Ukraine Russia 2022 Map
So I decided to start work on a map for the current Ukraine Russia war in eastern Europe. So far I have the complete map territories outlined. Map roughly covers from Russia Urals area from the NE including about 1/2 of Estonia to half of Eastern Germany to Southern Italy then east to Azerbaijan. Map was hand drawn by me from vector territory images. Cities are 80x80 circles as separate territories. Territories with a second circle are Ukraine nuclear power plants as strategic targets. Impassable terrain rivers with 48x48 squares for "bridge" units (need to make those). I am in the the process of making 48x48 units. I would like mechanized units to run our of fuel and be capturable. Tell me what you think Help needed to finish this project. Image of map with countries colored in:
chrishomko last edited by chrishomko
So the idea for units is unique and I have no idea if this will work. I would like to use images for the units with a simple round county indicator at the bottom of each unit. 48x48 is pretty small so most detail is washed out. This is a Ukrainian 2S19 MSTA mobile tracked artillery unit. Can I have the naming convention be ukraine2S19MSTA.png in the units folder? This is the 650x650 unshruken image. Tell me what you think.
chrishomko last edited by chrishomko
I was also thinking of having the mechanized units run out of fuel. Example of 650x650 image:
Bridge units won't work to well. They are also not needed, all armies have combat engineers which can bridge rivers. Just make the bridges territories with defensive advantages (or static defenses).
The AI will have trouble handling fuel limitations.
The best approach is starting with a standard game and then adding the unique elements. Limiting the number of combat rounds will make attack less overwhelming. The most notable elements of this war are
- The effectiveness of Ukranian anti-vehicle weapons
- The defensive advantages of cities
- The importance of artillery
- The logistical difficulties face by the Russians
- The importance of drones
It looks that you are depicting a broader war than simply Russia against the Ukraine. You need to consider things like the activation of NATO countries and the possibility of nukes.
@chrishomko There is an other user who was making a Ukraine map (https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/10215). I don't know why the issue was closed, but I'll paste some of what I said, which I believes applies to your map too.
I think it is a big missing part the fact that you are not representing the Donbass separatists (of the two People's Republics). Specifically, you have fully Ukraine-owned Luhansk and Donetsk, whereas both these territories were partially controlled by the separatists who even control the cities of Luhansk and Donetsk themselves.
Beside this, similarly to the war between Iraq and Iran, it looks like the current war in Ukraine is more akin to WW1 than to WW2, which is not a good thing for a game and means you need to have very small territories or to allow for contested territories (or both) to have a good representation.
Another challenge is to represent the recruitment of new units: personnel formation takes 2 years or more, seemingly. Definitely, the usual TripleA dynamics of purchasing and placing units in one turn would be silly.
@cernel @RogerCooper Thanks for the advice. My map does depict Donbas and Luhansk as territories held by Russia. The break away republic in Moldovia is also held by Russia. I didn't really see any advantage in making them separate nations as they are basically Russian held territories and I am concentrating on a larger conflict with NATO. I do like the idea of treating bridge territories as defensible. As for logistics it is the largest part of this battle. I am planning on patterning what was done with railroads in the Total War map. Is that a custom feature? I also like the idea of terrain features which were also used in Total War.
@chrishomko In theory, they are supposed to be Marxist-inspired socialist (so, anti-capitalist) independent republics. There has even been a few activists from other countries (like Italy) who went to those republics to fight in communist international brigades. However, I was referring mostly to the fact that, especially for the Donetsk People's Republic (not "Donbas"), only part of such provinces are controlled by the separatists, whereas I see that, for example, you are depicting the Donetsk province as one single territory. I'm not sure how you are going to represent that, since about half of it is currently under Ukrainian control, so giving it all to one side would be about as wrong as giving it all to the other one.
Great map! Seems to be one of the most accurate maps currently by TripleA.
But there are some particularities to my mind important for this map:
1.) Map scale:
For Ukraine-Russia 2022 the map is quite big as the battlefront involves only some border regions in Eastern Ukraine.
And for NATO-Russia conflict the map also seems to be quite big for the AI to handle all these squares.
The AI does not use well land transport and tries to move its units only with units' own movement points. So it will be difficult to balance units according to their ability to move during combat move and also during non-combat move.
Has infantry 1 square combat move and 2 squares non-combat move (creates 1 land transport "infantry-truck" every turn)? Have tanks 2 squares combat move and 4 squares non-combat move (also create 1 land transport "tank-truck" every turn)? Helicopters? Aircraft? Rockets?
Will AI handle all these movement distances or not? I doubt as AI seems to not be able to use unit movement to its advantage.
So the question is how to represent the differences in movement distance between infantry and rocket in 2022. Or to skip it and have only 1-2 square movement for land units without land transports like trains.
2.) Forces on the map:
- Russia uses currently 100.000 troops with 50.000 from Belarus/Donbas allies. That represent only 10 % of 1.500.000 troops Russia and its Belarus/Donbas allies could use anywhere from any direction if needed. But as Russia and its Belarus/Donbas allies are always on offensive from the start of the conflict it seems to be no need for Russia and its Belarus/Donbas allies for all these troops to be involved.
