MWiF Tutorial

[wfzimmerman]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Second and last in the series. Hey, Patrice, alpine hexes are next!

I don't get what are "the four hexes of the Kiel canal." is that shown on the map?

[Froonp]

I don't get what are "the four hexes of the Kiel canal." is that shown on the map?

They are the 4 hexes that border the canal.
That is :

- Kiel hex
- Hex W of Kiel
- Hex NW of Kiel
- Hex NE of Kiel.

[Froonp]

About rivers, you say that they affect both movement and combat.
They do not affect movement, only combat (attackers halved).

[Froonp]

About rail movement across straits, I think you are wrong too.
RAW has it that you can rail move to and from both ends of a Strait hexside, if there is a rail on both hexes.

Quote from RAW :
***********************
11.10 Rail movement
A unit can rail move across a straits hexside if there is a rail line in the hex on either side of the straits. Only 1 unit a side can rail move across each straits hexside in a turn.
***********************

So a unit can rail move from Aarhus to Malmo through Copenhagen, even it there is no rail drawn between Copenhagen and Malmo across the sea.

Which is not true for the strait to the north, as there is no rail in the Western hex.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
About rail movement across straits, I think you are wrong too.
RAW has it that you can rail move to and from both ends of a Strait hexside, if there is a rail on both hexes.

Quote from RAW :
***********************
11.10 Rail movement
A unit can rail move across a straits hexside if there is a rail line in the hex on either side of the straits. Only 1 unit a side can rail move across each straits hexside in a turn.
***********************

So a unit can rail move from Aarhus to Malmo through Copenhagen, even it there is no rail drawn between Copenhagen and Malmo across the sea.

Which is not true for the strait to the north, as there is no rail in the Western hex.

First, about the rivers - I'll fix that.

Second, about Kiel - I'll make it more clear (there is room for more explanation, which is needed)

Third, about railroads and straits. Stockholm is a more interesting place to analyze this rule. WIF FE has a clearly drawn rail line into Stockholm across a straits from the hex SE of Stockholm. But the hex SW of Stockholm does not have a similar rail line. A strict reading of the rule would be that rail movement would be possible from either hex into Stockholm. Or from the hex west of Stockholm to the hex SW of Stockholm since they both have rail lines and there is a straits hex connecting them. If that were so, I would expect WIF FE to show the rail lines. It doesn't.

Another example is at the Kerch straits. The hex east of Kerch has a rail line headnig towards Kerch, clearly indicating that rail movement is possible across the straits. Similarly, most of the rail lines in Denmark that cross straits have graphic indications that the rail lines are suppose to continue across the straits. The connection from Copenhagen to Malmo does not have any such indication.

My position is that:
(1) the rule as written is incorrect since it would allow rail movement around Stockholm that is clearly not intended.
(2) when rail movement across straits is intended the map has a clear indication of that by the way the rail lines were drawn.
(3) rail movement from Copenhagen to Malmo is not possible since there is no indication by the way the rai llines were drawn.

I could add a special rule just for the Copenhagen-Malmo link. It would be along the lines of: "If two cities are separated by an all sea hex but connected by a straits, and both cities have rail lines, then rail movement is possible across the straits.

[lomyrin]

Once the war began there were no more train ferries between Malmo and Copenhagen. Likewise there was a train ferry from the Swedish town of Trelleborg, south of Malmo,  to Lubeck but after the war began it was only used for an occasional sealed German troop train moving through Sweden.
 
I am not shure of the exact timing of these items though.
 
Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
Once the war began there were no more train ferries between Malmo and Copenhagen. Likewise there was a train ferry from the Swedish town of Trelleborg, south of Malmo,  to Lubeck but after the war began it was only used for an occasional sealed German troop train moving through Sweden.

I am not shure of the exact timing of these items though.

Lars

Thank yuo for the information. I found another place on the map where there are two cities with rail lines separated by an all sea hex but with a straits. That is the link from Batavia (Java) to Telok Betong (Sumatra).

[Froonp]

My position is that:
(1) the rule as written is incorrect since it would allow rail movement around Stockholm that is clearly not intended.
(2) when rail movement across straits is intended the map has a clear indication of that by the way the rail lines were drawn.
(3) rail movement from Copenhagen to Malmo is not possible since there is no indication by the way the rai llines were drawn.

I could add a special rule just for the Copenhagen-Malmo link. It would be along the lines of: "If two cities are separated by an all sea hex but connected by a straits, and both cities have rail lines, then rail movement is possible across the straits.

There is also the Gibraltar / Tangier passage, Reggio / Messina, Istanbul / Scutari, Hakodate / Ominato that should be railway too. So your rule should include ports (major & minor) too in its checking.
Also, the other straits in Denmark should be railway too. Frederickshavn to South, South of Aarhus to West of Copenhagen
For me, with maybe the exception of Stockholm eastern hexes, all strait hexes whare there are rails at both ends should be rail hexsides too.
I think that the drawing of the railway inside Stockholm must have been done like that to indicate that the others were not possible.

