Modifications to MWiF China Map portion

[Froonp]

Kalgan (hex NW of Peking) (proposal) (0 YES, 1 voters) (NO : Froonp) NO, but I think rail coming from NW mountains should connect through that hex

You're right about the rail, I modified it.

[Froonp]

New City: Jianling(Sashi) 3 hexes SW of Nanyang, where Yangtze is printed on map (reason: This looks like a reasonable-sized city, and currently there is no good supply source in the area between the Yangtze and HangKiang, which is an important bit of front real estate, and also the area between/along those rivers seem to have good infrastructure ans heavy population, but there are no cities)
Ichang (3 hexes W of Wuhan) (proposal) (0 voters) NO (Yianling seems the bigger, and I don't think both are waranted) YES if no Yianling

Well, on the WWII maps, Ichang is often present, and Jianling (Sashi) (or Yianling ?) is not.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Yohan

I have one comment for those who discuss CWiF as part of the analysis on MWiF for China. It is flawed. The game was flawed and there is no where enough statistical data to make a valid analysis.

I don't understand why you say that.
The unmodified MWiF map is exactly the same now as the CWiF map was. So all games that has occured in the China Theater in CWiF is exactly the same as game in the China Theater in MWiF if the map is untouched. So, play experience from CWiF in China is usefull to understand where the map is flawed. The map vision only is not enought, the play experience is usefull too because of the weather effects.

Patrice, I think it is time to draw a line in the sand and call the map with hte current votes. Let the play testers have at it.

I think I will do it soon.
I wanted to let it live on the thread for a month or so, so that nothing hasty was made. We're soon at th month, I posted this initialy on 24 May. But if everyone is happy with things as they are and if no more modifications are done, I'll draw the line in the sand.

Moreover, Steve isn't finished with entering the Scandinavia map modifications data in the CSV files, so I bet he hasn't time to enter the data for the China map in the CSV files for the moment.

As I already wrote Yohan, you didn't really vote for each city (except saying NO for 3 of them) aren't you interested in rating the others ?

Note : With Incy latest ratings, Hengyang appears on the map 2, 2 hexes SW of Changsha on the railine, with 8 votes & 4 YES (Froonp, Wosung, Incy & Borger), and 4 NO (ullern, lomyrin, Trees & Shannon).

[Froonp]

As I modified the rail around Peking, I thought I'd post how it looks.
I'm calling it map 5b.

[Froonp]

Here is the north part.

[Froonp]

And the South part.

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

As I already wrote Yohan, you didn't really vote for each city (except saying NO for 3 of them) aren't you interested in rating the others ?

I was yes except for the no votes <g>

I like the minor port additions as well. Overall I think the map changes are great but it will be the playtesting and frankly the first hundred games or so that will really test the excellent work you have done.

As stated I think there are issues that need troops to address that are caused more by the changes in map scale. BUT, until it has been play tested and gamed who knows.

Look at SC2 as a good example. The playtesters did a fine job but there were serious play balance issues that resulted in some signifigant changes once the game hit the street. I think that Steve has shown a fantastic willingness to listen and if changes are needed once it hits the street I am sure they will be made.

Thanks again for taking this task in hand, I hope it did not affect your day job too much!

Rob

[Froonp]

As I already wrote Yohan, you didn't really vote for each city (except saying NO for 3 of them) aren't you interested in rating the others ?

I was yes except for the no votes <g>

You mean, YES to all other cities & ports that are on the map, that's it ?
Not YES to all cities & ports proposed that are not on the map ?

[Incy]

Then I vote yes for Ichang.

btw, I'd also really like to see more bad terrain between the Hankiang and the yangtze, especially in the northern part (north of the Wuhan-Ichang hexrow). Google has a few areas with really good resolution in this area, and it's visible that the terrain is 90% forested hills (Unlike most other hilled areas in eastern china, witch show mostly farmed terraces in hilly terrain with high resolution).

Incy

ORIGINAL: Froonp

New City: Jianling(Sashi) 3 hexes SW of Nanyang, where Yangtze is printed on map (reason: This looks like a reasonable-sized city, and currently there is no good supply source in the area between the Yangtze and HangKiang, which is an important bit of front real estate, and also the area between/along those rivers seem to have good infrastructure ans heavy population, but there are no cities)
Ichang (3 hexes W of Wuhan) (proposal) (0 voters) NO (Yianling seems the bigger, and I don't think both are waranted) YES if no Yianling

Well, on the WWII maps, Ichang is often present, and Jianling (Sashi) (or Yianling ?) is not.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Incy
btw, I'd also really like to see more bad terrain between the Hankiang and the yangtze, especially in the northern part (north of the Wuhan-Ichang hexrow). Google has a few areas with really good resolution in this area, and it's visible that the terrain is 90% forested hills (Unlike most other hilled areas in eastern china, witch show mostly farmed terraces in hilly terrain with high resolution).

