Rivers

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

    • Okay, I see the Nile river in the game. Wait... It's not a river! It's just a line of blue drawn through the rest of egypt! I see lakes. Some of them are actual bodies of water. Others, like those in Libya, are... part of territories. And where's the Amazon river?

      This is precisely my suggestion. Add real RIVERS and more lakes that are actual bodies of water.

      Now, there might be a concern. "Why do I have to move to a different country just to get my battalion on the other side of the Nile?". A solution: bridges. If the body of water is a river, there are pre-set connections. Thing is, you'll have to activate them. You have 'broken bridge' or something like that that you can build, using... I don't know...Supplies, components, and money? I don't care what. Built bridges are connections you can cross, but if you use your 10-MBT division, it will degrade and you'll have to repair it. If you don't, there's a small chance of it breaking and killing everyone and everything on the bridge that grows as the bridge gets more degraded.
    • I can get your point but a lot in this game is abstract. We already see that movement does not always take you directly to another province but have to go around and about to get there unless you air assault. I already take into account that these pathways currently built in are abstracts of roads and bridges through various lands taking your around inherent obstacles. Hence why I am unable to just cross over mountains in some cases due to well no roads there take me over the peak. Militaries would use current existing roads and bridges. It is why Ike decided to build the National Defense Highway System so that our military could get to point A to B a lot faster. He took that idea from Germany. The USSR not having one probably saved Stalin's butt.

      We also just cannot cross the Suez but have to get on a boat and then got off at Port Said or vice versa. I will soon find out if this also applies to Panama.

      There are many points for example to cross the Mississippi. If your idea of bridges were to be implemented they would have to include major rivers not the 1000s of smaller ones and yes have preset bridges already in place. Since in actual life bridges are targets we should be able to destroy them (damage them so cannot be used till repaired). This would be called interdiction. Something this game does not deploy. Interdiction is where you strike bridges and roadways thus slowing down the advancement of OpFor. Bridges I can see maybe being implemented as an object. Roadways being able to be destroyed I am not sure if that is doable code wise. I know you did not suggest this just adding it in for completeness.

      Maybe a new tree, combat engineer. Maybe not since this as well may simply be another abstract such as when we click on repair it is the combat engineers who are doing the actual repairs or civilian contractors.
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!
    • DevinMacGregor wrote:

      I can get your point but a lot in this game is abstract. We already see that movement does not always take you directly to another province but have to go around and about to get there unless you air assault. I already take into account that these pathways currently built in are abstracts of roads and bridges through various lands taking your around inherent obstacles. Hence why I am unable to just cross over mountains in some cases due to well no roads there take me over the peak. Militaries would use current existing roads and bridges. It is why Ike decided to build the National Defense Highway System so that our military could get to point A to B a lot faster. He took that idea from Germany. The USSR not having one probably saved Stalin's butt.

      We also just cannot cross the Suez but have to get on a boat and then got off at Port Said or vice versa. I will soon find out if this also applies to Panama.

      There are many points for example to cross the Mississippi. If your idea of bridges were to be implemented they would have to include major rivers not the 1000s of smaller ones and yes have preset bridges already in place. Since in actual life bridges are targets we should be able to destroy them (damage them so cannot be used till repaired). This would be called interdiction. Something this game does not deploy. Interdiction is where you strike bridges and roadways thus slowing down the advancement of OpFor. Bridges I can see maybe being implemented as an object. Roadways being able to be destroyed I am not sure if that is doable code wise. I know you did not suggest this just adding it in for completeness.

      Maybe a new tree, combat engineer. Maybe not since this as well may simply be another abstract such as when we click on repair it is the combat engineers who are doing the actual repairs or civilian contractors.
      Putting in bridges as objects doesn't disturb how abstract the game is, at least in my point of view.

      The Suez canal is not one of my examples; I still want it to stay naval and air transport only. I want rivers like the Nile, Amazon (the entire region''s many rivers), and Mississippi to have bridges, and no, not every tiny river. Maybe just the 20 longest or something. And by the way, the Panama canal is already a body of water. I just want to target those that should be, but aren't.

      I like your idea for interdiction, but even if it can be programmed for roads, having it for roads will cause too many unnecessary consequences. I'm all in for making it more realistic, but destroying roads wouldn't be worth the realism.

