The importance of rivers

[murrensen]

Hello everyone,

I would like to have to major improvements in EU4.

The first thing is to change province shapes in a way that rivers act as a border between provinces. By that the defensive importance of rivers is remarked and it is also usefull to clarify rivercrossing penalties between provinces. Following this path gives the player and AI strategic reasons to decide, if conquering or not a neighbours province would be in their interest. This kind of map setting is already in use for HOI4 and I think for CK2.

The second thought is about allowing the fleet to navigate in determinate rivers. The navy importance increase is always welcome and a lot of new startegic options are given to the player, like sieging and blockating no costal provinces.

Regards

 

[AlphaMikeOmega]

You can see which provinces have river-borders with other ones by hovering over the icon that looks like a river in the top-left of the province screen:

 

[murrensen]

Yes you are right, but there is always room for improvement and a better visualisation is good for gameplay reasons.

 

[chegitz guevara]

The way the display is now is an improvement from the old way, which was as you would like it.

Though I would like navigable rivers.

 

[murrensen]

The way the display is now is an improvement from the old way, which was as you would like it.

Though I would like navigable rivers.

I can't see where in EU3 rivers are part of the provinces border.

 

[chegitz guevara]

EU II
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net...ope_IDs.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20160808192555

 

[rho]

The "simple terrain" map mode is already excellent for visualising river crossings.

 

[Trin Tragula]

The "simple terrain" map mode is already excellent for visualising river crossings.

This and the province view also helps.

In some cases having borders at rivers can make sense. But it would destroy any sensible province borders in other parts of the world.
Rivers have not always been natural borders, sometimes they're rather the central point of the province.
We do try to draw the provinces as clearly as possible but if we were to always follow rivers you would end up with some very weird provinces in places.
A quick peek at India for instance should help to show why the region would look completely different (in many cases unrecognizably so) if we had provinces following river borders.

 

[gronak]

I think the major rivers should at least be navigable by boats. Thinking in particular of the rivers at hamburg and at bulgaria (don't know their names). No doubt there's countless others too. These major rivers could give a harsher penalty for crossing as well.

 

[AirikrStrife]

There are some problems with the idea of navigable rivers. Historically this is a very big thing, for example the Songhai empire, which was completly landlocked were still a major naval power in the Niger river which were of huge importance to their conquest both for transporting troops and to lay siege to cities. One Songhai Askia would even build canals so he could use his fleet in sieges. The main things fleets in rivers could accomplish is troop transport and to aid in sieges. Other features could be preventing/slowing river crossings.

But it wouldn't work having ocean-going carracks sailing down the danube. A whole new ship system would have to be introduced,with smaller river going ships. The main issues with this would probably be:

Size of rivers are too small in two senses, too small on maps to make it visually working and too small to give much of a significant bonus. Very few rivers are long enough and flexible enough to produce good reasons to spend money on a fleet that can only move up and down parts of let's say the Danube. There are very few instances there states would do any significant investment in river fleets with those limits. The reason why the Songhai was dependent on their fleet was because in reality western africa is fuckng huge and they spent all their time fighting along the Niger river base. In EUIV you can expand much faster than in real history. I you played games which were much more confined it would have worked out but at the way euiv works (the map would need to be a lot bigger for navigable rivers to become a thing)

 

[bigaristotel]

What about pontoon bridges?
For example, to cross some areas of great rivers (like some parts of Danube and Dnieper) you would move slower and pay extra $$ to build pontoon bridge. It would add more reality, although I dont mind current system

 

[bebrst]

a closer connection of the trade to rivers and big lakes could be interesting. I have yet no clear idea though, to to implement it best... suggestions?

 

[chegitz guevara]

Navigable rivers + canals: how the Ottoman navy was able to fight the Portuguese off Goa, seven years before the conquest of Egypt.

The Ottomans also planned to build a canal between the Don and the Volga, and sail their navy into the Caspian and attack the Safavids from behind.

 

[Mortheim]

I have mixed feelings about these suggestions.
First, rivers were often navigated and cossaks often used them to reach provinces for pillaging. So navigation should be restricted to some special boats.
Second, a lot of borders between provinces shouldn't be based on rivers, because a lot of cities were on rivers. Like, all big cities of Russia were on rivers. This will create really ugly borders in a lot of regions.
Third, rivers were one of the most important routes between cities. Some of those are represented through trade routes, some doesn't.

 

[Warial]

I'm pretty sure I'll get only disagrees here, but I would just point out that in EU4 provinces don't have to be contigous. So, we could have navigable rivers, which would split provinces in half. Maybe it's not an elegant solution, but certainly possible.

About ships. Do we really need special types? Shouldn't just disallowing Heavy Ships from entering rivers be enough?

 

[Mortheim]

About ships. Do we really need special types? Shouldn't just disallowing Heavy Ships from entering rivers be enough?

From all EU ships only cogs and, maybe, galleys would be able to navigate rivers.

Another point is - for some countries rivers weren't as important as for others. East Europe relied on it a lot.

I'm sorry, but i will again use Russia as an example: all of the richest cities in Russia were on rivers. Especially those which were able to reach mane trade routes like Volga (one of the reasons why Nizhny Novgorod was one of the richest cities in Muscov) and Baltic Sea (Volkhv+Neva made Novgorod rich af). Tbh i can write full post about how it affected development and trade of Russian cities xD

 

[Warial]

From all EU ships only cogs and, maybe, galleys would be able to navigate rivers.

Galleys for sure. Rowing help a lot when sailing upstream.

 

[esbear]

From all EU ships only cogs and, maybe, galleys would be able to navigate rivers.

This would also give galeys another purpose, as they are not really cost effective compared to hevies.

 

[Metz]

Should we be able to use rivers as pathways for colonization? (Mississippi River).

 

[Lehnaru]

This and the province view also helps.

In some cases having borders at rivers can make sense. But it would destroy any sensible province borders in other parts of the world.
Rivers have not always been natural borders, sometimes they're rather the central point of the province.
We do try to draw the provinces as clearly as possible but if we were to always follow rivers you would end up with some very weird provinces in places.
A quick peek at India for instance should help to show why the region would look completely different (in many cases unrecognizably so) if we had provinces following river borders.

Please fix borders that actually did follow rivers. Like Moldavia on the Dniester. In-game it very roughly follows it and weirdly diverges in the north for a strange modern-ish flat border.