MWiF Map Review - America

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: dcasper

I'm a bit late to the party, but to the extent it matters, the oil resource near Los Angeles should be in the mountain/coastal hex SE of the city (Long Beach), not the mountain/coastal hex west of the city (Santa Barbara).  This (Signal Hill) was the largest oil producing region in the state, a very dense region accounting for about 1/3 of the state's total production.  There were oil wells near Bakersfield as well, if you want to have two locations.

See http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/history/signal_hill/signal_hill.html

Impressive work!

It's not too late, and thanks for the help.
I've modified it as you said, after having read about it where you pointed me to, and on Wikipedia.

[ajds]

Putting the Los Angeles oil in the mountains between LA and San Diego does not well represent Signal Hill. Signal Hill is north of Long Beach - the Long Beach/San Pedro ports are why Los Angeles has a major port symbol in WiF, and you'll notice the port symbol is in the Los Angeles city hex. I would have no complaint with putting that oil in the city hex, but east of LA (in the mountains) isn't right, at least there was significant oil production to the west in the San Fernando Valley and Ventura County. But in the city hex is best, particularly if you want to reflect Signal Hill (by locating it with the ports). The major oil fields of Huntington Beach, Santa Fe Springs, Wilmington and Dominguez were all producers at that time, and all are in and around the City of Los Angeles itself. If it matters the refineries were (are) also next to the ports.

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/history ... _Calif.pdf

[trees]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Gendarme


Just wondering if it's been decided what movement for leg and motorized units through a jungle hex costs at Euro scale. The cost is given on the Wif paper maps for Asia hexes but for Euro hexes, the map states, "NA". At Asia scale, leg movement through jungle is same as through a mountain hex -- 4 movement points.

Maybe it's been posted on the list already and I just can't find it. If so, sorry for being repetitive.

Anthony DeChristopher

Seems to be 2 for leg units, 4 for wheeled units.

When you read about the fighting in Burma it seems like it would be a good idea to make Jungle hexes the same as Desert for supply purposes.... a thought for the future I guess.

[Mziln]

I belive that the weather takes care of the supply ranges in most jungles. But while looking up "supply paths" I found this...

Supply paths (Paragraph 5)


Each desert, or desert mountain, hex your supply path enters counts as 1 extra hex (i.e. counts as 2 on the European maps, 3 on the Asian and Pacific maps and 5 in off-map hexes).

Should the supply path hex cost be diferent on the Asian and Pacific maps?

[composer99]

They're talking about the board game Asia-Pacific scale. In MWiF the supply path hex cost is the same everywhere relative to terrain.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

They're talking about the board game Asia-Pacific scale. In MWiF the supply path hex cost is the same everywhere relative to terrain.

Yes. In MWIF the whole world uses the European scale and the rules in RAW that are for the European scaled maps.

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: composer99

They're talking about the board game Asia-Pacific scale. In MWiF the supply path hex cost is the same everywhere relative to terrain.

Yes. In MWIF the whole world uses the European scale and the rules in RAW that are for the European scaled maps.

If we are using European scale would the supply path hex cost be 1 for European hexes and 1/2 for Asia-Pacific hexes?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: composer99
They're talking about the board game Asia-Pacific scale. In MWiF the supply path hex cost is the same everywhere relative to terrain.

Yes. In MWIF the whole world uses the European scale and the rules in RAW that are for the European scaled maps.

If we are using European scale would the supply path hex cost be 1 for European hexes and 1/2 for Asia-Pacific hexes?

What Asia-Pacific [map] hexes? There are none in MWIF. Nor are there any off-map boxes, which are also referenced in the rule you quoted.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: ajds

Putting the Los Angeles oil in the mountains between LA and San Diego does not well represent Signal Hill. Signal Hill is north of Long Beach - the Long Beach/San Pedro ports are why Los Angeles has a major port symbol in WiF, and you'll notice the port symbol is in the Los Angeles city hex. I would have no complaint with putting that oil in the city hex, but east of LA (in the mountains) isn't right, at least there was significant oil production to the west in the San Fernando Valley and Ventura County. But in the city hex is best, particularly if you want to reflect Signal Hill (by locating it with the ports). The major oil fields of Huntington Beach, Santa Fe Springs, Wilmington and Dominguez were all producers at that time, and all are in and around the City of Los Angeles itself. If it matters the refineries were (are) also next to the ports.

