Canals, Bridges, and Rivers Needed

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

    • Canals, Bridges, and Rivers Needed

      I'm sure it's been covered....but we need CANALS.

      There is the Volga-Don Canal linking the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea. There is a proposed Eurasian Canal to do the same (more expediently). There are canals linking the Great Lakes to the Atlantic both through Canada and through the USA. There are even canals linking Lake Erie to the Mississippi River system linking to the Gulf of Mexico.

      There are rivers in the real world. In theory, a Militia should be able to sail up the Rhine River and offload at a destination interior port instead of only at an ocean port....thus alleviating long-distance travel. Maybe adding a few rivers for inland Seaports and canals for land-locked lakes would help. At the very least, it would allow all those A.I. Destroyers to escape the Great Lakes in the World Map.

      We need waterways! Then, you might say there needs to be a way to bridge them. Of course! The map designers have made the Suez and Panama canals to be like the Bosphorus Strait which naturally connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Black Sea. But in real life, there are bridges over the Bosphorus. Yet, no land forces can cross from Istanbul into Turkey proper. And land forces should be able to cross the Suez and Panama canals with bridges.

      This means, of course that, if Bytro implements some rivers, they would need bridges and inland seaports. This would require a base-code update...but so what? It's about time they added something that actually matters to players more than a bunch of elusive "crates". Of course, not all rivers need be added, but some rivers should. And, there should be the ability to construct canals (along preset courses) that would follow one of the following two options (depending on which way the devs want to go with this).

      The first option is to have rivers and any possible canals pass through the inside of provinces such that they can have interior seaports and can be "owned" by whomever owns the containing province. The second option would be to have rivers and canals pass along provincial borders so that they can never be owned but a canal would be able to be permanently built. However, the rest of this post deals with and is concerned with the proposal of canal courses that would be interior to provinces and would be own-able. All possible canal paths in a map would have to follow known river courses plus any proposed "theoretical" river courses along obvious depressions (a look at a map of existing canals shows some of these.

      For the sake of game-play, rivers would not be navigable unless "improved" into being canals. Thus, a cost of building would be associated with the privilege of traveling along either a river or canal and -- for the purposes of game simplicity -- only canals would be considered navigable. Thus, the Mississippi River would have to be upgraded into the Mississippi Canal to be navigable; representing dredging, seawalls, and other improvements.

      Longer rivers (like the Mississippi) and canals would have to be chained through multiple connecting provinces in a line in order for the canal to be able to reach between that canal's seaport and any destination open bodies of water (or other seaports along a longer canal). Even just linking up canals between multiple provinces could act as a water-based highway for slower units like Heavy Tanks, Militia, and Railroad Guns. In theory, a person could just construct only a few links of a longer canal system, linking up a shorter chain along a longer river course to use as a water-highway for the purposes of facilitating a rally point.

      But the other benefit of canals -- beside transit -- would be to add a seaport to some land-locked provinces thus providing a means both in which to increase resource output as well as to build more naval ships at a time. Perhaps, though -- as a restriction -- for the benefits of an interior seaport to increase resource output, it should be in a canal that actually connects all the way to the sea. Or, for more practical purposes, instead of that other restriction, maybe the only restriction would be that naval ships can't be built unless the canal connects all the way to the sea.

      Also, just as damage to a seaport would halt construction of a naval ship on the coastline, so too would damage to an inland seaport and/or damage to a segment of a canal needfully have to halt construction of a naval ship. In fact, it would make more sense that damage to any segment of a longer canal system would necessarily force ALL ships being constructed at any interior seaports along the canal to halt until all segments of the canal are repaired. This would apply to functioning canals (enabled or disabled) as well. Of course, this would only affect construction in an interior seaport that loses it's connection to the sea. If an interior seaport is down-river from a deactivated canal, it would be unaffected by it.

      To be fair, if the canal system is designed as interior to provinces, then they'd need to have a maintenance cost associated with them and could be damaged like any other building, thus reverting to non-navigable-river status (similar to the effect of being disabled). But, if they follow the provincial borders in the second option (briefly mentioned further above), then they should be permanently built without maintenance costs except that any seaports along the canal would have standard seaport maintenance costs and operate as normal seaports.

      There could be lots of other details about this, but I think I've covered the idea pretty succinctly. Here are some pictures of example canal paths that would need to be added to the maps.




      This isn't really the same issue, but it's sorta related and seems like a very smart idea:

      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

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

    • Diabolical wrote:

      I'm sure it's been covered....but we need CANALS.

