Panama Canal

Ideas for expansions and improvements to Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

The Wombat
level1
level1
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Panama Canal

Postby The Wombat » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:29 am

It seems to me N. and S. America face a troubling decision at the start of their game... "do I split my fleet to cover both coasts or hope I get lucky and commit to one ocean. Yes S. America can take the southern Route but N. America doesnt even have this avaliable to them. I am suggesting openning up the Panama Canal for travel.
User avatar
Kuth
level4
level4
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Keele Imperium
Contact:

Postby Kuth » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:42 am

How long does it take a ship to pass through the entire canal system?

WWIII would be long over before anyone was concerned with battle group A being on the other side of central america.
User avatar
rawera
level1
level1
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:04 pm

Postby rawera » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:49 am

Kuth is right, it's not like entire fleets can pull a Magellan and round Cape Horn while traveling around South America in such a short period of time...oh wait, they do do that.

That said, I don't really favor having the Panama canal as passable, just because you'd have to add the option of nuking it to take out its capacities to move ships which would open the door (locks) to all manners of "special" buildings and targets.
Last edited by rawera on Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Spacemonkey
level4
level4
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Postby Spacemonkey » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:49 am

In my central america map, i had to have the Panama Canal open for travel, otherwise I got a node map error. However I would prefer not to, as the canal is a long system of locks and gates, it would take ages for a ship to get through, and i think a carrier or battleship would be far to big anyway.
User avatar
Useful Dave
level2
level2
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:44 pm
Contact:

Postby Useful Dave » Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:55 am

And nukes take ages to arm before they can be dropped from Bombers? :roll: DEFCON Isn't that realistic.
Image
Clee-Saan
level1
level1
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:14 pm

Postby Clee-Saan » Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:04 pm

Useful Dave wrote:And nukes take ages to arm before they can be dropped from Bombers? :roll: DEFCON Isn't that realistic.


Well, no, it's not realistic. Do you realy think africa could face United States in a nucléar war ? :wink:
User avatar
Mighty Santa
level2
level2
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:10 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Postby Mighty Santa » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:52 am

Panama canal should be a valid travel option. It should also be a 'special target', and one that the South American player/his allies can only use.

Its a good option, although the pathing might be tricky to figure out.


---
Hell, I'd even be open to the suez canal being open for Africa, why not ? Oh yes, the ships would look a right mess in the med. I guess that is out.

In any case, Bering straight, AND panama canal look like good features to use.
4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42
User avatar
Kuth
level4
level4
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Keele Imperium
Contact:

Postby Kuth » Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:39 am

Useful Dave wrote:And nukes take ages to arm before they can be dropped from Bombers? :roll: DEFCON Isn't that realistic.


Even so...

Before you guys complain about making Panama passable, how about opening up the Mediterranian sea? Currently it's unsailable, and that's a lot of ocean. Heck, the Russians even had naval operations in there!

I mean... compare a 14 kilometer strait to a canal that spans a width minimum of 91.5 meters.

So if you guys want Panama sailable, I want Gibraltar and the Mediterrainian sailable since it's a wider gap that leads to a strategicly important area. Some might argue the Mediterrainian is a lot more important than passing through panama, since one could hide subs in there for a nasty surprise.
flatrick
level2
level2
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:50 pm

Postby flatrick » Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:19 am

panama should be open. period.
almo
level1
level1
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:34 am
Location: Montreal, Quebec (BHVR)

Postby almo » Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:42 pm

flatrick wrote:panama should be open. period.


No, it shouldn't.
Almo!
Game Programmer - Behaviour Interactive
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:45 pm

almo wrote:
flatrick wrote:panama should be open. period.


No, it shouldn't.

Agreed. Panama should not be open.

xander
User avatar
Radiant Caligula
level5
level5
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:47 am
Location: Somewhere sodomized

Postby Radiant Caligula » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:08 pm

A "generic" battleship (a WWII class ship) is way too big for the Panama canal anyway and so are all the major carriers that NA has operational in real life.
So even if the canal was open in the game only subs could pass through. And that would be completely pointless as it would strip subs of their stealth advantage.

So my vote should be fairly obvious... ;-)
User avatar
Lekdevil.NL
level1
level1
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:45 am
Location: The Netherlands

Postby Lekdevil.NL » Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:26 pm

Radiant Caligula wrote:A "generic" battleship (a WWII class ship) is way too big for the Panama canal anyway

I beg to differ...

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Missouri_panama_canal.jpg:

USS Missouri (BB-63)

In the Miraflores Locks, Panama Canal, 13 October 1945, while en route from the Pacific to New York City to take part in Navy Day celebrations. Note the close fit of the ship in the locks. The beam of battleships of this era was determined by Panama Canal lock dimensions.


Image
User avatar
Radiant Caligula
level5
level5
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:47 am
Location: Somewhere sodomized

Postby Radiant Caligula » Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:45 pm

ok, I surrender. =)

But carriers ARE too big for the canal, so you could (according to your picture) only transfer a bunch of BBs through while sending the carriers the long way around. Fleet assembly would be pretty pointless if you tried to form operational batallions.

But nuff bullshit. I dont think the Panama canal should open either way. The divide between the At and the Pac makes an interesting game.
Priorities creates tensions....
Tsoman
level0
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:16 am

Postby Tsoman » Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:47 pm

I think if you make the panama canal passable, you should also make it destructible, as a strategic target :wink:

Once hit with a nuke or two, you can no longer pass

Return to “Think Tank”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests