The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

User avatar
blackcloud6
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:46 am

The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by blackcloud6 »

I tried to place a ship in Lake Erie and also in Lake St. Clair in the shipping channel and I get an error that says you cannot place a ship in land. So CMO considers the Great Lakes as land? Can this be fixed?
Last edited by blackcloud6 on Sat Apr 23, 2022 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dimitris
Posts: 15360
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 10:29 am
Contact:

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by Dimitris »

Sorry, you'll need to use a different game for that.
Nikel
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:51 am

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by Nikel »

There is a community scenario called Caspian Darts by Kevin Kin with ships in the interior Caspian Sea, what is the difference with the Great Lakes?


Edit: oh, I see that the Aral Sea is also unavailable, which is more correct because it is mainly dried.
KnightHawk75
Posts: 1850
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:24 pm

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by KnightHawk75 »

Nikel wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:23 pm There is a community scenario called Caspian Darts by Kevin Kin with ships in the interior Caspian Sea, what is the difference with the Great Lakes?


Edit: oh, I see that the Aral Sea is also unavailable, which is more correct because it is mainly dried.
The elevation data is the difference. You can't by default place ships at positive elevations, or for that matter facilities in negative elevations even though there are many places around the globe where both are valid (but the game doesn't have a way to know that). There are a few areas in the global where this is overridden - suez+panama as I recall but beyond that you will run into this issue, as you also will with basic navigation of units that in encounter invalid terrain for themselves even when it's not in real life).

That said you can actually overcome this if you truly desire by using lua to place them, and lua to move them (by constantly overriding the default navigation logic and having it follow your own course, it's not for the faint of heart though). Another way you used to be able to over-ride this regarding ships is placement of lots of ports and having their access-arcs all overlap slightly, that used to work for example to let something navigate down the St.Lawrence river or say to clear up navigation problem with elevation data around pearl harbor or other similar places.
BDukes
Posts: 2685
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by BDukes »

Muck. Was going to take my Habs and Bruins conflict to a whole new level.
Don't call it a comeback...
Rob322
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by Rob322 »

blackcloud6 wrote: Sat Apr 23, 2022 2:14 pm I tried to place a ship in Lake Erie and also in Lake St. Clair in the shipping channel and I get an error that says you cannot place a ship in land. So CMO considers the Great Lakes as land? Can this be fixed?
You can place them in a few spots I believe where the depth is below sea level but that wouldn't be Lake St. Clair obviously. That said, you could put a vessel in California's Salton Sea (or sail it over the land in the Imperial Valley!) since it qualifies as being under sea level.
Nikel
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:51 am

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by Nikel »

KnightHawk75 wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 3:29 am
The elevation data is the difference. You can't by default place ships at positive elevations, or for that matter facilities in negative elevations even though there are many places around the globe where both are valid (but the game doesn't have a way to know that). There are a few areas in the global where this is overridden - suez+panama as I recall but beyond that you will run into this issue, as you also will with basic navigation of units that in encounter invalid terrain for themselves even when it's not in real life).

That said you can actually overcome this if you truly desire by using lua to place them, and lua to move them (by constantly overriding the default navigation logic and having it follow your own course, it's not for the faint of heart though). Another way you used to be able to over-ride this regarding ships is placement of lots of ports and having their access-arcs all overlap slightly, that used to work for example to let something navigate down the St.Lawrence river or say to clear up navigation problem with elevation data around pearl harbor or other similar places.
OK, thanks.

According to the wikipedia, the Great Lakes elevation is between 75 and 183 m above the sea level.

The Caspian Sea 28 m below. And the Aral Sea 30-40 m above.
Rob322
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by Rob322 »

Nikel wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 12:40 pm
KnightHawk75 wrote: Sun Apr 24, 2022 3:29 am
The elevation data is the difference. You can't by default place ships at positive elevations, or for that matter facilities in negative elevations even though there are many places around the globe where both are valid (but the game doesn't have a way to know that). There are a few areas in the global where this is overridden - suez+panama as I recall but beyond that you will run into this issue, as you also will with basic navigation of units that in encounter invalid terrain for themselves even when it's not in real life).

That said you can actually overcome this if you truly desire by using lua to place them, and lua to move them (by constantly overriding the default navigation logic and having it follow your own course, it's not for the faint of heart though). Another way you used to be able to over-ride this regarding ships is placement of lots of ports and having their access-arcs all overlap slightly, that used to work for example to let something navigate down the St.Lawrence river or say to clear up navigation problem with elevation data around pearl harbor or other similar places.
OK, thanks.

