AI for MWIF - Norway

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
It looks like all the ports bisected by blue lines in WiFFE need to be compared with their couterparts in MWIF. Is there a problem making them the same in MWiF - FREX Liverpool and Kristiansand?

Also, we need to know how the game decides that an hex can be invaded or not. Maybe it is already knowing that Liverpool and Kristiansand are invadable from both sea areas, and that it just don't show.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
It looks like all the ports bisected by blue lines in WiFFE need to be compared with their couterparts in MWIF. Is there a problem making them the same in MWiF - FREX Liverpool and Kristiansand?

Also, we need to know how the game decides that an hex can be invaded or not. Maybe it is already knowing that Liverpool and Kristiansand are invadable from both sea areas, and that it just don't show.

I. The program determines whether a hex is adjacent to a sea area purely by data.

There are two ways this is done:
1 - the hex is adjacent to an all sea hex (let's call this sea area S).
2 - there is a data entry saying the hex is adjacent to sea area S.

You could make an entry in the Adjacent Sea Area data that London was adjacent to the South China Sea and the program would let you move from London to the South China Sea for the cost of 1 MP. Think of the program as totally blind and dependent on what you tell it is true - that is, the program does not 'see' the map.

II. The program determines whether a hexside is a coastal hexside (i.e., an "all sea hexside" in WIF FE parlance) based on Hexside data.

There is a data file for hexside terrain that covers rivers, straits, rail lines, et al. One of the entry types is Coastal. This data type is used solely for the purpose of identifying all sea hexsides.

III. Invadable hexes are those that satisfy either: I.1 or I.2 and II.

So, Narvik, Liverpool, and Kristiansand are all invadable from 2 sea areas.

===

I don't think any changes are necessary to the map or the program. Placing the cursor over any port (or other hex) in question would identify to which sea areas the hex is adjacent, and therefore from whence it can be invaded.

[Plainian]

Mmmh? Ok so if the placement of the blue line doesn't mean much is it ok if all ports which have 2 sea zones are depicted by a bisected blue line? I'm sometimes a bit 'mouse over' challenged and perfer what I see on the map to tell me.
[:)]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
It looks like all the ports bisected by blue lines in WiFFE need to be compared with their couterparts in MWIF. Is there a problem making them the same in MWiF - FREX Liverpool and Kristiansand?

Also, we need to know how the game decides that an hex can be invaded or not. Maybe it is already knowing that Liverpool and Kristiansand are invadable from both sea areas, and that it just don't show.

I. The program determines whether a hex is adjacent to a sea area purely by data.

There are two ways this is done:
1 - the hex is adjacent to an all sea hex (let's call this sea area S).
2 - there is a data entry saying the hex is adjacent to sea area S.

You could make an entry in the Adjacent Sea Area data that London was adjacent to the South China Sea and the program would let you move from London to the South China Sea for the cost of 1 MP. Think of the program as totally blind and dependent on what you tell it is true - that is, the program does not 'see' the map.

II. The program determines whether a hexside is a coastal hexside (i.e., an "all sea hexside" in WIF FE parlance) based on Hexside data.

There is a data file for hexside terrain that covers rivers, straits, rail lines, et al. One of the entry types is Coastal. This data type is used solely for the purpose of identifying all sea hexsides.

III. Invadable hexes are those that satisfy either: I.1 or I.2 and II.

So, Narvik, Liverpool, and Kristiansand are all invadable from 2 sea areas.

===

I don't think any changes are necessary to the map or the program. Placing the cursor over any port (or other hex) in question would identify to which sea areas the hex is adjacent, and therefore from whence it can be invaded.

[lomyrin]

Perhaps a short text listing in the tutorial that deals with invasion invadable hexes from two or more sea areas where the map does not make it clear ?
 
Lars

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I. The program determines whether a hex is adjacent to a sea area purely by data.

There are two ways this is done:
1 - the hex is adjacent to an all sea hex (let's call this sea area S).
2 - there is a data entry saying the hex is adjacent to sea area S.

You could make an entry in the Adjacent Sea Area data that London was adjacent to the South China Sea and the program would let you move from London to the South China Sea for the cost of 1 MP. Think of the program as totally blind and dependent on what you tell it is true - that is, the program does not 'see' the map.

II. The program determines whether a hexside is a coastal hexside (i.e., an "all sea hexside" in WIF FE parlance) based on Hexside data.

There is a data file for hexside terrain that covers rivers, straits, rail lines, et al. One of the entry types is Coastal. This data type is used solely for the purpose of identifying all sea hexsides.

III. Invadable hexes are those that satisfy either: I.1 or I.2 and II.

So, Narvik, Liverpool, and Kristiansand are all invadable from 2 sea areas.

I can see a problem in this logic.
For example, if you look at Plymouth on the WiF FE map (see picture below).

By RAW, Plymouth is not invadable from the North Sea (it has no all sea hexside that touches the North Sea).
By the MWiF logic, it is (It has an all sea hexside, and the hex is adjacent to the North Sea).

See Q11.14-1 in the WiF FE FAQ too.

EDIT : GLOUPS, my example is wrong, as there is an all sea hexside that touches the North Sea around the Plymouth hex.
I'm looking for another.[&:]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

In the above example, Brest can be invaded from the North Sea, as there is an all-sea hexside that touches upon the North Sea around the Brest hex.

[Froonp]

Here is my example :

By RAW, Istanbul is not invadable from the East Med (it has no all sea hexside that touches the East Med).
By the MWiF logic, it is (It has an all sea hexside, and the hex is adjacent to the East Med).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is my example :

By RAW, Istanbul is not invadable from the East Med (it has no all sea hexside that touches the East Med).
By the MWiF logic, it is (It has an all sea hexside, and the hex is adjacent to the East Med).

Yes.

But in my opinion RAW is very strange here.

It says Istanbul is a port on the East Med but not invadable from the East Med. I can understand when London can not be invaded because the long estuary enables the defenders to stop an invasion fleet far from the hex that London occupies. That doesn't appear to be the case with Istanbul.

I guess my main question is "What is being simulated here by placing the sea area boundary so carefully?" Assuming that this was done intentionally, is it worth the effort to duplicate in MWIF?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is my example :

By RAW, Istanbul is not invadable from the East Med (it has no all sea hexside that touches the East Med).
By the MWiF logic, it is (It has an all sea hexside, and the hex is adjacent to the East Med).

Yes.

But in my opinion RAW is very strange here.

It says Istanbul is a port on the East Med but not invadable from the East Med. I can understand when London can not be invaded because the long estuary enables the defenders to stop an invasion fleet far from the hex that London occupies. That doesn't appear to be the case with Istanbul.

I guess my main question is "What is being simulated here by placing the sea area boundary so carefully?" Assuming that this was done intentionally, is it worth the effort to duplicate in MWIF?

I think that there is no research in the Istanbul situation for the placing of the Sea Area Border. I think that the Sea Area Border justs connects both ports, and that it happens that the all-sea hexside is not bisected by the Sea Area Border.

But if we stand by the definitions in RAW (and RAC), Istanbul is not invadable from the East Med.

So we need to write in RAC that there is a departure here from RAW in that the all sea hexside don't have to touch upon the Sea Area in which the TRS are, but the All-Sea hexside just have to exist.

I have looked at all the other Sea Area Borders connections with the land, and could not find other similar issues on the European Map.

By the way, I found 2 coastal hexes on the European part of the map that are not done as they are in WiF FE (in regards to which sea area they are adjacent to -- 65,34 and 74,48) that I intend to correct and send you as map data files in the next following days.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is my example :

By RAW, Istanbul is not invadable from the East Med (it has no all sea hexside that touches the East Med).
By the MWiF logic, it is (It has an all sea hexside, and the hex is adjacent to the East Med).

Yes.

But in my opinion RAW is very strange here.

It says Istanbul is a port on the East Med but not invadable from the East Med. I can understand when London can not be invaded because the long estuary enables the defenders to stop an invasion fleet far from the hex that London occupies. That doesn't appear to be the case with Istanbul.

I guess my main question is "What is being simulated here by placing the sea area boundary so carefully?" Assuming that this was done intentionally, is it worth the effort to duplicate in MWIF?

I think that there is no research in the Istanbul situation for the placing of the Sea Area Border. I think that the Sea Area Border justs connects both ports, and that it happens that the all-sea hexside is not bisected by the Sea Area Border.

But if we stand by the definitions in RAW (and RAC), Istanbul is not invadable from the East Med.

So we need to write in RAC that there is a departure here from RAW in that the all sea hexside don't have to touch upon the Sea Area in which the TRS are, but the All-Sea hexside just have to exist.

I have looked at all the other Sea Area Borders connections with the land, and could not find other similar issues on the European Map.

By the way, I found 2 coastal hexes on the European part of the map that are not done as they are in WiF FE (in regards to which sea area they are adjacent to -- 65,34 and 74,48) that I intend to correct and send you as map data files in the next following days.

