Land bridges

[davidtotalwar]

I have never put a message on a forum before so if i am not doing it correctly tell me and i will put it right.

Anyway the land bridges which allow armies to move across the sea with out building a fleet are u planning on keeping them. I only ask because I would like the one which allows armies to move across the English Channel to be removed.

The reason for its removal is because historically the English Channel always made invasion of the British Isles extremely difficult even some of the most talented military minds failed to get across the Channel. So having a land bridge which allows armies to easily cross the English Channel makes the game unrealistic in my opinion anyway.

[banzai_travis]

landbridgesa are being discussed by the mappers as we speak. i believe the general consensus is that we will have them in, but we have not confirmed exactly which ones we will use...

the main reason they are included in many mods is that the AI does not work well in certain areas without them, eg, iberian peninsula - n africa and around constantinople. you start to see things like crusading armies go all the way around the black sea (?) to get in to the holy lands instead of travelling through constantinople and turkey.

so there will almost certainly be landbridges, but which ones exactly are still to be determined.

[davidtotalwar]

thanks for the reply banzai travis but my problem was not with land bridges in general just the one in the English Channel.


But I am shore what ever decision u lot make will be the correct one

[Hengest]

well that one specifically I think we may miss the english channel one but add one between Brittany and Cornwall. May seem illogical, but it is actually pretty sensible...

[Copperknickers II]

"well that one specifically I think we may miss the english channel one but add one between Brittany and Cornwall. May seem illogical, but it is actually pretty sensible..."

Its still going across the channel, Hross, therefore defeating the purpose of the British 'Isles' altogether

[Giorgios]

For the "Crusaders" land bridge would it be possible to place it on the Dardanelles rather than the Bosphorus? When playing as the Romans, it always annoys me when full stack crusading AI armies get "stuck" outside Constantinople...

[Subuatai de Bodemloze]

"well that one specifically I think we may miss the english channel one but add one between Brittany and Cornwall. May seem illogical, but it is actually pretty sensible..."

Its still going across the channel, Hross, therefore defeating the purpose of the British 'Isles' altogether

Have to agree with Copperknickers on this point. Same goes for scandinavia.. should be no land bridges..

[Copperknickers II]

Have to agree with Copperknickers on this point. Same goes for scandinavia.. should be no land bridges..

Scandinavia isnt an island though, so access is rather easy by land.

[Walkman810i]

Well there are these islands connecting Denmark and Sweden (correct me if Im wrong). In Vanilla (aswell as many other mods) you could "hop" from the islands to Sweden. Maybe Suboutai meant to remove the option to do it. That means Denmark would need ships to expand North to Scandinavia. I think that the land bridge (if it is a land bridge there) should remain. Easier for AI, easier for player.

[Subuatai de Bodemloze]

Yeah that is exactly what I meant. Thanks Walkman.. I can't remember if it is like that in MTW2 right now. land bridge for Denmark is fine (only for Balance).. But not Denmark to Sweden; even though it is only about 7 km wide channel. But dividing Denmark makes it hard to get troops from Sjælland to Fyn to Jylland.. Hence make playing The Danes even harder.

[Hengest]

I don't think Denmark will have an easy game just based on land bridges, that would kind of defeat the whole purpose of this mod! I think we are going to keep that land bridge actually.
Don't forget that DotS will include Norway, Denmark and Sweden as well as 2 Russian factions and Lithuania- Denmark will not find expansion easy with or without a land bridge. Besides, our work on the tech tree as well as placements of permanent stone forts will mean that conquering and controlling a region will no longer be a simple 2 turn event. Developing a region and keeping control over it will be even more difficult.

Land bridges will be in place to stimulate conflict rather than to slow it down.

[Thufir Hawat]

I don't think Denmark will have an easy game just based on land bridges, that would kind of defeat the whole purpose of this mod! I think we are going to keep that land bridge actually.
Don't forget that DotS will include Norway, Denmark and Sweden as well as 2 Russian factions and Lithuania- Denmark will not find expansion easy with or without a land bridge. Besides, our work on the tech tree as well as placements of permanent stone forts will mean that conquering and controlling a region will no longer be a simple 2 turn event. Developing a region and keeping control over it will be even more difficult.

Land bridges will be in place to stimulate conflict rather than to slow it down.

You must realise that Denmark at the time controlled what we today know as South Sweden(Malmo, Halmstad, Lund). So a bridge is required to allow passage around the initial Danish kingdom. I'm a bit dissapointed that there are only 2 Russian factions, but hey, I'm just sitting here complaining while you guys do all the work. Keep it up.

[Philippon]

Subotai: Have to agree with Copperknickers on this point. Same goes for scandinavia.. should be no land bridges..

Me: Agreed, after William of Normandy, no one seems to have thought it a good idea to invade England.

However . . . you do have the problem of the English being driven out by the French and then not reinvading France like they did historically.

[Philippon]

Giorgios: For the "Crusaders" land bridge would it be possible to place it on the Dardanelles rather than the Bosphorus? When playing as the Romans, it always annoys me when full stack crusading AI armies get "stuck" outside Constantinople...

Me: That is really a very good point because that is exactly what the AI does with it's pathfinding. As it was, Constantinople did provide more than a sufficient barrier for the Bosphorus, even as late as the Ottoman invasion and taking of Adrianople, they came up the Dardenelles rather than strike across the Bosporus.

It is a problem with the AI, once the French kick the English out of France the AI seems incapable of comprehending a new English Invasion fleet, but on the other hand, give the channel a land bridge and the next thing you know they're flying the Flag of Bourbon over the Tower of London.

[Basil 11]

Giorgios: For the "Crusaders" land bridge would it be possible to place it on the Dardanelles rather than the Bosphorus? When playing as the Romans, it always annoys me when full stack crusading AI armies get "stuck" outside Constantinople...

Me: That is really a very good point because that is exactly what the AI does with it's pathfinding. As it was, Constantinople did provide more than a sufficient barrier for the Bosphorus, even as late as the Ottoman invasion and taking of Adrianople, they came up the Dardenelles rather than strike across the Bosporus.

It is a problem with the AI, once the French kick the English out of France the AI seems incapable of comprehending a new English Invasion fleet, but on the other hand, give the channel a land bridge and the next thing you know they're flying the Flag of Bourbon over the Tower of London.

I agree with all these points...
maybe even one between Genoa and nearby islands, or something like this, as the 'maritime republics' often have difficulties expanding across the Meditteranean, and spread across Europe in a highly ahistorical fashion... :hmmm:
oh, and btw, have some rep...