Panama and Suez Canal

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

    • Panama and Suez Canal

      The Panama and Suez canal should/could operate like canals do in real life and not just anyone can pass through them but that you could deny entrance to certain countries ships like countries you are at war with or all non right of way people so this way they can become more strategical and you don't have to keep ships there to prevent people from coming through because if you're at war with Egypt you couldn't just sail ships through the Suez Canal. This could cause more wars to acquire these certain strategical spots that could prevent people from getting into your country or severely slow them down rather then operating just like part of the ocean. You could basically just treat it as part of your territory if you control both sides you could set it to like everybody passes row passes and coalition passes.
    • That's Ruff wrote:

      The Panama and Suez canal should/could operate like canals do in real life and not just anyone can pass through them but that you could deny entrance to certain countries ships like countries you are at war with or all non right of way people so this way they can become more strategical and you don't have to keep ships there to prevent people from coming through because if you're at war with Egypt you couldn't just sail ships through the Suez Canal. This could cause more wars to acquire these certain strategical spots that could prevent people from getting into your country or severely slow them down rather then operating just like part of the ocean. You could basically just treat it as part of your territory if you control both sides you could set it to like everybody passes row passes and coalition passes.
      Don't you think ...

      A.) this will increase attacks on Panama and Egypt to seize control over these chokepoints? While that might be not such a big deal for egypt (tho it could be because likely a coalition will combine to control this), but poor Panama is going to be onslaughted repeatedly, early and often.

      B.) this kind of creates a further disparity between nations equality? Nations WITH control chokepoints, and nations WITHOUT control chokepoints? That kind of flies in the face of trying to acieve as much balance as possible where every country has a chance to win.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • That's Ruff wrote:

      The Panama and Suez canal should/could operate like canals do in real life and not just anyone can pass through them but that you could deny entrance to certain countries ships like countries you are at war with or all non right of way people so this way they can become more strategical and you don't have to keep ships there to prevent people from coming through because if you're at war with Egypt you couldn't just sail ships through the Suez Canal.

      Dracula wrote:

      Egypt deny entry to suez canal by their naval power.If you are playing as egypt and want enemies not to use suez canal then you should put navy and artillery near it.
      I think this could be addressed with a real 'Aggresive mode', in a more Supremacy 1 TGW style.

      The aggresive mode in CoN will just engage units of nations that are already at war with you, but in S1TGW the aggresive mode will make your Artillery/Ships fire to any unit that comes inside their attack range. With a full aggresive mode you could put blockades in any situation where's needed, either in a road, river or canal.
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      B.) this kind of creates a further disparity between nations equality? Nations WITH control chokepoints, and nations WITHOUT control chokepoints? That kind of flies in the face of trying to acieve as much balance as possible where every country has a chance to win.
      This is a fair point in the normal global WW3 scenario.

      However, I would really, really like to see a special scenario that more accurately reflects the real-world situation (if not the current one, then perhaps a historical Cold War starting point?). Call of War 1942 has a couple of "Historical" scenarios, where the likes of Germany, USA, USSR, Britain, France and Japan start out much more powerful than the other nations - in some cases in terms of their tech and in others in terms of their existing military mobilization (or even both). It isn't balanced, but it is fun - even if you play as a 'minor' nation.

      In that scenario, I think it would be a fitting addition for the canal regions to be able to be blocked by their owner.

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

    • frankly i just think that suggestion is pretty useless and does not accomplish anything really;
      - panama is AI in pretty much every gamemode
      - you would need to introduce extra mechanics just for like 2 channels; if you don't want ppl to get through there then stop them with ships
      - basically overcomplicating stuff for the sake of "realism" ; im not an expert by any means but i kinda doubt country X just owning a channel is gonna stop country Y's fleet from getting through there cuz what are they gonna do to enfore that if they have nothing to kill ships lmao
      - panama/suez/gibraltar/bosporus already are strategical spots; just because the game doesnt spell it out for even the last idiot doesnt make them any less valuable
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      im not an expert by any means but i kinda doubt country X just owning a channel is gonna stop country Y's fleet from getting through there cuz what are they gonna do to enfore that if they have nothing to kill ships lmao
      What you'd do (and what Egypt's President Nasser actually did in the 1950s) is to put large transport ships in the canal and just leave them there. Then, nothing can pass, friend or foe. If you sink the ship that's blocking the canal, you make it even more blocked.

      I'm not suggesting that needs to be implemented into the game, though!

      While we're (sort of) on the topic, I think we should be able to bridge rivers if we control the territory on both sides. The pontoon system we have now is silly.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      im not an expert by any means but i kinda doubt country X just owning a channel is gonna stop country Y's fleet from getting through there cuz what are they gonna do to enfore that if they have nothing to kill ships lmao
      What you'd do (and what Egypt's President Nasser actually did in the 1950s) is to put large transport ships in the canal and just leave them there. Then, nothing can pass, friend or foe. If you sink the ship that's blocking the canal, you make it even more blocked.
      I'm not suggesting that needs to be implemented into the game, though!

      While we're (sort of) on the topic, I think we should be able to bridge rivers if we control the territory on both sides. The pontoon system we have now is silly.
      that seems borderline impossible because the pathway units take are integrated into the map; "bridges" would basically have to edit the map and i dont think thats really that feasible
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Yes but the way the canals operate in real life isn't just any ship can flow through them like a body of water. In the game however if you just have a larger navy then you can just pass through the canal anyway. And yes this would kind of make some nations more unbalanced then others and create more wars over them but that would make sense as it would be strategically imporant to control the Panama and Suez canal
    • That's Ruff wrote:

      Yes but the way the canals operate in real life isn't just any ship can flow through them like a body of water. In the game however if you just have a larger navy then you can just pass through the canal anyway. And yes this would kind of make some nations more unbalanced then others and create more wars over them but that would make sense as it would be strategically imporant to control the Panama and Suez canal
      What it really boils down to is: your suggestion of realism is diametrically opposed to game balance.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • I mean I guess that's true but all it would do is make Egypt a better country which makes sense because we need A good country in Africa and idk make Colombia better because you can take the canal quickly. It would make more wars to conquer it too so it could still just about even out. Right now the canals are just treated as open ocean anybody could go through and if you aren't at war with the person passing through it won't attack so they could sail right through the canal and attack your city if you were like Colombia or Egypt.
    • That's Ruff wrote:

      I mean I guess that's true but all it would do is make Egypt a better country which makes sense because we need A good country in Africa and idk make Colombia better because you can take the canal quickly. It would make more wars to conquer it too so it could still just about even out. Right now the canals are just treated as open ocean anybody could go through and if you aren't at war with the person passing through it won't attack so they could sail right through the canal and attack your city if you were like Colombia or Egypt.
      And how is that fair to say Japan, or say Australia who wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of immediately controlling them? Why give Egypt or say Columbia an unfair boost (not to mention paint a target on them)? Egypt is already one of the Stronger African countries. How is it fair to Kenya, or Chad to make them even weaker by comparison? Or are you just a Egyptian Nationalist?
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • That's Ruff wrote:

      How is it fair now that Japan and Australia couldn't control them it just makes them more important and yes Egypt is good and it would make it better but it still would not be on the level of countries like Germany or India.
      Don't you understand that making them more important is an unfair advantage???
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD