A solid yes. A globe map where we could fly over the poles would be good.
Arctic?
Well, I have seen this around the forums, and thought it was time we made a thread about it.
Do you think, the Antarctic and Arctic should be added to the world map?

If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
30 Replies
But how to convert globe to a flat map? I mean, I never seen it in any game. Poles are always cut out. It's hard to make that in good way, maybe even impossible, especially for browser game. I could be wrong, but I have never seen that.Quasi-duck wrote:
A solid yes. A globe map where we could fly over the poles would be good.
I mean make a globe. Kind of like Google maps/world.Paramunac wrote:
But how to convert globe to a flat map? I mean, I never seen it in any game. Poles are always cut out. It's hard to make that in good way, maybe even impossible, especially for browser game. I could be wrong, but I have never seen that.
I am divided here, by leaning slightly with Quasi here. I would love to see the ability to fly over the Artic
but we would need a new Terran for there..

If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
Simple, ice sheets. Mechanised units cannot cross them.oceanhawk wrote:
I am divided here, by leaning slightly with Quasi here. I would love to see the ability to fly over the Articbut we would need a new Terran for there..
The antarctic shouldn't be passable for troops. But as for planes flying over it, I don't have an issue.
you are a balls
True. Although it is stable. While you couldn't march militia over it, if you had lvl 3 infra with train tracks you could ship units by train over it no problem.GreatbigHippo wrote:
The antarctic shouldn't be passable for troops.
(nuclear?) Subs should be able to pass under the arctic as well.

That sounds good.StrangeTalent wrote:
(nuclear?) Subs should be able to pass under the arctic as well.
And when under the ice they shouldn't be detected by naval bombers.StrangeTalent wrote:
(nuclear?) Subs should be able to pass under the arctic as well.
Naval bombers likely won't have the range to reach into the arctic anyways

If they're on CVs they will.
Well, even so, the range is very limited for Naval Bombers

yes, these good ideas!
But, i think Commandos, and infantry can cross

If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
They do get a bigger range as they level up, right?StrangeTalent wrote:
Well, even so, the range is very limited for Naval Bombers
No, it is too cold.oceanhawk wrote:
But, i think Commandos, and infantry can cross
Oh yes, definitelyoceanhawk wrote:
yes, these good ideas!But, i think Commandos, and infantry can cross
Level 1 Naval Bomber: 200km
Level 6 Naval Bomber: 438km
For reference-
Level 2 Strategic Bomber: 400km

Have you ever heard of ski warfare?Quasi-duck wrote:
No, it is too cold.oceanhawk wrote:
But, i think Commandos, and infantry can cross
[/img]
If there's an environment, there's soldiers for it.
you are a balls
Those are specialised troops though. You think some Algerian troops can just trot through the Arctic?GreatbigHippo wrote:
Have you ever heard of ski warfare?Quasi-duck wrote:
No, it is too cold.oceanhawk wrote:
But, i think Commandos, and infantry can cross[/img]
If there's an environment, there's soldiers for it.
So you only let comandos cross. Problem solved.Quasi-duck wrote:
Those are specialised troops though. You think some Algerian troops can just trot through the Arctic?GreatbigHippo wrote:
Have you ever heard of ski warfare?Quasi-duck wrote:
No, it is too cold.oceanhawk wrote:
But, i think Commandos, and infantry can cross[/img]If there's an environment, there's soldiers for it.
you are a balls
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.