      There is the Volga-Don Canal linking the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea. There is a proposed Eurasian Canal to do the same (more expediently). There are canals linking the Great Lakes to the Atlantic both through Canada and through the USA. There are even canals linking Lake Erie to the Mississippi River system linking to the Gulf of Mexico.

      There are rivers in the real world. In theory, a Militia should be able to sail up the Rhine River and offload at a destination interior port instead of only at an ocean port....thus alleviating long-distance travel. Maybe adding a few rivers for inland Seaports and canals for land-locked lakes would help. At the very least, it would allow all those A.I. Destroyers to escape the Great Lakes in the World Map.

      We need waterways! Then, you might say there needs to be a way to bridge them. Of course! The map designers have made the Suez and Panama canals to be like the Bosphorus Strait which naturally connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Black Sea. But in real life, there are bridges over the Bosphorus. Yet, no land forces can cross from Istanbul into Turkey proper. And land forces should be able to cross the Suez and Panama canals with bridges.

      This means, of course that, if Bytro implements some rivers, they would need bridges and inland seaports. This would require a base-code update...but so what? It's about time they added something that actually matters to players more than a bunch of elusive "crates". Of course, not all rivers need be added, but some rivers should. And, there should be the ability to construct canals (along preset courses) that would follow one of the following two options (depending on which way the devs want to go with this).

      The first option is to have rivers and any possible canals pass through the inside of provinces such that they can have interior seaports and can be "owned" by whomever owns the containing province. The second option would be to have rivers and canals pass along provincial borders so that they can never be owned but a canal would be able to be permanently built. However, the rest of this post deals with and is concerned with the proposal of canal courses that would be interior to provinces and would be own-able. All possible canal paths in a map would have to follow known river courses plus any proposed "theoretical" river courses along obvious depressions (a look at a map of existing canals shows some of these.

      For the sake of game-play, rivers would not be navigable unless "improved" into being canals. Thus, a cost of building would be associated with the privilege of traveling along either a river or canal and -- for the purposes of game simplicity -- only canals would be considered navigable. Thus, the Mississippi River would have to be upgraded into the Mississippi Canal to be navigable; representing dredging, seawalls, and other improvements.

      Longer rivers (like the Mississippi) and canals would have to be chained through multiple connecting provinces in a line in order for the canal to be able to reach between that canal's seaport and any destination open bodies of water (or other seaports along a longer canal). Even just linking up canals between multiple provinces could act as a water-based highway for slower units like Heavy Tanks, Militia, and Railroad Guns. In theory, a person could just construct only a few links of a longer canal system, linking up a shorter chain along a longer river course to use as a water-highway for the purposes of facilitating a rally point.

      But the other benefit of canals -- beside transit -- would be to add a seaport to some land-locked provinces thus providing a means both in which to increase resource output as well as to build more naval ships at a time. Perhaps, though -- as a restriction -- for the benefits of an interior seaport to increase resource output, it should be in a canal that actually connects all the way to the sea. Or, for more practical purposes, instead of that other restriction, maybe the only restriction would be that naval ships can't be built unless the canal connects all the way to the sea.

      Also, just as damage to a seaport would halt construction of a naval ship on the coastline, so too would damage to an inland seaport and/or damage to a segment of a canal needfully have to halt construction of a naval ship. In fact, it would make more sense that damage to any segment of a longer canal system would necessarily force ALL ships being constructed at any interior seaports along the canal to halt until all segments of the canal are repaired. This would apply to functioning canals (enabled or disabled) as well. Of course, this would only affect construction in an interior seaport that loses it's connection to the sea. If an interior seaport is down-river from a deactivated canal, it would be unaffected by it.

      To be fair, if the canal system is designed as interior to provinces, then they'd need to have a maintenance cost associated with them and could be damaged like any other building, thus reverting to non-navigable-river status (similar to the effect of being disabled). But, if they follow the provincial borders in the second option (briefly mentioned further above), then they should be permanently built without maintenance costs except that any seaports along the canal would have standard seaport maintenance costs and operate as normal seaports.

      There could be lots of other details about this, but I think I've covered the idea pretty succinctly. Here are some pictures of example canal paths that would need to be added to the maps.




      This isn't really the same issue, but it's sorta related and seems like a very smart idea:


      A nice long post... Haha, typical Diabolical!

      I agree wholeheartedly that we need canals in strategic positions like you mentioned. Some important strategic rivers that would need to be added would be:
      • Danube
      • Rhine
      • Amazon
      • Nile
      • Euphrates or Tigris
      • Mississippi
      • Colorado
      • Yangtze
      • Yellow
      • Congo
      • Volga
      • Ob
      • Canadian
      • Yamuna
      • Sutlej
      To name a few. This would be a major update, but along with the world map it would make things more challenging and a lot more fun (so long as there are bridges!)

