New Zealand Map Problems

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sid,

Considering this level of Harbour as being worth entering in RHS will open Pandora's can of worms.

There would be hundreds, if not more, small ports, bays, harbours etc which would be of similar size. The coastlines of every nation would be smothered in them.

While this would allow the ability to land at bases other than the major cities, I dont think the WITP database would be able to handle the units required to defend them.

My information is this is the main harbor. If not it is a major secondary harbor. And unless it is in the same hex, the game system requires it be represented separately. We combine all secondary harbors in the same hex: eg. Tokyo, Yokohama, Yokosuka are one harbor system in the same hex.

here the technical issue is you can falsely enter the harbor from both sides of the penninsula - and cross to the other side - which is quite false. You can enter port from either direction, but must leave that same direction.

A related issue is that Auckland is defended by an off site airfield.

Sid, your information is once again incorrect. The major port of Auckland has always been facing East into the Pacific rather than West into the Tasman Sea.
Manukau isnt even a secondary port in 1941, you might rate it a 0, I'm sure it could have been developed but wasnt intil the mid 50's.
Equally, the air base for Auckland is "only 20 mins" so roughly 20 miles north of Auckland so still within the 60 mile Hex (Even assuming Auckland is in the middle of the hex)

As to passing through a hex, is that now the problem?? Cant you make the hexside to the West a non sea hexside.

Can I suggest some other ports which are far more important than Manukau which have been missed??

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
When I studied 1 million to one aero and 1.25 million to one Nellis maps - and consulted with the Auckland Harbor Authority - I concluded that the map art is well done and that Auckland itself is in the right hex. But the hex does not extend far enough South to include Manukou or the adjacent airfield - although possibly it contains part of it (depending on interpretation of the art - which is pretty small).

Just to clarify the discussion, which map are you referring to?

On my map Auckland and Manukau harbour are definitely in the same hex, along with Mangere and Seagrove airfields which are near Manukau harbour, and also Whenuapai and Hobsonville airfields which are North of Auckland itself (and which are the ones I consider as representing the "Auckland" airfields).

Andrew

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I like how these discussions lead to the uncovering of more information I was not aware of. I found this interesting and useful looking website as well:

Wartime RNZAF Stations

I already like the idea off adding Waipapakauri as a base.

I like the information generated in this thread - which is why I started it - and why I didn't decide how to rate things before we found what might turn up. But this particular site is not generating anything but menu's via my service. What does it reveal about RNZAF?

[el cid again]

I think most have missed the salient reasons for this thread. Note, for example, not a single comment on my number one finding: North Island is not "blocked" to the North, is not at its extremity mountainous, and has communications north of the end of the rail line. Having learned from Nemo that NZ is not just a map edge Allied staging area (at least sometimes) we need to worry about operational factors. That approach from the North is a possibility is an operational problem/opportunity - and it should be possible on the map.

Second, I found that the Auckland area itself has a fictional water passage through North Island itself. This is of operational significance if a fight occurs in the area. Now we could deal with it by just blocking the entrance to the West - or we could create the divided ports. Measured in terms of ship dockings per annum, the larger port appeared to be to the west. And the only airfield on the charts was in the same area - South of the city. Spreading out- giving NZ more bases of medium size (and fewer tiny ones) - also is of operational significance.

I consider these matters as vital as the adding of the NZ local defense forces - and all its air force - which we did. It is probably NZ did not recieve a lot of attention at any time - and the only exceptions I am aware of were re its land units. Getting its map right (to this scale) is a matter of medium importance. Saying it isn't as good as it can be is not meant to hurt someone's feelings. It is meant to say that the maps don't seem to line up with our location file/pwhex file data.
I am entirely open to anything except saying this does not matter. If you think it is OK to have the North end of North Island blocked, tell me why? If you think it is OK to have ships pass through the North end of North Island at Auckland, tell me why? If you think it is OK to lump all the ports and airfields near Auckland into one hex - and make their loss dominate the campaign - tell me why? If you think we should have more bases in the area, tell me what you think they should look like?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sid,

Considering this level of Harbour as being worth entering in RHS will open Pandora's can of worms.

There would be hundreds, if not more, small ports, bays, harbours etc which would be of similar size. The coastlines of every nation would be smothered in them.

While this would allow the ability to land at bases other than the major cities, I dont think the WITP database would be able to handle the units required to defend them.

My information is this is the main harbor. If not it is a major secondary harbor. And unless it is in the same hex, the game system requires it be represented separately. We combine all secondary harbors in the same hex: eg. Tokyo, Yokohama, Yokosuka are one harbor system in the same hex.

here the technical issue is you can falsely enter the harbor from both sides of the penninsula - and cross to the other side - which is quite false. You can enter port from either direction, but must leave that same direction.

A related issue is that Auckland is defended by an off site airfield.

Sid, your information is once again incorrect. The major port of Auckland has always been facing East into the Pacific rather than West into the Tasman Sea.
Manukau isnt even a secondary port in 1941, you might rate it a 0, I'm sure it could have been developed but wasnt intil the mid 50's.
Equally, the air base for Auckland is "only 20 mins" so roughly 20 miles north of Auckland so still within the 60 mile Hex (Even assuming Auckland is in the middle of the hex)

As to passing through a hex, is that now the problem?? Cant you make the hexside to the West a non sea hexside.

Can I suggest some other ports which are far more important than Manukau which have been missed??

My information is that the port was founded as such in 1911, and became significant in the 1920s. This is official from the Port Authority, so it is likely to be correct. On the other hand, it does appear that the Eastern Harbor was the one with the defenses - and fewer navigational approach issues. These are not quite as difinitive as you might think reading about them. "Anchorage" (where I live) is called "anchorage" because it is an "anchorage" - NOT suitable for use as a port in a conventional sense. Notwithstanding that, it IS a port today - for specialized container ships and even ocean liners - and it has a suitable location for a gigantic supership port - if sufficient investment were made. But all through WWII - when the town grew from 500 souls (with another 500 in "Spenard" which later was absorbed by the city) - to tens of thousands - and long afterward - the place remained a true "anchorage" - where you did not even dock to load, unload, refuel or service ships. I wish there were a more complex way to rate ports - and what their capacity means - in WITP. But a port such as Manukau would be more than adequate to handle the logistic requirements of a Western Army (that is, multiple corps) - and a whole lot better than a beach - if need be - and after some development. Since we have a semi-abstract system, I try to understand what the potential of a location is. I regard the "potential build" level of a location far more important than anything else - and it hardly is possible that such a strategic location should be disregarded. It puts Auckland at risk from a different direction. It also makes Auckland ports harder to knock out in a single raid by battleships or bombers. The only real question is what should the relative ratings be?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I like the information generated in this thread - which is why I started it - and why I didn't decide how to rate things before we found what might turn up. But this particular site is not generating anything but menu's via my service. What does it reveal about RNZAF?

Oops. It looks like I mangled the link URL. It seems to be OK now.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I like how these discussions lead to the uncovering of more information I was not aware of. I found this interesting and useful looking website as well:

Wartime RNZAF Stations

I already like the idea off adding Waipapakauri as a base.

Andrew...I just like that name...."Waipapakauri"![:)]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Actually, there are three rather large harbors at Auckland. Only one exits to the NE or E side. The other two are to the West side. The most developed of the three is Manukau Harbor. Pretty undeveloped then was Kaipara Harbor. By far the smaller of the set is the East Coast Bays - but it was somewhat developed in 1941 and counts. Kaipara Harbor would be in a third hex - but the way the CHS/Level 5/6 maps work it there is no proper hex. In Level 7 we could do it - but it isn't worth a slot. Let Hamukau represent both.

Auckland is one of very few ports with two disconnected ports on different major bodies of water. I do not see how it isn't a problem if we do not represent that? Auckland hex in CHS/RHS also was not the hex of the airport or military airfields. I don't see how that isn't a problem either? These lie to the South of Auckland proper, right beside Manukau port.

Manukau is also the third largest city on New Zealand. Not to include it - but to include everything we have smaller - does not compute economically either.

In 2007 these things may exist ...I wish you would really stop trying to apply today's infrastructure to your scenarios...In 1941 Manukau was a largely rural county...

1 April 1941
The 1941 census is cancelled because of the war, but according to population estimates, Otahuhu Borough now has an estimated 6020 people, Papatoetoe Town District 2640, Manurewa Borough 1560, and Howick Town District 930. Manukau County (10,300) remains largely rural, although there is some urban development at Mangere Bridge, Mangere East, and Weymouth, and holiday settlements have developed at Bucklands Beach and Beachlands. Further south are Papakura Borough (1920), Pukekohe Borough (2690), Waiuku Town District (880) and Tuakau Town District (720).

20 September 1926
A new wharf at Weymouth is officially opened (the first wharf had been built in 1911). Weymouth has by this time become one of the most popular beaches on the Manukau Harbour. A New Year's Day regatta is held there annually during the 1920s and 1930s.

In 1941 Anchorage had 500 people. How many did Auckland have? Nothing like over a million like today (or a quarter of a million in Anchorage). I don't think things did not change. Why do you think otherwise? 6000 is a city in 1941 - and not a small one. We put anchorage on the map with a whopping 500. Fairbanks had 5000.

About that "can 'o worms"...Maybe Alaska needs to be revised???[&:]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: el cid again
When I studied 1 million to one aero and 1.25 million to one Nellis maps - and consulted with the Auckland Harbor Authority - I concluded that the map art is well done and that Auckland itself is in the right hex. But the hex does not extend far enough South to include Manukou or the adjacent airfield - although possibly it contains part of it (depending on interpretation of the art - which is pretty small).

Just to clarify the discussion, which map are you referring to?

On my map Auckland and Manukau harbour are definitely in the same hex, along with Mangere and Seagrove airfields which are near Manukau harbour, and also Whenuapai and Hobsonville airfields which are North of Auckland itself (and which are the ones I consider as representing the "Auckland" airfields).

Andrew

If you are showing four airfields, this matters. It would put two in each of the hexes as I see them. It also helps explain the airfield rating of 6 given to Auckland - which seemed excessive - but now seems reasonable.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I think most have missed the salient reasons for this thread. Note, for example, not a single comment on my number one finding: North Island is not "blocked" to the North, is not at its extremity mountainous, and has communications north of the end of the rail line.

I am guessing that you are talking about the stock map?

Out of curiosity, what you mean by "North Island is not "blocked" to the North"?

Also, if your map has a "channel" connecting the Pacific Ocean to the Tasman Sea at Auckland, then I agree that you should fix it.

Andrew

PS: One thing I can see on my NZ map is the possibility of adding a hex or two of road Northwards from the railway terminus in Northland.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If you are showing four airfields, this matters. It would put two in each of the hexes as I see them. It also helps explain the airfield rating of 6 given to Auckland - which seemed excessive - but now seems reasonable.

Actually, I used to think that a 6 for Auckland was reasonable, but I am now thinking it may be excessive (for December 1941).

[m10bob]

Go to the bottom of this site for links to great maps, etc...

http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/PacificReferences.html

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If you are showing four airfields, this matters. It would put two in each of the hexes as I see them. It also helps explain the airfield rating of 6 given to Auckland - which seemed excessive - but now seems reasonable.

Actually, I used to think that a 6 for Auckland was reasonable, but I am now thinking it may be excessive (for December 1941).

I believe the two AB refered to were Mangere and Seagrove

In regards to Seagrove:
March 1942
Construction of a military aerodrome at Seagrove, beside the Manukau Harbour between Karaka and Clark's Beach, is authorised. The first planes arrive in October. The aerodrome is lent to the US Navy during the second half of 1943. (In January 1944 the base is closed, the aerodrome then being used for a satellite landing base for Ardmore. After the war, the arerodrome falls into disuse, although a Radio Research Station remains on site for a number of years.)

In regards to Mangere:
24 April 1928
A meeting is held to found the Auckland Aero Club. In July 1928 the club leases land in Mangere to establish an aerodrome. It buys the site in June 1930. Hangars, workshops and a clubhouse (see 30 May 1931) are built. Notable aviators to land at Mangere include W.M. O'Hara (see 18 October 1935) and Jean Batten (see 16 October 1936).

27 June 1937
Union Airways begins the first scheduled passenger service between Auckland and Wellington, using a Lockheed 10A Electra. The Mangere aerodrome has been upgraded and a new hangar built for the purpose (see also 28 May 1938).

10 September 1939
In response to the outbreak of war, a flying instructors school is formed at the Auckland Aero Club's aerodrome at Mangere. The RNZAF occupies the aerodrome for a variety of military purposes from then until September 1944.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Manukau isnt even a secondary port in 1941, you might rate it a 0, I'm sure it could have been developed but wasnt intil the mid 50's.

It probably rates as a '1' rather than a '0' in 1941. Furthermore, the narrow entrance and sand bars meant that the harbour was only accessible by smaller ships. If you make the harbour a port in WitP there is no such limitation - any number of large ships would be able to make use of it in the game, which would be unrealistic.

But as mentioned this is a moot point since the location of this port and the main (Eastern) Auckland port are in the same hex on my map.

Can I suggest some other ports which are far more important than Manukau which have been missed??

Please do. I already have Gisborne and Picton...

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob


About that "can 'o worms"...Maybe Alaska needs to be revised???[&:]

Perhaps. But note that in many mods Alaska is always revised by adding locations, and there is considerable lobbying for adding a missing major USCG station.

What may be confusing you is that while Alaska was almost uninhabited when WWII began (in 1939) - there were about 30,000 natives in three distinct groupings (Aleuts, Eskimos and Indians) - and perhaps 10% as many non-natives - things had not changed a whole lot by 1941. Formerly administered as a US Navy territory (complete with unarmed native Navy police), Alaska had become a formal Federal Territory, had a National Guard battalion (which spent the war in California training troops), and the Army had sent up Brigadier General Simon Bolivar Buckner (who, as a major general, died on Okinawa). He set out to survey and promote construction of a network of army and air force bases. If this had not progressed very far by 1941, it became gigantic during the war. Alaska represents the very first area in which US forces went on the offensive, after a defensive period of invasion. We made lots of mistakes - including divided area command - failing to do recon - and had full scale disasters (as when Canadian and US troops each thought the other was the enemy). We developed institutions, including the Eskimo Scouts, and tactics, to address these matters, and kept the whole affair so secret most people thought troops were lieing when they said they were fighting on US soil in Alaska.

Anyway - that Anchorage had only 500 people (or 1000 if you add in 500 more at Spenard) in 1941 - is not what matters. That it was the hub of the Alaska RR, the site of gigantic Elmendorf AAF and Fort Richardson, and (in the hex) a major generator of food (by an ethnic German colony in the Matanuska-Susitna valley) sufficient to prevent a need to import most of it for military forces DOES matter. Similarly, sleepy, tiny Kenai - one of the few places the Russians had inhabited (they had developed a whole 400 acers TOTAL in the entire territory) - was nothing in 1941 except a tiny fishing port. But it became a significant forward airfield, connected by road to Anchorage, not too long after the war began. Whittier was (and remains) the main way fuel got to Elmendorf and everywhere else - a deepwater port with an 8 inch pipeline built just as the war began. Seward was the original port of Southern Alaska, where the RR heavy gear first came ashore early in the century, and still a significant port - and forward field - in WWII. This base complex is the foundation of US defenses - which otherwise consist of a single interior base at Fairbanks - a single significant coastal station at Nome - and one developed naval station on Kodiak (excluding the Panhandle where there was Juneau and Skagway at the base of the RR to Whitehorse). The Alcan highway was only built after the war began. For whatever reason, stock and CHS decided that Alaska should have communications and stations (although stock had a fictional and impossible coastal road or something). It is hard to see how we can simulate a campaign in Alaska without these places - and there is considerable lobbying for more stations (particularly by AKWarrior and Mifune).

