Wealth of Nations Dev Diary 3: Companies and Canals

[pac]

Yes we are adding Canals to the game. In Wealth of Nations there are three buildable canals, Suez, Kiel and Panama. The latter is probably the least realistic but we wanted to add these three to give players that manage to build global empires something extra to strive for.

The global empire itself should be the thing to strive for. There's your problem!

It is rather odd that with just the *second* DLC, Paradox is adding things from outside the period. Come to think of it, this already happened in the *first* DLC, with Protectorates. :/

1444–1821 is a lot of history to work with, you know!

Canals will allow ships to sail through them, can be blocked by fleets and will also grant a substantial province Trade Power bonus to the owner so that you can use the canal to redirect the flow of trade (and no, it doesn't alter the trade routes but on the other had you already have trade routes across the canal routes).

Surely you shouldn't need a *fleet* to block a canal? Ownership of the provinces should be enough. They should be the inverse of straits in that control of the land prevents movement of ships. Anyone you're at war (or anyone you're embargoing) should be unable to use them unless they seize the adjacent provinces.

 

[PeterCorless]

Talking about Canals, Why not add a canal that was actually built in france during this timeframe: the "Canal du Midi" through the south of France to joint the atlantic and the mediteranean see?

That's a great point, pyrignis! However, the problem with that canal was that it was only navigable by mule-pulled barges and small-pleasaure craft. It was never designed to be made navigable by tall sailing ships.

 

[Synge316]

MAKE IT STOP!

The more I hear about WoN, the less-likely I am to buy it. Canals? Really?

STOP!

I remember proposing the idea of Trading Companies way-back-when on these forums. I like the idea of how they should be their own little power. But you really need to make them have "trading posts" a la CK2, not control actual provinces.

Again, the more I hear about WoN, all I want to do is a) not buy it, or b) if I do get it, to be able to turn off half these "features" -- no "canals" for me, thank you.

All I can say about reading these DDs is, "Jesus wept."

Don't buy it then. Problem solved. It's a single feature that will likely never been seen unless done so by a player. Hardly the end times...

 

[Darkath]

Please don't add Panama. It is utterly unrealistic and gamebreaking.

 

[ARC Starscream]

I agree with Synge, but whats always up with the 'realistic' thing, short of sitting down and just watching a movie of history, this game will always be a-historical, it stands to reason that Canal's would be possible earlier than they were but harder to create, it is quite conceivable a nation should it control the Suez canal zone would be highly tempted to create a direct gateway to Exotic trade goods, It is just my opinion but I really like the idea of being the mamluks and not having to try and sail my fleet around africa to meet up :/, it would have been better just to drag the ships across the land

 

[PeterCorless]

The issue is that this is in the early developer diary stage. Rather than just say "Don't buy it," I would rather say what I would rather them make so that it would be easy to take my money.

If I was the only person saying this, then you could chalk it up to a personal problem. But there are a lot of threads that are heavily debating the canals, and, for the most part, most people are Not Happy Customers.

If Paradox heeds these customers, they would make it an optional feature, like the random new world.

 

[Darkath]

Surely you shouldn't need a *fleet* to block a canal? Ownership of the provinces should be enough. They should be the inverse of straits in that control of the land prevents movement of ships. Anyone you're at war (or anyone you're embargoing) should be unable to use them unless they seize the adjacent provinces.

I agree. As the idea of a fleet blocking a marching army while sitting in a canal which is very very ridiculous.

Just like the Subs blocking Suez canal in Hearts of Iron : really ?


Having unhistorical canals is already difficult to swallow, why add insult to injury with gamebreaking mechanics ?

 

[ImperatorLJ]

Look, there is enough historical precedent to make these canals plausible during this time period. The only issue was whether the canals would be massive undertakings as they historically were, and the game is going to simulate that.

Also, remember the canals DON'T have to be like you see them today or when they were built. You could say EU4's Panama Canal is a mixture of partially dug waterways, and mule hauling.

Start using your imaginations in this alt history game! :laugh:

 

[Darkath]

Look, there is enough historical precedent to make these canals plausible during this time period. The only issue was whether the canals would be massive undertakings as they historically were, and the game is going to simulate that.

Also, remember the canals DON'T have to be like you see them today or when they were built. You could say EU4's Panama Canal is a mixture of partially dug waterways, and mule hauling.

Start using your imaginations in this alt history game! :laugh:

Mule hauled ships crossing the canal in a few days, and blocking any incoming armies. That's not really making it better.

 

[MarkS00N]

The issue is that this is in the early developer diary stage. Rather than just say "Don't buy it," I would rather say what I would rather them make so that it would be easy to take my money.

