What's the best way to bring Legendary or Ordinary Flagships in—or simply ignore 'em?

[yangzilata]

I don't really like flagships, at least as they exist in EU4. It's very much a gameboard mechanic because flagships were only special as they held the command structure of a fleet. Losing one was a problem because you suddenly lost the people who knew how to coordinate a large fleet on the ocean, not a common skill. Sometimes these ships were technically more advanced than other ships (or supposed to be so), but this doesn't seem like something that needs to be included.

Could see something similar to HoI4 where you can designate a single 'Pride of the fleet' out of all your ships which was a common concept. Could give a morale boost to the fleet and hurt your stability if lost. More than that seems inappropriate. There were many examples once permanent navies became common where losing such a ship had real consequences as in the case of the HMS Unity which was very embarrassingly lost to the Dutch at anchor during one of the Anglo-Dutch Wars.

Yeah, I don’t like flagships as they are right now either—they just feel like a gameboard mechanic, way too arcadey. That’s exactly why I made this post: to brainstorm ways to break away from that gamey flagship concept and make something that actually feels engaging and alive.

Hoi4 "Pride of the Fleet" idea: Honestly, I don’t think that system fits here either. What I’m aiming for isn’t just tweaking the current flagships but building something entirely new.

One thing we can’t ignore is that, throughout history, admirals always had a bigger, more sophisticated ship compared to the rest of the fleet. Whether it was for better signaling, command functions, or just crew specialization, the flagship was different—and I want to feel that difference while managing my navy.


That’s why I suggested multiple approaches in my post. Like:

• Early game: Flagships could be directly tied to naval doctrines. Maybe an "Advanced Flagship Leadership" doctrine that buffs the admiral and fleet morale—but if the flagship sinks? Big consequences.
• Flagship Protection Doctrine: A focus on escorting the flagship, keeping it safe in battles and even from environmental threats like storms or frozen waters. (Seriously, imagine actually needing to protect your flagship from ice or bad weather!)
• Late game: The flagship’s role shifts—still giving small bonuses, but strategy becomes more about advanced tactics rather than relying on a single ship.

This kind of system doesn’t really exist in any game I know of, and I think it would be a fresh mechanic that makes fleets feel more alive.

 

[yangzilata]

Don't really think its needed, While it is the age of discovery and the dawn of transoceanic seafaring its still very much a back seat aspect of the game for the most part if you're not a colonizer or island state navies are not exactly high on your priorities, like if im playing the Ottomans, Byzantines Austrians or Timurids as I commonly do, the geography and bonuses I get make spending money on a navy a waste. Why sink a thousand gold and 30 ducats of upkeep on building a navy to fight on par with Spain as the Ottomans when im in walking distance of them with my armies and I have enough manpower and modifiers to otherwise handily decimate them? Its money better spent on more cannons and infantry.

Its another niche thing I might play a campaign or two to mess about with then promptly forget about, and as far as not eu5 goes I don't see the change that would warrant it.

Friend, history has been brutal when it comes to losing flagships and admirals. Like, take the Battle of Salamis—Admiral Ariabignes, aka Xerxes’ brother and one of Persia’s top dogs, got wrecked early when Greek marines stormed his ship. That one kill sent the whole Persian fleet into chaos. And it wasn’t just because they lost a guy—Persia’s navy was a mix of different subject nations (Phoenicians, Egyptians, Cilicians, etc.), all with separate commanders. So, once the big names started dropping, their whole coordination fell apart.

And it’s not like this was a one-time thing. Look at what happened after Salamis:

1. Battle of Red Cliffs (208 CE) – Cao Cao’s fleet got absolutely dunked on, not just because of disease but because they lost control. Once their ships got set on fire and chaos spread, leadership crumbled, and the whole navy basically ceased to exist.
2. Battle of Trafalgar (1805) – Nelson got shot and died, but the Brits had already secured a win at that point. Now, if that had happened earlier? The battle could’ve gone sideways real fast. Meanwhile, on the French side, when Villeneuve got captured, their fleet was like “uhh, now what? yes, confusion.” and completely fell apart.

Now, about the game—you’re saying naval mechanics don’t really matter unless you’re a colonizer or an island state, and yeah, if you’re playing Ottomans, Byzantines, Austrians, or Timurids, you’re probably just stacking infantry and rolling through Europe. I get it. But for people who love naval warfare—Venice, Calicut, Genoa, Portugal, or any seafaring nation—There are plenty of folks who live and breathe naval warfare—ignoring them would kill the passion for a whole lot of players. You might not care about ships, but some of us are out here trying to relive our admiral dreams, y’know?

