That is true, never thought of it that way. Surely if they can separate the British Isles from Europe with no problems, then the Read Sea should be navigable.
Why is the Indian Ocean not navigable?
- Thread starter cephalo
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You don't need to build the equivalent of the Suez canal when it's just small medieval ships who are are meant to cross it. The suez canal was hard to build because the massive ships of the day had to be able to cross it.
The pharaoh's canal certainly could be used by ancient ships. All they had to do was dig a river and ancient and medieval ships would fit. You are severely overestimating the size of medieval and ancient ships.
Exactly. The problem is already solved, it just needs to be implemented. I'll buy that DLC.
AI can't handle unconnected seas? And how does it handle Mediterranean/Red Sea in EU prior to discovery of a route around Africa?
But making Indian Ocean navigable would only make sense, if all the ports Arabian traders actually sailed to were added as well... India, Malacca, and so on.
But making Indian Ocean navigable would only make sense, if all the ports Arabian traders actually sailed to were added as well... India, Malacca, and so on.
There should most certainly be the option to reopen the old-cairo to Red Sea canal in the game. Snce ancient times there has on and off been naval passage from the Med to the Red Sea, and while the last time it was opened was 1000AD briefly and 767AD before that, a state which owns the appropriate territory should be able to pitch up a load of gold through an event and make the passage navigable several years later (in 1066 I believe it would have parts full of sand, but not beyond repair).
I don't see why Paradox would need to add every single port which was traded with to add in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. Trade was just as important between Egypt, Ethiopia, Yemen, etc. Oh, and Melaka wasn't exactly a popular trade destination for Arabs at the time, anyway.
I'm sure I remember seeing a photograph of a mod in which the Indian Ocean seas were actually added in. If a mod can apparantly do it, presumably with it working fine, then I don't see why Paradox couldn't.
I must confess that I am quite interested in this topic due to my current Fatimid playthrough. The lack of ability to transport my troops by ship is really annoying, because it means any conquest down south will take me a while. Of course, the fact that I'm getting hit for a lot of possible trade income on those could-be-coastal counties stings too.
I'd very much appreciate it if Paradox could fix the issue with boats and allow ports on that sea before they're done updating the game.
I'd very much appreciate it if Paradox could fix the issue with boats and allow ports on that sea before they're done updating the game.
I haven't tested those mods, but someone said in previous thread about this topic that mods do it by adding canal between the Mediterranean and Red Sea.
I'm using a mod courtesy of jordarkelf that gives access to the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea (Indian Ocean proper is off-map) by assuming that there's a Suez Canal. It works beautifully and you should all use it because you'd miss out on a lot otherwise. The main problem with that solution, though, is that any reasonably powerful western power, like HRE or England, could invade Persia from the south pretty easily. It's pretty amusing seeing my German ships in the Persian Gulf. Surprisingly, the AI tend to not go there much.
Really, many of the largest port cities in this period are along navigable rivers rather than the coast, and it's strange that London and Paris and Baghdad and Cairo and so on can't build harbors. Perhaps the Old Gods will solve this issue, though, because the Vikings sailed ships up many of these rivers.
The Umbra Spherae mod has two different oceans (Atlantic and Indian), but a lot of strange things happen. Venice is building trade posts in Ceylon before 1070 and so on.
much respect. I was going to make a post about how silly a Suez canal in the middle ages would be, until I read this. you're exactly right, good post.
How easy would these be to mod? I'd be up for having a go if it's not too difficult.
You are severely underestimating the capabilities of industrial machinery, and steam power.
Regarding ancient and medieval canals, they had to maintain the thing. Thats why they fell into disuse. You would need to maintain a strong central goverment to assemble the manpower to keep it operating. Ancient and medieval trade isn't also quite as lucrative as to support the tolls to make it worthwhile.
It also leaves aside the issue, that the ancient canals were from the Red Sea to the Nile. Cutting a canal to bypass your trade centres as Egypt is in fact idiotic (a factor no longer an issue by 1800 courtesy of the route around Africa).
Nope its still silly. Ship sizes aren't the only thing thats changed since medieval times.
Last edited:
No on both counts, firstly that does not matter to the discussion, it would still be a herculean effort to maintain a canal like that in such severe desert without the thing silting up and becoming unusable. And no, the pharohs canal was usable by river barges used to traverse the nile but not by the ships that you used to go across the Med or the Red, which where far larger then the comparatively small river barges.
Ah, I see. Still, I do wonder if the reason the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea aren't given tags like the Caspian Sea or Onega have, is that they are planning to add them in, navigable, and the provinces considered 'coastal.' Or at least I hope.
Honestly, I feel as though that being added in is about as likely as adding the ability to colonize africa and siberia.
The claims that the AI can't handle these zones being "unconnected" are false. There are many mods that make these sea zones navigable and there is nothing at all wrong with the AI when it attempts to use them. You don't even need to add a canal between them. All you have to do is add a little line of code to a file in the map portion that tells the game what sea zones to connect them to. It works just fine.
Btw, adding in these zones is stupid easy. I did it myself for when I am not using mods like CK2+ or other major overhaul mods that also add them in. There is a tutorial in the mods section that shows you how to add new provinces to the game.
Edit: well I suppose if you didn't add that little line of code I mentioned the AI would get a little confused. But I assume most people who play in that area and want these bodies of water to be accessible to them wouldn't mind the fact that the seas are connected despite there not being a canal there at that time in real history.
Btw, adding in these zones is stupid easy. I did it myself for when I am not using mods like CK2+ or other major overhaul mods that also add them in. There is a tutorial in the mods section that shows you how to add new provinces to the game.
Edit: well I suppose if you didn't add that little line of code I mentioned the AI would get a little confused. But I assume most people who play in that area and want these bodies of water to be accessible to them wouldn't mind the fact that the seas are connected despite there not being a canal there at that time in real history.
Last edited:
In EU, if you don't know how to get from Province A to Province K, doesn't mean that that route is either completely unknown or undiscoverable. It exists, you just can't see it.
So basically, your three paragraphs amount to saying, 'I'm calling you all wrong, but you are actually correct. I would just prefer to pretend that connecting the bodies of water is not connecting the bodies of water'