Solomon Islands Map

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: jcprom
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

Starting before Sept/Oct 1939 is out of the scope of MWIF. Whether it works well of not for that period doesn't really amtter. The true question is how it works from sept/Oct 1939 through to Jul/Aug 1945.

Rigth now we are working on debugging code. Once we get to where meaningful combat can be done, there are several beta testers who want to seriously explore the effect of the changes in China.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
jcprom
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 4:04 pm

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by jcprom »

Thank you Steve for the news on debugging and future plans for play-testing.

I realize part of my previous post was badly confusing (sorry). In fact, I don’t want you to start coding/designing MWIF product 2 or 3 inside MWIF product 1... Please, don’t! [;)]

There is a minimal unit density level (a minimum number of on-map units) above which the war in China will be playable and fun. The same goes for Soviet Asia and other theaters.

I suppose play-testing will show where this level (number of units) actually stands.

My point is unit density on the Chinese front (and on other fronts) should not be set in SO1939 at the minimal playable-and-fun level(s).

Otherwise, if Matrix ever intends to do a MWIF product 2, rules changes to accomodate the new scale will have to be fully revised. It will be required because China, Soviet Asia… are not side-shows (unlike Africa for instance).

IMO, no pre-1939 play-testing is needed if play-testers understand this issue.

Regards.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Patrice, your sketch looks really good - much better than I expected.  Let's go for it!
2 full days without comments about the Solomons ? Would we have reached perfection with an enlarged New Britain ?
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Patrice, your sketch looks really good - much better than I expected.  Let's go for it!
2 full days without comments about the Solomons ? Would we have reached perfection with an enlarged New Britain ?
Look, I went a little farther than the draft drawing of New Britian tonight, and look at what it would look if we drew it as I showed it in post #135.
Would it be good ?
For comparison, I added a real map underneath, and it is true that it looks OK.

Image
Attachments
R118C160D..neacopy.jpg
R118C160D..neacopy.jpg (198.28 KiB) Viewed 233 times
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

Patrice,

Could you send me the C.BMP file so I can examine it more closely?

We could make these changes as part of the Mar 15th update to the map.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

Could you send me the C.BMP file so I can examine it more closely?

We could make these changes as part of the Mar 15th update to the map.
I uploaded it to the FTP.
I maintain a list of features that were submitted for us to change, and that we accepted :

Solomons : New Britain redrawn.
Make Bougainville SE Jungle (TERR file, change the 3rd digit for 125,184 from 5 to 4 for jungle).
Australia : Make hexes 147,141, 148,141, 148,142, 149,141, 150,140, and 151,140 desert hexes (TERR file, change the 3rd digit from 2 to 7 for desert) (this is the area around Shark Bay, in western Australia).
Australia : Make hexes 164,176 a swamp (TERR file, change the 3rd digit from 3 to 6 for swamp) (I think thay call that the Victoria mouths).
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

Could you send me the C.BMP file so I can examine it more closely?

We could make these changes as part of the Mar 15th update to the map.
I uploaded it to the FTP.
I maintain a list of features that were submitted for us to change, and that we accepted :

Solomons : New Britain redrawn.
Make Bougainville SE Jungle (TERR file, change the 3rd digit for 125,184 from 5 to 4 for jungle).
Australia : Make hexes 147,141, 148,141, 148,142, 149,141, 150,140, and 151,140 desert hexes (TERR file, change the 3rd digit from 2 to 7 for desert) (this is the area around Shark Bay, in western Australia).
Australia : Make hexes 164,176 a swamp (TERR file, change the 3rd digit from 3 to 6 for swamp) (I think thay call that the Victoria mouths).
Thanks.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Norman42
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:09 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Norman42 »

 
Looks fine with those changes, Patrice.
-------------

C.L.Norman
marcuswatney
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:07 pm

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by marcuswatney »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Patrice, your sketch looks really good - much better than I expected.  Let's go for it!
2 full days without comments about the Solomons ? Would we have reached perfection with an enlarged New Britain ?
Patrice, I learned long ago that the more a person talks, the less influential he becomes.

I am well aware that my proposals for the Yellow River, NE New Guinea and Bismarcks territories, and Rabaul have caused you a lot of extra work, and I am grateful that you have been able to accommodate my opinions.

My reward to you is to shut up!
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Froonp »

Here's how New Britain looks now (I edited the picture to remove the faulty Sea Area Boundaries Steve).

Image
Attachments
Rabaulfinished.jpg
Rabaulfinished.jpg (115.58 KiB) Viewed 233 times
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here's how New Britain looks now (I edited the picture to remove the faulty Sea Area Boundaries Steve).

Image
Is this really what is intended/desired?

My only question concerns which of the New Ireland hexes borders 3 sea areas. As you have drawn it, the hex east of Rabaul borders the Bismarck, Coral Sea, and The Solomons. I had thought it was the hex NE of Rabaul. That would make the hex east of Rabaul border only 2 sea areas: Coral Sea and The Solomons.

It makes no difference to me; but I would need to edit the data file to produce what you have drawn.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Is this really what is intended/desired?

My only question concerns which of the New Ireland hexes borders 3 sea areas. As you have drawn it, the hex east of Rabaul borders the Bismarck, Coral Sea, and The Solomons. I had thought it was the hex NE of Rabaul. That would make the hex east of Rabaul border only 2 sea areas: Coral Sea and The Solomons.

It makes no difference to me; but I would need to edit the data file to produce what you have drawn.
From the WiF FE map, this is the southeast hex of New Ireland that is on 3 Sea Areas.
Same on the MWiF map before we moved Rabaul.

So I think that it should be that way.

Image
Attachments
Image1.jpg
Image1.jpg (94.56 KiB) Viewed 233 times
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Is this really what is intended/desired?

My only question concerns which of the New Ireland hexes borders 3 sea areas. As you have drawn it, the hex east of Rabaul borders the Bismarck, Coral Sea, and The Solomons. I had thought it was the hex NE of Rabaul. That would make the hex east of Rabaul border only 2 sea areas: Coral Sea and The Solomons.

It makes no difference to me; but I would need to edit the data file to produce what you have drawn.
From the WiF FE map, this is the southeast hex of New Ireland that is on 3 Sea Areas.
Same on the MWiF map before we moved Rabaul.

So I think that it should be that way.

Image
Well, the placement of the islands in the WIF FE map took a lot of liberties with the actual geography of the area.

The improved placement using a finer scale now seems to offer 3 possibilities for which hex is in 3 sea areas:
1 - East of Rabaul
2 - NE of Rabaul
3 - NW of Rabaul

I suggest that it be #2 - the middle choice. Although I do not really care. My reasoning is that the hex east of Rabaul is pretty far from the Bismarck sea area. And the one NW of Rabaul is pretty far from the Coral Sea. The NE one splits the difference.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
marcuswatney
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:07 pm

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by marcuswatney »

I would support Option 2, for the naturalistic reason that it is not really believable that an invasion force from the Bismarck Sea could just slip past a hostile Rabaul heading south to invade the extreme southern tip of New Ireland, nor that an invasion force from the Coral Sea could just slip past a hostile Rabaul heading north to land northwest of it.  It is just about believable that an invasion force could approach the jungle hex from either side.

If that jungle hex is to become a three-zone land area, perhaps it should be changed to mountains ... as it will otherwise become quite a desirable piece of real-estate? (Perhaps make the extreme southern tip of New Ireland jungle in compensation, as that whole large hex is jungle in WiF FE?)
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I would support Option 2, for the naturalistic reason that it is not really believable that an invasion force from the Bismarck Sea could just slip past a hostile Rabaul heading south to invade the extreme southern tip of New Ireland, nor that an invasion force from the Coral Sea could just slip past a hostile Rabaul heading north to land northwest of it.  It is just about believable that an invasion force could approach the jungle hex from either side.

If that jungle hex is to become a three-zone land area, perhaps it should be changed to mountains ... as it will otherwise become quite a desirable piece of real-estate? (Perhaps make the extreme southern tip of New Ireland jungle in compensation, as that whole large hex is jungle in WiF FE?)
You provided more details to my reasoning.[&o]

We might consider making both the hex east and NE of Rabaul jungle. The WIF FE map offers 2 jungle hexes in those locations from which to attack Rabaul - though with marines only.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I would support Option 2, for the naturalistic reason that it is not really believable that an invasion force from the Bismarck Sea could just slip past a hostile Rabaul heading south to invade the extreme southern tip of New Ireland, nor that an invasion force from the Coral Sea could just slip past a hostile Rabaul heading north to land northwest of it.  It is just about believable that an invasion force could approach the jungle hex from either side.

If that jungle hex is to become a three-zone land area, perhaps it should be changed to mountains ... as it will otherwise become quite a desirable piece of real-estate? (Perhaps make the extreme southern tip of New Ireland jungle in compensation, as that whole large hex is jungle in WiF FE?)
You provided more details to my reasoning.[&o]

We might consider making both the hex east and NE of Rabaul jungle. The WIF FE map offers 2 jungle hexes in those locations from which to attack Rabaul - though with marines only.
I believe I agree with you both.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
We have 2 places left in our countries list. #252 and #253 are free.
We could create the Territory of New Guinea, containing the northeast part of Papua, with 2 minor ports, Lae and Wewak.
This would render the conquest of the Papua more historical, as the Japanese controlled the northeast, exactly what correspond to the Territory of New Guinea. This would allow the Japanese to do the historical conquest they did of the northern half of Papua.

