Bridges

    • Should bridges be added? 13

      The result is only visible to the participants.

      I have always been bothered by the fact that to cross a very small distance of water, it takes so much time. Take the English channel for example. To get a unit from The UK to France it has to embark for ~3 hours and then travel the sea and then disembark for ~3 hours. I am proposing that a new building is added to the game, the bridge. You would click where you want it to start and then end. The cost would be determined by the distance it spans. They would have to be very expensive. Otherwise players would build them everywhere. Perhaps 25,000 steel and a large sum of supplies. In addition have a hefty price tag of ~$80,000 or something. Anyways, units could then go across the bridge, which would be much quicker than the sea. I suppose that only 1 or 2 units could cross at a time. Maybe you could upgrade them to allow more units across.

      Don't overlook how much strategic potential this could have in games. They would pose a viable target for strategic bombers. Players could wait until somebody is crossing the bridge and then blow it up. You could keep up a blitzkrieg without having those long pauses for water boundaries. Or you could stop one by blowing up your own bridges.

      This is just a random idea I had as well. You could build two types of bridges, regular and a draw bridge. Ships can not pass through the regular bridge. If you have a draw bridge other countries have to pay to get ships through it. You could blockade people into places. Also this would make certain land valuable. Imagine if you could trade for gibraltor and the province on the other side, then build a draw bridge between them. Then make $$$$$ of the taxes that people paty to get through. Just some ideas there.

      I do think there is lots of places where these could be implemented. English Channel, Turkey and Istanbul, Italy and Sicily, Strait of Gibraltar, All of the Philippines, Singapore and Sumatra, the two halves of new Zealand, UK and Ireland, Vancouver and that little island, India and Sri Lanka, Denmark to Sweden or Norway, The Suez canal, the panama canal, and Australia to Tazmania are all logical places where bridges could be made. I guess if people had the resources they could make massive bridges that could stretch the bearing strait, Korea to Japan, Cuba to Florida, Madagascar to Africa, and maybe some other places.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Mufen-z ().

    • The English channel at its shortest span (Dover straights) if memory serves is around 30km thats a bit of a stretch (pun intended) to bridge with 1940ish technology. Even by todays standards engineers preferred the colossal task of digging a tunnel under the channel rather than having to build a bridge.

      Having said that there already exists a function that does decrease the embarkation and debarkation times by half. Just build lvl3 naval base on each side of the body of water you want to bridge and you reduce the time by 50%
    • Bridges make sense for small scale, highly detailed maps. So for instance if they ever built a small Market Garden map this would be of high importance. Most of the maps offered are so large in scale that there are likely multiple rivers that would need/require bridging within many of the provinces depicted. As a result bridging is assumed.

      As for embarkation and debarkation times, get 1500 of your fiends together and see if you can get everyone on board a ship with several weeks supplies in 4 hours by climbing cargo nets and then do the same into small landing craft at the end of your trip on bobbing swells of the ocean, with half your friends sea sick. In addition the game time represents logistical type things that are going on in the back ground that are assumed, so you don't have to deal with them, but they invariably take time.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
    • Although I kinda like the idea - I would only support bridges across bodies of water that currently (or "currently" in the '40s / '50s) have bridges and those would be the Panama and Suez Canals.

      I wouldn't mind a bridge across the Bosphorus (between Turkey and Istanbul in the OPs terms) but it is worth noting that the Bosphorus Bridge wasn't built until 1973.

      Oh, and one last thing, from someone that lives in the US Pacific Northwest, that "little island" off the coast of British Columbia/Washington (not so little really) is Vancouver Island. The capital of British Columbia (Victoria) lies on Vancouver Island...just FYI :)