AI for MWIF - Norway

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: ptey
Another possibility would be to move the minor port one hex south-east and rename it Sorsogon?
Wikipedia doesnt seem to have much information of the history of the place, but today there apparently is something called Sorsogon City located in the bay at the west coast in the northen part of the hex south east of Legaspi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorsogon_City
The city is the combination of two former towns it says, with a total population of 151.000 (2007). Compared with 179.000 in Legaspi (2000).
Maybe the Legaspi port on the WIFFE maps is actually a depiction of the combination of these minor coastal towns at the southen tip of the peninsula? With Legaspi chosen as name because it was the biggest of the towns there. With the new scale, this might not be the best option anymore.

Well, it looks like Legaspi is and was the biggest place in the area (look here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicol_Region), and the Sorsogon looks like it grew up late as Sorsogon City was founded in 2000 from the joining of the towns of Sorsogon and Bacon.

Regardless. Instead of moving Legaspi to an incorrect location, and giving it the ability of a 2 sea area port, even though it doesnt look like one on the map. I think its better to move the port one hex to the south-east and rename it to the biggest (coastal)town in the hex.

I think that Steve's solution is good, it will ook normal to have ships in Legaspi sail to the South China Sea and back. It already looks normal to me now.
As I said previously there is no continent nor large mass of land preventing ships from Legaspi to reach the South China Sea, there is only a 50 km detour. I would have happily changed the port to the SE hex if there was a reason, and named it with a new name, and just left Legaspi in the previous place as a place name, but there is no justification for that, Legaspi is the real center of civilization in the Bicol Region of the Philippines.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ptey

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp


Fair enough. [:)]
I'll do that.

Thanks.

So that just leaves figuring out/writing code for Istanbul.

Another possibility would be to move the minor port one hex south-east and rename it Sorsogon?
Wikipedia doesnt seem to have much information of the history of the place, but today there apparently is something called Sorsogon City located in the bay at the west coast in the northen part of the hex south east of Legaspi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorsogon_City
The city is the combination of two former towns it says, with a total population of 151.000 (2007). Compared with 179.000 in Legaspi (2000).
Maybe the Legaspi port on the WIFFE maps is actually a depiction of the combination of these minor coastal towns at the southen tip of the peninsula? With Legaspi chosen as name because it was the biggest of the towns there. With the new scale, this might not be the best option anymore.

Regardless. Instead of moving Legaspi to an incorrect location, and giving it the ability of a 2 sea area port, even though it doesnt look like one on the map. I think its better to move the port one hex to the south-east and rename it to the biggest (coastal)town in the hex.

Hmmm.

How about we leave the Legaspi hex as the port but move the port symbol to the 4 o'clock position, instead of the 3 o'clock position? That will put it very close to the hex SE of it, though not actually in the SE hex. [We should do this anyway.]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
How about we leave the Legaspi hex as the port but move the port symbol to the 4 o'clock position, instead of the 3 o'clock position? That will put it very close to the hex SE of it, though not actually in the SE hex. [We should do this anyway.]

I did not want the port symbol to obscure the Bay graphic (legaspi is in the bottom of the Bay indeed), and I feared that the 4 position would obscure the bay, but I'll try that, in addition to trim the coastline a bit.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - Let's move the city symbol for Auckland further inland (to the center of the hex?) and the port symbol to where the city symbol currently is located. Visually, that will reinforce the rule that naval units can move in and out of the Auckland port to both of the sea areas.

Fair enough. [:)]
I'll do that.

Wow, here I thought the Germans were smart to dig the Kiel canal, but I really have to hand it to the Kiwis! Digging a 20 km canal through a mountain range and one that can accommodate aircraft carriers to boot -- is one thing -- but then keeping it a secret. Totally awesome !!

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So that just leaves figuring out/writing code for Istanbul.

Frankly, is it really necessary ? [:-]

As you said, as of now in MWiF the hex SW of Istanbul is invadable from the East Med. Who cares if Istanbul is invadable in MWiF from the East Med ?

Solution A is to leave things as they are in MWiF.
- Advantages : 0 time for implementing, as it is already like this. No exception to the rule, and all invasion status are visible on the map (just need to amend RAC).
- Drawbacks : You are changing the WiF FE invadable status or 1 hex that sees action once every 100 games on the European Map, invadable status that comes from the doubtfull drawing of a sea area boundary between the ports on each side, and invadable status that is partly moot because all the nearby hexes are invadable.

Solution B is to change the status of the whole area in the Dardanelles.
- Advantages : Apparent historical accuracy. Apparent, because it was not tempted during WW2, and the failed attempt that everyone cites in example of the Dardanelles invincibility dates from 1915-1916, so who knows what would have happened in WW2. By this argument, why not also add a 3 sided east facing fort in Verdun, and prevent any sortie by the Kriegsmarine in the North Sea for fear of a modern Jutland Battle ???
- Drawbacks : Removing the rightfull invadable status of 6 hexes on the European Map (not simply 1 or 2, but 6 hexes), and loosing a lots of programming time to achieve that doubtfull goal. Moreover, you'll have to create a way for the invadable status to show on the map because these hexes will be in total exception of what RAC and RAW will say about invasion.


So please, stick with solution A, lets leave things as they are and not introduce a Dardanelle invasion prohibition in WiF FE, nor make an exception for the single port of Istanbul.

Let's just amend RAC saying that the only thing needed for an invasion is an all-sea hexside, and the hex to be coastal, and the Sea Area to touch upon that coastal hex.

I'm sure that if Harry was asked this for MWiF he'd ask to leave things as is, and tell us that he answered the FAQ in the clarification way, not the errata way, and that the map as drawn is read like that. I'm sure there is no real will to forbid an invasion of Istanbul from the East Med in this drawing of the Sea Area Boundary.

If you open the way to this, I have a list of a dozen places in the world that you should restrict the same way, possibly hundreds can be found, so please, let's leave that like it is, that is simple.

I can live with Solution A for invasions. Since it reduces workload, I'm happy to support it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - Let's move the city symbol for Auckland further inland (to the center of the hex?) and the port symbol to where the city symbol currently is located. Visually, that will reinforce the rule that naval units can move in and out of the Auckland port to both of the sea areas.

Fair enough. [:)]
I'll do that.

Wow, here I thought the Germans were smart to dig the Kiel canal, but I really have to hand it to the Kiwis! Digging a 20 km canal through a mountain range and one that can accommodate aircraft carriers to boot -- is one thing -- but then keeping it a secret. Totally awesome !!

Patrice's point is that 1 MP for a naval unit can covers an enormous number of hexes. Enabling a naval unit to leave Auckland and loop around the northern part of New Zealand to enter the Tasman Sea adds only a couple of hexes to that.

[paulderynck]

Deleted - wrong attachment.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Froonp


Fair enough. [:)]
I'll do that.

Wow, here I thought the Germans were smart to dig the Kiel canal, but I really have to hand it to the Kiwis! Digging a 20 km canal through a mountain range and one that can accommodate aircraft carriers to boot -- is one thing -- but then keeping it a secret. Totally awesome !!

Patrice's point is that 1 MP for a naval unit can covers an enormous number of hexes. Enabling a naval unit to leave Auckland and loop around the northern part of New Zealand to enter the Tasman Sea adds only a couple of hexes to that.

Yes, but by that logic, L.A. should border on two sea zones and so should Yokohama and Hong Kong. My point is the map should look reasonable to the player. Either by redrawing the sea zone boundaries or making New Zealand only as wide as a superimposed major port symbol in the middle of that hex. Maybe use the same solution for Legaspi.

On one hand historical accuracy of the geography is argued and on the other is the insistence on keeping the port access identical to WiFFE. That is tough to do. Maybe this would be a good compromise.

Here is the idea (excuse the crude edges):

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So that just leaves figuring out/writing code for Istanbul.

Frankly, is it really necessary ? [:-]

As you said, as of now in MWiF the hex SW of Istanbul is invadable from the East Med. Who cares if Istanbul is invadable in MWiF from the East Med ?

Solution A is to leave things as they are in MWiF.
- Advantages : 0 time for implementing, as it is already like this. No exception to the rule, and all invasion status are visible on the map (just need to amend RAC).
- Drawbacks : You are changing the WiF FE invadable status or 1 hex that sees action once every 100 games on the European Map, invadable status that comes from the doubtfull drawing of a sea area boundary between the ports on each side, and invadable status that is partly moot because all the nearby hexes are invadable.

Solution B is to change the status of the whole area in the Dardanelles.
- Advantages : Apparent historical accuracy. Apparent, because it was not tempted during WW2, and the failed attempt that everyone cites in example of the Dardanelles invincibility dates from 1915-1916, so who knows what would have happened in WW2. By this argument, why not also add a 3 sided east facing fort in Verdun, and prevent any sortie by the Kriegsmarine in the North Sea for fear of a modern Jutland Battle ???
- Drawbacks : Removing the rightfull invadable status of 6 hexes on the European Map (not simply 1 or 2, but 6 hexes), and loosing a lots of programming time to achieve that doubtfull goal. Moreover, you'll have to create a way for the invadable status to show on the map because these hexes will be in total exception of what RAC and RAW will say about invasion.


So please, stick with solution A, lets leave things as they are and not introduce a Dardanelle invasion prohibition in WiF FE, nor make an exception for the single port of Istanbul.

Let's just amend RAC saying that the only thing needed for an invasion is an all-sea hexside, and the hex to be coastal, and the Sea Area to touch upon that coastal hex.

I'm sure that if Harry was asked this for MWiF he'd ask to leave things as is, and tell us that he answered the FAQ in the clarification way, not the errata way, and that the map as drawn is read like that. I'm sure there is no real will to forbid an invasion of Istanbul from the East Med in this drawing of the Sea Area Boundary.

