rivers and bridges

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • rivers and bridges

      rivers and bridges 14
      1.  
        yes (7) 50%
      2.  
        no (5) 36%
      3.  
        maybe (2) 14%
      add rivers and bridges. rivers act just like they do in real life. you can build bridges over them to allow units to cross in between the two provinces it passes through or go around them or just swim through it like when your units are going over seas but this way will be a waste of time embarkment will be 1h and disembarkment will take 1h and 30m. this means you can build a bridge over the Bosphorus straights, the suez canal, the panama canal and the straights of gibraltar instead of having to embark and disembark for 7 hours. you can build lvl 1 ports in rivers. every naval vessel can go up and down rivers. enemy's can destroy bridges with strategic bombers. enemy subs will be visible if in a river surrounded by your territory.

      and id like them to look like the sydney harbour bridge with those big steel arches going over them

      The post was edited 14 times, last by mr. fish ().

    • I would actually like to see this type of thing made.
      Etc.: Ships on the Missouri/ Mississippi.
      That'd mean, that with this, you could build a navy as a landlocked country, which could be used to destroy bridges, also, right of way would allow you to sail in somebody else's river, which then you could sail out to sea.
      It would give landlocked countries a chance to be as powerful as countries with a coastline.
      With bridges, it'd take a lot of time out of moving troops across waterways such as the Suez Canal.
      Forum Gang Kaiser




      South Dakota is the Best Dakota
    • Bridges played important roles in many wars through out history. in addition to keeping out large ships, they should make tanks weaker when they are fighting on a bridge, as well as limiting troops that can cross at a time. Maybe level one bridges can hold 7 units, level 2 bridges can hold 14, level 3 bridges can hold 28 and level 4 ones can hold 56. Also, bridges should be like buildings and can be destroyed by fighting, bombing or artillery fire.
      "White Fang knew the law well: To oppress the weak and obey the strong"
      Jack London, White Fang

      My parents once told me not to play with matches, so I built a flamethrower
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      As suggested,no. They would just be extra seas.

      But I'd like 1h embark / 1.5 hour disembark rivers. Units vulnerable during crossing as in seaborne invasions.

      No ships, no ports, possibly bridges.

      mr. fish wrote:

      i just added that you can only build lvl 1 ports
      Agreed with the 1h disembarkment penalty, roko. Nevertheless, while it would certainly be stupid having battleships appearing on the missouri, thus logically no port, it would also be a bit incorrect to rule ports out, completely.

      What about a new building : river port? e.g. in Hamburg (best example I could find)
    • what differences would the river port have from the a sea port... its just a port, many countries have inland ports like um qasr on the kwawe az- zubayr waterway Iraq, port of Moscow on the moskva river Russia, port of Duisburg on the Rhine river Germany, port of Toronto on lake Ontario, Canada and as you said port of hamburg on the Elbe river Germany

      and really it depends on what battleship class and how wide the river is, some rivers can be kilometers wide

      The post was edited 2 times, last by mr. fish ().