map in indochina

[el cid again]

I pointed out in some of my other responses that footpaths are in the area ...a far different thing than a trail as represented in the game. You design your game...I choose not to play it.

Then please do not participate in discussion about how to do it.
This open posting is for those who do want to play so they can give feedback and ideas about how to get it the way we all want it to be.
You have the option of using stock maps or older CHS maps - Andrew also has indicated he is adding this line to the new one. Sorry you believe a "trail" is not a "trail." I have seen the Kokota trail - it is a trail exactly in the Chinese sense. Not sure what you think either is - but to quote Andrew "there should be trails in almost every hex of South China."

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I pointed out in some of my other responses that footpaths are in the area ...a far different thing than a trail as represented in the game. You design your game...I choose not to play it.

Then please do not participate in discussion about how to do it.
This open posting is for those who do want to play so they can give feedback and ideas about how to get it the way we all want it to be.
You have the option of using stock maps or older CHS maps - Andrew also has indicated he is adding this line to the new one. Sorry you believe a "trail" is not a "trail." I have seen the Kokota trail - it is a trail exactly in the Chinese sense. Not sure what you think either is - but to quote Andrew "there should be trails in almost every hex of South China."

Perhaps I should have put it ...you design your scenario...I'll choose not to play it.

As I pointed out in the main forum I choose to think of "trails" in the game as representing the secondary roads IRL. The reason for this is the integration of the trails, roads, and rails into the logistics network. Every hex should have "trails" in the game if they are to represent "trails" IRL. As you have found the designers got a number of things wrong in this design...trails being one of them.

In summation concerning the Hanoi-Kunming RR I have provided numerous sources indicating that the 60 or so miles inside China were destroyed by the Chinese and that the terrain in this region of the world is quite rugged and treacherous. If you choose to believe that the Chinese were incapable of demolishing the road bed, bridges, and tunnels to such a degree as to render this region virtually impassable that is your perogative....or Andrew's for that matter. IMO and apparently some other people around here it would be inappropriate from a historical perspective to include the line in the one hex inside China given the current code.

[el cid again]

As I pointed out in the main forum I choose to think of "trails" in the game as representing the secondary roads IRL. The reason for this is the integration of the trails, roads, and rails into the logistics network. Every hex should have "trails" in the game if they are to represent "trails" IRL. As you have found the designers got a number of things wrong in this design...trails being one of them.

I agree with you. Except maybe that the issue is more of terminology. A 'trail' may really be a 'secondary road'. I think a railroad which is damaged is well represented by a secondary road - and apparently that is the point at which we disagree. I don't think any version of a rail line - and I walk ancient ones regularly (because mine and logging rail is the main line of communications where I go) and - trust me on this - it is a whole different thing than any sort of trail.

[el cid again]

IMO and apparently some other people around here it would be inappropriate from a historical perspective to include the line in the one hex inside China given the current code.

Voltaire comes to mind. You are free to believe what you wish (he would say "say" what you wish). I am an engineer. I know this line. And I live in a place where most places - if they ever had a land line of communications - it was rail - now long gone. Sorry I lack the vocabulary to express clearly that pushing a rail line through any area makes it forever passable - at least to light vehicles and walking. But it does - wether or not you believe it is not a factor.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
You have the option of using stock maps or older CHS maps - Andrew also has indicated he is adding this line to the new one.

There is no change to this part of the map in my upcoming version 6 map. The graphics files were already generated when this discussion was underway, and I am not going to go back and redo them now (I could, but it takes a long time to create the finished map panels and I have other things to do).

There are a number of aspects to the decision on how this (and other) parts of the map should be represented and, speaking for myself, I have yet to make a final decision on how I think it is best represented. My views have changed a few times already, and will probably change again.

Andrew

[el cid again]

There are a number of aspects to the decision on how this (and other) parts of the map should be represented and, speaking for myself, I have yet to make a final decision on how I think it is best represented. My views have changed a few times already, and will probably change again.

In several points, mine have too. And I expect more changes after the map gets used for a while. Problems of system and scale require compromises - and it isn't always clear what compromises work best. In a way it may be good that players can choose different map interpretations at some points. And note that at no point have we elected to change actual locations - Andrews locations are on the average almost 10 times better than stock - I have a statistical analysis published in some thread on this.

[Mike Scholl]

Probably the sanest thing to do is to ignore the "names" given to communications routes and simply view them as a means of representing the varying degrees of difficulty the terrain exerts on military movement. Getting bogged down in "names" rather than "effects" is a waste of retoric. The question that matters is "What effects does the terrain have on the ability of a Division of troops to move from one place to another?" I chose Division simply as a "benchmark". Obviously a Company can move up a trail that would totally break down under the advance of an Army..., so we need some basis for computation. Divisions seem a reasonable choice.

The basic terrain in a hex is the first consideration..., but such terrain is rarely homogeneous. Perfect example is in Burma, where movement north and south along the flow of the rivers and streams is much easier than east and west across the jungled ridges between the waterways. So whether or not they actually existed, an accurate depection of such terrain could be a rough/jungle hex with trails or roads on a north/south axis. Regardless of actual geography, that would provide a militarily accurate representation of the area. We're talking about a WAR game..., so that's the representation that matters.

[el cid again]

Probably the sanest thing to do is to ignore the "names" given to communications routes and simply view them as a means of representing the varying degrees of difficulty the terrain exerts on military movement. Getting bogged down in "names" rather than "effects" is a waste of retoric.

Very fine suggestion. At work today I decided to second someone's recommendation that a "trail" be called "a secondary road." I think it might be best to think of these things as "primary highways/main line railroads" - "secondary highways/railroads" - "tirtiary roads ( maybe even lumped together with very light railroads ).

[el cid again]

So whether or not they actually existed, an accurate depection of such terrain could be a rough/jungle hex with trails or roads on a north/south axis.

Or maybe that combined with some channeling blocked hex sides? You might also use water hex sides - troops cannot cross them - but they are not very obvious - particularly in a river bed. Are any rivers uncrossable at certain points? Yangze is. This is good brainstorming.

[el cid again]

Perhaps I should have put it ...you design your scenario...I'll choose not to play it.

Technically we should point out this is a discussion of my map - not my scenario. The map will work with ANY scenario that can work with an extended map of the Andrew Brown design. It is for those who WANT things like the rail line up the Red River Valley - as the originator of this thread did - and who are offended by the ALCAN as a road in 1941 (it isn't even a trail in 1941 and it is a pioneer road first) - or some way to move between islands - or to the shipyard at Wuhan - or mountains in China, Manchuria and Siberia. And if you don't want any of those things - by all means use a different map. But it isn't my mod we are talking about - it is the map. And note this map is really not "mine" except insofar as I wanted those changes: It could not exist without Andrew's map, and it would not be beautiful if it had my art instead of Cobras.