Page 3 of 3
Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2004 11:05 pm
TMTM - I don't think I want to have ports serve as IC's in any form or manner
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 1:31 pm
Posted in Naval Combat:
Maybe Ports should be built then? And now their importance is that they are necessary when preforming an Amphibious Assault (making it necessary to take this Island to go to this one and so on...)
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:19 pm
Ports have been around for many years prior to the war. You cant just make a port and start building ships and have the ships all ready to fight in 2 turns. An established port is created over a very long time. Id advise just have historical naval ports printed on map like a/a pacific.easy
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:43 pm
ports are victory objectives as well...
will they be in VC territories??? or near them??? 2 ports = VC ???
if they get the special non combat movement of 3, we need to have a larger atlantic...no???
Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:09 pm
places like calcutta,sidney,san diego, Hawaii, probably Tokyo which was not a naval harbor, portsmouth, antwerp, plus say alexandra, tobruk, plus many others are victory cities as well as ports. Each could have a seperate value, but i like what they did in avalon hills Third Reich. One of the bast games ever made. The victory cities and ports in that game are what id like to see here.Flawless.
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:30 am
Imperious leader wrote:i like what they did in avalon hills Third Reich. One of the bast games ever made. The victory cities and ports in that game are what id like to see here.Flawless.
Could you explain how they worked for those of us who don't own this game? Then we can actually expand on it's system...
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:18 pm
I don't think ports should have anything to do with victory criteria