MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

1 - I have one question about the nice coast lines you draw for the different map parts. Is it possible to use your coastal lines directly by sending them to Steve's MWIF map designer or does he have to draw all these coast lines all over again?

2 - I hope your coast lines can be used and it will save Steve's map designer from a lot of work with the map. You've done a truly great work. [:)]

1 - I don't know yet. Hopefully yes.

2 - I agree.

[Froonp]

Don't know for the coastlines, but as I am an amateur at picture editing, I suspect what I've done is not good enough.
For instance, I based my maps editing on screenshots of the map, at 100% scale. I suspect the the graphic artist works at 200% scale.
Anyway, even if what I did is not directly usable by him, it may save him time looking for the coastlines shapes by using mine aswell as his own look at Google Earth.
 
For the borders in the Sea, this is my initiative and for the moment the MWiF map do not have this feature.
 
Anyway, I'm happy those drawing please you.

[Froonp]

Steve, did you get my CSV file for the added names ? I sent it days ago and you didn't reply.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Steve, did you get my CSV file for the added names ? I sent it days ago and you didn't reply.

Yes.

I am working on debugging some esoteric code as part of the upgrade to Delphi 2006. A routine is being called twice somewhere and it is in a chain of 14 routines (A calls B calls C calls D ...) with the largest routine in that sequence comtaining 1800 lines of code and most of the others having over 100. Very complex stuff, but the problem is in the way of me working on other things so it has my highest priority.

[Manic Inertia]

Hey Shannon, what's the possibility of historically significant place names being included ad hoc onto the map, even if they don't otherwise merit a mention? I'm thinking primarily about Bataan, although maybe 'The Ardennes' or even Kasserine Pass are worth considering? This would, of course, be a purely aesthetic consideration, but just as a garnish atop a tasty meal seems to add a certain, sort of **lustre** to the presentation, the delectable banquet being served up here might benefit similarly (at the risk of beating the metaphor to death, perhaps such things might further whet the visual appetite)?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Manic Inertia
Hey Shannon, what's the possibility of historically significant place names being included ad hoc onto the map, even if they don't otherwise merit a mention? I'm thinking primarily about Bataan, although maybe 'The Ardennes' or even Kasserine Pass are worth considering? This would, of course, be a purely aesthetic consideration, but just as a garnish atop a tasty meal seems to add a certain, sort of **lustre** to the presentation, the delectable banquet being served up here might benefit similarly (at the risk of beating the metaphor to death, perhaps such things might further whet the visual appetite)?

Whether this is included in the game or not, it will be possible to add them to the game by players, as the CSV file commanding what is appearing on the map is fairly easy to modify.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Manic Inertia
Hey Shannon, what's the possibility of historically significant place names being included ad hoc onto the map, even if they don't otherwise merit a mention? I'm thinking primarily about Bataan, although maybe 'The Ardennes' or even Kasserine Pass are worth considering? This would, of course, be a purely aesthetic consideration, but just as a garnish atop a tasty meal seems to add a certain, sort of **lustre** to the presentation, the delectable banquet being served up here might benefit similarly (at the risk of beating the metaphor to death, perhaps such things might further whet the visual appetite)?

Whether this is included in the game or not, it will be possible to add them to the game by players, as the CSV file commanding what is appearing on the map is fairly easy to modify.

Yes, as Patrice said.

[Froonp]

I've looked at the Sea Area Connexions between the Crutial South China Sea and the Bismarck Sea and the Timor Sea, and I saw that there were more hexes that were on both Sea Area.

Suggestions
- I would change the south China Sea / Timor Sea Border near Makassar so that it is from Makassar to Sumbawa Island (NEI), otherwise, as it is presently, it gives 3 more island hexes on the Sea Area Border that are not on the WiF FE map.
- I would change the south China Sea / Bismarck Sea Border near Menado so that it is from Menado to Mindanao Island (Philippines), otherwise, as it is presently, it gives 3 more island hexes on the Sea Area Border that are not on the WiF FE map.
- I would change the south China Sea / Bismarck Sea Border near Cebu (Philippines) so that Cebu is no more a port on both Sea Zones. I would make the Sea Area border go through Leyte instead (As on the MWiF map).

[Froonp]

Here is how the Sea Area Connexions are on the WiF FE maps :

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I agree.

Don't you mean WIF FE at the end of your third point (instead of MWIF)?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I agree.
Don't you mean WIF FE at the end of your third point (instead of MWIF)?

Yes, I meant that.
Here is what it could look :

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Yes.

