• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

unmerged(14424)

First Lieutenant
Feb 5, 2003
258
0
Visit site
As Germany, I occupied Suez, then Ceuta thinking that this would seal the straits (just as taking Gibralter does). To my surprise, it appears to have no effect at all. Allied troops are steaming through the Straits without hindrance. Is this a known bug, and if so, is their a patch yet?

Mike
 
Jan 27, 2003
597
0
Visit site
MikeKO said:
As Germany, I occupied Suez, then Ceuta thinking that this would seal the straits (just as taking Gibralter does). To my surprise, it appears to have no effect at all. Allied troops are steaming through the Straits without hindrance. Is this a known bug, and if so, is their a patch yet?

Mike

You need both ends, to stop shipping other than submarines. Gibralter is a much larger opening than Suez, so that makes some sense. OTOH, if one side had been occupied by hostile forces, it would have been a very dangerous passage.
 

unmerged(29126)

Knuffelmof
May 14, 2004
3.120
0
Oh, Gibraltar .... I nice reason to have the Legion Condor on a 2 year holiday at the Costa del Sol ....

As to Suez ... I was always under the impression that you needed Port Said to close off the canal ...
 
Jan 27, 2003
597
0
Visit site
MikeKO said:
If you stand on the shore in Ceuta, from ground level, you can see Gibralter. Given radar, ballons, etc. there is no way in hell that a ship can get through the straits when either shore is controlled by a capable enemy.

Mike

If you stand at Calais, you can see England...obviously both sides used the channel...it's just an increased risk.
The same applies to the straights, although controlling Gibralter also presumably gives you control of it's guns. Ceuta is not the same as Gibralter.