What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
From what I see on map in post #129, the distance East Med shore <-> Iraq / Jordan border is about equal to the distance and Iraq / Jordan border <-> Baghdad, which is quite the way it is on the MWiF map (a little more than 5 hex for the first, a little less than 5 hex for the second.ORIGINAL: Incy
I still think Jordan is to large, and Iraq certainly does not reach far enough west.
Just compare distances between east med shore<->iraq/jordan border<->
and iraq/jordan border<-> Baghdad
I suggest Syria give hex 2W of lake Tharthar iraqi. Transjordan gives 2 eastermost hexes to Iraq. Transjordan give SE corner + hex north of that to saudi.
Good idea [:D]. A lot of people wil say that this is not WW2 related, but it will be size (only seen in high levels of zoom), like Troy & Persepolis (and others) already.ORIGINAL: Incy
Also, in respect of history, could we put Babylon on the map as a white text? It would be nice to remind people that Iraq has more than the familiar names we keep reading about in the news.
Welcome to the forum.ORIGINAL: Crusss Daddy
At Euro scale, India map allows gamey Japanese tactic of DOWing Portugal in order to seize Goa & Damian, from there to stack armies at leisure for overland attack into India. Should any invasion onto subcontinent, regardless of jurisdiction, be viewed as a DOW against CW?
This is the reason why I refused to make Goa or Damian minor ports, even if they would have deservec that, and also why there is no railway going to Damian & Goa.ORIGINAL: Crusss Daddy
At Euro scale, India map allows gamey Japanese tactic of DOWing Portugal in order to seize Goa & Damian, from there to stack armies at leisure for overland attack into India. Should any invasion onto subcontinent, regardless of jurisdiction, be viewed as a DOW against CW?
This is the reason why I refused to make Goa or Damian minor ports, even if they would have deservec that, and also why there is no railway going to Damian & Goa.
This is a so much important matter in my opinion, that I prefered to leave it as the original CWiF map designers made it. Goa, Damian and MAcao are all from CWiF. ADG was part of the original CWiF map design, and I found out during my long work with the map that they did good things. When in doubt, I always kept the things as they had designed them that's why I think that here this should stay that way.ORIGINAL: brian brian
Goa is a port and that is that. Wikipedia calls it "one of the finest harbors in south-east Asia". Gameyness should be fixed in the rules, not on the map. Japan doesn't have the army needed to campaign from the west coast of India and ever get anywhere, so you might as well make it a port. As the CW I'd rather see the Japanese start out there surrounded by mountains than some other possible landing areas, and the Japanese are more likely to land in the east where it is easier to deploy land-based air and protect their supply lines and actually get to something valuable like a red factory and/or some resource hexes connected to ports. Besides, India is now too huge of a target for the Japanese army to run around in, they would just get lost on the way to Dehli with huge flanks they would be unable to protect. Pondicherry and Damian don't seem anywhere near as similar, port-wise. If the CW wants to DoW Portugal, they can easily assign a unit to take Goa in case the Japanese align it. If the Japanese want to enter India via a DoW on Portugal, I'm sure the Germans would want to wring their necks for that and as the CW I'd be grateful.
If it's gamey for Japan to use Goa like that, how gamey will it be for the Allies to use Macao, a 15 square kilometer island now occupying an entire hex? Also a port. The CW can't garrison Hong Kong, but they could DoW Portugal to get the Azores and drop a garrison on Macao to annoy the Japanese....or later in the war take Portugal and simultaneously land in Macao to get a free port on the South China Sea. I'm sorry Patrice, but I feel pretty strongly about that and can't agree with treating those two tiny colonies so very differently and I see no logic in trying to fix gamey rules via heavy-handed map editing. You have done such an excellent job on everything and I know you wouldn't change basic hex terrain of clear or mountain to favor one side or the other, the terrain is the terrain, so why should ports be any different? Goa is a red herring, let the players fall into that if they want; as you note yourself elsewhere is better anyway.
I guess since it's last call on the map I'd put my two cents in again. If I hadn't just had a couple three beers I'd probably delete this and forget about it again.
Very good idea IMO.ORIGINAL: Orm
Since Portugal now has some real interesting territories in the pacific a new US Entry Action for "Japan declares war on Portugal" seems needed.
Maybe this should wait for MWiF product 2?
ORIGINAL: Froonp
Very good idea IMO.ORIGINAL: Orm
Since Portugal now has some real interesting territories in the pacific a new US Entry Action for "Japan declares war on Portugal" seems needed.
Maybe this should wait for MWiF product 2?
ORIGINAL: Froonp
My Collier Atlas name this area : "Neutral Zone" or "Neutral Area" something like that. Must be what you say.ORIGINAL: Norman42ORIGINAL: Froonp
About this last map (Middle East 1942), I wonder what is this diamond shapped territory west of Kuwait. It show on others maps of this area during WW2.
Like this one (Oil routes in Middle East, 1941) :
Anyone knows ?
I believe thats the 'disputed area'. Undefined border between Iraq and SA that wasn't settled til the 50's if I remember my history right. There were a few of these 'bubbles' on their mutual border.
