Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion

[Froonp]

Hello,

The China map discussion is moreover ended, and Steve allowed me post a new map modification suggestion to this forum.

The next area of concern to me is the Caucausus area, especially the area east of the European Map.
This area in CWiF / MWiF as is, is done wrongly in my opinion.

I'll post some pictures, one showing as it is in WiF FE, one showing as it is in CWiF / MWiF as is, one showing the real place on a map, and a last showing my suggestions for modifications so that the map is more true to WiF FE and to real geography.

Here is the first map, the WiF FE map.

[Froonp]

Here it is, as it is modelled in CWiF / MWiF as is.

For me there is an obvious flaw, this is this lack of mountains east of Tiflis.
Basicaly, in WiF FE, the Germans have to cross mountains to arrive to Tiflis, here they just have forests to cross. It seems wrong to me.

[Froonp]

Here is how it look for real (a 2004 map).
The mountains are here, extending nearly to Baku.

[Froonp]

Here is my proposal for changes, so that the area is both more true to WiF FE, and to real geography.

The railways I traced are black lines.
The Yellow line is the WiF FE maps separation. The western part of it should be strictly identical to the WiF FE maps, as they are already at the European Scale.

I payed extra attention to Tiflis so that it can only be attacked as it could be in WiF FE (from the same hexes), and same for mountain hex 24 (by placing Alpine hexsides).

At first I found that the Baku position was offset to the south too much, but on one hand I could not move it without destroying the neighboring areas (and potentialy all the pacific scaled areas rescaled to european scale), and I realized that the WiF FE at the pacific scaled were very wrong to begin with, so I did not change its position.

I post this for comments, to see if it can be improved, to see if you agree with me that this area must be slightly redrawn, and it must be redrawn as I show here (I call this map 1b).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Patrice,

Overall I do not have any objections to your changes. My real problem is with the WIF FE European map when compared to the 2004 map you presented. If you draw a line on the 2004 map from Sukumi to Baku, Tiflis lies slightly south of the connecting line. Another way to look at it is that Tiflis should be roughly at the same latitude as Batum. Either way, TIflis seems too far north and east on the WIF FE map.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I do not want to change the WIF FE European map whatsoever. I merely mention the above problem because it has repercussions when trying to adjust other hexes east of Tiflis. For example, what on the WIF FE map is one mountain hex on the coast road north of Baku is now 5 mountain hexes.

I do like your changes to the rail line, so that getting the oil out of Tiflis requires either going west to the Black Sea or down to Baku.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Overall I do not have any objections to your changes. My real problem is with the WIF FE European map when compared to the 2004 map you presented. If you draw a line on the 2004 map from Sukumi to Baku, Tiflis lies slightly south of the connecting line. Another way to look at it is that Tiflis should be roughly at the same latitude as Batum. Either way, TIflis seems too far north and east on the WIF FE map.

I agree, and I also saw this, but I firmly believe that the European portion of the map must not be changed.
I think that the Tiflis area was wrongly drawn for the European map, to be able to enter in the surface of the map, because it was important that the Caucasus area was on the map.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I do not want to change the WIF FE European map whatsoever. I merely mention the above problem because it has repercussions when trying to adjust other hexes east of Tiflis. For example, what on the WIF FE map is one mountain hex on the coast road north of Baku is now 5 mountain hexes.

Yes, but to cross that mountain chain, you still only have 1 mountain hex to cross.
I think that all in all, it will be better like I drew it, respective to the WiF FE map, than it is now in the game.

I do like your changes to the rail line, so that getting the oil out of Tiflis requires either going west to the Black Sea or down to Baku.

Like it is on the WiF FE map [:D].

I tried to have the map drawn so that it is equally hard to take Tiflis in MWiF than WiF FE, because my experience of the war in the Caucasus in WiF FE was that Tiflis is the strategic target of the campaign. When Tiflis falls, the mountains are crossed, and Baku is nearly taken.

[lomyrin]

This proposed change in the map east of Tiflis seems fine to me.
 
Lars 

[fuzzy_bunnyy]

Agreed, looks great.
 
However, looking at this on the CWIF scale it seems a little.....unpopulated. Anyone who knows more about the actual number of people living in the Caucasus? Seems to me there should be some more cities on the Caspian and on those rail lines.
 
If this would turn into a huge project of getting more cities across the map and that would take way to much time, feel free to ignore me.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I look at the map in the Caucasus region and what Froomp has noticed is definitely true
and would be nice to fix (more mountain hexes north of Tbilisi).

But I look further at the map and notice the design of NW Iran and NE Iraq is very
wrong. The city Tabriz in Iran is really north of Mosul in Iraq, but on the map it's placed
south of Mosul. Tabriz should be moved further north and Mosul further south.

I don't know why the strange looking region west of Baku is placed inside Iran (the
hexes inside Iran 4 and 5 hexes west of Baku and northwards).  This area is definitely
NOT inside Iran. I believe this area is really Armenia with a big city called Yerevan
located. So it should have been part of the Soviet-Union. At least most of these hexes.
Some hexes could be part of Turkey or Iraq, but definitely not Iran. The northernmost
part of Iran is 1 degree south of Baku on the real map. On the MWIF map there are
3 hexrows placed inside Iran NORTH of Baku.

North-East Iraq is much wider than shown on the CWIF and MWIF map. I think it should
be made wider at the expense of North-West Iran and possible at the expense of Syria.

I have a feeling the reason for this big map inconsistency is the European scaled map
in Caucasus is for some reason decided to put Iran on the map. The rail line into
Iran is shown maybe for lend-lease purposes etc.  If the European map had been more
correctly then Iran should NOT be on this map at all. The part we see of Iran on this map
is actually Armenia.

So I see only one way of solving this inconsistency. And that is to alter the European
part of the map and move Iran further away. That would solve the scaling problems.
But I also know the big reluctance to change the European scaled map for MWIF because
one wants MWIF to be as close to WIFFE as possible. That's the dilemma. If it's
written in stone that the European scaled WIFFE maps can't be changed then it's
hard to solve.

I believe it would be impossible to create a nice looking borders of Iran and Iraq without
changing this map flaw on the European map. Right now North-West Iran looks really
strange with this thin isthmus west and north of Baku that should not be there.

Tbilisi should have been one hex row further south, but it's not so far away from where
it should that we can't live with the current location of Tbilisi on the map.

Baku should be further north. I think 2 hexes north-west of the current location is
pretty right. Then it would have a more proper distance to Tabriz and Mosul. Especially
if Tabriz is moved northwards.  If Baku is moved then the clear hexes near it should
be moved too. Then the hexrows of mountains north of Baku would decrease from
4 to 2.

It's hard to make this very correct because of the constraints from the European
scaled map. But I feel it's possible to make the map in this region a little closer
to the real map.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Borger,

As usual, I like your analysis.

Do you have a graphic/map of the real world that you could post? That would facilitate the discussion on this.

There is often conflict between the USSR and Iran/Iraq in WIF so some attempt should be made to improve the map in this region. I know that Patrice was restricting himself to just the area around Tiflis (and Baku) but he has posted other remarks about the terrain around Teheran previously.

So, without expanding the scope of this discussion too much, we should probably broaden it to include the areas you mentioned.

By the way, my father-in-law was born in Persia but moved to Turkey when he was 4 or so (his father was a Persian diplomat). He didn't get back to visit his native country until he was in his late 60's because the Persian government kept wanting him to complete his obligatory military service.

[Froonp]

About the Persian northwest, here is how it looks in MWiF now.

It is not the whole Persian NW, it is only the place where I intended to ask minor modifications to Steve.

[Froonp]

Here are the modifications I intended to show you.
They are minimal, because I prefer the minimalist approach to map modifications too.

Modifications made to the map :

A. Persia-Iraq border had to be pushed 1 hex eastwards east of hex 12 & 13 (Eastern European Map).
Because
- hex 12, 13 & 14 have to be able to go eastwards into a mountain hex still in Iraq.
- hex 11 have to be able to go eastwards into a clear hex still in Iraq.

