Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Is the "Pelennor Fields" label going to stay? It's amusing.[
I intend it to stay. This is where the Pelennor Fields were shooted.

Really?

I got a little chuckle out of the P. Fields and Mount Doom easter eggs, but honestly, they don't belong on a historical map about World War Two. They are anachronistic, have nothing to do with WW2, and probably would only be understood by a small subset of hardcore Tolkien Fans that followed the movies' production locations.


Besides, labelling the set locations of Tora, Tora, Tora, The Longest Day, The Sands of Iwo Jima, and Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, would be more in style for the map focus :p

As a person who positively loathes Tolkien, I do find silly references to film-locations lower the tone of the whole game.  And we all hope the game continues to sell long after everyone has forgotten about the film.
 
I strongly support inclusion of historical battle sites, but, as a Briton, I find the Baa-Baa-Baaa in the Solomons rather childish (there you are, Patrice: a comment about the Solomons!)  I knew nothing about the man until I looked up the reference.  He was a fine pilot, but was only in action for about three months.
 
The other nations all had their aces, Douglas Bader with no legs even: should we include cute references to their airbases?
 
If there is a counter in PiF for that Marine fighter squadron (as there is with Rudel), then it might make sense, but otherwise No.

Could someone enlighten me please as to what Baa Baa Baaa, P.Fields and Mount Doom Easter Eggs all means? - I`m lost......

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Could someone enlighten me please as to what Baa Baa Baaa, P.Fields and Mount Doom Easter Eggs all means? - I`m lost......

The last two are from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, whch was primarily filmed in New Zealand.

I have no idea what the first item refers to.

In which case I am totally with Marcus and Norman.  PLEASE! This game is about WWII.  Can I ask that you seriously consider not putting in references to things that have nothing to do with this game or the period in which it is set.

I agree with the last posters too. It's fun to place the locations like Pelennor Fields and Mt. Doom temporarily on the map when we make a discussion about that part of the map. But for the final map I hope those are removed. I'm in favour of showing the names of REAL locations that had any importance in WW2 like Anzio, Arnhem, Vemork, Peenemünde etc.

I think the only locations we show on the map are those that had any relevance during WW2. E. g. it's not important to add the location of Gettysburg or Ypres on the map because these locations had importance during the American Civil War and WW1 respectively.

Baa Baa Baa probably refers to an old WWII TV show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baa_Baa_Bl ... TV_series)

P.S. While I can understand the dislike to the references to Tolken(well not really), I really like having Mt. Doom on the map.

maybe you were asking what is an "Easter Egg" ? This refers to a special content feature in a video-game or DVD. Say you press a certain combination of buttons on the remote at a certain point and you get to see some additional media content only accessible in this 'secret' way, which you can actually read about on the internet quite easily. I hope Baa-Baa-Baa and Mt. Doom and Pelennor Fields and (Harry's House)? and maybe you can dream up a few more neat ones (PT-109, anyone? how about GHW Bush's parachute ride? "The Bridge Too Far", etc.) ... all stay in there, but more as an unexpected Easter Egg not too hard to discover, rather than a permanent script on the map, but not, of course, at the cost of extra work for the hardest working men in programming and cartography.

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney


If there is a counter in PiF for that Marine fighter squadron (as there is with Rudel), then it might make sense, but otherwise No.

I thought one of the PiF Corsair counters had a VMF-101 or something on it? Maybe I'm thinking of another game.

good work on the maps - they look terrific. harry and patrice asked me to have a look and make any comments i might have. i am starting with Australia of course! i hope i find the time to look at them all.

and i give comments only as a punter, so take them or not as you please, i have not been involved with WiF maps for many years. so please forgive me if i am not aware of current policy on what is in or out . . .

on rockhampton, it is not right that being inland it was not a port. the fitzroy was a navigable river allowing rockhampton to function as a port from the mid 19thC, mostly supplies in and cattle out - until the river silted up and the port was transferred to the river mouth (port alma), a process completed in the 1960s. see http://www.rockhampton.qld.gov.au/rccne ... px?id=9630. there were 70,000 US troops stationed there in WW2 and it was a trans-shipment point to north and south. Rockhampton was a larger port than Mackay and Cairns though. if you have townsville, cairns and mackay you should have rockhampton.

also there is the broader issue of the Great Barrier Reef; someone mentioned earlier that there is no inhibition in WiF to amphibious invasions into any coastal hex, so this may be an irrelevant aside - although i do recall a rule that you must be able to invade into a coastal hex from a full ocean hex - but it would have been difficult for the Japanese to make and sustain large landings through the reef. in HOI2 for example there are no invasion beaches at all along Queensland's east coast which means in that game you can't invade across the reef. this is a matter of judgment; assuming control of Moresby, the historical IJA invasion plan of Australia was to slip regimental/brigade sized groups through the reef to build up a bridgehead, the IJN plan (Yamamoto) was to avoid the reef entirely and dump five divisions straight on Sydney, a plan the Army was rather less keen on. typically each plan assigns the greater risk to the other service, the army requiring the navy to risk the reef and the navy demanding the army risk five divisions in a distant amphibious assault into a city. not surprisingly, no agreement was reached.

so, summarising, if double layers of coastal hexes block invasions, there might be a case for representing the reef with coastal hexes. any gaps could represent the known channels.

