Map features

[Heimdallr]

Hi,

I am a bit disappointed when looking at the map.The landscape looks very empty.

First things they come up my mind

- airfields, ports?
- where are the roads?
- bridges?
- large cities should be large than one hex, with suburb, farmland around, villages...

This game looks overall promising, so I hope this all could be done at least done in editor?

[doomtrader]

Hello Heimdallr, nice to see you here.

- airfields, ports?

no airfields,
cities are ports

- where are the roads?

With this level of game we decided that roads are not included, however a supply system based on distance is in the game.

- bridges?

As there are no roads there is also no bridges

- large cities should be large than one hex,

Actually one hex is ca 25 km wide, there are really not to many larger cities those times

with suburb, farmland around, villages...

again due the gamescale, no such things

This game looks overall promising, so I hope this all could be done at least done in editor?

Some of the issues you pointed above might be modded, but some not.

[Anraz]

large cities should be large than one hex

In fact some major cities have two hexes.
For example Stalingrad and Moscow (Moscow was shown at one of the pictures).

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: Anraz

large cities should be large than one hex

In fact some major cities have two hexes.
For example Stalingrad and Moscow (Moscow was shown at one of the pictures).

London

[TPM]

Apart from the cities being larger than one hex, etc. (I guess that's debatable) I agree wholeheartedly with this post. There should at least be roads on a map of this scale. Roads are a HUGE part of strategy and it seems odd that they have been left out.

ORIGINAL: Heimdallr

Hi,

I am a bit disappointed when looking at the map.The landscape looks very empty.

First things they come up my mind

- airfields, ports?
- where are the roads?
- bridges?
- large cities should be large than one hex, with suburb, farmland around, villages...

This game looks overall promising, so I hope this all could be done at least done in editor?

[cpdeyoung]

I have been playing this a lot in testing and I honestly think roads are un-necessary at this scale. In a given week you would not be able to really factor in a movement bonus for a road. When you play it I think you will agree, the same goes for airports and bridges. You really want a much larger map before you put in such detail. For eye candy, maybe, but for function, well I think not, your mileage may vary.

There are games at that scale, but this one is outside that scope - I think.

Chuck

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

I have been playing this a lot in testing and I honestly think roads are un-necessary at this scale. In a given week you would not be able to really factor in a movement bonus for a road. When you play it I think you will agree, the same goes for airports and bridges. You really want a much larger map before you put in such detail. For eye candy, maybe, but for function, well I think not, your mileage may vary.

There are games at that scale, but this one is outside that scope - I think.

Chuck

I really agree with Chuck. At this scale even railroads are present in every hex. You'd be better off designating those few hexes that didn't have roads or railroads. This is also true of airfields. In a period where everything short of super-heavy strategic bombers opperated from grass fields and every cow pasture was a tent or two shy of being an air base, there isnt much point in designating a hex as an airfield.

[mavraamides]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

I have been playing this a lot in testing and I honestly think roads are un-necessary at this scale. In a given week you would not be able to really factor in a movement bonus for a road. When you play it I think you will agree, the same goes for airports and bridges. You really want a much larger map before you put in such detail. For eye candy, maybe, but for function, well I think not, your mileage may vary.

There are games at that scale, but this one is outside that scope - I think.

Chuck

I really agree with Chuck. At this scale even railroads are present in every hex. You'd be better off designating those few hexes that didn't have roads or railroads. This is also true of airfields. In a period where everything short of super-heavy strategic bombers opperated from grass fields and every cow pasture was a tent or two shy of being an air base, there isnt much point in designating a hex as an airfield.

That's certainly true in Europe. But what about low infrastructure areas like North Africa? Is this accounted for by terrain type?

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

I have been playing this a lot in testing and I honestly think roads are un-necessary at this scale. In a given week you would not be able to really factor in a movement bonus for a road. When you play it I think you will agree, the same goes for airports and bridges. You really want a much larger map before you put in such detail. For eye candy, maybe, but for function, well I think not, your mileage may vary.

There are games at that scale, but this one is outside that scope - I think.

Chuck

I really agree with Chuck. At this scale even railroads are present in every hex. You'd be better off designating those few hexes that didn't have roads or railroads. This is also true of airfields. In a period where everything short of super-heavy strategic bombers opperated from grass fields and every cow pasture was a tent or two shy of being an air base, there isnt much point in designating a hex as an airfield.

That's certainly true in Europe. But what about low infrastructure areas like North Africa? Is this accounted for by terrain type?

What terrain? The only difference between a road and "not a road" in most of North Africa is where you have a road, you know where you shouldn't park.[8D]

[Uxbridge]

I do side with both camps regarding terrain features.