The vast development in Alaska is mirrored - and often greatly exceeded - in PTO. These islands often had no infrastructure - and in most cases not much has happened since the war infrastructure wise. Where one chose to develop bases matters. The idea Japan (in violation of treaty) built up bases in the area is a myth - see University of Hawaii scholarship - they began fortification AFTER the Makin Island raid showed they were vulnerable. The lessons of Wake Island defense and that raid were applied (possibly erroniously) to decide how to fortify. We need to create a map with POTENTIAL base sites - and let players decide which to develop DURING the war. At least if we want to simulate. And not putting in significant possibilities is going to prevent possible options. A game is not supposed to recreate the war: read a history for that. It is supposed to permit competitive ideas about where to do what play out.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I think most have missed the salient reasons for this thread. Note, for example, not a single comment on my number one finding: North Island is not "blocked" to the North, is not at its extremity mountainous, and has communications north of the end of the rail line.

I am guessing that you are talking about the stock map?

Out of curiosity, what you mean by "North Island is not "blocked" to the North"?

Also, if your map has a "channel" connecting the Pacific Ocean to the Tasman Sea at Auckland, then I agree that you should fix it.

Andrew

PS: One thing I can see on my NZ map is the possibility of adding a hex or two of road Northwards from the railway terminus in Northland.

There does appear to be a proper highway there today. I added it as a trail - all the way to the tip of the island - and I unblocked the hexes which for some reason were blocked. Some other islands near Auckland were not accessable either - and I made them accessable by use of "both" hexsides - respresenting local traffic. In general, all over the map, I have been "adding land" - pwhex coding coast where it had been sea but art shows islands or pennensulas or broad bits of land on the "sea" side of a hex side. But not always - for technical reasons sometimes I let a sea side remain sea in spite of the presence of a bit of land.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Manukau isnt even a secondary port in 1941, you might rate it a 0, I'm sure it could have been developed but wasnt intil the mid 50's.

It probably rates as a '1' rather than a '0' in 1941, but as mentioned this is a moot point since the location of this port and the main (Eastern) Auckland port are in the same hex on my map.

Can I suggest some other ports which are far more important than Manukau which have been missed??

Please do. I already have Gisborne and Picton...

After review of the links provided above, I rated Manukau as 2 and Auckland as 4 - both potential and build in 1941. I rated both as 3 for airfield - both potential and build. This gives Auckland more operational depth - you don't knock out two hexes in a single air raid or BB raid. And it permits the big problem of two entrances to Auckland which do NOT connect two bodies of water. Now I am not looking at CHS art - but RHS art in Level 5/6 should be identical in terms of the area in the hex - just not the style it is shown in. It does appear that there is a reasonable location for Manukau - which in fact also includes half a dozen other locations. It seems to nicely solve the problem of two harbors. We could call it South Auckland - an informal name - if that were more popular.

Picton is my fault. I picked it because it is the terminus of the ferry from Wellington. But it isn't significant otherwise. Probably we should call the hex Nelson (although at the moment I don't have any slot for it). There are two towns with airfields in the hex - and Nelson is a port as well. Probably that means port build potential of 2 or 3 and airfield build potential of 2. Actually you get only port 2 and airfield 0 to start, probably. On South Island there are no ports on the West side at all. Where the RR ends at Greymouth there is a port and airfield - probably worth adding if slots can be found.

