River names on the map?

[Commander-DK]

Is there any way to get shown the names of rivers on the map? AFAI remember you could hover the cursor over a river in HoI1 and it would show the river's name, but somehow I can't make it work in HoI2.

Help, please!

Jesper

 

[Myth]

No need to get that detailed

aye, of course not, though taking all these into consideration and them having the rivers based on a difficulty-to-cross rating would be interesting, so that at least the rivers won't be completely identical. so that a narrow fast flowing river and a wide slow flowing river may get approximately the same rating so that their modifiers would be the same, but a narrow slow moving river and a wide fast moving river wouldn't be the same. there may be more than the two types of rivers you're suggesting, but that's fine with me

as the only rivers represented in the game are the major rivers

aye, but for the next iteration of HoI I'd like to see all rivers (but that'd only be possible, I guess, if it goes hand-in-hand with the type of map I want...)

 

[unmerged(44587)]

I didn't mean it to horribly complex
2 different types of river penalties and toggle on/off names for mouse hover would be great

Is not the difficulty of crossing also affected by any bridges that can be captured? In HoI 2 terms that would be the amount of province infrastructure I guess.

 

[Solon]

Use the "Diplomatic" Map

...and toggle on/off names for mouse hover would be great

Is not the difficulty of crossing also affected by any bridges that can be captured? In HoI 2 terms that would be the amount of province infrastructure I guess.

I was actually thinking of eliminating the mouse hover altogether. I was thinking of having the names simply there somewhere on the river all the time rather than due to hover. I think that having to code all those pixels along a 'snakey' riverline to show the name would be a nighmare! If you like names, just turn them on. If not, leave them off. If you're curious, turn them on for a few minutes for a 'look-see', then turn them off again.

You know, one easy way to do this would be to place the names of rivers on one of the "other" maps, like the "Diplomatic" map, which is not a terribly 'busy' map and has plenty of space for a little extra text. That way, if you wanted to check, you could just go over and take a look. Bye the way, the "Diplomatic" map would be a great place for permanently posting river names, as that is where they figured most prominently, as rivers were the ways in which treaty lines were given! (Read the text of the M-R Pact, for example.)

As for bridges, your comment on infrastructure is apt. Frankly I had not given it much thought, although on the strategic level like this, and considering the level of fighting in WWII, most armies 'worth-their-salt' would "blow" all the bridges and their foundations while retreating, and most armies on the attack would sport specialized river crossing units. So I'm not sure that is an important consideration (covered by the various engineering bonuses).

Solon

 

[unmerged(44587)]

the "Diplomatic" map would be a great place for permanently posting river names, as that is where they figured most prominently, as rivers were the ways in which treaty lines were given!

I could go with that I guess

If we can disregard bridges...Should the difficulty of a river crossing vary according to the season, becoming almost impossible in eg winter after a storm, or in the tropical rainy season?

 

[zeekater]

I could go with that I guess

If we can disregard bridges...Should the difficulty of a river crossing vary according to the season, becoming almost impossible in eg winter after a storm, or in the tropical rainy season?

That would probably already be modelled in the winter and muddy penalties

 

[Solon]

I could go with that I guess

If we can disregard bridges...Should the difficulty of a river crossing vary according to the season, becoming almost impossible in eg winter after a storm, or in the tropical rainy season?

Interesting concept, but I suspect it would be difficult to model in terms of the Game. For example, the Danube would not have been bridgable by even a modern army recently this Spring, when it rampaged through Central Europe swollen by abnormally high snowfalls compounded by heavy Spring rains. There were similar 'horror' stories coming from WWII campaigns in places like Burma, when the Monsoon season hit. Yet how would you, in game terms come up with a way of handling something that happens only occasionally, and then only for a few weeks or months? I suspect in terms of a stategic game that covers the globe for a period of a decade, it isn't worth it.

Having said that, it might be possible to put in a few events, that are "hard-wired" as it were, for the actual historical times during the period of 1936 to 1946 when major flood events occur. Afterall, they do have a flood event for Holland, I believe, although how it is handled, I do not know. I do know that the "Raiders" in Burma were practically buried in mud and swollen rivers during the monsoons of 1944.

Perhaps the latter would deserve it's own weather category--namely, "Monsoon" conditions--that would severly limit movement, virtually to a crawl (no pun intended)!

I am still not sure how you would handle the effect in the game. Afterall, you would have to set conditions, i.e. X and Y are at war and the month is ZZ and the year is 19xx and-so-on to trigger the event for a swollen river, and even then, I am not sure how it could be enacted. Recent events along the Danube show that it is a major event, and would severely limit military action, but the effort required to make it a Game reality seem, "Too Much".

That would probably already be modelled in the winter and muddy penalties

After all of the above, I am guessing that you are correct, although it would deserve a little more discussion as to subtleties and nuances.

I still like my idea of a "Monsoon Season" for the Far East and Indian Ocean countries!!!!

Solon

 

[Myth]

If we can disregard bridges...Should the difficulty of a river crossing vary according to the season, becoming almost impossible in eg winter after a storm, or in the tropical rainy season?

I'd hope so, in a more perfect game. I'd say that deep winter would be the easiest--rivers frozen enough for tanks to pass over. spring would be the hardest, the thaw completely floods the rivers and makes them scary things to cross.

Perhaps the latter would deserve it's own weather category--namely, "Monsoon" conditions--that would severly limit movement, virtually to a crawl (no pun intended)!

what about weather categories for rivers only?
/edit: or, more preferably, river crossings between provinces?

 

[unmerged(44587)]

Diverging into weather...with ever increasing home computing power one would hope that an HoI 3 could have improved weather patterns, but would no doubt be a pain to code? As well as monsoon, what about fog? Aircraft could be grounded for days, also ships happered, and land movement slowed to a crawl.
Also, the phases of the moon were a MAJOR impact on night bombing campaigns, dictating the rhythm of the whole thing, and known to both sides...

 

[Myth]

indeed. actually, why not just, with expanded weather phenomenon, have up to three or four seperate weather effects per province/area (ideally, for me at least, there wouldn't actually be provinces but rather just be all continuous, but that's completely seperate from this ). in that way, it could be muddy, foggy, thunderstorm and flooding. elsewhere, elsetime it could be snowstorm, freezing, foggy. it would only be necessary to seperate weather conditions into seasons and then, depending on the month allow random matches of up to 4 in one seasonal category or, during those transition times between seasons, two seasonal categories.
thus, even though there still are a finite amount of weather conditions, the greater simultaneous range would allow for a lot more weather diversity in-game.

 

[unmerged(49243)]

deep winter would be the easiest--rivers frozen enough for tanks to pass over.

I doubt that any of the rivers in the game (most of them are wide, fast-flowing rivers) freeze thickly enough to carry heavy tanks. However, the rivers in the North do freeze enough for troops to cross it. IMHO infantry should not get the river crossing penalty in very cold conditions, but tanks etc should.

 

[Myth]

I doubt that any of the rivers in the game (most of them are wide, fast-flowing rivers) freeze thickly enough to carry heavy tanks

I know for a fact that the Daugava does
at least, it freezes enough that thousands of people can stage protests on it during winter, sometimes...

but yes, I wouldn't go for a complete taking away of non-foot unit river-crossing penalty, just some of it. I (suck at communicating ) never really envisioned entire divisions of armor crossing a river solely over the ice, but ice that's thick enough would get make bottlenecks such as bridges less important.
as for foot infantry, while they do have quite a bit of heavy gear (especially if they have brigades attached), I think that a frozen river would allow for most of the penalty to go away (ack, awkward grammar )

 

[Solon]

I know for a fact that the Daugava does

True, but in my little suggestion (see above post #14) the iced-up Daugava, which I just looked upon last April, would be a category # 2 river. Medium large, you might say, but not the same as the Dneiper or Rhine or Danube, etc. Hence, different modifiers.

Solon

 

[Myth]

fair enough

 

[unmerged(57914)]

My atlas still has two Germany's and a giant red behemoth leering over Europe. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Carroarmato-P40]

Two Yemen's as well? and Burma would still be Burma I'm guessing?