I'm sure it's been covered....but we need CANALS.
There is the Volga-Don Canal linking the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea. There is a proposed Eurasian Canal to do the same (more expediently). There are canals linking the Great Lakes to the Atlantic both through Canada and through the USA. There are even canals linking Lake Erie to the Mississippi River system linking to the Gulf of Mexico.
There are rivers in the real world. In theory, a Militia should be able to sail up the Rhine River and offload at a destination interior port instead of only at an ocean port....thus alleviating long-distance travel. Maybe adding a few rivers for inland Seaports and canals for land-locked lakes would help. At the very least, it would allow all those A.I. Destroyers to escape the Great Lakes in the World Map.
We need waterways! Then, you might say there needs to be a way to bridge them. Of course! The map designers have made the Suez and Panama canals to be like the Bosphorus Strait which naturally connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Black Sea. But in real life, there are bridges over the Bosphorus. Yet, no land forces can cross from Istanbul into Turkey proper. And land forces should be able to cross the Suez and Panama canals with bridges.
This means, of course that, if Bytro implements some rivers, they would need bridges and inland seaports. This would require a base-code update...but so what? It's about time they added something that actually matters to players more than a bunch of elusive "crates". Of course, not all rivers need be added, but some rivers should. And, there should be the ability to construct canals (along preset courses) that would follow one of the following two options (depending on which way the devs want to go with this).
The first option is to have rivers and any possible canals pass through the inside of provinces such that they can have interior seaports and can be "owned" by whomever owns the containing province. The second option would be to have rivers and canals pass along provincial borders so that they can never be owned but a canal would be able to be permanently built. However, the rest of this post deals with and is concerned with the proposal of canal courses that would be interior to provinces and would be own-able. All possible canal paths in a map would have to follow known river courses plus any proposed "theoretical" river courses along obvious depressions (a look at a map of existing canals shows some of these.
For the sake of game-play, rivers would not be navigable unless "improved" into being canals. Thus, a cost of building would be associated with the privilege of traveling along either a river or canal and -- for the purposes of game simplicity -- only canals would be considered navigable. Thus, the Mississippi River would have to be upgraded into the Mississippi Canal to be navigable; representing dredging, seawalls, and other improvements.
Longer rivers (like the Mississippi) and canals would have to be chained through multiple connecting provinces in a line in order for the canal to be able to reach between that canal's seaport and any destination open bodies of water (or other seaports along a longer canal). Even just linking up canals between multiple provinces could act as a water-based highway for slower units like Heavy Tanks, Militia, and Railroad Guns. In theory, a person could just construct only a few links of a longer canal system, linking up a shorter chain along a longer river course to use as a water-highway for the purposes of facilitating a rally point.
But the other benefit of canals -- beside transit -- would be to add a seaport to some land-locked provinces thus providing a means both in which to increase resource output as well as to build more naval ships at a time. Perhaps, though -- as a restriction -- for the benefits of an interior seaport to increase resource output, it should be in a canal that actually connects all the way to the sea. Or, for more practical purposes, instead of that other restriction, maybe the only restriction would be that naval ships can't be built unless the canal connects all the way to the sea.
Also, just as damage to a seaport would halt construction of a naval ship on the coastline, so too would damage to an inland seaport and/or damage to a segment of a canal needfully have to halt construction of a naval ship. In fact, it would make more sense that damage to any segment of a longer canal system would necessarily force ALL ships being constructed at any interior seaports along the canal to halt until all segments of the canal are repaired. This would apply to functioning canals (enabled or disabled) as well. Of course, this would only affect construction in an interior seaport that loses it's connection to the sea. If an interior seaport is down-river from a deactivated canal, it would be unaffected by it.
To be fair, if the canal system is designed as interior to provinces, then they'd need to have a maintenance cost associated with them and could be damaged like any other building, thus reverting to non-navigable-river status (similar to the effect of being disabled). But, if they follow the provincial borders in the second option (briefly mentioned further above), then they should be permanently built without maintenance costs except that any seaports along the canal would have standard seaport maintenance costs and operate as normal seaports.
There could be lots of other details about this, but I think I've covered the idea pretty succinctly. Here are some pictures of example canal paths that would need to be added to the maps.
This isn't really the same issue, but it's sorta related and seems like a very smart idea:
There is the Volga-Don Canal linking the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea. There is a proposed Eurasian Canal to do the same (more expediently). There are canals linking the Great Lakes to the Atlantic both through Canada and through the USA. There are even canals linking Lake Erie to the Mississippi River system linking to the Gulf of Mexico.
There are rivers in the real world. In theory, a Militia should be able to sail up the Rhine River and offload at a destination interior port instead of only at an ocean port....thus alleviating long-distance travel. Maybe adding a few rivers for inland Seaports and canals for land-locked lakes would help. At the very least, it would allow all those A.I. Destroyers to escape the Great Lakes in the World Map.
We need waterways! Then, you might say there needs to be a way to bridge them. Of course! The map designers have made the Suez and Panama canals to be like the Bosphorus Strait which naturally connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Black Sea. But in real life, there are bridges over the Bosphorus. Yet, no land forces can cross from Istanbul into Turkey proper. And land forces should be able to cross the Suez and Panama canals with bridges.
This means, of course that, if Bytro implements some rivers, they would need bridges and inland seaports. This would require a base-code update...but so what? It's about time they added something that actually matters to players more than a bunch of elusive "crates". Of course, not all rivers need be added, but some rivers should. And, there should be the ability to construct canals (along preset courses) that would follow one of the following two options (depending on which way the devs want to go with this).
The first option is to have rivers and any possible canals pass through the inside of provinces such that they can have interior seaports and can be "owned" by whomever owns the containing province. The second option would be to have rivers and canals pass along provincial borders so that they can never be owned but a canal would be able to be permanently built. However, the rest of this post deals with and is concerned with the proposal of canal courses that would be interior to provinces and would be own-able. All possible canal paths in a map would have to follow known river courses plus any proposed "theoretical" river courses along obvious depressions (a look at a map of existing canals shows some of these.
For the sake of game-play, rivers would not be navigable unless "improved" into being canals. Thus, a cost of building would be associated with the privilege of traveling along either a river or canal and -- for the purposes of game simplicity -- only canals would be considered navigable. Thus, the Mississippi River would have to be upgraded into the Mississippi Canal to be navigable; representing dredging, seawalls, and other improvements.
Longer rivers (like the Mississippi) and canals would have to be chained through multiple connecting provinces in a line in order for the canal to be able to reach between that canal's seaport and any destination open bodies of water (or other seaports along a longer canal). Even just linking up canals between multiple provinces could act as a water-based highway for slower units like Heavy Tanks, Militia, and Railroad Guns. In theory, a person could just construct only a few links of a longer canal system, linking up a shorter chain along a longer river course to use as a water-highway for the purposes of facilitating a rally point.
But the other benefit of canals -- beside transit -- would be to add a seaport to some land-locked provinces thus providing a means both in which to increase resource output as well as to build more naval ships at a time. Perhaps, though -- as a restriction -- for the benefits of an interior seaport to increase resource output, it should be in a canal that actually connects all the way to the sea. Or, for more practical purposes, instead of that other restriction, maybe the only restriction would be that naval ships can't be built unless the canal connects all the way to the sea.
Also, just as damage to a seaport would halt construction of a naval ship on the coastline, so too would damage to an inland seaport and/or damage to a segment of a canal needfully have to halt construction of a naval ship. In fact, it would make more sense that damage to any segment of a longer canal system would necessarily force ALL ships being constructed at any interior seaports along the canal to halt until all segments of the canal are repaired. This would apply to functioning canals (enabled or disabled) as well. Of course, this would only affect construction in an interior seaport that loses it's connection to the sea. If an interior seaport is down-river from a deactivated canal, it would be unaffected by it.
To be fair, if the canal system is designed as interior to provinces, then they'd need to have a maintenance cost associated with them and could be damaged like any other building, thus reverting to non-navigable-river status (similar to the effect of being disabled). But, if they follow the provincial borders in the second option (briefly mentioned further above), then they should be permanently built without maintenance costs except that any seaports along the canal would have standard seaport maintenance costs and operate as normal seaports.
There could be lots of other details about this, but I think I've covered the idea pretty succinctly. Here are some pictures of example canal paths that would need to be added to the maps.
This isn't really the same issue, but it's sorta related and seems like a very smart idea:
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers
The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers
The post was edited 1 time, last by Diabolical ().