Navigable Rivers?

**Hax** · 11-30-2008, 12:48

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

**General Appo** · 11-30-2008, 18:25

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

**Megas Methuselah** · 12-01-2008, 04:13

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

**Cbvani** · 12-01-2008, 22:48

Originally Posted by General Appo

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** · 12-02-2008, 02:34

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

**Megas Methuselah** · 12-02-2008, 04:05

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

**Cbvani** · 12-02-2008, 13:42

Originally Posted by lobf

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** · 12-02-2008, 13:53

Originally Posted by lobf

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** · 12-02-2008, 14:10

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** · 12-02-2008, 14:40

Originally Posted by 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

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.

**Ludens** · 12-02-2008, 19:56

Originally Posted by XSamatan

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.

Originally Posted by XSamatan

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?