Maps for MWIF

[buckyzoom]

The maps are beautiful. I agree that there should be more contrast between the forest and the swamp. I also think this is true for the contrast between clear and forest and clear and swamp. Would a darker green forest and darker blue swamps help with this? Have you had any feedback from folks who are color blind?

[lomyrin]

I agree with Patrice's post #260 regarding the map contrasts and the seaboxes.

Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
For the sea boxes, I still feel they would look much better if they were larger and if they touched each others. Moreover, the WiF rule talks about the sea box designating the whole 0 to 4 arrangement of sections. Seeing this maps, you could think there are 10 boxes. This could be confusing. Or you could draw a line around them so that we know its only one sea box.

WIF FE used a single stencil for all the sea boxes. It contained the 5 sections within that stencil. They used it, as is, whenever they needed sea boxes which resulted in them placing it at some odd angles in the Red , Baltic and Caspian Seas. The sections within the WIF FE sea boxes were oversized because they had to be. They contained naval units from both sides and it often happened that 20 or more units would be stacked in one section of the sea box. Indeed, many times I wished they were even larger so I could pick up one stack of units without knocking over the units in adjoining sea sections.

The rules may talk about placing units in a sea box but what they really say is that you place them in a section of the sea box.

Drawing a line around the group of 5 sea boxes is awkward in the 3 sea areas I mentioned above. I do not see the gain here since each sea box section is clearly labeled. How adding another box around the boxes increases the clarity, beyond what the labels provide, escapes my understanding.

I do firmly believe that separating the Axis from the Allied units in the sea area is a very good thing. Having each sea box section split into two pieces will help players understand what is going on during the game.

I do want to add to the interface of what is displayed and how it is displayed when a player wants to examine units within a sea area in detail. But that is a task for another day.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The last in the series. I haven't repositioned the labels for cities et al in this portion of the map. My concern is the similarity between the swamp and forest.

For me they are too close.
I think that the forest should be darker green.
Anyway, the swamp is going the good direction.

Look at the Africa screen shot to see my concern about just simply making the forest darker. It then starts to look like the jungle.

[SurrenderMonkey]

Hi Shannon,

Well, for what it's worth, I think the maps look TERRIFIC. Let's not aim so high that we endanger any other area of development. Sheesh - the screenshots make the map look far more than adequate. Very nice. Thanks. [:)]

[ParJ]

I'm new as a Forum poster, but I've followed the discussion for some time now. I've plaed the CWiF game (Barbarossa) and are at least somewhat familiar with the scale used in that game (I've tried Guadalcanal as well, but didn't like the fact that naval units wasn't shown on the map).

I have some opinions that I need to ventilate:

- Regarding Off map boxes

I have played the WIF boardgame 39-45 scenario close to 10 times during the last 16 years. I have seen every version of the game during this time, but I haven't seen an off map box in a game for at least 5 years. We play with the two European maps, the two Asia/pacific maps, the Africa map, Americas and the Scandinavian extension map. This eliminates all off map boxes for the game, but introduces another scale for the Americas map. I can see why a uniform scale would be pleasing to the developer as well to anyone playing the game since the original maps would have very distinct borders. Add any texture you like (I'm like Neo from the Matrix movies when it comes to WiF, I only see the ones and zeros, or in this case the original WiF graphics from 1989 when I bought my first WiF game) but make sure it can be switched off (to "vanilla style").

- Divisions and breakdown

This can easily be solved. In addition to the standard WiF counters and divisions that can be used anyway you please, you could allow additional breakdown of units but the unit broken down into a division would be placed in a "Breakdown Pool" (there are not enough different pools in WiF, so let's add another one). That Corps (or Army in case of Russia) would not be available in the forcepool and can only be placed on the map as part of a reforming of two divisions. That would solve any issue anyone would have against the different scale in Asia. You can decide if you want to have more of weaker units or fewer normal strenght units. This would balance itself.

- Movement

In our last game we used a "house rule" (at least I think it was) where the movement between hexes cost half of the hex you're in and half of the hex you're moving to. This evens out swamps and other difficult terrain without impacting the play balance. I was a bit sceptic before we started the game (mostly because of the manual calculation of movement cost) but it turned out to be a great and enjuyable rule change.

- Force pools/available units

This should not be tampered with, because this would really impact play balance more than the map scale.


That's it for me for now. But I might post another note later in 2006.