This adds a few more hexes around Leyte and Legapsi that are adjacent to 2 sea areas but there were already 4 jungle hexes doing that in WIF FE so a couple more shouldn't matter. The important thing is the mountain hexes on the 3 junctures farther south.

[trees trees]

going a bit back in this thread, I do think a fair number of Pacific Island hexes should be mountain hexes. however don't think this will discourage their use as airbases. my USAAF units follow closely along behind Nimitz or Clark and the CBs, allowing two air units on any volcano hex.

Looking at the new Bonins makes me very afraid as the Japanese. It's not totally about whether the Bonins can be used to send escorted bombers to mainland Japan. I use them to send Hellcats, Mariners, and P-38s in against any remaining Japanese shipping that the SUBs haven't taken care of. Given where this seazone line is and it being in the North Temperate zone, this is one of the more sensitive areas on the WiF map for Japan. It gives the US something to campaign against when the rest of the Pacific is stormy. In real life of course the Bonins couldn't have affected Japan<>China shipping but this is the necessary playability trade-off in WiF's extremely elegant modeling of naval activity.

I would consider a hex by hex reivew of the usability of Chichishima Retto and Hahashima Retto.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Trees, I include here Patrice's original post for reference.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is what the Japan area looks like. It is 48% the original size, so if you'd like close up, just ask, and I'll post them.

Let me also say that I am only drawing coastlines to better see the map, and to better review it. Those coastlines are not the final ones that the Artis will do.

Let me also say that, except for the names (and the curved borders in the sea), I added nothing to this map, it is as this since the old CWiF days (except for the coastlines).

Now, for the modifications I'd make to it to make it better :

- I'd remove the clear terrain island for which I did not drew the coastlines, south of Japan (because it is never on the maps I check).
- I'd push the little island that is east of Amani Island (north of Okinawa) 1 hex northeast.
- Maybe I'd make 1-2 hexes in the Bonin Islands be Mountains terrain Kita Iwo & Nishi-No Shima, but this would need to be checked on precise maps, what I did not do.

Note : I believe "Retto" means "Group of Islands" in Japanese. I wonder if "Shima" and "Jima" have the same meaning, which I suspect to be something like "volcaneous mountains island", or simply "mountain isles".

Comparing this to WIF FE, to my eye, the big difference is the placement of the sea area boundary. If the boundary running from Tokyo to Chichishima Retto were moved to the east (right) then 4 island hexes would be removed from the riding on the boundary line. They would instead be inside the China Sea. Does that address your concern? The 4 hexes I mean are: Izu islands, Sumishu Jima, and Makeshima Retto.

The examination of the Philippines recently has made me more sensitive to the addition of island hexes placed on sea area (SA) boundaries. The above change returns the boundary between the Japanese Coast SA and the China Sea SA to the same status as in WIF FE.

[mlees]

Wait. Im confused. What is the purpose of moving an island one or two hexes off a seazone boundary? In other words, what concerns are you hoping to address? It doesnt seem to be addressing much in the way of airbasing, and more in the way of island invasions...

Placing those islands (the above mentioned Izu Islands) fully and solely into the S. China sea does make it harder for the Americans to invade (assuming that the invasion fleets now need to move an extra sea area to get to them), because they can no longer do it from the "Japanese Coast" sea zone.

But moving the sea boundary one hex east of them does not reduce their range to Tokyo, nor does it remove the total number of potential airbases within range "x" of the Japanese Home Islands.

Land based Naval Air units based in the Izu Islands can still fly missions into the Japanese Coast sea zone, just at a reduced effectiveness. (i.e. May cause some shorter legged aircraft to end up in a lower search box.)

If it is the number of usable airbase hexes (compared to the WiFFE map), then deleting hexes from the MWiF map is what you want, not moving sea boundaries around a tad...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: mlees
Wait. Im confused. What is the purpose of moving an island one or two hexes off a seazone boundary? In other words, what concerns are you hoping to address? It doesnt seem to be addressing much in the way of airbasing, and more in the way of island invasions...

Placing those islands (the above mentioned Izu Islands) fully and solely into the S. China sea does make it harder for the Americans to invade (assuming that the invasion fleets now need to move an extra sea area to get to them), because they can no longer do it from the "Japanese Coast" sea zone.

But moving the sea boundary one hex east of them does not reduce their range to Tokyo, nor does it remove the total number of potential airbases within range "x" of the Japanese Home Islands.

Land based Naval Air units based in the Izu Islands can still fly missions into the Japanese Coast sea zone, just at a reduced effectiveness. (i.e. May cause some shorter legged aircraft to end up in a lower search box.)

If it is the number of usable airbase hexes (compared to the WiFFE map), then deleting hexes from the MWiF map is what you want, not moving sea boundaries around a tad...

1 - When a hex sits on a sea area boundary it can be supplied from either sea area. The owner only needs to control one of the two sea areas to keep the units based there in supply.

2 - When sitting on a sea area boundary, movement into both sea areas is typically at the minimum cost and air units with short ranges can be placed in higher sea boxes in both sea areas. When an air unit has to fly 1 or 2 additional hexes to reach a sea area, it may very well end up in a lower/poorer sea box section.

3 - Though it doesn't apply to the cases under discusssion here, naval units in a port that bestrides two sea areas have much greater moblity and movement options.

[mlees]

1 - When a hex sits on a sea area boundary it can be supplied from either sea area. The owner only needs to control one of the two sea areas to keep the units based there in supply.

Didn't think of that, but this works for out evenly for both the US and Japan (being the two major naval powers in the Pacific). Do you feel that the USN should control the China sea to hope to supply units based in/on Izu Islands, Sumishu Jima, and Makeshima Retto, for example?

2 - When sitting on a sea area boundary, movement into both sea areas is typically at the minimum cost and air units with short ranges can be placed in higher sea boxes in both sea areas. When an air unit has to fly 1 or 2 additional hexes to reach a sea area, it may very well end up in a lower/poorer sea box section.

Right. I mentioned that in my fourth paragraph.

Do you feel that aircraft based in Izu Islands should not have as easy an access to the Japanese Coast sea area?

Doesn't this change actually hurt Japan more than anyone else? (As they hold those islands for the majoirty of the game.)

I understand the boundary move for the islands between Mindanao and Celebes, for example. On the WIFFE map, there are no islands on that boundary (as shown on post #109). So moving the boundary on the MWiF map makes it "more true" to the ADG map...

I do not really have a dog in this fight. I was just wondering what bothered you about that China Sea/Japanes Coast boundary that bothered you...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: mlees

1 - When a hex sits on a sea area boundary it can be supplied from either sea area. The owner only needs to control one of the two sea areas to keep the units based there in supply.

Didn't think of that, but this works for out evenly for both the US and Japan (being the two major naval powers in the Pacific). Do you feel that the USN should control the China sea to hope to supply units based in/on Izu Islands, Sumishu Jima, and Makeshima Retto, for example?

2 - When sitting on a sea area boundary, movement into both sea areas is typically at the minimum cost and air units with short ranges can be placed in higher sea boxes in both sea areas. When an air unit has to fly 1 or 2 additional hexes to reach a sea area, it may very well end up in a lower/poorer sea box section.

Right. I mentioned that in my fourth paragraph.

Do you feel that aircraft based in Izu Islands should not have as easy an access to the Japanese Coast sea area?

Doesn't this change actually hurt Japan more than anyone else? (As they hold those islands for the majoirty of the game.)

I understand the boundary move for the islands between Mindanao and Celebes, for example. On the WIFFE map, there are no islands on that boundary (as shown on post #109). So moving the boundary on the MWiF map makes it "more true" to the ADG map...

I do not really have a dog in this fight. I was just wondering what bothered you about that China Sea/Japanes Coast boundary that bothered you...

My judgments here are not based on questions of play balance but rather to match WIF FE where ever possible. There are trade-offs between geographical realities and WIF FE mimicry in going to the unified world map but moving a sea area boundary doesn't require worrying about the former.

[mlees]

Okeedokee. I thought you wanted to "nerf" sumthin. Nevermind. Please, carry on. [:'(]

[Froonp]

Looking at the new Bonins makes me very afraid as the Japanese. It's not totally about whether the Bonins can be used to send escorted bombers to mainland Japan. I use them to send Hellcats, Mariners, and P-38s in against any remaining Japanese shipping that the SUBs haven't taken care of. Given where this seazone line is and it being in the North Temperate zone, this is one of the more sensitive areas on the WiF map for Japan. It gives the US something to campaign against when the rest of the Pacific is stormy. In real life of course the Bonins couldn't have affected Japan<>China shipping but this is the necessary playability trade-off in WiF's extremely elegant modeling of naval activity.

The WiF FE map is nearly the same regarding the Bonin Islands. There are 3 island hexes that sit on the border and can be supplied from the Marianas. There are 4 in MWiF, so I think this is the same. Either 3 or 4 land based air units versus the 15-20 that Japan will have on the home island will be the same.

Anyway, when the US are controlling the bonin and projecting land based air powr into the China Sea, this is the end for Japan, this is like this already in WiF FE.