Development of the land game: is this on the roadmap?

[mrchuck]

I've been wondering for a while about the army events ("only the navy can win this war" etc) which pop up from time to time.

Seems to me that unless an invasion is in progress, or the enemy is geographically adjacent, these make no sense. If for example I'm playing Japan, and there are no German possessions nearby, in what conceivable way is an army offensive even possible against Germany, where the nearest land contact might be 8000 km away? Nevertheless I have seen these.

Are the devs contemplating expanding the land operations part of the game in future? For instance, there are already borders visible for the Low Countries, and if these became an in-play neutral possession, a land offensive here would make sense whether coming from France or Germany, at the risk of course of earning the undying enmity of GB and the non-invading power.

Similarly I see borders for northern and southern France which look suspiciously similar to the Occupied and Unoccupied zones of 1940. Ditto Western Russia and so on.

So what is the play here? Are are they now and forever just cosmetic?

Even as things sit, it would appear to me far better if army events could only occur if the enemies have a land border, or there is an invasion underway. I have no idea why I would ever select letting the army have a go as I can usually get far more VPs for less cost with the navy. But if it might tip the scales for a hard-fought invasion, I might be far more tempted...

[WLRoo]

Not as far as I know - the events were in RtW2 as well.

The event is just there to produce a VP bonus to one side or the other, based on the result of an RNG (presumably with a bonus towards it benefitting the player if they sacrifice some budget).

Note that if you don't support the army, the roll is still made.