      Buildings are magically fixed by...nothing except resources and time, so I think if that stays the same, bridges should adopt the current policy for repair.
    • I brought up the Suez because you can cross it by car currently. That was my point. You can cross BOTH canals by bridge. In this game you cannot.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal_Bridge


      If they include bridges these two, the Panama and the Suez, should have a bridge.

      My last game I was Iran and I piled Tank and Infantry div in the Suez peninsula knowing that in real life a bridge does exist. To then learn well frack I cannot cross but by boat, changed my plans so I flew airborne over the red sea and captured an airbase. I then airlifted those tank divisions plus IDs as it was being annexed.

      Building repairs are if you want to term it magical but what I was saying abstracting they are being repaired by combat engineers and/or civilian contractors. Combat Engineers build all sorts of defences plus bridges over waterways. All divisions are made up of different types of units and even battalions. Bn's on a much smaller scale.

      In this game when we build say an infantry bn it does not consist of just dudes fighting. In WWII the combat effectiveness of US Forces was 36%. That is for out of every 100 men just 36 were put into combat. The rest were support. That is moving "guns and butter" for those 36 dudes. In Viet Nam that effectiveness was 22% which is why Westmoreland kept asking for more troops. Vietnam era soldiers had weapons with much higher cyclic rates meaning a lot more ammo downrange. This means a LOT more support. So think about that, 500K dudes with 22% of them you can put into combat.

      We do not have these considerations in this game because it is all abstract to us.

      To the point of interdiction it would have to be another abstract to where you do not literally destroy roads but make the time to cross that province longer. This would represent roads and bridges being damaged and thus slowing you down. There would have to be a limit that once to a certain point no more interdiction could be done. Say 75% increased movement times for ground troops and if occupied over time maybe that number slowly gets lower like morale goes up currently.

      I played an old DOS game based on Korea. You could play historically and do the 1950 conflict or modern 1995 what if game. This was an SSI game I believe. Roads were abstract in that game and you just assigned available aircraft to interdiction duty and the more you did the higher the interdiction percentage became which represented the increased delay of NoKo units and/or Chinese IF they entered the game.

      Back to your rivers. I think there should be some preset bridges across these major rivers and perhaps just like Combat Outposts now, bridges become a Province construction item. If one of those rivers runs through it then you can build a bridge. This would allow it to have HP's and can be destroyed.
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!
    • DevinMacGregor wrote:

      I brought up the Suez because you can cross it by car currently. That was my point. You can cross BOTH canals by bridge. In this game you cannot.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal_Bridge


      If they include bridges these two, the Panama and the Suez, should have a bridge.

      My last game I was Iran and I piled Tank and Infantry div in the Suez peninsula knowing that in real life a bridge does exist. To then learn well frack I cannot cross but by boat, changed my plans so I flew airborne over the red sea and captured an airbase. I then airlifted those tank divisions plus IDs as it was being annexed.

      Building repairs are if you want to term it magical but what I was saying abstracting they are being repaired by combat engineers and/or civilian contractors. Combat Engineers build all sorts of defences plus bridges over waterways. All divisions are made up of different types of units and even battalions. Bn's on a much smaller scale.

      In this game when we build say an infantry bn it does not consist of just dudes fighting. In WWII the combat effectiveness of US Forces was 36%. That is for out of every 100 men just 36 were put into combat. The rest were support. That is moving "guns and butter" for those 36 dudes. In Viet Nam that effectiveness was 22% which is why Westmoreland kept asking for more troops. Vietnam era soldiers had weapons with much higher cyclic rates meaning a lot more ammo downrange. This means a LOT more support. So think about that, 500K dudes with 22% of them you can put into combat.

      We do not have these considerations in this game because it is all abstract to us.

      To the point of interdiction it would have to be another abstract to where you do not literally destroy roads but make the time to cross that province longer. This would represent roads and bridges being damaged and thus slowing you down. There would have to be a limit that once to a certain point no more interdiction could be done. Say 75% increased movement times for ground troops and if occupied over time maybe that number slowly gets lower like morale goes up currently.

      I played an old DOS game based on Korea. You could play historically and do the 1950 conflict or modern 1995 what if game. This was an SSI game I believe. Roads were abstract in that game and you just assigned available aircraft to interdiction duty and the more you did the higher the interdiction percentage became which represented the increased delay of NoKo units and/or Chinese IF they entered the game.

      Back to your rivers. I think there should be some preset bridges across these major rivers and perhaps just like Combat Outposts now, bridges become a Province construction item. If one of those rivers runs through it then you can build a bridge. This would allow it to have HP's and can be destroyed.
      It would be interesting to implement the Panama canal and Suez canal bridges, but I don't think players should start with any bridges; maybe their first bridge costs less.

      Interesting statement about combat effectiveness. Perhaps to make it slightly more realistic, at two units effectiveness would begin decreasing, but by smaller increments, and all units would be buffed.

      I still believe interdiction for roads isn't a good idea. Someone could just run their bomber squadron along multiple roads, starting at one close to a city with an airbase, and slowly direct, after each road is bombed, to another road, gradually getting further from the base. They can do this every day, and it would get very annoying for the player on the receiving end. Plus, how do you show exactly how much damage had been done, down to the last percent?
    • Combat effectiveness was just an example that not all in a line organization is necessarily combat. Those who never served may just assume. We had 4 line platoons and 1 HQ platoon. Each Platoon had 4 line squads and 1 HQ squad. In the company that consists of the command to include cooks, mechanics & communication repairs, armorer, supply, medical, etc. In the platoon that consisted of the command, cook (who usually was with company HQ), medic, etc. In a battalion you would have 4 line companies and 1 HQ company. Within that company would come a host of other things like combat engineers who repair and build things. The point was that our smallest unit is basically a battalion when it comes to infantry so they would have an inherent repair and build within. At a division level you probably would have a company of just combat engineers by themselves. They again not only repair buildings, electrical and water systems, but build obstacles that hamper OpFor movement. Not asking for them to create combat engineers just saying this is abstract within the game when we click on say repair or units healing sitting in cities or provinces.

      Interdiction would be an abstract meaning you attack the province as a whole and any movement through that province will be slowed down. You could not attack specific roads. Each province type already has a movement restriction based on the type of unit moving through it. Interdiction would just be some modifier put on it further restricting movement. Of course it would be annoying. That is the purpose of it. I could interdict other areas and slow down your ability to reinforce your frontline which may give me more time to bring more units to the front. Morale for provinces go up periodically. Placing units within a province reduces the risk of rogue. So the thought was that leaving units within an interdicted province will slowly reduce the effects to eliminate them permanently. Hence why I mentioned combat effectiveness in stating other types of units exist within a combat organization. Plus you can click on the i for each province and it gives you information. One of that could be the percentage of interdiction. I have two air cav divisions. When they are in an province it says 0% chance of insurgency. When they liftoff to go to another liberation it says 3%.

      Provinces may have to have some kind of hp attached to it that only apply to air attacks. I have not used them yet in the game but can NBC be fired on provinces or just cities? They both have a lingering effect that needs to be cleaned up. Perhaps interdiction could borrow something from that. Maybe you are being attacked on multiple fronts but can only really stop one of them. You may be able to interdict the other long enough to be able to fight one and then turn to the other.

      As far as griefing goes sure someone could daily use bombers to interdict one of your provinces but you would be at war with them as well and this is one aspect of war. It would not affect air assault one bit well unless you have them walk.

      Agree, no bridges to start. Bridges could be just added to the Construction like Outposts are now. You click on a province and if it is attached to that river then you will see outpost and bridge.
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!
    • I admit I've never been, and never will be, in the military. I am fully aware, however, of non-combat units in the military. Portraying this is not going to get more money for any company, so I think this is something only completely realistic war sims that are not run by companies would add.

      I'm still not entirely convinced with the interdiction for roads thing. But i guess my 'land mines' thread would also feature the same idea of interrupting movement.

      Not sure what NBC is (except for the news channel). Something to do with Nuclear Missile? Or WMDs? My understanding is that anything can be fired at provinces.
    • NBC is nuclear, biological and chemical. Go to the tech tree and look at Naval Infantry's second upgrade, NBC protection. For individuals this is MOPP. Mission Oriented Protective Posture. MOPP 4 would be you with protective mask, suit, gloves, and boots on. armystudyguide.com/content/arm…rn/5-levels-of-mopp.shtml

      I was not asking for them to add non combat units. Combat Engineers btw are actually a combat unit. What I was saying is a lot of the game is abstract and these types of units are inherent to the unit itself. So when we create these units most are not thinking it includes all these other types of units as well. When units sit in one spot and heal what is happening is replacements are coming in yes but these other units as well that are inherent are repairing stuff.

