Rivers

[unmerged(182534)]

I was thinking it would be cool if navies could operate in the major rivers of the world. I am biased, because I have always lived so close to the Mississippi river. I think it would be cool to have your armie zip up the Missisippi and unload in the interior of North America. It would only be practical to have this with a very select number of rivers. Mississippi and Nile seem like 2 very good and useful ones. This would also add a lot of strategic advantages to owning say the port of New Orleans, wich seems to be historically accurate. Anyway, just a thought i had, what do you guys think?

 

[TheCheeseMaster]

they could help with taking down forts as much as artilly (as long as you had carracks) improve morale as well

 

[naggy]

Wasn't most river-going traffic done via different ships than oceangoing vessals?

 

[HanSime]

Depends on the river. Some naval battles in shallow water were done with confiscated fishing boats. This would however be possible in the larger rivers.

What if you could model this as having ships enter foreign ports if they've been expanded with a shipyard? (Too few shipyards around anyway...)

 

[Cyrus_The_Great]

I always thought in a future EU3 they needed to redo colonization and include river travel. I know my own state, New Jersey, is flanked by both the Hudson and the Deleware, and colonization by the Dutch and Swedish occurred along these rivers rather than from the ocean westward.

I also know French Colonization largely followed the river systems of north america.

 

[Willem IV]

I was thinking it would be cool if navies could operate in the major rivers of the world.

Only if the Medway is included. :rofl:

 

[Pitt The Elder]

Wasn't most river-going traffic done via different ships than oceangoing vessals?

Largely.


It's a shame the movement cost couldn't be eased by moving parallel to a river.

 

[Stigandr]

In EU1 and 2, rivers were always between provinces rather than in them, so that you always knew the situation re: attacking across them. In EU3 I often can't tell whether, going from one province to another, I'd be attacking across a river or not. Is there any easy way to tell?

 

[unmerged(11600)]

I believe it's explained in the manual: if your movement path crosses the river in the province being exitted, there is no penalty; if it crosses the river in the province being entered, there is a penalty.

-Pat

 

[Chamboozer]

I like the OP's idea, it would leave a good reason to colonize along a river - perhaps the ability to travel on it could only be given to the nation that controls it?

 

[unmerged(199227)]

I don't think rivers make very good naval combat regions, as they are constantly rushing bodies of water - it would just be one ship chasing another towards the sea.

Doubt there were many galleons patrolling the Rhine or the Volga since you can shoot arrows across them.

 

[Pitt The Elder]

I don't think rivers make very good naval combat regions, as they are constantly rushing bodies of water - it would just be one ship chasing another towards the sea.

Sailing up river isn't particularly tough, so long as the wind isn't also blowing down river. Plus most of the big rivers are tidal, so half the time you can just float up it.

 

[Maïdo]

Doubt there were many galleons patrolling the Rhine or the Volga since you can shoot arrows across them.

This defensive triptych securing the largest estuary in occidental europe was'nt shooting arrows...

 

[George LeS]

It would probably be simplest to make this into a province decision. Build a river flotilla, which gives you a defensive bonus & if possible some kind of movement/terrain bonus. Not sure how to do it though.

 

[Mulla]

In EU1 and 2, rivers were always between provinces rather than in them, so that you always knew the situation re: attacking across them. In EU3 I often can't tell whether, going from one province to another, I'd be attacking across a river or not. Is there any easy way to tell?

You can't be sure. In EU3 the exact location of the battle is randomly defined(therefore the percentage of each different terrain type is given now in HTTT, so you can calculate the chance in which terrain type the battle would occur), so you do not know for sure, whether you have to cross a river to get to the battlefield. But if there is river near to the border where you enter the province, the chances of crossing it are high.

This is at least what I know about it.

 

[Trin Tragula]

(therefore the percentage of each different terrain type is given now in HTTT, so you can calculate the chance in which terrain type the battle would occur)

I'm pretty sure it was like this before HTTT as well. You had to be in the terrain mapmode though.

 

[HanSime]

Speaking of rivers and sea and building stuff.

What about coastal fortresses? Would it be at all interesting to have this as an extra modifier against naval invasions (for example, even if it would simply slow an army down while its making its landing on shore, allowing you extra time to rally your forces there)?

 

[unmerged(199227)]

This defensive triptych securing the largest estuary in occidental europe was'nt shooting arrows...

See, now I wish I was from Bordeaux and had that local history in mind.

As an American, river combat brings images of Navy PT boats in Vietnam and Civil war ironclads.

I can imagine every European locale has interesting stories to debunk my Yankee pragmatism.

 

[HanSime]

I can imagine every European locale has interesting stories to debunk my Yankee pragmatism.

It's one of those natural goals in life, debunking American ideas, theories and other sillyness.

To some, it's their life's work.

(I'd advise you to look up John Cleese on American Football).