AI for MWIF - Norway

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Also, I note from the WiF FE map that the port and the city are greatly far away one from the other within the Auckland hex.
Maybe the Major Port capacity of Auckland in WiF FE is representing the port capacity of another NZ port that would be nearer to the tip of North Island. Does anyone knows ?

I've looked, and there is none.
So Auckland is the main Major Port Facility of this area of New Zealand.

Also, here is another map of Auckland.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Also, here is another map of Auckland.

On that map it looks like it could be 2 harbours. One on the west side and one on the east (Takapuna) side. Could we make it so that Auckland has 2 major port symbols? One on each side and then let the port have access to both sea areas?

-Orm

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Also, here is another map of Auckland.

On that map it looks like it could be 2 harbours. One on the west side and one on the east (Takapuna) side. Could we make it so that Auckland has 2 major port symbols? One on each side and then let the port have access to both sea areas?

-Orm

I was in Auckland a few years ago and have a slightly better map. Yes, there are two harbors though they do not connect - at least not in the sense that an aircraft carrier could move from one to the other. I am not sure if it is even possible for smaller craft (I should have bought a better map).

One major port symbol in the middle of the isthmus seems right to me. No need to change the sea area boundaries at all.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Incy
I think both solutions look a bit strange. It seems to me the hex SE of Legaspi should be invadable from Bismarck sea.
And the peninsula NW of Auckland should be invadable from both sea areas.

Maybe I can put the Sea Area boundary like that ?

I had thought about this solution, but it looks a lot better than I had imagined it would.

The hex SE of Legaspi is still invadable from the Bismarck Sea because it is adjacent to an all sea hex in the Bismarck Sea. That also means that naval transports in the Bismarck Sea could land/pick up units from there as well.

The change to the graphic connecting Legaspi with the hex SE is still needed and the port symbol could be positioned at 17 (at 5 o'clock, but more inland). Position 18 might look even better.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I was in Auckland a few years ago and have a slightly better map. Yes, there are two harbors though they do not connect - at least not in the sense that an aircraft carrier could move from one to the other. I am not sure if it is even possible for smaller craft (I should have bought a better map).

One major port symbol in the middle of the isthmus seems right to me. No need to change the sea area boundaries at all.

So I don't touch the Sea Area border, and I put the port in position 9 and the city symbol in the middle of the hex, that's OK ?
Ships can dock on any side of Auckland, and from any side can go to any sea area adjacent.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I had thought about this solution, but it looks a lot better than I had imagined it would.

The hex SE of Legaspi is still invadable from the Bismarck Sea because it is adjacent to an all sea hex in the Bismarck Sea. That also means that naval transports in the Bismarck Sea could land/pick up units from there as well.

I'm sorry Steve, but this is wrong. In the above map, the hex SE of Legaspi is not even in the Bismarck Sea, so it can't be invaded from here at all.
This is the same case as Hong Kong for example.

The change to the graphic connecting Legaspi with the hex SE is still needed and the port symbol could be positioned at 17 (at 5 o'clock, but more inland). Position 18 might look even better.

You have got the changes yesterday, were they OK (I only send you the 2 hexes graphic, not the whole tile).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I had thought about this solution, but it looks a lot better than I had imagined it would.

The hex SE of Legaspi is still invadable from the Bismarck Sea because it is adjacent to an all sea hex in the Bismarck Sea. That also means that naval transports in the Bismarck Sea could land/pick up units from there as well.

I'm sorry Steve, but this is wrong. In the above map, the hex SE of Legaspi is not even in the Bismarck Sea, so it can't be invaded from here at all.
This is the same case as Hong Kong for example.

The change to the graphic connecting Legaspi with the hex SE is still needed and the port symbol could be positioned at 17 (at 5 o'clock, but more inland). Position 18 might look even better.

You have got the changes yesterday, were they OK (I only send you the 2 hexes graphic, not the whole tile).

I haven't regenerated the graphics for that map segment. It is a lot of work because changing any coastal graphic requires reprocessing all the coastal bitmaps for the 6 master pages of coastal bitmaps.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I haven't regenerated the graphics for that map segment. It is a lot of work because changing any coastal graphic requires reprocessing all the coastal bitmaps for the 6 master pages of coastal bitmaps.