Consequences :
- Lake Urmia moved 1 hex NE.
- Forest hex replaced with mountain.
- 1 Alpine hexside deleted.

This corrects partly the problem Borgen found, that the NE portion of Iraq is too slim.
Maybe the border can be pushed further away eastwards 1 more hexrow.


B. Teheran placed in a mountain hex.
Because
- It is in a mountain hex on WiF maps.

C. Shiraz placed in a mountain hex.
Because
- It is in a mountain hex on WiF maps.

D. Basra moved 1 hex eastwards.
Because
- It is near to the Persia-Iraq border on real map.
- It is in a swamp hex on WiF map.

E. River north of Tabriz deleted.

I'm not at all convincted for change B, because Teheran is placed so far away from the Russian border now, that the Russian army cannot reach it during the suprise impulse when attacking Persia, so the effect of the supporting bombers in the attack is not doubled, so the attack is far less powerfull. So having Teheran in a plain may be good to have Teheran be quite easily taken by the Russian.


About the problem Borgen talked about, I think it all have to do with the Caspian Sea being too much to the south, or being too much long in the north south direction. I'll have to look at this, and look if it can be shortened 1-2 hexrows without affecting the whole asia portion of the map. China is not that far away.

[Froonp]

I wrote :

About the problem Borger talked about, I think it all have to do with the Caspian Sea being too much to the south, or being too much long in the north south direction. I'll have to look at this, and look if it can be shortened 1-2 hexrows without affecting the whole asia portion of the map. China is not that far away.

Well, I looked at Google Earth and a couple of World maps, it seems that the Caspian Sea is placed about where it belongs. I was wrong in my first thoughts.

As for Baku, it is placed as the same latitude than the southern part of Albania & Naples, and this is exactly the case on the MWiF map, so I think the MWiF map is not that wrong in this regard. So, Baku should not be moved. If it seems so much south, it is because IMO Tiflis is mistplaced, too much northwards, to be able to appear on the WiF FE map. I would vot to have no changes made to Tiflis position, as it is crucial to the defense and campaign in the Caucasus in WiF FE. Moving it changes the whole area gamewisely.


I agree with Borger for the northward bit of Persia intruding West of Baku, the real maps are not like that, not even the WWII maps.
It really seems that Georgia was given to Persia on the MWiF Map.
I would vote for modifying this, even if that leads to modify this part of Persia that is on the WiF FE maps. I think that Borger is right that the WiF FE maps are wrong here because the designer wanted to have a bit of Persia on the map. Changing the European map in this area has no game effects in my opinion. I'll pay attention to where the railways are, whether in Turkey or Russia. I have a WWII map of the area that shows railway I seem to remember.

I'll make modifications to this area soon to show you how I think this should be.

[Froonp]

Also, having taken measurements on the Google Earth space view of the area, I think that Tabriz must be moved 1 hex NE. It is about 200 km from the Caspian, 400 km from Baku, and 80 km from the Russian border to the north.
1 hex being about 70-90 km.

This will allow for moving the Persian-Iraq border in this area at least 1 hex more eastwards than I already moved it.

[lomyrin]

Teheran is reachable by Russian units in the surprise impulse if the rail move bonus option is used, the weather is fine, and the Russian 4 movers start on the east side of the Caspian at the persian border.
 
Since Russian strength depends to some extent on the Persian oil, making Teheran a mountain hex increases the risk of attacking Persia considerably, a Russian decision dilemma.
 
A subsequent Russian conquer of Iraq would also be delayed or stopped by Teheran in a mountain.
 
