Navigable Rivers?

[Megas Methuselah]

If you create the new terrain, I think so.

But can you create new terrain?

[a completely inoffensive name]

But can you create new terrain?

The same effect could nonetheless obtained with a terrain type called e.g. "river bank" which would have a lot smaller movement cost than other terrains. So, moving by riverbanks would be faster without the need for invisible roads.

Apparently.

[Puupertti Ruma]

I don't know if you can create new terrain, but I am pretty sure that you can retexture old terrain, choose where that terrain is drawns on the map and modify it's movement penalty (well, in RTW you can at least). What I don't know for sure if you can rename terrain.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Isn't there two types of terrain that isn't used? Or maybe I am thinking of the RS textures.

[Megas Methuselah]

I don't know if you can create new terrain, but I am pretty sure that you can retexture old terrain, choose where that terrain is drawns on the map and modify it's movement penalty (well, in RTW you can at least). What I don't know for sure if you can rename terrain.

Hey, that's pretty ground-breaking, Puupertti! But I doubt anything like this will happen. As cool as navigable rivers may seem, Marcus had a point in his earlier post:

Rivers will most likely not be navigable, especially if they look weird/ugle, like a deep narrow bay.

However, who's to say the terrain around normal rivers shouldn't be given movement penalties by themselves? That would be especially realistic and helpful, as you wouldn't have to entirely rely on roads alone for movement penalties. It also reduces the importance of roads, and makes it seem more practical to simply not build roads in river-rich provinces!

[Cambyses]

For those asking for proof of whether warships ever actually sailed on these rivers, I wouldnt know for anywhere in the East, but certainly there were battles on the Nile in ancient times. Thucydides gives a decent account of such an event re the Athenian expedition in the mid 4th century BC. In the North, then the Vikings can provide sufficient evidence of which rivers were navigable by ocean going ships - although of course their ships were relatively "flat" in comparison to others.

This would add another interesting dimension to the game but it does raise a few questions for me.

1. How would the AI handle it?
2. Can a river be navigable and still have bridges/fords?
3. Are bridges over certain rivers meant to be realistic or actually just representative of ferries?
4. Can river access be limited to certain types of ships?
5. If this would require a lot of work, would it be worth it?

[Ludens]

1. How would the AI handle it?
2. Can a river be navigable and still have bridges/fords?
3. Are bridges over certain rivers meant to be realistic or actually just representative of ferries?
4. Can river access be limited to certain types of ships?
5. If this would require a lot of work, would it be worth it?

Viking longboats are not comparable to triremes, so their example doesn't count. The lower Nile certainly was navigable by triremes and bigger, though.

1) It will simply treat the rivers as sea. It probably won't understand that it can be blocked by putting a ship there, but it doesn't understand how to block mountain passes either.
2) No. Well, technically, the team can create landbridges like for example at Byzantion, but I suspect that will require the river to take an odd shape.
3) Both, I suspect. I don't think there were bridges over the Rhine and lower Danube until the Romans built them. In any case, there would have been more crossing points, so these must have been the ones big enough for an army,
4) No.
5) No, but it would make the rivers look weird and be uncrossable for armies.

[XSamatan]

2) No. Well, technically, the team can create landbridges like for example at Byzantion, but I suspect that will require the river to take an odd shape.

4) No.

5) No, but it would make the rivers look weird and be uncrossable for armies.

2.In MTW 2 you can create transitions form shore to shore (those green double arrows), with this you could represent bridges and fords. But you will not be able to get roads to these transitions, due to hardcoded limits.

4. Yes. If you block the river delta and give regions at the river the opportunity to built special river-ships

5.IMHO that is a personal thing. Sure, you can never represent it historical right, but things like phalangites, recruitment and goverment system or minor factions are also represented how historical the engine allows it. AFAIK it would add a new strategic depth, both for human and AI.

XSamatan

PS:If you want to see how it works and try that stuff, Deus Lo Vult has navigable rivers....check it out
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=309

[Ludens]

2.In MTW 2 you can create transitions form shore to shore (those green double arrows), with this you could represent bridges and fords. But you will not be able to get roads to these transitions, due to hardcoded limits.

4. Yes. If you block the river delta and give regions at the river the opportunity to built special river-ships

5.IMHO that is a personal thing. Sure, you can never represent it historical right, but things like phalangites, recruitment and goverment system or minor factions are also represented how historical the engine allows it. AFAIK it would add a new strategic depth, both for human and AI.

XSamatan

PS:If you want to see how it works and try that stuff, Deus Lo Vult has navigable rivers....check it out
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=309

2. , you are absolutely right. Can't have bridge battles there, but I suppose it's only realistic.

4. I think the OP meant to ask if it could be set that only certain ships could enter the river. It's not the same as entirely blocking the river.

5. Indeed it is. However, I wonder how the A.I. would cope with this "new strategic depth". Badly, I suspect, because it was not designed with these circumstances/limitations in mind.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Personally, I wouldn't mine the lower Danube and lower Nile being navigable, maybe a tiny bit of the Rhine. Other rivers I can't really see. Though it all comes back to it looking stupid, damaging trade, or confusing the AI.

[Cartaphilus]

Can't have bridge battles there, but I suppose it's only realistic.

I think that most of players don't miss those boring bridge battles.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think that most of players don't miss those boring bridge battles.

Its only fun to me when there are two groups of swordmen fighting in the middle of the bridge while groups of archers on both sides are shooting arrows all over the place. When I reenact that scene from my mind with EB, bridge battles never get boring.

[Megas Methuselah]

I think that most of players don't miss those boring bridge battles.

Too true. It only served as a temptation to monstrously take advantage of the Artificial Idiocy. Perhaps if the AI is sufficiently intelligent-ized, bridge battles might prove to be a lot more fun, but as it was in RTW, they ended up being something of a farce.

[Cartaphilus]

I hope that.

But I'd prefer some navigable rivers (two or three, no more - Nile, Danube and Rhin maybe), ad we will see if they are funnier thant the bridge or ford battles.

About the question of the rivers I think that a navigable river will not be so different than the channel that in EBI is connecting the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

[General Appo]

So none of you have experienced the massive joy that comes from fighting a bridge battle with Armoured Elephants on your side? Absolutely hilarious.

[satalexton]

I have....close enough at least. My elephants weren't armoured >_>

[Cartaphilus]

So none of you have experienced the massive joy that comes from fighting a bridge battle with Armoured Elephants on your side? Absolutely hilarious.

Yes, but repeating it turn after turn makes it less funny and finally boring.

[Subotan]

So none of you have experienced the massive joy that comes from fighting a bridge battle with Armoured Elephants on your side? Absolutely hilarious.

Yes, and when they die on the bridge itself, lulz ensues.

Yes, but repeating it turn after turn makes it less funny and finally boring.

When that happens, I go off and make a cup of tea, maybe read the newspaper. I come back and my phalaxes have chopped everything up

[antisocialmunky]

EB+BI+Swimming never gets old. Not only are bridges less important, but watching 1000 + bodies float down the Dnieper in the ensuing rout is pretty friggin hilarious.

[Gryffeth]

Well, what if some generals had a trait to move on rivers, as some generals probably couldn't 'manage' such a thing, or really never thought about it. In MTW2 when a general moved to the sea, he could buy a ship to sail on. What if the same concept was applied to a qualified general. When the general moves to the river, of course only the main rivers, he can go to his mercenary scroll and buy a ferry, or in 'reality', build one, and move on the river.