OK so here is the situation
rivers were a major thing in ww2 and in warfare generally but in the game they don't exist and its sad and makes borders undefendable
in the game defending is a fools erand:
here is what i propose:
add rivers in the game in a form of blue lines on the map
include only major rivers to not bog down the game (eg. Vistula, Nile, Rhine, the Yelow river etc.)
add a new building only available in provinces with rivers - bridge.
if bridge is built units can move across the river in that province with no penalties
if there is no bridge in the province units have to "cross" the river
crosing the river takes 1 hour or smth where units have to wait on the river in a similar way to disembarking
add an option to "blow bridge" in the buildings tab that takes like 1 hour to build and destroys the bridge buildings in the province
**optional** units can only cross 10 at a time and thus rivers force player invasions to be more strategic and though out
Please log in to post a reply.
This is an interesting idea 
Separate from the technical work it would give Bytro to implement, great care would need to be taken in choosing the location and which rivers are represented, to avoid making some countries over-powered. This would take many, many (and many more) rounds of play-testing.
i have a suggestion for that as well, make an EVENT in a map where the rivers are implemented, no need to put it in all maps at once. call the event something like "play testing 1939 - rivers" and in the description write that this is a testing map where the feature is tested and add like a poll somwhere in the home page for people to report bugs and opinions on the feature.Kolonnos wrote:
great care would need to be taken in choosing the location and which rivers are represented, to avoid making some countries over-powered. This would take many, many (and many more) rounds of play-testing.
players can try the feature, find bugs, and say if they like the idea. at first only like 10 rivers can be added and in time more if the feature is not a total disaster
as for the counties being over-powered. places like japan, UK, sumatra alreaddy have a natural defence in the form of being islands eg. traveling across the english chanal already gives the attacker a time cost of at least 2 hours . i think a river or 2 would even the playing field for landlocked nations since they are already surounded on all sides by potentialy hostile nations
To be frank, the inclusion of rivers in Call of War would introduce logistical complexities that may detract from the gameplay experience. Considering the challenges that rivers have posed in other real-time strategy games, it is questionable whether such an addition would truly be worthwhile.
Rather than diverting their resources and attention towards the implementation of rivers, Bytro could potentially enhance the game's appeal by focusing on other features that offer more meaningful and engaging gameplay experiences. For example, the inclusion of new unit skins for higher-level planes and infantry or the implementation of a logistics system that imposes penalties on encircled armies and naval blockades could offer more strategic depth and immersion.
Given the potential benefits of prioritizing such features, it may be more judicious for Bytro to allocate their resources and efforts towards these areas, rather than introducing rivers to the gameplay mechanics of Call of War.
DoubleWideSurprise wrote:
To be frank, the inclusion of rivers in Call of War would introduce logistical complexities
buddy you say that rivers are bad because its logistics and then talk about how game needs logisticsDoubleWideSurprise wrote:
the implementation of a logistics system that imposes penalties on encircled armies and naval blockades could offer more strategic depth and immersion.
as much as i would like a logistics system that imposes penalties on encircled armies and naval blockades i think that would need a major overhaul of how units work since at the moment units dont need rescourses to exist, an amry of 100 units can sit in 1 last no production province for 30 days and dont see a diference.
on the other hand a new unit sprite is a small design change that would not change much in the game, also developers are already adding animatios and such
rivers i think would be easyer to implement as well as it would be a good first step to make the game more in depth to then expand the things you need for a military to be effective and function
Would Naval units be able to access rivers?
If not, then there could be a new Corvette, or even Frigate Unit that could fight on rivers (I know that's not super historically accurate though).
Question:- Which river counts as a river. And which river is not a river.
An assault boat ?Zaktty wrote:
Would Naval units be able to access rivers?If not, then there could be a new Corvette, or even Frigate Unit that could fight on rivers (I know that's not super historically accurate though).
Yeah, that's a much better name.
I think it should only have 4 levels though
Geography in general is extraordinary important and needs to be factored more in not just CoW, but all grand strategy games in general. Geography practically pre determines the vast majority of wars, and although it being a game shouldn’t follow such strict rules as in real life, should still factor the importance of geography more, as it really is important.
Ah yes, the mighty Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Rivers...Claudio NVKP wrote:
Question:- Which river counts as a river. And which river is not a river.
Well, Which river is a river and which is too small to be a river._Pyth0n_ wrote:
Ah yes, the mighty Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Rivers...Claudio NVKP wrote:
Question:- Which river counts as a river. And which river is not a river.
There should be some sort of size for this; how large a river needs to be to pose an obstacle for a military force. I think It was around 50-200 meters minimum. Possibly less. Either way at a certain size it gets too small to the point where it doesn’t actually have an effect anymore.
The game operates on a different scale.
Rivers are included in the movement speed of terrain like hills and mountains.
Rivers make more sense on a smaller scale, tactical map.
