MWiF Map Review - America

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: capitan
Now...only 10 more corpsized INFs to go before all Germans INFs are done. Then of course all the other nations of the world remain [X(]

Hang in there... the MWiF Forum is sending reinforcements [:)]

[Froonp]

Would this be okay for everyone ?
Edit 1 : OK, I forgot to correct the "ISLAND" typo, but it is not on the real map.
Edit 2 : Notice that Gallegos (WiF FE name) was renammed Rio Gallegos, as it seems to be the correct name of the place.
Edit 3 : Notice that Magallenas (WiF FE name) was renammed Punta Arenas, as it seems to be the correct name of the place.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: capitan

It is not contested by the people living in the islands. In fact the people voted to stay part of Great Britain.

All five of them? [;)]

Anyway let´s not discuss politics here. I have my opinion and you have yours. Let´s leave it at that.

Now...only 10 more corpsized INFs to go before all Germans INFs are done. Then of course all the other nations of the world remain [X(]

Capitan,

Consider it dropped.

Flipper

[christo]

Ahh... that explains why Langdorf put the Graf Spee into Montevideo rather then Buenos Aires. Montevideo gave him access to two sea areas insted of just the one! [:D]

[trees trees]

I like how the edge of the world is a black abyss again, just like it was 500+ years ago.

Lots of nice work Patrice!

Could the weather line maybe be thickened up a bit?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

I like how the edge of the world is a black abyss again, just like it was 500+ years ago.

Lots of nice work Patrice!

Could the weather line maybe be thickened up a bit?

I haven't decided on the weather line graphics yet, but it needs to be changed. The green on dark blue is almost invisible in the sea areas art low resolution; and that is when I think it will be most important.

[ajds]

Is it too late to comment on the America map detail? My first comment is with regards to the southern California resource placement. The current map has oil in the mountains to the northeast of the Los Angeles basin - to my knowledge there was no significant oil production in that area. Regional oil production was in the western Los Angeles basin and in Bakersfield. On the map this means I suggest moving the oil resources into the clear hex with the city marker and factories, or perhaps moving one there and putting the other into Bakersfield (the southernmost clear hex of the San Joaquin Valley north of Los Angeles). This latter idea would of course require a transportion connection to make the resouce usable and hence may not be tenable (as I don't believe we have pipelines in the game currently). There was (is) heavy crude production and refining in Bakersfield as well as Los Angeles.

My second comment is also with regard to the current location of the southern California oil resource, as it seems to be in the right place for a normal resource marker, perhaps the one currently in the mountains southeast of San Jose. I say this because the Kaiser steel mills were historically in the San Bernardino area east of Los Angeles, served by the Eagle Mountain iron mine even further east. I am not suggesting there isn't significant resources in the coastal mountains where the current resource marker is, I just am not aware of them, but the Kaiser mills and related mine were substantial in the WWII timeframe. In addition there was and is quite a bit of strategic mineral mining in the desert hexes to the northeast of Los Angeles (notably potash and cement), supporting the resource on that side of Los Angeles.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ajds
Is it too late to comment on the America map detail? My first comment is with regards to the southern California resource placement. The current map has oil in the mountains to the northeast of the Los Angeles basin - to my knowledge there was no significant oil production in that area. Regional oil production was in the western Los Angeles basin and in Bakersfield. On the map this means I suggest moving the oil resources into the clear hex with the city marker and factories, or perhaps moving one there and putting the other into Bakersfield (the southernmost clear hex of the San Joaquin Valley north of Los Angeles). This latter idea would of course require a transportion connection to make the resouce usable and hence may not be tenable (as I don't believe we have pipelines in the game currently). There was (is) heavy crude production and refining in Bakersfield as well as Los Angeles.

My second comment is also with regard to the current location of the southern California oil resource, as it seems to be in the right place for a normal resource marker, perhaps the one currently in the mountains southeast of San Jose. I say this because the Kaiser steel mills were historically in the San Bernardino area east of Los Angeles, served by the Eagle Mountain iron mine even further east. I am not suggesting there isn't significant resources in the coastal mountains where the current resource marker is, I just am not aware of them, but the Kaiser mills and related mine were substantial in the WWII timeframe. In addition there was and is quite a bit of strategic mineral mining in the desert hexes to the northeast of Los Angeles (notably potash and cement), supporting the resource on that side of Los Angeles.

