MWiF Map Review - India & Burma

[Incy]

Also, in respect of history, could we put Babylon on the map as a white text? It would be nice to remind people that Iraq has more than the familiar names we keep reading about in the news.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Incy

I still think Jordan is to large, and Iraq certainly does not reach far enough west.
Just compare distances between east med shore<->iraq/jordan border<->
and iraq/jordan border<-> Baghdad

I suggest Syria give hex 2W of lake Tharthar iraqi. Transjordan gives 2 eastermost hexes to Iraq. Transjordan give SE corner + hex north of that to saudi.

From what I see on map in post #129, the distance East Med shore <-> Iraq / Jordan border is about equal to the distance and Iraq / Jordan border <-> Baghdad, which is quite the way it is on the MWiF map (a little more than 5 hex for the first, a little less than 5 hex for the second.
Prefering to keep the modifications minimal from the WiF FE European Map, I think that we can stay that way.

ORIGINAL: Incy

Also, in respect of history, could we put Babylon on the map as a white text? It would be nice to remind people that Iraq has more than the familiar names we keep reading about in the news.

Good idea [:D]. A lot of people wil say that this is not WW2 related, but it will be size (only seen in high levels of zoom), like Troy & Persepolis (and others) already.

I will add a "Mesopotamia" region name to (in white, as for Zagros Mts & Sinai).

[Crusss Daddy]

At Euro scale, India map allows gamey Japanese tactic of DOWing Portugal in order to seize Goa & Damian, from there to stack armies at leisure for overland attack into India. Should any invasion onto subcontinent, regardless of jurisdiction, be viewed as a DOW against CW?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Crusss Daddy

At Euro scale, India map allows gamey Japanese tactic of DOWing Portugal in order to seize Goa & Damian, from there to stack armies at leisure for overland attack into India. Should any invasion onto subcontinent, regardless of jurisdiction, be viewed as a DOW against CW?

Welcome to the forum.

I let Patrice handle the map questions, though everyone chips in their opinion when they have one.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Crusss Daddy

At Euro scale, India map allows gamey Japanese tactic of DOWing Portugal in order to seize Goa & Damian, from there to stack armies at leisure for overland attack into India. Should any invasion onto subcontinent, regardless of jurisdiction, be viewed as a DOW against CW?

This is the reason why I refused to make Goa or Damian minor ports, even if they would have deservec that, and also why there is no railway going to Damian & Goa.

So this is a valid strategy for Japan to DoW Portugal to seize these places, but as the CW I think I would welcome that, more than a Japanese invasion of Cocanada. The reasons why are :
- As writen above, Goa & Damian hardly allow for an army to "stack armies at leisure", or to put them in supply from the sea.
- This is harder for the Japanese to keep supply open up to the Arabian Sea, harder than just the Bay of Bengal.
- This allows the CW to control Portugal and its valuable RP.
- This hands the Acores to the CW, that will base Sunderlands there immediately for an immediate stop of the Battle of the Atlantic.
- The CW usualy have Garrisons in Bombay, for antipartisan duties, so there should be a quick way to bottle the Japs in Damian.
- An invasion of Cocanada would be better, and could target 3 RP and 1 red factories quickly, while an invasion of Damian & Goa can target nearly nothing.

So the original designers of the CWiF map had decided to add Damian, Goa & Pondycherry to India, and MAcao to China, and I liked this and found no good reason to remove them.

[brian brian]

Goa is a port and that is that. Wikipedia calls it "one of the finest harbors in south-east Asia". Gameyness should be fixed in the rules, not on the map. Japan doesn't have the army needed to campaign from the west coast of India and ever get anywhere, so you might as well make it a port. As the CW I'd rather see the Japanese start out there surrounded by mountains than some other possible landing areas, and the Japanese are more likely to land in the east where it is easier to deploy land-based air and protect their supply lines and actually get to something valuable like a red factory and/or some resource hexes connected to ports. Besides, India is now too huge of a target for the Japanese army to run around in, they would just get lost on the way to Dehli with huge flanks they would be unable to protect. Pondicherry and Damian don't seem anywhere near as similar, port-wise. If the CW wants to DoW Portugal, they can easily assign a unit to take Goa in case the Japanese align it. If the Japanese want to enter India via a DoW on Portugal, I'm sure the Germans would want to wring their necks for that and as the CW I'd be grateful.

If it's gamey for Japan to use Goa like that, how gamey will it be for the Allies to use Macao, a 15 square kilometer island now occupying an entire hex? Also a port. The CW can't garrison Hong Kong, but they could DoW Portugal to get the Azores and drop a garrison on Macao to annoy the Japanese....or later in the war take Portugal and simultaneously land in Macao to get a free port on the South China Sea. I'm sorry Patrice, but I feel pretty strongly about that and can't agree with treating those two tiny colonies so very differently and I see no logic in trying to fix gamey rules via heavy-handed map editing. You have done such an excellent job on everything and I know you wouldn't change basic hex terrain of clear or mountain to favor one side or the other, the terrain is the terrain, so why should ports be any different? Goa is a red herring, let the players fall into that if they want; as you note yourself elsewhere is better anyway.

I guess since it's last call on the map I'd put my two cents in again. If I hadn't just had a couple three beers I'd probably delete this and forget about it again.

[Anendrue]

I have to agree the quality of a players "play" should be their decision not&nbsp;the map designer. Provided it does not allow for impossible realities. Improbable is just fine. Why else did Eisenhower pick Normandy after all it was a "gamey" chance. He even prepared a speech in case of its failure where he would assume the blame. The geographical reality of the world was just that. This is just&nbsp;additional possibilities the commanders had to deal with. Allow the ports to be on the map.

[Orm]

I like the map change to european scale. This does make for a change in gameplay that the original creators of WiF never considered. I am sure that the US had reacted strongly on a Japanese declaration of war on Portugal and an invasion on Portugese part of India.

This is the reason why I refused to make Goa or Damian minor ports, even if they would have deservec that, and also why there is no railway going to Damian & Goa.

Would it be possible to put port and/or railway in Goa or Damia if they had so in 1939?

Since Portugal now has some real interesting territories in the pacific a new US Entry Action for "Japan declares war on Portugal" seems needed.

Maybe this should wait for MWiF product 2?

-Orm

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Goa is a port and that is that. Wikipedia calls it "one of the finest harbors in south-east Asia". Gameyness should be fixed in the rules, not on the map. Japan doesn't have the army needed to campaign from the west coast of India and ever get anywhere, so you might as well make it a port. As the CW I'd rather see the Japanese start out there surrounded by mountains than some other possible landing areas, and the Japanese are more likely to land in the east where it is easier to deploy land-based air and protect their supply lines and actually get to something valuable like a red factory and/or some resource hexes connected to ports. Besides, India is now too huge of a target for the Japanese army to run around in, they would just get lost on the way to Dehli with huge flanks they would be unable to protect. Pondicherry and Damian don't seem anywhere near as similar, port-wise. If the CW wants to DoW Portugal, they can easily assign a unit to take Goa in case the Japanese align it. If the Japanese want to enter India via a DoW on Portugal, I'm sure the Germans would want to wring their necks for that and as the CW I'd be grateful.

If it's gamey for Japan to use Goa like that, how gamey will it be for the Allies to use Macao, a 15 square kilometer island now occupying an entire hex? Also a port. The CW can't garrison Hong Kong, but they could DoW Portugal to get the Azores and drop a garrison on Macao to annoy the Japanese....or later in the war take Portugal and simultaneously land in Macao to get a free port on the South China Sea. I'm sorry Patrice, but I feel pretty strongly about that and can't agree with treating those two tiny colonies so very differently and I see no logic in trying to fix gamey rules via heavy-handed map editing. You have done such an excellent job on everything and I know you wouldn't change basic hex terrain of clear or mountain to favor one side or the other, the terrain is the terrain, so why should ports be any different? Goa is a red herring, let the players fall into that if they want; as you note yourself elsewhere is better anyway.

I guess since it's last call on the map I'd put my two cents in again. If I hadn't just had a couple three beers I'd probably delete this and forget about it again.

This is a so much important matter in my opinion, that I prefered to leave it as the original CWiF map designers made it. Goa, Damian and MAcao are all from CWiF. ADG was part of the original CWiF map design, and I found out during my long work with the map that they did good things. When in doubt, I always kept the things as they had designed them that's why I think that here this should stay that way.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm
Since Portugal now has some real interesting territories in the pacific a new US Entry Action for "Japan declares war on Portugal" seems needed.

Maybe this should wait for MWiF product 2?

Very good idea IMO.

[peskpesk]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Orm
Since Portugal now has some real interesting territories in the pacific a new US Entry Action for "Japan declares war on Portugal" seems needed.