ORIGINAL: brian brian
Goa is a port and that is that. Wikipedia calls it "one of the finest harbors in south-east Asia". Gameyness should be fixed in the rules, not on the map. Japan doesn't have the army needed to campaign from the west coast of India and ever get anywhere, so you might as well make it a port. As the CW I'd rather see the Japanese start out there surrounded by mountains than some other possible landing areas, and the Japanese are more likely to land in the east where it is easier to deploy land-based air and protect their supply lines and actually get to something valuable like a red factory and/or some resource hexes connected to ports. Besides, India is now too huge of a target for the Japanese army to run around in, they would just get lost on the way to Dehli with huge flanks they would be unable to protect. Pondicherry and Damian don't seem anywhere near as similar, port-wise. If the CW wants to DoW Portugal, they can easily assign a unit to take Goa in case the Japanese align it. If the Japanese want to enter India via a DoW on Portugal, I'm sure the Germans would want to wring their necks for that and as the CW I'd be grateful.
If it's gamey for Japan to use Goa like that, how gamey will it be for the Allies to use Macao, a 15 square kilometer island now occupying an entire hex? Also a port. The CW can't garrison Hong Kong, but they could DoW Portugal to get the Azores and drop a garrison on Macao to annoy the Japanese....or later in the war take Portugal and simultaneously land in Macao to get a free port on the South China Sea. I'm sorry Patrice, but I feel pretty strongly about that and can't agree with treating those two tiny colonies so very differently and I see no logic in trying to fix gamey rules via heavy-handed map editing. You have done such an excellent job on everything and I know you wouldn't change basic hex terrain of clear or mountain to favor one side or the other, the terrain is the terrain, so why should ports be any different? Goa is a red herring, let the players fall into that if they want; as you note yourself elsewhere is better anyway.
I guess since it's last call on the map I'd put my two cents in again. If I hadn't just had a couple three beers I'd probably delete this and forget about it again.
If all great harbors in the world were to be represented, there would be 1 minor port in each and every coastal hexes of the map. If the original designers did not put a map here, I take it that they judged that it was not enough to be represented by a minor port.ORIGINAL: iamspamus
I concur. It is a great harbor. That's why the Portuguese took it.
ORIGINAL: Froonp
If all great harbors in the world were to be represented, there would be 1 minor port in each and every coastal hexes of the map. If the original designers did not put a map here, I take it that they judged that it was not enough to be represented by a minor port.ORIGINAL: iamspamus
I concur. It is a great harbor. That's why the Portuguese took it.
For example there are tens of great harbors on the French coast between Marseilles and the Spanish Coast, but none are represented on the map. Should we add 1 port per coastal hex ?
I think that Patrice's point here is that he does not trust his own judgment. Since he does not know what the original designers of WIF had in mind when they made those decisions, he prefers to rely on the decisions that were made by ADG for WIF & CWIF. Hence his reluctance to add new stuff (ports in this case).ORIGINAL: abj9562
ORIGINAL: Froonp
If all great harbors in the world were to be represented, there would be 1 minor port in each and every coastal hexes of the map. If the original designers did not put a map here, I take it that they judged that it was not enough to be represented by a minor port.ORIGINAL: iamspamus
I concur. It is a great harbor. That's why the Portuguese took it.
For example there are tens of great harbors on the French coast between Marseilles and the Spanish Coast, but none are represented on the map. Should we add 1 port per coastal hex ?
Adding 1 port per coastal hex is silly. However adding one port of the appropriate size per country next to a sea area allows players the decision to invade or defend. This puts the risk into the hands of players. Of course if there was no port then do not create what did not exist. As for size, the tonnage moved through them should be a fair representation of major or minor. If a country had multiple major or minor ports next to a sea zone, then I trust your judgement to which ports should be placed on the map based on tactical and strategical aspects of game play.
ORIGINAL: brian brian
Capturing a major port drove strategy in western Europe in 1994, but not in WiF. Similarly, where one could unload tanks was pretty important in the desert to the point that intell on the unloading capacities in Benghazi influenced one of the ebbs-and-flows through Cyrenaica. In WiF, all you need to do is land an HQ on a friendly hex. Those are issues a future version of the computer assisted game could work on as well.
Except the port had already been taken in early September by the British. The Canadians helped in the later (and nasty) campaign to clear the approaches (without which it couldn't be used). Your point is valid, however.ORIGINAL: micheljq
ORIGINAL: brian brian
Capturing a major port drove strategy in western Europe in 1994, but not in WiF. Similarly, where one could unload tanks was pretty important in the desert to the point that intell on the unloading capacities in Benghazi influenced one of the ebbs-and-flows through Cyrenaica. In WiF, all you need to do is land an HQ on a friendly hex. Those are issues a future version of the computer assisted game could work on as well.
That's why they sent the canadians do the dirty work of taking Antwerp port in 1944. The allies were in need of facilities for unloading their reinforcements, supplies, etc. in Europe.
ORIGINAL: brian brian
... I do think though that the US Entry penalty for a CW DoW on Portugal should be a little higher than -5 - breaking a 500 year history of good relations would've generated a few headlines in the US ...