Extension to AB's extended map

[timtom]

Hi Andrew,

Again, thanks for for your efforts with your very impressive map [:)].

Just a thought: Ever consider doing some sort of Cape Town extension for your extended map? Currently convoys between India and Australia has to pass quiet close to DEI, making it the perfect spot for an ambush - in fact Gen.Hoepner is doing just that to Mc3744 in their game using your map.

I believe the point of the extended map is to work around the worst map-edge abuses?

Currently the proximity of the left-hand map edge makes it quiet easy to cut off Australia from "Aden" (ie the Cape/Suez), which presumably is the safer alternative should the Allied position in the South Pacific collapse - incidentally the dish being served Mc3744 also - thus allowing for the complete isolation of Oz.

Something like this or whatever...

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: timtom

Hi Andrew,

Again, thanks for for your efforts with your very impressive map [:)].

Just a thought: Ever consider doing some sort of Cape Town extension for your extended map? Currently convoys between India and Australia has to pass quiet close to DEI, making it the perfect spot for an ambush - in fact Gen.Hoepner is doing just that to Mc3744 in their game using your map.

I believe the point of the extended map is to work around the worst map-edge abuses?

Currently the proximity of the left-hand map edge makes it quiet easy to cut off Australia from "Aden" (ie the Cape/Suez), which presumably is the safer alternative should the Allied position in the South Pacific collapse - incidentally the dish being served Mc3744 also - thus allowing for the complete isolation of Oz.

Something like this or whatever...

This has been mentioned before. I actually thought about it when I first started work on the map extension. The idea has merit, for the reasons you mention, but there are some problems. The main one is that there is not much space on the left side of the map, especially near India and Ceylon. There would be nothing to stop the Japanese from sailing an air combat TF right up to the channel, even if not in it, and launching airstrikes against shipping using it. The only way to prevent that would be a house rule. This problem does not exist with the channels to Panama as tehre is enough space there to separate the channels from the rest of the map.

I am interested in peoples' opinions about this though - it COULD be done...

Andrew

[Ron Saueracker]

I like it. What's another house rule anyway? It gives the Allied shipping even more to do, which is a good thing. If the "Capetown" base was left near the bottom left of the map and the "Channel" meanders within the Australian Bight, would this help? Any shipping from Capetown to India could then take a normal north/south route from the channel entry point in, presumable SW of Perth.

[treespider]

This has been mentioned before. I actually thought about it when I first started work on the map extension. The idea has merit, for the reasons you mention, but there are some problems. The main one is that there is not much space on the left side of the map, especially near India and Ceylon. There would be nothing to stop the Japanese from sailing an air combat TF right up to the channel, even if not in it, and launching airstrikes against shipping using it. The only way to prevent that would be a house rule. This problem does not exist with the channels to Panama as tehre is enough space there to separate the channels from the rest of the map.

I am interested in peoples' opinions about this though - it COULD be done...

Andrew

Would it be possible to create a buffer zone so to speak by creating a 3 or 4 hex wide column of grey hexes from Ceylon to PertH?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Would it be possible to create a buffer zone so to speak by creating a 3 or 4 hex wide column of grey hexes from Ceylon to PertH?

Is 3-4 hexes enough to stop the Japanese airstrikes?

If Capetown is placed at the bottom left, then there is no problem with shipping between Capetown and Australia, but there would be between Capetown/Australia and India.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: treespider

Would it be possible to create a buffer zone so to speak by creating a 3 or 4 hex wide column of grey hexes from Ceylon to PertH?

Is 3-4 hexes enough to stop the Japanese airstrikes?

If Capetown is placed at the bottom left, then there is no problem with shipping between Capetown and Australia, but there would be between Capetown/Australia and India.

Well, is there enough room to widen the buffer along the western map edge to negate Jap attacks and simulate off map routing which the current map does not allow?? If not, the need for shipping on map between Capetown or Australia and India would be rather minimal anyway, aside from LCU movements.

[jwilkerson]

First, I'm not 100% convinced trying to simulate off map movement is good or necessary. But I've been asked to allow it in one game and have ( but I'm a nice guy sometimes !? ).

But - I don't think allies should get a free ride either. Certainly Japanese I-boats had the range to go pretty much anywhere in the IO, so they should be exempt. Japanese carriers which will go the the map edge and lurk almost certainly need AO support, in which case they could go farther perhaps.

And the area near Perth should not be a sanctuary for the Allies. The Japanese should have access to this area and even be able to send ships around the bight if they have the gas ( I've' done it in both directions ! ).

So what is the simple 1-2 sentence case for the protected canal from ME to Perth ?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

First, I'm not 100% convinced trying to simulate off map movement is good or necessary. But I've been asked to allow it in one game and have ( but I'm a nice guy sometimes !? ).