According to the wikipedia, the Great Lakes elevation is between 75 and 183 m above the sea level.

The Caspian Sea 28 m below. And the Aral Sea 30-40 m above.
I believe though the game let's you place them if the under water elevation is below sea level. I believe Lake Superior has depths that extend below sea level, as does Lake Michigan (and possibly parts of Huron). I don't think Lake Ontario or Erie have anything that qualifies.
User avatar
cdnice
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by cdnice »

There is a work around I used on the St. Lawrence to get to Quebec City. I just placed piers along the way and had the cones overlap the river to make it traversable. I then grouped them all together and voila, river sailing!
Image
User avatar
stilesw
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Hansville, WA, USA

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by stilesw »

Clever!
“There is no limit to what a man can do so long as he does not care a straw who gets the credit for it.”

Charles Edward Montague, English novelist and essayist
~Disenchantment, ch. 15 (1922)
KnightHawk75
Posts: 1850
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:24 pm

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by KnightHawk75 »

I believe Lake Superior has depths that extend below sea level, as does Lake Michigan (and possibly parts of Huron). I don't think Lake Ontario or Erie have anything that qualifies.
---
The evevation data in use by the game is legit (https://topex.ucsd.edu/WWW_html/srtm30_plus.html).

Yes as I said you can place some where there is a negative elevation, land vs sea in CMO is based on elevation data for that purposes.

There is a work around I used on the St. Lawrence to get to Quebec City. I just placed piers along the way and had the cones overlap the river to make it traversable. I then grouped them all together and voila, river sailing!
and up it was very clever. ;)

Yup, in fact sounds like exactly the scene I was thinking of when I mentioned it:
Another way you used to be able to over-ride this regarding ships is placement of lots of ports and having their access-arcs all overlap slightly, that used to work for example to let something navigate down the St.Lawrence river or say to clear up navigation problem with elevation data around pearl harbor or other similar places.
User avatar
SunlitZelkova
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:49 pm
Location: Portland, USA

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by SunlitZelkova »

Do underwater weapons work with the "using ports" technique though? I tried to do this in a test at Pearl Harbor, but the Type 91 torpedoes would not work.
"One must not consider the individual objects without the whole."- Generalleutnant Gerhard von Scharnhorst, Royal Prussian Army
BDukes
Posts: 2685
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by BDukes »

Well, there goes my hunt for the Edmund Fitzgerald scenario idea. Thanks a lot guys!

M
Don't call it a comeback...
thewood1
Posts: 10130
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by thewood1 »

And church bell rang til it rang 29 times
Nikel
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:51 am

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by Nikel »

Found this from the depths of the Internet, cited in the wikipedia article. Sunk in a storm. Which is your idea for a scenario?


BDukes
Posts: 2685
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by BDukes »

Nikel wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 4:01 pm Found this from the depths of the Internet, cited in the wikipedia article. Sunk in a storm. Which is your idea for a scenario?



The-cruelest-month-edmund-fitzgerald-newsweek-november-24-1975.pdf
Gordo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuzTkGyxkYI
Don't call it a comeback...
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5965
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by Gunner98 »

Great tune. Remember seeing Lightfoot sing it live once

Lived in Thunder Bay until about 72 and remember some of those storms, you don't mess with ol' Gitche Gumee
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
KnightHawk75
Posts: 1850
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:24 pm

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by KnightHawk75 »

SunlitZelkova wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:58 am Do underwater weapons work with the "using ports" technique though? I tried to do this in a test at Pearl Harbor, but the Type 91 torpedoes would not work.
Very likely not, could have air defense stuff also not work when placed in negative elevations unless the munitions engine has entries for negative and positive altitude entries, etc. So it's something to watch out for and test if trying to build real scene.
User avatar
blackcloud6
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:46 am

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by blackcloud6 »

I just had this discussion on Steam about making inland water ways usable for ships. This can now be done by using the Custom Environmental Zone (CEZ) feature. I was able to create such a zone around the coast of Lake Huron and by making it "water." Ships will now follow plotted courses and otherwise act normally within the zone you create. However, in order to place ships in such a zone, you have to insert them into the scenario on a normal game body of water and then move them into the CEZ with the "M" command.

Make the Great Lakes great again!
User avatar
Mgellis
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: The Great Lakes inaccessible to ships?

Post by Mgellis »

I agree. Now that [my opinion has been deleted so I don't offend anyone] has decided Canada is our natural enemy, I suppose we should prepare for dueling coast guards. 🤦🏻‍♂️

blackcloud6 wrote: Thu Apr 03, 2025 2:11 pm
Make the Great Lakes great again!
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”