Maybe, maybe not. As I said in other threads about the same thing, pretty much the only action that took place in rivers was the St Nazaire Raid.
10 May 2016, 19:31
The past is a foreign country.
Rivers and Lakes Access
On those maps that show things like the Great Lakes, shouldn't there be access between those lakes and the ocean? Perhaps with other mapping similarities also connected? 
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
24 Replies
10 May 2016, 20:27
Ehm, there was naval combat in and around the mouth of a river or two in Argentina during WWII. As a result there are 1+ wrecks there now.Pablo22510 wrote:
As I said in other threads about the same thing, pretty much the only action that took place in rivers was the St Nazaire Raid.
10 May 2016, 20:57
1+ wrecks
top lel
Pax Romana Communications Officer
10 May 2016, 22:02
Good suggestion.
"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.
10 May 2016, 23:55 (edited)
Only a slight historical problem with access to the Great Lakes. All ocean-going vessels had full access up to Montreal. After that, smaller ships were needed to go farther up the St. Lawrence canals and the Welland canal. Only in the late 1950's, both of those canals were expanded. 
I'm not sure of the size of ships but...
Wikipedia - Saint Lawrence Seaway wrote:
In 1871, locks on the Saint Lawrence allowed transit of vessels 186 ft (57 m) long, 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m) wide, and 9 ft (2.7 m) deep. The Welland Canal, constructed in 1830, at that time allowed transit of vessels 142 ft (43 m) long, 26 ft (7.9 m) wide, and 10 ft (3.0 m) deep, but it was generally too small to allow passage of larger ocean-going ships.
To be defeated and not submit, is victory;
to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat.
- Jozef Pilsudski
to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat.
- Jozef Pilsudski
11 May 2016, 13:27
I'm a big fan of this idea. Good suggestion my friend!
Make America Great Again.
#Trump2016
#Trump2016
11 May 2016, 17:46
I like this idea because my unit got built in the great lakes on my first game, and then I realized there wasn't a way out.
Carl Wilson
“Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?”
― Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes: Sunday Pages 1985-1995: An Exhibition Catalogue
"Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'… Rule 2 is: 'Do not go fighting with your land armies in China."
Bernard Law Montgomery, British general
“Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?”
― Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes: Sunday Pages 1985-1995: An Exhibition Catalogue
"Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'… Rule 2 is: 'Do not go fighting with your land armies in China."
Bernard Law Montgomery, British general
11 May 2016, 19:37
Yes, that IS true.
13 May 2016, 21:27
True. Not much in Europe though. Maybe the Volga, but that's it.Quasi-duck wrote:
Ehm, there was naval combat in and around the mouth of a river or two in Argentina during WWII. As a result there are 1+ wrecks there now.Pablo22510 wrote:
As I said in other threads about the same thing, pretty much the only action that took place in rivers was the St Nazaire Raid.
The past is a foreign country.
13 May 2016, 21:29
Ehm, what about the canals in Normandy? Maybe the Rhine? Plenty of river combat in WWII. The Dniepr maybe?Pablo22510 wrote:
Not much in Europe though. Maybe the Volga, but that's it.
13 May 2016, 21:31
Ah, now I see where you're coming from. Yes, of course there was river-fighting. That's why I would like them implemented. However, I wouldn't like ships bing ranted access to rivers. That is what I'm saying didn't happen.Quasi-duck wrote:
Ehm, what about the canals in Normandy? Maybe the Rhine? Plenty of river combat in WWII. The Dniepr maybe?
The past is a foreign country.
13 May 2016, 21:31
Ah. Well, I would think PT boats would be a good addition.
17 May 2016, 01:41
Let us not forget the Thames river that goes up to London.Quasi-duck wrote:
Ehm, what about the canals in Normandy? Maybe the Rhine? Plenty of river combat in WWII. The Dniepr maybe?Pablo22510 wrote:
Not much in Europe though. Maybe the Volga, but that's it.
17 May 2016, 15:43
I don't think their was fighting in or around (excluding the aerial assaults) the Thames.IISpikeII wrote:
Let us not forget the Thames river that goes up to London.
19 May 2016, 15:59
Yes, but there wasn't any fighting in many places on the map, but we can't play exactly as it should be.Quasi-duck wrote:
I don't think their was fighting in or around (excluding the aerial assaults) the Thames.IISpikeII wrote:
Let us not forget the Thames river that goes up to London.
Carl Wilson
“Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?”
― Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes: Sunday Pages 1985-1995: An Exhibition Catalogue
"Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'… Rule 2 is: 'Do not go fighting with your land armies in China."
Bernard Law Montgomery, British general
“Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?”
― Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes: Sunday Pages 1985-1995: An Exhibition Catalogue
"Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'… Rule 2 is: 'Do not go fighting with your land armies in China."
Bernard Law Montgomery, British general
19 May 2016, 16:07
Pablo was making the point that it would be pointless since there was no river fighting, only land, sea, and air combat. I was arguing that there was plenty river combat. Then you said Thames.Carl Wilson wrote:
Yes, but there wasn't any fighting in many places on the map, but we can't play exactly as it should be.
19 May 2016, 20:42
rivers showing on the map and obstruct or slow the movement if armies would be a great addition.
21 May 2016, 20:08
Yes, and I completely agree with you there, but rivers should NOT be accessible for warships (yes for convoys).MihailMD wrote:
rivers showing on the map and obstruct or slow the movement if armies would be a great addition.
The past is a foreign country.
21 May 2016, 20:11
Look who is back!Pablo22510 wrote:
Yes, and I completely agree with you there, but rivers should NOT be accessible for warships (yes for convoys).
21 May 2016, 20:15
Yes, I'm back. And delighted to se you all!Quasi-duck wrote:
Look who is back!Pablo22510 wrote:
Yes, and I completely agree with you there, but rivers should NOT be accessible for warships (yes for convoys).
P.S. Pretty cool gif, Quasi.
@Sir McSquiggles Your last gif freaks me out.
The past is a foreign country.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