If you open the way to this, I have a list of a dozen places in the world that you should restrict the same way, possibly hundreds can be found, so please, let's leave that like it is, that is simple.

I can support solution A. And you are right with that there should be lots of other places that are restricted to invasion. So, indeed, leave it simple. I would however appreciate if you could see on the map if a hex was invadable or not. And from what sea area it can be invaded.

With that said there are no need to be so ironic about it. You said it yourself that you had a dozen of places that should be restricted. Harry seems to have been aware of the trouble about the generousity of WiF allowing so many hexes to be invadable. There once was an optional rule for it in WiF that for some reason disappeared. The rule said that you were only allowed to invade hexes bordering to a sea hexdot.

-Orm

[Orm]

With all the changes to the Asian maps I do not see the trouble of changing the sea areas a few ports can reach. I suggest we change Legaspi to allow access just to Bismarck Sea. Auckland however is a major port that could have had a huge impact on the war if the action had turned that way.

Would it be to difficult to change the sea border so it went down to Auckland on the east side of Northern New Zeeland and making Auckland a 2 sea areas port on the map?

-Orm

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Either by redrawing the sea zone boundaries

Sure, that is the solution, you're right.
Look at this, this is only by changing the hex SE of Legaspi and making it only in the South China Sea :

[Froonp]

Here's Auckland.
Indeed all the hexes NW of Auckland were made adjacent to the Tasman Sea (the Sea W), except the mountain hex that is adjacent to the New Zealand Coast (the Sea to the NE).

If I make the mountain hex adjacent to the Tasman Sea, the blue line will run on its side too.
But if I do that, this hex won't be invadable anymore from the New Zealand Coast, which will seem counterintuitive.

[Incy]

I think both solutions look a bit strange. It seems to me the hex SE of Legaspi should be invadable from Bismarck sea.
And the peninsula NW of Auckland should be invadable from both sea areas.

I do not know the geography of Auckland, but if the port facilities are on only one side of the peninsula, the port should be on only that side. If there is a canal, or port facilities on both sides, the port should be adjacent to both sides (but only invadable from the east?)

[Incy]

Definately both sides:
http://www.map-of-newzealand.co.uk/maps/auckland.gif

How about making a canal, like Kiel? Based on the map the defence bonus a canal would give certainly seems very realistic?

[Norman42]

My recommendation is to simply move the ports or sea boundaries to the spot needed to get the result you want.  Rules exceptions for a few ports aren't needed or wanted, just adjust the map.  Simple.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

OK, it's not very satisfactory.

I've got another idea.
The WiF FE map is like that (see below), and I am trying to achieve the same effect.
Auckland is a a 2 Sea Area port, and it is the only one on those Sea Areas.

So I need to change the Sea Area border between Brisbane and Auckland to solve the problem. See next post.

[Froonp]

I could change the Sea Area Border so that it is looking like that (ignore the upper blue / white line, the one I re-drew is the one below).

[Froonp]

Also, I note from the WiF FE map that the port and the city are greatly far away one from the other within the Auckland hex.
Maybe the Major Port capacity of Auckland in WiF FE is representing the port capacity of another NZ port that would be nearer to the tip of North Island. Does anyone knows ?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Incy
I think both solutions look a bit strange. It seems to me the hex SE of Legaspi should be invadable from Bismarck sea.
And the peninsula NW of Auckland should be invadable from both sea areas.

Maybe I can put the Sea Area boundary like that ?

[ptey]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: ptey

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



Thanks.

So that just leaves figuring out/writing code for Istanbul.

Another possibility would be to move the minor port one hex south-east and rename it Sorsogon?
Wikipedia doesnt seem to have much information of the history of the place, but today there apparently is something called Sorsogon City located in the bay at the west coast in the northen part of the hex south east of Legaspi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorsogon_City
The city is the combination of two former towns it says, with a total population of 151.000 (2007). Compared with 179.000 in Legaspi (2000).
Maybe the Legaspi port on the WIFFE maps is actually a depiction of the combination of these minor coastal towns at the southen tip of the peninsula? With Legaspi chosen as name because it was the biggest of the towns there. With the new scale, this might not be the best option anymore.

Regardless. Instead of moving Legaspi to an incorrect location, and giving it the ability of a 2 sea area port, even though it doesnt look like one on the map. I think its better to move the port one hex to the south-east and rename it to the biggest (coastal)town in the hex.

Hmmm.

How about we leave the Legaspi hex as the port but move the port symbol to the 4 o'clock position, instead of the 3 o'clock position? That will put it very close to the hex SE of it, though not actually in the SE hex. [We should do this anyway.]

Well, the solution i proposed achieves everything (clarity of map and same function is wiffe maps), except maintaining the Legaspi name. The other solutions proposed maintain the Legaspi name but at the cost of clarity of the map. I dont like that trade-off.

If moving the Legaspi port symbol to an incorrect location within the hex, i dont see an argument for not moving it over the hex boundary to the south east as well, while keeping the Legaspi name for it, if people find this to be of importance.