DotS Progress Report

**Hengest** · August 17, 2010, 11:20 AM

HAHHAHA, that is as long as they are actually yours

**Hengest** · August 18, 2010, 07:45 AM

Wow that's a cool idea, nice work Jan.

**dominion** · August 18, 2010, 10:11 AM

Just looked your spring 2010 preview again. Finally a mod were you can go up rivers with fleets(have been suggesting this too in BC 3.0 version they are making ...but too much work for hardcodding they said)

(i think it will be possible to build riverports too then i suppose as in ss6.3...and represent them with a small graphic icon on the map?).
In your preview of the map i see it goes too Iran. I hope the masses of land will be as big as in SS.
Great maps makes great mods

(proven BC,SS are great and popular mods)....I hope your mod comes out by end december 2010 or begin 2011 (no pressure).
Well i'll just have to wait for the preview in the mean time. Just supporting you guys...it's truly going to be a mod with a whole new experiences.

good luck.

**Vaz** · August 18, 2010, 08:06 PM

Problem with rivers is that the AI can struggle to use them correctly, depending on the scale. In BC, the map is 4500 km wide, but the grid square is 1021 in size. Roughly factor that in, you're looking a 5 kilometre wide river for a single navigable river. If you want to be able to pass side by side, that's 9km wide. So that a single ship doesn't provide the total blockade to the river by standing in the middle, it's 18km across.

Also, putting in a navigable river that the AI doesn't use leads to one thing - exploitation. In the same manner that Stakes behind castle gates destroyed France and the mongols for me in Vanilla, the same applies to the rivers. Then there's the issue of fordings, bridges, and crossings.

**Hengest** · August 19, 2010, 09:48 AM

Yepp, we are going to be very selective with our use of nav rivers, and in fact it isn't a guaranteed feature yet/anymore, it's likely to be used if at all in parts of the Russian rivers. Da.

**\Vazul's Ghost/** · August 19, 2010, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Hross

Yepp, we are going to be very selective with our use of nav rivers, and in fact it isn't a guaranteed feature yet/anymore, it's likely to be used if at all in parts of the Russian rivers. Da.

Oh that's a shame I would have loved to have seen a navigable Danube.

**Resurrection** · August 20, 2010, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by \Vazul's Ghost/

Oh that's a shame I would have loved to have seen a navigable Danube.

And you would hate the dozen of problems it would cause... there is a thread in mod workshop mapping tutorials about navigable rivers which in fact concluded that this feature is broken beyond repair. It's essentially a work-around which brings numerous problems which cannot be solved. That does not mean we won't use them at all but as Hross pointed out it will be only in places where the damage done would be minimal and benefits gained would be great. Perfect example is the Russia where "the roads problem" is not the case as there were no roads in there simply. The other candidate is Nile but it has to be discussed yet. Danube will most likely not be navigable. It could be without much trouble navigable somewhere to the border of historical Wallachia however unless it was navigable up to Vienna (which would bring serious head-ache) at least it would be of questionable strategic value and thus Danube will not be made navigable at all most likely.

For further details see: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=198171 posts 15 (mine) and 16 (gigantus').

**\Vazul's Ghost/** · August 20, 2010, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Resurrection

And you would hate the dozen of problems it would cause... there is a thread in mod workshop mapping tutorials about navigable rivers which in fact concluded that this feature is broken beyond repair. It's essentially a work-around which brings numerous problems which cannot be solved. That does not mean we won't use them at all but as Hross pointed out it will be only in places where the damage done would be minimal and benefits gained would be great. Perfect example is the Russia where "the roads problem" is not the case as there were no roads in there simply. The other candidate is Nile but it has to be discussed yet. Danube will most likely not be navigable. It could be without much trouble navigable somewhere to the border of historical Wallachia however unless it was navigable up to Vienna (which would bring serious head-ache) at least it would be of questionable strategic value and thus Danube will not be made navigable at all most likely.

For further details see: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=198171 posts 15 (mine) and 16 (gigantus').

Hmmmm.... Yes after reading that thread I can see your point. I was certain the DOTS team had a good reason anyway, it was just wishful thinking that a navigable Danube would work. Besides, having navigable rivers in Russia will add a unique game play element to that region to compensate for the sprawled out settlements and terrain that can make it a bit boring in other mods.

**dominion** · August 20, 2010, 12:46 PM

Well if your map is right in grand preview then you can go by ship around arabia (not completly but you get my point)....so the nile is in my opinion the one river you should certainly do to go by ship from scandinavia to iran....would be awesome.

**Hengest** · August 20, 2010, 04:50 PM

TBH we have SOOOO much going on in the campaign map and SOOO many historical figures, characters, titles and all kinds of details that I don't think you'll miss a few rivers not being navigable. Of course the nav rivers that we include are clearly going to be a nice feature, but the camp map is going to be very full

**dominion** · August 21, 2010, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Hross

TBH we have SOOOO much going on in the campaign map and SOOO many historical figures, characters, titles and all kinds of details

I understand, it was just seeing the possibility in mod workshop i became overenthousiastic about this.
PS i don't think going by ship from europe to asia by ship is historically accurate either....

**Vaz** · August 21, 2010, 09:08 AM

Eh, what? Of course Europe to Asia was historical by ship.

During the Second Crusade, the Crusaders left England by ship, captured Lisbon, then proceeded to Jerusalem.

**dominion** · August 21, 2010, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Vaz

Eh, what? Of course Europe to Asia was historical by ship.

During the Second Crusade, the Crusaders left England by ship, captured Lisbon, then proceeded to Jerusalem.

What i meant was by ship to india,Iran....by using the nile