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/history ... _Calif.pdf

I've though over this a while, and here is what I would like to propose to you.
My proposal would be looking like the picture I uploaded in this post, with
- Long Beach city added to the hex SE of Los Angeles. Long Beach is 142k inhabitants in 1940 & 164k in 1944, thus warranting a city, also warranted by the zoom out from the WiF FE America map. Los Angeles had 1,238k inhabitants in 1940 & 1,504 in 1944.
- Long Beach also made a Major Port, as you are saying that the Long Beach portuary installations are what makes the Los Angeles city in WiF having a major port symbol (which is also confirmed by the aerial view I looked at on Google Earth).
- Los Angeles Major Port being transformed into a Minor Port (or no port at all if the Marina Del Rey -- as it seems to be the only port facilty in this hex) is not large enough to warrant it being reprensented as a major port in the 40s).
- Removing 1 Blue factory from Los Angeles.
- Adding 1 Blue factory to Long Beach.

The reason for this is that Long Beach (and Signal Hill) is placed just where there is this little "excrescence" on the mountainous coast south of Los Angeles, and the real port is here too (where the "S" of Signal Hill is right now).
Also, the center of Los Angeles, and the Center of Long Beach are about 30 km distant on the Google Earth map, and the whole area seems really high city density to warrant having 2 cities side by side (the original WiF America map has this area with 2 cities side by side, that are Los Angeles & San Diego).

What yould you all Californians would think about your Los Angeles area being treated this way ? [:D]

[Froonp]

Here is the part of the 40s map I'm using as a reference for the positions of Los Angeles & Long Beach.

[Froonp]

Here is the same area in the WiF FE America map, for comparizon.

[Froonp]

Well, there is another reason to add Long Beach: This is one of the greatest Champ Car tracks of the whole season, where great champions won great races !!!
Go Bourdais !

[:D]

[Mziln]

I believe that the conversion rate that was used was 2 European hexes for each Asia/Pacific hex.
 
Therefore when measuring supply path hex cost should there be a different scale (see: Supply paths RaW Aug 2004(Paragraph 5)).
 

Using European scale should the Supply path hex cost be…
 
Add 1 hex in Europe
Add ½ in the Pacific/Asia maps

[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"]Or are you saying since all map hexes are now european scale.[/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"]

[/font][font="times new roman"]The diference between European and Asia/Pacific supply path hex costs are to be ignored?

[/font]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mziln
I believe that the conversion rate that was used was 2 European hexes for each Asia/Pacific hex.

Therefore when measuring supply path hex cost should there be a different scale (see: Supply paths RaW Aug 2004(Paragraph 5)).

Using European scale should the Supply path hex cost be…

Add 1 hex in Europe
Add ½ in the Pacific/Asia maps

[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"]Or are you saying since all map hexes are now european scale.[/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"]

[/font][font="times new roman"]The diference between European and Asia/Pacific supply path hex costs are to be ignored?

[/font]

WIF FE uses several different map scales. Let's call the European scale type A. Scale type A is now in use throughout the world. All rules pertaining to type A scale apply everywhere in the world.

You are confusing the rules for Asia/Pacific scaled maps (scale type B) as pertaining to geographical locations (e.g., Asia and the Pacific). In WIF FE they apply to all maps that use a type B scale (including southern Africa and Scandinavia). Since there are no more scale type B maps in MWIF, all the rules about scale type B are null and void, moot, irrelevant, do not pertain, have no effect, and, in general, are worthless to read or think about.

[paulderynck]

Yikes - do you really want those islands off shore from L.A. and San Diego?

Suppose in a prior turn, Japan has DOW'ed Free France which controls French Polynesia, and takes control of same. Now they can DOW the U.S. and invade those islands with a couple marine divisions from the 3 box off the U.S. west coast, and then in the next impulse walk into L.A. and San Diego. Admittedly the U.S. player would have to be somewhat asleep at the switch, but this map does make the U.S. west coast more vulnerable than in WIFFE.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Yikes - do you really want those islands off shore from L.A. and San Diego?

Suppose in a prior turn, Japan has DOW'ed Free France which controls French Polynesia, and takes control of same. Now they can DOW the U.S. and invade those islands with a couple marine divisions from the 3 box off the U.S. west coast, and then in the next impulse walk into L.A. and San Diego. Admittedly the U.S. player would have to be somewhat asleep at the switch, but this map does make the U.S. west coast more vulnerable than in WIFFE.

Hmmm, in the AIF map you posted, hexes 3948 and 3949 already have this issue, so I guess there is precedent. Presently my group is only using the mini-maps for the Americas.

So... no worries, I guess.

[iamspamus]

Hey Patrice,

Well, I'm not a native Californian...but, I did live in LA for 7 years. I would agree with what you discussed here. Long Beach really is the harbor of the area. Not sure if LA would even qualify as a port, but I could see l it remaining a minor port.

