Experimenting with Realistic Distances
-
I was wondering if it's possible to make a medium-sized WWII map while keeping the distances as realistic as possible. I've found some interesting things.
I know that the cross borders often considered bad, but it's really the only way to have a realistic Leningrad front. The Baltics shouldn't touch Moscow for gameplay reasons because Germany could threaten both Moscow and Leningrad, which would be overpowered. Also, it makes no sense to have this kind of short route to Moscow. And if Belarus touches the south of Lake Ladoga, it would create a very awkward-looking territory. I don't think the Belarussian front could be used in the siege of Leningrad.
I think the connection between West Ukraine and Belarus is also questionable. The shortest route between Berlin and Moscow should only go through Belarus. Perhaps another crossing will be needed.
-
@schulz You could split the Baltic States into 2 areas at the line of the Dvina river.
-
@rogercooper But it would make Leningrad as far from Berlin as Moscow. I think Leningrad should be closer to Berlin than Moscow.
-
@schulz According to Google directions, Berlin to Saint Petersburg is 1,728km while Berlin to Moscow is 1,833km. At this scale, that is the same distance.
-
@rogercooper said in Experimenting with Realistic Distances:
@schulz According to Google directions, Berlin to Saint Petersburg is 1,728km while Berlin to Moscow is 1,833km. At this scale, that is the same distance.
I tend to agree that the distance can be approximated as equal in this case, but I guess that you are talking about driving distances. However, if we consider cross-country and cross-river movement (that is ignoring roads and bridges), the difference is greater (Moscow is about 250 km farther away).
Do you believe that the current road system (which I assume you are using, via Google) is meaningfully close to the period one, or rather to the rail system at the time (rail being far more important than roads at the time for such movements).
@Schulz Berlin - Moscow is 1,609 km. If you go there in 4, that means that every territory is about 400 km wide. This said, and also considering that Leningrad is very small, so going there in 4 moves would actually mean going there in 3 and a half moves, and that the greater distance of Moscow is about half the implied wideness of a territory, the fact of Berlin - Leningrad taking the same movement as Berlin - Moscow is reasonable even though Leningrad itself is about 250 km closer to Berlin. More likely, it would make sense for Leningrad itself to be a territory into which you can enter for free (via
movementCostModifier). This way, you could keep a shorter distance to Leningrad while making the suggested Dvina border.Rather making Leningrad into a circle can be good to clarify that is not a geographical drawing.
Are you using a cylindrical equal area projection as the basis? I believe you should.
-
@cernel The driving distance is longer than straight-line distance to Petrograd, because of a number of bodies of water in the way. Moscow is pretty much a straight shot.
I have no reason to think that the road network has changed that much. There is no major road from Konigsberg/Kaliningrad to Riga now and it seems unlikely that a highway was ripped up. There is also has never been a bridge across Lake Peipus, which forces another detour.
Armies need roads or bridges.
-
@cernel Having three moves from Berlin to Petersburg and four moves from Berlin to Moscow is realistic enough for me. Considering the fact that having 5 moves from Berlin to Stalingrad is less realistic, which should have been 6 or 7.
But it would make pushing to the Caucasus almost impossible due to the huge distance. However, it's still farther than both Moscow and Leningrad.
I didn't use any projection. I'm modifying each country separately to make the map aesthetically pleasing while leaving enough room for the troops.
-
I.
May it is a better idea to redraw the passable territories on the map in key areas (Western Front, Eastern Front, Mediterranean, North Africa, China and South-East Asia) in more equalized dimensions?For example, 1 territory is roughly 175x175 km. If more detailed political ownership is desired, than 100x100 km. or 150x150 km. or 200x200 km. or 250x250 km. etc. But important is roughly equalized dimensions for all territories to avoid geographical distortion.
To my mind this kind of geographical realism is better than administrative or political borders as the game is mostly played through major nations and all minors are always within their correspondent majors.
For example, to redraw all the borders using territories sized 175x175 km.
Why?
From Rome (Mediterranean coast) to Pescara (Adriatic coast) is 175 km.
From Pisa (Tower of Pisa, Mediterranean coast) to Ravenna (Capital of the Western Roman Empire, Adriatic coast) is also 175 km.
So, Italy is roughly 175 km. wide.Also, Japan is roughly 150-200 km. wide, and it seems that 175x175 km. territories are better to represent more equalized dimensions of territories in the game key areas (Western Front, Eastern Front, Mediterranean, North Africa, China and South-East Asia) than 150x150 km. or 200x200 km.
Therefore,
A-B (… km.) represents roughly … territories 175x175 km. including A + everything between + B:
Taranto-Milan (860 km.) represents roughly 5 territories 175x175 km.;
Dunkirk-Marseille (890 km.) represents roughly 5 territories 175x175 km.;
Paris-Berlin (also 890 km.) represents roughly 5 territories 175x175 km.;
Berlin-Vienna (525 km.) represents roughly 3 territories 175x175 km.;
Vienna-Triest (345 km.) represents roughly 2 territories 175x175 km.;
Berlin-Istanbul (1750 km.) represents roughly 10 territories 175x175 km.;
Leningrad-Stalingrad (1550 km.) represents roughly 9 territories 175x175 km.;
Stalingrad-Baku (1020 km.) represents roughly 6 territories 175x175 km.;
Kiev/Kyiv-Stalingrad (1040 km.) represents roughly 6 territories 175x175 km.;
Minsk-Odessa/Odesa (880 km.) represents roughly 5 territories 175x175 km.;
Shanghai-Shenzhen (big city near Hong Kong) (1220 km.) represents roughly 7 territories 175x175 km.;
Shenzhen-Hanoi (870 km.) represents roughly 5 territories 175x175 km.;
Hanoi-Imphal (Burma campaign) (1280 km.) represents roughly 7 territories 175x175 km.;Moreover, due to much worse weather conditions and a weaker transport network, the Eastern Front should obviously have more territories per 1000 km. than the Western Front.
But even if we take pure geographical dimensions, it seems that the Eastern Front should have much more territories, be much wider and deeper and therefore have different playstyle:
-
more Blitzkrieg playstyle on the Western Front;
-
strategic width and depth on the Eastern Front;
The same applies to Chinese and South-Pacific Front where some important engagements with Japan forces took place.
Currently most TripleA maps:
-
overrepresent Western Front and underrepresent Eastern Front by trying to somehow make them equal. But they are not equal.
Mild weather, good infrastructure, and much smaller frontline suitable for perfect Blitzkrieg on the Western Front vs severe weather, weak infrastructure and 3-4 times wider and many times deeper frontline on the Eastern Front suitable for more strategic playstyle. -
overrepresent Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Central Asia and Siberia. Maybe I am too old to understand the importance of these regions for any TripleA map especially if these maps leave little place for naval warfare.
-
underrepresent naval areas (Battle for Atlantic, Pacific campaign, etc.) and make them too narrow for naval warfare with aircraft and carriers.
As far as I understand, aircraft from the carriers or land bases should have at least 2 squares advantage per move over any ships and submarines.
Therefore, carriers and aircraft would always keep at least 1 square distance from ships and submarines. Biggest naval guns fire on 40 km. distance (Jamato BB) whereas aircraft can attack from 400 km. distance (destruction of BB Jamato) and always keep carriers out of range.
II.
Also the English Channel is only 34 km wide at its narrowest point but in the most TripleA maps La Manche takes 1 square. So to my mind there should be "CanalAttachment" rules applied and not "Sea zones". -
-
Any another suggestion about the territories?
What about the sea zones?