I see your point—for your playstyle, land focus makes total sense. But I’d personally go for a hybrid model. Like, if I’m playing the Ottomans and I want to mess with Spain, I could just walk over with my armies… or I could use my navy to cut off supplies, block reinforcements, and slowly starve them out. Attrition’s a thing, and sometimes having a strong navy is more important than just throwing more dudes at the enemy.

Different people play differently, and naval warfare should actually feel like a real option, not just a side gimmick. You’ve got your way of playing, I’ve got mine, and that’s cool! But having deeper naval mechanics just means more ways to play, not less. Hope that makes sense!

 

[yangzilata]

It should ideally tie in with whatever the great power mechanics will be. Large capital ships are just as much about prestige as actual combat ability.

Several second rate powers in the timeframe built larger flagships, to challenge the great powers. Sweden and Denmark both built 110s in the late 1600s. Sweden also built the Mars and Vasa previously. Both covered in decorations as instruments of the state.

Scotland built the Great Michael. Lübeck the Adler von Lübeck.

The list of oversized flagships is certainly long enough to justify their inclusion.

How about:

Kingdoms with a port and reasonably large fleet can build one Flagship (or one per 20 normal capital warships). It costs two or three times the usual cost. Building and maintaining it gives prestige, loosing it costs prestige. Just like in EUIV tbh.

Really, they should be more like the Titans of Stellaris. "Mine is bigger than yours".

Yeah, I totally agree that prestige should be the main thing for late-game flagships rather than just raw combat power. But in the early game? I think it's way more about straight-up combat modifiers. So maybe we need an evolving system—early on, flagships are actual powerhouses, and later they shift into more of a flex piece for prestige.

Also, I really liked your Stellaris analogy.

 

[yangzilata]

As I mentioned in my reply to your last post on this topic (I mean, it was more specific, but the discussion was exactly the same), I'd rather not see specific historical ships represented as unique units. Unless they're made weak and useless to build, having them represented will give an advantage to nations that built those ships in our timeline, even if other nations might have become the naval powerhouses of this timeline.

If Spain or England get a bonus to their naval abilities because they built these ships in our timeline, and get an edge over equally powerful or even more powerful navies from nations which emerge that way in the game and lack unique vessels of their own - with otherwise equally sized navies - I'd be incredibly disappointed.

As such having unique ships will skew PC toward artificially following history in completely the wrong way. Rather I'd like if both players and AI could build customized larger ships as any nation. I don't want the flagship system to return as it was in EU4, as it was quite boring, but some system where you could customize numbers of decks, guns, and other characteristics and have differing stats from a base ship would be great to represent these unique ships, if they must be represented.

The other idea I mentioned is having some system similar to the legion commendation system from I:R, where ships might gain notoriety and traits which give them a little more personality. You didn't just lose a frigate with a lot of experience, you lost a frigate that is the most decorated in the fleet, and has done all these great things.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily against unique unit types, such as the Catalan Galley or Korean geobukseon, so long as they are balanced. My feelings on them are more mixed, as they could provide a lot more tag flavour than these specific ships would, if they're fairly balanced, but they do have the same problem in that they will give advantages to historically naval nations. The key point here in why I'd be mostly okay with unique unit types and not unique units is the difference in knowing that Aragon will be able to field galleys with two more guns than mine, and knowing that Spain will, after getting the appropriate advancement, field specifically the Santísima Trinidad. To me it's the difference between being able to field Polish hussars versus being able to field specific, highly skilled individual soldiers as 'hero units', which just don't feel like they fit this genre in my eyes.

How the team should balance the edge having unique units provides against the flavour they give specific tags is something worth a lot of discussion.

I totally agree with you on "I'd rather not see specific historical ships represented as unique units"—honestly, that would just feel way too arcadey and like a weird continuation of the current system, which I’m really not a fan of. Plus, if a nation didn’t historically have unique flagships, it’s super unfair that they'd get totally left behind. If we go that route, it’ll just make the game feel like some nations are automatically at a disadvantage for no/historical reason, which is... well, not great.

We need an approach where every player gets to have their own experience and navy, while still respecting history. But we also can’t forget the history lovers who’d want historical units, right? CK3 just dropped a DLC with unique buildings tied to specific locations, we can’t just copy-paste that system here. It’d be a huge letdown for both the Tinto talks and anyone who wants a game that values more than just history.

I’m totally with you on your suggestion: "some system where you could customize numbers of decks, guns, and other characteristics and have differing stats from a base ship." If flagships are a thing in the future, this kind of customization is definitely something we need.