I knew I should have bought you a larger magnifying glass!
---
Writing words in RAC is a lot easier than writing code for 1 hex out 70,200.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is my example :

By RAW, Istanbul is not invadable from the East Med (it has no all sea hexside that touches the East Med).
By the MWiF logic, it is (It has an all sea hexside, and the hex is adjacent to the East Med).

Yes.

But in my opinion RAW is very strange here.

It says Istanbul is a port on the East Med but not invadable from the East Med. I can understand when London can not be invaded because the long estuary enables the defenders to stop an invasion fleet far from the hex that London occupies. That doesn't appear to be the case with Istanbul.

I guess my main question is "What is being simulated here by placing the sea area boundary so carefully?" Assuming that this was done intentionally, is it worth the effort to duplicate in MWIF?

IMO it IS important to make it the same as WiFFE. Isn't that one of the "guiding principles" of this undertaking? Especially a hex as important as Istanbul. Certainly I understand the differences in the Pacific (or any other different scale map) as that decision was made a long time ago and had some real attraction in eliminating the scale difference. But just as in the war in China, we all have much to learn about how similar or how different that part of MWiF will play compared to WiFFE. I would like to see the European map work the same way as WiFFE, though.

BTW the Dardanelles are a very big reason for not making Istanbul invadeable from the Eastern Med - hence the Gallipoli campaign in WWI.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is my example :

By RAW, Istanbul is not invadable from the East Med (it has no all sea hexside that touches the East Med).
By the MWiF logic, it is (It has an all sea hexside, and the hex is adjacent to the East Med).

Yes.

But in my opinion RAW is very strange here.

It says Istanbul is a port on the East Med but not invadable from the East Med. I can understand when London can not be invaded because the long estuary enables the defenders to stop an invasion fleet far from the hex that London occupies. That doesn't appear to be the case with Istanbul.

I guess my main question is "What is being simulated here by placing the sea area boundary so carefully?" Assuming that this was done intentionally, is it worth the effort to duplicate in MWIF?

IMO it IS important to make it the same as WiFFE. Isn't that one of the "guiding principles" of this undertaking? Especially a hex as important as Istanbul. Certainly I understand the differences in the Pacific (or any other different scale map) as that decision was made a long time ago and had some real attraction in eliminating the scale difference. But just as in the war in China, we all have much to learn about how similar or how different that part of MWiF will play compared to WiFFE. I would like to see the European map work the same way as WiFFE, though.

BTW the Dardanelles are a very big reason for not making Istanbul invadeable from the Eastern Med - hence the Gallipoli campaign in WWI.

But you can invade the hex SW of Istanbul, which, being on the Sea of Marmara, is far past the Dardenelles.

I go back to my question of what is being simulated.

To my eye this looks like a rule/exception that affects 1 hex out of 70,200. Or 1 out of 5,000+ if you want to just count coastal hexes. Yet another case where we tell the new player: "Oh, and by the way, for this hex a special rule aplpies."

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



Yes.

But in my opinion RAW is very strange here.

It says Istanbul is a port on the East Med but not invadable from the East Med. I can understand when London can not be invaded because the long estuary enables the defenders to stop an invasion fleet far from the hex that London occupies. That doesn't appear to be the case with Istanbul.

I guess my main question is "What is being simulated here by placing the sea area boundary so carefully?" Assuming that this was done intentionally, is it worth the effort to duplicate in MWIF?

IMO it IS important to make it the same as WiFFE. Isn't that one of the "guiding principles" of this undertaking? Especially a hex as important as Istanbul. Certainly I understand the differences in the Pacific (or any other different scale map) as that decision was made a long time ago and had some real attraction in eliminating the scale difference. But just as in the war in China, we all have much to learn about how similar or how different that part of MWiF will play compared to WiFFE. I would like to see the European map work the same way as WiFFE, though.

BTW the Dardanelles are a very big reason for not making Istanbul invadeable from the Eastern Med - hence the Gallipoli campaign in WWI.

But you can invade the hex SW of Istanbul, which, being on the Sea of Marmara, is far past the Dardenelles.

I go back to my question of what is being simulated.

To my eye this looks like a rule/exception that affects 1 hex out of 70,200. Or 1 out of 5,000+ if you want to just count coastal hexes. Yet another case where we tell the new player: "Oh, and by the way, for this hex a special rule aplpies."

