Resource Types

[Toed]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

"Humans find patterns where none exist"

I think enumerating the type of resource will confuse more than illuminate.  Particularly because there are only resources and oil in the game.  Do you want to observe internecine arguments over the placement of resources in the game?  Harry placed the resources to illustrate value, not the specifics therein.

I fully agree with Zorachus99 here. I can just hear the argument 'How can you build that militia unit with no Iron/cotton/(or other basic resource) in you control? While passingly interesting this work seems to take time that could be spent more productively. Or even by resting for a bit. [:)]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Toed

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

"Humans find patterns where none exist"

I think enumerating the type of resource will confuse more than illuminate.  Particularly because there are only resources and oil in the game.  Do you want to observe internecine arguments over the placement of resources in the game?  Harry placed the resources to illustrate value, not the specifics therein.

I fully agree with Zorachus99 here. I can just hear the argument 'How can you build that militia unit with no Iron/cotton/(or other basic resource) in you control? While passingly interesting this work seems to take time that could be spent more productively. Or even by resting for a bit. [:)]

I understand what you say guys, and it is not yet done that the resources have a name beside them, but I always had this interest to know what the WiF resources were in reality, so even if only for that reason, I like this thread, and I'll keep on completing my Excel sheet where I listed all MWiF cities, ports, resources, oil and factories, and to which I added the nature of resources. [:D] [8D]

And thanks to Marcus to reviving the map review threads [:D].

Which is not an encouragement, as I think we all prefer the changes from WiF FE to MWiF to be minimal.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Toed

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

"Humans find patterns where none exist"

I think enumerating the type of resource will confuse more than illuminate.  Particularly because there are only resources and oil in the game.  Do you want to observe internecine arguments over the placement of resources in the game?  Harry placed the resources to illustrate value, not the specifics therein.

I fully agree with Zorachus99 here. I can just hear the argument 'How can you build that militia unit with no Iron/cotton/(or other basic resource) in you control? While passingly interesting this work seems to take time that could be spent more productively. Or even by resting for a bit. [:)]

Well, this is zero work for me.

I think an extra sentence explaining that the printed resource types have no influence on game play would be enough. It would go in the rules where we explain what the oil and non-oil resource symbols represent. In fact, a few more words about what resources, production points, and build points represent wouldn't hurt. As for whether this extra text might be confusing, it is no different than naming the islands, mountainous regions, and historical battle sites.

I was wondering if maybe we should use a different color for the font, just for some variety (e.g., silver, pale blue, light green, gray, ..?). It does not have to be a single color for all the resource types, maybe 2 or 3 to permit better contrast against mountain and clear terrain hexes.

I believe that using words would be better than abbreviations. Most of them will be short (Coal, Iron, Tin) and the longer names rare - justifying the larger footprint by their rarity.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

I would just throw this in....
 
In learning to play newer wargames I have found myself relying more and more on After Action Reports (AARs) written by the community.  I think these can be a useful tool in encouraging others to buy the game and try it out. 
 
When writing (and reading) AARs, the phrase 'cotton resource in southern Germany' conveys as much information as 'the resource 3 hexes SW of XXXX' and can be both written and read without stopping to consult a map.
 
I think it is nice 'flavor' without adding much work for the developer.  All that has to happen is to explain that these designations are generalizations that do not have any effect on actual gameplay.
 
Also, I believe this will apply to both email and verbal exchanges between team members when planning their strategies.
 
 

[composer99]

As this discussion goes on, it must also be observed that the non-oil resources are abstractions and often also agglomerations of strategically valuable resources, the placement of which must take gameplay considerations into account at least as much (if not more) as historical ones (owing to the still-vast scale of the map and the very abstracted nature of production). WiF is as 'beer & pretzels' as a game of its scope can get, and too much flavour-detail can take away from that (which I think would be a discredit to WiF).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

As this discussion goes on, it must also be observed that the non-oil resources are abstractions and often also agglomerations of strategically valuable resources, the placement of which must take gameplay considerations into account at least as much (if not more) as historical ones (owing to the still-vast scale of the map and the very abstracted nature of production). WiF is as 'beer & pretzels' as a game of its scope can get, and too much flavour-detail can take away from that (which I think would be a discredit to WiF).

How about words to the effect: "One of the critical/important (or the most critical/important) natural resource represented by the resource symbol is shown as a label next to th e resource symbol."

[marcuswatney]

"The principal resource produced by that region is printed beside the resource symbol.  It is shown for historical interest only and has no effect on game-play."

