I like that idea.
27 Mar 2016, 13:55
Trade Routes
I believe they should add trade routes factors into the maps. This would give nations that control high travel routes, such as the Panama Canal, Suez Canal, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Silk Road and other trading hubs, an economic boost in their resources, due to their control of trade in the area. This would also include major trade cities, such as Singapore and New York. Although maybe will believe this could give an unfair advantage to certain countries, this would overall improve the realism of the game, and would make patrols of sea trade routes much more crucial to maintaining a nations economic power
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
97 Replies
27 Mar 2016, 19:54
I agree with this guy, @Soldjer325. It would be a good idea if this was a game designed to attract WW2 experts. But this game is also played by many people who couldn't care less about WW2. If you want that kind of depth for the game, go play Hearts of Iron 3. For CoW, the simpler, the better.Paramunac wrote:
I don't like the idea. This looks like the feature from EU4. What it did was to make some nations stronger and some weaker than before based only on geographic position. Unlike EU4, this is not historical game, but a game based on balanced countries and equal possibilities.Making some some regions importan for trade, traditional trade centers, historical great ports, preexisting trade routes and similar thing will greatly unbalance the game. They are also too complex to implement if you compare their benefit with the downsides. Also, this is not a grand strategy games like Paradox's games when you control all aspects of nations but a multiplayer war game when economy is not a priority.
The past is a foreign country.
27 Mar 2016, 20:16
I agree with Pablo.
27 Mar 2016, 20:21
For once!Quasi-duck wrote:
I agree with Pablo.
The past is a foreign country.
27 Mar 2016, 20:48
So-so.
28 Mar 2016, 01:49
Maybe limit the impact, but make the trade routes un-attackable.
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton
28 Mar 2016, 17:32
That is ridiculous! The whole point of submarines on trade routes is to attack the convoys there! You want to give nations a boost only defeatable via direct warfare!?Kehsct wrote:
make the trade routes un-attackable.
28 Mar 2016, 19:03
Trade routes would be connected by naval bases, capture that, and the trade route is unusable, and the boost disappears. It won't be so much that you can rely on trade only, but it will be a little extra help to the nations with a limited resource. The length, and amount of land connected by the trade routes would determine the resource boost a player would receive.Quasi-duck wrote:
The whole point of submarines on trade routes is to attack the convoys there! You want to give nations a boost only defeatable via direct warfare!?
28 Mar 2016, 19:07
So they have little to no strategic value? Seems pretty crap.Soldjer325 wrote:
Trade routes would be connected by naval bases, capture that, and the trade route is unusable, and the boost disappears
28 Mar 2016, 19:09
A trade route would also increase naval, and sea transportation units movement speed slightly.
28 Mar 2016, 19:20
WTF!? That makes no sense. You are making a fool of yourself, please turn off your computerSoldjer325 wrote:
A trade route would also increase naval, and sea transportation units movement speed slightly.
28 Mar 2016, 19:27
Only slightly, since the familiarity of the waters they'd be traversing, and the fact a trade route would be well mapped out.
28 Mar 2016, 19:33
That is stupid, some ships already travel faster than real world counterparts. Anyway, a storm will slow down a ship, trade route or not.Soldjer325 wrote:
Only slightly, since the familiarity of the waters they'd be traversing, and the fact a trade route would be well mapped out.
28 Mar 2016, 20:25
Alright, I get it, your opinion is that you hate it.
28 Mar 2016, 20:49
I don't hate it, I just hate how you want it done.Soldjer325 wrote:
your opinion is that you hate it.
28 Mar 2016, 20:59
Then give us your suggestion
28 Mar 2016, 21:57
Nope.Soldjer325 wrote:
Then give us your suggestion
28 Mar 2016, 22:19
well maybe, for areas such as the Panama canal
we introduce a blockade button for our naval units
this means that when I ship passes through it, it acts really just on land, with 2 nations at peace...
it means that people can really control these areas now
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
28 Mar 2016, 22:25
Or you could just, you know, position them there. It would just be a HC feature anyway.oceanhawk wrote:
we introduce a blockade button for our naval units
You can do it easily anyway....oceanhawk wrote:
it means that people can really control these areas now
28 Mar 2016, 22:26
Interesting thread.
"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.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
