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:
if you spread out units enemy can just punch a hole in the weak line. and defeat you in detail
if you bunch untis up enemy goes around your stack and captures land.
the only thing that can slow down an attack is mountain provinces
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
this very small change adds a whole level of complexity to the game and makes players think about there actions when invading a country and where to invade to bypass rivers or capture bridges.
make paratroopers an actually necesary strategic units that can be used to capture bridges and to not slow down an invasion
defenders have naturaly good defencive positions and can position artilery along the river to bomb exposed units
defenders can build one bridge on a long river to incentivise enemy to attack in a place where the bridge is
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
40 Replies
29 Jun 2023, 09:32
Claudio NVKP wrote:
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.
Then you improve other terrain features, you don’t just drop rivers! It’s better to improve rivers and later improve other terrain, rather than forget about improving rivers. Also what is Portugal? Are you talking about that state in India? Weird.
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
29 Jun 2023, 09:38
_Pyth0n_ wrote:
Carking the 6th wrote:
o one cares about such rivers is because they are in countries like India
POV: When you're from Sri Lanka
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
wait but the river is in India
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
29 Jun 2023, 09:42
. Portugal.
The President
29 Jun 2023, 10:22
Portugal is part of India!
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
29 Jun 2023, 14:10
Carking the 6th wrote:
_Pyth0n_ wrote:
Carking the 6th wrote:
o one cares about such rivers is because they are in countries like India
POV: When you're from Sri LankaHistorically 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
wait but the river is in India
Well all westerners think Sri Lanka is part of India, so I was gonna assume you thought the same thing...
Thanks for not being dumb and actually knowing geography
29 Jun 2023, 14:41
_Pyth0n_ wrote:
Carking the 6th wrote:
_Pyth0n_ wrote:
Carking the 6th wrote:
o one cares about such rivers is because they are in countries like India
POV: When you're from Sri LankaHistorically 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
wait but the river is in India
Well all westerners think Sri Lanka is part of India, so I was gonna assume you thought the same thing...
Thanks for not being dumb and actually knowing geography
b-b-but the Zuari river IS IN PORTUGAL why is india involved.
The President
29 Jun 2023, 16:35
K.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?
Well first of all "having seen player do XYZ" is an anectote, we dont know if this is quantifiable in this way. But if more players share these concerns we can try to quantify the data more and see if it really is an issue.
We did those promised improvements already though. In the first version terrain graphics overlapped alot more and forest terrain was not distinguishable enough from plains. Then we did a patch a month later were we adressed this.
I personally dont have any problems anymore telling terrain apart from eachother. I love the new version, the terrain looks crisp and the game looks good and like a proper modern strategy game basically on any screenshot I have seen since then. So no more changes regarding terrain graphics planned right now.
Who is not satisfied can switch to the low graphics mode indeed.
As for rivers: A pretty common suggestion. Adding rivers to maps by just adding strips of water is technically not difficult, its just alot of labor adjusting all the maps. But I feel like just adding rivers in this way wouldnt add too much to the gameplay, just becomes obstacles where units have to embark, become a transport ship for some minutes and then disembark again. This basically adds many hours of travel time to armies, which might become annoying in this way. It would be much cooler if we then also added bridges that are destructable and rebuildable, or amphibian units, to really have a new gameplay effect. But that involves new code which makes it automatically harder and lower priority. Maybe one day.
29 Jun 2023, 17:09
Found this map of major world rivers, the smallest one here is the Rhine, which is 820 miles and has a discharge of 3.3 million gallons (UK gallons).
29 Jun 2023, 17:14
I mean, look at the Rhine in Liechtenstein.
The President
29 Jun 2023, 17:20
It's also crucial to look at what effect rivers will have on naval warfare in the game too, (e.g. the UK sending a 10-strong battleship stack down the Rhine to bombard Zurich [Not sure that's historically accurate])
29 Jun 2023, 21:46
_Pyth0n_ wrote:
Well all westerners think Sri Lanka is part of India, so I was gonna assume you thought the same thing...
Thanks for not being dumb and actually knowing geography
Sri Lanka always had a special place in my heart! I think I actually learned about Sri Lanka as a child before I ever even learned about India!
Zaktty wrote:
It's also crucial to look at what effect rivers will have on naval warfare in the game too, (e.g. the UK sending a 10-strong battleship stack down the Rhine to bombard Zurich [Not sure that's historically accurate])
That probably can’t happen, the rivers just can’t handle that many ships. Not to mention that some rivers, like the Congo in Africa are unnavigable, and ships would sink in waterfalls trying to cross them!
Claudio NVKP wrote:
b-b-but the Zuari river IS IN PORTUGAL why is india involved.
It is, but Portugal is part of India, which is why they are mentioning India.
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
30 Jun 2023, 02:24 (edited)
freezy wrote:
K.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?
Well first of all "having seen player do XYZ" is an anectote, we dont know if this is quantifiable in this way. But if more players share these concerns we can try to quantify the data more and see if it really is an issue.
We did those promised improvements already though. In the first version terrain graphics overlapped alot more and forest terrain was not distinguishable enough from plains. Then we did a patch a month later were we adressed this.
I personally dont have any problems anymore telling terrain apart from eachother. I love the new version, the terrain looks crisp and the game looks good and like a proper modern strategy game basically on any screenshot I have seen since then. So no more changes regarding terrain graphics planned right now.
Who is not satisfied can switch to the low graphics mode indeed.
Ok, so my personal experience is:
1. From far away, plains and hills are nearly indistinguishable, you gotta get up close
2. The forests in forest tiles overlap neighboring tiles, so trick the user into thinking that tile is also forest, which has lead to me placing ATs out in the plains for all to see many a time.
3. Hills and mountains are also very hard to distinguish (I'll upload a pic of an example if I can)
4. The dark colors of the forest are very similar to the grey of the mountains, which is annoying
Looking back, it kinda seems like ranting about minuscule things, but it would really help in the grand scheme of things, and I feel many have that problem, especially new players, who don't even know it is a problem to worry about
Light tanks go brrrrr in da mountains
Identify the terrain of the three provinces surrounding the highlighted province at like 25-50% zoom, then you'll understand the problem
30 Jun 2023, 08:03
I like the new map, but I agree with _Pyth0n_
30 Jun 2023, 08:04
Carking the 6th wrote:
Zaktty wrote:
It's also crucial to look at what effect rivers will have on naval warfare in the game too, (e.g. the UK sending a 10-strong battleship stack down the Rhine to bombard Zurich [Not sure that's historically accurate])
That probably can’t happen, the rivers just can’t handle that many ships. Not to mention that some rivers, like the Congo in Africa are unnavigable, and ships would sink in waterfalls trying to cross them!
Exactly, so we should have a new ship that can go down rivers.
30 Jun 2023, 09:12
Zaktty wrote:
Carking the 6th wrote:
Zaktty wrote:
It's also crucial to look at what effect rivers will have on naval warfare in the game too, (e.g. the UK sending a 10-strong battleship stack down the Rhine to bombard Zurich [Not sure that's historically accurate])
That probably can’t happen, the rivers just can’t handle that many ships. Not to mention that some rivers, like the Congo in Africa are unnavigable, and ships would sink in waterfalls trying to cross them!
Exactly, so we should have a new ship that can go down rivers.
There is no ship design that can survive going down Victoria falls. Unless you want to sort out navigable rivers as the only ones that can hold them this is kinda unrealistic. Would be a cool edition in the game sense though. But I am not sure if you could really do that. I don’t recall river ships ever having an effect that really mattered in the war.