      Also,

      Diabolical wrote:

      It's about time they added something that actually matters to players more than a bunch of elusive "crates".
      Daaaaang. LOL But I agree.
      follow me on instagram @coopswithdahoops

      add me on snapchat @coopswitdahoops

      follow me on twitter @realCooperDavis

      yeahhhhhh
    • I admit to being biased, but I'd want to see the Columbia River added to that list.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • I agree. I'd like paras and marines first, but as someone who plays as Germany alot, i'm so annoyed by not having my glorious Kiel canal. Do you know how annoying it is having to move around Denmark?

      Rivers would be great fun for defensive player: wanna invade me? Cross this river and i'll show you the meaning of pain...and if we get rivers and such, that means patrol boats or corvettes!

      Also, i'm feeling that burn on the crates. While i'm sure they'll be useful, the community ddn't ask for it.
      "If the tanks succeed, then victory follows."- H.Guderian

      "Hit first ! Hit hard ! Keep on hitting ! ! (The 3 H's)" Admiral Jackie Fisher

      "The 3 Requisites for Success – Ruthless, Relentless, Remorseless(The 3 R's)" Admiral Fisher

      Crates: a Term used to define any unwanted and unneeded feature in CoW

      Game Username: LordStark01
    • A list of major rivers and canals I think should be added to the Europe map
      Rivers should only be available to Troop convoys and Destroyers.

      -St. Lawrence River (Great Lakes and Atlantic Ocean)
      -Mississippi River Canals (Gulf of Mexico Great Lakes)
      -Rhine River (North Sea, Inland Bavaria)
      -Kiel Canal (Baltic Sea, North Sea)
      -Corinth Canal (Ionian Sea, Aegean Sea)
      -Danube River (Black Sea, Inland Austria)
      -Volga River (Astrakhan to Yaroslav)
      -White Sea Canal (Arctic Sea to Baltic)


      I also think it would be cool if only the nations with territories adjacent to a canal can use it, and others can as well if the 2 nations allow military movement.
    • Cup of Tea wrote:

      I also think it would be cool if only the nations with territories adjacent to a canal can use it, and others can as well if the 2 nations allow military movement.
      This would be essentially how it would work anyway... if someone is conquering territory and come up on a canal, they use it. If someone has Right of Way through another country, they can use it. If we just simplify it so that anyone can use it it should work.
      follow me on instagram @coopswithdahoops

      add me on snapchat @coopswitdahoops

      follow me on twitter @realCooperDavis

      yeahhhhhh
    • I like where this is going. I seem to have stirred up some renewed interest in real creativity instead of just a bunch of "Let's make this more powerful and make that faster."
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • I support the idea, never happens. Tell me when Bytro has ever done something that changes the core of the game? How many times you said? 0? Thats correct.

      Though I dont pretend to know the insides of the company, or actual development skills, I feel that the 'core game' is untouchable and perhaps impossible to change at all coding wise. At least for the current dev team.

      Which is a pity. Basically every similar wargame like this has rivers and all, even the simple 1 or 2 guy made phone games. Why doesnt this game evolve? See above, though the 'real' reason will probably never be known, we can only speculate. Its the same reason why there isnt a mobile app yet - Im sure the more....commercial employees of Bytro thought and suggested this. They are basically leaving a HUGE market untapped. Look around in the Play store for instance. Can you find even 1 strategic wargame that is as good as CoW there? You probably cant (and if you do, please tell me:D)

      Then again, it might not even be that hard. After all, we have differing terrains, where cities are the smallest type of province - a similar setup can be made for a 'river type' terrain. But then you would have to change the maps, and we all know how long the company takes to make a new map.

      It would be nice if the company actually interacts with its customers (perhaps they do on the German server?), and no, I dont count community managers, but actual developers in Q&A kind of sessions. So questions (back on topic again:) ) regarding interesting changes like the OP suggests, can be answered.
    • miech wrote:

      Though I dont pretend to know the insides of the company, or actual development skills, I feel that the 'core game' is untouchable and perhaps impossible to change at all coding wise. At least for the current dev team.

      No core is untouchable. Sometimes, base code can be so poorly written -- and have even worse documentation -- such that it almost seems like it needs a "frame-up" restoration. But, with careful analysis, and with the help of at least a few of the original developers, the base code can be rejuvenated with cleaner code segmentation, rewritten patterns, and upgraded interfaces.

