MWiF Map Review - America

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Astarix
Those 2 hexes to the NE of the U.S. Virgin Islands are the British Virgin Islands.
In our map they are included in what is called British Antilles.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

I've got a question about the Dutch West Indies and St. Eustatius. It says (NED) ... isn't that supposed to be "Dutch" or "Netherlands", "Neth" ?  Because "NED" is derived from the Dutch "Nederland".
It was decided a long time ago to use a consistent set of abbreviations for countries, and that this abbreviation would be 3 letter long.
We took the codes from the international Olympic Committee here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IOC_country_codes.
For those who had not code, we made it up.
For Major Powers, we kept the codes from WiF FE (Fr, CW, USA, USSR, Ch, It, Ja, Ge).
marcuswatney
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:07 pm

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by marcuswatney »

ORIGINAL: Norman42

-St. Martin was the administrative center for the French Antillies(and a beautiful isle I might add, cruised there a few years back and the combined French/Dutch culture is truly unique), so I'd recommend changing St. Bartholemew, which in 1940 was very insignificant other then a few plantations, to St. Martin.  The fact that the Netherlands administrated part of the isle isn't important overall, the French took over security functions for the isle from 1919 onwards.
According to the CIA World Fact Book's entry on St Barthélemy: "France repurchased the island in 1878 and placed it under the administration of Guadeloupe. St. Barthelemy retained its free port status along with various Swedish appelations such as Swedish street and town names, and the three-crown symbol on the coat of arms. In 2003, the populace of the island voted to secede from Guadeloupe and in 2007, the island became a French overseas collectivity."

My least favourite rule in WiF is the intrinsic defence strength against invasion, which may be fine along the coast of Europe but is completely senseless when it comes to barely-inhabited islands in the Pacific and Caribbean. The amount of effort these places take to capture, if you are not blessed with marines, is ridiculous. That is why I am always keen to agglomerate isolated islands into larger territories with at least one port which will determine their ownership without the need to invade.

For this reason, for game-play it does make sense that St Barthélemy be part of the Gaudeloupe territory as it was historically, falling upon the capture of Basse-Terre ... and that St Eustatius be part of the Netherlands Antilles (labelled Dutch West Indies), from where it was administered historically.

I strongly approve of the way that the Cayman Islands are shown as being part of Jamaica rather than owned by the CW, and suggest we need more of this.
Astarix
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 4:47 am
Location: Hampton, Minnesota

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Astarix »

Patrice,
 
Just make sure you move the River to the hexside I show above.  When I described it, I made a mistake in indicating which Hexside it starts in.  If left the way it shows in #604 it will be incorrect.  Not including Peppin is fine, its basically about a 60 mile long depression that the Mississippi runs through.  Its narrow enough that a lot of maps don't show it.  I just thought about it after reading another post about the lack of lakes in Minnesota.  Other than Rainy Lake its the only other one that is long enough to fill an entire hexside.
 
Jason
 
 
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Astarix
Just make sure you move the River to the hexside I show above.  When I described it, I made a mistake in indicating which Hexside it starts in.  If left the way it shows in #604 it will be incorrect.
Would it be good like that Jason ?

Image
Attachments
NorthernM..Pat2.jpg
NorthernM..Pat2.jpg (123.96 KiB) Viewed 238 times
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney
ORIGINAL: Norman42

-St. Martin was the administrative center for the French Antillies(and a beautiful isle I might add, cruised there a few years back and the combined French/Dutch culture is truly unique), so I'd recommend changing St. Bartholemew, which in 1940 was very insignificant other then a few plantations, to St. Martin.  The fact that the Netherlands administrated part of the isle isn't important overall, the French took over security functions for the isle from 1919 onwards.
According to the CIA World Fact Book's entry on St Barthélemy: "France repurchased the island in 1878 and placed it under the administration of Guadeloupe. St. Barthelemy retained its free port status along with various Swedish appelations such as Swedish street and town names, and the three-crown symbol on the coat of arms. In 2003, the populace of the island voted to secede from Guadeloupe and in 2007, the island became a French overseas collectivity."

My least favourite rule in WiF is the intrinsic defence strength against invasion, which may be fine along the coast of Europe but is completely senseless when it comes to barely-inhabited islands in the Pacific and Caribbean. The amount of effort these places take to capture, if you are not blessed with marines, is ridiculous. That is why I am always keen to agglomerate isolated islands into larger territories with at least one port which will determine their ownership without the need to invade.

For this reason, for game-play it does make sense that St Barthélemy be part of the Gaudeloupe territory as it was historically, falling upon the capture of Basse-Terre ... and that St Eustatius be part of the Netherlands Antilles (labelled Dutch West Indies), from where it was administered historically.

I strongly approve of the way that the Cayman Islands are shown as being part of Jamaica rather than owned by the CW, and suggest we need more of this.
This is already the case for St Eustatius as part of the Dutch West Indies.
We could do the same for that hex where St Martin & St Barthelemy by making it part of Guadeloupe.

This would remove the "French Antilles" label from the map, and make this hex conquered by the conquest of Basse-Terre.
I looked in the data file, and this hex 95,325 is the only hex belonging to the "French Antilles" Territory, thus this Territory (#30 in the countries list) would disappear.
Moreover, the French Antilles refers to the four territories presently under French sovereignty in the Caribbean: the two overseas departments of Guadeloupe and Martinique, plus the two overseas collectivities of Saint Martin and Saint-Barthélemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Antilles). If Saint Martin and Saint-Barthélemy were governed from Guadeloupe (which is supported by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadeloupe), then it is true that we do not need it.

Another solution would be to delete the Martinique & Guadeloupe Territories, and make them part of the French Antilles that would contain Guadeloupe, Martinique and Saint Martin & Saint-Barthélemy, but I'm not sure that the French Antilles were ar real world entity, so maybe it is best to simply go with the first solution.

Other opinions ?
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Astarix
Also, I don't know if its worth the effort or not, but you might want to consider adding the city of Fargo. The Twin Cities of the North, Fargo-Morhead was an important rail junction and central collection and shipping point for Wheat, Sugar Beats and Corn. The Sugar Beats are processed locally and the Corn and Wheat were shipped to Minneapolis for milling or to Duluth and Superior for shipment east across the lakes. 1940 census for the immediate cities and suburbs was 80,000.

3 railroads ran west through those towns. The Great Northern, The Northern Pacific and the Chicago-Milwaukee-St.Paul & Pacific. And of course the rail line that runs North-South on the North Dakota side of the Red River up to Winnepeg. If you were to add Fargo-Moorhead, I would put it in the northern half of the southern most river hex of the Red River and move the rail line to go through the same hex. Fargo is and was the largetst city in North Dakota.
I added Fargo as a named location (too small for city status), and reworked the railway around it. By looking at various USA maps, it is true that it is better that way, and still similar to how it is in WiF FE. Would it be good that way ?

Image
Attachments
Image1.jpg
Image1.jpg (193.4 KiB) Viewed 238 times
marcuswatney
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:07 pm

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by marcuswatney »

Patrice, I would go with the first solution.  Guadeloupe and Martinique were large enough that one would not necessarily be influenced by the other.  It is reasonable to continue with the present definition of separate territories for those two, but just add St Barthélemy to the Guadeloupe territory.
 
Hey! You get to reduce your number of territories by one again!  Always a desirable objective...
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Patrice, I would go with the first solution.  Guadeloupe and Martinique were large enough that one would not necessarily be influenced by the other.  It is reasonable to continue with the present definition of separate territories for those two, but just add St Barthélemy to the Guadeloupe territory.

Hey! You get to reduce your number of territories by one again!  Always a desirable objective...
If Steve agrees, I'll do that.
This hex is the only hex of this Territory, and history back this change up too, so there is no reason not to do it. There is only one thing to take into account, this is that this is a French Territory, and French Territories must be handled somewhere in the code for Vichy / Free France.

By the way, I still have had no "Go" for the "Territory of New Guinea" change (that would also reduce the number of Territories in the game).
Joshuatree
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:58 am
Location: Netherlands

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Joshuatree »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

I've got a question about the Dutch West Indies and St. Eustatius. It says (NED) ... isn't that supposed to be "Dutch" or "Netherlands", "Neth" ?  Because "NED" is derived from the Dutch "Nederland".
It was decided a long time ago to use a consistent set of abbreviations for countries, and that this abbreviation would be 3 letter long.
We took the codes from the international Olympic Committee here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IOC_country_codes.
For those who had not code, we made it up.
For Major Powers, we kept the codes from WiF FE (Fr, CW, USA, USSR, Ch, It, Ja, Ge).

