How do you feel about Canals?

[Olaus Petrus]

I have had this argument on the thread I linked, read it please.


I am not confusing them, I am comparing them. There was a canal from the Red Sea to the Nile built/rebuilt by the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and Arab Caliphate, it served exactly the same purpose as the Suez canal and was the same size as the Suez canal was when it was originally built. In fact, a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea is actually harder to build because it is fresh water to sea and therefore requires locks, whilst the Suez is free flowing seawater and therefore just a hole in the ground.

The reason Napoleon didn't build a Med-Red sea canal was the same reason as all those before him, his engineers did not accurately measure the sea level difference. Napoleon thought it was impossible because his engineers told him the sea level difference was 10 metres, rather than an almost negligible difference as it actually is, requiring building locks (which are expensive). Had he been given accurate measurement, he would have built it.

There's ten pages of stuff in your link. Finding a specific argument from that amount of text is like finding a needle from a haystack. And that Napoleon example just shows that engineers of the Napoleonic era weren't competent enough to build it. The fact that none of the projects really offered anything more than a temporary solution at the best, is a strong evidence supporting the claim that the task wasn't possible before the industrial era. They would have done it before if it was possible and realistic.

 

[Mercadi]

I hope Canals are worth a lot of gold to make. Because there aren't really expensive things in the game at this moment (for the later stages of the game when you have 20k+ gold and nothing to do).

 

[supablasta300]

canals are a great addition. For those who complain about it being unrealistic, well

>can colonize all of Nigeria by 1500, whilst all the natives magically turn into Englishmen YAY!

>can invade and completely annex Ming by 1600

>Spain.

I can understand concerns about Panama, but the other 2 canals are quite feasable, and will be fun to build when im sitting all by lonesome as GB with 83k ducats.

 

[Tacticus101]

There's ten pages of stuff in your link. Finding a specific argument from that amount of text is like finding a needle from a haystack. And that Napoleon example just shows that engineers of the Napoleonic era weren't competent enough to build it. The fact that none of the projects really offered anything more than a temporary solution at the best, is a strong evidence supporting the claim that the task wasn't possible before the industrial era. They would have done it before if it was possible and realistic.

The entire thread is one argument over whether the canals were viable in the timeframe.


Napoleons engineers making a mistake in really complicated and difficult calculation, one we still struggle with even with satellites, means they were unable to dig a hole in the ground? Right....

The current Suez canal is nothing more than a temporary solution, it requires constant maintenance and is frequently expanded in order for it to keep working. Egypt collapsed and people stopped looking after the cannal, it would fall apart.

The reason no one did it previously was because no one was in a position to. For Rome, the Greeks, Persians and Egyptians the canal had a minor role, their trade was mainly Mediterranean based and Africa and India were unexplored. The Byzantines and Ottomans had trade routes through Persia and Constantinople, not the Red sea. The Arab Caliphate opened the canal and then later closed it when they lost control of Arabia. The British resisted the canal being built because they already controlled the trade round Africa.
Until the development of world trade, more advanced ships and accurate maps of the entire world there was not a huge benefit to the canal. Until a single power controlled Egypt and the trade from Asia, there was no one in a position to benefit enough from the canal for it to be worth building. In history that didn't happen until the end of the game timeframe, but in the game it could happen much before that.

 

[aitaituo]

For Rome, the Greeks, Persians and Egyptians the canal had a minor role, their trade was mainly Mediterranean based and Africa and India were unexplored. The Byzantines and Ottomans had trade routes through Persia and Constantinople, not the Red sea.

The Romans actually had a thriving trade with India going through Upper Egypt and the Indian Ocean up until the Arab invasions. Arab merchants picked up pretty much where they left off.

A Suez type canal or a rebuilding of the Pharaonic canal probably never materialized because canals are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, merchants were getting plenty rich already, and rulers generally didn't care much for the merchant class.

 

[Tacticus101]

The Romans actually had a thriving trade with India going through Upper Egypt and the Indian Ocean up until the Arab invasions. Arab merchants picked up pretty much where they left off.

Yeah, true, but the india ocean trade was minor compared to what it was later.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

The entire thread is one argument over whether the canals were viable in the timeframe.


Napoleons engineers making a mistake in really complicated and difficult calculation, one we still struggle with even with satellites, means they were unable to dig a hole in the ground? Right....

The current Suez canal is nothing more than a temporary solution, it requires constant maintenance and is frequently expanded in order for it to keep working. Egypt collapsed and people stopped looking after the cannal, it would fall apart.

The reason no one did it previously was because no one was in a position to. For Rome, the Greeks, Persians and Egyptians the canal had a minor role, their trade was mainly Mediterranean based and Africa and India were unexplored. The Byzantines and Ottomans had trade routes through Persia and Constantinople, not the Red sea. The Arab Caliphate opened the canal and then later closed it when they lost control of Arabia. The British resisted the canal being built because they already controlled the trade round Africa.
Until the development of world trade, more advanced ships and accurate maps of the entire world there was not a huge benefit to the canal. Until a single power controlled Egypt and the trade from Asia, there was no one in a position to benefit enough from the canal for it to be worth building. In history that didn't happen until the end of the game timeframe, but in the game it could happen much before that.

Building a canal is bit more complicated than digging a hole, those calculations which they failed were part of the building process as you can't really build anything without plans. And Canal of the Pharaohs was impractical construction which was too difficult to keep in working condition for a longer time periods.

You seem to assume that any man with a shovel can build a canal from one sea to another and that simply isn't true.

 

[anubisfike]

Building canals on relatively flat land sure, why not. Give us more of that. There were plenty of canals being built across Europe in this timeframe, perhaps even more complicated than the Kiel or Suez canals. France and the Netherlands being some prime examples of nations with a lot of experience. Panama however is only stupid. There's really no reason to add something like this unless they just want to drop the whole historical aspect of the game entirely. If we can build the Panama canal why not the Airplane? Maybe your kings were really interested in flying and funded thousands of Da Vinci's through the history of your realm and finally ended up with a working aeroplane by the 1700's?

 

[Wudadi]

Building canals on relatively flat land sure, why not. Give us more of that. There were plenty of canals being built across Europe in this timeframe, perhaps even more complicated than the Kiel or Suez canals. France and the Netherlands being some prime examples of nations with a lot of experience. Panama however is only stupid. There's really no reason to add something like this unless they just want to drop the whole historical aspect of the game entirely. If we can build the Panama canal why not the Airplane? Maybe your kings were really interested in flying and funded thousands of Da Vinci's through the history of your realm and finally ended up with a working aeroplane by the 1700's?

There were plenty of canals had been built across all over the world in this timeframe, not only in small Western Europe. What is the real function of the canal? Trading. Transport goods and people. Do most of the rivers have these function? If rivers have these function, Releasing all of the canals are not enough. They should Release most of the rivers just like CK2.

 

[anubisfike]

There were plenty of canals had been built across all over the world in this timeframe, not only in small Western Europe. What is the real function of the canal? Trading. Transport goods and people. Do most of the rivers have these function? If rivers have these function, Releasing all of the canals are not enough. They should Release most of the rivers just like CK2.

I didn't mean to insinuate that canals were only built in Europe. The only relevance it has for the thread is that Europeans are the most likely candidates by far to build any of the canals and thus their experience in constructing canals would be the most important factor to gauge when trying to determine what should and shouldn't be possible. I mention France and the Netherlands because I reckon they made some of the most advanced canals in Europe for the time frame (Canal du Midi and the other one connecting the Med. to the Atlantic being a prime example) although I could be mistaken since it's not something I've looked into a lot.

Rivers are already somewhat represented as far as trade goes since the river outlets or estuaries give a trade power bonus for whoever is controlling them, implying that they are important for the flow of goods. Canals in strategic places are like super-rivers in that they are made in a controlled manner and in a deliberate fashion which is what the trade boost for canals are supposed to represent, I assume.

 

[Minigrinch]

If we can build the Panama canal they might as well throw in the towel and let us colonise all of Africa since diseases are apparently no longer a thing.

 

[Phoenix VII]

I'm glad that the Suez and Kiel canals are possible to build now. Panama on the other hand...ugh, it was hard enough to build when it was.

 

[saegoto]

I'm not sure if it's a historical game...

 

[Nick Giordano]

I don't like them.

The entire point of the colonization of Africa, India, and SE Asia to reach the markets of China. To me, building the Suez Canal is just denying the historical point of colonization in exchange for a quick gimmicky feature.

I personally will be modding them off.

 

[shal5]

I like the idea of canals. The AI will never stack up 20K gold anyways, and I think you have to have really high tech to build them, so it's more of a goal for the players than anything else..

You probably won't be able to buld canals before the endgame anyways, so it's not like it's useless to colonize Africa..

 

[GrafKeks]

I hope Canals are worth a lot of gold to make. Because there aren't really expensive things in the game at this moment (for the later stages of the game when you have 20k+ gold and nothing to do).

There should be more really big buildings that to errect, maybe some real special buildings that are extremely overpriced, a hanseatic crane or maybe a new court building.

 

[milkan]

I have played exactly one game that extended into the later half of the game (1750 onward) and doubt I will play such a lengthy campaign ever again. So canals are a non-factor to me completely.

 

[Stadhouder]

The problem I have with EU4 is that I have a blast when I start a new game, growing, conquering, colonizing setting up trade. Once that's in place the game tends to get quite boring, there's little challenge and not so much to achieve anymore. Sure, you can go for WC or a steam achievement, but that's more tedious then challenging...

I understand the idea of the canals is to give us something to achieve in the late game, but I doubt hording MP and gold to build a canal is really a challenge. The mistake Paradox makes IMHO is that they simply add yet another thing to build, while in my opinion developer time would be better spend working on game mechanics that make maintaining an Empire as much fun as creating one.

I don't care much for the unrealistic argument though, if the game would be completely realistic it would be extremely hard to outperform any real historic empire, and the game would be a lot less fun indeed.

 

[JCFast]

Me no likey. To me that is just ahistorical and more fitting for Victoria than Europa Universalis. Now as a player I'll feel compelled to take the Suez region in every campaign just in case, and while am at it, maybe also Judea and Mecca, because they're so close and have nice bonuses.

And those smaller canals, we kind of have them represented already as provincial buildings.

 

[jockedahl]

I don't know. It seems to be there much for MP to add strategic interest late game.

Should be for Victoria 3.