Modifying the map

[Rowdy]

Is it possible to stretch the map from it's size of 71L by 65H to say 96L by 79H like Pacwars map? If it could be done then there is the chance that we could include the west front if we shortened Russia a little. What do you think? Of course we would have to find a way of including the Western Allies but I'm sure we could find a way to tie supply into the Weatern approach via Russia. Well??

[sean]

It seems that if you could alter the map then you could make it large enough to include the western front and/or the african front. Supply would be the same, just alter the color of the enemy units, etc.

Anyone know if this is possible?

[Rich Dionne]

I've tried this, and failed

I know where the map size info is located in the database files, and can make smaller portions of the map accessible, but any attempts to build a bigger map have so far eluded me.

Regards,

Rich

[m200]

Even if you confined yourself to the present map area, without adding Western Europe or Africa, the map is still worth modifying because it's grossly inaccurate. This is actually interesting. Just look at, say, Eastern Europe and the River Vistula and then compare it with what is in an atlas. It's amazing this map is still used in the official game files and it hasn't been changed while so many other things have been corrected or improved: bugs, colours. But no one seems to think of putting the map right.

m200

[Rowdy]

Rich, since your attempts to increase the size of the WIR map failed, how about modifying the map of WF. The size of this map is 9 tiles longer and 20 tiles higher and also includes hexes for amphibious landings. The combat routines and the addition of the western allies and landings would've seemed the most logical game for matrix to develop further and not WIR. Now I'm sure there are many reasons why WF was and is not going to be updated but it would sure be nice to include the west, east and africa into one game using WIR as a template. Sorry, the post is getting longer. I'm not a coder or an artist but, how feasible would it be to transfer the code from DOS to a windows based game to incorporate all three fronts?

[Rich Dionne]

Originally posted by m200
Even if you confined yourself to the present map area, without adding Western Europe or Africa, the map is still worth modifying because it's grossly inaccurate. This is actually interesting. Just look at, say, Eastern Europe and the River Vistula and then compare it with what is in an atlas. It's amazing this map is still used in the official game files and it hasn't been changed while so many other things have been corrected or improved: bugs, colours. But no one seems to think of putting the map right.

m200

Yes, I agree the map could be improved, and I've toyed with the idea of modifying the map myself. Unfortunately, I think it requires more work than I've had the time to put in.

Rich

[Rich Dionne]

Originally posted by Rowdy
Rich, since your attempts to increase the size of the WIR map failed, how about modifying the map of WF. The size of this map is 9 tiles longer and 20 tiles higher and also includes hexes for amphibious landings. The combat routines and the addition of the western allies and landings would've seemed the most logical game for matrix to develop further and not WIR. Now I'm sure there are many reasons why WF was and is not going to be updated but it would sure be nice to include the west, east and africa into one game using WIR as a template. Sorry, the post is getting longer. I'm not a coder or an artist but, how feasible would it be to transfer the code from DOS to a windows based game to incorporate all three fronts?

Rowdy,

Yes, WF does have a bigger map, but I think WIR has a better game engine than WF. It would probably be quite a bit of work converting WIR into a windows based 3 front campaign (less for a DOS based version), but I think Matrix is more focused on the new game products it is working on. I think 2by3 Games plan to develop the new "War in Russia" game will be a better springboard for larger campaigns encompassing all 3 fronts. "War in the Pacific" may be another possible starting point for bigger games.

Regards,

Rich

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by m200
Even if you confined yourself to the present map area, without adding Western Europe or Africa, the map is still worth modifying because it's grossly inaccurate. This is actually interesting. Just look at, say, Eastern Europe and the River Vistula and then compare it with what is in an atlas. It's amazing this map is still used in the official game files and it hasn't been changed while so many other things have been corrected or improved: bugs, colours. But no one seems to think of putting the map right.

You're right about the Vistula, and I'll bring this up, but to understand, keep in mind the importance of the map has always been in the accuracy of the Soviet Union, not the western part of the map. Almost the the entire game is played in the Soviet Union on the eastern half of the map, so there has been little interest in the accuracy of the western side of the map. IIRC, this is the first time the accuracy of the *western* side of the map has been discussed.

[m200]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn



You're right about the Vistula, and I'll bring this up, but to understand, keep in mind the importance of the map has always been in the accuracy of the Soviet Union, not the western part of the map. Almost the the entire game is played in the Soviet Union on the eastern half of the map, so there has been little interest in the accuracy of the western side of the map. IIRC, this is the first time the accuracy of the *western* side of the map has been discussed.

Yes, I understand it. The most important part of the map is probably Soviet Russia and what IT looks like. I think that this was likely to influence the choice of projection type and maybe some other considerations regarding the map. But the point about Eastern Europe is that it's not totally insignificant in the game. We're not talking about, say, western Germany and places like Koln or Dusseldorf, where the palyers are quite unlikely to play during the game. Eastern Europe is actually the place where you DO play. If you fail in the 1941 scenario, then Eastern Europe is where you will probably end up being chased by Russian armies. The Bagration scenario is also likely to take you to Eastern Europe. So as you can see, Eastern Europe is quite significant, it plays an important part in the game.
I'm not an expert on map making or map projections. I suppose the shape of the River Vistula may be influnced by the projection type chosen. Personally, I don't like it because it is so strange and it looks odd when you see how close the River Vistula is to the River Oder. But as I said, maybe it is due to the projection type. However there are some little details that can't be justified by the projection type, these are simply errors that, IMHO, should be corrected. Have a look at the situation of Danzig, for instance. In reality, Danzig lies west of the River Vistula. So if the Russian armies wanted to take Danzig, they would first have to cross the River Vistula. However, in the game, Danzig is situated east of the river! This IS strange.
I think that it would be a godd idea to at least slightly alter certain details on the Eastern Europe map.

regards,

m200