gap
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by gap on May 23, 2024 8:11:28 GMT -6
"Movement through canals is normally possible for other nations than the owning nation. During wartime, canals will be blocked for players at war with the owner, or if the tension level with the owner is 7 or higher" says the manual.
Unfortunately I have not backed up a game save to prove that, but playing as Italy I am pretty sure that my ships dispatched from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, routinely take the long way around the Cape of Good Hope during wartime, no matter if tensions levels with Britain are below 7. Has anyone else noticed something similar?
|
|
|
Post by blarglol on May 23, 2024 19:01:25 GMT -6
Unfortunately I have not backed up a game save to prove that, but playing as Italy I am pretty sure that my ships dispatched from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, routinely take the long way around the Cape of Good Hope during wartime, no matter if tensions levels with Britain are below 7. Has anyone else noticed something similar? Now that you mention it...quite possibly.
|
|
gap
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by gap on May 24, 2024 11:12:18 GMT -6
Unfortunately I have not backed up a game save to prove that, but playing as Italy I am pretty sure that my ships dispatched from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, routinely take the long way around the Cape of Good Hope during wartime, no matter if tensions levels with Britain are below 7. Has anyone else noticed something similar? Now that you mention it...quite possibly. Should that be confirmed by other players, the fix might be easy: Remove the following line from the manual: " During wartime, canals will be blocked for players at war with the owner, or if the tension level with the owner is 7 or higher" Add the following line in its place: "During wartime, canals will be blocked at the sole discretion of the owning nation" Should the player be victim of such a blockade, it would be cool if that triggered an event along these lines: "Nation xxx has denied our warships permission to transit the yyy Canal. How should we react?" - That's regrettable. We should send a complaint note through our diplomats [effects: prestige (-), tension with xxx (+)].
- We can't bear such an insult. Hold a speech in front of the Parliament and convince it to declare war against xxx [effects: prestige +, chances of going at war against xxx, budget (+)].
- Incidents like that can't go unpunished. Let's send a taskforce and show xxx the bill of their arrogance [effects: prestige +, chances of launching a surprise attack against xxx, budget (+), tension levels (+)].
- The yyy Canal is a key infrastructure, in our and our allies' interest, it is time to secure it against the imperialistic aims of xxx. [effects: prestige +, chances of going at war against xxx, budget (++). If war is declared, and within z months an invasion force is sent to conquer the contended canal: prestige +, tension levels with xxx's friends/allies +, tension levels with xxx's enemies -; If the invasion does not happen or if it fails: prestige --]
Likewise, if two or more AI nations go at war against each other and the player controls a canal, he might be prompted with demands of transit:
"Nation xxx is asking for permission to transit the yyy Canal with his warships. What should we answer?"
Granting/denying this permission to either belligerent might have diplomatic/economic consequences specular to the ones listed above. In the luckiest case, it might allow the player to exert an indirect influence on the outcomes of a conflict; in the worst case, it should drag him into war.
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on May 24, 2024 16:02:49 GMT -6
Now that you mention it...quite possibly. Should that be confirmed by other players, the fix might be easy: Remove the following line from the manual: " During wartime, canals will be blocked for players at war with the owner, or if the tension level with the owner is 7 or higher" Add the following line in its place: "During wartime, canals will be blocked at the sole discretion of the owning nation" Should the player be victim of such a blockade, it would be cool if that triggered an event along these lines: "Nation xxx has denied our warships permission to transit the yyy Canal. How should we react?" - That's regrettable. We should send a complaint note through our diplomats [effects: prestige (-), tension with xxx (+)].
- We can't bear such an insult. Hold a speech in front of the Parliament and convince it to declare war against xxx [effects: prestige +, chances of going at war against xxx, budget (+)].
- Incidents like that can't go unpunished. Let's send a taskforce and show xxx the bill of their arrogance [effects: prestige +, chances of launching a surprise attack against xxx, budget (+), tension levels (+)].
- The yyy Canal is a key infrastructure, in our and our allies' interest, it is time to secure it against the imperialistic aims of xxx. [effects: prestige +, chances of going at war against xxx, budget (++). If war is declared, and within z months an invasion force is sent to conquer the contended canal: prestige +, tension levels with xxx's friends/allies +, tension levels with xxx's enemies -; If the invasion does not happen or if it fails: prestige --]
Likewise, if two or more AI nations go at war against each other and the player controls a canal, he might be prompted with demands of transit:
"Nation xxx is asking for permission to transit the yyy Canal with his warships. What should we answer?"
Granting/denying this permission to either belligerent might have diplomatic/economic consequences specular to the ones listed above. In the luckiest case, it might allow the player to exert an indirect influence on the outcomes of a conflict; in the worst case, it should drag him into war. I hate to poke holes, but the manual also states that "There are two canals in the game, the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal." The Cape of Good Hope and the Straights of Gibraltar are NOT canals, thus they aren't blocked and Italy can reinforce the Indian Ocean by sending ships into West Africa and then Southern Africa. Even if Gibraltar IRL was so heavily defended that 60 U-boats were sent to disrupt shipping in the area and nine boats were sunk while attempting the passage and another ten were damaged. Gibraltar controlled virtually all naval traffic into and out of the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean. I will admit that it does seem like an explanation/change is needed.
|
|
gap
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by gap on May 24, 2024 18:12:52 GMT -6
I hate to poke holes, but the manual also states that "There are two canals in the game, the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal." The Cape of Good Hope and the Straights of Gialtar are NOT canals, thus they aren't blocked and Italy can reinforce the Indian Ocean by sending ships into West Africa and then Southern Africa. Even if Gibraltar IRL was so heavily defended that 60 U-boats were sent to disrupt shipping in the area and nine boats were sunk while attempting the passage and another ten were damaged. Gibraltar controlled virtually all naval traffic into and out of the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean. I will admit that it does seem like an explanation/change is needed. Yes and not. While the access to the Mediterranean through Gibraltar was firmly controlled by the British, the straight of Gibraltar couldn't be locked like a canal. Doenitz U-boats managing to run the blockade (though with significant losses) is proof of that. Doing the same through the Suez Canal would have been practically impossible. Indeed, in a war against the British, Italy can deploy its ships from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean via Gibraltar and the Cape of Good Hope. I would be okay if in the process, a scenario where the Italian taskforce is intercepted by the British near the choke points, had a good chance to be triggered. Still, I find it a bit odd that in a war where the British are not involved and where tension levels between Italy and the UK are reasonably low, the passage from Italy to East Africa takes 3 months instead of 1 month. As you said, an explanation/change is probably needed.
|
|