How wide should Fulda River be in map editor?

[Scrapper_511]

How wide should the Fulda River be using the editor? In the map view in Google Earth the river looks like it's as wide as a 4-lane highway, but in the satellite view it's difficult to compare because of heavy foliage. Right now I have recreated it in the editor at "2 water pixels wide" (for lack of better term) with the thinner sections as 6m Streams.

2 pixels seems just enough for bridging but I don't know if the Fulda river should be made impassable except for pontoons and of course, traditional road bridges.

Feedback please!

Edit: Does the Fulda River even have tactical significance (in terms of initial WP invasion into W.Germany in the 80s)? From what I'm finding out, the Soviets would just be punching through Fulda.

[Ssnake]

You could give the embankments a swamp lining with low traction and high drag where you want to prevent eventual crossings. 2 pixels = up to 25 meters, so it's actually not quite clear that bridging can be done easily (Biber: 22m, MT-55: 18m).

The German Wikipedia page contains a few more photos that will at least give you a general impression. In fact, some parts may actually justify three pixels width, in others rather steep embankments are to be expected.

[Scrapper_511]

Thanks for the link Ssnake. From what I see in some of those pictures the Fulda River does get very wide. I will scrutinize some more where I may need to make it wider, otherwise I think what I have so far is a good representation, and functional to the point it presents somewhat of a natural barrier. I have to be very practical with this large map, as opposed to being very accurate to real life, otherwise I may never get it done before a future version of SB makes it irrelevant/incompatible.

Also, I'm avoiding tampering with the themes so that a .ter file (which is already compatible with stock height map) is the only thing needed to get my map up and running, with minimal fuss.