Matrix Games Forums

Re: The Rabaul Problem

I don't think its really all that serious an issue, not a game-breaker by any means.

Due to the scale change on the Pac/Asia maps there are a huge number of locations that have the same issue (ie different number of hexdots til you reach a seabox, different number of hexsides that can attack hex XXX). This is just something that has to be accepted unless it makes a *radical* change that severely alters playbalance. A much bigger change is Guadalcanal becoming a 2 hex island, but even this isn't a huge worrying change.

Rabaul can still be attacked by 2 inf and 2 marine corps...the 2 marines just have to start on transports now.

I agree, but we should also look at the situation from the Japanese side.

If the CW somehow garrisons Rabaul with 2 units, one of them white print, things get really tough.

If the Rabaul garrison is flipped and out of supply, it will have a maximum of 8 factors in the circumstances you describe (6 for the white print unit, 2 for the normal unit, 0 for the notional since it will have (1-1)x2 factors.
 
That's not terribly insurmountable, although I admit that flipping the units will be the tricky part for the Japanese. If you can get 24 attacking factors (mix of overland & invading land units & shore bombardment/ground support), however, and flip the defenders, then you should be okay (+10 assault, which takes the hex on an average combat result).
 
Given the difficulty the Allies have in getting land units around in the Pacific in early '42, when Japan dominates the seas, the Japanese should be able to set up to take a couple of cracks at Rabaul. Your invading corps + div (maybe don't use marines the first time) can be taken as casualties, you re-flip the units on the island, and let 'er rip, presumably this time going 24 factors vs. 6 (for another +10 assault, but now with a much higher percentage of taking the hex).
 
So the Japanese certainly have the assets in late '41/early '42 to do it provided they haven't taken too many losses in China only attacking overland from the adjacent hex & by sea (+ air/ship support).
 
Nevertheless, the best approach is for Japan to take Rabaul before the Allies can get anything there. This is also the case in WiF:FE, and if the Allies manage to reinforce Rabaul beforehand it's bloody difficult to take it away from them even in WiF:FE.

ORIGINAL: jcprom

Re: The Rabaul Problem

I don't think its really all that serious an issue, not a game-breaker by any means.

Due to the scale change on the Pac/Asia maps there are a huge number of locations that have the same issue (ie different number of hexdots til you reach a seabox, different number of hexsides that can attack hex XXX). This is just something that has to be accepted unless it makes a *radical* change that severely alters playbalance. A much bigger change is Guadalcanal becoming a 2 hex island, but even this isn't a huge worrying change.

Rabaul can still be attacked by 2 inf and 2 marine corps...the 2 marines just have to start on transports now.

I agree, but we should also look at the situation from the Japanese side.

If the CW somehow garrisons Rabaul with 2 units, one of them white print, things get really tough.

Long time no hear. Welcome back.

New Ireland problem (continued)
 
There have been some valid comments posted here, about inadvertent changes caused by the different scale (air-ranges etc), but I think these affect both sides equally.
 
Different players have different styles.  For me, the special ability of MAR which I value is their ability to 'go walkies' along island chains.  I value this more than their non-halving in invasions.
 
In a game where the Allies have suffered significant naval losses, it is very comforting to be able to still mount some sort of limited offensive in the south using predominantly marines and land-based air ... or to force the Japanese to at least garrison against such a threat.
 
The great wash of pale blue hexes around Rabaul in WiF FE (see Post 51) allows marines to isolate Rabaul north and south as was done historically without committing the navy.  The change of scale in MWiF has destroyed this feature, whether via the Admiralty Islands to the north, or via Woodlark to the south.  That, I agree, is inevitable.  But I don't think we should go on to destroy the one land-bridge that would legitimately remain if the map were drawn accurately, through New Ireland and Rabaul itself.
 
In WiF FE, a marine can technically march all the way from Guadalcanal to the northwest corner of New Guinea by a choice of routes.  At the moment there is no route at all.
 
Apart from that, the map is plain wrong, which, frankly, given the vast effort expended to make this the best WWII computer-game ever, irritates me.  A channel 30 - 50 km wide is depicted as if it were 90 km wide.  The southernmost hex of New Ireland should be one hex east of Rabaul, as any atlas will confirm.

On the question of the secondary method of conquering territories (controlling all ports on all adjacent sea zones) ...
 
Does any territory have an inland city?  Someone mentioned Sardinia, but on the map I have seen (March 2007) Sardinia has no inland city.
 
If the answer is No, then surely the secondary method of conquest is a subset of the primary except in territories without ports? That is to say, to fulfill the secondary conditions you would have to control all the territory's ports anyway, at which point the territory is conquered by the requirements of the primary.
 
If my logic is sound, then it would simplify everything if the secondary conquest technique were reserved exclusively for the conquest of islands like Nauru or larger territories without ports.  The rules could then be re-drafted as simply:
 
"To conquer a territory with ports, it is necessary to control all ports in that territory.  To conquer a territory without ports, it is necessary to control all ports on any sea-zone on which that territiry has a coastal hex."

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Norman42
And in the case of Solomon's Islands, with the conquest of Guadalcanal port you would conquest all of the Solomons? Including San Cristobal and other isles not connected via hexside to Guadalcanal?

Yes.
The game does not show the brigades & batallions and myriad of small units that do this job over the course of the months that the game turn represent, so they are symbolised this way.
Just like when you control Warsaw & Lotz, you gain control of all Poland.

The above is not exactly true.

ORIGINAL: RAW-WiFFE-7.0.PDF

22.4.1 Divisions (AsA/MiF/PoliF option 2)

Asia Aflame and Mech in Flames include divisions. Treat any brigade size unit as a division.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

********************************
You also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in.
********************************

The later means that you are not obliged to conquer the cities that might be inland in a Territory surrounded by water.
There is no Territory on the WiF FE map that is likewise. There is only one Territory with a city by the way, this is Sardinia. I can't find another. This latter part of RAW could have been dropped.

Sardina (It) has 2 minor ports Olbia and Cagliari.

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

On the question of the secondary method of conquering territories (controlling all ports on all adjacent sea zones) ...

Does any territory have an inland city? Someone mentioned Sardinia, but on the map I have seen (March 2007) Sardinia has no inland city.

If the answer is No, then surely the secondary method of conquest is a subset of the primary except in territories without ports? That is to say, to fulfill the secondary conditions you would have to control all the territory's ports anyway, at which point the territory is conquered by the requirements of the primary.

If my logic is sound, then it would simplify everything if the secondary conquest technique were reserved exclusively for the conquest of islands like Nauru or larger territories without ports. The rules could then be re-drafted as simply:

"To conquer a territory with ports, it is necessary to control all ports in that territory. To conquer a territory without ports, it is necessary to control all ports on any sea-zone on which that territiry has a coastal hex."

Some territories without ports: Ubangi-Shari (Fr), Ugandi (CW), Ruanda-Urundi (Bel), Northern Rhodesia (CW), Southern Rhodesia (CW), Nyasaland (CW), Admiralty Islands (CW), New Ireland (CW), Nauru (CW), and Santa Cruz Islands (CW).

To use your example:

To automatically conquer Nauru (a territory without ports) at the same time as the Santa Cruz Islands (CW)(a territory without ports), you would have control all ports on any sea-zone on which that territory has a coastal hex.

In other words: Truk, Ponape, Kwajakein, Majuro, Tarawa, Nukufetau, Port Vila, Espritu Santo, and Henderson Field.

In simplier terms: the Caroline Islands (Ja), the Marshall Islands (Ja)(minus Eniwetok), the Gilbert Islands (CW), Ellice Islands (CW), the New Hebrides Islands (CW), and the Solomon Islands (CW).

Where the RAW says you must control all the hexes in both Nauru and the Santa Cruz Islands to conquer them.

ORIGINAL: Norman42

I do have a question with regards to the Hawaiian Islands. What isles are all considered part of this 'territory'? Is Midway included? Does conquest of Oahu(and Midway if Hawaiian) auto conquer the entire chain of islands?

[:D] Just FYI The Territory of Hawaii or T.H. [:D]

Sorry I didn't respond to this thread sooner. I have been busy working on a personal project brought on by MWiF.

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Some territories without ports: Ubangi-Shari (Fr), Ugandi (CW), Ruanda-Urundi (Bel), Northern Rhodesia (CW), Southern Rhodesia (CW), Nyasaland (CW), Admiralty Islands (CW), New Ireland (CW), Nauru (CW), and Santa Cruz Islands (CW).

Ubangi-Shari (Fr), Uganda (CW), Northern Rhodesia (CW), Southern Rhodesia (CW), Nyasaland (CW) are Minor Countries. They have capital cities.

It is true that Nauru and the Santa Cruz Islands are conquered hex by hex, as they have no port nor cities. Nauru is just 1 hex, like Johnston Island, Marcus Island, Wake Island.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Some territories without ports: Ubangi-Shari (Fr), Ugandi (CW), Ruanda-Urundi (Bel), Northern Rhodesia (CW), Southern Rhodesia (CW), Nyasaland (CW), Admiralty Islands (CW), New Ireland (CW), Nauru (CW), and Santa Cruz Islands (CW).

Ubangi-Shari (Fr), Uganda (CW), Northern Rhodesia (CW), Southern Rhodesia (CW), Nyasaland (CW) are Minor Countries. They have capital cities.

It is true that Nauru and the Santa Cruz Islands are conquered hex by hex, as they have no port nor cities. Nauru is just 1 hex, like Johnston Island, Marcus Island, Wake Island.

Sorry forgot the capital cities was just looking for areas without ports.

Just put it down to shock at seeing somone wanting to do away with "Island hopping".

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

On the question of the secondary method of conquering territories (controlling all ports on all adjacent sea zones) ...

Does any territory have an inland city?  Someone mentioned Sardinia, but on the map I have seen (March 2007) Sardinia has no inland city.

If the answer is No, then surely the secondary method of conquest is a subset of the primary except in territories without ports? That is to say, to fulfill the secondary conditions you would have to control all the territory's ports anyway, at which point the territory is conquered by the requirements of the primary.

If my logic is sound, then it would simplify everything if the secondary conquest technique were reserved exclusively for the conquest of islands like Nauru or larger territories without ports.  The rules could then be re-drafted as simply:

"To conquer a territory with ports, it is necessary to control all ports in that territory. To conquer a territory without ports, it is necessary to control all ports on any sea-zone on which that territiry has a coastal hex."

That is how I (already) interpret the rule.

There are dozens of places where the rules could be rewritten to make them clearer. But that always carries the danger that 'clarifying' may result in 'changing'.

To use your example:

To automatically conquer Nauru (a territory without ports) at the same time as the Santa Cruz Islands (CW)(a territory without ports), you would have control all ports on any sea-zone on which that territory has a coastal hex.

In other words: Truk, Ponape, Kwajakein, Majuro, Tarawa, Nukufetau, Port Vila, Espritu Santo, and Henderson Field.

Just a remark.
I can't see how RAW can be read to result in the above. Can you tell me where this would be explained ?

Does this comes from that :

13.7.1
******************************
You also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in.
******************************

So, if you conquer Truk, Ponape, Kwajakein, Majuro, Tarawa, Nukufetau, Port Vila, Espritu Santo, and Guadalcanal, then you controll all port-less Territories of the Solomons Islands ? (which is Nauru only) ?

That's it ?

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney
Does any territory have an inland city?  Someone mentioned Sardinia, but on the map I have seen (March 2007) Sardinia has no inland city.

I believe there are none.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

To use your example:

To automatically conquer Nauru (a territory without ports) at the same time as the Santa Cruz Islands (CW)(a territory without ports), you would have control all ports on any sea-zone on which that territory has a coastal hex.