Jason

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: ajds

Putting the Los Angeles oil in the mountains between LA and San Diego does not well represent Signal Hill. Signal Hill is north of Long Beach - the Long Beach/San Pedro ports are why Los Angeles has a major port symbol in WiF, and you'll notice the port symbol is in the Los Angeles city hex. I would have no complaint with putting that oil in the city hex, but east of LA (in the mountains) isn't right, at least there was significant oil production to the west in the San Fernando Valley and Ventura County. But in the city hex is best, particularly if you want to reflect Signal Hill (by locating it with the ports). The major oil fields of Huntington Beach, Santa Fe Springs, Wilmington and Dominguez were all producers at that time, and all are in and around the City of Los Angeles itself. If it matters the refineries were (are) also next to the ports.

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/history ... _Calif.pdf

I've though over this a while, and here is what I would like to propose to you.
My proposal would be looking like the picture I uploaded in this post, with
- Long Beach city added to the hex SE of Los Angeles. Long Beach is 142k inhabitants in 1940 & 164k in 1944, thus warranting a city, also warranted by the zoom out from the WiF FE America map. Los Angeles had 1,238k inhabitants in 1940 & 1,504 in 1944.
- Long Beach also made a Major Port, as you are saying that the Long Beach portuary installations are what makes the Los Angeles city in WiF having a major port symbol (which is also confirmed by the aerial view I looked at on Google Earth).
- Los Angeles Major Port being transformed into a Minor Port (or no port at all if the Marina Del Rey -- as it seems to be the only port facilty in this hex) is not large enough to warrant it being reprensented as a major port in the 40s).
- Removing 1 Blue factory from Los Angeles.
- Adding 1 Blue factory to Long Beach.

The reason for this is that Long Beach (and Signal Hill) is placed just where there is this little "excrescence" on the mountainous coast south of Los Angeles, and the real port is here too (where the "S" of Signal Hill is right now).
Also, the center of Los Angeles, and the Center of Long Beach are about 30 km distant on the Google Earth map, and the whole area seems really high city density to warrant having 2 cities side by side (the original WiF America map has this area with 2 cities side by side, that are Los Angeles & San Diego).

What yould you all Californians would think about your Los Angeles area being treated this way ? [:D]

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I've though over this a while, and here is what I would like to propose to you.
My proposal would be looking like the picture I uploaded in this post, with
- Long Beach city added to the hex SE of Los Angeles. Long Beach is 142k inhabitants in 1940 & 164k in 1944, thus warranting a city, also warranted by the zoom out from the WiF FE America map. Los Angeles had 1,238k inhabitants in 1940 & 1,504 in 1944.
- Long Beach also made a Major Port, as you are saying that the Long Beach portuary installations are what makes the Los Angeles city in WiF having a major port symbol (which is also confirmed by the aerial view I looked at on Google Earth).
- Los Angeles Major Port being transformed into a Minor Port (or no port at all if the Marina Del Rey -- as it seems to be the only port facilty in this hex) is not large enough to warrant it being reprensented as a major port in the 40s).
- Removing 1 Blue factory from Los Angeles.
- Adding 1 Blue factory to Long Beach.

The reason for this is that Long Beach (and Signal Hill) is placed just where there is this little "excrescence" on the mountainous coast south of Los Angeles, and the real port is here too (where the "S" of Signal Hill is right now).
Also, the center of Los Angeles, and the Center of Long Beach are about 30 km distant on the Google Earth map, and the whole area seems really high city density to warrant having 2 cities side by side (the original WiF America map has this area with 2 cities side by side, that are Los Angeles & San Diego).

I have no objections to adding Long Beach as a new city SE of Los Angeles and moving 1 factory there. We did the same with several Japanese cities. Will Long Beach be a major port and LA be a minor port after the change?

One thing I don't understand, though, is that you think it's OK to make 2 separate cities for LA and Long Beach when they are just 30km apart. We had a similar discussion about adding Johannesburg next to Pretoria and it was rejected because it was said they were too close. But Johannesburg is more than 60km apart from Pretoria. That is more than twice the distance than the distance between LA and Long Beach. Long Beach had just 140k inhabitants in 1940 while Johannesburg is one of the largest cities in Africa and had more than 500000 inhabitants in 1936. Look here: http://www.queensu.ca/sarc/Conferences/ ... ekings.htm

So what's the reason such a big city like Johannesburg is not included in MWIF while we can include a suburb to LA like Long Beach that had just 140k and was just 30km apart from LA?

Don't get me wrong, I support adding Long Beach. [:)] But why not add Johannesburg too?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

I have no objections to adding Long Beach as a new city SE of Los Angeles and moving 1 factory there. We did the same with several Japanese cities. Will Long Beach be a major port and LA be a minor port after the change?