/Oto

[c92nichj]

I love the new terrain, especially the mountain which is now as close to perfect as it can get. I disagree with Patrice about having it look more brainy.
Swamp is also much better I like it a lot.
I also like the way you solved the sea sections, have to disagree with Patrice on this one as well.


So get the artist start working on the coastlines instead of messing around with the terrain

Nicklas

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: oto02
I'm new as a Forum poster, but I've followed the discussion for some time now. I've plaed the CWiF game (Barbarossa) and are at least somewhat familiar with the scale used in that game (I've tried Guadalcanal as well, but didn't like the fact that naval units wasn't shown on the map).

I have some opinions that I need to ventilate:

- Regarding Off map boxes

I have played the WIF boardgame 39-45 scenario close to 10 times during the last 16 years. I have seen every version of the game during this time, but I haven't seen an off map box in a game for at least 5 years. We play with the two European maps, the two Asia/pacific maps, the Africa map, Americas and the Scandinavian extension map. This eliminates all off map boxes for the game, but introduces another scale for the Americas map. I can see why a uniform scale would be pleasing to the developer as well to anyone playing the game since the original maps would have very distinct borders. Add any texture you like (I'm like Neo from the Matrix movies when it comes to WiF, I only see the ones and zeros, or in this case the original WiF graphics from 1989 when I bought my first WiF game) but make sure it can be switched off (to "vanilla style").

- Divisions and breakdown

This can easily be solved. In addition to the standard WiF counters and divisions that can be used anyway you please, you could allow additional breakdown of units but the unit broken down into a division would be placed in a "Breakdown Pool" (there are not enough different pools in WiF, so let's add another one). That Corps (or Army in case of Russia) would not be available in the forcepool and can only be placed on the map as part of a reforming of two divisions. That would solve any issue anyone would have against the different scale in Asia. You can decide if you want to have more of weaker units or fewer normal strenght units. This would balance itself.

- Movement

In our last game we used a "house rule" (at least I think it was) where the movement between hexes cost half of the hex you're in and half of the hex you're moving to. This evens out swamps and other difficult terrain without impacting the play balance. I was a bit sceptic before we started the game (mostly because of the manual calculation of movement cost) but it turned out to be a great and enjuyable rule change.

- Force pools/available units

This should not be tampered with, because this would really impact play balance more than the map scale.


That's it for me for now. But I might post another note later in 2006.

/Oto

I agree with all that you wrote. Your description of the division breakdown rule is how I intend to implement it (it will be an option, like so many others).

However, as to changing the movement rules, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of house rules in the world of WIF. I would be astonished if there aren't dozens of them that are excellent additions to the WIF FE rules (RAW). However, I have a set task before me, which is to implement WIF FE. As currently defined there are 76 optional rules in MWIF product 1. Any attempt to increase that number (or change what they are) is going to have to wait until product 1 is in players' hot little hands.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

So get the artist start working on the coastlines instead of messing around with the terrain

Nicklas

A sore point, to say the least.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey

Hi Shannon,

Well, for what it's worth, I think the maps look TERRIFIC. Let's not aim so high that we endanger any other area of development. Sheesh - the screenshots make the map look far more than adequate. Very nice. Thanks. [:)]

Thank you.

My work on the graphics is a diversion for me from the harder stuff. When I need a break, I look at my list of "Gee, it would be nice" for graphics stuff and mess around with it for a half hour or so. I try to always have easy stuff available to work on from time to time - especially when I find I am beating my head against a brick wall with a coding problem.

[YohanTM2]

Overall the terrian looks excellent and I think your decision on the sea boxes is great. As someone who is partially colour blind I am not sure about the shading yet. I'm not sure whether it is just going to take getting used to a bit and will be fine or if the shades are a nit too close.

Perhaps other gameers who are colour blind can comment as well?

[dhatchen]

Thumbs up on the new mountains and swamp. I would, however like to see a little more colour on the clear terrain hexes. The paper maps have a light shade of green with the cultivation markings. I would rather that tan be saved for desert only. The clear needs a little more life to them. This might be difficult, I don't know, as there would be different greens for jungle, forest, swamp, and clear. Maybe just a background tinge will do.

