Navigable Rivers?

[XSamatan]

Hey EB-addicts!

How do you think on implement some navigable rivers in EBII?
Maybe the Danube, the Rhine, the Indus and the Don?
If you want to see how this works ingame, you could look on DLV, they have the Danube navigable.

In my opinion this works great, adds more tactical posibillities and it represents the rivers better than to use them just as obstacle, as in history some rivers were used to ship troops into the hinterland of your empire.

So what do you think about this point?

XSamatan

[Ludens]

The exact same question was asked on the TWC EB2 forum (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4039583#post4039583) five days ago. The answer was that the team hasn't decided yet, but probably won't since it interferes with land-trade routes.

[XSamatan]

ooops, I do not ues TWC so often, so sry!

Thanks Ludens!

BTW:Yes you will loose the land-trade routes, but you gain the sea routes, is there a difference?

XSamatan

[Cartaphilus]

Some navigable rivers could be great, Danube, Rhin and Eufrates, for example.

Remember how the Augustus Julianus aka the Apostate made his (failed) invasion of Parthian Empire.

[Ludens]

BTW:Yes you will loose the land-trade routes, but you gain the sea routes, is there a difference?

Not sure about M2:TW, but in R:TW both use different mechanisms. Land trade is automatic, sea trade depends on the presence of a port. You could give every river province such a port of course, but then they would be able to trade overseas as well. In R:TW the number of sea trade routes is also limited to three per city.

[XSamatan]

hmm, yes that is a good point.

Maybe these navigable rivers should not have a connection to the ocean, so you could control the trade routes.

I have to admit that I do not know if some cities/regions nearby these rivers had maritime trade connections to cities/regions on the costal. So that would not be ahistorical, but I have to:book:

XSamatan

[IrishHitman]

You might as well add the Liffey, the Thames, the Loire, the Seine and the Tiber to the list of prospectives..

[Hax]

Those rivers were nothing, compared to the scale of the Indus, the Danube and the Nile.

[General Appo]

Indeed. Only those rivers which were very hard to cross and were traded extensively upon should even be considered for this.

[Megas Methuselah]

Don't be so negative, Appo. It's a pretty sweet idea.

[Cbvani]

Indeed. Only those rivers which were very hard to cross and were traded extensively upon should even be considered for this.

I don't think this is very negative. I think its pretty realistic... only the MAJOR rivers are important here, like the Nile, etc.

[lobf]

I was under the impression that shipping troops via major rivers was a fairly common practice.

[Megas Methuselah]

I like the idea of goin' a-viking, though. Sweet.

[Cbvani]

I was under the impression that shipping troops via major rivers was a fairly common practice.

Yes, but the tiber on the campaign map is so very small its easier to march around Italy instead.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I was under the impression that shipping troops via major rivers was a fairly common practice.

Yes but there's a small difference in having some ferry going up & down and having a *war* fleet sailing up & down. Navigable rivers would be navigable by even the heavies kind of warships we'd include. The Tiber (for instance) definitely does not qualify: in this context it's not a mere triviality that the Romans preferred to unload the large mercantile ships elsewhere and ship the cargo to Roma using lighter vessels.

The question with navigable rivers (if it would be implemented because navigable rivers also mean 'no roads for you' AFAIK) is: what provinces have rivers that are so deep even heavy warships can sail up & downstream safely?

[XSamatan]

As we can learn from the romans:
The Rhine, Danube and Nile

I think these rivers were in history used to ship whole armies, others like Euphrat&Tigris, Themse and Loire only in very few cases.

A thought about the trading:

Could it be implemented, that these rivers (and a very small area of coast) belong to Terhazza?
This would allow to use not trading ports but instead markers which give the regions a bonus of trading?

XSamatan

[Gatalos de Sauromatae]

As we can learn from the romans:
The Rhine, Danube and Nile

I think these rivers were in history used to ship whole armies, others like Euphrat&Tigris, Themse and Loire only in very few cases.

A thought about the trading:

Could it be implemented, that these rivers (and a very small area of coast) belong to Terhazza?
This would allow to use not trading ports but instead markers which give the regions a bonus of trading?

XSamatan

Yeah! That is right.
The Rhine, Danube, Nile, Euphrates and Tigris would be navigable in EB but the lesser and shorter rivers would be only the obstacle in the map.
:rtwyes:

[Ludens]

I think these rivers were in history used to ship whole armies, others like Euphrat&Tigris, Themse and Loire only in very few cases.

But where these armies shipped in sea ships or in smaller ferries? If the latter, it would be just as well simulated by a ford.


A thought about the trading:

Could it be implemented, that these rivers (and a very small area of coast) belong to Terhazza?
This would allow to use not trading ports but instead markers which give the regions a bonus of trading?

I don't think I quite understand what you are proposing. What would the difference be with the river port building of EB1?

[XSamatan]

But where these armies shipped in sea ships or in smaller ferries? If the latter, it would be just as well simulated by a ford.
They were shipped in special ships, build only to sail on these specific rivers. But it would be a waste to create a ship for every river, maybe one for all? And then a blockade at the delta, so other ships cannot enter the river? In this case we could represent that only residents of the river could built some ships.

A ford can only be used to cross a river (this should be like it is) but these ships could be used to travel alongside the river to carry troops from the delta to the origin e.g., and to blockade some fords.





I don't think I quite understand what you are proposing. What would the difference be with the river port building of EB1?
Forget it, a crazy idea, i even can't express to myself

XSamatan

[Elmetiacos]

Shipping armies is one thing, but if you make the rivers navigable in the RTW sense, that means you'd get big fleets of triremes battling each other on the Rhine or the Nile, which would be silly.

[Ludens]

They were shipped in special ships, build only to sail on these specific rivers. But it would be a waste to create a ship for every river, maybe one for all? And then a blockade at the delta, so other ships cannot enter the river?

That could work, except that this would cut off the city at the delta from either river or sea trade (as it can have only one port, which has to be in either the river or the sea, and the two are separated by the blockade in the delta). I also think it would make the campaign map ugly if most rivers were to be one map-square wide.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

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

[oudysseos]

If the issue is that Armies/Merchants/Travellers could (in the real world) move long distances quickly by river, then could that not be simulated by making the routes of large rivers easier to move along? What I mean is, armies move further per turn on roads than across open country. Could this be applied to river courses? Essentially you'd put roads (invisible roads?) alongside the important rivers, allowing units to move along them quickly, simulating river transport.

[Puupertti Ruma]

At least in RTW the roads are generated automatically by the game, and cannot be manually put anywhere by the modders. 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.

[Celtic_Punk]

If any river should be navigable, it should be the Nile. I'd be happy with just the Nile. OoooOooOo the possibilities! >:) look out Ptolemy! here I come!

[a completely inoffensive name]

At least in RTW the roads are generated automatically by the game, and cannot be manually put anywhere by the modders.

Is that true for M2TW as well?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Is that true for M2TW as well?
Yes. It is, afterall, basically the same game engine.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I just thought maybe the improved engine allowed roads on the campaign map to be modded.

[Megas Methuselah]

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.

Is that even possible? :inquisitive:

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you create the new terrain, I think so.

[Megas Methuselah]

If you create the new terrain, I think so.

:inquisitive: But can you create new terrain?

[a completely inoffensive name]

:inquisitive: 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. :oops: , 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 :2thumbsup:

[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.