In most cases roads and bridges are pointless. In NA roads were crucial, since they were non-existent a number of hexes south of the coast. In fact large scale military operations were at the time impossible in areas where you can now move and fight unhindered. This leads to a totally unrealistic width of operations in NA. Difficult to solve, however, considering the non-stacking in RtV/ToW.

The bare map in the eastern parts of the USSR are something that I really don't like. If you make a map representation of these areas it should appear like it does now, but that doesn't mean that there's not occasional patches of woods or other for the defender beneficial terrain there. The main problem, as I see it, is that the completely bare map make the player lose interest in these areas. The game is played with a combination of manouvre-thinking and terrain-thinking, that's what makes these types of games so rewarding. When suddenly there's nothing there but units, one of these two "thinking-features" is suddenly lost. In most of our games this has led to a straight and rigid North-South line across the map, since there's no longer any reason to build the front on other circumstances than frontal hexes, save the occasional river. I would therefore most strongly suggest that small clusters of wood and even the odd hill should be placed in such areas, even though these features wouldn't be present on a map.

I live in Sweden and on most game maps Sweden appear rather lake-limited, save Vänern and Vättern, wheras Finland has many lakes. In actual fact Sweden is covered by much more water than Finland, only it doesn't appear that way on the maps, because Swedish lakes are generally smaller. I suppose the same problem goes for many of the "empty" areas of the game and adding a few additional, defender-friendly, map features would make for a much more rewarding game experience than is the present case.

[Plainian]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge
...adding a few additional, defender-friendly, map features would make for a much more rewarding game experience than is the present case.

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

adding a few additional, defender-friendly, map features would make for a much more rewarding game experience than is the present case.

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately it doesn't look like ToW will contain any new terrain types which will be a shame as the game had so much potential as all the AAR's brilliantly demonstrate.

The AAR's however do highlight something that no one seems to have commented on. The ability of large enemy forces to move across mountainous ranges at ease? This doesn't look right?

When I see hoards of panzers swarming easily across large mountainous areas like the Pyrnenees or even the Caucasian range it makes me think that something needs to be added to the game like mountain passes or hexes that cannot be entered.

Maybe this can be fixed? I know that they were thinking of adding in something to represent the Qattara Depression so maybe this can be adapted for mountainous areas as well?

The only problem I can see with adding natural chokepoints to the game is that the AI wouldn't be able to cope with this.

[Michael the Pole]

Normally, it is fairly unusual for me to disagree with Uxbridge, but I'm afraid that I must take exception to his comments advocating the creation of what I can only describe as imaginary terrain. As I have said in other posts on this board, this game is a historical simulation, or perhaps a historical simulator, not science fiction from the pen (or perhaps I should say, crayon,) of Harry Turtledove.
You guys all seem to be having difficulty grasping the scale of this game. Just as an example, there are more than 40 passes just in the major parts of the Alps. It'd be a lot easier trying to define an area where there arent any roads then say, well, here's a pass. As the Germans proved in the Ardennes, if there is a road, there is a way.
Anyone who has ever driven through the Eisenhower Tunnel under Loveland Pass on Interstate 70 (part of the American Interstate System which was designed and built for that very purpose) will realize that if you can drive a tank transporter up there (just short of 12,000 feet) a relatively trivial obstacle like the Alps doesn't present an insurmountable obstacle.

[Anraz]

There are some logistical related issues in North Africa in Time of Wrath - for example when an Axis player approaches Alexandria or one of Allies tries to get to Tunis from Morocco his units are slower then usual and their combat effectiveness is reduced.

... already have been improved, at least a bit

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Normally, it is fairly unusual for me to disagree with Uxbridge, but I'm afraid that I must take exception to his comments advocating the creation of what I can only describe as imaginary terrain. As I have said in other posts on this board, this game is a historical simulation, or perhaps a historical simulator, not science fiction from the pen (or perhaps I should say, crayon,) of Harry Turtledove.
You guys all seem to be having difficulty grasping the scale of this game. Just as an example, there are more than 40 passes just in the major parts of the Alps. It'd be a lot easier trying to define an area where there arent any roads then say, well, here's a pass. As the Germans proved in the Ardennes, if there is a road, there is a way.
Anyone who has ever driven through the Eisenhower Tunnel under Loveland Pass on Interstate 70 (part of the American Interstate System which was designed and built for that very purpose) will realize that if you can drive a tank transporter up there (just short of 12,000 feet) a relatively trivial obstacle like the Alps doesn't present an insurmountable obstacle.

