ORIGINAL: Froonp
Duluth was 101k in 1940, so I made it a city already.
Good.
Well, it does not bother me.
OK, let's keep New Bern then.
What I would like to do, is to put Fernandina in its right hex (as Jacksonville is a minor port on the WiF FE map, so it would kind of be too in MWiF), and add Brunswick as you said.
Would you then put a port in the Jacksonville hex and not use the name Fernandina? That seems like a better idea than to use
2 names for the same hex. Jacksonville is well known, Fernandina not. You think 2 ports in this region is a good idea
(BOTH Jacksonville AND Brunswick)? If you make Jacksonville a minor port then maybe this is good enough for the port
capacity in this region. I don't know.
No, because its 1940 population is below 100k. You figure is from the 1950 census that was wrongly posted here (the right 1940 census was posted thereafter).
Maybe you can add Corpus Christi as a minor port only then instead of adding a city here? To me it's strange that the US Gulf Coast has so few ports (except the major ports already there) when the US Atlantic port is filled with very minor ports like New Bern, Fernandina etc. I think adding a minor port in Texas could be a good idea.
I don't think there is a need for it on the MWiF map.
Well, maybe it's enough with just adding Corpus Christi as a port.
I don't think there is a need for it on the MWiF map neither.
Shreveport is maybe not that important to add on the map here in the south if we want to keep the map from being clogged with cities. But if that is so then I don't understand why we are in the process of adding so many new cities in the NE part of USA. Why is it ok in NE USA to add cities like Hartford, Flint, Albany, Akron, Dayton etc. while there are so few cities in the south compared to the north? Is it because you expect some military actions in the NE of USA so USA needs cities to add reinforcements?
For me the most important thing about making a map is to have CONSISTANT design rules everywhere on the map. If you go for one detail level at one part of the map then it would be strange if other parts of the map have a much lesser detail level. I think mainly about adding cities, ports and railroads. That is one reason I don't think the megalopolis idea of creating a continuous line of cities from Washington to Boston is a good idea. Was it really that crowded in 1940 from Washington to Boston? I noticed that many US cities have become a lot bigger during the last 50-60 years. One example is Las Vegas that had 8.400 inhabitants in 1940 and had 545.000 inhabitants in 2005.
So maybe it's a good idea to be more restrictive about adding new cities in NE USA. Especially new cities not needed for supply reasons, like adding a city adjacent to an already bigger city (like adding Providence adjacent to Boston).
I made an extra layer on the MWiF draft map I draw, showing the supply zone, from the original WiF FE map, and give or take some hexes, the supply cover on the MwiF map is nearly the same as the one of the WiF FE map.
There are only 3 places where there is less supply :
- Northern Maine (North of Boston & Portland -- WiF FE has wrongly Portland as a city, so a city should be added in this area).
- Northern Michigan.
- Northern California. Maybe a Eureka (minor port) can be added 4 hexes NW of Sacramento. This seems to be the biggest place in the area.
Opinions ?
The only possible cities to add in Northern Michigan are Sault Ste. Marie or Marquette. The problem is that both cities are quite small. The former with about 20.000 inhabitants and the latter with about 65.000 inhabitants today.
But it's maybe possible to add Green Bay in Wisconsin to help with supply there. Green Bay with suburbs has a population of 237.000 now (102.000 in the city itself). In 1950 the city had 53.000 inhabitants). Green Bay is located in the hex 2xNW+NE of Milwaukee.
But if it's too difficult to get normal supply with adding >100k cities then maybe it could help to make the Great Lakes a sea area and add ports to different cities (Duluth, Thunder Bay, Green Bay, Sault St. Marie, Marquette etc.). Then I think supply would be easier to obtain.
There are no big cities in Northern Maine. The only cities worth mentioning are Augusta and Bangor, but they're too small to be designated a city. I think for supply reasons adding Albany instead of Syracuse is a good idea. At least Albany reaches further into Maine than Syracuse with supply. Portland is the biggest city in Maine with a population of 64.000 now.
But does it really matter if some parts of USA don't have full supply? I don't think we will see any US units there or any combat. Adding cities just for supply is not a good idea unless it's in a region where supply in vital and combat is expected. So I think we can live with Portland as just a port and not add any new cities. The game goes to Northern Michigan. Don't add any new cities there except Duluth and Grand Rapids. Add ports on the great lakes if some supply is truly needed. At least the ports can have a population smaller than 100k [;)]
Eureka was also the town I found in Norther California that could be a port, but I found no news about Eureka having a useful port that could host military warships. So I guess we need some input from people living in Western USA to say which town is the most likely candidate for a Pacific port between San Francisco and Seattle.
