Rivers and other Geographic Features

Are we ever going to be able to take naval units up/down rivers? I think this would be a really cool feature and would help increase usability of naval units.
For example: China, as of right now, has 6 cities that can be taken by naval units. The majority of China is fairly safe from naval attacks. However, if naval units could go up the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers, inland cities like Lanzhou and Hohhot could be taken. This would increase the strength of a naval strategy. In other places, this would apply as well, such as Hanoi (Red River) and Cairo (Nile).
Additionally, I feel that if other geographic features like mountain ranges were included, certain areas of the map would become more interesting, because of possible negative effects associated with crossing these geographic features. For example, infantry could cross mountains, but tanks could not, or it would take them a long time, or something. This would force people to improvise, or change their strategies.
Overall, I think that if geographic features had some meaning this game would be more realistic.

I havent acctually tried this but can naval units be taken through canals? like panama canal, suez canal, or the great lakes area?

Written by specter, 17.01.2011 at 13:04

I havent acctually tried this but can naval units be taken through canals? like panama canal, suez canal, or the great lakes area?

Panama, yes. I don't know about the great lakes...

You can pass through suez canal and you cant build any units in great lake, dont see the point if you could.

As for panama, i never knew you can pass through there!

I blame my geography teacher, or my lack of attention in class.

Written by specter, 17.01.2011 at 13:04

I havent acctually tried this but can naval units be taken through canals? like panama canal, suez canal, or the great lakes area?

They can pass through both the Suez and Panama Canals. Additionally, they can also pass through the Bosphorus (connects the Mediterranean and Black Seas). I believe you can put units into the Great Lakes, but not really do much with them. I am not completely sure on this, however. Unfortunately, these are really the only geographical features included. It would be very interesting, from a strategic standpoint, to see how altered geography would affect gameplay.

Would it not be better if only the occupying faction could use these points? for example a user could only go through the suez canal if he was occupying egypt. it would add another level of stratagy

Written by Cormac-_-, 21.01.2011 at 09:11

Would it not be better if only the occupying faction could use these points? for example a user could only go through the suez canal if he was occupying egypt. it would add another level of stratagy

This sort of holds true at the moment, particularly if you use the 100 bonus cities. The city of Suez blocks off any opponent movement through the canal.

All you have to do is put a unit there even if there is no city and ships cannot pass without attacking. I do this all the time at the Strait of Gibralter

Sorry, this kind of thing is complicated (and not all that useful), so the implementation is very unlikely.

Not even rivers?

Written by Hawk, 23.01.2011 at 17:28

Not even rivers?

Well, it's not that difficult to alter the map a little bit, but moving your naval units by rivers would be a pain. Besides, this will create problems for land units movement as well.

Oh.

Unfortionatly there will be no need for navel warfare unless afterwind adds in the reson navel warfair was introduced. To move troops as of now you can move all your planes anyware so who needs boats? now if plains flew Back to base or Sunk if ending on a sea or water location then boats would be of great inportance in game. Until then you bypass water spots with plains. I too would love to see more naval in the game its importance would change alot of stratagys

Written by Crazy Ivan, 18.01.2011 at 03:57

You can pass through suez canal and you cant build any units in great lake, dont see the point if you could.

Chicago and some other cities are open to invasion because of the great lakes. Naval units there help for defense walls, I think.


I kind of agree with the river idea, isn't it possible to make some sort of layer that is traversible by both land and naval units?

My big problem with this is that it would make naval units way to powerful...

WUH??? I never even knew you couldn't use naval on the great lakes! I find that hilarious seeing as the whole damn state of Michigan has constant marine patrols and patrol boats on the lakes, not sure about minnesota,wisonsin, ohio, illinois and indiana, but I know that Naval units wouls seem de facto for great lakes citys. Maybe that's something to add? seeing as North America is boring as hell to play on because stuff like this isn't in the game :/

Um naval units can never be over powered Because you cant take a players capital if its not a port city. Also if there are boats you can just move your troops inland, Going around a fight is better then engagement 99% of the time.

The problem with the river idea is that no river, not even the Nile or Amazon, is navigable to major warships. The Nile, for example, is 8-10 m deep on average, which is too shallow for even small warships - an Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, for example, has its bow 9 m below the water, and it only gets worse for cruisers, battleships, and especially subs. Worst of all, these rivers are far from straight, and it's absurd to think that a battleship could maneuver in such conditions. For comparison, the Suez and Panama Canals are twice as deep at their most shallow point as the Nile, and even there, ships travel at a snail pace because of the danger of such a constrained area. The only ship that could possibly be capable of entering a river is a transport, though this would be limited to non-ocean faring ones.
Ultimately, it would be too difficult to apply in the game. As mentioned previously, both land and naval units would have to be able to cross, the clicking along the river's would be a huge hassle, and if rivers will limited to only certain ships, it would mean that there would have to be 2 separate water-types, navigable by different vessels. All this for the ability for ships to move another 3 tiles in a handful of specific spots?

There are enough navigable rivers to make it viable, the map structure already supports this (you can't just jump continental waters). Most, if not all cities are already near rivers and it would be only the major rivers to be added. Also, strategy would change a lot, game would still be balanced and it would make some locations more playable like south America, you can also go from Mosul to Kwait in real life and many, many other routes)

Only downside for programming is that more port cities might need to be added and some other changes, but as we know, good games are always about developing and finding stuff. It should never stall after an accomplishment.

>Naval units down St Lawrence river
>Goes down Niagra Falls

xD

Im kidding, they built a canal there.

You would be really amazing if you coud use the great rivers of country's to move your naval units

I don't know about you guys, but I'm pretty sure you can't send destroyers or submarines up a river IRL.

Why is this thread not dead.