🚀 go-pugleaf

Re "teleporting troops" issues.

My opinion is that it is historically reasonable as well as being good for
game play.

After all back in the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's was it even possible to
maintain a 100% blockade for a continuous year (1 turn in game)?   Therefore
allowing 100% blockade would be unrealistic and not the other way around!

Back in the Napoleonic Wars the English were totally dominant at sea and the
French still managed to send armies (e.g. to Egypt) and regiments to West
and East Indies quite frequently.  A storm would blow up and the blockading
fleet would retreat out to sea for a few days, the contained ships slip out
and disapear into the wide oceans.  And that was with early 1800's naval
tech and not 1500/1600's.

It might look like "teleporting" but in fact it just representse the sieve
like blockade permited by the technology levels of those eras.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Perez" <b...@planetperez.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: Imperialism II - Still holds up


>
> "David Short" <David...@Wright.Edu> wrote in message
> news:a53751$46tmp$1@ID-63350.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
> > The simulation crowd was put off by the teleporting troops.
>
> Yeah , I agree this is a silly nit. "Realistic movement" is one of the
> things that turns me off about the civ type games. I remember when I
picked
> up CTP2 the first thing I did was alter all the unit text files to triple
> the movement ratings of all units. I hate having to take 800 turns to
cross
> a screen ... what fun is that? Yes, I know that the logistics of
> mobilization are a part of the strategic mission, and yes that does make
the
> game more "realistic", but that same sim crowd doesn't put up much of a
> stink about the lack of realistic rudder controls on flight sims because
it
> would be no fun modeling that in a game that's supposed to be fun. At some
> point every game compromises realism to some extent to facilitate the fun
> factor. Imperialism II made a great decision here, IMO.
>
>
>