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
30 Jun 2023, 09:56
As I understood it, Freezy suggested that rivers would just be "very narrow seas". I'm not really in favor of that implementation, because you automatically get those 3h-4.5h (dis-)embarking times, which are way to high for rivers and would indeed just be unneeded barriers (something like 1h-30m sounds much better). BUT if that were true, it means the mapmaker can decide which rivers are navigable and which are not, simply by distributing the "dots" and their connections in a certain way.
I personally wouldn't mind if rivers were simply not navigable at all by ships; naval warfare on rivers wasn't exactly a big thing in WW2. But 1.5h of extra travel time AND the tactical vulnerability of (dis-)embarking seems like they would have a relevant and interesting impact on the game without becoming too obstructive.
30 Jun 2023, 10:32 (edited)
Well, Inland seas or lakes are pretty much the . In Canada for example you build ships but they’re stuck there.
The President
30 Jun 2023, 10:51
K.Rokossovski wrote:
As I understood it, Freezy suggested that rivers would just be "very narrow seas". I'm not really in favor of that implementation, because you automatically get those 3h-4.5h (dis-)embarking times, which are way to high for rivers and would indeed just be unneeded barriers (something like 1h-30m sounds much better). BUT if that were true, it means the mapmaker can decide which rivers are navigable and which are not, simply by distributing the "dots" and their connections in a certain way.
I personally wouldn't mind if rivers were simply not navigable at all by ships; naval warfare on rivers wasn't exactly a big thing in WW2. But 1.5h of extra travel time AND the tactical vulnerability of (dis-)embarking seems like they would have a relevant and interesting impact on the game without becoming too obstructive.
This.
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
2 Jul 2023, 08:49
Carking the 6th wrote:
There is no ship design that can survive going down Victoria falls. Unless you want to sort out navigable rivers as the only ones that can hold them this is kinda unrealistic. Would be a cool edition in the game sense though. But I am not sure if you could really do that. I don’t recall river ships ever having an effect that really mattered in the war.
True, I've decided now that there shouldn't be a river unit, as there wasn't much naval warfare on rivers, and that the army/paratroopers, in particular, have a much bigger role in crossing said rivers. But I did think of one kind of ship that might make sense to pass down a river:
If a local port has been built in a river province (only some provinces where one could be built), then transport ships can travel to the port but no further.
K.Rokossovski wrote:
As I understood it, Freezy suggested that rivers would just be "very narrow seas". I'm not really in favor of that implementation, because you automatically get those 3h-4.5h (dis-)embarking times, which are way to high for rivers and would indeed just be unneeded barriers (something like 1h-30m sounds much better). BUT if that were true, it means the mapmaker can decide which rivers are navigable and which are not, simply by distributing the "dots" and their connections in a certain way.
To have the same idea of "very narrow seas" and still make them serve a purpose, then we could have 2 types of ocean terrain; Sea and River, the latter having the same properties as an actual river, (e.g. ships can't pass down it, different embarking times).
The next point is the new building that was suggested. Bridges.
Bridges I think should be buildable in rural and urban provinces, have 3 levels, can be destroyed at any time (to simulate blowing up important bridges) and the bridges should come with the same bonuses of infrastructure.
2 Jul 2023, 18:30
This is a great idea, for another game. It's too tactical for CoW.
Rough terrain in CoW represents canyons, mountains, boulder fields, glaciers, and yes even rivers.
Infrastructure in CoW represents hundreds of miles of roads, railways, tunnels, and yes even bridges.
It's not practical to put individual structures on a strategic map.
Maybe if they make more tactical, zoomed-in maps?
Something like the Normandy invasion or the battle for Stalingrad would have bridges.
The battle for Budapest, with Buda and Pest on opposite sides of the Danube, would also be good for bridges.
But please not on a strategic map like WaW. There are already too many distractions.
If anything, we should think about removing things from the game, not adding more.
Units like commandos, which shouldn't exist on a regimental/division scale.
Rockets are also over-represented. There are too many of them, and they are too precise.
. Portugal.
