TaCktiX wrote:I'm an adherent in the No Problem Don't Mention ethos a little bit too much it seems. I see nothing wrong with it at all, and since in function it's almost identical to the former fleets (and more directly connected to New World's mechanic) it shouldn't be crazily messed up.
ah more of a "light touch" then. ok, well good. Yeah I think over all it should work pretty well, there are only 2 things that are a little bit weird.
One is that the Ottomans don't have a landing territory. Essentially all this means is that there is no direct link to "Ottoman" from Africa. This shouldn't be too weird since the empire is pretty close but still... The thing is that they really lost most of their African claims at this point. I might be able to justify adding an Ottoman territory between Lybia and France. It's not exactly historically accurate but it will make Gameplay a little more fair.
The other thing is that Britain has 3 landing spots. That is simultaneously an advantage and a disadvantage (since it offers more +1 bonuses but also more routes back to the homeland) so technically it should even out. There's a couple solutions. 1 is that I make Zululand a regular territory in the South Africa bonus. It makes sense but I like having a route from Europe to the extreme south of the map. Also I can turn British Somalia (or the hilariously labeled "B.S.") into French occupied Djibouti. I could do either of these independently or in tandem.
Or option 3 which might make the most sense. Make Zululand a regular territory & make B.S. an Ottoman Landing point. This would give each European power exactly 1 Landing point. The only thing about that is that I lose a European connection to The South of Africa (unless I just wipe Gold Coast as a territory all together) and it'll take some wonky backwards thinking to Justify making B.S. a Ottoman territory (which I am ok with for the sake of fair gameplay.)
Hi, my name is the Bison King, and I am COMPLETELY
aware of DaFont