maritime borders

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

    • maritime borders

      Maritime Borders
      Hi everyone. I bring you a new idea to make more intererest the maritime control. Split the ocean in sectors.

      All know about the strategic routes that covered both sides of the war. The Atalantic Sea, between the American support and Europe, or the deadly German submarines, that they broke this routes with constanly attacks. The Second is the Pacific, Japan troops travelling around the islands, or the cotinues helps to Australia.

      Beyond this normal idea, I propose more. Maritime frontiers. For example, a coastal province have a little vision area where, produce (ahead i will explain), surf secure, or see the enemys entering.

      Produce in a sea sector, would be, food(Fishing),or creating a new building like in the real life , platforms ,for producing oil or rare metals.

      Platform Lvl 1 : Produce +10% of the sector
      Platform Lvl 2 : Produce +15% of the sector
      Platform Lvl 3 : Produce +20% of the sector


      Influenced by the security, moral, and units located there.

      Images
      • Dibujo maritimo.PNG

        86.09 kB, 1,500×997, viewed 53 times
    • locking nodes as conquering point, not allowing even sub to pass...... sounds intresting. not sure for the production(fish therfor food......oil rigs?)
      surely will change some gameplay on the seaside
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!
    • BMfox wrote:

      Thanks for your input. At the number of post i can see that there are more players that want to see the naval part gain more power in the game. Again, this is a serious disadvantage for landlocked countries.
      true but in the 100 map there are what? 20 country actually land locked? the majority will gain from a refresh on the naval strategy.....
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!
    • Maybe the best way to increase a navy's role is to increase the damage that ranged attacks by cruisers and battleships can deal, then the navy could become slightly more beneficial, at least in the field of combat.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • I've played a game that had the sea sector as you described. I hated it. It was far too hard to chase around, capturing and re-capturing sea lanes.
      No nation can completely patrol the ocean, that's the job of your destroyer and submarines.
      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • General Nightman wrote:

      I've played a game that had the sea sector as you described. I hated it. It was far too hard to chase around, capturing and re-capturing sea lanes.
      No nation can completely patrol the ocean, that's the job of your destroyer and submarines.
      My experience too (I wrote it in another thread as well).

      I happen to love naval battles, both in history and in this game (they are far more strategic than the land/air ones). Still, there is at least one vital element missing, which would make occupation of sea ares important: REFUELING.

      In game, it is assumed that ships can be on patrol/battle indefinitely, and even that they can heal anywhere in the sea. This is what makes occupation of these small islands irrelevant, in all kinds of maps. The naval base in the game is doing too little - in reality it was also an area where the ships would repair protected from submarine/air attacks, refuel, etc.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Rigging platforms were experimental only at the time; no significant production levels were achieved.
      While I like the idea, (everybody needs more oil), it wouldn't fit in with the game settings. 1942 didn't have oil rigs yet.
      Naval Bases are similar to some extent;they boost resource production for the cost of oil.
      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • But if you add a refueling demand for ships, then everybody would then become to use them less.

      In return, I guess you could buff the stats of ships, specifically anti-air and ranged attacks on land units.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • Planes on patrol has been explained to me as follows:
      The entire squadron is not on patrol at once. Parts of the squadron go back to refuel while part of the squadron bombs and blasts. Then the two halves switch places, allowing them to be on patrol literally forever.
      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • General Nightman wrote:

      The entire squadron is not on patrol at once. Parts of the squadron go back to refuel while part of the squadron bombs and blasts. Then the two halves switch places, allowing them to be on patrol literally foreve
      this is corrrect and the same reason that planes depicted on ground but not refueling use the same values as if they were on patrol
    • General Nightman wrote:

      Planes on patrol has been explained to me as follows:
      The entire squadron is not on patrol at once. Parts of the squadron go back to refuel while part of the squadron bombs and blasts. Then the two halves switch places, allowing them to be on patrol literally forever.
      And magically if you happen to attack the squadron the missing planes reappear to fight back.

      This would have been a convincing story if and only if the patrolling planes were defending with a lesser value. Since they are not, it is not.
    • General Nightman wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Rigging platforms were experimental only at the time; no significant production levels were achieved.
      While I like the idea, (everybody needs more oil), it wouldn't fit in with the game settings. 1942 didn't have oil rigs yet.Naval Bases are similar to some extent;they boost resource production for the cost of oil.
      Wikipedia say other thing, Oil rigs. In the final of XIX century, and the beginning of the XX.

      But the naval bases only improve the production 30% consuming oil... and wherever, its a bad idea to put it...
    • atreas1 wrote:

      And magically if you happen to attack the squadron the missing planes reappear to fight back.

      This would have been a convincing story if and only if the patrolling planes were defending with a lesser value. Since they are not, it is not.
      Desperate men fight harder, what can I say?
      The attack values are correct.
      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • General Nightman wrote:

      atreas1 wrote:

      And magically if you happen to attack the squadron the missing planes reappear to fight back.

      This would have been a convincing story if and only if the patrolling planes were defending with a lesser value. Since they are not, it is not.
      Desperate men fight harder, what can I say?The attack values are correct.
      Since we have been too often together in the Help chat, you know that one of the repeated questions is about the use of planes. It is clear that, as the situation is now, the standard advise is "just use patrol and don't think about it" (which is rather counter-intuitive for the new players). This means that one of those methods is so hugely superior to the other that perhaps something should be done for it. From the strategic point of view, it is clear to me that there should be some serious disadvantage of patrol, compared to attack, since the supposed "minus" (the fact that you attack with 25% strength) is fake and we all know it: due to the time needed for going back to the airbase, refueling, and returning in effect the attack PER HOUR is same or even worse.

      But this is surely off topic here, although it is not off-forum (we are in the Suggestions/Criticism).

      The post was edited 1 time, last by atreas1 ().

    • atreas1 wrote:

      But this is surely off topic here, although it is not off-forum (we are in the Suggestions/Criticism).
      While it is off topic, from the original question, the thread does also include criticism.
      I personally patrol is perfect as it is.
      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."