By the way, if you look at the Eastern part of Africa on the WaW map, you will find Lake Tanganyika. It's an impassable water feature. It's really annoying. It makes game play painful and on that part of the map. That's what (more) rivers would do.
I completely disagree. Terrain variety adds to the flavor of playing in certain regions; yes the lake you mention can be irritating but it can be a blessing too when you don't have to defend some provinces because they are not accessible by the enemy. By your reasoning there shouldn't be seas either; after all, they hamper movement. Yet my specific dislike for the Homefront map is that it is just a chunk of land which is too bland and undestinctive. And no matter how you spin it, rivers will create more terrain variety which is basically a good thing.
On a side note, since the introduction of the "new" map layout I have noticed that more and more (especially new) people don't take terrain into account at all, and are happy to march 20-stacks into undefended mountain provinces. I blame this on the bad visibility of terrain on this view mode, and have noticed that virtually all advanced players (who know the importance of terrain) have set their preference to the "old" layout. When it was introduced, we were promised that there would be changes to the layout so terrain would become better visible in the new layout; @freezy what's the status on this?
As for the size of river to be included, I'd say 100m is way too small. It would warrant inclusion of the IJssel river, which would be between Amsterdam and Groningen in the Netherlands and which none of you have probably ever heard of. When this gets implemented, it should be limited to the really major waterways; for example in Europe, it would be something like Rhone-Rhine-Elbe-Danube-Dniepr-Donets-Don-Volga and nothing smaller.
You put this into words better than I ever could!K.Rokossovski wrote:
I completely disagree. Terrain variety adds to the flavor of playing in certain regions; yes the lake you mention can be irritating but it can be a blessing too when you don't have to defend some provinces because they are not accessible by the enemy. By your reasoning there shouldn't be seas either; after all, they hamper movement. Yet my specific dislike for the Homefront map is that it is just a chunk of land which is too bland and undestinctive. And no matter how you spin it, rivers will create more terrain variety which is basically a good thing.On a side note, since the introduction of the "new" map layout I have noticed that more and more (especially new) people don't take terrain into account at all, and are happy to march 20-stacks into undefended mountain provinces. I blame this on the bad visibility of terrain on this view mode, and have noticed that virtually all advanced players (who know the importance of terrain) have set their preference to the "old" layout. When it was introduced, we were promised that there would be changes to the layout so terrain would become better visible in the new layout; @freezy what's the status on this?
As for the size of river to be included, I'd say 100m is way too small. It would warrant inclusion of the IJssel river, which would be between Amsterdam and Groningen in the Netherlands and which none of you have probably ever heard of. When this gets implemented, it should be limited to the really major waterways; for example in Europe, it would be something like Rhone-Rhine-Elbe-Danube-Dniepr-Donets-Don-Volga and nothing smaller.
Well, Some rivers are Far less important than others, For example The rhine and Zuari are basically same in width, but No one cares about The Zuari. The Yangtze is much broarder than both. The Dnieper is aso way too broad. The Dsugava is basically broader than the Rhine. I do not know what the graphics will result to after the addition of rivers, evel more lag? Well, I guess, we could add only the broad rivers here. Amazon, Dnieper etc etc.
Well the only reason no one cares about such rivers is because they are in countries like India, which are more likely to be ignored by people in the west, for obvious reasons. Either way I’d say to pick a certain width (maybe certain width per continent/region since some have different sized rivers than others) and go from there. I’m not sure if it would really effect lag that much, it’s just another texture, no?Claudio NVKP wrote:
Well, Some rivers are Far less important than others, For example The rhine and Zuari are basically same in width, but No one cares about The Zuari. The Yangtze is much broarder than both. The Dnieper is aso way too broad. The Dsugava is basically broader than the Rhine. I do not know what the graphics will result to after the addition of rivers, evel more lag? Well, I guess, we could add only the broad rivers here. Amazon, Dnieper etc etc.
AgreedK.Rokossovski wrote:
On a side note, since the introduction of the "new" map layout I have noticed that more and more (especially new) people don't take terrain into account at all, and are happy to march 20-stacks into undefended mountain provinces. I blame this on the bad visibility of terrain on this view mode, and have noticed that virtually all advanced players (who know the importance of terrain) have set their preference to the "old" layout. When it was introduced, we were promised that there would be changes to the layout so terrain would become better visible in the new layout; @freezy what's the status on this?
POV: When you're from Sri LankaCarking the 6th wrote:
o one cares about such rivers is because they are in countries like India
Historically speaking, rivers were very important in how WW2 progressed and stuff, but even ignoring that, it would improve gameplay since you actually have to take terrain into account for once, instead of committing dreaded sins of placing 5 ACs in mountains with 5 artillery in the bordering plains province
Well, The Zuari river is in Portugal idk why india is involved. But okay, addition of rivers could include people and change people for the better and they see terrain as an objective. I see people caring about rivers and not other terrain.
Please log in to post a reply.