In other words: Truk, Ponape, Kwajakein, Majuro, Tarawa, Nukufetau, Port Vila, Espritu Santo, and Henderson Field.

Just a remark.
I can't see how RAW can be read to result in the above. Can you tell me where this would be explained ?

Does this comes from that :

13.7.1
******************************
You also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in.
******************************

So, if you conquer Truk, Ponape, Kwajakein, Majuro, Tarawa, Nukufetau, Port Vila, Espritu Santo, and Guadalcanal, then you controll all port-less Territories of the Solomons Islands ? (which is Nauru only) ?

That's it ?

Yes.

Do you know which territories have no ports and no cities? We should probably list them in the Player's Manual.

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

New Ireland problem (continued)
 
There have been some valid comments posted here, about inadvertent changes caused by the different scale (air-ranges etc), but I think these affect both sides equally.

Different players have different styles.  For me, the special ability of MAR which I value is their ability to 'go walkies' along island chains.  I value this more than their non-halving in invasions.

In a game where the Allies have suffered significant naval losses, it is very comforting to be able to still mount some sort of limited offensive in the south using predominantly marines and land-based air ... or to force the Japanese to at least garrison against such a threat.

The great wash of pale blue hexes around Rabaul in WiF FE (see Post 51) allows marines to isolate Rabaul north and south as was done historically without committing the navy.  The change of scale in MWiF has destroyed this feature, whether via the Admiralty Islands to the north, or via Woodlark to the south.  That, I agree, is inevitable.  But I don't think we should go on to destroy the one land-bridge that would legitimately remain if the map were drawn accurately, through New Ireland and Rabaul itself.

In WiF FE, a marine can technically march all the way from Guadalcanal to the northwest corner of New Guinea by a choice of routes.  At the moment there is no route at all.

Apart from that, the map is plain wrong, which, frankly, given the vast effort expended to make this the best WWII computer-game ever, irritates me.  A channel 30 - 50 km wide is depicted as if it were 90 km wide.  The southernmost hex of New Ireland should be one hex east of Rabaul, as any atlas will confirm.

The simplest way I see this could be solved, would be to have the New Britain Island extended 1 hex to the NW. But I'm not sure that we still have the possibility of doing that, that is, change coastlines.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The simplest way I see this could be solved, would be to have the New Britain Island extended 1 hex to the NW.

Presumably, you mean extend New Britain one hex northeast and put Rabaul in that new hex?

I rather assumed that the reason making changes is tedious is the need to define to the computer the function of each hex, where the coastline goes, etc, rather than the actual artwork. So I thought re-defining just four hexes without port or city would be quicker than shifting Rabaul.

As I originally proposed, the second hex of New Ireland would have to be identified as exiting to the southeast rather than the east, with the third and fourth hexes redefined as being one hex to the southwest. Likewise, Lihir. So that is really only three and a half hexes to edit, surely not such a burden measured against the staggering challenge of the AI?

Basically, while preferring twisting New Ireland clockwise 20 or 30 degrees as described above, I will vote for any solution which closes the gap between Rabaul and New Ireland. The MWiF curvature of New Britain is already a bit extreme, but if the choice is between extending the island NE just a little way (with Rabaul shifted there) or doing nothing, then I will shut my mouth and be grateful for your generosity!

Do you have a historical map of New Britain and New Ireland that you can post, so that readers can see what it is that concerns me? My map, stretching from Lae to San Cristobal, is paper-only.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
The simplest way I see this could be solved, would be to have the New Britain Island extended 1 hex to the NW. But I'm not sure that we still have the possibility of doing that, that is, change coastlines.

What do you think of that possibility ?

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The simplest way I see this could be solved, would be to have the New Britain Island extended 1 hex to the NW.

Presumably, you mean extend New Britain one hex northeast and put Rabaul in that new hex?

Yes. Confused E & W, as often...

