Navigable Rivers

[Isildor]

It's not a new idea, I know, and the EB team has certainly already decide about this but I want to argue here for navigable rivers in EB2.


Many mods have already included navigable rivers, or will do so, in their mods.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

They look good, better than this small ugly vanilla rivers, and they offer many benefits:


Why they should be included:

1) Rivers as trade routs:

Big rivers like the nile, the rhine, the danube, the rhone and others were used as trade routes. Merchant don't use streets to reach Memphis they traveled by ship. If this rivers would be represented by navigable rivers with river ports the trade routes would follow automatically the river course and therefore the river would become a trade route.

2) Rivers as strategic element:

Nivigable rivers would be also interesting as additional strategic element. Armies could use them to travel faster and they would therefore become a strategic element for the player to conquer, controll or defend a region. In history the romans e.g. build fleets on danube and rhine to controll the border and the river as trade route. Egypt also used it of course to transport armies. A person with more historic knowledge would find more examples.

3) Rivers as adornment of the map:

I never liked that big rivers like the nile, rhine or danube look exacly the same like any small river. The vanilla rivers look like a runlet, but in those times rivers like the rhine were very broad and therefore it wouldn't be unrealistic if they would also look broad on the campaign map. A river which is good made could look wonderful. (Look e.g. at the Anduin in TATW)


How they could be included:

1) Rivers as othe "water typ" than the open sea:

MTW vanilla has to typs of water, the normal sea and the deep sea (between Europe and America). This could be used for rivers. It would be unrealistic if big ships could use rivers. If the rivers would use the deep sea form vanilla, normal ships couldn't use them.

2) River navy:

Everybody knows that the roman empire had fleets on danube and rhine. Certainly also the sweboz had ships on their rivers and other factions to. Therefore river fleet should be inluded too when navigable rivers are included. Therefore I would propose to make ships like the Carracks in vanilla as river ships. This ships could use the rivers and the open sea while normal ships couldn't. If they would be weak (something very realistic) compared to normal war ships, it wouldn't be wise to let them drive on the open sea.

3) Merchenary ships:

MTW had the possibility to include mercenary ships. It isn't realistic that an army buys triremes at an beach but it would be realistic that an army buys or build river ships somewere on the map. This would help to make rivers a strategic element. An army could therefore go to a navigable river buy merchenery ships and use the river even if it's faction wouldn't own any province at this river.

4) Green arrows:

The green arrows look really ugly, but MTW offers the possibility to change the look of them. They could look like a ford, or an island on the river or a bride (what wouldn't be realistic for most regions). Therefore I would propose to change also the look of the green arrows. In my opinion the look of a very small island would be the best.


Which negative effects have to be considered:

1) AI behavior:

The AI ships could block the rivers. Therefore the quantaty of river ships has to be observed (the normal sea ships can't reach the rivers and therefore can't block them). Furthermore it is important that river ships don't swarm into the ocean. Some boats on the ocean would be still realistic but huge fleets of them may be a bit strange. Therefore the AI deployment of river ships has to be observed. This must be controlled by price, strenght and avalibility of river ships.

2) Disconected trade routes over the rivers:

Vanilla streets can't cross navigable rivers. Therefore maby vanilla river fords have to be placed on very important bridge places or in areas where an important trade route crosses a river. Cataracts, or other for ships unpassable places could also be replaced by vanilla fords, to make some bridges possible. There is always a trade-off between the advantages of a long navigable river part and the need of a street crossing the river. Historic and geographic facts have to be considerated here (e.g. that no bridge crossed the nile between Memphis and Assuan).

3) Ports blocking rivers:

If the rivers is just one field wide, a port blocks the way through the river for ships of other factions. This could result in traffic jams . But this would annihilate the strategic advantages of navigable rivers, but on the other hand ports are important to make rivers a trade route. Therefore it is important that an army on a river ship can deploy a new merchanary ship after exit their ships and going behind the blocking port. But one could also argue that it is realistic that it isn't possible to use all parts of the river if you don't hold all cities at it's course. Here is also a need of finetuning. Maby it is possible to make the river at some ports passable without destroying the aesthetics of the river.



