Page 10 of 12
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:02 pm
by sajbalk
The changes are certainly acceptable. I was just thinking about all those US subs basing there without fear of being overrun in a surprise invasion.
Thanks for all your excellent work on the project.
I shall submit my map input when you get to N.America.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:07 pm
by Froonp
ORIGINAL: sajbalk
The changes are certainly acceptable. I was just thinking about all those US subs basing there without fear of being overrun in a surprise invasion.
Thanks for all your excellent work on the project.
I shall submit my map input when you get to N.America.
You're input will be warmly welcomed, as North America will come sometime in the future. I'm eager to see how wrong the great lakes are, because I was told they were.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:48 pm
by Froonp
Talking about places that rarely see combat, here are the Fiji, Samoa, Phoenix, Tonga, Ellice Islands, who are just east of the Solomon and the Gilbert.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:49 pm
by Froonp
Here's how it looks in WiF FE, at the Pacific Scale.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:54 pm
by Froonp
To the east of these, there are the Line & Cook Islands.
Except for SUBs action, I fear none of these island will see the smallest gun. They don't know how happy they are.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:56 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: Froonp
Talking about places that rarely see combat, here are the Fiji, Samoa, Phoenix, Tonga, Ellice Islands, who are just east of the Solomon and the Gilbert.
How about straightening out some of these sea area boundaries?
What I have in mind is moving the boundary from Baker --> Rotuma one hex to the NorthWest along its entire length (still going through Tumiloto), and
moving the boundary from Rotuma to V. Levu northwards so that the three all sea hexes in the middle of the boundary are no longer in the Polynesia sea area.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:56 pm
by Froonp
Here's the same place in WiF FE at the pacific scale. This is really the edge of the paper map.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:00 pm
by Froonp
Here are the French Polynesia archipelago next, east of the previous islands.
East of this, there is only water for hundred miles, and then south America.
Even SUBs rarely appear here. The only units that are likely to come here are Convoys on CW and US Convoy lines.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:03 pm
by Froonp
And now, the same area on the WiF FE maps.
Here we are on the American in Flames maps, that can be used in regular WiF FE campaigns. This is far better than the simple America Minimap. MWiF is even better [:D].
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:11 pm
by Froonp
How about straightening out some of these sea area boundaries?
What I have in mind is moving the boundary from Baker --> Rotuma one hex to the NorthWest along its entire length (still going through Tumiloto), and
moving the boundary from Rotuma to V. Levu northwards so that the three all sea hexes in the middle of the boundary are no longer in the Polynesia sea area.
Good idea. I looked at the big picture, and moving those sea area borders do not seem to have secondary effects.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:21 pm
by lomyrin
Many of these Islands are very useful for staging aircraft on successive rebases from the USA to the Pacific fronts and from Japan to the Pacific fronts respectively. That has been my experience with CWiF play in the same scale. With that in mind those Island that are on the Sea boundaries are very good as air bases.
Lars
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:16 am
by Zorachus99
The change of Pago Page from clear to mountain terrain is pretty major...
What caused the change?
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:54 am
by Froonp
ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
The change of Pago Page from clear to mountain terrain is pretty major...
What caused the change?
It was jungle, but good catch, I did not pay attention to it.
Well, by looking at Google Earth, it seems that this island can be either Mountain, as it is mostly mountainous, or something more flat, maybe jungle.
I don't think the terrain of Pago Pago is really relevant, I nealy never saw it under fire. Once, but it was out of supplied and unoccupied, so being mountain or jungle would have been the same, it was worth 0 combat factors. Once also I saw the Japanese navy blockading an US Navy who fled here after the loss of Pearl Harbor, but with no invasion threat.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:18 am
by Zorachus99
ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
The change of Pago Page from clear to mountain terrain is pretty major...
What caused the change?
It was jungle, but good catch, I did not pay attention to it.
Well, by looking at Google Earth, it seems that this island can be either Mountain, as it is mostly mountainous, or something more flat, maybe jungle.