I rather assumed that the reason making changes is tedious is the need to define to the computer the function of each hex, where the coastline goes, etc, rather than the actual artwork. So I thought re-defining just four hexes without port or city would be quicker than shifting Rabaul.

Artwork is MUCH harder than the data.

As I originally proposed, the second hex of New Ireland would have to be identified as exiting to the southeast rather than the east, with the third and fourth hexes redefined as being one hex to the southwest. Likewise, Lihir. So that is really only three and a half hexes to edit, surely not such a burden measured against the staggering challenge of the AI?

I'm not doing the AI.

Basically, while preferring twisting New Ireland clockwise 20 or 30 degrees as described above, I will vote for any solution which closes the gap between Rabaul and New Ireland. The MWiF curvature of New Britain is already a bit extreme, but if the choice is between extending the island NE just a little way (with Rabaul shifted there) or doing nothing, then I will shut my mouth and be grateful for your generosity!

Do you have a historical map of New Britain and New Ireland that you can post, so that readers can see what it is that concerns me? My map, stretching from Lae to San Cristobal, is paper-only.

Edit : Map (from http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historic ... 1943_1945/ I believe)

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney
I rather assumed that the reason making changes is tedious is the need to define to the computer the function of each hex, where the coastline goes, etc, rather than the actual artwork. So I thought re-defining just four hexes without port or city would be quicker than shifting Rabaul.

As I originally proposed, the second hex of New Ireland would have to be identified as exiting to the southeast rather than the east, with the third and fourth hexes redefined as being one hex to the southwest. Likewise, Lihir. So that is really only three and a half hexes to edit, surely not such a burden measured against the staggering challenge of the AI?

As I showed it to you above (post #135) makes me only change the data for 2 hexes. The one from where I delete Rabaul, and the one from where I add it.
Also, I add the spur in the center that was missing. All additional hexes would be mountain, only one hex in New Britain would be jungle, the one that is already jungle.

Patrice, your sketch looks really good - much better than I expected.  Let's go for it!

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The simplest way I see this could be solved, would be to have the New Britain Island extended 1 hex to the NW.

Presumably, you mean extend New Britain one hex northeast and put Rabaul in that new hex?

I rather assumed that the reason making changes is tedious is the need to define to the computer the function of each hex, where the coastline goes, etc, rather than the actual artwork. So I thought re-defining just four hexes without port or city would be quicker than shifting Rabaul.

As I originally proposed, the second hex of New Ireland would have to be identified as exiting to the southeast rather than the east, with the third and fourth hexes redefined as being one hex to the southwest. Likewise, Lihir. So that is really only three and a half hexes to edit, surely not such a burden measured against the staggering challenge of the AI?

Basically, while preferring twisting New Ireland clockwise 20 or 30 degrees as described above, I will vote for any solution which closes the gap between Rabaul and New Ireland. The MWiF curvature of New Britain is already a bit extreme, but if the choice is between extending the island NE just a little way (with Rabaul shifted there) or doing nothing, then I will shut my mouth and be grateful for your generosity!

Do you have a historical map of New Britain and New Ireland that you can post, so that readers can see what it is that concerns me? My map, stretching from Lae to San Cristobal, is paper-only.

Your logic is faulty - it could be applied to justify a million small changes.

Long time no hear. Welcome back.

Thanks, and congratulations on all the work done. The maps are gorgeous and the interface is really pleasant.

If I might suggest something, why not open a thread on play-testing with the new scale?

The obvious scenario which could be play-tested first is the Chinese war from May-June 1937 to November-December 1941.

I know the time frame starts before MWIF. However, play-testers could possibly handle the MJ37-SO39 part with printed China-only maps and their own counters from WIF:FE?

In addition to their comments, the number of land attacks per turn for each side would be interesting.

IMHO, if you get the Chinese war right (with an adequate mix of system-wide small modifications on breakdowns, divisions, territorials and garrisons?, handling of losses in land combat?, supply?), the rest (Burma/Malaysia/India, Japanese war wih Russia, US invasion of Japan...) is going to work pretty well.

Jerome