A lot of technology, a lot of diplomatic points, and an enormous lot of money should be needed
Wealth of Nations Dev Diary 3: Companies and Canals
- Thread starter Besuchov
- 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.
I just don't understand the benefit of these canals at the point they come into the game and at the cost that they do. Kiel only really exists to make money, but simply by building it you've already proven that you don't need the money. For Panama, if you control Panama and have 20k gold, why not just conquer the Falklands and The galapagos and take the extra 2 months to sail around at 20k in savings?
Suez is the only one that has significant utility, particularly for the Ottomans. But seriously, at the cost, why not just build an entire second navy (like we do currently) and save 18-19k?
Edit: I don't care about historical plausibility. I just don't see their utility from a gameplay perspective.
Suez is the only one that has significant utility, particularly for the Ottomans. But seriously, at the cost, why not just build an entire second navy (like we do currently) and save 18-19k?
Edit: I don't care about historical plausibility. I just don't see their utility from a gameplay perspective.
In dev stream it requires admin tech 26 and 20k ducats...
Just a personal opinion, but as I've previously said, based on dev stream, I think the canals existence is less about the canals themselves and more about 'the great project' which I think meant as a different end goal than simply conquer the world, and because the current DLC is dubbed 'Wealth of Nation', the canals and their bonus upon economy thematically fit for both 'great project' and 'wealth of nation'...
This could be simply seen as an investment to gain more trade power from the new unlocked trade route and from the trade bonus.
Yeah, but trade power=money. So I'm spending 20k to get more money. Even if the trade power does pay off (which would mean the income from a canal would have to be ridiculous), what's the point of making a bit more money when you have 20k to blow on a canal?
I can't speak to multiplayer as I don't play very much, but if players are sitting on 20 k gold why not just build huge armies of mercs and extra navies wherever they're needed? Wouldn't that be true mobility
All the people talking about wasting time on canals when they could fix other stuff really have no idea what it takes to code. As pointed out in one of the releases the only cost in doing canals is scripting and artwork. The artists are not fixing systems so really the only cost is scripting and I highly doubt scripting in canals was a significant investment
Also, canals as mentioned in the Diary, is an experiment to a new concept: Province's building which could be generalized in latter DLC or mods.
We should encourage Paradox innovations, especially that canals will not break anything in the gameplay.
.png){kind=avatar}
Instead of adding canals which couldn't possibly accomodate warships with the technology available at the time, why not add portages? Not only they would be accessible to every nation with shipbuilding technology, they would cost far less than shoveling tons of stone and dirt with slave manpower; there will be more places to build them instead of three; and it would be perfectly historical. Why nobody at Paradox ever thought to do something that was already done in other successful games is beyond me.
Because why not flaunt your power and wealth?
It's kind of like "megaprojects" in Dwarf Fortress. Many of them are needlessly complicated or involved for what they do. But they do them because they can.
In an ideal world the Canals would be able to have their "Depth" specified, meaning you would be able to restrict their use to only certain classes of ships. This would be a value that could be raised and lowered for each Canal during game.
As such Paradox won't do this. Canals will again just be an All-or-nothing thing.
Also blocking Canals with fleets is dumb. Instead you shouldn't be able to Use a Canal unless you either own the province, or have Naval Access with the country that does. That way whatever country owns a major canal will be be able to make money from the Canal itself without the convoluted event system that PDM had to use.
As such Paradox won't do this. Canals will again just be an All-or-nothing thing.
Also blocking Canals with fleets is dumb. Instead you shouldn't be able to Use a Canal unless you either own the province, or have Naval Access with the country that does. That way whatever country owns a major canal will be be able to make money from the Canal itself without the convoluted event system that PDM had to use.
Hmm - these are not the "canals" I was expecting! Canals were certainly a major feature of 17th/18th century development - but it was as a precorsor to railways as a system for commercial freight over land provinces. That sounds like a straightforward province improvement (which is maybe already in the game? I haven't checked).
Still, if "canals" as shortcuts for oceangoing vessels is to be done, I don't see why not - it would have been feasible if the (massive) committment of resources had been made. Even so, I think the choice of canal sites seems a bit "off" - Panama in particular. I don't think anywhere as hilly could have been crossed with the technology of the smaller "narrowboat" type canals. The Great Lakes canal and similar sound good candidates, though.
As to blocking canals, in the early days a major weapon was "torpedoes", rather than submarines. Meaning an explosive on a long pole that was "launched" from the banks, so an "army" weapon rather than a "navy" one. Naval forces could blockade the ends of the canal, though; maybe represent the canal as a port with exits to two seas? That would deny entry if an army holds the port province, but also allow navies to blockade the port (also denying access to naval forces).
Still, if "canals" as shortcuts for oceangoing vessels is to be done, I don't see why not - it would have been feasible if the (massive) committment of resources had been made. Even so, I think the choice of canal sites seems a bit "off" - Panama in particular. I don't think anywhere as hilly could have been crossed with the technology of the smaller "narrowboat" type canals. The Great Lakes canal and similar sound good candidates, though.
As to blocking canals, in the early days a major weapon was "torpedoes", rather than submarines. Meaning an explosive on a long pole that was "launched" from the banks, so an "army" weapon rather than a "navy" one. Naval forces could blockade the ends of the canal, though; maybe represent the canal as a port with exits to two seas? That would deny entry if an army holds the port province, but also allow navies to blockade the port (also denying access to naval forces).
Railroads could be interesting, but I'd also like if the "Road System" actually made roads show up on the map. An issue with EU4 is the cities always feel so bland and lifeless - so little of what I do to them, seems to really change anything.
I think Panama being used is simply because its the most "famous" canal probably. Its rather ahistorical, but the game has descended into ahistorical as soon as you unpause anyhow... I think I remember some people saying making the Canal back then wasn't really impossible, it just was entirely unfeasible or just wouldn't pay off. Of course, if you own half the world already, may as well spend your vast wealth on something, right?
So Trade Companies will NOT be represented as semi-independent states like Colonial Nations?
Indeed, they aren't independent states; in fact you can entirely choose not to form any. Quite different than in the Americas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canal_(China) is something we considered, but it just didny work mechanically brcause its too big.
Wait, "Naval Improvment" and "Companies and Canals" are both the 3rd Dev Diary? Shouldn't this one be the 4th one? :huh:
Last edited: