Map Accuracy - Rivers and Impassable Terrain

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Map Accuracy - Rivers and Impassable Terrain

      Realizing we're not going to have 100% perfection in maps, but one map feature I'd like to see are rivers and impassable terrain represented more accurately in on the map.

      Suggested New Terrain Types
      =========================
      Desert -Sahara all campaigns were around it, none took place in the Desert
      Swamp - Areas such as the Amazon and Congo, Swamps of Northern Canada, Alaska and Russia
      Arctic - Northern Russia, Canada, today there are NO routes East-West across Greenland

      Even today, these areas (75 after WWII has ended) are largely impassable without roads. And for the most part, none of these regions were ever involved in any theatre of the war.

      For this reason the Antarctic is not even listed on any CoW maps, while the Arctic has many conquerable territories... which even today don't have a road within 1,500 of these locations. Many of the Canadian communities of the Arctic, did not exist before the mid-1950's. The Inuit people were hunter gathers living in the wild. Most of the "Trading Posts" and Whaling Stations are abandoned 2-3 shack points of interest getting no visitors but the occasional hunter passing through the area.

      These areas should be terrain which must be surrounded, in order to convert to a new owner... and any unit travelling in the area suffers damage, while suffering from a reduction in speed penalty.

      Suggested Penalties - Speed 90% Reduced, and suffer 25% Damage for each hour spent in the territory

      Building infrastructure improvement makes these areas passable by land forces without the penalties

      Additional Map Feature
      ====================
      Rivers

      Since they represented a formidable obstacle for all land units, and affected army movements in every theatre of war, they should likewise have functionality in the game. There is a reason why many MODERN national borders are along Rivers and Lakes.... These natural obstacles are still an impediment to travellers today. Also consider issues modern armies have with this obstacle means it's something that did have a noticeable effect on WWII unit movement

      This could be a simple overlay over maps... and the provinces with rivers are affected.

      This could play out that any province having one of the major rivers through it.. must have the Infrastructure improvement built on it (bridges must be built to allow river crossing) Otherwise units come to to a North-South running river and have to stop at the bank unable to cross it.

      ONS
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

    • what you're basically saying is that 30% of the world map isn't traverisble... and yeah I would agree, if it wasn't for world maps where places like Alaska and Yakut (and Amazon and Sahara etc) are on the map and people want to send heavy tanks there. Actually I think the devs did pretty good making those places "hard", did you ever attack Alaska or Kamchatka? It takes ages... and going from Volta to Algeria isn't a very nice option either. I don't think you need to formalize that by making it even harder. The 100p map has many places that wouldn't stand a chance at being a world power if the map was "real"... yet end fights of Ural and Sweden vs. Amazon and Belgian Congo should be feasible or the whole idea of the map was gone... we have the HWW map for that.

      I agree about rivers. They should have a much higher priority than freaking hospitals; they could actually ADD something to the game.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      what you're basically saying is that 30% of the world map isn't traverisble... and yeah I would agree, if it wasn't for world maps where places like Alaska and Yakut (and Amazon and Sahara etc) are on the map and people want to send heavy tanks there. Actually I think the devs did pretty good making those places "hard", did you ever attack Alaska or Kamchatka? It takes ages... and going from Volta to Algeria isn't a very nice option either. I don't think you need to formalize that by making it even harder. The 100p map has many places that wouldn't stand a chance at being a world power if the map was "real"... yet end fights of Ural and Sweden vs. Amazon and Belgian Congo should be feasible or the whole idea of the map was gone... we have the HWW map for that.

      I agree about rivers. They should have a much higher priority than freaking hospitals; they could actually ADD something to the game.
      Bold of you to assume that Bytro will actually add a new mechanic to the game. But I agree with you. Rivers will add a lot of depth to the game.
      WHOS GONNA CARRY THE BOATS?
      WHOS GONNA CARRY THE LOGS?
      THEY DON'T KNOW YOU SON!

      - David Goggins

    • BrutusTrump wrote:

      Bold of you to assume that Bytro will actually add a new mechanic to the game. But I agree with you. Rivers will add a lot of depth to the game.
      What do you mean... last year... after 10's of thousands of suggestions, ideas... and brainstorming that generated some incredible possibilities.... a year later we got some new colours and graphics....

      ...If that's not progress... what is....

      [Anyone know where to find the sarcasm font?]
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

    • jubjub bird wrote:

      The projection skews the size of features near the top of the map. That's enough to make them feel impassable. It takes days just to run through a handful of enemy provinces near the edge. We don't need to make that worse.
      You've never been to the Arctic or Amazon, Congo... or Siberia... Even today they are impassable... Slow is not what I was asking for.... Impossible and deadly if you try was more the target.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

    • jubjub bird wrote:

      The projection skews the size of features near the top of the map. That's enough to make them feel impassable. It takes days just to run through a handful of enemy provinces near the edge. We don't need to make that worse.
      There are many areas on earth that are physically passable, but virtually impassable.
      So I think it would be fine there is a place where passage through is almost synonymous with suicide.

      For the instance, there is the Himalayas near India, Pakistan and Nepal are a series of peaks nearly 9,000m high.
      ( Aircraft from the early days of World War II included those that were not able to pass mountains above this altitude in the first place, and those that are barely able to do so but were fuel-efficient and limited in range.
      For instance, a service ceiling of Nakajima B5N2 is about 8,000m.
      In order to exceed this altitude, the lift generated at cruising speed alone is insufficient, so the engine must be overloaded to increase speed, and excess equipment such as weapons and electronic equipment must be removed.)

      The post was edited 2 times, last by pod_than ().

    • Please don't go here. This is a fictional map, which happens to have the same land-sea division as the historical earth and that's about it.

      Wanna know what's really strange?
      - Brazil has seven times the economic power of Germany.
      - Papua has five times the power of Netherlands (which had actuallly colonized half of it and kept it under control with a few thousand colonial troops, mostly occupied with preventing the local tribes of killing each other with bows and arrows).
      - The power of Yakutia (did anybody live there at the time??) is double that of Italy.
      - Saskatchewan has the same power as California.
      - France and UK and some others have already lost their colonial empires, which are completely independent and are several times stronger than their historical masters.
      - All those islands in the Pacific, plus places like Malta, Greenland and St.Helena have a city the size of Tokyo or New York on them.

      I could go on like this, but I'm not going to. I'm NOT arguing to correct all that; if you want to, do it on the HWW. Again, this is a fictional map were all PLAYERS (as opposed to historical powers) have equal chances. Leave it like that.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Please don't go here. This is a fictional map, which happens to have the same land-sea division as the historical earth and that's about it.

      Wanna know what's really strange?
      - Brazil has seven times the economic power of Germany.
      - Papua has five times the power of Netherlands (which had actuallly colonized half of it and kept it under control with a few thousand colonial troops, mostly occupied with preventing the local tribes of killing each other with bows and arrows).
      - The power of Yakutia (did anybody live there at the time??) is double that of Italy.
      - Saskatchewan has the same power as California.
      - France and UK and some others have already lost their colonial empires, which are completely independent and are several times stronger than their historical masters.
      - All those islands in the Pacific, plus places like Malta, Greenland and St.Helena have a city the size of Tokyo or New York on them.

      I could go on like this, but I'm not going to. I'm NOT arguing to correct all that; if you want to, do it on the HWW. Again, this is a fictional map were all PLAYERS (as opposed to historical powers) have equal chances. Leave it like that.
      I did point out once that it was "incorrect and strange".
      Also, I have made any remarks to that effect in the past.
      But now, it's not about whether wrong or not, but I hope developer's to be able to recreate that kind of interesting and narrative depiction of the situation.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Please don't go here. This is a fictional map, which happens to have the same land-sea division as the historical earth and that's about it.

      Wanna know what's really strange?
      - Brazil has seven times the economic power of Germany.
      - Papua has five times the power of Netherlands (which had actuallly colonized half of it and kept it under control with a few thousand colonial troops, mostly occupied with preventing the local tribes of killing each other with bows and arrows).
      - The power of Yakutia (did anybody live there at the time??) is double that of Italy.
      - Saskatchewan has the same power as California.
      - France and UK and some others have already lost their colonial empires, which are completely independent and are several times stronger than their historical masters.
      - All those islands in the Pacific, plus places like Malta, Greenland and St.Helena have a city the size of Tokyo or New York on them.

      I could go on like this, but I'm not going to. I'm NOT arguing to correct all that; if you want to, do it on the HWW. Again, this is a fictional map were all PLAYERS (as opposed to historical powers) have equal chances. Leave it like that.
      Yeah, it’s definitely a fictional map. Consider that all countries have the same access to the five main resources (to include oil).
      There is no graduation between cities and rural provinces. All cities are the same: London and New York City are equal to Jayapura and Humbe.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Please don't go here. This is a fictional map, which happens to have the same land-sea division as the historical earth and that's about it.

      Wanna know what's really strange?
      - Brazil has seven times the economic power of Germany.
      - Papua has five times the power of Netherlands (which had actuallly colonized half of it and kept it under control with a few thousand colonial troops, mostly occupied with preventing the local tribes of killing each other with bows and arrows).
      - The power of Yakutia (did anybody live there at the time??) is double that of Italy.
      - Saskatchewan has the same power as California.
      - France and UK and some others have already lost their colonial empires, which are completely independent and are several times stronger than their historical masters.
      - All those islands in the Pacific, plus places like Malta, Greenland and St.Helena have a city the size of Tokyo or New York on them.

      I could go on like this, but I'm not going to. I'm NOT arguing to correct all that; if you want to, do it on the HWW. Again, this is a fictional map were all PLAYERS (as opposed to historical powers) have equal chances. Leave it like that.
      Yeah, it’s definitely a fictional map. Consider that all countries have the same access to the five main resources (to include oil).There is no graduation between cities and rural provinces. All cities are the same: London and New York City are equal to Jayapura and Humbe.
      As mentioned above, can communication be established between?
      a story that looks interesting so wants something's to be changed
      &
      a story that it is ( in/)accurate so unnecessary

      If these changes are unpleasant,rather I think it might be established as communication, but I think that someone are indifferent will be repeated nonsense conversations.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by pod_than ().

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      what you're basically saying is that 30% of the world map isn't traverisble... and yeah I would agree, if it wasn't for world maps where places like Alaska and Yakut (and Amazon and Sahara etc) are on the map and people want to send heavy tanks there. Actually I think the devs did pretty good making those places "hard", did you ever attack Alaska or Kamchatka? It takes ages... and going from Volta to Algeria isn't a very nice option either. I don't think you need to formalize that by making it even harder. The 100p map has many places that wouldn't stand a chance at being a world power if the map was "real"... yet end fights of Ural and Sweden vs. Amazon and Belgian Congo should be feasible or the whole idea of the map was gone... we have the HWW map for that.

      I agree about rivers. They should have a much higher priority than freaking hospitals; they could actually ADD something to the game.
      what do you meaning that hospitals r a Bad idea? It is very realistic and the best idea that I’ve heard of in here
      知己知彼，百战不殆
      :00010164: :00008172: :00002178: :00002047: :00000156: :00010180: :00010317:

    • Don't you realize how boring these hospitals will be?

      Hospitals will probably be expensive buildings, so you can only afford a few in your empire. that means that damaged units (which are already hampered in speed) have to travel for many hours or even days back to these locations. There they spend some time healing; and when they're done with that, they have to travel back to the front (which has probably moved on by now). Altogether, several days of being in the process of "healing" and not doing anything interesting.

      I already think that transporting newly built units to the front in a big empire is pretty tedious. For example, setting up routes across an ocean to avoid possible interception by enemy fleets isn't really a fun job. Then watching those units travel that distance for days (as their tech is getting obsolete) has similarities to watching grass grow. And that's only one of the three phases mentioned above.

      And for what? Getting a fresh unit. You can already get fresh units by building them; it is much simpler, both in mechanics and in player experience. So the only function is that people don't have to bear the "frustration" of watching a few of their units limping around without much use (although the existing healing system CAN get them back to life a bit over the course of a few days). And to be honest, that's not worth much development time for me. Especially if it means that they won't have the time to develop the VERY interesting subject of this thread: rivers. Many offensive and defensive implications, new tactical and strategic options on battlefields across the map. Fun, hot.