      So if interdiction were a thing a unit you move into a province under interdiction could have it slowly reduced back down to zero. Maybe only an actual infantry unit can do this like tanks cannot capture. Landmines are a form of interdiction. You can drop them from planes. Landmines are meant to slow OpFor down and funnel them into kill zones or just flat out prevent them from going through another area. Combat Engineers would be the ones clearing them. So your landmines could be a form of interdiction. And moving a unit into it would have its inherent combat engineers clear it just like they would repair bridges and roadways from conventional bombing interdiction. So to represent interdiction would again simply slow units down going through it. To reduce its effects and eventually eliminate it you move an infantry unit into it and its reduces the interdiction percentage over time till it is brought back to zero. The bigger the stack the faster this can be done.
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!
    • TL;DR we should have bridges, and be able to blow up our own bridges.

      I agree with DevinMacGregor here. This game seems to really want to make air units a big thing in this game, which would be why we have airmobile and so many aircraft capable of CAS for our troops. If you look at major deployments of infantry via air, bridges are generally a very important objective. The point of airmobile infantry is to capture forward objectives before they can be put out of commission for use by friendly forces, the most important objectives of these being bridges.

      When a bridge is knocked out, all you can move across is light infantry and amphibious armour(which is generally light). You will be lucky to get any heavy weaponry across due to the fact that there is no bridge and the quickest way to get across said river would be light rafts and debris(commonly utilized by Soviet troops in WWII). Granted, in this game we are more advanced with our units so we can move our amphibious vehicles across, but even this takes time. River crossings are a big undertaking in military operations.

      This is why we should have bridges. Due to the fact that we have aircraft like strike fighters, gunships, and heavy bombers means we should have bridges, due to the simple fact that all of our ground orientated aircraft are targeted mainly towards battlefield interdiction and CAS.

      Interdiction is most useful for defensive fighting. Why? You're troops are sitting in dugouts on one side of a river, while the enemy is grouping up for an attack on the far bank. Without interdiction, the enemy could cross the river at the nearest bridge. With interdiction, you can wait for as long as you like, leaving the river's bridge intact in case you have an opportunity for an offensive, and then when the enemy forces advance you can simply blow up the bridge, leaving them stranded on the far bank.

      In conclusion, this game should add deeper elements with the addition of bridges, rivers, and interdiction.



      A man finds an old lamp and rubs it. Out comes a genie that says, “Thank you for freeing me. Would you like to be a Hero of the Soviet Union?”
      The man says yes, and poof! He then finds himself in Stalingrad in 1942, facing five tanks alone and armed with only three grenades.
    • Yeah exactly. You may have multiple places to cross a river and you can interdict all but one of them. This would funnel OpFor to that one bridge. They would be unable to cross in multiple spots. This would allow you to defend that area much better and not be spread out defending multiple crossing points. Your CAS could as well be concentrated at that point.

      Interdiction in game would simply be an attack on the province itself and bridges if added. Bridges being a feature like the new Outposts. It would be a province build option if a river runs through it or borders it. Interdiction for a province would be an increase in movement time through that province. This might make mountain crossings not feasible and forcing you to use airmobile or go completely around. Reducing interdiction to zero it would be rebuilding the bridge or putting an infantry unit in the interdicted province and over time the interdiction is reduced to zero just like the chance of insurgency is reduced. The more Infantry units in said province the faster the interdiction is cleared up which just represents Combat Engineers clearing the roadways, causeways, etc from debris, as well as repairing bridges over ravines, etc. This btw is what Combat Engineers were doing in Afghanistan. Simply tiny bridges that connected one mountain pass to another were restored and families who have been apart since the Soviets were there could now visit each other.

      We already have interdiction when it comes to bombing cities in the form of destroying production of assets (army bases, airbases, naval bases) and increasing production of resources (arms industries) for example.

      If a possible addition this yes definitely would add deeper elements to this modern warfare.
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by DevinMacGregor: words and stuff ().