Maybe this should wait for MWiF product 2?

Very good idea IMO.

I agree.

US entry actions
...
Action____________________________Die
37: Japan declares war on Portugal (Ja) 15

The above puts the action in the same liege as
5. Japan occupies Madagascar

Which is roughly right in my opinion.

[iamspamus]

Yes, it's a disputed area. Saudi definitely has some of these disputed areas/movable borders (due to sand) in the southern borders also.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Norman42

ORIGINAL: Froonp

About this last map (Middle East 1942), I wonder what is this diamond shapped territory west of Kuwait. It show on others maps of this area during WW2.
Like this one (Oil routes in Middle East, 1941) :

Anyone knows ?

I believe thats the 'disputed area'. Undefined border between Iraq and SA that wasn't settled til the 50's if I remember my history right. There were a few of these 'bubbles' on their mutual border.

My Collier Atlas name this area : "Neutral Zone" or "Neutral Area" something like that. Must be what you say.

[iamspamus]

I concur. It is a great harbor. That's why the Portuguese took it.
Jason

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Goa is a port and that is that. Wikipedia calls it "one of the finest harbors in south-east Asia". Gameyness should be fixed in the rules, not on the map. Japan doesn't have the army needed to campaign from the west coast of India and ever get anywhere, so you might as well make it a port. As the CW I'd rather see the Japanese start out there surrounded by mountains than some other possible landing areas, and the Japanese are more likely to land in the east where it is easier to deploy land-based air and protect their supply lines and actually get to something valuable like a red factory and/or some resource hexes connected to ports. Besides, India is now too huge of a target for the Japanese army to run around in, they would just get lost on the way to Dehli with huge flanks they would be unable to protect. Pondicherry and Damian don't seem anywhere near as similar, port-wise. If the CW wants to DoW Portugal, they can easily assign a unit to take Goa in case the Japanese align it. If the Japanese want to enter India via a DoW on Portugal, I'm sure the Germans would want to wring their necks for that and as the CW I'd be grateful.

If it's gamey for Japan to use Goa like that, how gamey will it be for the Allies to use Macao, a 15 square kilometer island now occupying an entire hex? Also a port. The CW can't garrison Hong Kong, but they could DoW Portugal to get the Azores and drop a garrison on Macao to annoy the Japanese....or later in the war take Portugal and simultaneously land in Macao to get a free port on the South China Sea. I'm sorry Patrice, but I feel pretty strongly about that and can't agree with treating those two tiny colonies so very differently and I see no logic in trying to fix gamey rules via heavy-handed map editing. You have done such an excellent job on everything and I know you wouldn't change basic hex terrain of clear or mountain to favor one side or the other, the terrain is the terrain, so why should ports be any different? Goa is a red herring, let the players fall into that if they want; as you note yourself elsewhere is better anyway.

I guess since it's last call on the map I'd put my two cents in again. If I hadn't just had a couple three beers I'd probably delete this and forget about it again.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
I concur. It is a great harbor. That's why the Portuguese took it.

If all great harbors in the world were to be represented, there would be 1 minor port in each and every coastal hexes of the map. If the original designers did not put a map here, I take it that they judged that it was not enough to be represented by a minor port.
For example there are tens of great harbors on the French coast between Marseilles and the Spanish Coast, but none are represented on the map. Should we add 1 port per coastal hex ?

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
I concur. It is a great harbor. That's why the Portuguese took it.

If all great harbors in the world were to be represented, there would be 1 minor port in each and every coastal hexes of the map. If the original designers did not put a map here, I take it that they judged that it was not enough to be represented by a minor port.
For example there are tens of great harbors on the French coast between Marseilles and the Spanish Coast, but none are represented on the map. Should we add 1 port per coastal hex ?

Adding 1 port per coastal hex is silly. However adding one port of the appropriate size per country next to a sea area allows players the decision to invade or defend. This puts the risk into the hands of players. Of course if there was no port then do not create what did not exist. As for size, the tonnage moved through them should be a fair representation of major or minor. If a country had multiple major or minor ports next to a sea zone, then I trust your judgement to which ports should be placed on the map based on tactical and strategical aspects of game play.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
I concur. It is a great harbor. That's why the Portuguese took it.

If all great harbors in the world were to be represented, there would be 1 minor port in each and every coastal hexes of the map. If the original designers did not put a map here, I take it that they judged that it was not enough to be represented by a minor port.
For example there are tens of great harbors on the French coast between Marseilles and the Spanish Coast, but none are represented on the map. Should we add 1 port per coastal hex ?