One thing I don't understand, though, is that you think it's OK to make 2 separate cities for LA and Long Beach when they are just 30km apart. We had a similar discussion about adding Johannesburg next to Pretoria and it was rejected because it was said they were too close. But Johannesburg is more than 60km apart from Pretoria. That is more than twice the distance than the distance between LA and Long Beach. Long Beach had just 140k inhabitants in 1940 while Johannesburg is one of the largest cities in Africa and had more than 500000 inhabitants in 1936. Look here: http://www.queensu.ca/sarc/Conferences/ ... ekings.htm

So what's the reason such a big city like Johannesburg is not included in MWIF while we can include a suburb to LA like Long Beach that had just 140k and was just 30km apart from LA?

Don't get me wrong, I support adding Long Beach. [:)] But why not add Johannesburg too?

Yes, the closeness of these 2 cities was of concern to me too. Perhaps making Long Beach a major port (only) and LA a city (only) is a reasonable solution.

As an historical note here. LA is so large partly because the city fathers wanted the glory of being a really large city (like NYC). To do that, they simply incorporated a lot of the LA suburbs into the city proper. This is at least partially why LA occupies such a large area (compared to the large cities in NE America).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
Well, I'm not a native Californian...but, I did live in LA for 7 years. I would agree with what you discussed here. Long Beach really is the harbor of the area. Not sure if LA would even qualify as a port, but I could see l it remaining a minor port.

I would be ok with Los Angeles not being a port, if Long Beach is a city. The important thing here (to be true to WiF FE) is that reinforcements can appear directly in the major port.

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
I have no objections to adding Long Beach as a new city SE of Los Angeles and moving 1 factory there. We did the same with several Japanese cities. Will Long Beach be a major port and LA be a minor port after the change?

This is what I'm proposing.
LA can even have no port at all.

One thing I don't understand, though, is that you think it's OK to make 2 separate cities for LA and Long Beach when they are just 30km apart. We had a similar discussion about adding Johannesburg next to Pretoria and it was rejected because it was said they were too close. But Johannesburg is more than 60km apart from Pretoria. That is more than twice the distance than the distance between LA and Long Beach. Long Beach had just 140k inhabitants in 1940 while Johannesburg is one of the largest cities in Africa and had more than 500000 inhabitants in 1936. Look here: http://www.queensu.ca/sarc/Conferences/ ... ekings.htm

Los Angeles : 1,238k in 1940, 1,504 in 1944.
Long Beach : 142k in 1940, 164k in 1944.
Pretoria : 138k in both 1940 & 1944.
Johannesburg : 554k in both 1940 & 1944.
Figures are from the 1940 & 1944 Collier Atlases.

The Los Angeles area is a city dense area, as there are lots of cities around it, that add even more to the population density of the place. I mean that it seems to me that the whole population of the place is more than the added populations of only those 2 cities.
Seemed to me that the Pretoria / Johannesburg case was different with a lower population density of the whole 2 hexes place.
The WiF FE America map translates this high population density in this coastal area by putting 2 cities side by side in adjacent hexes. The South African area does not have the same high density appearance to me.

It's true that Johannesburg has lot more pop than Pretoria, but Pretoria being the capital makes it appear on the map instead. As a note, you should know that even if I did not add the city symbol to the map, I did put the Johannesburg name.

Also, there are lots of places on the world, where the WiF Map misses a large city. In South Africa for example, the designers did put East London on the map (47k in 1940) as a minor port, and did not put Port Elizabeth (118k in 1940) that is west of it. Strange...

Also, about not putting Johannesburg, and putting Long Beach, I am a partisan of adding the least of what is possible. Adding Long Beach is IMO warranted because the real port is in Long Beach, and because the drawing of the coasts show that Long Beach is not situated in the same hex as Los Angeles (because of the form of the coast). So if we acknowledge that Los Angeles was not a major port by itself, and that Long Beach is the major port, we need to put the port in the hex to the SE. Putting the port alone, seems wrong to me, as this becomes a major port where US reinforcements cannot appear, which is contrary to the WiF FE game. So, as Long Beach has a population that warrants a city, as the WiF FE map has the place a high city dense area, I proposed to make Long Beach a city and a major port.

Well, I'd also add that, if I was in charge of creating the MWiF map, and if I had the permission of making it completely as I want, I would add a lot of cities in a lot of places, and I would also add Johannesburg. But I prefer to keep the modifications to the original design to a minimum.

So what's the reason such a big city like Johannesburg is not included in MWIF while we can include a suburb to LA like Long Beach that had just 140k and was just 30km apart from LA?

Don't get me wrong, I support adding Long Beach. [:)] But why not add Johannesburg too?

I'm OK to add it, if the game designers are OK too [:D]