But - I don't think allies should get a free ride either. Certainly Japanese I-boats had the range to go pretty much anywhere in the IO, so they should be exempt. Japanese carriers which will go the the map edge and lurk almost certainly need AO support, in which case they could go farther perhaps.

And the area near Perth should not be a sanctuary for the Allies. The Japanese should have access to this area and even be able to send ships around the bight if they have the gas ( I've' done it in both directions ! ).

So what is the simple 1-2 sentence case for the protected canal from ME to Perth ?

The problem is not with Japanese ships/subs entering the channels - that is fine and should not be restricted (well, there may be a problem with subs being able to find convoys too easily, but that has yet to be confirmed in actual gameplay, and can be countered to some extent by making the channels shallow ocean). The problem is with Japanese air TFs sailing to the outside edge of the channel, without entering it, and interdicting shipping in the channel. The channel is an abstraction, so for example, if there is a channel between a "Capetown" base in the Southwest corner of the map, and India, in the Northwest corner, the channel position does not represent an accurate position of the shipping lane, passing close to the DEI. In reality the shipping lane would be much further away. But without a large enough physical barrier, or a house rule, then Japanese air TFs could quickly sail from the DEI to the outside edge of the channel and launch airstrikes against convoys in the channel itself.

Does that explain the problem? Panama is protected from such interference by a barrier up to 12 hexes wide. There is less room on the Western edge of the map. It depends on what the maximum effective range of Japanese airstrikes from their carriers is.

[timtom]

It seems to me that the merit of a channel up the left-hand side of the map is that it provides an easily defined boundery between what's kosher and what isn't. The idea is to combine it with (yet another) house-rule disallowing air attacks into the corridor, the exact whereabouts of which neither player can be in any doubt, as it's actually physically on the map.

Similarly, the the Aden/Panama barriers are only barriers because they're recognised as such by the players.

Granted there's perfect solution to many of the problems in WitP - but I think it's often a case of finding the least poor solution[:)]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: timtom

It seems to me that the merit of a channel up the left-hand side of the map is that it provides an easily defined boundery between what's kosher and what isn't. The idea is to combine it with (yet another) house-rule disallowing air attacks into the corridor, the exact whereabouts of which neither player can be in any doubt, as it's actually physically on the map.

Similarly, the the Aden/Panama barriers are only barriers because they're recognised as such by the players.

Granted there's perfect solution to many of the problems in WitP - but I think it's often a case of finding the least poor solution[:)]

Well, I am interested enough to experiment with the idea, but I have a few things to take care of first...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

So what is the simple 1-2 sentence case for the protected canal from ME to Perth ?

I also am yet to be convinced if this is a good idea or a bad idea. What I do see as the rational in favor of a channel (if done should be ME to Perth but definitely with an 'onramp' near India) is best illustrated by looking at a globe. If you don't have one (I don't) then use the NASA World Wind software. [Here's your one sentence:] The expanse of ocean from the DEI to antarctica is truly immense. If having a channel is justified then I believe it would be so to simulate this vast expanse that the Allies could use to route around hostile action. Of course, the range penalty (for the Allied ships) must be there, and the Japanese must be able to enter it as well by paying the same range penalty.

That's my take on it

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

So what is the simple 1-2 sentence case for the protected canal from ME to Perth ?

I also am yet to be convinced if this is a good idea or a bad idea. What I do see as the rational in favor of a channel (if done should be ME to Perth but definitely with an 'onramp' near India) is best illustrated by looking at a globe. If you don't have one (I don't) then use the NASA World Wind software. [Here's your one sentence:] The expanse of ocean from the DEI to antarctica is truly immense. If having a channel is justified then I believe it would be so to simulate this vast expanse that the Allies could use to route around hostile action. Of course, the range penalty (for the Allied ships) must be there, and the Japanese must be able to enter it as well by paying the same range penalty.

That's my take on it

If we could really extend the map ( i.e. add more hexes ... lots more hexes ) I'd be fine with that ... but giving Allies ability to move convoys from ME to Perth with NO POSSIBILITY OF INTERCEPTION ... is where I balk. If it were possible to do as you say and make both sides pay a range penalty then that sounds plausible .. but the way Andrew has done that to date as been a zig-zag canal ... which to me at least - isn't all that pleasing and it would certainly not be pleasing on the "West Edge" as it would push pretty far in towards Summatra and Java I would think ...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

If we could really extend the map ( i.e. add more hexes ... lots more hexes ) I'd be fine with that ... but giving Allies ability to move convoys from ME to Perth with NO POSSIBILITY OF INTERCEPTION ... is where I balk. If it were possible to do as you say and make both sides pay a range penalty then that sounds plausible .. but the way Andrew has done that to date as been a zig-zag canal ... which to me at least - isn't all that pleasing and it would certainly not be pleasing on the "West Edge" as it would push pretty far in towards Summatra and Java I would think ...

Definately sounds like it would be tough to pull off.