No, it's not too late. We had very little, if any, feedback from forum members about the USA west coast. By making use of the personal knowledge of individuals we make the game better.

Patrice is handling the details of map modifications, such as those you suggested.

[SurrenderMonkey]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is what the Northwest of the USA looks like in MWiF, with the draft coastlines I drew.

Steve mentioned that there has been no feedback regarding the US West Coast, so - as a lifelong resident of the Pacific NW - I guess this is where I contribute a little:

1) The terrain north of Seattle towards Vancouver should not be clear. It is all forested, and there is only one major north-south highway which was built in the 50's under Eisenhower. The distance between the coast and the coastal mountain ranges is pretty narrow, too. So those hexes should be forests.

2) The Willamette Valley south of Portland apparently accounts for the clear hexes there. I can live with that as it is a huge valley. However, two hexes SE of Portland there is a clear terrain hex between two mountain hexes. That should be forest. It is the Medford-Roseburg region, and it is definitely heavily forested.

3) Two hexes east of Spokane there is a forest "passage" through the mountains. It should be mountains. It is called 4th of July pass and it is very high and rugged. There is an interstate highway there now, but it was built in the 50's as well. In the 40's, it is definitely mountains.

4) The huge Columbia River due west of Portland should run straight to the sea, rather than hooking NW to Grays Harbor and the Aberdeen inlet. There is some small room for debate about this, but given the location of Tacoma, there is no question. It should run due west to the sea.

Other than that, it looks good! [:)]

[Froonp]

Thanks for the feedback ajds and monkey.
I'm considering it.

About NW USA, do you think that Vancouver and Victoria (I know they are in Canada, but you might know) should be in those types of hexes (Clear and forest). The WiF FE maps has them both as mountain hexes. Would mountain hexes be better ?

Also :
San Francisco is in a Forest hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?
Los Angeles is in a Desert hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?
Tacoma is in a Forest hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?
Portland is in a Mountain hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?

Also, a few weeks ago, Borger asked :

US Pacific ports between San Francisco and Seattle

I notice there are currently no US minor ports between San Franciso and Seattle. Is that true or have we forgotten some port that had any

importance during WW2? I can't find any suitable port, but maybe it's like this because there is no such port. I don't know.

What's your opinion with this ?

I am tempted to add Eureka, somewhere on the center west coast. Do you think it is a good idea ?

[Froonp]

4) The huge Columbia River due west of Portland should run straight to the sea, rather than hooking NW to Grays Harbor and the Aberdeen inlet. There is some small room for debate about this, but given the location of Tacoma, there is no question. It should run due west to the sea.

Well, looking from this map, it seems that the northward curve is well represented.
Tacoma can be drawn more northward in its own hex so that it seems more far from the river.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: ajds

Is it too late to comment on the America map detail? My first comment is with regards to the southern California resource placement. The current map has oil in the mountains to the northeast of the Los Angeles basin - to my knowledge there was no significant oil production in that area. Regional oil production was in the western Los Angeles basin and in Bakersfield. On the map this means I suggest moving the oil resources into the clear hex with the city marker and factories, or perhaps moving one there and putting the other into Bakersfield (the southernmost clear hex of the San Joaquin Valley north of Los Angeles). This latter idea would of course require a transportion connection to make the resouce usable and hence may not be tenable (as I don't believe we have pipelines in the game currently). There was (is) heavy crude production and refining in Bakersfield as well as Los Angeles.

Would it make sense to have both OIL resources in Bakersfield ?
And would it make sense to put Bakersfield into a Mountain hex ?
I'm asking this because the WiF FE maps has both oil resources in a mountain hexes outside of a city, so I would like to try to make it the same in MWiF.
About the transportion connection, I see that the railway from the north is passing through Bakersfield, so I intend on putting the OIL in the hex that is 2 hexes NW of Los Angeles and making the raiil goes through it.