If I was the only person saying this, then you could chalk it up to a personal problem. But there are a lot of threads that are heavily debating the canals, and, for the most part, most people are Not Happy Customers.

If Paradox heeds these customers, they would make it an optional feature, like the random new world.

Isn't unrealistic requirement to built these canals enough to make these unhistorical thing remain not a thing though?
I mean, so far what I take from these canals (from how ridiculous their requirement, to event to show how difficult they are to be built) is that they added to gives player an alternate end goal beside conquer the world...
Certainly something else could be added, but I think these canals are at least a good sign that they try to gives different long term goal beside conquer the world...

 

[londoner247]

The issue is that this is in the early developer diary stage. Rather than just say "Don't buy it," I would rather say what I would rather them make so that it would be easy to take my money.

If I was the only person saying this, then you could chalk it up to a personal problem. But there are a lot of threads that are heavily debating the canals, and, for the most part, most people are Not Happy Customers.

If Paradox heeds these customers, they would make it an optional feature, like the random new world.

Whilst there are certainly some users who are unhappy with these ideas (and, to be fair, that was recognised in this Dev Diary), the truth is that those users are a (very vocal) minority of customers and even if every single one of them chooses not to buy this expansion that will barely make a dent in overall sales.

Rather than moan, complain or, in some cases in this thread, be unacceptably insulting and offensive towards the developers (and I'm not picking on you specifically here even though I've quoted your post), why not try to be constructive and highlight issues or exploits that worry you (such as the question about an Eastern tech nation seizing one European province in the early game to westernise quickly) or just make constructive proposals for the developers to consider?

 

[PeterCorless]

Look, they have "Sunset Invasion" for CK2. I know it's an "alt history" expansion.

However, Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" and the East India Company were not alternate history. They were history.

For all that I admire the man, I just don't want to have to also get force-fed a time-traveling 19th Century Teddy Roosevelt digging the Panama Canal for the price of admission.

 

[Kipperian]

Neither do I like the idea of channels for EU. They suit Vicky.

 

[Marco Dandolo]

Look, there is enough historical precedent to make these canals plausible during this time period. The only issue was whether the canals would be massive undertakings as they historically were, and the game is going to simulate that.

Also, remember the canals DON'T have to be like you see them today or when they were built. You could say EU4's Panama Canal is a mixture of partially dug waterways, and mule hauling.

Start using your imaginations in this alt history game! :laugh:

You really think that early modern technology can build a canal big enough to make a ship of the line pass from the Read Sea to the Mediterranean, or from the Carribean to the Pacific? That has nothing to do with alternate history, it's on so many scales impossible and implausible, that I find the victorian Cthulhu event much more realistic. All those people talking about the Pharao's canal in Egypt have to take in account that a ship of the line can't travel on the Nile, and that Malaria would kill so many people in Panama that this would be a genocide.

 

[RaptorCommander]

Please include the free-roam camera ability you showed off on stream. I want it for some nice shots in AARs.

+1

 

[aragonFTW]

just turn the notifier off for canal decisions. problem solved. go about your business.

 

[Chamboozer]

Look, there is enough historical precedent to make these canals plausible during this time period. The only issue was whether the canals would be massive undertakings as they historically were, and the game is going to simulate that.

There's a huge difference between a canal that shallow-bottomed barges can travel through, and a canal that can be used to transport battlefleets from place to place.

As a side note, in the 19th century there was fear in some circles that the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea might actually be at different levels, and creating the Suez canal would flood Europe.

 

[PeterCorless]

just turn the notifier off for canal decisions. problem solved. go about your business.

No, that just turns it off for the player. The AI could still build it. Yes, we can edit it out of a game. But that's why it should be an option you can turn on or off. So players DON'T need to go editing files.

There was a primitive version of the Kiel Canal that was built during this period. But it was only for light ship navigation. It could accommodate ships of up to 300 tons displacement and a depth of 3 meters. Whereas a typical ship of the line (a 74-gun ship) was over 1,300 tons, and had a draft of 7 meters.

Yes, it could be possible to make the Kiel and even Suez Canal during the period. Napoleon even had an engineering error which calculated the wrong difference in sea level. Had that been calculated correctly, and if his fleet had not been destroyed by the British, yes, Suez could have been built.

But rather than spend all this effort on ahistorical chrome, it would have been far better to work on existing systems.

If it does exist in the game, again, it should be a feature you can turn OFF, for all human and AI players.

Otherwise, why not introduce early steamships and railroads? Those are more plausible.

 

[Darkath]

No, that just turns it off for the player. The AI could still build it. Yes, we can edit it out of a game. But that's why it should be an option you can turn on or off. So players DON'T need to go editing files.

Don't forget about MP.

 

[PeterCorless]

Darkath: +1