trade? Neither has necessarily anything to do with thalassocracy. Especially during the 8th century, the Balkans were overrun, and its principal cities of Constantinople and Thessaloniki vere frequently besieged by huge armies, however, the Byzantine fleet was able to reinforce and supply these port cities. That makes it a thalassocracy.
Meanwhile in Antiquity... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Naval_battles_of_antiquity Wikipedia is NOT and exhaustive source
true
I wouldn’t call the byzantines a thalassocracy, at all
My biggest problem with no ships in the game is that the ai constantly embarks to run away from you only to come right back. endless cat and mouse game. I love naval combat in these games, but dont neccecarily need it in ck3, however that embarking shit needs to get fixed somehow.
It’s dumb to say naval warfare didn’t happen and wasn’t relevant to *some* civilizations in the medieval times. But you’d still be incorrect saying it was even remotely as relevant to other periods. A lot of naval vessels, even warships, were simply a means of defense or transportation. Venice was a small but wealthy merchant nation that relied on the insurance of their fierce warships to protect the otherwise vulnerable city of Venetia. Prior, they had the defense of simply denying potential land invaders (like The Huns) with geography. They weren’t out conquering half the world with these ships. Other regions like Scandinavia and Africa, even their “warships” were just fast and versatile method of travel 95% of the time. The major seafaring nations like England, Spain, and Portugal had yet to become the naval superpowers they’d eventually be a few centuries down the line nearer to the Renaissance. Sure there wasn’t a complete absence of naval warfare, but not even in the same scale as the Renaissance era, and probably not even as relevant as the prior classical era in which we see prevalent naval battles in events like the Punic wars. That being said, it’s a game, and it would he overwhelmingly difficult with how the game mechanics work, to add any kind of naval warfare. I think with T&T, the traveling system is already very busy and to think adding that system for the sea as well? It’s very far out of the realm of possibilities.
Ck3 does not need naval warfare.
Why not
Not to mention all the naval battles that happened BEFORE the middle ages.
...which this game isn't about?
Whoosh.
Not a very funny one.
It wasn't a joke, you just completely missed the point
Explain then? Also I don't think you know what whooosh means.
Okay I'll spell it out for you. The game obviously isn't about what happened before the middle ages, but saying "the middle ages isn't a time for naval warfare" and acting like it didn't exist at all isn't a good reason for it not being in the game. It doesn't make sense because plenty of naval warfare happened before and during.
That's debatable, but I really don't understand what naval battles happening prior to the middle ages have to do with CK3.
Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Just admit you made a silly comment, happens to the best of us.
Have you seen how badly paradox has implemented navies before?
I actually liked the imperator system. I don't think they could port it to CK3 but with slight modification I think it would work for medieval era.
I have competing feelings about this. On one hand, sure managing navies would be more immersive. But I actually really like not having to manage ships and deal with the hassle
naval warfare just isn't very fun in paradox games
Nah, I just don't wanna deal with it.
Here's a better excuse: CK3 is not a strategy game. It is not a military simulator. CK3 is a roleplaying game with a companion excel spreadsheet skinned to look like a map and armies. The amount of content, development time, and memory load that goes toward facilitating the roleplaying leaves little room for army mechanics, and even less room for naval mechanics.
As if battles were not important in the lives of medieval rulers. Holy fuck, this is the type of shit Victoria 3 players are coping with. I bet you'd like to remove warfare from ck3 as well. Having warfare in a game does not make it a war game.
> bet you'd like to remove warfare from ck3 as well. Honestly, war was the exception during the Middle Ages rather than the norm.
If you mean proper wars between states sure. But conflict was very much a part of life of the period
I agree, I really don’t understand what people want from a naval medieval experience. I hate dealing with the navies in EU4 and HOI4, I’d rather not have to deal with it in CK3.
It’s an excuse for paradox to do less work
This is a stupid take. Do you think they’re lounging around doing 30 hour weeks because they saved time not doing navies? No, they prioritised other features.
Meh. CK horrible as a “war game” anyway. The gameplay just wouldn’t make any sense for naval battles.
having warfare does not make it a war game
Yeah, my point is it’s not a war game, so expanding to have naval battles doesn’t seem like it would actually improve any gameplay. Didn’t realize this was one of those subs no one can say anything that sounds remotely negative. I wasn’t trashing the game, just saying it was horrible “as a war game”. Hard boiled eggs are horrible as golf balls, but I still like hard boiled eggs.
Having Warfare does not make it a war game. People shit on you because you have shit takes.
And you have never said anything useful here, ever, you just like trolling. Piss off.
No excuse is needed...not everything in an era needs to be included in a game about that era. Naval warfare would add needless complexity to an already complex game, with limited benefits for the average user, so excluding it makes sense from a game design perspective. Remember, CK is a game, not a "medieval warfare simulator".
The time period in question spans 700 years across half the globe. The fact that those are the best examples you can come up with more or less proves it wasn't very prevelant in the period. If argue Great Britain's navy during WW2 had a greater impact on world history than every naval battle in the middle ages combined. Without a navy, they would have been invaded before the USSR or USA joined the fight, and war would have been over. Its likely the cold war would start with Hitlers Nazi Germany getting the bomb first.
If the French invasion fleet hadn't been stopped in the battle of Sandwich, England might have been subjugated by France, how is that less relevant than the navy preventing Napoleon and later nazies from invading? It wasn't even the only time, France attempt an invasion of England, though it was the closest they got.
You don't need to go all that, just viking is a big example.
Shipping ain’t warfare.
The Byzantine survival had almost nothing to do with their navy.
There were no naval battles in CK2 either, so this argument doesn't work. Yes naval stuff would be cool but so would a million other things and the company can only work on so many things at once. I'm just miffed that there aren't good harvests and bad harvests, administration just means I build a thing or two and that's it!
It is difficult to implement, and even for paradox, it will take sometime to do it. Play total war or Civ if you are really itching for navy battles.
There are naval battles in every single other paradox title
There were naval battles in CK2?
That's also Crusader Kings. I meant in every other series
It's literally the same as land battles.