St lawrence River and the great lakes

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • St lawrence River and the great lakes

      The Great lakes are currently useless decor, yet AI and even players build ships in them and The St. Lawrence river currently only extends to Quebec City. In WW2, Canada and America built and operated ships in the great lakes, and Canada had some sail into the atlantic through the St lawrence. Mainly I just want a practical purpose for the Great lakes, since it is the only inland water terrain that you can build naval bases
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower

    • @NukeRaider33: I looked at this about a year ago, and was surprised to learn that the St. Lawrence Seaway, connecting the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence River and several intermediate canals, was not completed until the 1950s. Until then, the Great Lakes were only connected to the Atlantic via the relatively small 19th Century locks and canals in Canada and the northeastern United States, as well as the Chicago River and canal via the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Large ocean-going freighters and warships were thus unable to transit the Great Lakes until the completion of the seaway in 1959, and lake-built ore and cargo freighters were effectively land-locked until then. That said, a not insignificant number of smaller vessels ---- including submarines, destroyer escorts, LSTs and landing craft ---- were built in Great Lakes shipyards during World War II, as well as in the various ports along the Mississippi and Ohio river valleys. My father was an officer and engineer in the U.S. Navy Seabees from 1941 to 1946, and was temporarily assigned in 1943 to the Ambridge yard outside of Pittsburgh, where LSTs were built. His Seabees battalion later got to use some of those same LSTs he helped build during his second stint in the Pacific from 1943 to 1946.

      Of course, part of the problem for COW's truncated version of North America is that it excludes the Mississippi River, which was navigable by destroyer escorts and mid-size freighters all the way to Lake Michigan. A more realistic map of North America would include a Mississippi River that was navigable by smaller naval units. That said, COW's versions of Canada and the United States provide ample opportunities for ocean ports and naval bases already ---- probably more than any player can reasonably use.

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      @NukeRaider33: I looked at this about a year ago, and was surprised to learn that the St. Lawrence Seaway, connecting the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean via the St. Lawrence River and several intermediate canals, was not completed until the 1950s. Until then, the Great Lakes were only connected to the Atlantic via the relatively small 19th Century locks and canals in Canada and the northeastern United States, as well as the Chicago River and canal via the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Large ocean-going freighters and warships were thus unable to transit the Great Lakes until the completion of the seaway in 1959, and lake-built ore and cargo freighters were effectively land-locked until then. That said, a not insignificant number of smaller vessels ---- including submarines, destroyer escorts, LSTs and landing craft ---- were built in Great Lakes shipyards during World War II, as well as in the various ports along the Mississippi and Ohio river valleys. My father was an officer and engineer in the U.S. Navy Seabees from 1941 to 1946, and was temporarily assigned in 1943 to the Ambridge yard outside of Pittsburgh, where LSTs were built. His Seabees battalion later got to use some of those same LSTs he helped build during his second stint in the Pacific from 1943 to 1946.

      Of course, part of the problem for COW's truncated version of North America is that it excludes the Mississippi River, which was navigable by destroyer escorts and mid-size freighters all the way to Lake Michigan. A more realistic map of North America would include a Mississippi River that was navigable by smaller naval units. That said, COW's versions of Canada and the United States provide ample opportunities for ocean ports and naval bases already ---- probably more than any player can reasonably use.
      Well, I realized that. But still, it would be nice for it to be navigable to a small degree(for submarines, destroyers, and transports in particular), possibly a new land feature called rivers(something land units do not take a large time to embark and disembark on, and therefore can travel over fairly quickly(or just allow them to traverse them as if they were land, either way), while still allowing ships to navigate through. There is actually a bunch of locations which could receive these rivers, and basically all 6 navigable continents, minus maybe Australia, would get them. You can not build naval bases on rivers, so it would not change the meta in any significant way, in terms of resource production). Or, if nothing else, allow ships to be teleported to the nearest ocean base you own, for a small fee. It would make the battleships built in the great lakes less of an eye-sore, and actually make them a strategic asset, rather than a strategic liability. Looking at the 10p and 22p European maps in particular, where building any ships in the Great lakes basically means you wasted a lot of resources... And are stuck with a permanent eye sore and supply penalty.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by NovaTopaz ().

    • I just want a practical use for the Great lakes, as it is the only inland place where you can build ships. As Quebec already has part of the St lawrence in place, I think that this option would be the easiest
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower

    • xXCooksterXx wrote:

      A new province would have to be made.
      Not really hard to program at all. And there is ample precedent for overseas territories of the great powers on the 10, 22 and 25-player maps. The only real difference here is that a Panama Canal province would actually have real strategic value in the game, and would actually be worth defending.

      Now go convince the software developers. :)

    • I would have to say that I agree, this game already extends the timeline to the 1950's plus so I personal don't see a problem there... I think rivers ex the Volga, Mississippi etc would be a nice change

      would these rivers be limited to smaller craft? ex no battleships or what?

    • C379 wrote:

      would these rivers be limited to smaller craft? ex no battleships or what?

      well, considering you can get an aircraft carrier through the panama canal, probably not.
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower