MWiF Map Review - America

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
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).

I think that the Major Port should stay with a city symbol, to allow reinforcements to arrive in the major port directly if wanted, as in the original WiF FE game.

So, my opinion is that
(1) either the major port symbol stays where it is (LA) and Long Beach & the Oil are all abstracted in the LA hex, or
(2) Long Beach + the port + the oil are all in the hex SE and LA stays in the hex it is, with either no port or a minor one only.

This to me is kind of the Yokohama / Tokyo place, where we added Yokohama + major port, and relocated a factory from Tokyo to Yokohama, simply to account for the high population density of the Yokohama-Tokyo area. Same for the Kure-Osaka area.

[Froonp]

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...

Here are places that are not reprensented on the MWiF map, and that should :
(Average 1940-1944 population)
Chemnitz Germany 351 (SE Leipzig)
Chengte (Jehol) Manchuria 650 (6 hex W Mukden (Local name : Jehol, modern name Chengde) on Chinese border)
Ubor Siam 745 (5 hex E Bangkok)
Nagor Rajasima Siam 599 (2 hex E Bangkok)
Johannesburg South Africa 554 (same hex as Pretoria)

I must admit that I'm not 100% sure for both Siamese cities, this seems very strange to me that both cities have such large population in the 40s (with Bangkok having 681k in the same period), but I have not investigated in depth these places.

I have surveyed the 1940 & 1944 Colliers atlases, recording the population of WiF FE cities & ports, and of places who have more than 100k and are not represented on the MWiF map.

I have found 112 cities, with an average 40-44 population greater than 100k, that are not on the WiF FE map, and are not in an hex where there is already a city. So that's 112 places where cities can be added. 25-30 would be on the European maps, so they are out of the picture if we want a map faithfull to WiF FE, and the rest are in the world. 12 in Russia (some of them on the European map too), 21 in the USA, 14 in India, 10 in China, 6 in Brazil.

Adding cities has the secondary effect of giving areas the impression that they are highly urbanized areas, such as the eastern Chinese Coast, of the North Eastern USA Coast, of the Ganges Valley, which is good and accurate in these places, but may not have the desired macro effect overall in other places.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think that the Major Port should stay with a city symbol, to allow reinforcements to arrive in the major port directly if wanted, as in the original WiF FE game.

So, my opinion is that
(1) either the major port symbol stays where it is (LA) and Long Beach & the Oil are all abstracted in the LA hex, or
(2) Long Beach + the port + the oil are all in the hex SE and LA stays in the hex it is, with either no port or a minor one only.

This to me is kind of the Yokohama / Tokyo place, where we added Yokohama + major port, and relocated a factory from Tokyo to Yokohama, simply to account for the high population density of the Yokohama-Tokyo area. Same for the Kure-Osaka area.

I agree with you that if we move the major port to Long Beach it should have a city there so reinforcements can arrive there. Relocating 1 factory from LA to Long Beach seems reasonable too. The reasoning for doing this is that the map scale changes from Asia map scale to European map scale.

So I propose that Long Beach is added as a city with a major port and the port in LA is removed. LA should keep 2 factories and Long Beach have 1 factory. This is in consistency with what we did with Tokyo/Yokohama and Osaka/Kure.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
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.[

From what I read about Johannesburg it increased from 500k in 1936 to over 900k in 1951. Today it has more than 3500k. So Johannesburg seems to be one of the highly densed urban areas in Africa. Maybe only Cairo is more dense? Pretoria is just like a suburb to Johannesburg.

I don't think there is a problem when we omit cities bigger than 100k in urban areas like Germany (with Chemnitz), China, India etc. This is because there are several other cities that can represent the population there. And it's simply not possible to have every 100k+ city on the map. But if there are no other cities in the vicinity then I think it's good to split huge urban areas into 2 cities when we change the map scale from Asian scale to European scale. We did it with Tokyo / Yokohama, Osaka / Kure, maybe also LA / Long Beach. So I therefore believe Johannesburg is one such candidate. It's not like it's an average city like Chemnitz that's forgotten, but one of the biggest cities on the entire African continent. So it's a major city today and was so even in 1940. Chemnitz is dwarfed by Leipzig, Dresden etc. in the vicinity of Chemnitz so nothing is lost by omitting that city.

I agree with the principle that we should not tamper with the European scale WIFFE maps. But the Asian scaled WIFFE maps will definitely have more cities because we double the map scale. Have we for example added ANY new cities at all in South Africa when we changed the map scale? Isn't it then a good opportunity to put the biggest South African city on the map next to the capital city of Pretoria?

I'm not sure if it has any game balance implications by adding new cities like Long Beach and Johannesburg, but I don't believe so. They're not located in areas we could expect to see much combat.

[Froonp]

From what I read about Johannesburg it increased from 500k in 1936 to over 900k in 1951. Today it has more than 3500k. So Johannesburg seems to be one of the highly densed urban areas in Africa. Maybe only Cairo is more dense? Pretoria is just like a suburb to Johannesburg.

I don't think there is a problem when we omit cities bigger than 100k in urban areas like Germany (with Chemnitz), China, India etc. This is because there are several other cities that can represent the population there. And it's simply not possible to have every 100k+ city on the map. But if there are no other cities in the vicinity then I think it's good to split huge urban areas into 2 cities when we change the map scale from Asian scale to European scale. We did it with Tokyo / Yokohama, Osaka / Kure, maybe also LA / Long Beach. So I therefore believe Johannesburg is one such candidate. It's not like it's an average city like Chemnitz that's forgotten, but one of the biggest cities on the entire African continent. So it's a major city today and was so even in 1940. Chemnitz is dwarfed by Leipzig, Dresden etc. in the vicinity of Chemnitz so nothing is lost by omitting that city.

I agree.

I agree with the principle that we should not tamper with the European scale WIFFE maps. But the Asian scaled WIFFE maps will definitely have more cities because we double the map scale. Have we for example added ANY new cities at all in South Africa when we changed the map scale? Isn't it then a good opportunity to put the biggest South African city on the map next to the capital city of Pretoria?

I agree.

I'm not sure if it has any game balance implications by adding new cities like Long Beach and Johannesburg, but I don't believe so. They're not located in areas we could expect to see much combat.

I'm growing in agreement with you, do you know ? [:D] You've made strong points, and Johannesburg is really big, compared to all other cities of the 40s. The list I set up shows this blattantly, it is in the top 3 of the large cities not present on the map.

Here is how South Africa is looking at the moment :

[Froonp]

From this map, it seems that Johannesburg should be placed inthe hex SW of Pretoria, on the railway, in a position to the north of the hex.

[Froonp]

This one also goes your way I think... (1979 population density)

[Froonp]

The latest also supports at least a minor port in Port Elizabeth (118k in 1940).

[Froonp]

From what I read about Johannesburg it increased from 500k in 1936 to over 900k in 1951. Today it has more than 3500k. So Johannesburg seems to be one of the highly densed urban areas in Africa. Maybe only Cairo is more dense? Pretoria is just like a suburb to Johannesburg.

Just for information :
Cairo : 1,311k in 1940.
Alexandria : 699k.
Cape Town : 352k.
Durban : 270k.

Other cities in Africa are barely above 50k, the largest being Addis Ababa (109k) and Lagos (126k).
But there are lots for which I have no figures.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
From this map, it seems that Johannesburg should be placed inthe hex SW of Pretoria, on the railway, in a position to the north of the hex.

Yes, this seems correct. Maybe you can try to add it on the map and show us the result? [;)] And maybe also the same with Long Beach added on the US map. It's always nice to see the result of map changes that people propose.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
The latest also supports at least a minor port in Port Elizabeth (118k in 1940).