Adding 1 port per coastal hex is silly. However adding one port of the appropriate size per country next to a sea area allows players the decision to invade or defend. This puts the risk into the hands of players. Of course if there was no port then do not create what did not exist. As for size, the tonnage moved through them should be a fair representation of major or minor. If a country had multiple major or minor ports next to a sea zone, then I trust your judgement to which ports should be placed on the map based on tactical and strategical aspects of game play.

I think that Patrice's point here is that he does not trust his own judgment. Since he does not know what the original designers of WIF had in mind when they made those decisions, he prefers to rely on the decisions that were made by ADG for WIF & CWIF. Hence his reluctance to add new stuff (ports in this case).

In obvious cases of mistakes, Patrice (with my full approval) has made changes. A lot of rail lines have been added to area where historically the war did not intrude, for instance. But, in general, we have decided to err on the side of fewer changes to what ADG hath wroth.

[brian brian]

Actually the newest rules discourage Japanese adventures outside of China with new US entry penalties for entering other maps, and I like those. How that fits in with MWiF, I'm not sure because I think those are new optionals, not new RaW.

I do think though that the US Entry penalty for a CW DoW on Portugal should be a little higher than -5 - breaking a 500 year history of good relations would've generated a few headlines in the US, I think, so if tweaking the political rules around Portugal becomes a reality, I hope that is considered. If Macao was treated the same as Goa, with no port at all, I wouldn't have re-opened this can of worms. +those beers the other night. Sorry. I'd rather not see this added to the list right now actually, I'd rather start playing the game.

Patrice makes a good point about minor ports possibly being strewn all over the map, but this is already a part of the game with the very liberal coastal logistics and unloading, which both contribute greatly to the smooth playability that got WiF to the point of having us all kibbitzing about it on the internet. Capturing a major port drove strategy in western Europe in 1994, but not in WiF. Similarly, where one could unload tanks was pretty important in the desert to the point that intell on the unloading capacities in Benghazi influenced one of the ebbs-and-flows through Cyrenaica. In WiF, all you need to do is land an HQ on a friendly hex. Those are issues a future version of the computer assisted game could work on as well.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Capturing a major port drove strategy in western Europe in 1994, but not in WiF. Similarly, where one could unload tanks was pretty important in the desert to the point that intell on the unloading capacities in Benghazi influenced one of the ebbs-and-flows through Cyrenaica. In WiF, all you need to do is land an HQ on a friendly hex. Those are issues a future version of the computer assisted game could work on as well.

That's why they sent the canadians do the dirty work of taking Antwerp port in 1944. The allies were in need of facilities for unloading their reinforcements, supplies, etc. in Europe.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Capturing a major port drove strategy in western Europe in 1994, but not in WiF. Similarly, where one could unload tanks was pretty important in the desert to the point that intell on the unloading capacities in Benghazi influenced one of the ebbs-and-flows through Cyrenaica. In WiF, all you need to do is land an HQ on a friendly hex. Those are issues a future version of the computer assisted game could work on as well.

That's why they sent the canadians do the dirty work of taking Antwerp port in 1944. The allies were in need of facilities for unloading their reinforcements, supplies, etc. in Europe.

Except the port had already been taken in early September by the British. The Canadians helped in the later (and nasty) campaign to clear the approaches (without which it couldn't be used). Your point is valid, however.

The loss of an almost intact Antwerp was a potential disaster for the Germans. Swift action to clear it's approaches by the Allies while they were virtually undefended should have been taken. It wasn't, to their later great cost. The glittering prize of the Rhine bridges and a form of "victory disease" due to their rapid advance after the breakout from Normandy deluded them.

IMHO, even if the Rhine had been forced via Market Garden, Antwerp was still required to sustain a drive into Northern Germany. After being obsessed with capturing and using a major port since D-Day, the Allies became strangely cavalier about the best one in Northern Europe.

Cheers, Neilster

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
... I do think though that the US Entry penalty for a CW DoW on Portugal should be a little higher than -5 - breaking a 500 year history of good relations would've generated a few headlines in the US ...

War often makes a virtue of necessity. In 1940 the Commonwealth invaded Iceland and deliberately provoked Germany to invade neutral Norway and neither of these events seemed to unduly offend the Americans. Unless the CW threatened USA business interests in the newly occupied territories I can't see why the Yankees would get too upset.