Because they used a word that a Tumblrette also used rather than stick with using traits like Chaste and Celibate to model asexuality (the event text upon acquiring the former implies it), so clickbaiters smelled blood in the water. Also this is the company that makes Vampire: The Masquerade and that Women in History DLC for eu4 (in which some French circus fencer becomes a great general the instant you hire her) , so there might be a genuine fear that they'll take a reasonable concept and go full exceptional individual.
It's like they built up whatever graphical system they're using for Imperator:Rome characters and thought "Let's reskin all of our games with this!". Here's hoping that the men-at-arms system will be viable for people who aren't megablobs with endgame tech, unlike retinues, because it seems that the new tactics system is based on them.
Chaste and Celibate are NOT equivalent to asexual, though. A monk is celibate but he’s not necessarily asexual; most monks probably were heterosexual. Chaste, for its part, seems to be more of a flavorful way of saying “the opposite of lustful,” ie someone who may or may not have sexual attraction but is known for a low libido.
In fact, they really ought to have a hidden trait for virgins that has big effects for female characters.
But to me, that’s the bigger problem: the system doesn’t punish immoral behavior near as hard as it should. If the princess gets caught with a lover, it should be a big debuff to marrying her off, for example.
BTW, to expand on my pissiness about naval warfare, it would be so easy to implement conceptually.
Ships act as basic combat units. You get three phases of combat: Volley, Ramming, and Melee. When you load armies onto ships, it changes the class of the ship, ie from a Transport Ship to an Archer Ship, or a Heavy infantry Ship, etc.
The type of unit changes it. For example, Volley favors ranged infantry, Melee favors melee infantry, and Ramming probably would favor the generic ships. Cavalry is at an inherent disadvantage. Volley mostly kills army units, not ships. Ramming mostly kills ships, not army units (but if a ship goes down, it takes the units with it). Melee kills both, since killing the crew is equivalent to disabling the ship.
There are several kinds of naval province that govern movement, and cultures get special retinues/cultural building levoes. In this time period, ships mostly hugged the coast, so coastal chokepoints and coast-only combat makes sense. The Norse can go up rivers and into deep sea. The Slavs can go up rivers. The Berbers get pirate galleys that can raid coastal provinces without landing. Republics get special marine ships that are really effective at Ramming and special marine units that are effective at Melee and amphibious assaults. Republics also get merchant marines that have some mechanic to boost trade revenue when strategically placed. The Eastern Romans get fire ships that are extremely effective in Ramming (flamethrowers operate at very short distances). In the late game, Galleons are unlocked with extremely high volley and deep sea travel abilities.
I don’t know how river warfare would work.
The advantage of all this?
You don’t have to plan out ANYTHIGN extra. Fighting on sea is a direct continuation of fighting on land: you just load up your troops, and your army composition determines your navy composition, but the effectiveness of it changes in the new environment. Admirals are just generals with special traits suited to naval combat. Naval chokepoints exist. Blockades could be implemented with some expansion to the trade system. Tbe only nations that build special ships are:
- Republics, who are specialized for naval combat
- Greeks, who are basically given the ability to field a very small number of very effective special ships
- Late game empires that begin to experiment with modern-style navies
Edit: Since rivers are so narrow, my thinking there is that any naval battle on a river would be a complete clusterfuck of melee combat with no room for tactics or much of anything. You probably couldn't really maneuver properly to ram, volleys would be limited heavily by the shape of the river and whether or not it enables you to get a good aim. And, while defending land armies may not be able to ram into you with a rival fleet, they can still launch little boarding vessels and harass you from shore.
I'm fine with handwaving it all by just saying that a river battle is resolved as being a land battle, like that the land army/defending navy disembarked their ships, blocked the river somehow, and you resolve it on land before preceding. I'm not aware of any real river battles in the era in the first place, which is a problem.