Edit : We would leave New Ireland, New Britain and the Admiralty Islands alone.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Norman42

Perhaps have New Guinea be one territory and New Britain/New Ireland/Admiralty Isles be another (Call it Bismarck Archipelago perhaps)

That way there is some differentiation of these mandates without the requirement of excessive Japanese forces to capture them.

Japan would need to occupy Rabaul to 'conquest' the NB/NI/AI territory(the crucial conquest for Japan), and Wewak and Lae to 'conquest' the New Guinea Territory. Conquest of the Papua Territory would therefore require the overland attack on Port Moresby, giving Japan the incentive that they had historically to attack southwards across the mountains(the Kokoda Trail failure), or to control the Coral Sea for a naval attack (which they also historically failed in the Battle of the Coral Sea).

This all would allow the realism of the mandates to be felt, while not excessively punishing the Japanese capabilities to take these places.
I think that this is a brilliant idea.
Also, we would go from 4 countries (Admiralty Islands, New Ireland, New Britain, Papua) to 3 (Territory of New Guinea, Papua, Bismarck Archipelago), disminishing the number of countries in the game [:D].
Reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismarck_archipelago
OK, so I would like to put this one to the foreground again.

Presently, in this area we have 4 Territories :
- Admiralty Islands
- New Ireland (Where Kavieng -- named location only -- is)
- New Britain (Where Rabaul is)
- Papua (Where Lae, Wewak & Port Moresby are)

The historical situation was that all of them (NE part of Papua only) plus Bougainville were part of the "Territory of New Guinea" Territory.

So, the solutions we came up with to be more historical were :

1)
- Create the "Territory of New Guinea" Territory, containing the northeast part of Papua, with 2 minor ports, Lae and Wewak.
- Leave New Britain, New Ireland, Admiralty Islands and Bougainville as they are now. Bougainville is unsatisfactory, as it is part of New Ireland here.
- Leave Papua as it is now.

2)
- Create the "Territory of New Guinea" Territory, containing the northeast part of Papua, with 2 minor ports, Lae and Wewak.
- Create the "Bismarck Archipelago" Territory that would include New Britain, New Ireland, Admiralty Islands and Bougainville (New Britain, New Ireland, Admiralty Islands would be deleted as independent Territories in the game).
- Leave Papua as it is now.

So, what are the people's opinions about that ?
Mike, as the original WiF FE map designer, any opinion or hint you'd like to share as to why the "Territory of New Guinea" does not appear on the WiF FE maps ? (You can't even imagine the tons of questions I would have to ask you if I dared).
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Froonp »

Here is a map that supports 2).

Image
Attachments
NewGuinea..Papua4a.jpg
NewGuinea..Papua4a.jpg (198.82 KiB) Viewed 233 times
User avatar
Norman42
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:09 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by Norman42 »

Personally I like option 2. ;)

Seems like a rather simple yet elegant way to fix a few issues at the same time, whilst improving on the historicity of the area.

---------

With regards to the Rabaul issue above, I agree with Steve and Marcus, option 2 again seems most reasonable.
We might consider making both the hex east and NE of Rabaul jungle.

I think this is a good idea. All of New Ireland is jungle in WiFFE, so I think at least half of it should be non-mountain in MWiF. Looking at google earth and maps seems to back this up, the isle has much jungle.
-------------

C.L.Norman
hakon
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Solomon Islands Map

Post by hakon »

I've been looking at google earth too, and to me the hex directly east of Rabaul (southern New Ireland) seems VERY mountainous. Not only are the mountains quite tall (up to about 2000m/6000ft), the terrain is also quite broken. Adding jungle to that only makes it even less accessible.

To the NE, the mountains gradually become lower, and the island of New Ireland much narrower. Modelling this as jungle seems correct.

Basically, I agree with the terrain of the map as drawn.

As for which hex should border all 3 sea areas, I would say none. In my opinion, the hex NE of Rabaul should not have access to Coral Sea, nor should the hex to the east of Rabaul have access to the Bismarck sea. The straight is so narrow that it forms a natural barrier. I guess this is only relevant for shore bombardment, landing and invasion purposes, though, as there are no ports in either of the 2 hexes.

One more thing. There is a small island group between New Ireland and Rabaul. This should make crossing the gap quite easy. If using those islands as staging points, the straight can be crossed by doing 8-10 km jumps, only. This is about half the distance from Gibraltar to Er Rif, for instance, and may warrant a straight crossing arrow between the Rabaul and the hex to the NE. Taking Rabaul this way should not be very hard for the side that has naval dominance. Though fighting your way through New Britain would involve qutie a lot of mountain fighting, the terrain within about 30 km from the actual town, is really quite flat. This should help ease any crossing or landing attempt.

Hakon

Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”