What do you think?

[dowdpride]

looks good to me

[nasher168]

IIRC, EB already has "river clearing" and similar buildings available for certain settlements, which sorts the trade side. And the AI might not behave quite so well if it sees a river as "sea". I guess there are a few rivers for which the idea of making them navigable could be justified in terms of strategic options. I don't know what the team's stance is though.

[Isildor]

I guess there are a few rivers for which the idea of making them navigable could be justified in terms of strategic options.

With nile you could use to controll egypt, the rhone you could use to conquer gaul, the dnjeper and volga to fight against the steppe people in russia or the elbe and rhine to fight with or against sweboz. The danube could be used by the getae or boii to expand or by greeks and romans to defend their northern border
...

There are thousands of strategic possibilities for every river in all games.

[fightermedic]

i have to agree here, some of the larger river like rhine and nile really would be better if they were navigable.

[Foot]

That is a great post Isildor, however I would be more inclined to listen if you provided the negatives as well. As it is, you've put forward a great case for the benefits to gameplay, but mentioned nothing about all the problems that continue to plague mods that have navigable rivers. Most notably is the fact that land trade is completely disrupted. For example, turn the nile navigable would make it impossible for Diospolis-Megale to trade with Memphis by road. A navigable nile essentially cuts Egypt right down the middle, severely reducing income for a faction that controls it. You have made no mention of this, and that rather makes your post less useful than it could have been.

However, there is certainly room for discussion, and I would love to hear from someone who is willing to put counter-arguments to the negatives of having navigable rivers.

Foot

[bizarcasm]

The main problem I see is that due to engine limits, adjacent provinces cannot trade by sea. This already causes several problems in EB1, such as the lack of trade in the Indian Ocean, or the oddity that I don't think Sparte cannot trade with Krete, Karia, or Kilikia thanks to Cape Tainaron. Having land trade disrupted wouldn't be an issue though, in fact, it would even be realistic, if sea trade across rivers could make up for it. In some regions this wouldn't be a problem, like between Naissos and Buridava, for instance, since the river separates these regions they technically wouldn't be touching, and could trade with each other. But in Egypt or India this would cause a lot of problems, since the province boundaries cross the river, rather than follow it.

There's another problem with Egypt that Foot doesn't mention. If you make the Nile navigable, and place ports on it, you'd lose all your ports on the Red Sea, and this, more than than the land trade between Memphis and Thebes, would cut your profits. I just can't see any good way to get the trade along the Nile, between Memphis and Thebes, and in the Red Sea with navigable rivers. It could be made to work, but it would require a lot of work shuffling the borders of a lot of provinces in a rather convoluted, and unhistorical way.

[Isildor]

That is a great post Isildor, however I would be more inclined to listen if you provided the negatives as well. As it is, you've put forward a great case for the benefits to gameplay, but mentioned nothing about all the problems that continue to plague mods that have navigable rivers.

I didn't know about this disadvantages. I just thought about the ai behavior and I hoped that the two typs of sea would avoid that the normal ships would act in a strange way, but I didn't write this because I don'
t know much about ai behavior under different circumstances.

Most notably is the fact that land trade is completely disrupted. For example, turn the nile navigable would make it impossible for Diospolis-Megale to trade with Memphis by road. A navigable nile essentially cuts Egypt right down the middle, severely reducing income for a faction that controls it. You have made no mention of this, and that rather makes your post less useful than it could have been.

For egypt you could make the cataracts in the south vanilla fords. This would make possible that Diospolis-Megale, Pselkis and Meroe could trade via streets. This would be also relistic because the cataracts weren't passable for ships. Pselkis, Diospolis-Megale and Memphis would get a port at the nile.
In EB1 Memphis had also a much trade with Petra, although there was a navigable river between them, so I don't see why this should harm egypt. They get an additional port, therefore they could have even more trade.
Ports at the nile could btw represent minor cities in Egypt which didn't become a real city in eb.

