I have been playing off and on for a while now. I really enjoy this game. I do have a suggestion.
Major rivers should be represented as water territories navigable by naval units. They should stop ground units and make them embark/disembark just like other water territories. Once a nation controls both banks of the river, they should be able to build a bridge in the water territory, allowing land units to cross without the embark/disembark. Territories bordering on the large lakes on the map (the Great Lakes in North America and the Nile headwater lakes/Lake Victoria in Africa) should be able to build ferries to move troops across the lake - 1/2 the embark/disembark time as naval bases, no resource bonus. You should also be able to build bridges over the Suez and Panama Canals. The Erie and Kiel Canals should be on the map as well.
7 Replies
29 Dec 2015, 21:11
joespahr wrote:
I have been playing off and on for a while now. I really enjoy this game. I do have a suggestion.
Major rivers should be represented as water territories navigable by naval units. They should stop ground units and make them embark/disembark just like other water territories. Once a nation controls both banks of the river, they should be able to build a bridge in the water territory, allowing land units to cross without the embark/disembark. Territories bordering on the large lakes on the map (the Great Lakes in North America and the Nile headwater lakes/Lake Victoria in Africa) should be able to build ferries to move troops across the lake - 1/2 the embark/disembark time as naval bases, no resource bonus. You should also be able to build bridges over the Suez and Panama Canals. The Erie and Kiel Canals should be on the map as well.
We have discussed this on another thread, can't remember which, and a sort of decision was made to suggest bridges/ferries in numerous places, and in another thread we decided that there should be rivers/canals through the map, except canals would cost money to build and rivers... well... I don't remember talking about rivers, actually.
29 Dec 2015, 21:30
Rivers have been talked about quite a lot, actually. The thing is, in WW2, the only ship to have entered a river was HMS Campbeltown, in the raid on St.Nazaire. And it was destroyed. So no rivers.
Ferries have been discussed for the Suez Canal. But in my opinion they're too much work for too little impact.
The past is a foreign country.
29 Dec 2015, 21:32
Pablo22510 wrote:
Ferries have been discussed for the Suez Canal. But in my opinion they're too much work for too little impact.
I think ferries are a good idea for Suez, Gibraltar, Dardanelles, Crimean peninsula, and from Denmark to Sweden.
29 Dec 2015, 21:37
Mate, that's only 5 cases. Not worth the effort.
The past is a foreign country.
29 Dec 2015, 21:43
Imagine the bombardment you will be able to wreck havoc with if this was implemented? You would be able to destroy units invading from France before they even touch Germany! Personally, Im not sure about this. 3 hours embarking/disembarking is a long time.
I think rivers are very important natural borders for land units, so IMHO there should be a small crossingtime for landunits but not as long as embarking and disembarking at sea coasts.
May be that small vessels like submarines and destroyers kann pass rivers, but I dont think thats important. The primary idea is its function as natural border between two provinces.
Bridges are difficult to implement into the game if they are located BETWEEN two provinces. So I would suggest, that each of both provinces has to build its part of bridge.
Only if both coastlines are supported with their own part of the bridge, the bridge becomes functional.
On the other hand I suggest that artificial channels should be completely different from rivers.
Cannels shoul be placed within one province and are only allowed to be built at special building places like suez, kiel, panama and so on.
Building that channel allows ships to travel from one sea to the other across the landprovince which keeps the channel but with reduced speed.
Bridges are natually included in artificial channels, so there is no interference to landunits travelling across the channel.
It is incomprehensible why ships can pass panama which are in war with panama. To keep a channel ready for operation there must be several workers on land.
30 Dec 2015, 10:46
Arbales wrote:
I think rivers are very important natural borders for land units, so IMHO there should be a small crossingtime for landunits but not as long as embarking and disembarking at sea coasts.
May be that small vessels like submarines and destroyers kann pass rivers, but I dont think thats important. The primary idea is its function as natural border between two provinces.
Exactly! The Rhine proved to be a difficult obstacle for Allied forces. I think rivers should be in the game, but only as an obstacle. And yeah, land troops would have to cross them, maybe taking 2 hours in total (half an hour to embark, 1 hour to cross it, half an hour to disembark), making them really vulnerable in the water, where you could blow them to smithereens with artillery (adding a small buff for arty) or have troops waiting at the disembarkment area.
On the other hand, I think no ships should be allowed to enter rivers. Never happened.
For bridges, your idea is great.You need to hold both sides of the river.
I don't like the channel bit, but maybe Suez should be treated like a river.
