WitP 2 Map scale

[Jim D Burns]

I guess now is the time to be discussing major changes we as a community would like to see in WitP 2. One of the guiding principles of a game design is its scale, so discussing the map now is probably of extreme importance.

I realize the Pacific Theatre is a massive area, but in my opinion 60 miles per hex simply doesn’t work for many different reasons. Even the 30 miles per hex in UV was probably too large of an area to represent given that the upper limit of combat forces is basically a division.

In a perfect world I think 10 miles per hex would be the best scale since that’s about the maximum frontage a division was ever required to hold in WWII. Of course strict stacking limits would be needed at this scale, but I think the game as a whole would be a lot better with this smaller scale, especially land combat.

I know there are probably many issues with PC power demands and file size when contemplating a map that would be about 1000 x 1000 (very rough estimate) hexes. But I think if we address them now, it can become a reality.

Personally I would be glad to volunteer my time to work on creating a map of this scale, which I think a team of people (4-8 people perhaps) should create together to help catch all the detail such a map would require. It would probably take 6 months or a year to get it right, but man what a map it would be when finished eh?

Jim

[Akos Gergely]

I see Your point but I think it's too large, most pcs today are running on 256-512MBs of memory with 128-256 for most VGA cards, so it's really beginnig to eat into that seriously. I would say a 30 mile hex as in UV is just fine. I would rather accept a non too large but graphically much imporved map over one with the current detail but 6 times the size...

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I guess now is the time to be discussing major changes we as a community would like to see in WitP 2. One of the guiding principles of a game design is its scale, so discussing the map now is probably of extreme importance.

I realize the Pacific Theatre is a massive area, but in my opinion 60 miles per hex simply doesn’t work for many different reasons. Even the 30 miles per hex in UV was probably too large of an area to represent given that the upper limit of combat forces is basically a division.

In a perfect world I think 10 miles per hex would be the best scale since that’s about the maximum frontage a division was ever required to hold in WWII. Of course strict stacking limits would be needed at this scale, but I think the game as a whole would be a lot better with this smaller scale, especially land combat.

I know there are probably many issues with PC power demands and file size when contemplating a map that would be about 1000 x 1000 (very rough estimate) hexes. But I think if we address them now, it can become a reality.

Personally I would be glad to volunteer my time to work on creating a map of this scale, which I think a team of people (4-8 people perhaps) should create together to help catch all the detail such a map would require. It would probably take 6 months or a year to get it right, but man what a map it would be when finished eh?

Jim

You got my enthusiastic vote for smaller hexes Jum![8D]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

I see Your point but I think it's too large, most pcs today are running on 256-512MBs of memory with 128-256 for most VGA cards, so it's really beginnig to eat into that seriously. I would say a 30 mile hex as in UV is just fine. I would rather accept a non too large but graphically much imporved map over one with the current detail but 6 times the size...

I'm not sure if it's possible, but if a high res and low res version of the map could be done, then lower end systems could still use the larger map. The point is even 30 miles per hex will create problems simply due to its scale. 10 miles per hex would solve a lot of issues and would make enforcing stacking limits more palatable to many players.

It’s easy to say no more than 2-3 divisions per hex in a 10 mile hex, but try that with a 30 mile hex and you’ll meet strong resistance from players. You can stuff hundreds of thousands of troops into a 30 mile hex, so stacking limits wouldn’t make a lot of sense. So you’d again see things like 200,000 men on Midway which realistically couldn’t hold more than a few thousand men total.

Also 10 miles per hex would remove a lot of coastal airfields from the current map and place them inland out of reach from naval bombardments as they should be. With 30 mile hexes, most airfields would be in costal hexes still thus magnifying the effect of naval bombardments still.

Jim

[Mike Scholl]

Interesting notion..., but I would guess it will come under the heading of "too much of a good thing". It would certainly make it hard for a sub to ever find much to even try to attack...

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Interesting notion..., but I would guess it will come under the heading of "too much of a good thing". It would certainly make it hard for a sub to ever find much to even try to attack...

Not if they allowed subs to patrol a zone instead of a single hex during a turns resolution phase. The zone could be defined by the player even, so players would plot say 7 hexes (center hex and all surrounding hexes) and the sub would randomly patrol within that zone as the turn is executed.

This is a reason deciding on a scale now is so important. Don’t design a new WitP based on current models, decide its scale and design models to fit the new scale.

Jim

[Mynok]

Why not a multi-level map? Have the current 60-mile hex level, then zoom into a 10 mile hex level.

[BB57]

Would it work to leave the 60 mile hexes intact and have a super tactical map similar to the board game Pacific War to get more detail where needed?

[Sneer]

and reward to first player making succesful open ocean interception for lone merchant ...

[Ursa MAior]

That's why wolfpacks were invented (among others).

[1275psi]

I would like to see a smaller map -but if not possible a zoom in function for land combat and AIR to ground attacks (ie select the ground unit you want bombed)

[KDonovan]

10 mile hex??....eeek, sounds like WITP in a Panzer General format. I think a 30mile hex is more realistic

[rockmedic109]

Ideal would be for Air and Naval assets to be unhindered by "hexes" and go with long/lat position or such like Harpoon while ground forces really need the structure of a hex grid. I imagine the programing difficulties and platform requirements would preclude this.

[MorbiusStorm]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Ideal would be for Air and Naval assets to be unhindered by "hexes" and go with long/lat position or such like Harpoon while ground forces really need the structure of a hex grid. I imagine the programing difficulties and platform requirements would preclude this.

How about no grid at all. Ships will now go in a straight line towards their destination. My first thought was that we needed these grids because its turn based. But that isn't remotely true at all. The only value of the grid is to have zones of control. Whoever is in that grid, owns it.

But without them, we just need to implement a ranging system. LCU, ships, air units, etc, just have to use their various radars. We need a detection system. Then two LCU's might be in bombardment range, but not necesarily direct fighting range.

Much better for version two. Ships will actually benefit from different radar/sonar systems. And of course we should be able to build (or upgrade) fixed land based detection systems. Some units might just have to rely on sight as their detection system. This just opens up so many possibilities that would be so much better.

Turns work the same way. Select a unit, or groups destination. End the turn and your units move toward that destination point (not grid) based on their speed.

[el cid again]

The correct map scale is 30 NAUTICAL miles per hex - somewhat more than half the 60 STATUTE miles per hex we now use - but close to doubling the scale.

Remember, this is a naval-air simulation first of all. For technical reasons, the visual and radar horizon define the ideal hex size - they define typical detection perameters. Also, this scale is a signficant improvement for geographic representation and land combat.

The same consideration applies to preserving the same hex combat system - even for land - in spite of the fact this is not very common. It makes range measurement more meaningful and it well simulates naval-air combat. There IS a way to make land combat more realistic while still using same hex combat: tie where a unit can move to its line of supply (or adjacent friendly units in the absense of a true line of supply - sort of a secondary line of supply). That way a defensive line cannot just be passed through! It is possible to code this well fairly easily. I believe that fixing the same hex land combat issue and almost doubling the scale will significantly improve that part of the game. At the same time, I see no need to attempt to go to a 10 mile per hex scale. It would make display of (and moving around) the whole map very difficult mechanically.
And it is not the best scale for simulating naval/air operations.

Map scale is the MOST IMPORTANT design decision in any simulation. Much follows that choice. And FYI WITP I would have had a 30 mile per hex map in the first place except for technical considerations no longer germane. I discussed this directly with David Heath when the scale was being defined - and he explained the reason it could not (then) be adopted (memory issues in PCs of that era).

As for forces in a hex, I think there is no practical stacking limit right now, except on an atol, where it is one division. I have no big problem with that - 30 nautical mile hexes represent about 625 square nautical miles - an area vast enough to hold an army. Players lack the resources to put millions of men in very many hexes - and feed them! The ways to restrict silly stacking are:

a) The land combat routine will not use more than about three divisions (normally - or one on an atol) regardless of how many are present.

b) If more than a reasonable number of troops are present (and it can vary with road/trail types in the hex), all roads/railroads/trails are ignored - they are over what transportation engineers call the saturation point and everything bogs down - NOTHING moves at normal speed over those lines.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
The correct map scale is 30 NAUTICAL miles per hex - somewhat more than half the 60 STATUTE miles per hex we now use - but close to doubling the scale.

Remember, this is a naval-air simulation first of all. For technical reasons, the visual and radar horizon define the ideal hex size - they define typical detection perameters. Also, this scale is a signficant improvement for geographic representation and land combat.

This is silly, it’s a simple thing to give naval units a sighting range of 1 hex and you then have your 30 mile visual horizon. Limiting the entire game to 30 mile hexes for this one reason is like dropping a basket full of eggs to catch the one that fell out.

1760 yards per mile means a 10 mile hex is 17600 yards across. I don’t think any Pacific battles were fought at ranges greater than this, but if we change surface naval engagements from same hex to adjacent hexes (same with land combat) it wouldn’t matter. The combined possible range for adjacent hex engagements would be 35200 yards.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
The same consideration applies to preserving the same hex combat system - even for land - in spite of the fact this is not very common. It makes range measurement more meaningful and it well simulates naval-air combat. There IS a way to make land combat more realistic while still using same hex combat: tie where a unit can move to its line of supply (or adjacent friendly units in the absense of a true line of supply - sort of a secondary line of supply). That way a defensive line cannot just be passed through! It is possible to code this well fairly easily. I believe that fixing the same hex land combat issue and almost doubling the scale will significantly improve that part of the game. At the same time, I see no need to attempt to go to a 10 mile per hex scale. It would make display of (and moving around) the whole map very difficult mechanically.
And it is not the best scale for simulating naval/air operations.

Why on earth would you want to preserve the same hex combat system? The problems with rivers alone should be enough to throw that system out. With 10 mile hexes there is no need to force a same hex system on players yet again.

Remember we are talking about a new game here, not an expansion of the first. Let’s try and get it right this time. Just reading your above quote on how to “fix” same hex combat made me go cross eyed. The same hex land combat model has far to many problems to merit rescuing.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Map scale is the MOST IMPORTANT design decision in any simulation. Much follows that choice. And FYI WITP I would have had a 30 mile per hex map in the first place except for technical considerations no longer germane. I discussed this directly with David Heath when the scale was being defined - and he explained the reason it could not (then) be adopted (memory issues in PCs of that era).

I have news for you, PC’s haven’t changed that much, so memory issues will be pulled out of the hat yet again I bet.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
As for forces in a hex, I think there is no practical stacking limit right now, except on an atol, where it is one division. I have no big problem with that - 30 nautical mile hexes represent about 625 square nautical miles - an area vast enough to hold an army. Players lack the resources to put millions of men in very many hexes - and feed them! The ways to restrict silly stacking are:

LOL one division on an atoll? No way, most atolls could barely hold a regiment or battalion, let alone a division. Lets at least try to get it right if were going to impose limits.

Also there were no problems at all with feeding large numbers of troops during WWII based on the land area they occupied. Your head is stuck in the early gunpowder age here where things like foraging mattered. By WWII foraging was no longer necessary as armies had become far more proficient in getting mass amounts of food to the troops.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
a) The land combat routine will not use more than about three divisions (normally - or one on an atol) regardless of how many are present.

This can’t be based on history, as it was easy to get a lot more than three divisions into a 30 mile front in WWII. So I’m concluding here you are proposing non-historical limits, the question is why? History should be your guide in all things when trying to create an historical game.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
b) If more than a reasonable number of troops are present (and it can vary with road/trail types in the hex), all roads/railroads/trails are ignored - they are over what transportation engineers call the saturation point and everything bogs down - NOTHING moves at normal speed over those lines.

Sounds good, but roads and rail lines were actually used in these situations, it is called traffic control. So instead of creating a system that overloads a transportation network, create one instead that simply has limits. No more than x number of units can use road/rail movement in a single hex each turn.

Jim

[33Vyper]

10 mile hexes....hmmmmmm

me like !!!!!

know ..... anyone know where I can get 2GB RAM and a 1GB video card on the cheap?

to be honest WITP2 is going to be at least a few years off....by then the standards specs are probably going to change on most PCs.....we will all be thinking how did we live with just 512mb of RAM.

Hell I remember wondering should I upgrade from 1Mb to 2 Mb of RAM......not to mention my old OAK 256K video card.

Design for the future I say ..... people will catch up....and us looney toons that would spend 100$ on a game will find the cash to play it

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

...........................

Design for the future I say ..... people will catch up....and us looney toons that would spend 100$ on a game will find the cash to play it

Trouble is after spending the $100 for the game you got none left for the hardware - or the other way 'round.

I think 30 or 40 mile hexes would do nicely.

The problem with lat/long map is representing it visually so the player can judge distances visually.

[Andy Mac]

I suspect I am in a minority of 1 but I like 60 mile hexes for air and naval.

Without a decent naval intercept code any smaller would just magnify this problem.

I have found atoll and invasion combat to be fine in WITP all the problems are in Java, PI, Malaya and even there I dont have huge problems

The real LC issues are in India, Russia and China well two of those are easier to fix just remove China and Russia voila LCU mechanics no longer a total show stopper.

If they were going to change the map I think I would prefer a Med map or a Norway scenario or god forbid a no ground unit variant based on the battle of the atlantic where victory was determined by the quantity of supplies the allies get through or the amount of ships the Germans sink. (like the terror victory conditions in BTR)

I think this engine would be great for some of these

Andy

[moses]

With 10 mile hexes a TF can move 60!!!! hexes in one turn. Even with 30 mile hexes you get 24 hex movement. I'll bet programming the AI for a game with such fluid movement will be a real joy??? I don't know if a human can even keep track of things when you have to woory about carrier TF's moving three full display screens in one turn.

Do you remember the first time you loaded up WITP. Took me 8 hours just to get oriented. First ever Jap turn must have taking 24 hours from the time I first downloaded. And I'm a long time experienced wargamer. Doubling the map size might be a bit much. 10 mile hexes just seem insane to me.