In a previous post, you also wrote :

The area between Han Kiang and Yangzee seems to have way to good terrain. My suggestion: Hex NW+W of Wuhan (east of Han Kiang): clear->Mountain , Hex west of that: clear->forest , Hex west of that: clear->mountain , Hex west of that: forest->mountain , Hex NE of that: clear->mountain , Hex NW of that: clear->forest (linking up to forest north of river)

At the time I answered :

I agree that it seems there is too much good terrain, but I think that the mountains here are not elevated enough or broken enough to warrant all that. Also, those modifications would widden the mountain between Wuhan & Chungking too much. What do you think for this place others ? Wosung ? Nils ?

I'm reluctant to add more moutains (as I said above) but I agree that the terrain should be more broken, so could you be specific as to where you would add forests ?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Incy
btw, I'd also really like to see more bad terrain between the Hankiang and the yangtze, especially in the northern part (north of the Wuhan-Ichang hexrow). Google has a few areas with really good resolution in this area, and it's visible that the terrain is 90% forested hills (Unlike most other hilled areas in eastern china, witch show mostly farmed terraces in hilly terrain with high resolution).

I'm reluctant to add more moutains (as I said above) but I agree that the terrain should be more broken, so could you be specific as to where you would add forests ?

Incy, I'm thinking about adding 3 forest hexes. 2 where Hankiang is written and a 3rd NW of the Western one. All 3 are on the Western / Southern Hankiang bank.

Would you agree with this placement ?

Also, I'm realizing (I seem to remember that someone raised that issue, but am not sure) that Nanyang may be placed at the wrong place. Measuring and looking at Google Earth, I think that it should be in the hex NW from where I placed it (still on the rail).
I would remove the Mountain from this hex too.

What do you think of that ?

[Incy]

Incy, I'm thinking about adding 3 forest hexes. 2 where Hankiang is written and a 3rd NW of the Western one. All 3 are on the Western / Southern Hankiang bank.

Would you agree with this placement ?

Yes. More or less exctly what I was hoping for.

Also, I'm realizing (I seem to remember that someone raised that issue, but am not sure) that Nanyang may be placed at the wrong place. Measuring and looking at Google Earth, I think that it should be in the hex NW from where I placed it (still on the rail).
I would remove the Mountain from this hex too.

What do you think of that ?

Defiantely better, yes. There's still something wrong with the proportions in this area, according to google the distances
Nanyang<->Sian and Nanyang<->Wuhsan should be just about equal. Maybe Nanyang should be placed yet another hex further west (so NW+W fgrom wheree it is now)? This would also place it more correct with respect to Chengchow.

Problem with moving it there is that it moves across the starting line into chinese-held territory. Did Japan hold Nanyang sept 1 '39 ??
Mountains would also have to be rearranged, of course (mountain-> clear in hexes SW and E of new location, clear-> mountain in current nanyang location ?) Also, the railraoad seems wrong here. The rail runs SW from Nanyang to Xianfang (by the Hiankiang), but then departs from the river further south and enters Wuhan almost from the north. So maybe change the rail to:
ChengChow->SW->SW(Nanyang)->SE->SE->SE->E->SE(Wuhan)
or maybe:
ChengChow->SE->SW->W(Nanyang)->SE->SE->SE->E->SE(Wuhan)

It's important to get this area right, as it's right on the frontline, and I think it will be common for the nationalists to try to hold the Hankiang

Incy

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Incy

Incy, I'm thinking about adding 3 forest hexes. 2 where Hankiang is written and a 3rd NW of the Western one. All 3 are on the Western / Southern Hankiang bank.

Would you agree with this placement ?

Yes. More or less exctly what I was hoping for.

Also, I'm realizing (I seem to remember that someone raised that issue, but am not sure) that Nanyang may be placed at the wrong place. Measuring and looking at Google Earth, I think that it should be in the hex NW from where I placed it (still on the rail).
I would remove the Mountain from this hex too.

What do you think of that ?

Defiantely better, yes. There's still something wrong with the proportions in this area, according to google the distances
Nanyang<->Sian and Nanyang<->Wuhsan should be just about equal. Maybe Nanyang should be placed yet another hex further west (so NW+W fgrom wheree it is now)? This would also place it more correct with respect to Chengchow.

Problem with moving it there is that it moves across the starting line into chinese-held territory. Did Japan hold Nanyang sept 1 '39 ??
Mountains would also have to be rearranged, of course (mountain-> clear in hexes SW and E of new location, clear-> mountain in current nanyang location ?) Also, the railraoad seems wrong here. The rail runs SW from Nanyang to Xianfang (by the Hiankiang), but then departs from the river further south and enters Wuhan almost from the north. So maybe change the rail to:
ChengChow->SW->SW(Nanyang)->SE->SE->SE->E->SE(Wuhan)
or maybe:
ChengChow->SE->SW->W(Nanyang)->SE->SE->SE->E->SE(Wuhan)

It's important to get this area right, as it's right on the frontline, and I think it will be common for the nationalists to try to hold the Hankiang

Incy

About Nanyang, one of the 'real' maps of China that Patrice sent me showed two Nanyangs (I think, the text was hard to read). One of them is where Patrice has it placed, and the other has where you are asking for it to be moved to. I know nothing beyond what I said in the two previous sentences. But if there are two Nanyangs, that could explain a lot.

[trees trees]

In some ways letting the players design the game can be like letting the inmates running the asylum? [;)]

As I mentioned once, gamers don't like any logistical limits on their pieces. The other side, yes. If you surround my units, ok they're out of supply, but otherwise, I am master of my domain behind my lines and I assign 20,000 men to haul artillery shells over that mountain range without roads and across that unbridged river to launch my attack on you. It is the Chinese 'Home Country' but at the time that was not an organized country akin to the other countries on the map. But then the Chinese army wasn't the same either, so maybe this is an unmoveable object/irresistable force thing.?

So I hope one way the game is also tested is with none or a very, very few cities added. And without the divisions. Japan can afford to make them far more than the Chinese can at start. If the Chinese attempt to do it the Japanese will continue flanking and gleefully assault the weakened Chinese lines. Without the extra cities and without the Japanese ooze divisions I think I could hold China fine on this map by not playing aggressively and keeping HQs safe to cover the loss of an important city. Perhaps it really is impossible, I'm looking forward to the results. With all the extra cities I don't think Japan can hold on to any gains later in the game, and I think they already will with up to three Chinese cavalry divisions (rather than one) sneaking up on them while they have to prioritize manuevering the IJN instead. But maybe that is what the partisans should be doing, except for that freaky year where they just don't appear because of the dice.

I don't want to see MWiF get the China theater to the point where Japan feels it must attack China hard to have any chance to hold on to some economic base on the mainland later in the game. This is already the case amongst most players, I don't want to see that accentuated. WiF should never force historical outcomes, but when history never happens across scores of games, you have to wonder about the historical modeling.

[CBoehm]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

I don't want to see MWiF get the China theater to the point where Japan feels it must attack China hard to have any chance to hold on to some economic base on the mainland later in the game. This is already the case amongst most players, I don't want to see that accentuated. WiF should never force historical outcomes, but when history never happens across scores of games, you have to wonder about the historical modeling.

I agree completely ...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

ORIGINAL: trees trees

I don't want to see MWiF get the China theater to the point where Japan feels it must attack China hard to have any chance to hold on to some economic base on the mainland later in the game. This is already the case amongst most players, I don't want to see that accentuated. WiF should never force historical outcomes, but when history never happens across scores of games, you have to wonder about the historical modeling.

I agree completely ...

Usually what a WIF player means when he says he doesn't want to "attack China hard", he is talking about doing nothing in China - giving it minimal resources while he persues adventures elsewhere. In other words, he wants to be able to hold his front lines in China with the same set of units is starts with and take almost no casualties over a period of 3 years or so.

While historically that might have happened, it requires an enormous quiescence/acquiescence on the part of the Chinese. Should the game force the Chinese into passivity despite this long interlude in which they can build up their strength? Other parts of WIF impose restrictions on the players (US Entry comes to mind), but generally it is at the level of whether a major power can declare war or not - or an imposed peace. Once the armies are engaged, it is primarily logistical constraints that are modeled, not a country's will to fight.

[Froonp]

Incy hinted in a previous post that Nanyang was not placed to the right place. He is right, looking at the Google Earth view, or at maps whith Nanyang on it leaves no doubt for me now.
This put Nanyang into Chinese territory, but this is right too.
In fact, Nanyang is not on the railway on WWII maps I have, so I was wrong about this too from the start by wanting to place it on the rail.

Also, about the 1939 start lines, at first I only put on the map a faithful transcription of what they are now in MWiF.
Now, I made a new layer where I'm showing where this line should be from the WWII maps I have in 1939.

Here is the China map as it looks now, could you please, Incy, Wosung, or anyother person with good maps of China or good habit with Google Earth, tell ma what you think of the Nanyang and Hankiang-Yangtzee area as it is now ?

I realize that it is another iteration for a process that has already been long, but I think that it should be made now, or it will never be made.

Here is the map :

[Shannon V. OKeets]

For the start line, do you have a month in 1939 associated with it? Best would be having something around the end of the summer, September 1st, 1939.

[Froonp]

This may seem too much, but I did some work on the Chengchow-Wuhan railway that was a little too westwards.
I also slightly modified the 1939 start line.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For the start line, do you have a month in 1939 associated with it? Best would be having something around the end of the summer, September 1st, 1939.

I used this.

Seems that the only gain made during 1939 is the area around Nanchang and a little west of Wuhan, as well as the Treaty ports & Nanning.

Nanning should obviously not be given, but I do not know for Nanchang. For the treaty ports, Wosung seemed to say that they were Japanese controlled at the start of WWII.

I will soon receive the book that Wosung used as a source a lot, so I'll look into it.