Lars

[trees trees]

please don't forget 'wifzen' when working on the maps. Looking at the geologic map in French, it appears that Tiflis/Tbilisi was placed where it was in WiF because it sits in a valley carrying a river and a rail line. So it could be taken from either direction from within the valley, and has to be placed in a 'clear' hex (note just where the city-dot is placed in that hex). The other alternative, placing it a bit more west or south, would put it in a mountain hex, but clearly any defense of the city shouldn't be doubled. If you want to hold the place you have to come down out of the hills where you would much rather place your forces.

so what I'm getting at it is, perhaps the game should be called World in Flex. The unit scale is flexible, no one knows what a 'build point' really is, and the map has to be like this in places. The whole valley from Batum to Tiflis may not be as wide as a WiF hex, but you have to have a line of clear hexes to represent it.

but note doing this for the Tiflis<>Baku valley wipes out the possibility of representing the coastal plain along the west shore of the Caspian, which you could probably advance along without attacking mountains.

and please don't add any cities, anywhere. they are the most powerful hexes in the game. population in a hex is not the issue, the functions of a city in WiF is. Yerevan may have had a population similar to, I don't know, Metz (complete random guess), during WWII, but that doesn't mean they would have the same impact on military operations.

In WiF Persia will never be quite the walk-over it was historically for the Allies. It is an obscure part of WWII. Despite no great love for the Russians or the British, the two powers walked in against 120,000 men (probably not all mobilized) in the Persian military which didn't fight. ("There was little fighting and few casualties." reads the only reference I have.) I'm not really sure why. Perhaps because it was a joint Anglo-Soviet operation; if only one power had tried it the Persians may have resisted, so I think WiF does okay here. Historically, in WiF it would go like this: J/A '41 CW DoW Persia (only -3 US Entry, much better), Persia aligns to Germany, Russians walk next to Teheran and roll a '20' (the Persians could've reacted differently, no one knew ahead of time). In your average game though things can be much different if Tojo takes an interest. On this new map Russia can still get a simple relatively low-risk attack with Siberians, Cavalry, and bombers. In my National Geographic atlas of the world it looks like you can approach Teheran without crossing mountain ranges, so putting it in a clear hex seems OK, though I vaguely recall descriptions of it sitting in a valley surrounded by hills. (I don't think Russian strength depends on taking Persia though). But if the Japanese are already in East Africa, they might make it to Teheran ahead of the Russians, unless some Paratroopers go in too.

I think you may be on to something with the idea of shifting the map a little bit on the north-south axis. i.e. if you could pull the hexagonal overlay down to the south a little bit. This would help make Basra a non-coastal hex, for example.

I don't know what you can do with Google Earth or similar programs, but if there was any way to look at a sattelite photo of this region _at the same scale_ as euro WiF, and then drop a hex-grid overlay on top, I'm sure mapping would be much easier. In the meantime, keep up the good work.

[Froonp]

Here's my proposal to fix the Caucasus & the extra Persian Bit, with minimal changes to the WiF FE map.
I'm showing a zoom up first, then the whole area next.

I made Teheran a clear hex as it was.
I also had Basra 1 hex E, as it should be.

[Froonp]

The whole area.

This represent more changes to the MWiF maps, compared to what I envisionned at start, but I think this is going in the right direction for the game.

Now the Tiflis area is right, the Caucasus mountains are right, and the messed up NW Persia is right too.

[Froonp]

Mmmm.... I found a major flaw in my drawing...
Iraq gets a border with Russia here, and that's wrong.

To have it right would need to "cut" 2 hexrows of the NE Iraq bit, and have Mosul moved 1 hex south. I looked at Google Earth, and it is true that the Mosul-Baghdad distance is wrong on the WiF FE maps, and that as Borger said, it should be southward, but maybe this would make too many changes just to correct the NW Persia bit abnormality ???

I'm ready to do it anyway, that's easy.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Mmmm.... I found a major flaw in my drawing...
Iraq gets a border with Russia here, and that's wrong.

To have it right would need to "cut" 2 hexrows of the NE Iraq bit, and have Mosul moved 1 hex south. I looked at Google Earth, and it is true that the Mosul-Baghdad distance is wrong on the WiF FE maps, and that as Borger said, it should be southward, but maybe this would make too many changes just to correct the NW Persia bit abnormality ???

I'm ready to do it anyway, that's easy.

We either have a border between the USSR and Iraq or between Turkey and Iran.