      Once the messy base code has been cleaned up, well-documented, and thoroughly white-box tested, then it can be migrated through general testing and eventual release to replace the old core. After all that has been done (perhaps several months after initial code renovation has begun), then -- and only then -- can new features and new bug fixes begin a proper implementation. However, once code renovation begins, no further bug-fixing can continue on the old core both to prevent inconsistent results with the end-users ("What? I thought they fixed this weeks ago!") and to avoid interface changes that might conflict with upgraded interface expectations on the new core.

      miech wrote:

      It would be nice if the company actually interacts with its customers (perhaps they do on the German server?), and no, I dont count community managers, but actual developers in Q&A kind of sessions. So questions (back on topic again:) ) regarding interesting changes like the OP suggests, can be answered.

      Your talking about a customer service department. That would make sense if they had a much smaller customer base and/or charged more money for the game (i.e., "not free"), but -- as is -- the community management -- which has less access but costs far less to handle -- is the best path AND because of the volunteer aspect, only players who are genuinely interested in seeing the game run well and get improved appropriately will be in charge of the public face of the company.

      I applaud the community volunteers for doing so well with no pay. They are the back-bone of our interface with the development team and they are doing a good job overall. That being said, an occasional Q&A with the dev team might be a nice addition that would make the community feel more connected to the developers but most users' concerns are thoughtfully screened and channeled through to the dev team anyway.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Good reply(Y). Seems you know far more about programming and development then I do - my knowledge is basic at best, with a general knowledge how the process works from a projectmanagement perspective.



      You are, however, decribing a best practice method - which doesnt mean it is actually the case here.

      Im not bashing the CM's, at least it wasnt my intend to do so. The thing is that it often appears they dont know the whole story - or on the other hand perhaps are not allowed to divulge the full story;). I wasnt talking about Customer Service in conventional means, that doesnt work with indie companies.

      Perhaps the last sentence describes the situation best - 'screened'. In my long experience of being here, it seems that it tends to happen that priorities are...not synchronised.

      Community: We want rivers and paratroopers
      Bytro: Ok, we will implement crates
      Community: wtf?

      However, as of late, they seem to be doing an increasing amount of things that actually are customer focussed, removing bugs and having more game start options.

      Back to topic then:). I was describing that the addition would be very good, but have no hope it will be implemented, or other likewise 'gamechanging' upgrades because of what I said in my longread. I do hope I am wrong though;)

      and with the help of at least a few of the original developers

      Assuming they still work there (which I sincerely doubt)
    • If there are no original developers present and a lack of well-documented code and coding standards, then I truly feel bad with whomever is in charge over there...as that would be something of a code maintenance nightmare. That aside, anything's possible when it comes to rejuvenating the programming, but a smaller "indie" company (as you call them) might not have the resources to afford massive code reviews and they could be just stuck with inherited code and a philosophy of "if it ain't broken...much...then don't fix it."

      As for customer/developer synchronization, well, hopefully, some things are getting through to them. I would commend their usage of the volunteers to communicate their intent to us. But the other direction may be dubious. However, as you said, they do seem to be paying a little more attention to the users as they are indeed focusing on error fixing.

      But -- and this is very important for you and everyone else to understand -- if the developers are focusing more and more on bug-fixes and less on implementing new ideas, then that could possibly be a very bad sign of a cultural shift at Bytro. My reasoning for saying that is this: when a company starts to focus heavily on debugging an existing project years after it's initial release, that can indicate unreleased plans to begin phasing out production altogether. A typical software engineer like myself would term the application's life cycle as being in maintenance mode with aims towards being retired eventually.

      I am not saying that Bytro has any plans to discontinue improvements on the game. Nor would I make any predictions of their intent and treatment of the life-cycle of the product or any intent to cease support of it. I think theirs is a policy of a general support with minor improvements to older products, like Supremacy 1914 and Thirty Kingdoms, but I don't play those so I can't say for sure how well they maintain them. I am aware that the community volunteers still work with those, so that is a good sign for the players of CoW. But, as the new development of New World Empires continues, and perhaps other titles that might take up more of Bytro's attentions, it should be assumed that Call of War will not always be able to implement many new ideas.

      All that being said, as a non-staff member of a certain special commission for improving the game of Call of War, I am reasonably assured that Bytro likely intends to continue with improvements and good maintenance of Call of War for a while yet. But, nothing is certain. Priorities change and budgets are fickle.

      My advice, just enjoy Call of War for what it is and everyone stop whining.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • This is the map of Europe with: rivers and canal bridges.

      In the event that this suggestion will be held, the map would be more strategic, good idea.


      "I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.


      "Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.
    • A core game change like this wont happen. And frankly, it isnt as important as paratroopers. They are more important, and a worth while cause to support. Canals,are unlikely to be added.


      I would like to see the map more strategic, with in intro of bridges etc , but that is unlikely



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye