New Screen Shots

[berto]

I understand your concerns. It does get kind of personal....if I noticed errors on a game map of Sweden I sure would react too

Trust me when I say that tons of work has gone into this map and that work is still not finished. Can't even remember all the hours I have looked over the map for errors....

Uh, oh. At least one more gaffe in the Philippines map: It should be "Puerto Princesa," NOT "Puerto Principessa." That one jumped out at me on second viewing. (Why I didn't see it immediately on first viewing, I don't know.)

Again, you should invite formal public review of the map to catch errors like this (and the others I pointed out earlier).

I volunteer myself to scrutinize portions of the map, most especially the Philippines. If you'll have me.

Seriously, such errors--forgivable now, but unforgivable in the final product--would be terribly irksome.

[Tristanjohn]

The thing is, we always need to be careful with these suggested changes as sources can (often do) differ from one to the next. These differences might be attributed to arbitrary or real cultural (language) changes in usage of names of places over time.

Case in point with Puerto Princesa (current common usage from what I can determine): I would refer you to the USMA atlas of the Asian Theater:

http://tinyurl.com/by3o

A glance of that map tells you the city in question is given as "Puerto Princesso." By that source. It could the US Military Academy got it wrong when these maps were created, it could be that usage reflects (then current) US military usage, or maybe that's just the way some cartographers thought was the correct way to refer to the site in question at that point in time, while others used yet something else. I don't know.

I cannot find any reference to "Puerto Principessa," but that doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't exist somewhere. That strikes me as a somewhat awkward iteration to make up out of thin air. It could be someone did find such a reference. Stranger things have happened.

In general, unless there is very good reason not to the best methodology for these kinds of projects is to use only one source for your map-making so that some degree of regular (i.e., consistent) usage of names and position of places comes to play. Otherwise, confusion is bound to be the result.

Finally, maps are easy to get wrong. Good editing is required to get them right. And even then mistakes are not unusual.

Tris

Originally posted by berto
Uh, oh. At least one more gaffe in the Philippines map: It should be "Puerto Princesa," NOT "Puerto Principessa." That one jumped out at me on second viewing. (Why I didn't see it immediately on first viewing, I don't know.)

Again, you should invite formal public review of the map to catch errors like this (and the others I pointed out earlier).

I volunteer myself to scrutinize portions of the map, most especially the Philippines. If you'll have me.

Seriously, such errors--forgivable now, but unforgivable in the final product--would be terribly irksome.

[U2]

Originally posted by berto
Seriously, such errors--forgivable now, but unforgivable in the final product--would be terribly irksome.

unforgivable???? Well you can't buy any computer products then since patches fix such things. With your attitude any computer product should be 100% bug free otherwise it is unforgivable

I've bought so many wargames I can't remember them all...what I know is that after release thousands of wargamers comes with all sorts of reports on the game, including map issues. You'll find map corrections for most wargames out there in patches....even for less super huge games like WITP:)

Don't get me wrong, the goal is a fantastic map when the game ships. PLEASE remember that these are EARLY alpha screenies. I said before quite clearly in my post that the map work is by no means over

[berto]

Tristanjohn:

Thank you for reminding us of the nuances and complexities involved in getting the maps right. These are all considerations that the map makers, also map checkers, should keep in mind when evaluating the game maps.

On the other hand, about this particular question:

--In Samuel Eliot Morison's "The Liberation of the Philippines," Volume XIII of the "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II," the spelling is "Puerto Princesa" and only that. I could give other more recent (and therefore less credible?) military history references.

--The "Century Atlas of the World," published by the Century Co., New York, 1911, shows "Puerto Princesa" in both the Philippines map and in the index. I don't think one can therefore argue that "Puerto Princesa" is a modern variant only.

--For what it's worth, here are the Google counts for:
"puerto princesa" AND philippines: 10,700
"puerto principessa" AND philippines: 0 (same for single "s")
"puerto princesso" AND philippines: 0 (same for single "s")
"puerto princesa": 16,500
"puerto principessa": 0
"puerto principesa": 0
"puerto princesso": 1
"puerto princeso": 1

To my mind, the preponderance of evidence so far strongly suggests that "Puerto Principessa" is mistaken. From your limited evidence, I think you could just as well argue in favor of "Puerto Princes(s)o" as "Puerto Principessa" (or as "Puerto Princesa"). Will the game map makers go with the preponderance of evidence, or a (perhaps) single (quite possibly mistaken) map reference (or slip of the pen/mind)?

Berto

[berto]

U2/Dan:

The game is months away from completion, and there should be plenty of time to enlist the help of dozens and perhaps hundreds of volunteers like myself to review the maps (and other things).

I suppose if the suggestions/corrections poured in by the thousands, it's possible that there might not be enough time to separate the wheat from the chaff, that the limited staff might be overwhelmed. Strong editorial controls are needed.

"Unforgivable" if helpful suggestions/corrections for (apparently) blatant errors are just ignored. I use the term "unforgivable" loosely. I would overcome any disappointment and still buy the game, no question.

But you well know that gamers will be scrutinizing the details eventually anyway, so why not entertain their scrutiny sooner rather than later?

Here's my real point. "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" (to cop a phrase from Eric Raymond and the Open Source world).

Berto

[U2]

oh I have nothing against your idea about letting the public view the map. However I don't think Matrix is in the habit of handing out their work like that, especially with the work not protected yet by law. Who knows though.....

"But you well know that gamers will be scrutinizing the details eventually anyway, so why not entertain their scrutiny sooner rather than later?"

This is what happens with all games released....the public gets to see it after it's out;)

[U2]

Originally posted by berto
Tristanjohn:

Thank you for reminding us of the nuances and complexities involved in getting the maps right. These are all considerations that the map makers, also map checkers, should keep in mind when evaluating the game maps.

On the other hand, about this particular question:

--In Samuel Eliot Morison's "The Liberation of the Philippines," Volume XIII of the "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II," the spelling is "Puerto Princesa" and only that. I could give other more recent (and therefore less credible?) military history references.

--The "Century Atlas of the World," published by the Century Co., New York, 1911, shows "Puerto Princesa" in both the Philippines map and in the index. I don't think one can therefore argue that "Puerto Princesa" is a modern variant only.

--For what it's worth, here are the Google counts for:
"puerto princesa" AND philippines: 10,700
"puerto principessa" AND philippines: 0 (same for single "s")
"puerto princesso" AND philippines: 0 (same for single "s")
"puerto princesa": 16,500
"puerto principessa": 0
"puerto principesa": 0
"puerto princesso": 1
"puerto princeso": 1

To my mind, the preponderance of evidence so far strongly suggests that "Puerto Principessa" is mistaken. From your limited evidence, I think you could just as well argue in favor of "Puerto Princes(s)o" as "Puerto Principessa" (or as "Puerto Princesa"). Will the game map makers go with the preponderance of evidence, or a (perhaps) single (quite possibly mistaken) map reference (or slip of the pen/mind)?

Berto

It is Puerto Princesa......the base pop up menu states so but the map itself has not been updated. OK? These are EARLY screenshots which means the game is FAR from completed.

[berto]

U2:

> It is Puerto Princesa......the base pop up menu states so but the map itself has not been updated. OK? These are EARLY screenshots which means the game is FAR from completed

OK, thanks.

Just trying to help things along...

Berto

[Tristanjohn]

Berto, please don't misunderstand me. I only used the spelling of Puerto Pricesa/Princesso/whatever as an example en passant of how these issues are not always cut and dried. The site today is referred to quite clearly as Puerto Princesa, no doubt about that.

For myself, more than spelling I'm concerned with such stuff such as the correct placement of sites. To my mind, incorrectly placing Buin on the east coast of Bougainville where Kieta ought to be would represent a more grievous error than adding or dropping an s in some city's name.

Anyway, I've no ax to grind. If any of this can help the developers produce a better product then I'm happy. If not. then at least no real harm was done.

Tris

Originally posted by berto
Tristanjohn:

Thank you for reminding us of the nuances and complexities involved in getting the maps right. These are all considerations that the map makers, also map checkers, should keep in mind when evaluating the game maps.

On the other hand, about this particular question:

--In Samuel Eliot Morison's "The Liberation of the Philippines," Volume XIII of the "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II," the spelling is "Puerto Princesa" and only that. I could give other more recent (and therefore less credible?) military history references.

--The "Century Atlas of the World," published by the Century Co., New York, 1911, shows "Puerto Princesa" in both the Philippines map and in the index. I don't think one can therefore argue that "Puerto Princesa" is a modern variant only.

--For what it's worth, here are the Google counts for:
"puerto princesa" AND philippines: 10,700
"puerto principessa" AND philippines: 0 (same for single "s")
"puerto princesso" AND philippines: 0 (same for single "s")
"puerto princesa": 16,500
"puerto principessa": 0
"puerto principesa": 0
"puerto princesso": 1
"puerto princeso": 1

To my mind, the preponderance of evidence so far strongly suggests that "Puerto Principessa" is mistaken. From your limited evidence, I think you could just as well argue in favor of "Puerto Princes(s)o" as "Puerto Principessa" (or as "Puerto Princesa"). Will the game map makers go with the preponderance of evidence, or a (perhaps) single (quite possibly mistaken) map reference (or slip of the pen/mind)?

Berto

[berto]

>Berto, please don't misunderstand me. I only used the spelling of Puerto Pricesa/Princesso/whatever as an example en passant of how these issues are not always cut and dried...

Understood.

Another potential pitfall: cultural bias. Different cultures refer to places around the world in varying ways--e.g., Livorno vs. Leghorn, or Celebes vs. Sulawesi. Should the map makers consistently adhere to one culture's naming conventions? And if so, which one?

>For myself, more than spelling I'm concerned with such stuff such as the correct placement of sites...

I agree that misplacement of sites would be worse.

I sure hope that the game designers agree, as much as possible, to expose for public scrutiny the game maps, and other details, before the game goes "gold".

I so much want this game to be great! Now, if only someone would also publish a strategic/grand tactical game of the American Civil War (at a level of detail equal to War in the Pacific), I'd be in wargaming heaven!

Berto

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by berto
Now, if only someone would also publish a strategic/grand tactical game of the American Civil War (at a level of detail equal to War in the Pacific), I'd be in wargaming heaven!

Berto

Ah, a man after me own heart. I see it this way:

1) Uncommon Valor
2) Empires in Arms
3) War in the Pacific
4) Mediterranean War
5) War Between the States

Publish these and just put me in the old folks' home with me 'pooter and a hooked cane to catch the occasional nurse with, and I'm a happy geezer.

[Tristanjohn]

Another potential pitfall: cultural bias. Different cultures refer to places around the world in varying ways--e.g., Livorno vs. Leghorn, or Celebes vs. Sulawesi. Should the map makers consistently adhere to one culture's naming conventions? And if so, which one?

One standard gives consistency. As long as it's printed in your market's native language it wouldn't matter much (to me, can't speak for 2by3) which convention were chosen.

I sure hope that the game designers agree, as much as possible, to expose for public scrutiny the game maps, and other details, before the game goes "gold".

That would be one approach, but I'm not sure it's the best; might well lead to other problems, at least if pursued formally. I could easily understand why they'd be reluctant to do it. On the other hand, by showing gamers the alpha series of maps in public forum pretty much the same result is gained--perhaps that's what you meant.

I so much want this game to be great! Now, if only someone would also publish a strategic/grand tactical game of the American Civil War (at a level of detail equal to War in the Pacific), I'd be in wargaming heaven!

Frank Hunter did years ago and it's available as a free download. The game never quite did work right, and of course it's ages behind the curve now with re to graphics, etc. Nevertheless, the system does offer feel for the struggle. Frank intends to redesign that game and publish it again.

Sometime's Frank's site (ADANAC Command Studies) gets twitchy, but on a good day you can grab it here:

http://tinyurl.com/c11g

Tris

[Tristanjohn]

Pasternakski, if you refer to WABBITS I certainly echo the sentiment! I've got that loveable monster stored in my place up north. Never did find anyone to go round with--and it just isn't the same solo, you know?

Same same for CNA (the OAW version doesn't do it for me) and a few others I could mention. Oh, well.

Tris