[:o] Ah, I see. Thank you for clearing that up.
marcuswatney
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:07 pm

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by marcuswatney »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
By the way, I still have had no "Go" for the "Territory of New Guinea" change (that would also reduce the number of Territories in the game).
I didn't realise. I suggest you ask Steve direct for formal approval well before the next deadline of 15 June. The issue was well debated, and I think we all came to a very sensible consensus.

Astarix
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 4:47 am
Location: Hampton, Minnesota

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Astarix »

Patrice,

Yes, I like both changes, the river is now correctly located, and the Fargo change looks fine as well.


Jason
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney
ORIGINAL: Froonp
By the way, I still have had no "Go" for the "Territory of New Guinea" change (that would also reduce the number of Territories in the game).
I didn't realise. I suggest you ask Steve direct for formal approval well before the next deadline of 15 June. The issue was well debated, and I think we all came to a very sensible consensus.

I try to "stay small" in decision making about the map. If both Marcus and Patrice agree on a change that should be made, [X(] well, then who am I to object?[;)]

We can make these change for June 15th if you want.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

Here are the changes around Duluth.

Image
Attachments
Duluth06112008.jpg
Duluth06112008.jpg (344.12 KiB) Viewed 238 times
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are the changes around Duluth.
I'll name the 2 rivers around St Paul and I'll try to name the new lake, when I'll have the new version.
User avatar
fiveof6
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:20 pm

RE: MWiF Map Review - America Oregon

Post by fiveof6 »


"The Below is the Willamette as depicted on the map, and the 2 other views are the Willamette as found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_River. The center map shows Willamette River watershed, and the rightmost one show the tributaries of the Willamette River. According to the center map, our drawing is wrong, but according to the rightmost map our drawing could be the better one to depict the waterways that can block movement.

So, is the Willamette River right ? "

You are correct to question the south end of the Willamette (Wil LAM it) River. Add one more length of river to the southeast.

Additionally, there should be one more clear hex (farmland) instead of forest to the southwest of the current southern most clear hex. It would be the center hex of the three forest hexes. While there was some forest in the hex in question, movement would not be affected due to open terrain farms.

Kevin

Kevin
User avatar
fiveof6
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:20 pm

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by fiveof6 »

Re: Grand Canyon

The four southern hexsides where the word "Grand Canyon" is labelled (plus one more to the southwest) should be considered blocked. There is no way a land based military unit could cross the river in that area, ever. It is a reverse mountain, thousands of feet straight into the ground which regularly claims tourists that get too close to the edge.

Kevin
Kevin
User avatar
fiveof6
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:20 pm

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by fiveof6 »

Kitsap Penisula

The forest hex immediately west of Seattle is connected to the rest of the continent by a narrow strip of land. The only hexside that should be accessible by land is the south west. There was regular ferry service from Seattle to Bremerton, so a red connector should exist between Seattle and the forest hex to the west of Seattle.

San Juan Islands

The southern most water hex to the east of Victoria is actually littered with the San Juan Islands. The US and Britain almost fought the Pig War over this island group. http://www.sanjuanmaps.com/images/sanjuanmap-med.jpg

At the time of WWII, there was no regular ferry service to these islands so the red connecting line is unnecessary.

Kevin
Kevin
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Re: Grand Canyon

The four southern hexsides where the word "Grand Canyon" is labelled (plus one more to the southwest) should be considered blocked. There is no way a land based military unit could cross the river in that area, ever. It is a reverse mountain, thousands of feet straight into the ground which regularly claims tourists that get too close to the edge.

Kevin
I agree, unfortnately there is no game terrain suitable for the Grand Canyon. I've had already noted in my files that for MWiF 2 we should add such a terrain hex, but for MWiF 1 this is not possible.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8494
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: MWiF Map Review - America

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Re: Grand Canyon

The four southern hexsides where the word "Grand Canyon" is labelled (plus one more to the southwest) should be considered blocked. There is no way a land based military unit could cross the river in that area, ever. It is a reverse mountain, thousands of feet straight into the ground which regularly claims tourists that get too close to the edge.

Kevin
I agree, unfortnately there is no game terrain suitable for the Grand Canyon. I've had already noted in my files that for MWiF 2 we should add such a terrain hex, but for MWiF 1 this is not possible.
Wouldn't an alpine hexside serve?
Paul
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”