As a compromise, how about we say that coastal forts may not cover the entire coast? Like denyd says, I doubt anyone is planning that anyway.
One other thing to consider and that is naval bombardment. Even with forts a couple of battleships would be able to red-line the defenders and then using carrier based bombers, the defenders could be eliminated. At that point I'd rather be able to capture a city and unload tanks and continue the offensive as opposed to landing them on the shore and be subject to counterattack.
I'm thinking that the map maker might have desired to see some modern era warfare with combined arms being used as opposed to the usual AA unit steamrollers that usually occur.
There should be some interesting decisions on whether to go for marines or enter the modern era with mech infantry, modern armor and nukes.
As to my opinion, if it keeps Babe from bailing out, then sure. I don't think any team is planning on building a lot of forts anyway.
That works for me.Niklas said:As a compromise, how about we say that coastal forts may not cover the entire coast?
As a compromise, how about we say that coastal forts may not cover the entire coast? Like denyd says, I doubt anyone is planning that anyway.
New Rule: Max of 50% of costal tiles may be covered with Forts.
Marines with a 8 attack against infantry at 10, fortified behind a city or town (with walls) is about 13% success rate. Barricaded that success rate is ~7.5% and a fort is 12.8%. All on grass...
Without a fort or barricade on grass it's at least 23.8%. Quite a difference by transports imo.
Coastal would equal tiles that can be invaded, no?New Rule: Max of 50% of costal tiles may be covered with Forts.
Nevermind.It's a moot point though and we officially drop this proposal.