      Yet you keep ranting on and on about is boring hospitals. Do you happen to have a job at a bank, or at an insurance company?
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • Destructo the Great wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      what you're basically saying is that 30% of the world map isn't traverisble... and yeah I would agree, if it wasn't for world maps where places like Alaska and Yakut (and Amazon and Sahara etc) are on the map and people want to send heavy tanks there. Actually I think the devs did pretty good making those places "hard", did you ever attack Alaska or Kamchatka? It takes ages... and going from Volta to Algeria isn't a very nice option either. I don't think you need to formalize that by making it even harder. The 100p map has many places that wouldn't stand a chance at being a world power if the map was "real"... yet end fights of Ural and Sweden vs. Amazon and Belgian Congo should be feasible or the whole idea of the map was gone... we have the HWW map for that.

      I agree about rivers. They should have a much higher priority than freaking hospitals; they could actually ADD something to the game.
      what do you meaning that hospitals r a Bad idea? It is very realistic and the best idea that I’ve heard of in here
      I'm sorry that this is not a comment for me, but please permit my to reply also.
      First I also cannot agree with the hospital's implementation while maintaining the original concept.
      However, if the environment of the game has been changed more severely and hard than it is now, it might not be so.
      That is, if units that don't have a certain number of hitpoints take damage not but of healing each day, and can be stopped by hospitals, I can agree.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Don't you realize how boring these hospitals will be?

      Hospitals will probably be expensive buildings, so you can only afford a few in your empire. that means that damaged units (which are already hampered in speed) have to travel for many hours or even days back to these locations. There they spend some time healing; and when they're done with that, they have to travel back to the front (which has probably moved on by now). Altogether, several days of being in the process of "healing" and not doing anything interesting.

      I already think that transporting newly built units to the front in a big empire is pretty tedious. For example, setting up routes across an ocean to avoid possible interception by enemy fleets isn't really a fun job. Then watching those units travel that distance for days (as their tech is getting obsolete) has similarities to watching grass grow. And that's only one of the three phases mentioned above.

      And for what? Getting a fresh unit. You can already get fresh units by building them; it is much simpler, both in mechanics and in player experience. So the only function is that people don't have to bear the "frustration" of watching a few of their units limping around without much use (although the existing healing system CAN get them back to life a bit over the course of a few days). And to be honest, that's not worth much development time for me. Especially if it means that they won't have the time to develop the VERY interesting subject of this thread: rivers. Many offensive and defensive implications, new tactical and strategic options on battlefields across the map. Fun, hot.

      Yet you keep ranting on and on about is boring hospitals. Do you happen to have a job at a bank, or at an insurance company?
      only yourself thinks that they r a Boring idea. Also did I ask about your job?
      知己知彼，百战不殆
      :00010164: :00008172: :00002178: :00002047: :00000156: :00010180: :00010317:

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Don't you realize how boring these hospitals will be?

      Hospitals will probably be expensive buildings, so you can only afford a few in your empire. that means that damaged units (which are already hampered in speed) have to travel for many hours or even days back to these locations. There they spend some time healing; and when they're done with that, they have to travel back to the front (which has probably moved on by now). Altogether, several days of being in the process of "healing" and not doing anything interesting.

      I already think that transporting newly built units to the front in a big empire is pretty tedious. For example, setting up routes across an ocean to avoid possible interception by enemy fleets isn't really a fun job. Then watching those units travel that distance for days (as their tech is getting obsolete) has similarities to watching grass grow. And that's only one of the three phases mentioned above.

      And for what? Getting a fresh unit. You can already get fresh units by building them; it is much simpler, both in mechanics and in player experience. So the only function is that people don't have to bear the "frustration" of watching a few of their units limping around without much use (although the existing healing system CAN get them back to life a bit over the course of a few days). And to be honest, that's not worth much development time for me. Especially if it means that they won't have the time to develop the VERY interesting subject of this thread: rivers. Many offensive and defensive implications, new tactical and strategic options on battlefields across the map. Fun, hot.

      Yet you keep ranting on and on about is boring hospitals. Do you happen to have a job at a bank, or at an insurance company?
      It might be a prejudice to speculate that just because each of the constituent operations is monotonous, ofcourse the final image will be monotonous and boring also.
      In the first place, this game itself was created using a computer program, right?
      An element in a computer program is either on or off, or 1 or 0 in different notations.
      But despite the combination of this elements only, this game is a very interesting work, isn't it?

      The post was edited 4 times, last by pod_than ().