We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
First rates, not to my knowledge. I think the heaviest were a pair 90-gun 2nd rates.
Heavy galleons, depends a bit on the year we consider, but I'd say yes.
We know of the flagship in India in 1525, São Dinis, arming a battery of 36 pieces (2-4 chasers), for a total of 65 guns when including light pieces and swivel guns.
Then the ones captured in 1580 and which took part in the fleet sent by the Spanish against England, 11 in total, we have the São Martinho with 48 heavy guns (not including swivels) and a couple of others quite well armed.
By the second half of the 17th century their armament seems to have stabilized around 60 pieces (fully equipped when the Crown had enough funds to spare, mind you the pressing needs of the Restoration War), with some outliers carrying perhaps up to 80.
They then fade away as a distinct type of ship, being re-classified as ships of the line by the 1680s.
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.
Imperator's approach is a well-working system, and it would be fascinating to see the same evolving cultural acceptance and adoption of military tactics in the New World. Yes, Native Americans could excel in pathfinding (although not to the same extent as artillery), and this could be a nice addition for colonists—possibly even giving an edge to those who are engaging with Native Americans and meddling with other colonial powers in the Americas.
For the Aztecs, perhaps the Spaniards might learn some lessons about defensive tactics. Take the Tenochtitlan siege, for example—their defensive system was so effective against invasions by other tribes for many years, even decades?, and it made quite an impact on the Spaniards.
I must say, if there isn’t going to be nation-specific doctrines, then there needs to be a "westernisation" mechanic. For instance, Barbary states could adopt Western doctrine (though not for free) by hiring military engineers and reforming their armies. I think that would be a really good option.
One more thing: if every nation has unique unit diversity, I believe there won’t be too much criticism over uneven standards between nations.
The idea of inviting military advisors should work well with your suggestion. And your proposal to add an extra layer of diplomacy to warfare would be a welcome addition, too.
Also, mutiny should impose negative modifiers on the army's experience and their loyalty (or perhaps even nobility). I reckon this would have a huge impact in the early game compared to the late game. Additionally, when soldiers leave the army—those pops should transfer their experience to their new location. Maybe there’s an (holy) order involved there, and this order could benefit from the experience of these mutinied soldiers. This would be a unique feature, as I’m not aware of any game that has something quite like this.
That is quite surprising, considering Portugal was by all accounts a mainly naval power up to the Napoleonic wars, at least.
Would there have been issues with sourcing appropriate timber for larger ships? I know here in Sweden and in Britain as well there were serious issues with finding large oaks of the right shapes in the early 1800s, leading to several large plantations which are only now maturing.
And would the conditions have placed higher demands on ships built for the central Atlantic and Mediterranean? The fairly calm Baltic often led to some enthusiastic armament plans. With the occasional ship deciding to sink due to wind (Vasa) or just some poor seamanship (Kronan).
And just to throw in another possibly unanswerable question: Did Portugal prefer Bronze or Iron guns?
Sweden, having large copper mines preferred Bronze well into the late 1600s. Nearby Denmark being made of sand and chalk stuck to Iron. As a result Swedish ships would prioritize gunnery as the Bronze guns would be less likely to explode and shower the gun deck with iron splinters. Denmark would accordingly prefer boarding. Did the Portuguese have a preference (beyond naming all their ships Nossa Senhora something)?
Would there have been issues with sourcing appropriate timber for larger ships? I know here in Sweden and in Britain as well there were serious issues with finding large oaks of the right shapes in the early 1800s, leading to several large plantations which are only now maturing.
That's quite interesting to learn.
It was a problem indeed, and it seems like it was already quite pressing by the mid 16th century, as Northern European wood starts being increasingly imported, with naval construction as its main destination.
And would the conditions have placed higher demands on ships built for the central Atlantic and Mediterranean? The fairly calm Baltic often led to some enthusiastic armament plans. With the occasional ship deciding to sink due to wind (Vasa) or just some poor seamanship (Kronan).