So the map should involve triggers for russian and its allies to arise near the ukrainian border with huge stacks if Ukraine starts winning (taking back conquered regions and going into Russian original regions).
- NATO massively supplies only equipment but decided not to use its own troops.
So the map should represent by triggers these "lend-lease" units (transfer of the unit ownership) from NATO-countries to Ukraine. Also the map should involve triggers for NATO-countries to arise near the ukrainian border with huge stacks with these "lend-lease" units if Russia and its Belarus/Donbas allies take some strategic points on the map.
3.) The AI seems to have problems in dealing with non-PU resources like fuel. So maybe it is worth to charge units with upkeep than to use fuel.
The problem with PUs on the map on basic maps is that the conqueror can later on add the square's PU to its income. So I recommend to use factories that generate "production points" and that could be built and used only with the original square owner if not destroyed by the enemy.
So, for example, Kyiv. Ukrainians can get "production points" from Kyiv factory and use them to build new units. If Russia and its Belarus/Donbas allies take Kyiv, the Kyiv factory will be immediately destroyed and Russia and its Belarus/Donbas allies can't get "production points" from Kyiv factory and will get nothing. Then if Ukrainians take back Kyiv they will also get nothing as the Kyiv factory does not exist and should build a new factory next turn in order to get "production points" from Kyiv factory.
And vice versa. Russians can get "production points" from Moscow factory and use them to build new units. If Ukrainians take Moscow, the Moscow factory will be immediately destroyed and Ukrainians can't get "production points" from Moscow factory and will get nothing. Then if Russians take back Moscow they will also get nothing as the Moscow factory does not exist and should build a new factory next turn in order to get "production points" from Moscow factory.
@cernel @Unternehmer you make a good point about the Luhansk and Dontesk territories. Is there a way to have an "inset" larger detail map where if a unit can get "teleported" from one territory to another? That is one idea that I came up with is having another inset map on the map with greater detail on threat area. Another idea is to split the territory into more territories which is the easiest option. Perhaps adding more towns to the territories? I already have an overabundance of territories as pointed out by Unternehmer. I want the map to represent an overall Russian objective of restoring the communist block western satellite states. This is based on the helicopter that was shot down in Ukraine with Ha Bepnh! or To Berlin! printed on it.
@chrishomko Inset maps are possible, but I think they look awful and they can have strange effects as the shortest routes between areas will not be obvious. Starting Luhansk/Donetsk as a contested area feels right.
I disagree with some Unternehmer's suggestions. The Russian army is more like 800,000 men and their best forces are committed to the Ukraine. Static units on the Russian frontier would be sufficient to represent those units.
If you want to prevent gaining PU's from captured areas you could use objectives with negative values. But it is not necessary, as capturing major cities would improve Russian morale and hurt the Ukraine.
@rogercooper Took your advice and skipped inset map idea. Instead gave Dontesk and Luhansk Republics their territories. Also got rid of bridge territories to avoid problems with AI and territory connection tool. Started on artwork overlay.
before trying to combine your map with the WW3-warfare, you should initially determine whether your scenario "player-vs-AI/player" or "player-vs-player only".
If your scenario is intended to be "player-vs-AI/player" than you should first write out what mechanics are you going to implement in this particular scenario.
It seems to me, that you go this way "find/draw own map => what to implement on this map?" but I think the opposite way is much better "what to implement on this map? => find/draw own map". Why?
Because you should start with your limitations and obviously your drawing skills are perfect and are not any limitation at all. What is current limitation for TripleA? To my mind it's AI.
So I would recommend you to test your map with some more simplified warfare, for example, Medieval warfare (Kievan Rus, Novgorod Rus and other factions).
You can practice triggers (for example Mongol/Viking invasions), understand how deep (as well how much squares deep) can the AI plan it's strategy and how all the possible TripleA mechanics will work on the map this particular size.
And only after that go to WW3-warfare. Because otherwise it will be very big disappointment to spend lots of time on the map to try to implement WW3-warfare and finally find out that the scenario can not be played by AI.
@chrishomko Boxes are not great but that the most important territories are some of the smallest ones is not very sound either. You can split them less, primaliry by having a single territory for all the areas occupied by the separatist republics at the start of the war (merging the two republics into one). I don't disagree with simply considering them Russians.
Schulz last edited by
Will there be a representation of Kosovo , Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Serb Republic?
@schulz They are "present" on the map but I am not sure of the need to create separate nations just for those. I am renaming the map "NATO vs. Russia".
@cernel I removed the box "bridge" territories as there are already enough territories with the cities as 80x80 circles. Idea is that only cities can build a factory, aircraft plant, barracks, naval base. Airfields can be placed anywhere to represent the strategic importance of air power.
Map rename to state proper goals. Moving this discussion to NATO Russia 2022 thread.