What's up with the Suez Canal?
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
Why just not make canal a small ,narrow strip of international waters? Or is canal actually considered river by game engine??
Please teach AI everything!
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
Balthagor wrote:...And if we change it from a city to a bridge, it can get damaged and never repaired like the one at Malmo in SR2020.
- number47
- General
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Sep 15 2011
- Human: Yes
- Location: X:913 Y:185
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
So, you are telling me that you can't make it indestructible?? Like roads or railroads? (not all bridges, just this special kind that will find themselves in "UN zone")Balthagor wrote:Balthagor wrote:...And if we change it from a city to a bridge, it can get damaged and never repaired like the one at Malmo in SR2020.
EDIT: I didn't realize at first that you were responding to Zuikaku's post and not mine...
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
- General George Patton Jr
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
Some of this would be possible to do but would require programming in a bunch of exceptions for what would still be a less than ideal solution.number47 wrote:Yeah I know that, what I was going for is if the canals or bridges are under "UN protectorate" region, and you make that you can't declare war on that specific region it would solve the issue. Or create a "special" bridge that would have huuge amount of hit points or make it indestructible like roads or railroads.Balthagor wrote:UN Protectorate in SR2020 was just a name of a region like any other. It wasn't actually treated as UN territory. That's the same as making it a colony of Egypt or owned by Egypt.
-
- General
- Posts: 3315
- Joined: Jun 23 2009
- Human: Yes
- Location: x:355 y:216
- Contact:
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
Well considering the owner/operator of the Canal never agreed to that treaty its pretty much a moot point wouldn't you say?forumname wrote: "Under international treaty, it may be used "in time of war as in time of peace, by every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag"
If you're are suggesting that Egypt doesn't have the right to deny canal access to anyone based on a treaty signed by Imperial powers in 1888 When Egypt was Occupied by the British I'm not sure what to say other than what about 1967-1975 when it was closed due to the Isreali-arab war? (or how about during World War 1 when the British.. who ACTUALLY signed the treaty Closed it to enemy vessels? )
Bottom line is Egypt has the right to deny access to it... No treaty that predates the existence of Egypt as a nation state circumvents their sovereignty. It's not "international" or UN controlled territory its part of Egypt. (P.S. just because it says something on wikipedia doesn't mean its taken into the proper context) Egypt abides by the spirit of that Agreement voluntarily, it's not bound to do so.(which the closing of the canal to Israeli ships from 67-75 accentuates.)
I'll grant you that one doesn't need a right of passage treaty currently, but when you consider that Egypt could close the canal if it so chose or deny specific entities access to it and that the canal is the sovereign territory of egypt most of the suggestions here are further from reality than the current setup.
The issue is that they cancel all treaties when they change government types. Something which doesn't tend to happen except in extreme circumstances, and even then its usually a few target nations not ALL treaties with EVERYONE. This is the issue that needs to be looked at IMO, not the canal itself.
I still say that the lock based canals should be a building type that can be built/damaged/destroyed IMO. (probably a hex center)
Last edited by Fistalis on Dec 13 2012, edited 1 time in total.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler mods Site - May it rest in peace
my Supreme Ruler mods Site - May it rest in peace
-
- Major
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Jun 27 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
That statement came from the SA website, not wikkipedia.
You are suggesting they do not honor that treaty, yet they have it under "treaties" on their website?
I'll leave it at that.
You are suggesting they do not honor that treaty, yet they have it under "treaties" on their website?
I'll leave it at that.
-
- General
- Posts: 3315
- Joined: Jun 23 2009
- Human: Yes
- Location: x:355 y:216
- Contact:
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
They do so voluntarily.. as I said before. Not because they are bound to do so. They are not one of the signatories. I thought I laid it out in pretty simple logical terms. Just because they tell everyone they are nice people and would never deny access doesn't make it so. You suggested that they are legally bound by a treaty to keep it open. That is patently false, and considering the last time they closed it to enemies I think its pretty apparent that they can and will close it if they so choose.forumname wrote:That statement came from the SA website, not wikkipedia.
You are suggesting they do not honor that treaty, yet they have it under "treaties" on their website?
I'll leave it at that.
Last edited by Fistalis on Dec 13 2012, edited 1 time in total.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler mods Site - May it rest in peace
my Supreme Ruler mods Site - May it rest in peace
-
- Major
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Jun 27 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
Article 14:
The SCA shall not take any procedure that go against the provisions of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 concerning the free navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal nor shall it give any privilege to a vessel or normal / legal person that is not given, in the same circumstances, to other vessels or normal / legal persons and nor shall it discriminate against some clients in favor of some other clients.
