Possible to see river names in next update coming in August

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I just wanted to show you a preview of how the map looks with river names, lake names, sea areas and country names. These names can be turned on / off in the options menu.

Also noticed we altered the flow of the Thames river near London so the city is north of the river.

This is how France looks like:


This is how Russia looks like:

[_Augustus_]

Very pretty

Is it possible to change city's name during the war? One could have Petrozavodsk changed to Äänislinna if Finns capture it and renamed back when Finland is knocked out of the war. Finns renamed the city after the capture historically. Just a thought for more chrome.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

No. In order to that we need to code each city captured and then set it to the non default name and back to the default name when liberated. I think that's probably more work than the reward. E. g. if you play with the German version of GS v2.0 you see the German names on the cities regardless of these being captured or not (Moskau, Warschau etc.).

We don't have a language version for the Finnish language.

[schwerpunkt]

With the change of river flow around London, perhaps Chatham should be moved south to where it actually is? (ie on the south side of the Thames)
The main downside of moving Chatham south is that it makes the Dover area quite congested but I cant see that area being a major landing site with London being north of the river. The plus side of moving Chatham south is that London can be attacked from three hexes north of the river making it more reasonably attackable.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

With the change of river flow around

The problem is that the hex SE of London is a land hex so the port can't be placed there.

[schwerpunkt]

The problem is that the hex SE of London is a land hex so the port can't be placed there.

It could be converted to a sea hex and the other converted to a land hex....

[Peter Stauffenberg]

That's true, but then the access to London from the south will be less. We can easily implement that if you think it's more accurate.

An alternative is to call the hex Harwich, but Harwich is actually a bit further east. Chatham didn't have many naval ships during WW2. The OOB mentions some CC's, DD's and mainly subs. Chatham was a dockyard for subs during WW2.

[schwerpunkt]

That's true, but then the access to London from the south will be less. It will be narrow to the Dover area (only 1 hex row high).

But landings down there are unlikely to occur there anyway with attacks on London being across the river.

Its interesting to note how much of Paris is actually north of the Seine River - are we going to move that too? I'm a bit concerned that moving the river will alter play balance and the reality was that roughly a third of London was south of the river anyway, so if it fell, London would have ceased being used as an administrative city anyway.....

[Peter Stauffenberg]

When placing a river I think it should be placed in favor of the defender if the city is on both sides. Since Paris will be attacked from the north I think having the river north of Paris is best.

Most major cities with a river are located on both banks so we have to select one of them.

Since we moved the Thames so London is better protected from the south we can then move Chatham to the south so it's possible to invade northeast of London in the current Chatham hex. That could make the balance approximately the same.

[pk867]

But was the coast NorthEast of London invadable?

[pk867]

I say we leave the port where it is. We can give it a different name it basically represents the group of ports and such at the mouth pf the Thames. The hex is 50km .

The invasion would have been across the channel. Back then all Germany had for an invasion was river barges. Opening up the northeast coast to more units would be stretching it.

[schwerpunkt]

I've been studying the map of south east england and just realised that one of the reasons that we have run into trouble is that London is actually about half a hex further west than it is shown. An interesting solution would be to move London one hex to the north west (still north of the river Thames) but to include a new minor city called South London south of the river Thames (in the current location) that controls the port of Chatham (where it is currently shown). Hence obtaining South London (and in the process all of the ports along northern and eastern Kent) would give the Germans a justifiable supply source whilst the Brits would still control their capital until the Germans crossed the Thames....

We currently dont have two "city" nexes next to each other but this could be quite an interesting occaision to have them.

[pk867]

Hi,

I think we are trying to add too much smaller scale to a large scale game. If this is done then the argument could be made elsewhere on the map. My inclination is to let this change (ie. river Thames) happen and then we can see. Then current setup prevents as it should a direct Amphibious assault on the London Capital hex.

[schwerpunkt]

Hi,

I think we are trying to add too much smaller scale to a large scale game. If this is done then the argument could be made elsewhere on the map. My inclination is to let this change (ie. river Thames) happen and then we can see.