On North Island at the north end of the RR is Whangarei - a port and airfield of unknown significance - but being serviced by a RR probably something - and that would give a more northern point for air ops. At the other end, our RR routing is wrong - and if we run it to the coast at Wanganui we could add it as a port/airfield. The RR splits at Woodville - which is insignificant - but Palmerston North not far away is a airfield. Out on the Western point is New Plymouth - connected by a road we do not show both to Hamilton and to Wanganui. On the opposite shore, at Hawke Bay, is Napier, which seems to be a significant port/airfield - and it might be a dual hex (Napier/Hastings) - giving it an additional airfield boost.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob


About that "can 'o worms"...Maybe Alaska needs to be revised???[&:]

Perhaps. But note that in many mods Alaska is always revised by adding locations, and there is considerable lobbying for adding a missing major USCG station.

What may be confusing you is that while Alaska was almost uninhabited when WWII began (in 1939) - there were about 30,000 natives in three distinct groupings (Aleuts, Eskimos and Indians) - and perhaps 10% as many non-natives - things had not changed a whole lot by 1941. Formerly administered as a US Navy territory (complete with unarmed native Navy police), Alaska had become a formal Federal Territory, had a National Guard battalion (which spent the war in California training troops), and the Army had sent up Brigadier General Simon Bolivar Buckner (who, as a major general, died on Okinawa). He set out to survey and promote construction of a network of army and air force bases. If this had not progressed very far by 1941, it became gigantic during the war. Alaska represents the very first area in which US forces went on the offensive, after a defensive period of invasion. We made lots of mistakes - including divided area command - failing to do recon - and had full scale disasters (as when Canadian and US troops each thought the other was the enemy). We developed institutions, including the Eskimo Scouts, and tactics, to address these matters, and kept the whole affair so secret most people thought troops were lieing when they said they were fighting on US soil in Alaska.

Anyway - that Anchorage had only 500 people (or 1000 if you add in 500 more at Spenard) in 1941 - is not what matters. That it was the hub of the Alaska RR, the site of gigantic Elmendorf AAF and Fort Richardson, and (in the hex) a major generator of food (by an ethnic German colony in the Matanuska-Susitna valley) sufficient to prevent a need to import most of it for military forces DOES matter. Similarly, sleepy, tiny Kenai - one of the few places the Russians had inhabited (they had developed a whole 400 acers TOTAL in the entire territory) - was nothing in 1941 except a tiny fishing port. But it became a significant forward airfield, connected by road to Anchorage, not too long after the war began. Whittier was (and remains) the main way fuel got to Elmendorf and everywhere else - a deepwater port with an 8 inch pipeline built just as the war began. Seward was the original port of Southern Alaska, where the RR heavy gear first came ashore early in the century, and still a significant port - and forward field - in WWII. This base complex is the foundation of US defenses - which otherwise consist of a single interior base at Fairbanks - a single significant coastal station at Nome - and one developed naval station on Kodiak (excluding the Panhandle where there was Juneau and Skagway at the base of the RR to Whitehorse). The Alcan highway was only built after the war began. For whatever reason, stock and CHS decided that Alaska should have communications and stations (although stock had a fictional and impossible coastal road or something). It is hard to see how we can simulate a campaign in Alaska without these places - and there is considerable lobbying for more stations (particularly by AKWarrior and Mifune).

The vast development in Alaska is mirrored - and often greatly exceeded - in PTO. These islands often had no infrastructure - and in most cases not much has happened since the war infrastructure wise. Where one chose to develop bases matters. The idea Japan (in violation of treaty) built up bases in the area is a myth - see University of Hawaii scholarship - they began fortification AFTER the Makin Island raid showed they were vulnerable. The lessons of Wake Island defense and that raid were applied (possibly erroniously) to decide how to fortify. We need to create a map with POTENTIAL base sites - and let players decide which to develop DURING the war. At least if we want to simulate. And not putting in significant possibilities is going to prevent possible options. A game is not supposed to recreate the war: read a history for that. It is supposed to permit competitive ideas about where to do what play out.

I see...So while Anchorage may have had a civilian populace of 500, the military actually outnumbered them..That makes a lot of sense in making it so large..
Strategically, (if one needs slots), what role might Nome fulfill, (other than it being more northern?) Further, some of the Canadian towns might be redundany, (albeit nice for chrome)?