As for "the legion commendation system from I:R," where ships gain notoriety and traits—yeah, that’s a solid idea, but we need to be realistic about how we adapt it. Naval warfare is a bit more chaotic, and the way I see it, if you lose your commander, your navy might collapse like in the Battle of Salamis. A whole fleet could be disoriented for hours before realizing the admiral’s gone.

That’s another aspect to keep in mind with a clock-based system (since combat isn’t day-by-day). If the admiral dies, it should take some time before it applies to the entire navy, which might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but I think it’d be a cool, sophisticated addition.

Oh, and for non-historical nations, there could be an option to revive certain naval advances if the region was taken over by another power. If Venice falls under Hungarian rule for like 300 years and a new nation arises in the same spot, that new nation should have access to Venice’s naval units (but, of course, this should be super hard to achieve and properly balanced).

 

[yangzilata]

Here is an idea: a dynamic event or decision to make a dynamic (custom) flagship. Would probably include an event chain, decisions to “customize” the ship’s cost and size a bit (so basically the more you spend on it the more powerful it becomes, in a simplified way, like how you can increase artifact quality in CK3 by taking the more expensive/risky event options), and also allowing you to name the flagship (or of course it suggests historical names from a list if you prefer it that way).

I really like this idea! It would definitely add a lot of liveliness and create a more interactive environment. Plus, it should be applied to naval ships, not land units—because, let’s be real, it wouldn’t really fit land units in the same way. This could give us a brand new naval mechanic, which would be awesome. From my perspective, this idea looks super promising!

 

[yangzilata]

Didn't you already made a thread about that ?

A Maritime Colossus: Why the Santísima Trinidad Must Sail Into Our Supersecret Game

In the annals of naval history, few vessels evoke as much awe as the Santísima Trinidad. Launched in 1769, this Spanish 1st-rate ship of the line was nothing short of a floating fortress. Armed with an astonishing 140 guns spread across four...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

That thread was more about the possibility of a specific ship and whether it could exist in the game. But my main thread is actually about how we could implement flagships in a more dynamic way, whether through customizable ships, historical flavor, or unique gameplay mechanics. It's more about the overall system for flagships, not just a single ship.

 

[Le Vengur]

Yeah, I totally agree that prestige should be the main thing for late-game flagships rather than just raw combat power. But in the early game? I think it's way more about straight-up combat modifiers. So maybe we need an evolving system—early on, flagships are actual powerhouses, and later they shift into more of a flex piece for prestige.

Also, I really liked your Stellaris analogy.

Actually, the latter ones had were overall far more usable, whilst the earlier galleons did capsize on occasion.

Proposal:

Varying the bonus with the ages.

There will be five ages.

1337-1437 gets the first early cannons. So more firepower at a drastically higher cost.

1437-1537 sees the Mary Rose, the great Carracks and early Galleons. Firepower and prestige, with a fun chance of randomly sinking if you built them top heavy (event?).

1573-1637 sees Galleons carrying greater batteries of heavy guns. Vasa and so forth. Keep the sinking and add prestige. These were some of the most decorated ships ever built, often covered in bright colors and gold leaf.

1637-1737 sees the early standardization, with decorations concentrated at the stern. Massive firepower and prestige. This and the last tier shouldn't really have any issues speed or manoeuvrability if the preceding ones do.

1737-1837 is effectively the 120s. They're standardized and built in large classes by the greatest powers. At this point they can form the core of a fleet in being. All the firepower, and with whatever on earth power projection will be in EU5

Oh and for funsies, Steam power at the last naval tech. HEIC Nemesis rolling in with Congreves and vastly superior mobility. Screw Ships of the Line are a mere decade outside the time frame.

 

[yangzilata]

Perhaps you're within walking distance after Ottomans and Spain have both expanded a lot. But I thought marching armies for long distances is harder in PC than in EU4, because of lack of military access and because of heavier attrition? That would make navies more important.

As for the topic of flagships, I don't know if better stats for a single ship mean much if there are hundreds of ships in a battle. And having one special ship give bonuses for all the ships in the fleet feels kinda gamey. The idea of fleet admiral being aboard some ship, thus making it a flagship, however seems interesting.

Then again, they are cool.

From an attrition perspective, I already replied to this guy here. To add more, our opinions totally align. It’s awesome to see someone who values attrition over just flashy military tech. I mean, I absolutely hate losing regiments or naval units to attrition; it’s the worst when you equip them only to see them drop dead before they even get into battle. If I win a battle at the cost of massive attrition—a total pyrrhic victory—I don’t count it as a win at all. Sometimes, if attrition risk is too high, I even bail on the campaign entirely.

