Bigger World Map, please

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Hubert, Bill, couple of questions regarding the SC3 editor:

1. Is it the same between SC3:WIE and SC3:WAW (same tiles used for hex/terrain/river/road/...)?

2. Does the data exported *.dat and *.cgn from War in Europe will be fully recognized by the engine of World at War? In other words, does a world map started in War in Europe will be compatible with World at War?

Are the following enhancements possible:

1. Is it possible to add an option to display the hexes coordinates in the screenshots done by F8 (perhaps F8++)? Playing with overlays to obtain the right scale, it will be very useful to figure out the correct hexes.

2. Is it possible to implement an insert button to insert hexes on any side of a map? Cutting the map in the middle of USA is indeed the best option. Thus, I would like to insert hexes on the left of the War in Europe map to display Florida and the Gulf of Mexico.

3. Is it possible to increase the maximum number of hexes for the Map Size?

Thanks a lot

1a. I would say 99% yes, there are some changes I believe just to some of the files that have national flags, and of course we added Japanese unit and hex and terrain coloured sprites too and reorganized the Majors Bitmaps folders just slightly as Germany has now moved to Major_08 from Major_07 etc.

2a. Right now no, and I would suggest updating to the v1.16 Beta for War in Europe and to use the Conversion Tool for any campaigns that were created or were started in War in Europe v1.15. After that then the *.dat data should be compatible with World at War.

1b. I might be able to add something like this, but I can't promise when as I have quite a few top priority items I need to attend to now that I'm back from the holiday break.

2b. I believe this can be done now with the map Shift Contents tool in the Editor, admittedly not the easiest tool to use, but it should be able to insert columns of hexes vertically or horizontally wherever you wish for them to be placed.

3b. It is possible, let me know how big you would need it and I can probably send over a custom Editor with that map max size and we can go from there.

[BillRunacre]

Just to add to Hubert's comments, if using the Shift Contents tool in the Editor I strongly recommend doing so on copies of your campaign, keeping an original version backed up just in case, as the changes cannot be undone and it does take a little practice.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Hubert, Bill, couple of questions regarding the SC3 editor:

1. Is it the same between SC3:WIE and SC3:WAW (same tiles used for hex/terrain/river/road/...)?

2. Does the data exported *.dat and *.cgn from War in Europe will be fully recognized by the engine of World at War? In other words, does a world map started in War in Europe will be compatible with World at War?

Are the following enhancements possible:

1. Is it possible to add an option to display the hexes coordinates in the screenshots done by F8 (perhaps F8++)? Playing with overlays to obtain the right scale, it will be very useful to figure out the correct hexes.

2. Is it possible to implement an insert button to insert hexes on any side of a map? Cutting the map in the middle of USA is indeed the best option. Thus, I would like to insert hexes on the left of the War in Europe map to display Florida and the Gulf of Mexico.

3. Is it possible to increase the maximum number of hexes for the Map Size?

Thanks a lot

1a. I would say 99% yes, there are some changes I believe just to some of the files that have national flags, and of course we added Japanese unit and hex and terrain coloured sprites too and reorganized the Majors Bitmaps folders just slightly as Germany has now moved to Major_08 from Major_07 etc.

2a. Right now no, and I would suggest updating to the v1.16 Beta for War in Europe and to use the Conversion Tool for any campaigns that were created or were started in War in Europe v1.15. After that then the *.dat data should be compatible with World at War.

1b. I might be able to add something like this, but I can't promise when as I have quite a few top priority items I need to attend to now that I'm back from the holiday break.

2b. I believe this can be done now with the map Shift Contents tool in the Editor, admittedly not the easiest tool to use, but it should be able to insert columns of hexes vertically or horizontally wherever you wish for them to be placed.

3b. It is possible, let me know how big you would need it and I can probably send over a custom Editor with that map max size and we can go from there.

Thanks a lot for your answer.
For 2b, I see. I am experimenting Map -> Shift Contents command now.
For 3b, I am evaluating something like 800 x 300 hexes.

[LeeChard]

Would the number of land units in the game have to be increased to make a vastly larger map work?

[Numdydar]

I would expect so.

World in Flames board game had a reduced scale on the Pacific map. The computer version made the Pacific map the same scale as the Europe map (i.e. bigger). But the unit density stayed the same. which meant that there were gaps in the lines in China in the computer version. Needless to say many players of the board game complained quite often about the change of scale and lack of additional units.

So while many of us would like a bigger map, there would be a lot more that would have to be done, AP changes, number of units involved, etc. Which is why I would gladly pay extra for a bigger map and all the changes to the game that would require.

Like others here, the map scale is a real issue for me (along with the 14 day alternative turns). I just can't play the game the way it is now.

All I can hope for is that the game has done well enough so that WAW 2 or a DLC can be developed to increase the map size.

WWII was a global sweeping event. The current map scale does not do the period justice imho anyway. WiE did convey that feeling very well. WAW unfortunately does not.

[Saturn V]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

3b. It is possible, let me know how big you would need it and I can probably send over a custom Editor with that map max size and we can go from there.

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Thanks a lot for your answer.
For 2b, I see. I am experimenting Map -> Shift Contents command now.
For 3b, I am evaluating something like 800 x 300 hexes.

The circumference of the Earth at the equator is about 24,901 miles. Below is the number of hexes that distance works out to at the stated scale.

20 miles per hex: 1,245
25 miles per hex: 996
30 miles per hex: 830
35 miles per hex: 711
40 miles per hex: 622
45 miles per hex: 553
50 miles per hex: 498

Strategic Command WWII: War in Europe, of course, uses a scale of 20 miles per hex (though sometimes it looks closer to 25 miles per hex), whereas Strategic Command WWII: World at War uses a scale that looks closer to about 40 miles per hex.

20 miles per hex might be a bit much as it means a map 1,245 hexes wide, but 25 miles per hex would be quite nice, especially since it's comparable to the WIE scale.

[EvilSpaceFascist]

The problem with a bigger map is that you run into problems with the vast distances. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one wants to manually move a vast army across the pacific, land in Australia, and advance through 50 hexes of desert to conquer Australia. I enjoy the current scale because it's manageable. Yes, I miss the WiE scale in the European theatre, but you can't take over the world in such a large scale, it just gets boring having to move armies such large distances over so many turns. While the scale certainly takes away a little of the of the fun in Europe, I do enjoy WaW much more than WoE. The only shortcoming is the lack of scenarios (add 1937 pls) but I find that most of the in-game mechanics are quite well done

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: EvilSpaceFascist

The problem with a bigger map is that you run into problems with the vast distances. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one wants to manually move a vast army across the pacific, land in Australia, and advance through 50 hexes of desert to conquer Australia. I enjoy the current scale because it's manageable. Yes, I miss the WiE scale in the European theatre, but you can't take over the world in such a large scale, it just gets boring having to move armies such large distances over so many turns. While the scale certainly takes away a little of the of the fun in Europe, I do enjoy WaW much more than WoE. The only shortcoming is the lack of scenarios (add 1937 pls) but I find that most of the in-game mechanics are quite well done

Agreed. The more I play the more I understand the map decisions. When I first got the game I was like why is everything so much smaller after WIE but now I understand. After modding I am enjoying the game more than WIE. I am playing 7 day turns with a lot of things slowed down and it is great stuff. And like you said it is manageable. The game is taking a long time as it is. Like you said a huge map would take forever. But let the modders go nuts if they want to!

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I would expect so.

World in Flames board game had a reduced scale on the Pacific map. The computer version made the Pacific map the same scale as the Europe map (i.e. bigger). But the unit density stayed the same. which meant that there were gaps in the lines in China in the computer version. Needless to say many players of the board game complained quite often about the change of scale and lack of additional units.

So while many of us would like a bigger map, there would be a lot more that would have to be done, AP changes, number of units involved, etc. Which is why I would gladly pay extra for a bigger map and all the changes to the game that would require.

Like others here, the map scale is a real issue for me (along with the 14 day alternative turns). I just can't play the game the way it is now.

All I can hope for is that the game has done well enough so that WAW 2 or a DLC can be developed to increase the map size.

WWII was a global sweeping event. The current map scale does not do the period justice imho anyway. WiE did convey that feeling very well. WAW unfortunately does not.

So you're gonne have a bigger map. And b/c of this you're gonna need a higher unit density in China. But increasing unit density in China by just adding more units would not do the trick. You'll rob Peter to pay Paul. You'll just have a fantasy Sino-Jap War in SCWaW and also in MWIF. As it is now in SCWaW the China Expedition Army is already quite ... big: IRL IJA had some 35 divisions in China max, while the Wehrmacht had 153 divisions on the Eastern Front in 1941.

Thus, if there'll be a bigger map, you'll have to break up forces in China and elsewhere: Less army size, more corps or even division size units. And this, in turn, will slow down turn resolution time even more.

[steelwarrior]

Yep, more units and longer turn times but also more fun and a more epic feel to it - even I can easily add more units in the editor - so a larger map would suffice for the start ;-D

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: EvilSpaceFascist

The problem with a bigger map is that you run into problems with the vast distances. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one wants to manually move a vast army across the pacific, land in Australia, and advance through 50 hexes of desert to conquer Australia. I enjoy the current scale because it's manageable. Yes, I miss the WiE scale in the European theatre, but you can't take over the world in such a large scale, it just gets boring having to move armies such large distances over so many turns. While the scale certainly takes away a little of the of the fun in Europe, I do enjoy WaW much more than WoE. The only shortcoming is the lack of scenarios (add 1937 pls) but I find that most of the in-game mechanics are quite well done

Well since I (and likely others) that play War in the Pacific I would have no problem with that [:)]

In China specifically you do not have a full line of units like in Europe (and even there, there were gaps in the front in Russia). So you may not even need additional units for the PTO.

And exactly where will you be marching units over long distances? No one seemed to have issues moving troops around in WiE game. China would still be very constrained by terrain and the road network.

Now if China fell, I agree you would have to move extremely long distances to get the forces out. But that's the price for victory [:)]

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: wosung

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I would expect so.

World in Flames board game had a reduced scale on the Pacific map. The computer version made the Pacific map the same scale as the Europe map (i.e. bigger). But the unit density stayed the same. which meant that there were gaps in the lines in China in the computer version. Needless to say many players of the board game complained quite often about the change of scale and lack of additional units.

So while many of us would like a bigger map, there would be a lot more that would have to be done, AP changes, number of units involved, etc. Which is why I would gladly pay extra for a bigger map and all the changes to the game that would require.

Like others here, the map scale is a real issue for me (along with the 14 day alternative turns). I just can't play the game the way it is now.

All I can hope for is that the game has done well enough so that WAW 2 or a DLC can be developed to increase the map size.

WWII was a global sweeping event. The current map scale does not do the period justice imho anyway. WiE did convey that feeling very well. WAW unfortunately does not.

So you're gonne have a bigger map. And b/c of this you're gonna need a higher unit density in China. But increasing unit density in China by just adding more units would not do the trick. You'll rob Peter to pay Paul. You'll just have a fantasy Sino-Jap War in SCEaW and also in MWIF. As it is now in SCWaW the China Expedition Army is already quite ... big: IRL IJA had some 35 divisions in China max, while the Wehrmacht had 153 divisions on the Eastern Front in 1941.

Thus, if there'll be a bigger map, you'll have to break up forces in China and elsewhere: Less army size, more corps or even division size units. And this, in turn, will slow down turn resolution time even more.

That is why a bigger map should be a DLC/Mod/New Game so people can choose which version they want to play. Since WiE did very well and people like it a lot, I would bet that the majority of people would play on a bigger map for WaW if given a choice.

[elxaime]

The China issue can be dealt with in another way. Yes, Japan didn't have such masses of troops. But one of the reasons the war dragged on as it did was due to China's internal political weakness and poor infrastructure. On paper there was a united Nationalist China army, but in reality this was composed of former and current warlords who at best grudgingly acknowledged Chiang Kai-Shek's directives. And Chiang himself only grudgingly acknowledged the US general sent to clean things up, Joseph Stilwell. The US and European colonial powers also had diverse goals and objectives throughout Asia that affected their willingness to commit forces to the CBI theater.

For example, one way of dealing with China is to break the country up into several countries representing the regional warlords. You can have decision trees that reflect the political dynamics and create a sort of sub-game between China and Japan.

Yes, anything is a trade off and I understand the beauty of a smaller game in terms of less brain pain. But I think that a creative approach to the real world political dynamics of the countries that made up the Axis and Allied alliances would add lots of fun decision-making and likely ease the unit pushing as well since it won't be like all theaters are constantly active.

Just some thoughts. Again, my sense is that, great job that it is, the WaW only plumbs about half the potential of the system that could be realized on a larger scale. A ton of work and it would definitely be a labor of love, but the result would be a masterpiece.

[pkloop]

ORIGINAL: steelwarrior

Yep, more units and longer turn times but also more fun and a more epic feel to it - even I can easily add more units in the editor - so a larger map would suffice for the start ;-D

+1

[pkloop]

ORIGINAL: elxaime



Just some thoughts. Again, my sense is that, great job that it is, the WaW only plumbs about half the potential of the system that could be realized on a larger scale. A ton of work and it would definitely be a labor of love, but the result would be a masterpiece.

Yes it would! Would buy as DLC..

[wosung]

One way the rearrage things in China would be:
-Substitute some Chinese units with garrisons, representing warlord units.
-Reduce IJA in China (in numbers and tech). IJA wasn't the Wehrmacht.

[Dorky8]

I'm giving this game another shot but man this map is small. sorry guys.


It also needs more gateways like US => Egypt. Transports/Amphib never strong part of the game, worse here.

[gamer78]

ORIGINAL: elxaime

Yes, anything is a trade off and I understand the beauty of a smaller game in terms of less brain pain. But I think that a creative approach to the real world political dynamics of the countries that made up the Axis and Allied alliances would add lots of fun decision-making and likely ease the unit pushing as well since it won't be like all theaters are constantly active.

Yes a bit more creativity will help. I try to convince my current SC Assault in Democracy pbem opponent about what has changed. Map scale is ok but there should be a bit more creativity about political decisions I think.

[ernieschwitz]

IRL IJA had some 35 divisions in China max

Don't forget that the Japanese divisions were a lot bigger than European divisions. Some by a factor of 3!

[James Taylor]

I've played a map that represents the WW2 combat theaters without the parts of the World that were not engaged in the fighting or had much potential to be.

The different theaters were connected with the loop jumps configured so that arrival/departure in each could be varied to many hexes and there was enough ocean to make the naval game interesting for escorted and intercepting convoys/taskforces.

Without the geography of the mundane areas the pertinent ones could be made much bigger. Now the visual effect will not represent the Earth arrangement as we know it, especially when viewing the strategic map.

I forget who did it......it may have been Big Al, correct me if I'm wrong.