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Manukau isnt even a secondary port in 1941, you might rate it a 0, I'm sure it could have been developed but wasnt intil the mid 50's.

It probably rates as a '1' rather than a '0' in 1941, but as mentioned this is a moot point since the location of this port and the main (Eastern) Auckland port are in the same hex on my map.

Can I suggest some other ports which are far more important than Manukau which have been missed??

Please do. I already have Gisborne and Picton...

After review of the links provided above, I rated Manukau as 2 and Auckland as 4 - both potential and build in 1941. I rated both as 3 for airfield - both potential and build. This gives Auckland more operational depth - you don't knock out two hexes in a single air raid or BB raid. And it permits the big problem of two entrances to Auckland which do NOT connect two bodies of water. Now I am not looking at CHS art - but RHS art in Level 5/6 should be identical in terms of the area in the hex - just not the style it is shown in. It does appear that there is a reasonable location for Manukau - which in fact also includes half a dozen other locations. It seems to nicely solve the problem of two harbors. We could call it South Auckland - an informal name - if that were more popular.

Picton is my fault. I picked it because it is the terminus of the ferry from Wellington. But it isn't significant otherwise. Probably we should call the hex Nelson (although at the moment I don't have any slot for it). There are two towns with airfields in the hex - and Nelson is a port as well. Probably that means port build potential of 2 or 3 and airfield build potential of 2. Actually you get only port 2 and airfield 0 to start, probably. On South Island there are no ports on the West side at all. Where the RR ends at Greymouth there is a port and airfield - probably worth adding if slots can be found.

On North Island at the north end of the RR is Whangarei - a port and airfield of unknown significance - but being serviced by a RR probably something - and that would give a more northern point for air ops. At the other end, our RR routing is wrong - and if we run it to the coast at Wanganui we could add it as a port/airfield. The RR splits at Woodville - which is insignificant - but Palmerston North not far away is a airfield. Out on the Western point is New Plymouth - connected by a road we do not show both to Hamilton and to Wanganui. On the opposite shore, at Hawke Bay, is Napier, which seems to be a significant port/airfield - and it might be a dual hex (Napier/Hastings) - giving it an additional airfield boost.

Sid,

I think think Andrews suggestion is OK, the small port only supported a coastal service which went south to New Plymouth & Wellington (

If your theory for Auckland (pop approx 217,000 in 1935) is continued, how about extra hexes for Sydney (Airbase at Bankstown and Richmond), Melbourne Airbases at Essendon, Laverton, Pt Cook, Moorabbin both with a population approaching 1mill plus. Brisbane about 200,00o with Eagle Farm on the coast and Amberley about 30 miles inland. Adelaide over 250,000, Perth had the civil airfield close to the CBD (about 10km) and Pearce AFB about 30 miles inland

In Enzed, and OZ, most hexes which are not Mountainous would be capable of supporting a level 4 or greater airfield.

Other Ports suggested for NZ, on South Is Grey mouth on the west coast.

For OZ. Westernport Bay (1 hex east of Melbourne) Pt Macquarie, Bowen, Bundaberg, Innisfail, Gove/Nlunbuy(sp?) , Bunbury, Busselton, Esperance, Pt Lincoln, Pt Pirie, Portland.

I'm sure others could add USA/Canadian West Coast ports.

[bradfordkay]

"There does appear to be a proper highway there today. I added it as a trail - all the way to the tip of the island - and I unblocked the hexes which for some reason were blocked."

Sid, in looking at Andrew's map (CHS, v2.08), the only "blocked" hexsides I see are done so to prevent the hexes from becoming "canals" which allow movement from the Pacific Ocean into the Tasman Sea. That is, there's only two way up north (61, 130 - 62, 130 and 61, 131 - 62, 130) and the one at Aukland.

Remember, when you hit the F6 key, white hexsides allow both land and sea movement. It's only the red ones which block movement. Unless you are asking for sea movement along the shore, and I think that Andrew's map does a pretty good job of representing that.