I don't think the terrain of Pago Pago is really relevant, I nealy never saw it under fire. Once, but it was out of supplied and unoccupied, so being mountain or jungle would have been the same, it was worth 0 combat factors. Once also I saw the Japanese navy blockading an US Navy who fled here after the loss of Pearl Harbor, but with no invasion threat.
I agree the invasion threat is pretty minor, but I've eyed it more than once as Japanese, and threatened it by forcing a garrison in the past. The value of the base to the allies is decent. It is useful for rebasing ships to protect convoy lines, as well as being a useful midpoint between Hawaii, Australia, and New Guinea.
Never seen it invaded though.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:28 pm
by lomyrin
ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
The change of Pago Page from clear to mountain terrain is pretty major...
What caused the change?
It was jungle, but good catch, I did not pay attention to it.
Well, by looking at Google Earth, it seems that this island can be either Mountain, as it is mostly mountainous, or something more flat, maybe jungle.
I don't think the terrain of Pago Pago is really relevant, I nealy never saw it under fire. Once, but it was out of supplied and unoccupied, so being mountain or jungle would have been the same, it was worth 0 combat factors. Once also I saw the Japanese navy blockading an US Navy who fled here after the loss of Pearl Harbor, but with no invasion threat.
I have seen Pago Pago invaded by Japan several times in CWiF play.
Since MWiF is in the same scale it could become important.
Lars
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:57 pm
by mlees
ORIGINAL: Froonp
How about straightening out some of these sea area boundaries?
What I have in mind is moving the boundary from Baker --> Rotuma one hex to the NorthWest along its entire length (still going through Tumiloto), and
moving the boundary from Rotuma to V. Levu northwards so that the three all sea hexes in the middle of the boundary are no longer in the Polynesia sea area.
Good idea. I looked at the big picture, and moving those sea area borders do not seem to have secondary effects.
The difference that I can see is that an air unit based in Nukufetau would have its traveling distance to the Polynesia Sea Zone reduced by one. Not that I expect this to be a game maker/breaker... [:'(]
Here are the French Polynesia archipelago next... The only units that are likely to come here are Convoys on CW and US Convoy lines.
I like to try to get as many French naval units to Tahiti as is feasable before the fall of France, so that my Free French fleet is buffed as much as possible. Am i doing it the hard way?
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:08 pm
by Froonp
I like to try to get as many French naval units to Tahiti as is feasable before the fall of France, so that my Free French fleet is buffed as much as possible. Am i doing it the hard way?
Well Tahiti is far from France, I wonder how many turns are needed to send the 2-movers to Tahiti.
If it is too long, this means that those units have to leave France soon, so they won't be used against Italy, so for me it is the hard way.
Anyway, it is a good thing for units quick enough.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:11 pm
by Froonp
I have seen Pago Pago invaded by Japan several times in CWiF play.
Since MWiF is in the same scale it could become important.
First thing, an US player worth his name, would always have some kind of land unit in Pago Pago, denying the auto invasion that the Japanese could mount on the opening turn of the Pacific War.
Second thing, Pago Pago was also a mountain hex in CWiF, the map was not changed in between.
In fact I was wondering what point you wanted to make lomyrin, whether having Pago Pago be a Mountain be good, or bad, or not that much important.
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:30 pm
by lomyrin
ORIGINAL: Froonp
I have seen Pago Pago invaded by Japan several times in CWiF play.
Since MWiF is in the same scale it could become important.
First thing, an US player worth his name, would always have some kind of land unit in Pago Pago, denying the auto invasion that the Japanese could mount on the opening turn of the Pacific War.
Second thing, Pago Pago was also a mountain hex in CWiF, the map was not changed in between.
In fact I was wondering what point you wanted to make lomyrin, whether having Pago Pago be a Mountain be good, or bad, or not that much important.
Not that important, mountain is fine with me. Indeed, most US players would garrison Pago Pago, but things sometimes change priorities.
Lars
RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:35 pm
by wfzimmerman
It seems to me that the terrain justifies mountain on the theory that if the island ever saw combat the volcanic mountains would be heavily defended a la Iwo Jima.