I agree we can at least add a minor port in Port Elizabeth. Maybe even a city. Is it also possible to add a minor port in the South African port hex close to the Namibian border? I saw you called the hex Port **** . The **** is not easy to read from the map you showed us.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

ORIGINAL: Froonp
The latest also supports at least a minor port in Port Elizabeth (118k in 1940).

I agree we can at least add a minor port in Port Elizabeth. Maybe even a city. Is it also possible to add a minor port in the South African port hex close to the Namibian border? I saw you called the hex Port **** . The **** is not easy to read from the map you showed us.

This one is really too small to be something else than a name (Port Nolloth) on the map, a terminus of the railway. I think I read that this railway was built for mining business, but seeing the population density of the area in the 70s, I beleive there was never not much urbanization there.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm growing in agreement with you, do you know ? [:D] You've made strong points, and Johannesburg is really big, compared to all other cities of the 40s. The list I set up shows this blattantly, it is in the top 3 of the large cities not present on the map.

I know. [;)] I heard from friends and colleagues my tendency to dig up lots of strong points in discussions can be quite annoying for some people. [:D] But I sometimes have to learn when a "battle" is lost and just accept I can't convince everyone.

It's important to remember not to propose changes just for the reason of making changes, but because the changes make sense and could actually improve the game. And the hardest thing of all is to tell oneself good enough is good enough and move on to something else instead of being a perfectionist. Sometimes people need to tell me to just accept the good solution we had already made instead of trying to improve even further. So don't hesitate to tell me if you think I'm just spending lots of effort trying to improve the map 0.00001%. [:D]

[Froonp]

I know. I heard from friends and colleagues my tendency to dig up lots of strong points in discussions can be quite annoying for some people. But I sometimes have to learn when a "battle" is lost and just accept I can't convince everyone.

You know, people should not view discussions as "battles", and think about winning or loosing them, this leads to too many wrong discussions that lead to nowhere but dead ends. Discussions are ways to learn things, and everyone wins in discussions [:D]. I find it as pleasing being convincted by the other's sound points, than convincting people with my own good points. [:D]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I know. I heard from friends and colleagues my tendency to dig up lots of strong points in discussions can be quite annoying for some people. But I sometimes have to learn when a "battle" is lost and just accept I can't convince everyone.

You know, people should not view discussions as "battles", and think about winning or loosing them, this leads to too many wrong discussions that lead to nowhere but dead ends. Discussions are ways to learn things, and everyone wins in discussions [:D]. I find it as pleasing being convincted by the other's sound points, than convincting people with my own good points. [:D]

I agree and might add: most education is painful (there are some pleasant exceptions[;)]). But at the end of the experience though, enlightenment is greatly rewarding. Sadly it is usually only a brief period of light followed closely by a rapid descent into darkness again.

And as for buffing and polishing the map, I fully believe the accumulation of these many small improvements will be its greatest strength.

[Froonp]

Here is what South Africa looks like with Johannesburg (554k inhabitants) and Port Elizabeth (118k).

[Froonp]

And here is what California looks like with Long Beach.
I removed the Signal hill name, as it was cluttering the map too much.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is what South Africa looks like with Johannesburg (554k inhabitants) and Port Elizabeth (118k).

Looks great to me. [:)]

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

And here is what California looks like with Long Beach.
I removed the Signal hill name, as it was cluttering the map too much.

Also looks great to me. [:D]

[ajds]

The little bump is Palos Verdes, and Long Beach is of course to the east of it, so putting Long Beach in the hex to the east of the bump makes sense to me. I doubt anyone could call Long Beach moutainous, but things do get hilly in Orange County and down towards San Diego, so the hex as mountainous is reasonable. Adding the Long Beach city makes sense from a variety of directions, not least because the greater Los Angeles area had more than one population center. Thumbs up from me - as usual, excellent work.

Port Hueneme (or whatever the spelling is) could be a minor port in one of the mountain coastal hexes to the west of Los Angeles, but the coast north of Palos Verdes is all beach or rocks through Malibu and beyond, so no port along there (I am referring to the coast in the Los Angeles clear hex).