Portugal practically never operated (or had the need to operate) East of Gibraltar.
The main bane on our navigation, until the 1650s and 60s, was the painfully long route to India, and the heavy death toll it entailed.
I have a table somewhere with the detailed losses of the Carreira da Índia, but most ship losses probably occurred within sight of land.
And just to throw in another possibly unanswerable question: Did Portugal prefer Bronze or Iron guns?
Sweden, having large copper mines preferred Bronze well into the late 1600s. Nearby Denmark being made of sand and chalk stuck to Iron. As a result Swedish ships would prioritize gunnery as the Bronze guns would be less likely to explode and shower the gun deck with iron splinters. Denmark would accordingly prefer boarding
That's actually an easy one to answer, and it's bronze! (for the heavy guns, swivels were almost always iron)
Portuguese classical historiography sings praises to our bronze guns over the Muslim iron ones in the Indian Ocean. Can probably be explained by having some fairly large copper deposits in the south of the country, plus naval artillery was a national priority until the loss of independence (so no costs spared there). Indeed the last galleons of the 1670s still mounted bronze guns.
I think the main reason for this was the (over-reliance on the) alliance with England coupled with the readjustment that the Portuguese sphere of influence had suffered by the early 18th century.
The country no longer had the need to maintain a costly naval presence scattered around the world; Brazil, West Africa and Europe were deemed financially and politically "enough" by the state. Therefore, the navy simply had to secure the lines with Brazil and keep a toothy enough presence in Europe to not have an enemy fleet sailing up the Tejo and bombarding Lisbon. It was... cost-effective: not the bare minimum, but not that far from it either.
That's quite interesting to learn.
It was a problem indeed, and it seems like it was already quite pressing by the mid 16th century, as Northern European wood starts being increasingly imported, with naval construction as its main destination.
The Swedish plantation on Visingsö formally matured in 1975, just a tad too late. The New Forest in England was likewise heavily planted in the 17-1800s.
Fun fact: From the mid 1700s onward all Oak trees in Sweden have been royal property. Cutting one down carried the death penalty at times. As was the soil under every barn in the country from 1510 to 1800 (for the production of saltpeter).
Imperator's approach is a well-working system, and it would be fascinating to see the same evolving cultural acceptance and adoption of military tactics in the New World. Yes, Native Americans could excel in pathfinding (although not to the same extent as artillery), and this could be a nice addition for colonists—possibly even giving an edge to those who are engaging with Native Americans and meddling with other colonial powers in the Americas.
For the Aztecs, perhaps the Spaniards might learn some lessons about defensive tactics. Take the Tenochtitlan siege, for example—their defensive system was so effective against invasions by other tribes for many years, even decades?, and it made quite an impact on the Spaniards.
I must say, if there isn’t going to be nation-specific doctrines, then there needs to be a "westernisation" mechanic. For instance, Barbary states could adopt Western doctrine (though not for free) by hiring military engineers and reforming their armies. I think that would be a really good option.
One more thing: if every nation has unique unit diversity, I believe there won’t be too much criticism over uneven standards between nations.
The idea of inviting military advisors should work well with your suggestion. And your proposal to add an extra layer of diplomacy to warfare would be a welcome addition, too.
Also, mutiny should impose negative modifiers on the army's experience and their loyalty (or perhaps even nobility). I reckon this would have a huge impact in the early game compared to the late game. Additionally, when soldiers leave the army—those pops should transfer their experience to their new location. Maybe there’s an (holy) order involved there, and this order could benefit from the experience of these mutinied soldiers. This would be a unique feature, as I’m not aware of any game that has something quite like this.
Some degree of military integration could be feasible, but it's entirely ahistoric to see a full integration of military tactics for the historic era. I think it's better if we just look at some edge cases and give them some light buffs.
