One of the main goals of the russians wasto gain a warm water port this should be reflected with vp's whenever you gain one.
-
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.
Also, I think Archangelsk should be a port, but one with super-high attritton from ice flows around it, the reason being that I believe it was a whaling station, and that there was a northern trade route with England (who formed something called "The Russian Company")
but it was only useable in the summer so it does not count as warm eater port which by defenition is ice free all year long.
how about Sacramento? is that warm enough for you? 
P.S. - for those who are not aware, the Russians tried to colonize the West Coast of America. they didn't last very long.... the Spanish kicked them out.
P.S. - for those who are not aware, the Russians tried to colonize the West Coast of America. they didn't last very long.... the Spanish kicked them out.
Considering how much land you'd have to conquer in order to reach a warm water port, you will have earnt a boatload of VPs by the time you get there.
Re: Re: warm port
Good point, but they could easily gain such VPs elsewhere.
Should be a mission.
Originally posted by Heyesey
Considering how much land you'd have to conquer in order to reach a warm water port, you will have earnt a boatload of VPs by the time you get there.
Good point, but they could easily gain such VPs elsewhere.
Should be a mission.
Hello everybody:
I don't think that Archangelsk should be a port, because if It is, the russian A.I. (unless this changes in EU2) would start making ships like crazy, thus hampering russian performance overall.
About getting VPs from getting a warm water port, I don't think it's necesary, because Russia, by getting a port, can start colonizing, getting VPs from that.
Thus, I think that getting a port should not provide extra VPs, because It's already a mean to get a lot of VPs.
Bye, The LArch
I don't think that Archangelsk should be a port, because if It is, the russian A.I. (unless this changes in EU2) would start making ships like crazy, thus hampering russian performance overall.
About getting VPs from getting a warm water port, I don't think it's necesary, because Russia, by getting a port, can start colonizing, getting VPs from that.
Thus, I think that getting a port should not provide extra VPs, because It's already a mean to get a lot of VPs.
Bye, The LArch
In regards to Archangelsk being a port in EU, this was debated at length some months ago. The final consensus was that it shouldn't be a port due to the impracticality of maintaining a navy there (which is the point of a port in EU).
Why else do you think the russians were so intrested in that pile of rocks called afganastain? Because they still wanted the warm ports of the persian gulf an ambithion sense the first czer
I guess what others are trying to say is that the port is its own reward. Sort of like England wanting Gibralter since it commands access to the Meditaranean.
Still, most missions have a useful consequence, so I'm not sure that the logic applies.
Don't forget the mulitple attempts to get to the black sea.
Ports should be their own reward, just like satan said.
its not too hard to get warm water ports as russia.
baltic ports or anexe persia they have a few ports.
baltic ports or anexe persia they have a few ports.
Well the Russians get ingermanland in the IGC as a port so thye still build ships (once they finally get round to building up the colony)
I know it's landlocked but It's just one country away from there to the warm waters of the persian gulf
I thought it was pretty well known that Britain invaded Afghanistan in the 19th century to try and prevent Russia from reaching the Indian ocean and/or Persian gulf.
Freedom Fighter is right.