The SCA shall not take any procedure that go against the provisions of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 concerning the free navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal nor shall it give any privilege to a vessel or normal / legal person that is not given, in the same circumstances, to other vessels or normal / legal persons and nor shall it discriminate against some clients in favor of some other clients.
-
- General
- Posts: 3315
- Joined: Jun 23 2009
- Human: Yes
- Location: x:355 y:216
- Contact:
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
That's great but you are still ignoring 1967-1975 when they closed it to Israel, and you do realize that the SCA is a government owned Authority.. which can change its charter at any time right? Its not internationally bound to operate like that. The SCA is nothing but a company owned by egypt.. you seem to be confusing the SCAs marketing for the Governement of egypts policies, but even so you're ignoring that its decided by the government of Egypt.. its not bound to so.forumname wrote:Article 14:
The SCA shall not take any procedure that go against the provisions of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 concerning the free navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal nor shall it give any privilege to a vessel or normal / legal person that is not given, in the same circumstances, to other vessels or normal / legal persons and nor shall it discriminate against some clients in favor of some other clients.
Last edited by Fistalis on Dec 13 2012, edited 1 time in total.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler mods Site - May it rest in peace
my Supreme Ruler mods Site - May it rest in peace
-
- Major
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Jun 27 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
They also got invaded by Israel, France, and England for doing that , didn't they?
Sure they can close it, just as easily as they can be invaded.
Sure they can close it, just as easily as they can be invaded.
-
- General
- Posts: 3315
- Joined: Jun 23 2009
- Human: Yes
- Location: x:355 y:216
- Contact:
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
So isn't that what you've been doing in game? Seems to be working fine then.forumname wrote:They also got invaded by Israel, France, and England for doing that , didn't they?
Sure they can close it, just as easily as they can be invaded.
Edit: The invasion you're referring to happened in 1956, While I'm referring to Egypt closing the Canal to Israel from 67-75 which would be antithetical to the treaty you're quoting. But thanks for bringing up one of the many other times that treaty was ignored, showing that repeatedly its been a moot point for whoever it is that controls the canal. I mean how many times must a treaty be ignored by how many different parties before people realize it holds no weight? I mean Egypt didn't even sign it and people really think they are bound by it when the signatories violated it with-in 20 years of signing it? I mean even if you think they are.. it is pretty much what is reflected in game.. an open borders with all countries to use the canal.. thats the spirit of the treaty itself, and Egypt and Britain have both shown that they can cancel that treaty and deny access any time they want. So regardless of who takes the canal during the Crisis its likely you need a bilateral treaty to get through since that treaty has always been worth less than the paper it was written on.
Transit treaties and SoFAs should be separate.. with transit being easier to get but only allowing movement, but i've been banging that drum for a LONG time. That would likely take care of the issue.. if the AI ever signed transit treaties with each other anyway.. lol
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler mods Site - May it rest in peace
my Supreme Ruler mods Site - May it rest in peace
-
- General
- Posts: 1431
- Joined: Jan 13 2005
- Location: Washington, DC
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
Personally, I lean toward giving the player as much freedom as possible--but at a cost. You take over (annex, etc.) Panama or Suez canals, you get the locations, but at a huge hit to diplomacy, and most of the world gets a big CB boost on you.
-
- Major
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Jun 27 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
Update:
Went back and conquered Egypt first, which left the fractured canal zone as my colony.
Upon liberating the colony, the fractured zone again repaired itself to its original state.
Good job on this BG.
Went back and conquered Egypt first, which left the fractured canal zone as my colony.
Upon liberating the colony, the fractured zone again repaired itself to its original state.
Good job on this BG.
-
- General
- Posts: 1431
- Joined: Jan 13 2005
- Location: Washington, DC
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
Hmmm. Need to try that. Current game (USA), I came in when Palestine DoW'd Israel (DoW Palestine which led to Egypt's DoW on me). I annexed the Canal...but Israel ended up with the lower half of the Sinai, which effectively closes the canal anyway (unless you have a treaty with Israel).
-
- Major
- Posts: 175
- Joined: Jun 27 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: What's up with the Suez Canal?
Im wondering if you annexed Israel, if the canal zone would repair itself...