I would normally agree except that I think the issues around Sea Lion make it worthwhile having the extra detail in this case. Once the brits lose control of southern Thames, they should lose port access (ie Chatham) and the Germans gain it (and therefore supply). For the rest of the map, gaining port/supply access is nowhere near as critical as it is in southern britain (although more ports were added though in France from Vanilla to assist the allies with supply following the invasion of France).

The only other place that I could think of that could justify a mult-hex city is Moscow but I dont think there are any critical reasons to make it two hexes - the forest terrain around it makes it quite defendable anyway.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

What about removing the port in London and adding the city of Dover (without PP's) with a port to the NE?

[gerones]

Its interesting to note how much of Paris is actually north of the Seine River - are we going to move that too? I'm a bit concerned that moving the river will alter play balance and the reality was that roughly a third of London was south of the river anyway, so if it fell, London would have ceased being used as an administrative city anyway.....

I think CEAW GS map is also accurate regarding Paris if we also keep in mind Marne river (not represented in the game). Marne river is a Seine river tributary that ends right in Paris. So if we consider both Marne and Seine rivers we would realize that a considerable part of the city of Paris is on the south bank of both rivers.

On the other hand, regarding to Thames river, I think that the change is good for the game will gain a little bit more accuracy and realism. Let´s think that Thames river would have been a formidable obstacle for the germans since the river is tidal at London. So if the british would have destroyed all Thames river bridges, the germans would have needed to bring more Rhine river barges to cross it.

[schwerpunkt]

What about removing the port in London and adding the city of Dover (without PP's) with a port to the NE?

My concern is that putting London north of the Thames makes it significantly harder for the Germans to get a supply source - they would be forced to land near Norwich or Southampton otherwise, because the historically important Kentish ports dont play a part in GS2.0

The only issue with adding Dover is how difficult it would be to capture - I'm not quite sure what location you are thinking of - the South east most hex?

[gerones]

Stauffenberg wrote:
What about removing the port in London and adding the city of Dover (without PP's) with a port to the NE?

Chatham port should not be removed from the game: even though there weren´t many Royal Navy ships stationed there, it was an important dockyard at that date (today is closed).

On the other hand, Sea lion original german plans were to invade Dover coast and not the coast North east of London. If invading Kent County was a rather difficult mission for the germans, what to say about invading the coast north of London even any further from french coast embarking ports?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

What about removing the port in London and adding the city of Dover (without PP's) with a port to the NE?

My concern is that putting London north of the Thames makes it significantly harder for the Germans to get a supply source - they would be forced to land near Norwich or Southampton otherwise, because the historically important Kentish ports dont play a part in GS2.0

The only issue with adding Dover is how difficult it would be to capture - I'm not quite sure what location you are thinking of - the South east most hex?

Yes. The port can either show straight north or northeast. Taking Dover directly will be hard because you can't force a retreat on a unit there. But you can land west of it and grab the port.

If we do that then we need to remove the London port.

The most accurate option would be to keep the London port by making the hex SE of London a sea hex and NE of London a land hex.
This way Chatham can be placed in the right hex.

I think the Germans who want to get a supply source should go for Southampton or Norwich. Dover is maybe too small to put on the map.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I made the following changes to improve accuracy:

1. Chatham moved so it's SE of London

2. Named the port in Edinburgh to the name Rosyth. This was the name of the naval base there

3. The city called Cardiff is actually 1xNW of the current city location. So I renamed the city name to Bristol (which is the correct one)

4. Moved the port in Bristol to NW instead of SW and called the port Cardiff.

5. Changed the Royal Navy OOB using this source:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/017_britain ... _navy.html

The following units were located in Scapa Flow (Home Fleet):
2nd Battle Sqn (BB)
Battlecruser Sqn (BB)
1st Carrier Sqn (CV)
The 2nd Sub Flotilla (Sub) was located in Dundee (just north of Edinburgh)

Western Approaches
The 11th Destroyer Flotilla (DD) was located in Plymouth
Actually the 12th and 17th Destroyer Flotillas were located here too so Plymouth. DD Flotillas were located in several parts of UK, but this was the biggest one

Channel Force
3rd Battle Sqn (BB) was located in Portland which is close to Portsmouth

Therefore the new look of Britain will be like this: