Canada Map Fixes

[Math Guy]

While I'm waiting for the battle log feature in 1.04, I thought I'd propose some corrections to the Canadian map.

Most of these changes are completely irrelevant to play unless the Axis powers manage to invade Canada, and if that happens generally the Axis have won. So they're probably not worth spending time on if you're a modder . . . but if Paradox could put them in eventually, that would be great.

One change with some significant game impact is in adjusting manpower (see the end of the list).

I am working from west to east:

1) Climate

Victoria (CAN), Vancouver, and Seattle do not have Subarctic climates . . . I've lived in all three cities and we can go a whole winter without getting any snow at sea level. It's February and you can see kids going to school without coats on. In a few weeks we'll start seeing daffodils blooming in Victoria.

These should all be Mediterranean climate, due to the moderating influence of the Pacific ocean. Can be changed in the province.csv file.

2) Ferry links Victoria-Vancouver-Seattle

At present you cannot move land units directly from either Vancouver or Seattle to Victoria. The straits in question are so narrow that you can see across them, row across them, even swim across them. However, you CAN move land units from island to island in the Japanese-owned Marshall Islands, distances of hundreds of kilometers, or around the Aegean, or across many other larger straits. I assume that this can be changed in one of the Map tables, but so far I can't open them so I'm not sure exactly where.

3) Vancouver's port & beach

The port in Vancouver opens onto the wrong sea zone. It should open onto the same sea area as Victoria and Seattle. Most sea traffic goes through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, between Seattle and Victoria, and regardless of where it goes, it starts in that zone. The ID of the port sea zone, and the placement of the port icon, can both be changed in the province.csv file.

Vancouver doesn't have a beach, either, which given the lack of a ferry link Victoria-Vancouver, means that it is impossible to invade Canada's west coast. Vancouver is built on a river delta, the waters are sheltered and the tides are typically only a meter or two. It should qualify as at least a level-2 beach.

Many Norwegian fiords are invadable beaches, so possibly Prince Rupert (whose coast resembles Norway's) should have a beach as well. However, there has to be at least one.

4) Mountains in Prince Rupert (and forests in Victoria)

Terrain types for provinces are unavoidably going to be a subjective issue, because it depends on where you think the fighting is likely to occur, not necessarily what the most common terrain is. However, there is absolutely no way for anyone to go from Vancouver to Calgary without passing through a series of very high mountain passes in the Canadian Rockies. If the Urals qualify as mountain terrain, the Canadian Rockies do too.

Victoria is designated as Hills right now. In 1936 and still today, about 90 percent of the island is covered in dense coastal evergreen rainforest, which is tougher to move through than many Southeast Asian jungles. The city itself is built on some low hills, which is why I think it got that designation. Change in the province.csv file if you wish.

5) Coastal defenses & garrison

Victoria in 1936 had coastal defenses similar in design to the defenses of Bergen, Trondheim, and Oslo. They were built in the 1890s and upgraded several times. In 1936 there were at least eight 6-inch guns in three separate forts covering the Strait of Juan de Fuca, plus smaller guns and searchlights. In 1942-45, a new fort with two 9-inch guns was added, a 203mm railway gun, 90mm AA, and other improvements. This should qualify as a '1' coastal fort in 1936, and perhaps as a '2' sometime in 1942. (Several of the guns were sold to Turkey after the Korean War, when Canada dismantled the last coast defenses.)

The garrison in 1936 was very small, the 5th Heavy Battery and the Canadian Scottish Regiment, plus some militia and reservists. Later the militia was expanded by the creation of the Pacific Coast Rangers, basically companies of volunteers with rifles, total 7,000 including some in Prince Rupert. (I was briefly enlisted in the 5th battery, which became a reserve field artillery unit, in 1979.)

I suggest there be a Mil-A division at about 50 percent strength in 1936, named "Pacific Coast Garrison".

Halifax had similar defenses and should probably get an Atlantic Coast Garrison. The peacetime strength of Canada's two Inf divisions should be reduced to reflect these changes.

Although this post is primarily about Canada, in 1936 the American side of the Strait of Juan de Fuca had coast defenses at least as significant as Victoria, and by 1945 had even more, including a pair of 16" naval guns with longer calibers than those on the most modern class of US battleships.

This may seem very academic given the way the war actually went, but in fact the Japanese did attack Canadian soil at least once: in 1942 a submarine surfaced off the north coast of Vancouver Island and shelled a lighthouse there. The Japanese did have elaborate plans to invade Hawaii, which were abandoned after Midway. So invading Canada may be a long shot, but it shouldn't be impossible.

And again, while this is a post about Canada, Japan in 1941 should have both medium- and long-range submarines. All their subs are coastal, which makes no sense for a navy operating in the Pacific. The Japanese built long-range subs years before Germany did.

6) Rename Timmins to Sudbury, move resources

This one gave me a chuckle. The actual town of Timmins is located in the province named Sudbury, and vice versa. Whoever did this was consistent: the 80 steel assigned to the province named Sudbury are clearly meant to represent the enormous nickel mine in the town of Sudbury. The 10 oil should also be moved.

7) No Great Lakes ports (and rename Sudbury to Thunder Bay)

The game shows exactly one port on the Great Lakes: Port Sudbury. The name is wrong for reasons shown above, but Timmins is not a port either. It's a small northern town, well off the main road and rail route. There is a very important port in the province, Thunder Bay, which is still the main transshipment point for grain coming by rail from the western provinces. If provinces are named for the main town, Thunder Bay was the logical choice in 1936.

However, having exactly one port on Lake Superior is pretty pointless, because you can't move from there to the ocean. Historically, a lot of Canadian warships were built on the lakes, but in this case I suggest the port just be removed, to keep the AI from getting any stupid ideas.

8) Population and manpower

I have seen some posts about the strange manpower values that are assigned to some countries, but I have not found any stranger than for Canada.

Nationalist China (1936): actual population 395 million, 27 manpower points

Canada (1936): actual population 11 million, 64 manpower points!

A lot of AARs mention seeing large numbers of Canadian divisions invading Spain, or North Africa, or Northwest Europe . . . some also mention seeing them piled up in Canada, doing nothing useful and frustrating players of the UK. As 1 manpower point apparently represents 1,000 new troops per month, Canada can now generate about 8 million troops in 1936-47. (It starts with 330,000 manpower.) Notice that China, which actually raised 14 million troops in 1937-45, can only generate 2.4 million new given its current manpower values -- and then only if it holds onto all its territory including Sinkiang, instead of losing at least half of it to the Japanese.

Canada's wartime contribution in manpower was relatively small -- about 1 million in all the armed services at peak, and many of these were running air training centers, guarding POWs, or building the Alaska Highway, none of which are represented in the game. However, Canada built huge numbers of destroyers and escorts, as well as air units and merchant ships. By 1945 it had the world's third largest navy, after the US and UK. It even had a couple of cruisers and a carrier, bought (not built) just after the war ended. Getting rid of the high manpower supply and creating a suitable .ai file would help prevent it following an impossible and ahistorical strategy, and should make it tougher for Germany to defeat the Royal Navy.

If manpower points represent the supply of young men turning 18 each month and becoming eligible for military service, then Canada should get 7 manpower, and China about 250 to 300 . . .

Be warned, however: changing the manpower values and .ai builds just for Canada will probably make the game more historical and actually make things harder for the Axis, but doing this for other countries may unbalance the game very quickly. For example, if you use the same manpower-population proportions for the US, their monthly manpower will drop from 360 or so to 85-90. Use with caution!

(And if you want to change them for China, bear in mind that Nationalist China had very high rates of desertion compared to other countries, as high as 10 to 40 percent per year.)

For those who like knowing these things, here are the population figures for each Canadian province in 1936. The smaller figures have an error factor of +/- 15 percent, the larger ones are good to +/- 5 percent or so. Based on census figures in 1931 and 1941 for several dozen cities and towns, plus figures for the actual Canadian provinces.

Victoria 90,000
Vancouver 590,000 (1 manpower)
Prince Rupert 90,000
Calgary 770,000 (1 manpower)
Regina 910,000
Winnipeg 710,000
Sudbury (s/b Thunder Bay) 120,000
Timmins (s/b Sudbury) 150,000
Ottawa 590,000
Toronto 2.75 million (2 manpower)
Montreal 2.59 million (2 manpower)
Quebec 300,000
Fort George almost zero
Havre St Pierre 30,000
Gaspe 180,000
Halifax 1.08 million (1 manpower)

Total 10.95 million

Newfoundland is now part of Canada, having joined in 1949. In 1936 it was a British dominion with 300,000 population.

I assigned a manpower point to Calgary instead of Regina because throughout the 1930s, Regina was losing population (farmers who couldn't earn a living during the Depression) and Calgary was growing at the fastest rate of all the western provinces.

ICs should probably be reassigned to reflect populations more closely. Victoria, with 90,000 population, generates 5 IC; Montreal, with 2.59 million population, generates 15. However, there needs to be some allowance for special circumstances. Victoria also had a large naval base and shipyard, with a dry dock capable of repairing ships as large as aircraft carriers. And I don't know how IC values were calculated to begin with, so there's a lot of subjectivity about doing this.

I hope this is helpful to some folks. In any case it was fun to figure out.

[Uglyduck]

Absolutely brilliant research there A round of applause is required....

However - changes to the map itself are not now possible

The map is a whole one and to do a change and re render the map takes a very, very, very long time on top end machines.
Even if that was possible then the whole re rendered map would have to be put into a patch. Believe me - even compressed that would be one very heavy and big patch.

So - Paradox have announced that changes to the map will not now be done.

Sorry about that - I really am - you worked so hard and presented your case beautifully.

Stick around for the next game in the pipeline and get in on the beta for it

Remember I am talkng about actual map changes themselves.
If you cut them off your report then post the remainder in the "Suggestion" forum for perusal.

[Math Guy]

Hi Uglyduck,

Just for clarification, you mean the province names can't be changed until a new full release is done, or a completely new game. I figured that. I'll try to contain my disappointment -- but then the name isn't material to gameplay.

On the other hand, I know climate can be patched, because it has been mentioned in previous patch notes. The same is true for terrain, and of course resources can be moved, and garrisons created. That's why I figured this belonged in scenarios, because some people enjoy invading North America.

Would it not be possible to move the port icon for Vancouver, and eliminate it for "Port Sudbury"? And to install a beach icon on Vancouver? All that information appears to be in the province.csv file. I haven't tried doing it, but I have seen references to icon moves being done in a patch. You just reference an existing graphic and give coordinates, right? The graphic lies on top of the map itself. And if the province.csv file is being updated anyway, shouldn't be a problem . . .

As for the links from Victoria to the mainland, again I figured they might take awhile, because they're in files in the Map folder that don't appear to get patched. But if there's a way to mod the Map files (the Adjacent file maybe, or whichever one), then perhaps people could do that themselves in the meantime. At any rate, I don't see how that's a rendering problem.

I'd also like to know if there's a tool to open the files in the Map folder, as I tried Adobe Table 3.0 and got a message saying they're not actually that filetype. Feel free to add, "Kids, don't try this at home!" if you answer this one.

Anyway, thanks for the praise and support. You can probably expect more of the same sort of stuff in future. And I will post a version of this to the suggestions area.

[Uglyduck]

]

Yep anything like province, names boundaries, province shapes etc.
The things that "look" as though they are drawn onto the map.

Thats fine - by all means post it here. But some of those things that are "wrong" could be done in a future patch to save the player having to Mod them. They could also be put in the "Suggestion" forum
I would suggest that you PM Johan about the tool for the Map files. If he is able to answer then he will.
There are some very good Modders in this forum and I am sure that they will be able to help you with an questions.

Have fun!

[Kegger163]

You did a really great job of showing some in game problems with Canada and I applaud you on that The only thing is that Thunder Bay wasn't a city until the 70's or something like that. Before then it was made up of two seperate cities which names I can't recall but I am pretty sure it wasn't Thunder Bay until well after WWII.

[Kevin Mc Carthy]

Originally posted by Uglyduck
Absolutely brilliant research there A round of applause is required....

However - changes to the map itself are not now possible

The map is a whole one and to do a change and re render the map takes a very, very, very long time on top end machines.
Even if that was possible then the whole re rendered map would have to be put into a patch. Believe me - even compressed that would be one very heavy and big patch.

So - Paradox have announced that changes to the map will not now be done.

I've seen 30-100MB patches from Micro Sloth to smaller game companies. Do a single "fix once" with all map fixes-to-date or even a gold version and I would buy it if under $25. I don't mind spending money in a worthwhile way.

Hint, if OK with you sales agreements, Sell it direct!

[Uglyduck]

Originally posted by Kevin Mc Carthy
I've seen 30-100MB patches from Micro Sloth to smaller game companies. Do a single "fix once" with all map fixes-to-date or even a gold version and I would buy it if under $25. I don't mind spending money in a worthwhile way.

Hint, if OK with you sales agreements, Sell it direct!

The patch would have to be a lot bigger than that. Not everyone has adsl or cable. Things are geared towards the 56k dial in member.

There will be *no* actual map changes.
Sorry.

[Math Guy]

Yes, the referendum offered three choices: Lakehead, The Lakehead, or Thunder Bay. The "Lakehead" vote was split between two trivially different alternatives, and Thunder Bay won.

I would be just as happy with Lakehead.

However, there's a certain looseness about the rules for naming provinces. For example, Beijing was called Peking under the old Chinese-to-English system, and that is what English speakers in 1936 would have called it. Every Chinese province would have a different name under the previous system (whose name escapes me for some reason).

On the other hand, the game doesn't label Stalingrad as Volgograd, or Leningrad as St Petersburg. Back in those days, Winston Churchill used to write memos harassing his staff to call Iran by its proper name -- Persia. If "Persia" was good enough for the Romans, he said, it was good enough for him. Where exactly do we draw the line? Are we naming every province and country in the local language, by the current naming conventions of 2003, as it would have appeared in English documents of the time, or what?

I thought Thunder Bay was reasonably historical, as people did refer to that area by the name, and anyone curious would find it on the map. Lakehead isn't in my National Geographic gazetteer, so I think it would be a bit mysterious to non-Canadians.

But hey, thanks for keeping me honest!

[State Machine]

Hehe, I'm the one that suggested it change from Thunder Bay -> Sudbury during the beta (shame the map got botched...). The reasoning being that Sudbury was a resource and manufactoring center. Not that I know if it was in the 30's, but I knew Thunder Bay wasn't important.

About the climate - I thought the ones you mentioned were changed in 1.03, but apparently not...

[Math Guy]

Originally posted by State Machine
Hehe, I'm the one that suggested it change from Thunder Bay -> Sudbury during the beta (shame the map got botched...). The reasoning being that Sudbury was a resource and manufactoring center. Not that I know if it was in the 30's, but I knew Thunder Bay wasn't important.

About the climate - I thought the ones you mentioned were changed in 1.03, but apparently not...

Well, since we're talking about it, here's another puzzle for you. The game can't really be built around just four resources (coal, steel, rubber and oil). I take these as just being the most prominent items in the categories of energy, structural materials, specialized materials, and oil fuels. So for example along with coal you'd count natural gas and hydro power, perhaps even allow a small benefit for large supplies of wood, because all those things can substitute for coal in certain circumstances. I might even argue for *food* as falling in that category -- at least, the UK imported a lot of food during the war years, and if you're trying to capture the workings of a war economy it has to go in somewhere. Alongside steel you'd count aluminum, maybe concrete, wood again but not to burn this time . . . and so on. Even if the material doesn't have a direct military use (gypsum, brick) it may have a role in substituting for a material that does. To save on steel, build more structures out of wood. Like that.

So when I saw that Sudbury got 80 steel, I figured it had to be for the nickel production, which I am certain was high during the war. The Germans needed Finnish nickel, the Allies used the Canadian supply.

But here's what sort of stopped me in my tracks. I have a figure for Canadian nickel production in 1921, a bit early but should be indicative. It's quoted in pounds, not tons. 19 million pounds or about 8,500 metric tonnes. Steel production on the other hand tends to be measured in millions of tonnes. The nickel is critically important to steelmaking but it doesn't make up a very high percentage of the final product by weight. You wouldn't need a convoy to move this stuff; the entire year's production would fit in one ship.

On the other hand, one thing that I know got shipped to the UK in huge amounts was wood . . . because (a) the UK coal mines needed millions of pit props, or they couldn't expand their tunneling, plus (b) the UK hasn't got any forests to speak of.

So you see, I have great doubts about pegging the whole Canadian economy on one mine in Sudbury. It would probably make more sense to spread the coal and steel values around, give some to each province in proportion to the top ten strategic materials they produced in the energy and structural categories. And it might even make sense to give Canada some rubber production, to represent those scarce but essential things like nickel that generate very small tonnages. It would have to be explained, of course, but the HOI user manual needs a lot of work in other areas, so what's one more.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

[State Machine]

Originally posted by Math Guy
...

Anyway, just some thoughts.

It would be good if Aetius responded to your post, as I think he can state the rationilizations used in assigning resource values better than anyone. The economic model is very simplistic/abstracted. I think there might be a trend that other "strategic metals" were lumped in with the game thing - steel. In the case of Sudbury, its great nickel (and tin?) production needed to be expressed, somehow.

In terms of "spreading" production of resources around. This has generally been a failure in game terms. There are efforts that I cannot comment about in the beta forum to attack root causes of economic system failure, rather than "kludging" resource levels in individual provinces.

[Aetius]

I didn't do the Steel bit, so I absolve myself of resposability in this area. I can only vouch for the oil, rubber and coal (well the coal before the world+dog got it).

Regarding the climate (if they implemented it to be the same as I suggested), there were two factors involved:
1. Average temperature in summer and winter (with bias for the winter weather, to make sure it snows in the right places; places without seasons end up in Tropical)
2. Continuity in the climate model, i.e. No jumps from artic to subtropical or Mediterranean.

On the climate maps I checked the average temperature of most of Canada's provinces were equal to the areas which were subartic in Europe, same goes for Seattle. "Subartic" provinces in Sweden will also probably get daffodils in a few weeks time as well. The temperature differences in Sweden (which is a small country relative Canada) approaches around 30-40 celsius in the springtime so it should have 3 zones at least you'd think, but then compared to lets say Southern Spain at the same time you probably have a difference of 60 celsius and to the Libyan desert 70 celsius.
If you look at this and look at the the climate model which only permits: Artic, Subartic, Temperate, Mediterranean, SubTropical, Tropical and Muddy; you soon realise that you can't put many climate zones in the north because almost the entire world becomes tropical or subtropical.
For example say that Victoria and Vancouver are set as Mediterranean, what should then San Francisco receive (it is warmer in San Francisco than in Vancouver isn't it?), what about Los Angeles, what about Mexico City and what about Caracas?
When you try setting this this up by looking at it from a global perspective you soon realise that places like Vancouver end up in Sub-Arctic per default

The climate model needs many more "layers" for it to realistic. But it was the best I could do with it.

[AdamCanada]

Oh and the do where the city of Ottawa is off, the dot is actually kingston, no biggy tho(im not that picky)

and i don't think the ottawa river goes from the St. lawrence to the great lakes, the ottawa river heads more for hudson bay(james bay actually), but i think it dosn't actually go that far. agian no biggy tho(can't be changed anyways)

[Aetius]

Originally posted by AdamCanada
Oh and the do where the city of Ottawa is off, the dot is actually kingston, no biggy tho(im not that picky)

and i don't think the ottawa river goes from the St. lawrence to the great lakes, the ottawa river heads more for hudson bay(james bay actually), but i think it dosn't actually go that far. agian no biggy tho(can't be changed anyways)

Report as an enhancement bug.

[Math Guy]

Originally posted by Aetius
Regarding the climate (if they implemented it to be the same as I suggested), there were two factors involved:

1. Average temperature in summer and winter (with bias for the winter weather, to make sure it snows in the right places; places without seasons end up in Tropical)
2. Continuity in the climate model, i.e. No jumps from artic to subtropical or Mediterranean.

On the climate maps I checked the average temperature of most of Canada's provinces were equal to the areas which were subartic in Europe, same goes for Seattle.

This approach is very reasonable, and in general I would have done the same thing. The reason the problem arises here, in my opinion, is because the continuity premise can't be applied everywhere. When you look at the details, climate patterns get more complicated.

The Canadian west coast is in a special circumstance because it has (a) warm ocean currents coming up from Mexico and California, and (b) a mountain range that blocks the Arctic cold fronts. So it really can go from Mediterranean to sub-Arctic as you cross the province boundary from Vancouver to Prince Rupert. Or at a minimum, from Temperate to sub-Arctic.

Sweden's climate is quite different. It benefits from being on the Baltic Sea, but the Baltic freezes over in winter -- hence the whole business about the Allies taking Narvik and stopping winter movement of iron ore.

Calgary temperatures
January -3.6 C day / -15.7 night
July 23.2 C day / 9.5 night

Victoria temperatures
January 6.3 C day / 0.3 C night
July 21.7 C day / 12.7 C night

In particular, if you're trying to get the climate system to snow in the right places, then don't make Seattle, Victoria, or Vancouver sub-Arctic, because you'll effectively give them frequent blizzards and they just don't get them.

"Subartic" provinces in Sweden will also probably get daffodils in a few weeks time as well. The temperature differences in Sweden (which is a small country relative Canada) approaches around 30-40 celsius in the springtime so it should have 3 zones at least you'd think, but then compared to lets say Southern Spain at the same time you probably have a difference of 60 celsius and to the Libyan desert 70 celsius.

If you look at this and look at the the climate model which only permits: Artic, Subartic, Temperate, Mediterranean, SubTropical, Tropical and Muddy; you soon realise that you can't put many climate zones in the north because almost the entire world becomes tropical or subtropical.

For example say that Victoria and Vancouver are set as Mediterranean, what should then San Francisco receive (it is warmer in San Francisco than in Vancouver isn't it?), what about Los Angeles, what about Mexico City and what about Caracas?
When you try setting this this up by looking at it from a global perspective you soon realise that places like Vancouver end up in Sub-Arctic per default.

Well . . . I see your challenges. I don't mean to give you a hard time, in general I think it's well done. But it isn't actually that much warmer in San Francisco. They get the same Pacific current and have the same mountain chain protecting them to the northeast, and they get a little more sun in winter because of latitude. Average temperature in Seattle is about 5 C colder in January, and about 0.5 C colder in June. (So notice, much smaller difference between Seattle and San Francisco than between Victoria and Calgary.)

And again, the biggest issue in military terms is whether either city gets a lot of snow. If you made San Francisco Mediterranean, and then Seattle/Victoria/Vancouver Temperate, it would meet that requirement just fine.

I hope I'm being helpful here. As far as I'm concerned, delivering the basic game engine and some coherent scenarios to start playing with is a huge accomplishment: to get a million historical and geographic details right, to fine-tune, you need the help of enthusiasts like me.

[Math Guy]

It's true that the St Lawrence (or the Ottawa) doesn't flow from Lake Huron. I thought of complaining about that, but then I looked a little more closely and decided that the river joining the Ottawa to Lake Huron is meant to represent Lake Nipissing plus two smaller rivers, one flowing east, one flowing west. There's still a land bridge about 8 km wide, but the combination of the lake and the rivers would make a good defense line.

I also considered asking for the Ottawa to continue flowing north along the Ontario-Quebec border, into Lake Timiskaming, as it does in real life. That's because as it stands now it's easy to march from Montreal to "Timmins" and harder to swing south through Ottawa . . . whereas in real life there still aren't any good roads that cross the Ottawa or the lake, so it would be a long, slow journey.

I'm putting together an enhancement request that covers these things but there seems to be no hurry.

[Bismarck]

Originally posted by Math Guy
This approach is very reasonable, and in general I would have done the same thing. The reason the problem arises here, in my opinion, is because the continuity premise can't be applied everywhere. When you look at the details, climate patterns get more complicated.

The Canadian west coast is in a special circumstance because it has (a) warm ocean currents coming up from Mexico and California, and (b) a mountain range that blocks the Arctic cold fronts. So it really can go from Mediterranean to sub-Arctic as you cross the province boundary from Vancouver to Prince Rupert. Or at a minimum, from Temperate to sub-Arctic.


Calgary temperatures
January -3.6 C day / -15.7 night
July 23.2 C day / 9.5 night

Victoria temperatures
January 6.3 C day / 0.3 C night
July 21.7 C day / 12.7 C night

In particular, if you're trying to get the climate system to snow in the right places, then don't make Seattle, Victoria, or Vancouver sub-Arctic, because you'll effectively give them frequent blizzards and they just don't get them.

I agree with your assessment MathGuy.... the Canadian West Coast is a special case.... people from there are the kind that call you up in the middle of February and complain about getting rain in Feb.... while people east of them are digging out of 4 inches of snow...

M

[State Machine]

Originally posted by Math Guy
It's true that the St Lawrence (or the Ottawa) doesn't flow from Lake Huron. I thought of complaining about that, but then I looked a little more closely and decided that the river joining the Ottawa to Lake Huron is meant to represent Lake Nipissing plus two smaller rivers, one flowing east, one flowing west. There's still a land bridge about 8 km wide, but the combination of the lake and the rivers would make a good defense line.

I also considered asking for the Ottawa to continue flowing north along the Ontario-Quebec border, into Lake Timiskaming, as it does in real life. That's because as it stands now it's easy to march from Montreal to "Timmins" and harder to swing south through Ottawa . . . whereas in real life there still aren't any good roads that cross the Ottawa or the lake, so it would be a long, slow journey.

I'm putting together an enhancement request that covers these things but there seems to be no hurry.

This will be a "wontfix" if it requires actual map changes.

The climate thing is nothing. Aetius referred to a systematic pass through the climate settings, but local adjustments to match reality are obviously good and easy to make... I've made a note to myself to report the bug to Paradox.

[Aetius]

Originally posted by Math Guy
Well . . . I see your challenges. I don't mean to give you a hard time, in general I think it's well done. But it isn't actually that much warmer in San Francisco. They get the same Pacific current and have the same mountain chain protecting them to the northeast, and they get a little more sun in winter because of latitude. Average temperature in Seattle is about 5 C colder in January, and about 0.5 C colder in June. (So notice, much smaller difference between Seattle and San Francisco than between Victoria and Calgary.)

And again, the biggest issue in military terms is whether either city gets a lot of snow. If you made San Francisco Mediterranean, and then Seattle/Victoria/Vancouver Temperate, it would meet that requirement just fine.

I hope I'm being helpful here. As far as I'm concerned, delivering the basic game engine and some coherent scenarios to start playing with is a huge accomplishment: to get a million historical and geographic details right, to fine-tune, you need the help of enthusiasts like me.

I am enthusiast too. I did the climate thing because I was dissatified with the Chinese weather, I wouldn't be surprised if I have screwed up something in the process.

Average temperatures in Oslo
January -6.9 /July 15.3

[Sheridan]

The entire North American western coast is all strange when it comes to climate. It's very much warmer than inland beyond the first chain of mountains - it is not unusual for nighttime winter temperatures in LA to be around 50-60 F while Flagstaff (just as far north, in northern Arizona mountains) will be 20-25 F at the same time. Annual rainfall drops as you get farther south as well, because storms track north-to-south and at some point shift to west-to-east, often missing areas farter south entirely.

In fact San Diego has only 2/3rds the annual rainfall (10 inches, or about 25 cm - and it generally falls mainly in winter) of Los Angeles (which is only about 160-180 km further north) and both cities have less than half as much as San Francisco or Seattle do. Also, snow is almost unheard of in coastal California; the only part of California that gets militarily significant snow would be the northern inland portion (which is MOUNTAINS, not hills, or should be - the Sierra Nevada range there is not significantly easier to cross than the Rockies except that it is narrower). This is one case in which extremes of temperature would be suitable. Southern California, Arizona, etc. probably belong in the tropical or at least subtropical group, while inland Northern California gets snow in the winter.

While of course BC and Washington would not be quite as warm as SoCal (which is where I am familiar with) and certainly are wetter, I would also hazard to say that they don't belong in a group with snow, while the next provinces over (the mountains) very well may.

Keep in mind, too, we are talking here about mountains in the 10-14 thousand feet range (which is I think 3-5 thousand meters) and that they tend to "trap" rain or snow out of storm systems which may not have rained on the coast.