In the Q&A recently completed, Harry (prior to July 4th) stated that Istanbul cannot be invaded from the Eastern Med because there "is no all sea hexside to invade across". So in fact the way it is drawn both in WiFFE and in MWiF meets this condition and should prohibit an invasion from the Eastern Med. Meanwhile on the previous page of this thread, Patrice posted two excellent examples of hexes that are invadeable from two sea zones in WiFFE - which are drawn in MWiF to my eye as invadeable from only one sea zone. (Kristiansand and Liverpool)

So are we confusing the new players, the old players, or everyone?

The definition in RAW for being able to invade has always contained problematic wording - hence the question in the Q&A with 5 sub-parts, but essentially you need to have at least a portion of an all-sea hexside that is "traversable" from the sea zone in which the invasion fleet resides - to qualify as invadeable. As you pointed out, the computer does not "see" the map` - but unfortunately for this purpose, we humans rely on seeing the map.

The bigger question is not "can this specific hex be invaded?" but rather: "how does a player of MWiF know it can or it can't"?

The key hexes are the ones where the sea area boundaries meet (maybe 100 on the European map) and the problem needs to be solved both programatically and visually. If we were starting from scratch I'd suggest a special look-up table for the former and some form of visual indicator for the latter.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Paul,

Lookup table - arrrgh.[:@] I use them (often) but only as a last resort. A system is better for all concerned.

There already is the ability for the player to see if a hex can be invaded, as I defined it earlier. And placing the cursor over any coastal hex lets you know to which sea areas it is adjacent.

I have on my to-do list to somehow visually toggle on/off invadable hexes from a sea area. The design I have laid out is for the player to right click on, say, the North Sea, and select Invasion Hexes from a popup menu. The coastal hexes that can be invaded from the North Sea would then be highlighted.

I haven't decided on how to highlight them - and I want this to be very temporary, with it being toggled off as soon as the player does something else. My concern is the complexity/density of information in each hex already. I do not want to add to something 'permanent' to that. This is a companion decision to highlighting hexes to which a (land) unit can move. I would use the same 'highlight'.

=====
As an argument in your favor for treating Istanbul as a special hex, you might look at Manila (I think it is Manila). There is a problem with the hex being adjacent to two sea areas but the port only being accessible from one of them. There might be a couple of other hexes with similar problems (northern Japan, Rabual)? I have already resigned myself to having to do something unusual to address those unusual circumstances. If we have a list of 'weird' ports I wouldn't be so upset about writing 'exceptions' code for Istanbul. Not to say I would be happy, just less unhappy.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
There already is the ability for the player to see if a hex can be invaded, as I defined it earlier. And placing the cursor over any coastal hex lets you know to which sea areas it is adjacent.
I

Sorry I've been all through the thread a couple times again and I can't see to what you refer. How do I see if a hex can be invaded currently? I could only find the description of the program's methodology. And does adjacency to two sea areas of an invadeable hex automatically mean I can invade from either? If so, this is a departure from WiFFE and RAW, possibly in a lot of places.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As an argument in your favor for treating Istanbul as a special hex, you might look at Manila (I think it is Manila). There is a problem with the hex being adjacent to two sea areas but the port only being accessible from one of them.

In WiFFE, Manila is invadeable from the South China Sea only. In MWiF, to me it is not invadeable at all, if I apply RAW (no full sea hexsides to cross from either sea zone). But I have no issue with that because of the change of scale.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
The key hexes are the ones where the sea area boundaries meet (maybe 100 on the European map) and the problem needs to be solved both programatically and visually. If we were starting from scratch I'd suggest a special look-up table for the former and some form of visual indicator for the latter.

Here are all these hexes on the Euroean map.
Doing this revealed to me that 2 of them were worng (one in Corsica and one in Greece), and I'll modify them today, but also revealed to me that the case of Istanbul seems to be unique on the European Map.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
The key hexes are the ones where the sea area boundaries meet (maybe 100 on the European map) and the problem needs to be solved both programatically and visually. If we were starting from scratch I'd suggest a special look-up table for the former and some form of visual indicator for the latter.

Here are all these hexes on the Euroean map.
Doing this revealed to me that 2 of them were worng (one in Corsica and one in Greece), and I'll modify them today, but also revealed to me that the case of Istanbul seems to be unique on the European Map.

There is the problem of :

Tripoli
Liverpool
Kristiansand
Narvik
Plymouth

Looking like they can only be invaded from 1 sea area when the WiF FE map show that they can be invaded from 2.

[Froonp]

Here are those hexes for Africa.

[Froonp]

Here are those hexes for Asia :