I don't see why reduced income is a point for or against something, I thought you controll the income of areas by bonus trade income via province buildings.


The main goal of EB is to represent the historic facts in the best way. And if Egypt have less bridges over the nile, less streets between the cities and instead trade on the nile should be a pro argument. The level of trade income can be controlled by the province buildings, so I don't see the problem in Egypt.

But if you would replace also on the Rhine, Danube and other rivers known fords, which were impassable by ships with vanilla river fords, you could combine trade above the river with trade on the river.


PS.: I have edited the first post and included all negative points which crosses my mind.

[bizarcasm]

In EB1 Memphis had also a much trade with Petra, although there was a navigable river between them, so I don't see why this should harm egypt. They get an additional port, therefore they could have even more trade.

The problem is that due to engine limits regions can't have more than one port. If you put them on the Nile, you'd lose them on the Red Sea.

[Ichon]

Why would every single province need a port on the Nile? I'd guess in Egypt most should be you could keep 1 or 2 Red Sea ports... which would probably be better for those regions incomes to get the routes from Arabia that would normally be divided between many different ports.

[hardrive]

There's another problem with Egypt that Foot doesn't mention. If you make the Nile navigable, and place ports on it, you'd lose all your ports on the Red Sea, and this, more than than the land trade between Memphis and Thebes, would cut your profits. I just can't see any good way to get the trade along the Nile, between Memphis and Thebes, and in the Red Sea with navigable rivers. It could be made to work, but it would require a lot of work shuffling the borders of a lot of provinces in a rather convoluted, and unhistorical way.

What if the navigable Nile was conected with the Red Sea via the - also navigable - ancient Suez Canal*? Then sea trade between all Nile provinces incl. the landlocked ones south of Diospolis-Megale, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean became possible (Memphis could engage in sea trade with Meroe in Upper Eqypt and Sidon in Phoenicia and Maryab in Arabia for example; Pselkis in Upper Egypt with Alexandria, Petra and Ptolemais Theron in the Red Sea; etc.pp. - or is there a limit to how far sea trade links are allowed to be apart?). That could then in total even increase the trading volume for the Nile provinces.

Diospolis-Megale could also keep it's port located at the Rea Sea coast. And one could think about moving Memphis' port to the Nile, where it would block foreign ships from entering the upper Nile.

Concerning the Rhine and the Danube: making them navigable might cause some more difficulties for the campaign AI, as those areas are contested among many different factions. And all in all - due to it's rich history, the economic importance and simply it's sheer size - the Nile is the most but not the only plausible candidate to be made navigable.

In my view it would make a nice bonus feature for a later EBII release to have an navigable Nile; assuming the campaign AI can handle it (invasions, troop and ship movement etc.). But at the end it's for the team to decide - after all it's their mod and their work. But maybe this thread will bring up more ideas and arguments for the team to ponder on.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_of_the_Pharaohs


EDIT:
Concerning disrupted land trade for Nile provinces: The Nile provinces could get a special trade building (e.g. "major Nile trade port") with an increase in tradeable goods, tax benefits etc., which could compensate the trade loss due to the disrupted land trade between settlements on different sides of the navigable Nile; similar to the normal river port or the Silk Road building in central Asia. The same would be possible for other navigable rivers of course.

[Populus Romanus]

I have a feeling of misgiving with nagivable rivers. If AI fleets behave like sound, then they will be sucked into every nook and cranny on the map in an attempt to fill every space. The result being that nobody hears a peep out them. We'll end up having no fleets on the ocean and dozens on the rivers. Worse yet there will be enemy pirates in rivers, which is inconceivable.

[Coeur de Lion]

We'll end up having no fleets on the ocean and dozens on the rivers. Worse yet there will be enemy pirates in rivers, which is inconceivable.

Both of those things can be solved by the rivers being represented by the 'deep water' of vanilla. Only ships able to sail in the 'deep water' can sail on the rivers, so not every faction will be able to use them. Concerning pirates, it would be feasible simply to stop them from recruiting/spawning river-going ships no?