Yes, but are the 2 hexes I sent you enought for you to regenerate the graphic of that map segment, or do you need the whole Malaya / NEI / Philippines tile ?

[paulderynck]

I really think the best solution is to leave the sea zone boundaries as they are, make the two peninsulas narrow enough in one spot, and place the port symbol over top so it touches both sea zones. Yeah it looks a bit odd and may require a note in a tutorial somewhere, but it conveys the info desired to the player and keeps changes to a minimum. This is preferrable to willy-nilly changes to which hexes can be invaded from which sea zones.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I haven't regenerated the graphics for that map segment. It is a lot of work because changing any coastal graphic requires reprocessing all the coastal bitmaps for the 6 master pages of coastal bitmaps.

Yes, but are the 2 hexes I sent you enought for you to regenerate the graphic of that map segment, or do you need the whole Malaya / NEI / Philippines tile ?

I need the whole map segment. [I haven't unzipped what you sent me yet.]

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish
I am now confused as to what rule MWiF will use for invasions. Must a hex have a full sea hexside to be invadeable? If so Legaspi is invadeable only on the port side of the hex (which is on its starboard side ---[&:] )

On the page of this thread prior to this one there are several screen shots of the MWiF map showing that the hex Legaspi is located in - can be invaded from either sea zone as there are full sea hexsides adjacent to both.

My mistake was in thinking "full sea hexside" refered just to the hex east of Legaspi, and thinking the other hexsides to the west were full coastal hexsides. It's been a while since I played and even longer since I had an opponent. I guess I was just making up rules as I went.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish
I am now confused as to what rule MWiF will use for invasions. Must a hex have a full sea hexside to be invadeable? If so Legaspi is invadeable only on the port side of the hex (which is on its starboard side ---[&:] )

On the page of this thread prior to this one there are several screen shots of the MWiF map showing that the hex Legaspi is located in - can be invaded from either sea zone as there are full sea hexsides adjacent to both.

My mistake was in thinking "full sea hexside" refered just to the hex east of Legaspi, and thinking the other hexsides to the west were full coastal hexsides. It's been a while since I played and even longer since I had an opponent. I guess I was just making up rules as I went.

Actually, you were remembering old rules.

[Plainian]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Also, here is another map of Auckland.

I don't want to divert any attention away from the main discussion but I'm struck by the real world map of Auk/New Zealand and its MWIF map? Aukland seems to take up more than half of the peninsula on the real map but it seems to have oodles of room on the WIF map?
So is the MWIF correctly drawn or should Auk be in the hex to the NW of the current hex it sits in?

[brian brian]

I disagree with making Auckland a two-zone port as well. Auckland is now six hexes from a Coral Sea hex-dot. (Legaspi is six complicated sailing hexes from a South China Sea hex-dot; nearby Cephu is only three from a Bismarck Sea hex-dot; I'm not saying Cephu should be a port on the Bismarck, but the current arrangement makes one wonder about the two ports). The problem with making these stretches to simultaneously change the map and keep it the same (an impossible contradiction), is it calls into question many other ports. Not far from Auckland is Rabaul, a mere three or four hexes from the Solomons. Why shouldn't it be a port on the Solomons? Because that would be good for Japan? Why should Auckland be a port on the Coral Sea? Because that would be good for the Allies? I already know the answer - "because of WiF:FE". If the 25 year development of WiF had been working like that, Truk would still be a port wholly inside the Solomons zone with much less of the strategic value it now has. That's how the map was in the 5th Edition of the game. Here is a cliche about placing the zone boundaries...you have to draw the line somewhere. So basically a little more geographically accurate line won't be drawn because of an older edition of the game. That seems like going backwards, not forward.

So I've registered my disagreement and I'll try not to bring this up again. I've seen whole games of WiF go by where neither side used Auckland or Legaspi. (Btw, more useful than Legaspi may be that new jungle hex (an automatic airbase) on the border of the South China Sea in the Celebes. Why couldn't that be 'kept the same' and left all mountain hexes?)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Bump.