Indeed. Only those rivers which were very hard to cross and were traded extensively upon should even be considered for this.
Indeed. Only those rivers which were very hard to cross and were traded extensively upon should even be considered for this.
The Appomination
I don't come here a lot any more. You know why? Because you suck. That's right, I'm talking to you. Your annoying attitude, bad grammar, illogical arguments, false beliefs and pathetic attempts at humour have driven me and many other nice people from this forum. You should feel ashamed. Report here at once to recieve your punishment. Scumbag.
Don't be so negative, Appo. It's a pretty sweet idea.
I was under the impression that shipping troops via major rivers was a fairly common practice.
I like the idea of goin' a-viking, though. Sweet.
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?
Last edited by Tellos Athenaios; 12-02-2008 at 13:53.
- Tellos Athenaios
CUF tool - XIDX - PACK tool - SD tool - EVT tool - EB Install Guide - How to track down loading CTD's - EB 1.1 Maps thread
“ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὣσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει” – Kratinos in Dionysalexandros.
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
1.2 fixes - Updated regularly. Latest news from 2009-02-01.
EB FAQ --- Tech help important thread list --- Frequent issues and solutions
Drunken chieftan said: Where the hell are those stupid horsemen of mine?
One of horsemen replied: We are all here, sir! However, you can't see us because you were fallen from your horse, sir.
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.
I don't think I quite understand what you are proposing. What would the difference be with the river port building of EB1?
Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!
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.
Forget it, a crazy idea, i even can't express to myself
XSamatan
1.2 fixes - Updated regularly. Latest news from 2009-02-01.
EB FAQ --- Tech help important thread list --- Frequent issues and solutions
Bookmarks