I remember Alexander’s epic desert crossings (from the Palestinian coast to Sinai to Egypt, and from the Indus Valley to the Basran Gulf) where the navy was a crucial element. I also remember Sultan Selim I’s navy to cross the Sinai desert against the Mamluks. That just goes to show: if you want to manoeuvre through tough coastal terrain with your land army, you absolutely need some naval backup—or you’ll lose a ton of men to attrition, not just on the battlefield. Annoying for me.

About your point on flagships: your comment, “better stats for a single ship mean little if there are hundreds of ships in a battle,” is interesting. I mean,

• why would any fleet/I/you/someone willingly go up against a gigantic navy?

That’d be suicidal if our goal is to take out our admiral-heir, right? Maybe the flagship could act more like a “Spartan stand,” giving that extra morale boost or inflicting extra morale casualties compared to fleets without one.

I agree that having one special ship grant bonuses for the entire fleet can feel a bit gamey. In my opinion, it should be more about the admiral’s presence boosting morale and providing modifiers in the early game—not just the ship itself. If the flagship sinks, the admiral might perish too, but what if he survives? There should be an event (maybe like in CK) that lets you choose a last strike or even abandon the ship. Just for flavour or maybe not just for flavour...

In naval combat, if you ditch your flagship, it’s not just one person’s death—the whole fleet’s communication and command structure takes a hit, and that morale drop should reflect that. I'm open to ideas on exactly how this event should work, but that's my take.

 

[yangzilata]

I would be against flagships being unique units or having special bonuses, given that in the period the game covers a flagship was just the ship an admiral hosted their flag on.

I would be happy with a system where the admiral is assigned to a specific ship giving that ship a small bonus to its moral while it has an admiral assigned to it.

I think a system were if you only have a single three decker, losing that causes a lot more loss of prestige than if you have a couple dozen and you loose one. This could be tied to a system where ships gain prestige from being in battles so that losing a ship that played a major role in dozens of battles has more of an impact than one you just built.

I truly believe that the key factor is the admiral’s presence—his leadership boosts morale and provides early-game modifiers that make a real difference, not just the ship itself. Assigning an admiral to a ship naturally turns it into a flagship, and that genuine connection really matters. In naval combat, losing your flagship isn’t just about one person being gone; it disrupts the entire fleet's command and communication, which should hit morale hard. I think we're on the same page there.

Your idea about a single three-decker causing a huge prestige loss if it falls, compared to losing one of many, totally reminds me of Imperator: Rome’s army system after the Marius update. There, legions earned permanent modifiers from their battle outcomes—both good and bad. Merging that concept with your idea would be absolutely delicious!

 

[Le Vengur]

I truly believe that the key factor is the admiral’s presence—his leadership boosts morale and provides early-game modifiers that make a real difference, not just the ship itself. Assigning an admiral to a ship naturally turns it into a flagship, and that genuine connection really matters. In naval combat, losing your flagship isn’t just about one person being gone; it disrupts the entire fleet's command and communication, which should hit morale hard. I think we're on the same page there.

This isn't really the case historically though. Information moves slower in naval battles, and captains are often able to act far more independently. At the Nile, Foley went around the French line on his own initiative and several other ships followed him, without being ordered to. In a well trained and well led fleet the death or incapacitation of a leader is not as bad as it could be on land.

And as far as the game goes, leaders can be moved freely, whilst the ships remain. There are exceedingly few cases of successful admirals using the same ship throughout multiple campaigns.

 

[yangzilata]

Late game for history reasons maybe. Mechanically I think that everyone should start with enough free experience they can buy a doctrine- or maybe that the first doctrine is always free. This helps much more both with strategizing, but also giving the AI something to work with as well. Making it so you only get doctrines with enough war experience punishes peaceful playstyles, and isolated nations. Now this makes sense to a certain extent, but mechanically I think it's too punishing. This is a problem in HOI4, but you have a lot of strategies to help overcome this, and there are fewer nations. Even then, you definitely have to rush army experience gain.

Anyway tying flagships to a naval doctrine might work, but I think it should be something you can invest in relatively early. Just cause I don't like sealing off gameplay mechanics. Naturally I see an argument that say Hawaii probably wouldn't have a giant flagship carrack five years into the game, but once you've established it, and you want naval mechanics to engage in, you shouldn't have to spend a century waiting to unlock it.

