Airports

Hoff · Post by **Hoff** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:25 pm

What do you guys think about the concept of Airports? Airports meaning that if you control the airport you will be able to attack any territory around you within a certain range.

Example: If there was an airport in central america on the classic map you would be able to attack say brazil or alberta.

I think a development of a map with airports would be an interesting concept and add extra strategy to the game play. Territory bonuses would probably have to go up higher then normal, but that will just add to the strategy. What do you guys think?

kingwaffles · Post by **kingwaffles** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:27 pm

I'm all for it. I love interesting new ideas like that. I'm working on an NYC map right now and I was already planning on including some airports, but only to go from one airport to another. I believe whoever first was making the NYC map came up with that idea.

DublinDoogey · Post by **DublinDoogey** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:28 pm

I like it. I thought about using ports on my North America map, but eventually decided against it. Airports would add even more strategy (depending on placement) because you could really add them wherever you wanted to.

freakshow · Post by **freakshow** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:37 pm

Yeah I was going to do an update to my indochina map with sea ports that would work similarly,

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:38 pm

It sounds worth trying to me. You'd just need to make sure you had a way to make it clear exactly which countries could be attacked.

qeee1 · Post by **qeee1** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:01 am

hmmm... In most map cases it seems that you're trying to cut down on the number of borders not increase them, so in that way it might not be so useful, but... I'm all for new and interesting ideas, so if someone finds a way to implement it correctly I'd be very interested to play.

Black Jack · Post by **Black Jack** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:03 am

freakshow wrote:Yeah I was going to do an update to my indochina map with sea ports that would work similarly,

A very good idea for the Indochina map.

Intra-coastal shipping was used for much of the strategic movement.

This means that Tourane (DaNang) and Haiphong (Hanoi's port) need to be added as new territories.

Hue should not be a port.

freakshow · Post by **freakshow** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:34 am

I was initaly thinking of adding Haiphong harbor, Saigon river port. Hue rivier port, Cam Ranh Bay, and Kampong Som (in cambodia). To simulate ports you could attack freely between them.

Black Jack · Post by **Black Jack** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:53 am

Hue was not a port...in the traditional sense.

It was an in-land city, connected to the South China Sea... by the Perfume River.

Cargo ships unloaded at the mouth of the river, while at sea, on to WW2-era landing craft and sampans.

The materials then moved up-river to Hue.

Tourane/DaNang had docks that could handles small freighters.

Cam Ranh Bay

... how could I forget about Cam Ranh Bay.

It was the second-best anchorage in Indochina... after the Port of Saigon.

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:24 pm

Im with qeee, its usually useless, but sometimes it can work.

max is gr8 · Post by **max is gr8** » Mon May 01, 2006 9:31 am

With airports I have the idea that you have to send the units there and they will attack at the start of next turn because It does not take minutes to travel in planes

Hoff · Post by **Hoff** » Mon May 01, 2006 9:35 am

max is gr8 wrote:With airports I have the idea that you have to send the units there and they will attack at the start of next turn because It does not take minutes to travel in planes

I don't really get what you are saying? Why can't airports attack? It would be like an air raid with paratroopers.

max is gr8 · Post by **max is gr8** » Mon May 01, 2006 9:47 am

I'll explain they can attack right I'll show you a diagram

A----------------------B--------------------C----------------D-------------------E---------------F

A wants to attack F but it would take more time han just walking into a country so A takes 1 turn to reach F

so If A attacks F on round 2
it would arrive at F for the attack on round 3
those men will not be protecting A while in air.

It would take quite a bit of programming though

Hoff · Post by **Hoff** » Mon May 01, 2006 10:00 am

Thats an interesting idea. It would make it a little bit harder to use the airports to attack, which might not be bad. But i don't think it will make that much more of a difference. And using you model, an airplane travels faster then troops on the ground. So it would make sense for them to be able to attack further away in a single turn. If A wanted to attack F, he being in a plane would be able to do so in one turn because planes move a lot faster then walking troops.

max is gr8 · Post by **max is gr8** » Mon May 01, 2006 10:06 am

exactly that's what I mean

Riyanna · Post by **Riyanna** » Wed May 03, 2006 12:16 pm

While you're at it why not implement propaganda campaigns that turn your opponents territories neutral, or nuclear bombs which end the game in an immidiate draw. Why not throw in the United Nations, so that coalition forces can land and storm the place and kill you all!

Please keep it simple!