My second comment is also with regard to the current location of the southern California oil resource, as it seems to be in the right place for a normal resource marker, perhaps the one currently in the mountains southeast of San Jose. I say this because the Kaiser steel mills were historically in the San Bernardino area east of Los Angeles, served by the Eagle Mountain iron mine even further east. I am not suggesting there isn't significant resources in the coastal mountains where the current resource marker is, I just am not aware of them, but the Kaiser mills and related mine were substantial in the WWII timeframe. In addition there was and is quite a bit of strategic mineral mining in the desert hexes to the northeast of Los Angeles (notably potash and cement), supporting the resource on that side of Los Angeles.

I'm ok for this.

[SurrenderMonkey]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Thanks for the feedback ajds and monkey.
I'm considering it.

About NW USA, do you think that Vancouver and Victoria (I know they are in Canada, but you might know) should be in those types of hexes (Clear and forest). The WiF FE maps has them both as mountain hexes. Would mountain hexes be better ?

Also :
San Francisco is in a Forest hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?
Los Angeles is in a Desert hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?
Tacoma is in a Forest hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?
Portland is in a Mountain hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?

Also, a few weeks ago, Borger asked :

US Pacific ports between San Francisco and Seattle

I notice there are currently no US minor ports between San Franciso and Seattle. Is that true or have we forgotten some port that had any

importance during WW2? I can't find any suitable port, but maybe it's like this because there is no such port. I don't know.

What's your opinion with this ?

I am tempted to add Eureka, somewhere on the center west coast. Do you think it is a good idea ?

It would be hard to convince me that either Vancouver or Victoria should be clear hexes. The areas are heavily forested, with rolling hills climbing towards mountains. I woulds be satisfied with either as forest or mountain. Vancouver is in a bit of a valley, so maybe it should be forest only.

SF = at MWiF scale, it should probably be clear. There are forests, but nothing like, say, Seattle or Vancouver.

LA = I'm resisting the temptation to make acid jokes. Definitely desert.

Portland and Tacoma should both be forested, in my opinion.

[SurrenderMonkey]

Sorry - forgot about Eureka.  If you make Eureka a city, then it's a supply source, potentially.  I could see it functioning as a secondary source on a sea chain, given its size and the harbor, but not as a land-based element of a chain, because of the remoteness and ruggedness of the area.
 
Can I punt?  [:)]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey
Sorry - forgot about Eureka.  If you make Eureka a city, then it's a supply source, potentially.  I could see it functioning as a secondary source on a sea chain, given its size and the harbor, but not as a land-based element of a chain, because of the remoteness and ruggedness of the area.

Can I punt?  [:)]

I was thinking of making Eureka a minor port only. Would that make sense ?
The reason is to provide supply (through sea) to US units in the West Coast between Portland and Sacramento.
In WiF FE, US units at home are always in supply on the West Coast, the cities are always in the correct range. On the MWiF map, due to the scale change, the distance is too far. Adding Eureka would provide supply in between, through the sea.
But my question is : Would Eureka warrants a Minor Port ? Was Eureka large enough to have warships anchored, and to unload supply for armies ?

Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

[wyrmmy]

For Historical Accuracy, the In between port was Astoria Oregon, but is probably too close to portland on the map. All cities North of San Fran should be forest and/or mountain. I can see both from my window.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: wyrmm
For Historical Accuracy, the In between port was Astoria Oregon, but is probably too close to portland on the map.

in which hex would it be ?

[Froonp]

All cities North of San Fran should be forest and/or mountain. I can see both from my window.

You mean Oakland and Sacramento ?

[wyrmmy]

Astoria is at the mouth of the columbia, built small AK's and PT boats, and was the convoy staging area for the Pac NW. Population swelled from 25-30k to over 300k by wars end, and just as quickly reversed. At one point over 1000 ships were anchored, there is a picture where you can almost walk across the columbia on them. As to terrain types, yes, north of oakland.

[SurrenderMonkey]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: wyrmm
For Historical Accuracy, the In between port was Astoria Oregon, but is probably too close to portland on the map.

in which hex would it be ?

At the mouth of the Columbia.