In addition to your ideas, I think the initial doctrine could be predetermined for some nations, while the rest remain open for customization. For nations like Venice and Genoa, it's natural they'd have their own unique naval flavors—developers often lean into giving these historical powers unique naval advances, I guess. I wish I could offer a more detailed solution here, but I'm not entirely sure my suggestions would work perfectly; honestly, it just feels a bit too restrictive as-is.

Regarding your point about doctrines and war experience—when you mention that "making it so you only get doctrines with enough war experience punishes peaceful playstyles and isolated nations"—that really resonates with me. In history and in our own lives, falling behind often comes with consequences, and I believe that should be reflected in the game. It might seem harsh, but I trust that balance can be achieved. I also think that military experience alone shouldn't be the sole factor for earning doctrines; diplomatic stances, as well as the views of the nobility and merchant classes, should play a significant role.

For absolute monarchies, we might still need some of these restrictions, but perhaps with less severe consequences compared to republics. If the estates remain loyal, everything's fine, but if not, a chain of disobedience or even mutinies from distant armies might occur. I believe this approach adds a genuine, realistic complexity to how doctrines evolve and how a leader's decisions impact their nation.

 

[yangzilata]

Assuming a Flagship is mainly big and Royal, Hawaii should definitely be able to build some kind of massive double-hulled war canoe flagship. The big Aloha?

Hawaii needs a sleek, double-hulled war canoe, not a clunky Venetian galley!

 

[yangzilata]

Actually, the latter ones had were overall far more usable, whilst the earlier galleons did capsize on occasion.

Proposal:

Varying the bonus with the ages.

There will be five ages.

1337-1437 gets the first early cannons. So more firepower at a drastically higher cost.

1437-1537 sees the Mary Rose, the great Carracks and early Galleons. Firepower and prestige, with a fun chance of randomly sinking if you built them top heavy (event?).

1573-1637 sees Galleons carrying greater batteries of heavy guns. Vasa and so forth. Keep the sinking and add prestige. These were some of the most decorated ships ever built, often covered in bright colors and gold leaf.

1637-1737 sees the early standardization, with decorations concentrated at the stern. Massive firepower and prestige. This and the last tier shouldn't really have any issues speed or manoeuvrability if the preceding ones do.

1737-1837 is effectively the 120s. They're standardized and built in large classes by the greatest powers. At this point they can form the core of a fleet in being. All the firepower, and with whatever on earth power projection will be in EU5

Oh and for funsies, Steam power at the last naval tech. HEIC Nemesis rolling in with Congreves and vastly superior mobility. Screw Ships of the Line are a mere decade outside the time frame.

Hey, I love your idea, and I'd like to merge it with some of my own thoughts—if you're cool with that. Here's how I see it:

• 1337-1437:
  Early cannons bring more firepower at a drastically higher cost. But I think the firepower shouldn’t just be about raw damage—instead, the crew's experience should play a bigger role than just tactics and discipline.
• 1437-1537:
  This is the age of the Mary Rose, great Carracks, and early Galleons. We get both firepower and prestige, with a fun risk: a chance for the ship to randomly capsize if built too top-heavy (event). Plus, what if from this age onward you can assign an artist to design your ship? If the ruler invests enough cash, the ship gains even more prestige. Sounds pretty epic, right? (CK3)
• 1573-1637:
  Think Galleons with bigger batteries of heavy guns—like the Vasa. We keep the sinking risk and add prestige, reflecting how these decorated ships were the visual pop stars of their time, covered in bright colors and gold leaf. They’d be a fantastic visual treat in-game and even great for YouTube thumbnails. This era might lean more on the quantity side, reflecting overall wealth.
• 1637-1737:
  Early standardization comes into play here, with decorations mostly on the stern. Massive firepower and prestige remain, and this era could introduce early forms of naval tactics (think classic line battle formations). The ships here shouldn’t have any issues with speed or maneuverability compared to earlier eras.
• 1737-1837:
  This era is like the 120s—standardized, built in large classes by the great powers, forming the core of a fleet. I’d also add an advance that gives a territorial proximity bonus when your fleet is docked or passing through, maybe even an event for rebel suppression.

What do you think?

 

[yangzilata]

This isn't really the case historically though. Information moves slower in naval battles, and captains are often able to act far more independently. At the Nile, Foley went around the French line on his own initiative and several other ships followed him, without being ordered to. In a well trained and well led fleet the death or incapacitation of a leader is not as bad as it could be on land.

And as far as the game goes, leaders can be moved freely, whilst the ships remain. There are exceedingly few cases of successful admirals using the same ship throughout multiple campaigns.

I think the need for flexibility in naval warfare has always been more important than on land. Even today, communication age yes, admirals often need more leeway in their decision-making.