I like the idea, especially because I'm sure there were factions in history that never managed to build proper ocean-going boats and at best could only use coastal waters and rivers.

[Ichon]

Or could travel across waters only using mercenary ships... all those mercenary Kelt warriors around the ancient world didn't sail there themselves. That might give interesting reasons to preserve some places as vassals if they had port facilities that could build certain ships.

Though I'm not sure if rivers boats would be the rarity. I'd guess the other way around.

[Vasterion]

That is a great post Isildor, however I would be more inclined to listen if you provided the negatives as well. As it is, you've put forward a great case for the benefits to gameplay, but mentioned nothing about all the problems that continue to plague mods that have navigable rivers. Most notably is the fact that land trade is completely disrupted. For example, turn the nile navigable would make it impossible for Diospolis-Megale to trade with Memphis by road. A navigable nile essentially cuts Egypt right down the middle, severely reducing income for a faction that controls it. You have made no mention of this, and that rather makes your post less useful than it could have been.

Navigable land bridges are an answer to this, is it not?. However, the main issue is attributed to the abuse that a human player can achieve with this versus the AI player, or, more importantly, the AI is not able to adequately use it in AI versus AI combat.

If you have the river wide enough to not be blocked off by a certain ship, you're looking at 4 movement spaces. When you work out that on a scale of a 500 pixel map over an area of about 2000 miles, that's a 16 mile wide river. Maybe in a Delta, a couple of the largest rivers could be this wide, to represent the myriad channels/mud flats/flood plains, but for the majority, having even a single pixel wide river (4 miles) is not scale accurate or AI balance suitable.

For the same reason placing a fort in a mountain pass gives a nice human player an excellent bottleneck with which to defend their battlelines, it means that even if the AI are able to properly take it, (unlikely; due to the AI pathfinding, but on the off chance), it would simply leave a back door through which the human player could attack.

I don't like Navigable Rivers.

[hardrive]

For the same reason placing a fort in a mountain pass gives a nice human player an excellent bottleneck with which to defend their battlelines, it means that even if the AI are able to properly take it, (unlikely; due to the AI pathfinding, but on the off chance), it would simply leave a back door through which the human player could attack.

Maybe missed your point, but the same goes for normal river fords.

If you have the river wide enough to not be blocked off by a certain ship, you're looking at 4 movement spaces. When you work out that on a scale of a 500 pixel map over an area of about 2000 miles, that's a 16 mile wide river. Maybe in a Delta, a couple of the largest rivers could be this wide, to represent the myriad channels/mud flats/flood plains, but for the majority, having even a single pixel wide river (4 miles) is not scale accurate or AI balance suitable.

That's why I guess it would be most plausible to make the Nile a navigable river (only 1 movement space wide), as it is ruled by a single faction at game start and can by blocked for foreign ships by a Memphis Nile-port.

[Vasterion]

Firstly - slightly off topic - yes, it is, but it also doesn't require an opponent to build/bring siege equipment, and neither does it allow a player to encircle the enemy through sallying out of side gates to break morale. It's a different dynamic.

"Most Plausible" - well, not especially. What's the point? If the rivers blocked while being controlled by one faction, then just land your troops. Or have the AI risking crashing entire stacks in only a couple of boats through your defences like they do in the Bosporus of mods like SS.

There are unavoidable exploits the human player has - I'm not a fan of creating even more - especially when trade can be increased by using a "trade road" system to follow the river and/or it's major tributaries.

[Shibby14]

+1 to this! Nile, Danube and Rhine (and perhaps Tigris and Euphrates) need to be made navigable. Whatever advantage that gives to the player is irrelevant, since I believe the point of the mod is to create immersion, not balance the difficulty. I mean that a player set to exploit the poor AI will not be stopped by the lack of navigable rivers, while the rest of us (those looking for immersion) miss out and suffer anyway.

[Hummer]

What the heck? I was reading through this and then realized there's a 6 year gap?....

[Cohors_Evocata]

Immediate response: this can be discussed, but it wouldn't see the light of day until we get a new active mapper.