Old Brittania is really starting to look pretty sharp.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: dhatchen

Thumbs up on the new mountains and swamp. I would, however like to see a little more colour on the clear terrain hexes. The paper maps have a light shade of green with the cultivation markings. I would rather that tan be saved for desert only. The clear needs a little more life to them. This might be difficult, I don't know, as there would be different greens for jungle, forest, swamp, and clear. Maybe just a background tinge will do.

Old Brittania is really starting to look pretty sharp.

My thought was to add a bit more red to the clear and some dark brown to the forest. The red is for the same reason you gave - more life. I had been wary of introducing brown into the forest because of the solid brown mountains, but they now contain enough gray/white to be distinct from a forest of green and brown.

[macgregor]

These maps look spectacular! Maybe you can still improve them, but they look fine to me.

[dhatchen]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: dhatchen

Thumbs up on the new mountains and swamp. I would, however like to see a little more colour on the clear terrain hexes. The paper maps have a light shade of green with the cultivation markings. I would rather that tan be saved for desert only. The clear needs a little more life to them. This might be difficult, I don't know, as there would be different greens for jungle, forest, swamp, and clear. Maybe just a background tinge will do.

Old Brittania is really starting to look pretty sharp.

My thought was to add a bit more red to the clear and some dark brown to the forest. The red is for the same reason you gave - more life. I had been wary of introducing brown into the forest because of the solid brown mountains, but they now contain enough gray/white to be distinct from a forest of green and brown.

Sounds good, lets see how it looks.

[Glen Felzien]

Big thumbs up! The mountains are terrific. The swamps are much better and definately distinctive from the clear/forests now. True the forests may be better (very subjective) if they were a darker shade of green but I can see why this would then blend them more closely to jungle terrian. Frankly I think it looks great the way it is now.

Regarding sea boxes, I much perfer the current design you have in the screen shots. I do appriciate the desire for a more map like appearance but when playing on a map, you can pick up all the units in the each box, line them up, spread them out, arrange them anyway you want then place them back in the box. None of that is possible on a computer game. So by spliting the boxes into corresponding Ally/Axis box setup is a good solution. I am really impressed with it.

One last thing, did you modify the ports symbols? The pattern aound the circumferance? I kinda like it with the new anchor.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Glen Felzien

Big thumbs up! The mountains are terrific. The swamps are much better and definately distinctive from the clear/forests now. True the forests may be better (very subjective) if they were a darker shade of green but I can see why this would then blend them more closely to jungle terrian. Frankly I think it looks great the way it is now.

Regarding sea boxes, I much perfer the current design you have in the screen shots. I do appriciate the desire for a more map like appearance but when playing on a map, you can pick up all the units in the each box, line them up, spread them out, arrange them anyway you want then place them back in the box. None of that is possible on a computer game. So by spliting the boxes into corresponding Ally/Axis box setup is a good solution. I am really impressed with it.

One last thing, did you modify the ports symbols? The pattern aound the circumferance? I kinda like it with the new anchor.

Ok, the mountains are getting mostly good reviews, with Patrice wanting to push the envelope a little more.

The swamps are getting good reviews too. Whether they are too similar to the forests is a mixed repsonse: some yeah, some nay.

The port symbols now look like the anchors on the marines. I haven't added the final outline in yellow to the port circle, but will do so eventually.

[Neilster]

I like to mountains as they are. Any more relief and they overpower the other terrain.

Cheers, Neilster

[graf spee]

Hi,
I don't know this game yet, so just a quick question.
There is a guy here willing to sell me a used copy of his game(WIF final)
I will probably never play the game this way,but would it be possible for me to use the maps of it for ref.purpose or will there be to much dif.between the maps of the computergame and the maps of the original one??
Thanks
Bob

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: graf spee
Hi,
I don't know this game yet, so just a quick question.
There is a guy here willing to sell me a used copy of his game(WIF final)
I will probably never play the game this way,but would it be possible for me to use the maps of it for ref.purpose or will there be to much dif.between the maps of the computergame and the maps of the original one??
Thanks
Bob

WIF Final Edition (FE), when all the add-ons are included, has a half a dozen maps or so. The basic game comes with 2 European sections and 2 Pacific sections. MWIF matches the European maps perfectly (and I do not use that word lightly). The paper Pacific maps use a different scale. MWIF takes the scale from the European maps and uses it for the whole world (360 hexes around by 195 high) - a cylinder instead of a sphere. Therefore, MWIF does not match the Pacific maps, though the sea areas are as nearly identical as possible after changing the scale.