Peter this may be a case of asking a consensus on the WiF List, doesn't it ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

My position is that:
(1) the rule as written is incorrect since it would allow rail movement around Stockholm that is clearly not intended.
(2) when rail movement across straits is intended the map has a clear indication of that by the way the rail lines were drawn.
(3) rail movement from Copenhagen to Malmo is not possible since there is no indication by the way the rai llines were drawn.

I could add a special rule just for the Copenhagen-Malmo link. It would be along the lines of: "If two cities are separated by an all sea hex but connected by a straits, and both cities have rail lines, then rail movement is possible across the straits.

There is also the Gibraltar / Tangier passage, Reggio / Messina, Istanbul / Scutari, Hakodate / Ominato that should be railway too. So your rule should include ports (major & minor) too in its checking.
Also, the other straits in Denmark should be railway too. Frederickshavn to South, South of Aarhus to West of Copenhagen
For me, with maybe the exception of Stockholm eastern hexes, all strait hexes whare there are rails at both ends should be rail hexsides too.
I think that the drawing of the railway inside Stockholm must have been done like that to indicate that the others were not possible.

Peter this may be a case of asking a consensus on the WiF List, doesn't it ?

Yes.

The other Denmark rail lines crossing straits is done by explicitly coding the rail link through the hexside, which results in the program drawing the rail line connection. I tried to figure out how to make the rail line disappear over water but it was way too hard. I will not draw the rail connections between cities/ports across all sea hexes at straits. Instead, I'll just have the tutorial (and the Rules As Coded) describe those situations as being valid for rail movement.

Lars, at first I thought that your information justified my position of no rail link between Copenhagen and Malmo. But on reflection, I see that rail movement was not only possible but common. That the war shut down operations doesn't matter. For example, if the Germans had conquered Sweden, I am sure they could have had the rail linkage restored had they so desired.

[Froonp]

Lars, at first I thought that your information justified my position of no rail link between Copenhagen and Malmo. But on reflection, I see that rail movement was not only possible but common. That the war shut down operations doesn't matter. For example, if the Germans had conquered Sweden, I am sure they could have had the rail linkage restored had they so desired.

Exactly what I wanted to add.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Second and last in the series. Hey, Patrice, alpine hexes are next!

See how much better this page looks than the others with a gap between the top text box and the image? I think the same would be true of the top text box and the right-hand text box. Both could be accomplished on every page by raising the bottom of the top text box by a few pixels.

Cheers, Neilster

[Neilster]

Incidently, my vote would be for a neutral background without any powers' flag. The players are going to see them plenty in the game and they are so obvious as to not require any prior advertisment. IMHO they're just going to confuse new players who are going to think (in this case) that they're reading a tutorial specific to Japan.

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Incidently, my vote would be for a neutral background without any powers' flag. The players are going to see them plenty in the game and they are so obvious as to not require any prior advertisment. IMHO they're just going to confuse new players who are going to think (in this case) that they're reading a tutorial specific to Japan.

Cheers, Neilster

There are 10 introductory tutorials with, I guess, 10 pages each on average. Changing the background color reduces the monotony.
Of course I could always say something like: "This tutorial is sponsered by The Tokyo Tonsorial Society" in order to justify the background color.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is the revised text for the fourth page of the third scenario.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

And one new page (last in series).

[Froonp]

Another remark.
I think that you should have the Strait symbols changed.
This simple double red arrow is not very pretty I think.
Moreover, when they are with a Border, both thes red things are not good looking.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Another remark.
I think that you should have the Strait symbols changed.
This simple double red arrow is not very pretty I think.
Moreover, when they are with a Border, both thes red things are not good looking.

Why not having some ship-like silhouette embedded in the double arrow symbol, and another color that red ?

[Plainian]

Dark blue or the same colour as the river names?

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Another remark.
I think that you should have the Strait symbols changed.
This simple double red arrow is not very pretty I think.
Moreover, when they are with a Border, both thes red things are not good looking.

Why not having some ship-like silhouette embedded in the double arrow symbol, and another color that red ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Plain Ian
Dark blue or the same colour as the river names?

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Another remark.
I think that you should have the Strait symbols changed.
This simple double red arrow is not very pretty I think.
Moreover, when they are with a Border, both thes red things are not good looking.

Why not having some ship-like silhouette embedded in the double arrow symbol, and another color that red ?

I am not keen on using anything other than arrows. Fine detail gets lost at lower zoom levels.

Any shade of blue would be problematic since straits symbols often parallel (and are close to) sea area boundaries (e.g., Gibraltar and Frederikshavn).

I am thinking of making the countries boundaries a darker red. Right now they are very bright relative to the rest of the map. That would make the straits and country boundries somewhat different when they are in close proximity.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

And one new page (last in series).

A mention of the fact that you cannot trace supply across an alpine hexside regardless of whether a mountain unit crossed it would be useful.