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

"The principal resource produced by that region is printed beside the resource symbol.  It is shown for historical interest only and has no effect on game-play."

Lovely.

Perhaps adding something about the resource being used in manufacturing war materiel? - but in one or two words instead of 6.[:D]

[composer99]

Perhaps "the principal resource of military value produced [...]"?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Perhaps "the principal resource of military value produced [...]"?

Yes. Thanks.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney
Cardiff coal
Chengtu coal
Chungking coal
Coventry iron
Essen coal
Georgetown British Guyana bauxite
Hanover iron
Katowice coal
Metz iron
Paramaribo Dutch Guyana bauxite
Petsamo cobalt
Pola bauxite
Saarbrucken coal
Belgium phosphates
Bolivia tin

You learn something new every day.  12% of the world's bauxite came from British Guyana and a further 7% from neighbouring Dutch Guyana.  And who would have guessed cobalt at Petsamo?

When I look at the Petsamo entry on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pechenga_District) they speak about the area being rich in Nickel. So, Cobalt or Nickel ?

Problem is with this, that this opens up a new way for people to say that the game is not well researched if our informations are wrong.

[ahlner]

According to Swedish National Encyclopedia the Petsamo area was rich in Nickel deposits and in the 1920s a mining industry developed. There is even a town there called Nikel...

[Froonp]

The list of the 137 resources, as of today :

Cardiff United Kingdom 1 Coal
Chengtu China 1 Coal
Chungking China 2 Coal
Coventry United Kingdom 1 Iron
Essen Germany 1 Coal
Georgetown British Guyana 1 Bauxite
Hanoi Indo-China 1 Coal
Hanover Germany 1 Iron
Indianapolis USA 1
Karaganda USSR 1
Katowice Poland 1 Coal
Kerch USSR 1
Kursk USSR 1
Little Rock USA 1
Louisville USA 1
Magnitogorsk USSR 1
Metz France 1 Iron
Ndola Northern Rhodesia 1
Newcastle Australia 1 Coal
Paramaribo Dutch Guyana 1 Bauxite
Petsamo Finland 1 Cobalt or Nickel ?
Phoenix USA 1
Pittsburgh USA 1
Pola Italy 1 Bauxite
Saarbrücken Germany 1 Coal
Sian China 1 Coal
Stalinsk USSR 1
Sudbury Canada 1
Tsitsihar Manchuria 1 Gold
Béchar Algeria 1
Mount Isa Australia 1 Lead
Broken Hill Australia 1 Silver
Clear 127,52 Belgian Congo 1
Clear 53,32 Belgium 1 Phosphates
Mountain 141,321 Bolivia 1 Tin
Clear 138,343 Brazil 1
Mountain 66,51 Bulgaria 1
Thetford Mines Canada 1 Asbestos
Pembroke Canada 1 Timber
Forest 52,298 Canada 1
Mountain 51,276 Canada 1
Mountain 158,318 Chile 1
Mountain 150,319 Chile 1
Mountain 136,319 Chile 1
Clear 78,146 China 1
Clear 73,143 China 1 Coal
Clear 86,142 China 1 Antimony
Forest 90,138 China 1 Tin
Desert Mountain 68,141 China 1 Iron
Mountain 72,130 China 1 Iron
San Luis Cuba 1 Manganese
Mountain 75,60 Cyprus 1
Forest 54,39 Czechoslovakia 1
Clear 89,148 Formosa 1 Iron
Clear 55,32 France 1
Clear 53,30 France 1
Clear 54,28 France 1
Clear 56,26 France 1
Mountain 62,31 France 1
Clear 50,40 Germany 1
Clear 53,38 Germany 1
Clear 49,36 Germany 1
Clear 51,33 Germany 1
Clear 53,43 Germany 1
Mountain 71,48 Greece 1
Forest 96,139 Hainan 1 Bauxite
Clear 59,44 Hungary 1
Clear 90,113 India 1
Warangal India 1 Granite ?
Forest 90,106 India 1
Mountain 95,110 India 1
Forest 64,37 Italy 1
Mountain 62,33 Italy 1
Mountain 62,171 Japan 1 Coal
Mountain 71,154 Korea 1 Iron
Jungle 115,130 Malaya 1 Rubber
Mountain 113,129 Malaya 1 Tin
Mountain 67,145 Manchuria 1 Iron
Mountain 68,151 Manchuria 1 Iron
Clear 86,288 Mexico 1
Clear 49,33 Netherlands 1
Mountain 142,194 New Caledonia 1 Nickel
Knaben Norway 1 Molybdenum
Mountain 134,318 Peru 1
Mountain 101,151 Philippines 1 Gold
Clear 52,45 Poland 1
Mountain 66,17 Portugal 1
Clear 70,34 Sardinia 1
Kayes Senegal 1 Iron
Clear 155,53 South Africa 1
Premier Mine South Africa 1 Diamond
Mountain 63,22 Spain 1
Mountain 71,21 Spain 1
Mountain 69,19 Spain 1
Mountain 62,18 Spain 1
Gällivare Sweden 2 Iron
Kiruna Sweden 1 Iron
Mountain 71,64 Turkey 1
Mountain 72,55 Turkey 1
Clear 65,299 USA 1
Clear 64,296 USA 1
Clear 69,293 USA 1
Clear 54,273 USA 1
Mountain 74,271 USA 1
Clear 64,313 USA 1
Forest 71,307 USA 1
Mountain 65,310 USA 1
Clear 68,306 USA 1
Forest 72,306 USA 1
Ironwood USA 1 Iron
Mountain 68,309 USA 1
Forest 58,283 USA 1
Mountain 68,284 USA 1
Mountain 66,278 USA 1
Mountain 67,269 USA 1
Clear 55,296 USA 1
Clear 71,299 USA 1
Mountain 74,304 USA 1
Clear 52,145 USSR 1 Tin
Clear 51,64 USSR 1
Clear 43,62 USSR 1
Krivoy Rog USSR 3 Iron
Forest 63,72 USSR 1
Forest 39,88 USSR 1
Suchan USSR 1 Iron
Forest 59,162 USSR 1 Lead
Kokand USSR 1 Cotton ?
Stalinabad USSR 1 Coal
Forest 42,87 USSR 1
Mountain 53,160 USSR 1 Coal
Biisk USSR 1
Forest 63,47 Yugoslavia 1
Mountain 65,47 Yugoslavia 1