Your example of the Nile can be extended further—let's not forget admirals like Admiral Nelson, who famously broke from the standard battle plans to chase down the French at Trafalgar In other words, —Nelson ignored orders and broke through the French line on his own initiative, and it worked out.

Then, there's Admiral Anson, who took bold, independent actions during his circumnavigation of the globe.

And we can’t forget about Michiel de Ruyter, who, at times, made calls that weren’t part of the plan.

Even in the 18th century, you’ve got figures like John Paul Jones, who famously went rogue and attacked British ships off the coast of Britain, showing just how much admirals had to rely on their own judgment in real-time.

These kinds of decisions are why I think flagships might lose their significance over time. Later in the game, they could just be more about prestige, and the real naval power would come from the tactics (with other aspects of the navy taking more prominence as command structures) and fleet, not just one special ship.

 

[SAmaster]

In addition to your ideas, I think the initial doctrine could be predetermined for some nations, while the rest remain open for customization. For nations like Venice and Genoa, it's natural they'd have their own unique naval flavors—developers often lean into giving these historical powers unique naval advances, I guess. I wish I could offer a more detailed solution here, but I'm not entirely sure my suggestions would work perfectly; honestly, it just feels a bit too restrictive as-is.

Regarding your point about doctrines and war experience—when you mention that "making it so you only get doctrines with enough war experience punishes peaceful playstyles and isolated nations"—that really resonates with me. In history and in our own lives, falling behind often comes with consequences, and I believe that should be reflected in the game. It might seem harsh, but I trust that balance can be achieved. I also think that military experience alone shouldn't be the sole factor for earning doctrines; diplomatic stances, as well as the views of the nobility and merchant classes, should play a significant role.

For absolute monarchies, we might still need some of these restrictions, but perhaps with less severe consequences compared to republics. If the estates remain loyal, everything's fine, but if not, a chain of disobedience or even mutinies from distant armies might occur. I believe this approach adds a genuine, realistic complexity to how doctrines evolve and how a leader's decisions impact their nation.

Ideally I would prefer everyone start with a single doctrine, similar to EUIV (though that's only for the majors), but I don't know if it'd be feasible history wise given a large lack of historical records for the 1300's in large parts of the world. Though I figure each nation is going to only have access to two-to-three paths. I think the Imperator Rome system of mixing and matching them if you assimilate enough of a culture is the most fun- but I can't really see the Spanish adopting Aztec methods of warfare. There's an argument that colonists learned a lot from native americans, in particular with pathfinding, but you can't really argue it was a largescale adoption sort of thing.

I don't think there should be nation specific doctrines though- I figure this would be something best determined by tech-groups, with western nations sharing the same tree- but with paths built to accustom different chunks of the map. For instance a bonus to galley combat for mediterranean nations. Other than that, I think individual nation flavor should be restricted to like buffs they get from missions or decisions, or unique unis or levies, or buildings withing their territory and the like.

How about this as a compromise for war experience- what if there's some sort of 'invite military advisors' mechanic? An example I would think of is how Marquis de Lafateyette helped reform the Continental Army of the US along modern european lines at Valley Forge. If you have friendly relations or an alliance with a nation that has way more advanced doctrines than you, you can invite military advisors for them, and for a cost (probably not too much cash since sending a handful of guys is cheap, probably more you need like 75% of your force limit up or something similar so you have a military you can train and thus reform- I can see mercenaries counting for this given how important they were to some nations militaries), you put them in training (probably need them to be somewhere safe so an invading army doesn't crush them) you then get a ton of discounts based on your allied nations doctrines. This would add an extra level of diplomacy to warfare, an act similar to a sort of 'westernization' mechanic. This training exercise should also boost relations with both nations. I think the only complication would be having alternate doctrines- say I play as Hawaii with a Polynesian Doctrine, and I ally the Ming. The Ming army is going to be more advanced, but they won't share military doctrines with me. But pretend I've already conquered all other Polynesian tags. So there'd be no other polynesian tag to train with. And logically the Ming would have more experience and tech- even if it might not be suited to the Polynesian way of warfare (focused on island hopping and the like). You should still get a bonus, but maybe not as strong as with a same tech-group nation.

I don't see why monarchies would have a different way they handle their armies in this regard, but I could see that mutiny events could damage your reserves of military experience- as people leaving the army removes their experience with them.

 

[Le Vengur]

Your example of the Nile can be extended further—let's not forget admirals like Admiral Nelson, who famously broke from the standard battle plans to chase down the French at Trafalgar In other words, —Nelson ignored orders and broke through the French line on his own initiative, and it worked out.

Breaking the line at Trafalgar was always the plan, and Nelson was the commander of the Mediterranean fleet (though amusingly only a vice-admiral), there were no orders beyond destroying the Franco-Spanish fleet.

These kinds of decisions are why I think flagships might lose their significance over time. Later in the game, they could just be more about prestige, and the real naval power would come from the tactics (with other aspects of the navy taking more prominence as command structures) and fleet, not just one special ship.

You don't really see earlier flagships being significantly superior though. Good tactics, and most importantly good seamanship has always been the key to naval dominance. If anything the prestige-aspect was more of a factor in the 15-1600s.

 

[Conde de Montanelas]

Hey there, interesting thread.

First of all, let me say I'm 100% for (naval) historical accuracy and, especially, unique ship types - that is, not unique ships (naval units) themselves.
Having said this, it seems to me you're thinking in reverse a bit, meaning you're attributing to specific vessels some qualifiers (legendary, powerful, status symbol, massive, etc.) that either came about because of a the ship's career, or because it was built on the larger end of the size spectrum for a given time or age.

In your list of ships you mention three I'm particularly fond of: Frol de la Mar, São João, and De Zeven Provicien.

Spoiler

The Frol de la Mar entered history because of a number of factors, namely longevity, its role in the Battle of Diu, and its loss while laden with valuable cargo. We know that it was a large ship for the time, but not oversized by any means. It was most likely well constructed and well armed, with good quality guns. It also probably counted among its crew with good pilots and other competent people in essential roles.
It's for these reasons that it was often chosen for admiral-ship, not that it was built for this specific purpose.

The São João is a very mythified vessel. In this day and age some people still assert it did indeed carry 366 guns, which is obvioulsy false (because it's impossible).
We do know it was large - several sources refer to it as being a galeão grande (big galleon, literally) - and that it was probably well armed (for a late 1520s galleon). We also know it didn't have very good seakeeping abilities.
Everything else is conjecture and legend, mostly originating in 18th century romantic stories coupled with the loss of records with the 1755 earthquake.

The De Zeven Provincien - besides being an extremely beautiful ship - has an excellent combat record, it was quite well armed for its size, but by no means can it be seen as "massive" or a "show-off" vessel. While being a large vessel it wasn't oversized, indeed it had very reasonable and harmonious lines, nor was it the largest Dutch ship of its time.

Vessels like these came to be well-known (and oftentimes mythified) because of their service - service that was always very dependent upon the commanding officer, and due to some particular characteristics being exagerated overtime, not because they were conceived as super weapons (those, more often than not, ended up turning into submarines).

We already know flagships won't be returning, and I applaud that. I disliked being able to customize only one ship out of the whole navy, it felt unnatural and gamey.

In my view, two interesting approaches can be taken: (I lean towards the 1st one)

1) We can have multiple categories within a ship type, with different attributes and maintenance requirements. For example light galleon/ galleon/ heavy galleon for the 16th/17th century; 60/80/100 gun ship for the 17th/18th century; 4th/3rd/2nd/1st/heavy 1st rate ship for the remainder of the game.

In this case, unique types could be something like instead of a generic light galleon, English light galleon; or instead of a generic 3rd rate, a French 3rd rate. Something that would buff each type - with appropriate characteristics according to national origin - for the same amount of maintenance.

I also think this should not be entirely locked out to foreign nations. They (specific ship types) can, and should, be developed by the historical nation who did so, but in time other nations could adopt - as they often did - ship lines and types developed by others.
(With caveats, naturally. I think the Danes could build according to English or French designs (or their own), but I don't think Vietnam, for example, can start building frigates along Venetian lines).

2) We could, in due time, have a fully customizable shipbuilding tool. This could be quite fun imo, and allow for a more organic variability in designs. I seriously doubt it will ever happen tho, as it would require a huge degree of fine-tuning good requirements, ship attributes, etc.

Cheers

 

[treb]

Friend, history has been brutal when it comes to losing flagships and admirals. Like, take the Battle of Salamis—Admiral Ariabignes, aka Xerxes’ brother and one of Persia’s top dogs, got wrecked early when Greek marines stormed his ship. That one kill sent the whole Persian fleet into chaos. And it wasn’t just because they lost a guy—Persia’s navy was a mix of different subject nations (Phoenicians, Egyptians, Cilicians, etc.), all with separate commanders. So, once the big names started dropping, their whole coordination fell apart.

And it’s not like this was a one-time thing. Look at what happened after Salamis:

1. Battle of Red Cliffs (208 CE) – Cao Cao’s fleet got absolutely dunked on, not just because of disease but because they lost control. Once their ships got set on fire and chaos spread, leadership crumbled, and the whole navy basically ceased to exist.
2. Battle of Trafalgar (1805) – Nelson got shot and died, but the Brits had already secured a win at that point. Now, if that had happened earlier? The battle could’ve gone sideways real fast. Meanwhile, on the French side, when Villeneuve got captured, their fleet was like “uhh, now what? yes, confusion.” and completely fell apart.

Now, about the game—you’re saying naval mechanics don’t really matter unless you’re a colonizer or an island state, and yeah, if you’re playing Ottomans, Byzantines, Austrians, or Timurids, you’re probably just stacking infantry and rolling through Europe. I get it. But for people who love naval warfare—Venice, Calicut, Genoa, Portugal, or any seafaring nation—There are plenty of folks who live and breathe naval warfare—ignoring them would kill the passion for a whole lot of players. You might not care about ships, but some of us are out here trying to relive our admiral dreams, y’know?

I see your point—for your playstyle, land focus makes total sense. But I’d personally go for a hybrid model. Like, if I’m playing the Ottomans and I want to mess with Spain, I could just walk over with my armies… or I could use my navy to cut off supplies, block reinforcements, and slowly starve them out. Attrition’s a thing, and sometimes having a strong navy is more important than just throwing more dudes at the enemy.

Different people play differently, and naval warfare should actually feel like a real option, not just a side gimmick. You’ve got your way of playing, I’ve got mine, and that’s cool! But having deeper naval mechanics just means more ways to play, not less. Hope that makes sense!

But thats the thing it is a situational side gimmick. With most nations I can play a game with no navy and not be that effected, But if I try to play with no army its going to be a short game. Don't get me wrong I enjoy playing in Malaya(mapahaj-mahajarp-majahapit my beloved) as much as I do India or Europe, but navies outside of particular nations and area's really are just either optional to downright pointless for most if not the entire campaign. Its not that I don't like naval mechanics but that its very much lower down on the list of priorities, and if it came down to it id much rather see revamped trade, colonization, infrastructure, production or land warfare over this.

 

[Conde de Montanelas]

But thats the thing it is a situational side gimmick. With most nations I can play a game with no navy and not be that effected, But if I try to play with no army its going to be a short game. Don't get me wrong I enjoy playing in Malaya(mapahaj-mahajarp-majahapit my beloved) as much as I do India or Europe, but navies outside of particular nations and area's really are just either optional to downright pointless for most if not the entire campaign. Its not that I don't like naval mechanics but that its very much lower down on the list of priorities, and if it came down to it id much rather see revamped trade, colonization, infrastructure, production or land warfare over this.

Whenever there's a large enough trade volume, goods and people moving around, the sea will always be fundamental, not a side business.

During the height of the Roman Empire, the sea was instrumental in its prosperity and in creating such a large integrated economic space
When the Western Roman Empire could no longer exercise effective control of the sea, it lost Mauritania and Africa to the Vandals, greatly weakening a state that depended on an integrated economy.

As your avatar, I can see the coat of arms of Eastern Rome.
I'm sure you know how vital the Eastern Roman navy was during the early Islamic expansion, when Arab armies laid siege to Constantinople. The Rome of the East was literally saved by its fleet.

Later on, as trade routes between continents got more developed in the aftermath of early European exploration and expansion, economies - and therefore the state - grew increasingly more dependent upon the sea, and the revenue it provided. Whoever managed to gain the upper hand at sea was able to severely impact land affairs.
The United States owe their independence, in a great deal, to the French victory at Chesapeake.
Later on, British naval superiority - turned into supremacy at Trafalgar - meant the UK would be able to, first and foremost, dissipate any immediate threat to its home territory, and, crucially, to financially support its war effort throughout the Napoleonic wars, outlasting and outsmarting its continental foe.

While agreeing with you that sea control can be seen as secondary at the start of the game, it surely cant be seen in that light by the game's end.

 

[Le Vengur]

The São João is a very mythified vessel. In this day and age some people still assert it did indeed carry 366 guns, which is obvioulsy false (because it's impossible).
We do know it was large - several sources refer to it as being a galeão grande (big galleon, literally) - and that it was probably well armed (for a late 1520s galleon). We also know it didn't have very good seakeeping abilities.
Everything else is conjecture and legend, mostly originating in 18th century romantic stories coupled with the loss of records with the 1755 earthquake.

Did Portugal build any real first rates or heavy Galleons?