MWiF Map Review - India & Burma

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: micheljq

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

This was called the battle of the Scheldt, interesting wikipedia page on it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Scheldt

The Scheldt was the area controlling the approaches to the port of Antwerp which the germans flooded, boobytrapped, mined, etc. A good defensive position did cost a lot to take. This is where one of the famous canadian brigades, the Black Watch (do not confuse with the british black watch), was virtually annihilated.

[brian brian]

I wouldn't compare the landings in Iceland to a potential British DoW on Portugal, though they would generate the same die roll in WiF. The Portugese and the British had that nebulous 500 year old treaty after all. What the British almost did in Norway would have made for disastrous press in the USA if Hitler hadn't beaten them to it. What WiF needs is a more dialed-in rule for Portugal's relations to the Allies. One would be to allow the CW to align Portugal upon an Axis DoW on Spain. Another would be to allow an eventual alignment at a point in the war where the Allies were obviously on the way to victory. We've experimented with a House Rule to allow it 3 turns after the last Axis hex is taken in Africa. A third important change would be to reduce the ridiculously over-useful placement of the Azores, and correctly model the 'Air Gap' in the Atlantic. Gaining basing rights to the Azores in late 1943 did finally help close the Air Gap for Med/Africa route convoys, but made for little change on the North Atlantic route. That gap was closed using Greenland and by diverting B-24 Liberators to the U-Boat War, by the personal intervention of Roosevelt over the heads of several of his commanders.

OTOH, the British did pretty much run roughshod over two countries in the Middle East, and the American public didn't even notice. So I've long thought the penalty for western Allied DoWs should vary some by map, with a higher price to pay for a DoW on a country in Western Europe than on other maps.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: micheljq

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

This was called the battle of the Scheldt, interesting wikipedia page on it here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Scheldt

The Scheldt was the area controlling the approaches to the port of Antwerp which the germans flooded, boobytrapped, mined, etc. A good defensive position did cost a lot to take. This is where one of the famous canadian brigades, the Black Watch (do not confuse with the british black watch), was virtually annihilated.

I know. That's why I told you.

Cheers, Neilster

[micheljq]

I wanted to put the link for the benefit of others, this battle is not very known. As for myself indeed, i did not know about this one for a long time.

[;)]

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I wouldn't compare the landings in Iceland to a potential British DoW on Portugal, though they would generate the same die roll in WiF. The Portugese and the British had that nebulous 500 year old treaty after all. What the British almost did in Norway would have made for disastrous press in the USA if Hitler hadn't beaten them to it. What WiF needs is a more dialed-in rule for Portugal's relations to the Allies. One would be to allow the CW to align Portugal upon an Axis DoW on Spain. Another would be to allow an eventual alignment at a point in the war where the Allies were obviously on the way to victory. We've experimented with a House Rule to allow it 3 turns after the last Axis hex is taken in Africa. A third important change would be to reduce the ridiculously over-useful placement of the Azores, and correctly model the 'Air Gap' in the Atlantic. Gaining basing rights to the Azores in late 1943 did finally help close the Air Gap for Med/Africa route convoys, but made for little change on the North Atlantic route. That gap was closed using Greenland and by diverting B-24 Liberators to the U-Boat War, by the personal intervention of Roosevelt over the heads of several of his commanders.

OTOH, the British did pretty much run roughshod over two countries in the Middle East, and the American public didn't even notice. So I've long thought the penalty for western Allied DoWs should vary some by map, with a higher price to pay for a DoW on a country in Western Europe than on other maps.

I disagree that an Allied invasion of Norway would have had any lasting impact upon US public opinion. The inverse is also true. Germany's invasion of Norway had little impact upon moving the country closer to war with Germany.

The country was still mired in the Great Depression. Most of the population was still struggling to get through the day and did not know or care what was going on in Europe. Certianly, how the news media spun the story could have had an unfavourable impact upon public opinion, but it would not have had created any staying power in the pulbic's mind. When the Brits invaded Syria and Iraq, it did not make front page news in much of country.

The whole US entry mechanism is just a game function to add variability to when the US will enter the war. It is cute and adds flavour to the game, but has little historical basis. When the news that the Soviets had annexed the Baltic States hit the newsstands, few people knew where Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were and even fewer people cared. Last year, after my cousin had heard that the Russians had sent troops into Georgia, he called me and said "Bucky, I don't know what is goin on over in Georgia, but if those Ruskie's think their comin over into Alabama, they've got another think comin!" While that is an exaggeration, it is not that big of one.

[Orm]

I've always seen US entry as it affects the votes in United States Congress. When you make the die roll to see if US enters the war I see it as the President asks the Congress to declare war.


-Orm

[KosMic]

US Entry has nothing to do with public opinion, only with how events influence votes in Congress along the Isolationist-Interventionist continuum.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I've always seen US entry as it affects the votes in United States Congress. When you make the die roll to see if US enters the war I see it as the President asks the Congress to declare war.
-Orm

Me too.
And Tension as the general US people will to enter war.

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: KosMic

US Entry has nothing to do with public opinion, only with how events influence votes in Congress along the Isolationist-Interventionist continuum.

If the congressmen are doing the job they were elected to do, then they are responding to the opinions of their constituents. If they are ignoring the opinions of their constituents, then they should not be surprised when they fail to be re-elected. Also, read the personal papers and letters of the politicians of that period. You will discover that many of the politicians supported a more active participation in the war if not an actual declaration of war. That is why Roosevelt was able to get things like Lend Lease and East Coast and North Atlantic convoy escorts, etc., passed through congress.


Of course public opinion matters in a democracy. That is why it is so hard for democratic countries to wage war. You do not read much about it, and certainly never see it in school history books, but there was an influential group in Britain that advocated throughout the war for the government to negotiate for peace at any cost. That is why Churchill pushed so hard for even small successes; to keep that contingent from growing and becoming more influential.

[brian brian]

I like the USE system. Media coverage was more variable in the 1940s and a lot of things could have been different with just one human interest story making a bigger or smaller splash on the radio or the front pages. The point that the system represents Congressional opinion more than public is a good one, but I think that both types of opinion were linked as someone mentioned. If Britain had chosen an ends-justify-the-means strategy such as invading Norway I think the Isolationists would have gotten stronger. But that is just my opinion.

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I like the USE system. Media coverage was more variable in the 1940s and a lot of things could have been different with just one human interest story making a bigger or smaller splash on the radio or the front pages. The point that the system represents Congressional opinion more than public is a good one, but I think that both types of opinion were linked as someone mentioned. If Britain had chosen an ends-justify-the-means strategy such as invading Norway I think the Isolationists would have gotten stronger. But that is just my opinion.

I think that several people are underestimating the extent to which the US public was informed about events. Even some Isolationists like Lindberg (spelling?) had been out of the country.

Furthermore, I inherited some of my Grandfather's Life magazines from the late 1930s and 1940s. The collection has gaps in it, but it still represents a decent snapshot of what a "middle-brow" popular magazine was writting about. The issues from 1939 to 1941 have some very informative commentary along the lines of "here's what the Axis did, here's how the Allies can respond, and here's what the Axis may do next". They included comparisons of forces and maps of areas where combat did or could occur. In addition, one issue included an eyewitness account of the attack on the Low Countries. Of even more interest, there was an article on Stalin by Trotsky (I forget which issue it was in).

Of course, some of the commentary appears rather odd in hindsight. "The modern battleship, which is theoretically immune to aerial bombardment..."[X(] Nevertheless, the point is that even a magazine like Life intended for the average Joe or Jane did have some rather detailed discussion, and expected the readers to both understand and be interested in it.

[barbarossa2]

After seeing Iraq looks nothing like Iraq in its current state, I laid one map over another (albeit probably different projections) and lined up some key features in the region (the Persian Gulf around Kuwait and part of the coast of the Caspian Sea) and got this. This is what your Iraq should probably look like.

[barbarossa2]

This is a comparison of the old Iraq (as presented above) with the real Iraq (that Americans should slowly be getting familiar with), and the Iraq as I propose it. You will notice that my iraq is slightly "taller" than the "real Iraq. I did this to account for what looks like a difference in the types of projections which is causing drift and diffferences in the northwestern areas of the map. The "real" map in the overlay above should have its northwestern corner stretched to make its Alexandretta match with the WiF Alexandretta, and this would cause the Syrian border to shift north somewhat (and now that I think of it, I should have done just that).

However, I am sure everyone will note the fact that Iraq appears to look much more like Iraq. Additionally, your version of the map has almost converted Tehran into a coastal town, and it appears you need to move the southern shore of the Caspian north by at LEAST one row of hexes. Interestingly, your northwestern border of Persia/Iran almost matches with mine. But I may have used it as the northeastern anchor point of the map match up.

Another way of doing this is to work on stretching/aligning the maps until three cities match up instead of coast lines. But if I would have chosen that method and used Baghdad/Tehran in that group of cities, I would have never gotten anything to match up because it really appears your Baghdad is way off. And so is Mosul. As well as the lake which should be on the hex side next to Tabriz.

Note that you will have to adjust your border of Syria to be even with the top of the border of Iraq. This concerns me about your Turkish border. Would you mind posting Turkey? Why is your Syrian border so far north? The projection appears to be dead on with regard to the latitude of the Iranian border in the north. Why is the Syrian border so far up?

****Added note: after looking at my post 24 hours later, I would also recommend giving the eastern hex in the very northern row of three hexes of Iraq to Iran. But I really wonder which method of map making was used to arrive at such a tall and skinny Iraq in the first place. Based on its behavor on real maps, the Syrian border should start along the top of the hex just east of Alexandretta and continute straight east. This is a massive difference with the map currently being proposed. ****

[Froonp]

Thanks for the drawings barbarossa2, but I think that we won't redraw the area to a so large extend.
There are multiple reasons for that.

First is that this area was debated and redrawn a couple of times already, and some of your modifications go back to the place it was before the last modifications. I don't want to go back and forth indefinitely. The last discussion had sound arguments too, one of which was that the Tigris should not be adjacent to the Persian border that's why we gave up those 2 hexes to Iraq. Now you come and say that the global shape is not good.

Second is that redrawing the area to a so large extend would necessitate assessing all the neighboring countries too, and I don't think that we want to do that. Redrawing Irak leads to redrawing Turkey, and Persia, and then the Black Sea, the easter part of the Med.

Third is that I think that due to different projections, we will never find a perfect MWiF map of all the places in the world, and we have to accept some differences. I think that Iraq as it stands now is both acceptable, and also an improvement from where we started with the original CWiF map.

You must also know that the awkwardness of this area of the map comes from the fact that a large part of it is on the WiF FE European map, and that this was decided to be kept as it was, with some modifications on the fringes, like the one we did for Scandinavia, and some we did here in Middle East, and particulary in Iraq. But I believe that here you are bringing us too far.

This said, I keep your proposed map and text in my archives, in the place where I keep all the work about this area of the world, we never know, and if we have the chance to improve the map deeper in the future, I'll use your work.

Opinions from other people ?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Thanks for the drawings barbarossa2, but I think that we won't redraw the area to a so large extend.
There are multiple reasons for that.

First is that this area was debated and redrawn a couple of times already, and some of your modifications go back to the place it was before the last modifications. I don't want to go back and forth indefinitely. The last discussion had sound arguments too, one of which was that the Tigris should not be adjacent to the Persian border that's why we gave up those 2 hexes to Iraq. Now you come and say that the global shape is not good.

Second is that redrawing the area to a so large extend would necessitate assessing all the neighboring countries too, and I don't think that we want to do that. Redrawing Irak leads to redrawing Turkey, and Persia, and then the Black Sea, the easter part of the Med.

Third is that I think that due to different projections, we will never find a perfect MWiF map of all the places in the world, and we have to accept some differences. I think that Iraq as it stands now is both acceptable, and also an improvement from where we started with the original CWiF map.

You must also know that the awkwardness of this area of the map comes from the fact that a large part of it is on the WiF FE European map, and that this was decided to be kept as it was, with some modifications on the fringes, like the one we did for Scandinavia, and some we did here in Middle East, and particulary in Iraq. But I believe that here you are bringing us too far.

This said, I keep your proposed map and text in my archives, in the place where I keep all the work about this area of the world, we never know, and if we have the chance to improve the map deeper in the future, I'll use your work.

Opinions from other people ?

Warspite1

I agree, given the time to launch is closing rapidly and the knock-on effects on the maps of other countries. We all want this game as realistic as possible and I like the fact that you are keeping open the possibility of revisions to the map in MWIF 2.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Thanks for the drawings barbarossa2, but I think that we won't redraw the area to a so large extend.
There are multiple reasons for that.

First is that this area was debated and redrawn a couple of times already, and some of your modifications go back to the place it was before the last modifications. I don't want to go back and forth indefinitely. The last discussion had sound arguments too, one of which was that the Tigris should not be adjacent to the Persian border that's why we gave up those 2 hexes to Iraq. Now you come and say that the global shape is not good.

Second is that redrawing the area to a so large extend would necessitate assessing all the neighboring countries too, and I don't think that we want to do that. Redrawing Irak leads to redrawing Turkey, and Persia, and then the Black Sea, the easter part of the Med.

Third is that I think that due to different projections, we will never find a perfect MWiF map of all the places in the world, and we have to accept some differences. I think that Iraq as it stands now is both acceptable, and also an improvement from where we started with the original CWiF map.

You must also know that the awkwardness of this area of the map comes from the fact that a large part of it is on the WiF FE European map, and that this was decided to be kept as it was, with some modifications on the fringes, like the one we did for Scandinavia, and some we did here in Middle East, and particulary in Iraq. But I believe that here you are bringing us too far.

This said, I keep your proposed map and text in my archives, in the place where I keep all the work about this area of the world, we never know, and if we have the chance to improve the map deeper in the future, I'll use your work.

Opinions from other people ?

Warspite1

I agree, given the time to launch is closing rapidly and the knock-on effects on the maps of other countries. We all want this game as realistic as possible and I like the fact that you are keeping open the possibility of revisions to the map in MWIF 2.

It is tempting to redo Iraq, and even a lot of the rest of the map, but it is outside our feasible timeline at this point.

We have been reworking the map substantially since 2005. Having a "fresh go" at it now is less important than over 100 other things I can think of spending my time on. Anyway, from a designer's point of view, the 3 key elements of a historical military simulation are: map, units, and time. None of these should be modified separately, but rather reviewed simultaneously. The interaction of these 3 elements make the game what it is.

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
It is tempting to redo Iraq, and even a lot of the rest of the map, but it is outside our feasible timeline at this point.

We have been reworking the map substantially since 2005. Having a "fresh go" at it now is less important than over 100 other things I can think of spending my time on. Anyway, from a designer's point of view, the 3 key elements of a historical military simulation are: map, units, and time. None of these should be modified separately, but rather reviewed simultaneously. The interaction of these 3 elements make the game what it is.

This sounds good. I do think that IF there is a MWIF 2, in addition to DoD stuff [:D], a rework of the "inviolate" European/Middle Eastern map should be considered.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Thanks for the drawings barbarossa2, but I think that we won't redraw the area to a so large extend.
There are multiple reasons for that.

First is that this area was debated and redrawn a couple of times already, and some of your modifications go back to the place it was before the last modifications. I don't want to go back and forth indefinitely. The last discussion had sound arguments too, one of which was that the Tigris should not be adjacent to the Persian border that's why we gave up those 2 hexes to Iraq. Now you come and say that the global shape is not good.

Second is that redrawing the area to a so large extend would necessitate assessing all the neighboring countries too, and I don't think that we want to do that. Redrawing Irak leads to redrawing Turkey, and Persia, and then the Black Sea, the easter part of the Med.

Third is that I think that due to different projections, we will never find a perfect MWiF map of all the places in the world, and we have to accept some differences. I think that Iraq as it stands now is both acceptable, and also an improvement from where we started with the original CWiF map.

You must also know that the awkwardness of this area of the map comes from the fact that a large part of it is on the WiF FE European map, and that this was decided to be kept as it was, with some modifications on the fringes, like the one we did for Scandinavia, and some we did here in Middle East, and particulary in Iraq. But I believe that here you are bringing us too far.

This said, I keep your proposed map and text in my archives, in the place where I keep all the work about this area of the world, we never know, and if we have the chance to improve the map deeper in the future, I'll use your work.

Opinions from other people ?

Hello i am not part of the project, just an interested outsider. I just want to say I agree 100% with this decision from you and Steve not to do modifications to Irak any longer.

[:)]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Thanks for the drawings barbarossa2, but I think that we won't redraw the area to a so large extend.
There are multiple reasons for that.

First is that this area was debated and redrawn a couple of times already, and some of your modifications go back to the place it was before the last modifications. I don't want to go back and forth indefinitely. The last discussion had sound arguments too, one of which was that the Tigris should not be adjacent to the Persian border that's why we gave up those 2 hexes to Iraq. Now you come and say that the global shape is not good.

Second is that redrawing the area to a so large extend would necessitate assessing all the neighboring countries too, and I don't think that we want to do that. Redrawing Irak leads to redrawing Turkey, and Persia, and then the Black Sea, the easter part of the Med.

Third is that I think that due to different projections, we will never find a perfect MWiF map of all the places in the world, and we have to accept some differences. I think that Iraq as it stands now is both acceptable, and also an improvement from where we started with the original CWiF map.

You must also know that the awkwardness of this area of the map comes from the fact that a large part of it is on the WiF FE European map, and that this was decided to be kept as it was, with some modifications on the fringes, like the one we did for Scandinavia, and some we did here in Middle East, and particulary in Iraq. But I believe that here you are bringing us too far.

This said, I keep your proposed map and text in my archives, in the place where I keep all the work about this area of the world, we never know, and if we have the chance to improve the map deeper in the future, I'll use your work.

Opinions from other people ?

Oh, in fact, there was a fourth point, that was my first indeed, but I had forgotten about it when I answered.

This fourth point is that I bet that if you apply the formula you applied to any country on the WiF FE map (superposing a map to the MWiF map, which I did too in places to get a better idea), you will find distorsions. Even if you only take France or Germany, so I suppose that Iraq is not that bad amongst all the other countries. There is one country that must be 100% perfect, this is Ireland, that I redrew entirely using this method.

[barbarossa2]

Well, I would recommend not doing anything before this release now either.  I am looking forward to a WIF2. And I hope a total redesign of the map is considered. A La my posting on the Dymaxion map under my thread "I hate to say this". (yes...burn me. I am a heretic)[X(] The problem is, I think I LOVE the WiF system. But I have always hated their maps. Isn't Spain a disaster of east to west proportion? It is like they tried to squeeze it on to the map? LOL