- Mar 17, 2001
Galleblære said:But don't you see, if we create artificial borders to simulate historic attack routes in Scandinavia/Russia, we need to do that everywhere else.
Like I said, for something like the hundreth time, you can't have different rules for different areas. Just think about it in multiplayer, why should players controlling nations in other parts of the world be allowed to use "unhistoric" attack routes, but not Russia/Sweden/Denmark? Why this insanely stuck up rigid stance just here?
I mean, a French player can easily incade the UK from Scotland or York for example, when that would have been suicide in real life. Should we then create "PTI" alongst the shorelines of England to block them off? Block off any other highly improbable attack route in europe?
Again, this can easily be handeled by handing out very expensive movement times in "unattackable routes".
Don't you see, I am not against the concept of making attack routes from difficult places less off an exploit, I am TOTALLY AGAINST using PTI to FORCE the player into doing it. Big difference. Historically, leaders didnt cross armies here because they knew it would be extremly hard to pull of. Was it impossible? No. Thus, PTI is not warranted.
I agree with you in general, but not in this particular case. I think the PTI would do a lot for historicity.
Let's just agree on disagreeing on this one and let the HC decide?
I personally won't budge with the present arguments and I guess it's the same with you...