-
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.
Yes I do totally expect it in the second half of 2019 probably at the same time of Holy Fury.
They are probably going to show us the first change that is coming with the expansion/update this Thursday as they are already heavily teasing us.
My vote for naval combat: do it Stellaris way, with some way of customizing your ships, with culture variants, with combat taking place properly with engaging and disengaging in the 'space' of a given naval zone (I think we can't get rid of them entirely, right?).
And my second vote: it won't be even considered in CKII, like at all. Too much fuss, also will require iterations of improving/bugfixing/raging fans
Better save for next generation
And my second vote: it won't be even considered in CKII, like at all. Too much fuss, also will require iterations of improving/bugfixing/raging fans
Better save for next generationMy vote for naval combat: do it Stellaris way, with some way of customizing your ships, with culture variants, with combat taking place properly with engaging and disengaging in the 'space' of a given naval zone (I think we can't get rid of them entirely, right?).
And my second vote: it won't be even considered in CKII, like at all. Too much fuss, also will require iterations of improving/bugfixing/raging fans
The issue is that it adds a ton of complexity for little reward. Naval combat was not the focus of wars in the 8th to 15th century. It would be a lot more like the armies of Stellaris compared to the navies, which im gonna be honest is so boring I always just level my enemy planets (Which is so fun to do, literally would watch worlds crack for hours on end)
Naval combat was decisive in keeping the byzantine empire alive, there naval primacy in the eastern med in the 7th to 10th centuries allowed them to ride out numerous huge sieges of Constantinople by Arabs, Avars, Persians, Slavs, Rus and Bulgarians not to mention it was the heyday of Greek fire...
Yeah, maybe not the focus, but I don't want another EU4 style naval combat in my CK. Also historical accuracy is only a part of this game - so IF we theyu are GOING to add it into the game, since sooo many fans requesting it - better do it hilariously fun from gameplay perspective. Longships, greek fire, ramming, boarding, naval related society. Once again - Stellaris approach can potentially help with different types of ships perform differently in different see zones.
Also, don't forget - we are not only talking Europe, we need to remember about India and Chinese naval expeditions in Bengal - was it a thing?
.png){kind=avatar}
Paradox has never really done naval combats in an interesting way in any of their games on top of breaking the AI. The last thing CK needs is the AI worrying about boats IMO.
I remember having a discussion about the possibilities of naval combat and the idea that naval combat is important in the Mediterranean but not really Northern Europe would have to be modeled in some form. Either way there were some good ideas but the long and short of it is that there needs to be something for having a navy besides just troop ferrying, especially given how the fleets kept Constantinople supplied during the Arab sieges (and other coastal sieges as well) but also the sea walls were attacked by Venetian marines during the 4th crusade causing huge damage. The fleets were of critical importance early in the period to the Byz and Arabs and later on to the merchant republics who projected power through them (and the Cholas in India as well).
But like @Dagda has said if Paradox can't do something well and interesting (or at least valuable) naval wise, then I would be fine with maybe a few more triggered events to happen during actions like embarking/disembarking or when sailing etc just to give something more than scurvy.
But like @Dagda has said if Paradox can't do something well and interesting (or at least valuable) naval wise, then I would be fine with maybe a few more triggered events to happen during actions like embarking/disembarking or when sailing etc just to give something more than scurvy.
I have an alternative theory for the fourth portrait. Or at the very least, Paradox is overlooking a powerful Muslim leader that is very interesting, for a duke. It's not that I don't find the current theory in this thread convincing (it is the identical CoA), but that I think it's also equally possible that they accidentally reused the same family CoA (because this would be a new family) and/or shuffled them around.
I want to propose that the fourth portrait is instead the founder of the Buyid dynasty, Imad al-Dawla. The Buyids had a very sudden surge in this time period, expanding rapidly and acting as a credible rival to the Abbassids as the title of the most powerful family in the Middle East. At their height, they even took Baghdad for themselves! The most famous Buyid was his grandson, Adud al-Dawla, who revived the title of Shanashah (or, in CK2 terms, formed the Persian Empire as a Muslim ruler) and was indisputably the most powerful man in the Middle East. The Buyids, however, would go pretty much extinct before the 1066 start, as the Seljuks entered the region. Which is why they'd be a new dynasty added to the game, relatively speaking (unless they're already in the history files, which apologies if so).
I think highlighting the Buyids in this start would be a great idea, to make the Middle East more dynamic (the Abbasid blob would have a significant rival). They're also Shia, so you could end up forming a Shia caliphate with them in the course of gameplay.
I want to propose that the fourth portrait is instead the founder of the Buyid dynasty, Imad al-Dawla. The Buyids had a very sudden surge in this time period, expanding rapidly and acting as a credible rival to the Abbassids as the title of the most powerful family in the Middle East. At their height, they even took Baghdad for themselves! The most famous Buyid was his grandson, Adud al-Dawla, who revived the title of Shanashah (or, in CK2 terms, formed the Persian Empire as a Muslim ruler) and was indisputably the most powerful man in the Middle East. The Buyids, however, would go pretty much extinct before the 1066 start, as the Seljuks entered the region. Which is why they'd be a new dynasty added to the game, relatively speaking (unless they're already in the history files, which apologies if so).
I think highlighting the Buyids in this start would be a great idea, to make the Middle East more dynamic (the Abbasid blob would have a significant rival). They're also Shia, so you could end up forming a Shia caliphate with them in the course of gameplay.
Last edited:
They could just have a special ship type (galley) which can only be built in provinces bordering the Mediterranean and suffer heavy attrition if they try to leave the Mediterranean/coastline- or maybe have them unable to enter open sea at all. Just brainstorming here.
On naval combat, my recollection from the last time it came up is that there are only a couple dozen recorded naval battles in the game's time frame to several hundred land battles, and most of the naval actions were blockade related.
I think having blockades and supply ships and being able to add troops to a garrison by boat are more interesting than having boats fight. Boat fights were annoying in Europa universalis and I don't miss them.
I think having blockades and supply ships and being able to add troops to a garrison by boat are more interesting than having boats fight. Boat fights were annoying in Europa universalis and I don't miss them.
The only naval warfare I could envision, for Northern Europe at least, is when one transported army meets another transported army at sea (perhaps only in coastal provinces) they should fight it out like it was a land battle.
But that really becomes pointless because the ones with the largest army will be stronger. There would be no strategic advantage to building a fleet.
But that really becomes pointless because the ones with the largest army will be stronger. There would be no strategic advantage to building a fleet.
.png){kind=avatar}
Overhaul of naval mechanics would be nice.
Not necessarily naval combat.
Things like attrition at sea, naval supply, coastal province siege...
Heck, if anything, events for your armies and characters while at sea would be awesome.
Not necessarily naval combat.
Things like attrition at sea, naval supply, coastal province siege...
Heck, if anything, events for your armies and characters while at sea would be awesome.
I don't know why, but it reminds me of Friedrich I who drowned in a river while marching to the Holy land, which may also happen on a ship across the sea...
When your army is near water, there could be some events describing a courtier or commander who unfortunately drowned, though it may be quite frustrating...
There are a bunch of interesting Muslim rulers (and other rulers, for that matter) at this point; they can't highlight them all. I've already mentioned Abd al-Rahman III, who declared himself Caliph in Cordoba. I imagine they highlighted the Qarmatians because they are their own new heresy (probably with interesting features) and somewhat notorious, while we already have a Shiite Caliph at this point: the Fatimids (and the Fatimid Caliph is explicitly listed).
Surely the most significant example of this would be the White Ship disaster, which killed the heir to the English throne (along with a bunch of other important English nobles/royalty) and directly led to the Anarchy?
For Qarmatians, I hope that Paradox could add a decision to rob the Black Stone for ourselves, which may cost a lot piety, but will also make the moral authority of Sunni and Shia drop sharply. So there should be an event to ransom it , paying a lot of gold and prestige for much piety and stop the debuff. There should be an event to return it, too, which may increase muslims' opinion upon you, as well as offerring much piety and prestiege.