one curiosity about Australia being recently colonised and relatively sparsely settled, is there are some excellent virgin anchorages, similar to Rabaul, that the Australian government defended with port defences (emplaced coastal batteries) for fear that the Japanese might occupy them for use as a harbor. Port Stephens near Newcastle (the Pt Stephens batteries were integrated into the Newcastle defence system), Jervis Bay and Twofold Bay (Eden) in southern NSW are three that spring to mind. In WW2 Jervis Bay, a RAN base, had coastal batteries, and Twofold was used as a naval port, i am not sure about coastal batteries there, couldn't find any references in a quick google search. anyway this is all local colour, you don't need to respond to it.

the only other change i would suggest is the Mt Kosciusko alpine hexside, i think it should be one hex to the west; it is too close to the coast where it is. it should be slightly to the east of a line drawn from Canberra to Melbourne. The Snowy River should probably also lose its furthest inland hex-edge.

its all looking great. i am really looking forward to the game!

Mike,

Much thanks for your input on these. Here is the latest on Australia (including a small change I missed when I upload version 7.05 to the beta testers last week).

Let me know which section of the world you want to review next, and I'll post the current version for you here.

"Take it from the top!"

Continuing counterclockwise.

SW Australia

Tasmania and points north.

5th and last in series. Completing the walkabout.

although i do recall a rule that you must be able to invade into a coastal hex from a full ocean hex -

so, summarising, if double layers of coastal hexes block invasions, there might be a case for representing the reef with coastal hexes. any gaps could represent the known channels.

This rule is a ghost of WiF past Rule, and does not exist anymore.
It was the Sea Mines Optional Rule.

no worries. in WiF-world, i am a bit of a ghost myself.

On Perth, the port is south of the river and some of the city, so I think its ok if the city is south of the river.

ORIGINAL: Mike Fisher

good work on the maps - they look terrific. harry and patrice asked me to have a look and make any comments i might have. i am starting with Australia of course! i hope i find the time to look at them all.

I'm happy you find some time to take a look.

and i give comments only as a punter, so take them or not as you please, i have not been involved with WiF maps for many years. so please forgive me if i am not aware of current policy on what is in or out . . .

No problem. I believe we are all kind and cooperative persons.

on rockhampton, it is not right that being inland it was not a port. the fitzroy was a navigable river allowing rockhampton to function as a port from the mid 19thC, mostly supplies in and cattle out - until the river silted up and the port was transferred to the river mouth (port alma), a process completed in the 1960s. see http://www.rockhampton.qld.gov.au/rccne ... px?id=9630. there were 70,000 US troops stationed there in WW2 and it was a trans-shipment point to north and south. Rockhampton was a larger port than Mackay and Cairns though. if you have townsville, cairns and mackay you should have rockhampton.

OK. So I added it because it was often depicted on maps of the area during the wars, I removed it because delatbabel said it was not a port.
I'm ready to add it again (not before the 15 April Steve), but I'd welcome comments from as much people as possible (who know something about Rockhampton).

also there is the broader issue of the Great Barrier Reef; someone mentioned earlier that there is no inhibition in WiF to amphibious invasions into any coastal hex, so this may be an irrelevant aside - although i do recall a rule that you must be able to invade into a coastal hex from a full ocean hex - but it would have been difficult for the Japanese to make and sustain large landings through the reef. in HOI2 for example there are no invasion beaches at all along Queensland's east coast which means in that game you can't invade across the reef. this is a matter of judgment; assuming control of Moresby, the historical IJA invasion plan of Australia was to slip regimental/brigade sized groups through the reef to build up a bridgehead, the IJN plan (Yamamoto) was to avoid the reef entirely and dump five divisions straight on Sydney, a plan the Army was rather less keen on. typically each plan assigns the greater risk to the other service, the army requiring the navy to risk the reef and the navy demanding the army risk five divisions in a distant amphibious assault into a city. not surprisingly, no agreement was reached.

so, summarising, if double layers of coastal hexes block invasions, there might be a case for representing the reef with coastal hexes. any gaps could represent the known channels.

Maybe MWiF could have a "Coral Reef" hexside type, for MWiF product 2. This hexside would spoil an all sea hexside, making it not usable for invasions.

the only other change i would suggest is the Mt Kosciusko alpine hexside, i think it should be one hex to the west; it is too close to the coast where it is. it should be slightly to the east of a line drawn from Canberra to Melbourne. The Snowy River should probably also lose its furthest inland hex-edge.

I agree for the Mount. For the river, it is simpler to let it where it is, if it's not a biggie.

Changing terrain types for later version of MWIF sounds reasonable. Beside coastal barrier reef we also have 'useless' atoll.

If you want to change the Snowy river, the graphic does not have to be changed. Just remove the river hexside from COA. That way the CutUpBitmaps program will ignore the unwanted part of the river.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Changing terrain types for later version of MWIF sounds reasonable. Beside coastal barrier reef we also have 'useless' atoll.

Yes.

If you want to change the Snowy river, the graphic does not have to be changed. Just remove the river hexside from COA. That way the CutUpBitmaps program will ignore the unwanted part of the river.

Not sure it is that simple. If I do that, it will not only remove it on the last hexside, but also on all the hex. Also I prefer not to change rivers except if strong evidences show that they are wrong, and they are a biggie. Here, I think it's neither (for the moment).