[Reverend Zombie]

How about a different new icon for each resource type?  Color-coding of the existing icon, perhaps?
 
In truth, I'd be happy if they were left as they were, without description.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Reverend Zombie

How about a different new icon for each resource type?  Color-coding of the existing icon, perhaps?

In truth, I'd be happy if they were left as they were, without description.

Welcome.

Probably too much to change all the icons. Adding the labels seems contenious enough![:D]

[Toed]

Well then. The three Swedish resources should be Iron, Iron and Iron.
 
Some history of the mines if someone is interested. The first texts that mentions the large iron ore fields in the Kiruna Gällivare area is from 1696 but the first registred claim is from 1735. However the remoteness of the find make any profitable mining impossible until the Kiruna-Luleå railway is built. It is finished in 1888 and mining starts at a large scale. In 1898 the Norwegian parlament decides to allow the extention of the railway to Narvik and in 1903 the entire length of Malmbanan is completed and iron ore begins to be shipped out of Narvik as well.
During the German invasion of Narvik in april 1940 they blow up the harbour facilities and the shipping is concentrated to Luleå. After a record month in juli 1940 when 1,2 million tons (metric) of ore are shipped out the production falls off and during the last year of the war is the lowest since the depression. This is due to shipping losses and not lack of demand.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

All of Patrice's references to hex numbers seemed like a good excuse to show some updated screen shots of the USA map.

The hex numbers aren't shown here, but there is usually some geographical reference close to the resource icons.

The NE, including the Great Lakes.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

USA SE.

Patrice, I am not sure why you chose to label Charlestown West Virginia.

[marcuswatney]

I think it is important not to change the icon, to underline that there is no functional difference.
 
Yes, Petsamo produced both nickel and cobalt.  My source has lumped Petsamo's pre-war nickel production in with the Soviet Union's in spite of the fact that Petsamo was not ceded until 1945 (so I can't judge its significance).  Presumably the author did this to aid comparison.  At least the source notes the transfer.
 
All I can tell from the map that comes with the statistics is that there is one red blob for nickel production and two black blobs for cobalt production.  On the other hand, pre-war production of "pig iron and ferro alloys" (which would include cobalt) was only 18,000 tonnes, rising by 1959 to 88,000 tonnes, presumably because of the use of cobalt in nuclear applications.  So by all means change Petsamo to nickel if you want.
 
The mine at Nikel' (I assume the apostrophe denotes an abbreviation) appears named on my map: it produced cobalt not nickel!

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The dry SW.

I had to trim the coast lines to fit the forum size limits on images. These 4 screen shots show all the USA non-oil resources though (I think).