Navigable Rivers?

[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.