Feel free to disagree with me, Michael, especially with an issue were I know I'm being a bit emotional. [:)]

Since I didn't express any views about the Alps I won't comment on that, but what I meant with the bare landscape of the Eastern part of the USSR is not that one should add a lot of imaginary terrain, but that there could be some hexes with non-open features to better represent the fact that not all this land is open. As an example, suppose you have an area that was 80% dense wood and 20% pastures, this would come out as only woods in RtV. I would much rather see that there were some open hexes now and then, just to mark that woods is only predominant, not actually covering the entire area like a blanket. If we flip it the other way, say 10% woods and 90% open, I would have put a woods hex every one of 20 hexes or so (taking into account the Zoc-effect from the wooded hexes). I think this is more realistic, if that is what we want, than having an area almost as large as Western Europe totally bereft of woods.

I don't dispute the fact that if you scale up the map and have to choose which is the most common terrain feature in each area represented by a hex, the result will very much come out as it is now. But what happens is that the scaling in itself suddenly removes all woods and makes this area totally barren.

But let's not make an issue on this; its not very important. If I can find a way to change this in the files, I will do that, otherwise I just play as it is now. Most of the new changes is very welcome and will add a lot to the playing experience of RtV.

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: Anraz

There are some logistical related issues in North Africa in Time of Wrath - for example when an Axis player approaches Alexandria or one of Allies tries to get to Tunis from Morocco his units are slower then usual and their combat effectiveness is reduced.

... already have been improved, at least a bit

Yes, we've tried this as well and it goes some way of adressing the rather tricky issue of North African supply. What I couldn't do simply by fiddling with the consts.csv (RtV, of course) was to have the units regain vitality after standing still for some turns. Thus, in several games, the Allies never managed to break through, and by 1945 there was still a front line in NA.

Will the effect be permanent in ToW, or will the units get their strength back over time? What happens if they retreat but the opponent decline to occupy the trigger hexes?

North African supply is very difficult to simulate.

[Michael the Pole]

Mike, if you insist on being so damned civilised, your going to make me feel both guilty and nekulturny.[&o]
As it turns out, particularly in North Africa (which I play a lot of due to my interest in the air/naval battles in the Med during '40-'41 -- what a fur ball THAT is![X(]) the addition of the Quattara really tightens up the campaign. To watch the AAR's from RtV, after Moscow falls, it seems to get kind of amorphous out West of the Urals. If we put in tactical terrain out there, it would interfer with the aimless wandering around in the void so beloved of the tread-toads[:'(].

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

If we put in tactical terrain out there, it would interfer with the aimless wandering around in the void so beloved of the tread-toads[:'(].

Well, who could ever argue against that!! [:)]

[Plainian]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Normally, it is fairly unusual for me to disagree with Uxbridge, but I'm afraid that I must take exception to his comments advocating the creation of what I can only describe as imaginary terrain. As I have said in other posts on this board, this game is a historical simulation, or perhaps a historical simulator, not science fiction from the pen (or perhaps I should say, crayon,) of Harry Turtledove.
You guys all seem to be having difficulty grasping the scale of this game. Just as an example, there are more than 40 passes just in the major parts of the Alps. It'd be a lot easier trying to define an area where there arent any roads then say, well, here's a pass. As the Germans proved in the Ardennes, if there is a road, there is a way.
Anyone who has ever driven through the Eisenhower Tunnel under Loveland Pass on Interstate 70 (part of the American Interstate System which was designed and built for that very purpose) will realize that if you can drive a tank transporter up there (just short of 12,000 feet) a relatively trivial obstacle like the Alps doesn't present an insurmountable obstacle.

It was me not Uxbridge who brought up the problem of mountain ranges not being realistic in the game. I did it to support his view that more terrain types (even hexside effects) would improve the game immeasurably.

I think its you thats missing the point about mountain ranges like the Caucasian Mountains? Not only is it difficult to move over every single mountain hex, its difficult to fight through them? The idea of Pass hexes or hexes which you cannot traverse is to restrict the number of units you can attack with.

Have a look at Mark Simonitche's excellent map. Scale is 10 miles (16km) which is 2/3 of ToW. He makes it 8 Passes by the way from the Black Sea to south of Grozny.

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?233@34 ... =.1dd31d91

[doomtrader]

Ian, this is indeed a great map. But there are two things I would like to point
1. I think that the Mark's map is a little bit more tactical, there are ports, roads, railroads, most of the units are at brigades/divisions level.
2. Mark's map has got less than 1000 hexes and ToW is 20 times bigger.

[Magpius]

@doom,
I'm not sure I understand, if the map is 20times bigger does that not mean a greater map resolution is possible, or is it only 20times bigger in terms of geographic area?