Why no Roanoke?
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2015 11:03 pm
by plasticpanzers
Wondering why Roanoke is just shallow sea rather than land that is invadible. Would seem by taking Roanoke and
the two forts there that it should be easier for the Union player to blockade the area.
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:31 pm
by Captain_Orso
I think that basically the defenses of Roanoke Island were extrapolated into the Fort Clark. Neither really were large and extensive enough to merit an in-game fort, but with the current in-game Fort Clark it does more-or-less represent the situation in general. The only thing lacking is that there should be no movement between the in-game Currituck Sound coastal region and the Oregon Inlet region.