maritime borders

CoW uses a different system for sea movement.

Rigging platforms were experimental only at the time; no significant production levels were achieved.

locking nodes as conquering point, not allowing even sub to pass...... sounds intresting. not sure for the production(fish therfor food......oil rigs?)

surely will change some gameplay on the seaside

Thanks for your input. At the number of post i can see that there are more players that want to see the naval part gain more power in the game. Again, this is a serious disadvantage for landlocked countries.

BMfox wrote:

Thanks for your input. At the number of post i can see that there are more players that want to see the naval part gain more power in the game. Again, this is a serious disadvantage for landlocked countries.

Maybe the best way to increase a navy's role is to increase the damage that ranged attacks by cruisers and battleships can deal, then the navy could become slightly more beneficial, at least in the field of combat.

I've played a game that had the sea sector as you described. I hated it. It was far too hard to chase around, capturing and re-capturing sea lanes.

No nation can completely patrol the ocean, that's the job of your destroyer and submarines.

General Nightman wrote:

I've played a game that had the sea sector as you described. I hated it. It was far too hard to chase around, capturing and re-capturing sea lanes.

No nation can completely patrol the ocean, that's the job of your destroyer and submarines.

I happen to love naval battles, both in history and in this game (they are far more strategic than the land/air ones). Still, there is at least one vital element missing, which would make occupation of sea ares important: REFUELING.

In game, it is assumed that ships can be on patrol/battle indefinitely, and even that they can heal anywhere in the sea. This is what makes occupation of these small islands irrelevant, in all kinds of maps. The naval base in the game is doing too little - in reality it was also an area where the ships would repair protected from submarine/air attacks, refuel, etc.

okay guys, but what do you think about the platforms? take products from the sea instead of a province would be beneficial for countries located in oceania or in the coast...

General Nightman I think that if the sectors dont work the moderators could do like maritime provinces with a low perimeter for put oil, food ,etc

And remember to all. I am not englishspeaker if i write something wrong correct me

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Rigging platforms were experimental only at the time; no significant production levels were achieved.

Naval Bases are similar to some extent;they boost resource production for the cost of oil.

But if you add a refueling demand for ships, then everybody would then become to use them less.

In return, I guess you could buff the stats of ships, specifically anti-air and ranged attacks on land units.

I am not asking to add refueling for ships - I am just explaining why a naval base in Hawaii is much less important in the game than it was in reality. After all, there is another even more obvious candidate when it comes to refueling: planes on eternal patrol.

Planes on patrol has been explained to me as follows:

The entire squadron is not on patrol at once. Parts of the squadron go back to refuel while part of the squadron bombs and blasts. Then the two halves switch places, allowing them to be on patrol literally forever.

General Nightman wrote:

The entire squadron is not on patrol at once. Parts of the squadron go back to refuel while part of the squadron bombs and blasts. Then the two halves switch places, allowing them to be on patrol literally foreve

General Nightman wrote:

Planes on patrol has been explained to me as follows:

The entire squadron is not on patrol at once. Parts of the squadron go back to refuel while part of the squadron bombs and blasts. Then the two halves switch places, allowing them to be on patrol literally forever.

This would have been a convincing story if and only if the patrolling planes were defending with a lesser value. Since they are not, it is not.

General Nightman wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Rigging platforms were experimental only at the time; no significant production levels were achieved.

While I like the idea, (everybody needs more oil), it wouldn't fit in with the game settings. 1942 didn't have oil rigs yet.Naval Bases are similar to some extent;they boost resource production for the cost of oil.

But the naval bases only improve the production 30% consuming oil... and wherever, its a bad idea to put it...

atreas1 wrote:

And magically if you happen to attack the squadron the missing planes reappear to fight back.

This would have been a convincing story if and only if the patrolling planes were defending with a lesser value. Since they are not, it is not.

The attack values are correct.

General Nightman wrote:

atreas1 wrote:

And magically if you happen to attack the squadron the missing planes reappear to fight back.

This would have been a convincing story if and only if the patrolling planes were defending with a lesser value. Since they are not, it is not.

Desperate men fight harder, what can I say?The attack values are correct.

But this is surely off topic here, although it is not off-forum (we are in the Suggestions/Criticism).

atreas1 wrote:

But this is surely off topic here, although it is not off-forum (we are in the Suggestions/Criticism).

I personally patrol is perfect as it is.

atreas1 wrote:

General Nightman wrote:

atreas1 wrote:

And magically if you happen to attack the squadron the missing planes reappear to fight back.

This would have been a convincing story if and only if the patrolling planes were defending with a lesser value. Since they are not, it is not.

Desperate men fight harder, what can I say?The attack values are correct.

Since we have been too often together in the Help chat, you know that one of the repeated questions is about the use of planes. It is clear that, as the situation is now, the standard advise is "just use patrol and don't think about it" (which is rather counter-intuitive for the new players). This means that one of those methods is so hugely superior to the other that perhaps something should be done for it. From the strategic point of view, it is clear to me that there should be some serious disadvantage of patrol, compared to attack, since the supposed "minus" (the fact that you attack with 25% strength) is fake and we all know it: due to the time needed for going back to the airbase, refueling, and returning in effect the attack PER HOUR is same or even worse.

But this is surely off topic here, although it is not off-forum (we are in the Suggestions/Criticism).