While I think there should be some sort of 'westernization' mechanic, I think something like 'westernized tactics' used by various non-western nations would be better represented as being at the top of various nations doctrine trees, than the full adoption of western tactics (which while good in a lot of circumstances, may not be as well suited to locale terrain). 'Westernization' I think should be more about playing catch-up, and mind you, not always from a western nation. In a prior example I used Hawaii and the Ming. Logically the fact that the Ming are Chinese wouldn't impact that they'd have a much more advanced military and several institutions that you'd want to study to advance your own nation. In such a case you wouldn't be integrating 'western tactics' in such a scenario, and I think it's a bit much to make edge-cases like that have custom content you know? Hence my idea that if you have different 'doctrine groups' but your senior nation still has more of theirs unlocked there's the 'military advisors' option gets you a net bonus. So it's less about integrating the other nations tactics (mechanically) and more about reaching parity of number of doctrines unlocked.
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.
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.
This is exactly the point. In naval warfare, the admiral should have way more freedom than a land general. Instead of following a detailed plan, he’d get just a rough objective and then use his own initiative to take it from there—that’s the main difference that should set naval gameplay apart from land battles. Honestly, I don’t think any of the GSG games have ever implemented this kind of freedom, and it would be really unique if they did. Of course, the developers would have to be on board with the idea first—which, sadly, seems unlikely. I often feel like I’m just tossing my ideas into the void on these forums.
Also, seamanship shouldn’t just be about accumulated experience; it should be a standard of quality on its own. Think of it like this: advances in naval tech or even the establishment of military schools—like that innovative Portuguese king did at the very southern tip of his country just before sending off the first exploration mission in the 15th century—could really shape how effective your navy is.
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.
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.
You make some excellent points. When you mentioned that the Frol de la Mar “probably counted among its crew with good pilots and other competent people in essential roles,” it really struck a chord with me. I believe that crew competence should be a key criterion when designing flagships. The flagship’s crew ought to be elite and distinct from regular vessels, yes, extra bit of tactical brilliance.
I must say, I still wonder why people keep mentioning 366 guns—specifically "366".
Regarding the De Zeven Provincien, your observations are spot on. It clearly demonstrates that a flagship need not be enormous or purely a showpiece; rather, its combat record and balanced design highlight that quality and tactical acumen are far more important than sheer size.
I also appreciate your idea of buffing ship types with national characteristics while keeping maintenance costs uniform. This would indeed level the playing field between traditionally seafaring nations and those without such a legacy, making the competition fairer overall.
On the topic of unique ship types, I understand that some argue historical ship types might limit other nations from developing superior designs. While I recognise the allure of, say, a “galeão grande” for Ming or Polynesia, such a change would necessitate a different historical backdrop. The current ahistorical setup is part of the game’s charm—even if it does mean some nations start with an advantage.
Lastly, I’m quite curious about the shipbuilding tool you mentioned. What sort of options might it unlock through advancements? Could it enhance shipbuilding technology, improve crew recruitment, or even offer navigational and colonisation modifiers?
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.
Naval warfare was crucial in history and played a massive role in supporting land campaigns. Consider these examples:
But, like, imagine this—naval warfare has always been crucial, even when land armies were the main focus.
Take Suleiman and his specially crafted ships during the siege of Belgrade, for example. His navy was vital to that operation, especially when it came to blocking supplies and reinforcing his troops. Sure, I don't know about Buda, but maybe even during the siege of Buda.
Also, think about Germanicus' campaign—he built canals (now part of the Netherlands) to move his troops to the North Sea. He didn’t build those canals just for his troops to swim across, did he? He even designed narrow triremes to fit into the rivers of Germania Magna.
Then there’s Alexander, who needed naval support to pass through the Sinai Desert and even more when he returned from the Indus Valley (remember Gedrosia-Madran desert?).
And Napoleon and Selim I, both used their navies to bypass natural obstacles, like deserts (Sinai) and seas, to keep their campaigns on track. That’s just a few examples, but the point is, without naval support, those victories (or campaigns themselves) wouldn’t have happened.
