|
Could there be strategic Canals in Panama and the Suez? This would make sea travel a whole lot easier, and there territories more valuable. It would also add more realism.
----
I play for fun
Laster...
Laster...
|
Garde Post: 2842 Fra: Canada
|
...you can already go through both, at least the Suez, not sure on Panama
Laster...
Laster...
|
|
Yes - Suez, Panama, Bosphorus, Dardanelles all work.
Laster...
Laster...
|
|
Most if not all have a city you have to go through, which isn't a big deal if you own said cities. Though it does ruined most stealth ops, as to get through their you have to hit it :r
Laster...
Laster...
|
|
Skrevet av Kannibal, 16.03.2011 at 15:24
Most if not all have a city you have to go through, which isn't a big deal if you own said cities. Though it does ruined most stealth ops, as to get through their you have to hit it :r
Very realistic, right? Canals and narrow straits are extremely easy to control.
Laster...
Laster...
|
Garde Post: 2842 Fra: Canada
|
Sitat:
Very realistic, right? Canals and narrow straits are extremely easy to control.
It'd be a notch more realistic if the Amazon, Nile, and Rhine rivers were accesible as well, but it's surely impossible. Also shouldn't you add the straits of Gibraltor to that list? or is that more of an obvious open point?
Laster...
Laster...
|
|
Skrevet av Ivan, 16.03.2011 at 15:32
Skrevet av Kannibal, 16.03.2011 at 15:24
Most if not all have a city you have to go through, which isn't a big deal if you own said cities. Though it does ruined most stealth ops, as to get through their you have to hit it :r
Very realistic, right? Canals and narrow straits are extremely easy to control.
Yes. You begin to appreciate the importance of these canals when you try to get a sea force going intercontinental. Trying to hit the eastern seaboard of USA with a New Zealand fleet makes you actually consider blowing your cover and taking Panama just to cut the time down.
Laster...
Laster...
|