Ship travel in rivers

[OrangeSfwr]

Why can't ships travel on River squares? A major part of the US civil war was fought on the Mississippi River with Ironclads. In fact, the Mississippi has a long history of trade and military ships occupying it. Other important Rivers for trade would be the Amazon, Nile, Yangtze, Volga, Danube, and Rhine. Travel on these rivers would make trade tremendously easier. I always hated moving caravan space by space across continents to trade. Why not take advantage of the rivers. Also, Trieme's were used in China (and still are) along rivers for trade. They are used more on rivers than in the ocean. I always wondered about this issue. Is it just me?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[WarVoid]

You're right. I have also wondered if this issue was going to be corrected in Civ3. But I think only certain ships should be allowed to travel up rivers. Like small ships such as Caravel and Trireme can travel up rivers but no way can you get a battleship or frigate on them.

[DanM]

Good point.Let's hope the powers that be are aware of this oversight.

[Hawkman142]

This is a very good point and I agree 100%

[mwaf]

I agree on the topic, also as WarVoid pointed out, battleships and other bigger ships shouldn't be able to use rivers. There should perhaps still be rivers that no ship could use. The rivers should also be divided in streaming and none streaming rivers (not up- and downstream as rivers always stream out to sea), giving a boost and anti-boost in ship movement. Streams should occur in oceans, too.

Rivers should also have more strategic value. Meaning that rivers ships can access couldn't be crossed by ground units unless a bridge is built. Smaller rivers could be crossed by ground units without a bridge.

[Earthling7]

I agree 100%... and mwaf, you're right.

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[OrangeSfwr]

quote: Originally posted by mwaf on 05-01-2000 04:48 AM I agree on the topic, also as WarVoid pointed out, battleships and other bigger ships shouldn't be able to use rivers. There should perhaps still be rivers that no ship could use. The rivers should also be divided in streaming and none streaming rivers (not up- and downstream as rivers always stream out to sea), giving a boost and anti-boost in ship movement. Streams should occur in oceans, too. Rivers should also have more strategic value. Meaning that rivers ships can access couldn't be crossed by ground units unless a bridge is built. Smaller rivers could be crossed by ground units without a bridge.

I agree 100% that battleships (and such) should not be allowed to travel in rivers, this is a very good point. I also like your ideas about the streaming of a river (for example, the Nile gets a boost for north bound ships and lagtime for south bound ships) It makes sense and I hope to see that involved in the ship-in-river idea for Civ 3!


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Adm.Naismith]

May I suggest your ideas, as realistic as they are, don't take into account the scale of CIV III map and movements?

I mean, with turns of the lenght of one or more years, what's the point to reproduce the effect of the streaming of a river?

Taking assured that any CIV world map doesn't reproduce any minor river (please look to any real world map for a check ), I suggest there is no need to have different effect on navigation.

We can simply ask Firaxis that any reproduced river will be considered navigable by minor ships, and that will be enough IMHO.
I can see some problem about the share of the same sqare between sea units and ground units, but nothing that can't be resolved.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[OrangeSfwr]

I understand your opinion and at first I felt the same, but after thinking about it I thought "hey, I'm expecting a much bigger map!" and then to add, I'm also expecting combat to be expanded more (maybe something similar, but not exactly the same as Egypt, Nile, Thebes, I forget what the name of the game was but it had to do with being the Pharroh of Egypt) So I don't see much of a problem. The flow of the river would be interesting though.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[OrangeSfwr]

Ah yes, it was Pharroh.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~