Even if you have brilliant tactics and strategy, if your soldiers aren’t properly supplied, your campaign is doomed.
Most people live on land, sure, but that doesn’t mean the navy is any less vital. For nations whose identity revolves around the sea—like, say, an Atlantean vibe—their naval combat is just as crucial as land warfare is for the rest of us.
5. Take, for example, that famous Persian invasion of Greece—would it have been possible without a robust navy backed by Phoenician support against the Athenian fleet?
So yeah, I get why some nations don’t really need a navy, but for others? It’s and was everything. If you’re playing the Mongols, sure, navy doesn’t matter much beyond some river boats. But if you’re Portugal, stuck at the edge of the known world with massive land powers breathing down your neck? The sea is your only way out.
Navies aren’t just optional—they’re the entire reason some nations even survived. Ignoring that just makes the game feel one-dimensional.
So yeah, while some might argue that a navy is just an optional extra for many nations, for places like Venice, Portugal, Genoa, Spain, England (wooden wall), Britain, France, Dutch Republic, Knights of St. John, Malacca Sultanate, Brunei, Polynesian Kingdoms, Barbary States, Hanseatic League, their navy is just as important as their army.,naval power can be the key to survival.
The sea is as much part of the game as land warfare—at least for certain nations. To this respect, it's not just an optional/gimmick mechanic, it’s a fundamental one.
Lastly, I’m quite curious about the shipbuilding tool you mentioned. What sort of options might it unlock through advancements? Could it enhance shipbuilding technology, improve crew recruitment, or even offer navigational and colonisation modifiers?
Yeah this was the second of two ways I think naval units can be better portrayed.
I'll be completely honest, I think this sort of thing might be way too deep into warfare simulation for a grand strategy game (hence why I said right away I leaned towards the first, not the second).
Anyway, what I had in mind in this regard was a tool through which you designed the vessel: length, beam, overall structure and number of decks, sailing apparatus, masts and rigging, stern and bow design, number and type of guns, crew and its subcomposition.
In this case, technology and advancements would basically allow for greater complexity when designing a ship. Better hull lines, greater length, larger beam, etc etc, very gradual.
This would allow us to perfectly customize a ship.
However, the game seems to lack the ability to translate any particularities in design, armament and complement into actual, detailed fighting power and potential.
That's why I think this is nothing more than a mirage.
The first option, while more simplistic, is easier to implement and can potentially be even more rewarding in a GSG setting.
The sea is as much part of the game as land warfare—at least for certain nations. To this respect, it's not just an optional/gimmick mechanic, it’s a fundamental one.
Most naval battles, probably every battle until the age of steam, took place near or by a coast.
Whats's depicted on the map is one of the (main) goals of those battles - sea lanes, preferential oceanic routes for ships crossing the high seas.
Control over them came to be increasingly important for a diverse number of factors.
By 1815, the nation that had secured control over the vast majority of said routes was poised to become the global hegemon, going on to establish the largest empire the world has ever seen.
There were a few deep ocean battles in the Age of Sail. The first one that springs to mind is is the Glorious First of June which took place about 750 km west of Brittany in a place Project Caesar considers impassible deep ocean.
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.
Look, your example of the Western Romans losing Northern Africa really shows how crucial a navy is for a big nation. And on the Eastern side, the navy wasn’t just for show—it was absolutely vital for the Arabs during the sieges of Constantinople, especially for keeping their supplies coming in. I gotta add, Mehmed II was next level: he literally moved ships over land in one night to bypass those crazy chains (their very existence is another proof btw) in the Bosphorus, letting them sail into the Golden Horn and hit the weaker parts of the city walls. Compare that to the Venetians breaching the walls back in 1204—if the Arabs had a navy as fabulous as Venice’s, who knows, they might've conquered it even earlier.
Then, when you look at it from an economic perspective, it’s pretty clear why a strong navy is a must. One ship can carry like 500 trade goods, while a land unit might only handle one or two. That’s a huge difference, meaning a good navy is key for a nation’s wealth.
And let's not forget the British example—Gibraltar itself proves that naval power is essential for a nation’s global influence and warfare on multiple fronts.
Sure, early on in the game, the sea might seem less important compared to land armies and trade. But as the centuries roll on and everything gets more connected, both the army and navy end up being way more influential than just local control, proximity. I even heard some "naval meta" in hoi 4. So yeah, while navies might seem like a side thing at first, they really become game-changers later on.
Most naval battles, probably every battle until the age of steam, took place near or by a coast.
Whats's depicted on the map is one of the (main) goals of those battles - sea lanes, preferential oceanic routes for ships crossing the high seas.
Control over them came to be increasingly important for a diverse number of factors.
By 1815, the nation that had secured control over the vast majority of said routes was poised to become the global hegemon, going on to establish the largest empire the world has ever seen.
There were a few deep ocean battles in the Age of Sail. The first one that springs to mind is is the Glorious First of June which took place about 750 km west of Brittany in a place Project Caesar considers impassible deep ocean.
just to add to what @korannder and @Conde de Montanelas said—I totally agree. The sea isn’t some chill, peaceful place. And @treb, have you noticed where most of the big land battles in history happened? Their pattern? The climate and conditions on land were just as brutal as at sea. It's all about realism, right? Even with all our modern tech, the deep ocean remains a treacherous zone. Here’s why:
Unpredictable Weather and Rogue Waves: Deep-sea areas, like near the Cape of Storms (cape of good hope), can suddenly unleash violent storms and massive rogue waves that catch even the best sailors off guard.
Powerful and Erratic Currents: The deep sea’s currents are strong and ever-changing. Back in the day, without proper maps or instruments, these currents could quickly toss a ship off course.
Limited Visibility and Extreme Conditions: With barely any sunlight, heavy fog, bone-chilling temperatures, and crushing pressure, the deep ocean is a hostile, almost alien environment.
Navigational and Technological Constraints: From the 14th to the 19th centuries, our navigational tools were pretty basic. Without accurate instruments, sailing in the deep sea was a risky, unpredictable venture.
Hidden Underwater Hazards: The ocean floor hides all sorts of dangers—submerged rocks, reefs, sudden drops. These hazards often led to catastrophic shipwrecks.
Structural Limitations of Historical and Today's Vessels: Ships built for coastal navigation weren’t designed to handle the brutal forces of the open ocean, making deep-sea voyages even more perilous.
Myth, Mystery, and Maritime Superstitions: Legends of sea monsters, ghost ships, and cursed waters added extra layers of dread and mystery, discouraging deep-ocean adventures.
Economic and Logistical Risks: The potential loss of ships, cargo, and crew on long deep-ocean voyages meant that, historically, most shipping stayed close to the coast where risks were lower.
The sea's always been crazy unpredictable, and that’s shaped both naval and land warfare, just like how the climate and conditions of the land shaped battles on land.
Finally, what patterns do you, @treb see when you check today's maritime traffic live map?
I also made another thread for this topic to dig into possible reasons beyond my own ideas. I know one thread should ideally focus on a single subject, so I felt this was necessary.
Would there have been issues with sourcing appropriate timber for larger ships? I know here in Sweden and in Britain as well there were serious issues with finding large oaks of the right shapes in the early 1800s, leading to several large plantations which are only now maturing.
It was a problem indeed, and it seems like it was already quite pressing by the mid 16th century, as Northern European wood starts being increasingly imported, with naval construction as its main destination.
Did Portugal’s past deforestation for shipbuilding turn into any kind of anthropogenic steppes today?
It’d be pretty cool if they added a mechanic to the game where, if you build too many ships, especially flagships that might use up more oaks, some of the forests could actually turn into man-made steppes. Kinda like how Athens has less forests now because of its huge fleet when it was the Aegean hegemon. True? I think it’d be cool to see how your actions mess with the landscape. Also, from the other player’s side, rivals, if I take out Portugal’s fleet, it’d be nice to see them not instantly rebuild it. Makes it more logical/realistic, right?
Some degree of military integration could be feasible, but it's entirely ahistoric to see a full integration of military tactics for the historic era. I think it's better if we just look at some edge cases and give them some light buffs.
You said it's "entirely ahistoric" to see a full integration of military tactics in this era, but I can't help but ask—what do you think about continuity in military tactics? Naval warfare, for example, had clear improvements over time. We had ramming and boarding in the ancient era, and later on, line formations and broadside tactics—so logically, military tactics do evolve and improve, right?
While I think there should be some sort of 'westernization' mechanic, I think something like 'westernized tactics' used by various non-western nations would be better represented as being at the top of various nations doctrine trees, than the full adoption of western tactics (which while good in a lot of circumstances, may not be as well suited to locale terrain). 'Westernization' I think should be more about playing catch-up, and mind you, not always from a western nation.
As for westernization, I don’t think it should just be part of a doctrine tree. It should be more of a decision-based mechanic, kind of like colonization. You appoint a western (or just more advanced, well, X-tern) military advisor, and from there, it becomes a process with events shaping the outcome. Estates could even play a role in it—maybe the military elite resists change, or certain factions push for reform.
In a prior example I used Hawaii and the Ming. Logically the fact that the Ming are Chinese wouldn't impact that they'd have a much more advanced military and several institutions that you'd want to study to advance your own nation. In such a case you wouldn't be integrating 'western tactics' in such a scenario, and I think it's a bit much to make edge-cases like that have custom content you know?
it makes sense that their military advancements wouldn’t be tied to being "Chinese" but just to being a powerful state with institutions worth studying. That’s fair.
Hence my idea that if you have different 'doctrine groups' but your senior nation still has more of theirs unlocked there's the 'military advisors' option gets you a net bonus. So it's less about integrating the other nations tactics (mechanically) and more about reaching parity of number of doctrines unlocked.
And yeah, your idea about doctrine groups and military advisors actually lines up with what I’m thinking. Instead of directly copying another nation’s tactics, it’s more about catching up by reaching the same level of unlocked doctrines. That makes way more sense than forcing full-on integration.
Anyway, what I had in mind in this regard was a tool through which you designed the vessel: length, beam, overall structure and number of decks, sailing apparatus, masts and rigging, stern and bow design, number and type of guns, crew and its subcomposition.
In this case, technology and advancements would basically allow for greater complexity when designing a ship. Better hull lines, greater length, larger beam, etc etc, very gradual.
This would allow us to perfectly customize a ship.
However, the game seems to lack the ability to translate any particularities in design, armament and complement into actual, detailed fighting power and potential.
That's why I think this is nothing more than a mirage.
Honestly, your customization tools could be pretty cool—it’d let us design ships exactly how we want. Maybe something like this could work as a DLC forCK4, where your character commissions their own flagship? Sounds pretty and delicious Or even for Tinto Talks 2, if they ever go that deep.
But yeah, based on what we’ve heard from Tinto so far, it doesn’t seem like it’d fit… at least, not for now.
Addressing your question head-on, the answer is no. In the present there are no biomes that can be identified as steppes in Portugal.
Answering the remainder of your question, when I was compling sources for the map's review, I came across some interesting articles, I'll see if I can dig up their links tomorrow.
It's worth remembering that by 1550 Portugal was already ~150 years deep into intense naval activity.
From what I remember, most timber hailed from these "Royal Forests" (coutos reais) or from Church Forests, and these forests did have a different geographical expression from what one might expect given current-day Pt's geography.
To keep it short, most of the woods with enough density in a ~50-60 km radius (perhaps even more) from Lisbon were gradually chopped down (with some exceptions, like Sintra). In the North of the country, as well, there are texts describing "naked mountains".
If in the North there was a full recovery, around Lisbon not so much, especially in Ribatejo, which now mostly consists of agricultural land.
Anyway, for all of this to have even a semblance of relevance, dynamic terrain would have to be implemented...
You said it's "entirely ahistoric" to see a full integration of military tactics in this era, but I can't help but ask—what do you think about continuity in military tactics? Naval warfare, for example, had clear improvements over time. We had ramming and boarding in the ancient era, and later on, line formations and broadside tactics—so logically, military tactics do evolve and improve, right?
As for westernization, I don’t think it should just be part of a doctrine tree. It should be more of a decision-based mechanic, kind of like colonization. You appoint a western (or just more advanced, well, X-tern) military advisor, and from there, it becomes a process with events shaping the outcome. Estates could even play a role in it—maybe the military elite resists change, or certain factions push for reform.
it makes sense that their military advancements wouldn’t be tied to being "Chinese" but just to being a powerful state with institutions worth studying. That’s fair.
And yeah, your idea about doctrine groups and military advisors actually lines up with what I’m thinking. Instead of directly copying another nation’s tactics, it’s more about catching up by reaching the same level of unlocked doctrines. That makes way more sense than forcing full-on integration.
Yes tactics evolve over time, but tactics are also built into domestic concerns. An example would be the British Navy comes form the fact they are an island nation, and a nation like the Mongol Empire wouldn't be able to really properly integrate that because they don't live on a big island like the British. Likewise, Native-American warfare that relies on knowledge of local terrain and ambushes wouldn't really be a direct improvement to say the British Empire's military and it's ability to amass lines of infantry. Like the solution for the US in Vietnam isn't to adopt the same tactics as the Vietcong, because that was an asymetric conflict.
A lot of military doctrines while not mutually exclusive emphasize opposite ideologies, and can't be properly integrated. Another example, I used Polynesia as a naval example frequently, but their lifestyle on tropical islands lends itself to the population being well versed in small scale ships. This would lend advantages to the use of small ships because the population relies on them heavily, but it would not be lended to say heavy galleon warfare because that's not the kind of boat the average family uses to navigate. While sure in Alt-History they might build a fleet of heavier ships, it's not something that the local geography emphasizes, unlike the deep waters of the Atlantic incentivized their use for Western Nations. Similarly Eastern European nations also developed a different naval doctrine as the result of much smaller coastlines available. While in theory the Russians might form a North American Colony and want to move to a more western-styled navy, fact of the matter is that their livelihood comes much more from the interior land than it does the coasts, and even if they conquer most of germany they'd probably still be weighted in that direction.
Hence I figure it's best if these theoretically military doctrines are restricted to tech-groups with only minor crossover if any. 'Westernized' tactics if they are to be included I think should be more the result of the far end of the doctrine trees.
Also agreed, that's how I was thinking of the 'foreign advisors' concept. A general from an allied/friendly nation is invited to your court, maybe you assign him to an army, and this results in an event-chain that can give you something like 'military experience' to unlock more doctrines (maybe the event has more rewards, but more negative effects if the nation that is advising you has much more of their doctrine tree unlocked).
It's worth remembering that by 1550 Portugal was already ~150 years deep into intense naval activity.
From what I remember, most timber hailed from these "Royal Forests" (coutos reais) or from Church Forests, and these forests did have a different geographical expression from what one might expect given current-day Pt's geography.
To keep it short, most of the woods with enough density in a ~50-60 km radius (perhaps even more) from Lisbon were gradually chopped down (with some exceptions, like Sintra). In the North of the country, as well, there are texts describing "naked mountains".
If in the North there was a full recovery, around Lisbon not so much, especially in Ribatejo, which now mostly consists of agricultural land.
Even if there are no actual steppes today, the fact that forests around Lisbon never fully recovered shows just how deep the impact was. The mention of ‘naked mountains’ in the North is especially striking—it really paints a picture of how widespread the effects were. Thanks for shedding some light on this question
This just makes the case for dynamic terrain even stronger. Imagine if players had to think long-term about their environment, just like real nations did.
