Yes, yes, Moscow-Leningrad area is not ready, so only Ukraine and some old fixes from previous orders.
Thanks! )
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Thanks! )
Sorry, I didn't understand the question. By provinces - after Ukraine and the North of Russia the number of provinces will exceed 2770, so I will send the modified files Province, province_name, distance, misc. New regions and areas cannot be added, AFAIK.
When you extract the map you have to set in setting the number of provinces+3, that means 2770. If I want to add one, do I have to set it to 2771? Or just later change the csv's and misc?
No. It is not necessary. It concerns the file distance, it seems. These are the lines in the document. I think, you about this:
The distances.csv file will only work when its not longer then ****+3 lines.
So when you have a map with 2608 provinces, the distance.csv has to be 2611 lines long. Just open this file - first line: number provinces in game (2770 = 2759+ 11 free) and... I forgeot ahhh. Add: this screenshot show - PROV1 - in line 4. It mean +3.
Last edited:
I agree that this is an above-average town and could be the center of the province... if it would be a away from Tula. Now Tula and Efremov provinces are not so big that they would bite of their territory to create Stalinogorsk.
At the same time, there are a lot of coal in USSR, but there are only 4 unique, first-in-the-world plants for production of rubber from potatoes, and one of them is exactly in Efremov. Neighboring Tambov area is an area where a lot of potatoes are grown, so this synthetic rubber plant was built close to the 'potato area'.
Absolutely right suggestion, this lake separates Novgorod and Staraya Russa. Russian folklore glorifies this important lake, in fact, it was on its shores that the Russian Civilization arose, from this shores, in 882 AD, Knyaz Oleg went to
We must ask Vilocka to add this lake. Either as a water province, or as 'rivers' (like Balaton in Hungary). I think I saw that this lake is on the E3 map, it would be good to add it to the DH map.
This is a difficult question, because it was filled with water from 1941-1947, so it is really unclear whether it should be added on WW2 map or not.
So, we will not do this yet, because this place is mostly not in the epicenter of the battles in the game.
Ahaha
If you're about another cross-connection I added in 'Kalinin front' line, then note that I simultaneously deleted the incorrect vanilla double cross-block Velikiye Luki - Vitebsk!
Thus, the number of crosspoints on the Map does not increase, but they begin to correspond to reality!
Obviously, there is an excellent diagonal road connection between this square of 4 provinces, so the opposite provinces of this square necessarily must be connected. Unless, of course, you are a fanatical follower of vanilla DH Map religion that "Cross-points between 4 provinces always and strictly must be only double cross-blocks."
I consider the creation of a special very small province of Torzhok, just for the sake of one goal - to kill cross-connect, unnecessary work, because there is no other reason for its appearance. Cross-connect perfectly stimulates connections between these 4 key provinces (of operational/strategic importance) without adding little Torzhok (of local tactical importance).
I believe that people who have ever played chess (even just as a child with their parents, like me) should not be too surprised that units can attack diagonally.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Yes, this is the case when, in addition to studying the road map, it also requires careful study of the front line.The logic of the railways requires dividing the province of Gatchina into 2 Pushkin and Shlisselburg or Volkhov, which is adjacent to Lake Ladoga (the front was named after it, but unlike Shlisselburg, it was not occupied, so according to the logic of the game for the blockade of Leningrad, the province should be called Shlisselburg).
Схема железных дорог СССР, 1941 год
karty.by
I agree, Gatchina should be divided. It seems that the key points of combat/logistics in its eastern part are Shlisselburg, Sinyavino, Mga, and this part should be allocated to a separate province.
I go from south to north, so I haven't studied Leningrad yet.
I have doubts about better name for the province Nelidovo or Olenino.
Nelidovo is a bit more famous village, because it was at the first line of defense zone Nelidovo - Rzhev. But Olenino looks as a more important strategic crossroads, as it has good roads both north to Ostashkov and south to Safonovo/Smolensk.
Also, on the German map, the Soviet fortifications are plotted exactly on the Olenino line.
Undoubtedly, in any case I will set the coordinate point of this province in Olenino. (because advancing from the west, you must take both of these defense points)
But I'm not sure whether to keep the name Nelidovo or change it to Olenino.
Nelidovo is a bit more famous village, because it was at the first line of defense zone Nelidovo - Rzhev. But Olenino looks as a more important strategic crossroads, as it has good roads both north to Ostashkov and south to Safonovo/Smolensk.
Also, on the German map, the Soviet fortifications are plotted exactly on the Olenino line.
Undoubtedly, in any case I will set the coordinate point of this province in Olenino. (because advancing from the west, you must take both of these defense points)
But I'm not sure whether to keep the name Nelidovo or change it to Olenino.
Last edited:
Nelidovo is a bigger town despite being small,, and the train that goes to Moscow stopped there also.
- 1
Well, I decided to keep the vanilla name Nelidovo and drew Ilmen Lake.
###########################
I continue to cut, through forests and stamps, adequate straight line for strategically important Moscow-Leningrad path which is completely absent in the vanilla map.
I am sure there is no more such area on the vanilla map, that required such a total reworking, as the north-west of the USSR.
It looks like 70% of the territory is done, I came to the cloze Leningrad zone.
I was thinking about adding the Kholm and Nevel, but that would force me to create one double cross-connect and one double cross-block, so I decided against it. Thus, the important Kholm is included in the province of Staraya Russa, and Nevel in Velikiye Luki.
Velikiye Luki translates as 'Great/Large Luki', so let them stay really huge province as in vanilla.
--------------
But I was able to split out Demyansk!
In general, I am not in favor of creating many small provinces on the map to reflect the real contours of fronts, environments and battles, etc., since the Hoi2/DH map contains the optimal number of provinces and is not designed for such a small configurations. And of course that's great advantage of DH map, I hate maps with a lot of little provinces.
But the epic battles of 1941-1943 for the Demyansk salient are worth putting this small province on the map.
Moreover, it was here, for the first time in the history of mankind, grandiose logistical operation was (successfully) carried out to supply a large 100,000 encircled group by means of transport aircraft.
So, surely many players have heard about Demyansk and it would be good if they could see this province in the game.
I did not draw the exact contours of the Demyansk salient, because it need more space to write the name of the province, so the Demyansk province is 50% larger than the historical configuration of this salient.
Unlike the vanilla game, my Mod has two special tough guys (with special skills and perks) who historically led the defense of cauldrons in these area, so now it will finally be possible to use them in the right provinces!
---------
Pskov-Novgorod area got true directions for offensive, according to the road map and history.
---------
As always, everybody welcome to point out my mistakes in common sense, logic of road connections and so on.
Last edited:
- 1
Have succesfully done steps 1 and 2 of the mapmaker, but always got stuck on 3 - adjacencies. Any tip?
Interesting. What exactly does the program log? What did you change? Have you already started working in Europe?
My thought about cross connections. As far as I understand, there are no cross connections in the original game. France and Benelux have 4 provinces each, the corners of which are connected in one place. And there are no cross connections. Purely visually, this is convenient. In the USSR, how does this solution work from a game perspective?
- 1
This is convenient when either all the cross provinces are subject to a strict law - they always have a double block (as in vanilla DH), or they always have a double connection (which is not present in any game).
If there is such a strict law, then you do not need to look out the window of the province each time to understand if there is a block or a connection there.
Yes, it's convenient. But in 80% of cases vanilla DH cross-blocks does not correspond to reality.
In general, double cross blocks can correspond to reality quite rarely - more often they can be correct in large, inaccessible desert, mountainous and northern regions.
But if you see a double cross-block in Europe - from Lisbon to Moscow, then in 90% of cases this double does not correspond to reality, because Europe has small provinces and a well-developed road network, and almost always in reality there is at least one diagonal road connecting at least two of four provinces.
Therefore, the question is simple - either a "convenient" map with only double cross blocks, that does not correspond to reality as vanilla DH map, or honest true map with eithar cross-connections (about 80% of all cases of cross-points) and double cross-blocks (about 20% of all cases of cross-points) that corresponds to reality.
I personally deleted all the wrong cross-blocks on DH map 8 years ago and cross-connections don't bother me in any way.
And I've never heard criticism of 'cross-connections' on my map before. Rommel really was the first.
Although this is understandable - in North Africa, Rommel had to fight in a straight line along the coast - back and forth, there are no cross-connections in North Africa, and therefore European cross-connections are unusual for this general after his African experience. But for continental generals, cross-conectionas are absolutely common.
Although this is understandable - in North Africa, Rommel had to fight in a straight line along the coast - back and forth, there are no cross-connections in North Africa, and therefore European cross-connections are unusual for this general after his African experience. But for continental generals, cross-conectionas are absolutely common.
Can anyone imagine a WW2 general who would ignore good diagonal road suitable for his plans, just because it is the "wrong" road and he feels 'uncomfortable' looking at it on the map? Ahaha
----
The example you gave perfectly demonstrates that 95% of all double cross-blocks in Europe are completely erroneous and 50% of these cross-points should not exist on the game map at all.
As we can see Auxerre - Troyes have good direct connection and they should have visual connection on the Map, and, accordingly, there should be visual lack of connection Orleans - Chaumont, not cross-point there!
Last edited:
This is convenient when either all the cross provinces are subject to a strict law - they always have a double block (as in vanilla DH), or they always have a double connection (which is not present in any game).
If there is such a strict law, then you do not need to look out the window of the province each time to understand if there is a block or a connection there.
Yes, it's convenient. But in 80% of cases vanilla DH cross blocks does not correspond to reality.
In general, double cross blocks can correspond to reality quite rarely - more often they can be correct in large, inaccessible desert, mountainous and northern regions.
But if you see a double cross-block in Europe - from Lisbon to Moscow, then in 90% of cases this double does not correspond to reality, because Europe has small provinces and a well-developed road network, and almost always in reality there is at least one diagonal road connecting these provinces.
Therefore, the question is simple - either a "convenient" map with only double cross blocks, that does not correspond to reality, or honest true map with eithar cross-connections (about 80% of all cases of cross-points) and double cross-blocks (about 20% of all cases of cross-points) that corresponds to reality.
I personally deleted all the wrong cross-blocks on the map 8 years ago and cross-connections don't bother me in any way.
Can anyone imagine a WW2 general who would ignore good diagonal road suitable for his plans, just because it is the "wrong" road and he feels 'uncomfortable' looking at it on the map? Ahaha
----
The example you gave perfectly demonstrates that 95% of all double cross-blocks in Europe are completely erroneous and 50% of these cross-points should not exist on the game map at all.
As we can see Auxerre - Troyes have good direct connection and they should have visual connection on the Map, and, accordingly, there should be visual lack of connection Orleans - Chaumont, not cross-point !
View attachment 1278636
Nick3210,
The problem with these cross-connection is that opposing armies will be able to fly over an ennemy army in order to choose another army to attack. It is massively unrealistic.
Look at the result :
Here Green army #1 would attack in diagonal red army # 2 , but it would fly over the red army # 1 attacking another green army # 2. It is not possible at all in reality.
The frontline were continuous in WWII, there were no big gap behind an attacking army.
In reality, Green army # 1 would attack (it would collide into) the flank of the red army # 1 attacking the green army # 2. Thus creating a counter offensive from Green 1 into Red 1. With your concept, counteroffensive cease to exists.
Your mod and new map are really good, do not waste it with such an unrealistic concept ! I said this respecfully.
Attachments
- 3
- 1
I appreciat your arguments, it was a really powerful and smart blow to my concept of cross-blocks, respect!
You almost knocked me down!
But, no!
I just suggest different interpretation. In this case, the divisions do not 'fly over each other', just both offensive vectors attack the defensive line of the opposite division, at the same point. I don't see a problem.
But my concept allows you to strike from two directions. Which will happen much more often than counter strikes!
In 95% of cases, the defending (weak side) will not strike back - it will rather run to the aid of the attacked province!
Defending is easier! (relief bonuses, entrenchment, no penalty for overloading) Therefore, if you are under attack, it is much more profitable for you to defend yourself, instead of launching a counterattack!
Therefore, this your very smart but rare case will be really rare, because it is irrational and unprofitable for the defending side. But even if this happens, I don't see any violations of realism if these two opposing vectors fight at the same cross-point pixel.
But with cross-connections, both opponents have possibility realistically strike from two directions! It also allow you to move realistically without fighting between provinces along shorter routes.
Probably the ratio of 'strike from two directions against support defence' and your example in real game will be like 95% to 5%.
Even if a very rare miracle happens and both opposing attack vectors in their battle win the enemy and take opposite province... It is possible to explain that they just crossed crosspoint in different time and did not leave the garrison to guard the settlement of the cross-point.
Last edited:
Or this moment: the impossibility of normal encirclement and troops calmly advance through enemy lines
- 2
- 1
Okay, guys, I agree.
Even if such a diagonal counterattack is rare in the game, because in most cases it is completely unprofitable for the defending side... but it can be, and it really leads to a contradiction between the two sorts of 'realism'.
Realism of variations of attack from two directions to any square, realism of the peaceful shortest movement of divisions across their territory against this rare and unprofitable case of a counter-crossed attacks.
As a perfectionist, it is difficult for me to choose which of the realisms to sacrifice.
The only way not to sacrifice any of the realism is to add small provinces-intersections at the points of the cross-connections.
But if this is not possible, then I have to sacrifice one of the cross-connections.
OK, no one will say that Nick violates Realism even an inch!
I will rework the cross-connections to eliminate them.
Applause!
I'm sorry that this turns out to be a double job for you, but it just happened agains my will.
Even if such a diagonal counterattack is rare in the game, because in most cases it is completely unprofitable for the defending side... but it can be, and it really leads to a contradiction between the two sorts of 'realism'.
Realism of variations of attack from two directions to any square, realism of the peaceful shortest movement of divisions across their territory against this rare and unprofitable case of a counter-crossed attacks.
As a perfectionist, it is difficult for me to choose which of the realisms to sacrifice.
The only way not to sacrifice any of the realism is to add small provinces-intersections at the points of the cross-connections.
But if this is not possible, then I have to sacrifice one of the cross-connections.
OK, no one will say that Nick violates Realism even an inch!
I will rework the cross-connections to eliminate them.
Rodolphe123
gets the rarest medal - the Winner in a dispute about Realism/Historicity against Nick!Applause!
Vilochka
Would you, please, be so kind as to remade the cross-connections that you have already made?I'm sorry that this turns out to be a double job for you, but it just happened agains my will.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Okay, guys, I agree.
Even if such a diagonal counterattack is rare in the game, because in most cases it is completely unprofitable for the defending side... but it can be, and it really leads to a contradiction between the two sorts of 'realism'.
Realism of variations of attack from two directions to any square, realism of the peaceful shortest movement of divisions across their territory against this rare and unprofitable case of a counter-crossed attacks.
As a perfectionist, it is difficult for me to choose which of the realisms to sacrifice.
The only way not to sacrifice any of the realism is to add small provinces-intersections at the points of the cross-connections.
But if this is not possible, then I have to sacrifice one of the cross-connections.
OK, no one will say that Nick violates Realism even an inch!
I will rework the cross-connections to eliminate them.
Rodolphe123
gets the rarest medal - the Winner in a dispute about Realism/Historicity against Nick!
Applause!
Vilochka
Would you, please, be so kind as to remade the cross-connections that you have already made?
I'm sorry that this turns out to be a double job for you, but it just happened agains my will.
Well Nick, this is an excellent decision from you. I did understood the problem of realism from both perspectives, but the most realistic option is the one that you just made. Bravo !
By the way, the addition of Ilmen lake + Moskva-Volga canal + many well places new northern provinces like Demiansk will rendered the game massively more interesting and accurate. The USSR front is so much important in WWII, this new map will be unbelievable.
This is very interesting, carry on your great work, and I will follow the progression and make suggestions until the end !
Last edited:
- 1
It was a double problem of realism, but at end our friend made the most realistic decision. Thank for having point out the problem first.
You should start over to comment the map because you had many great idea for the western Europe map Lord Rommel.
The cross-connection war is over, let's have WWII instead.
- 1