Page 2 of 5
RE: Map Comments
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:47 pm
by DrewMatrix
why do I receive the message "Not allowed" when I issue orders to ground troops wishing to travel along this rail line?
IIRC (I have only read the Docs twice [:)], you can only move along a path where it is possible to trace supply. Can you trace supply to the hex you wish as a destination? ie is there an enemy unit sitting on the supply path somewhere?
The supply path has a certain "supply movement cost" limit too, as I recall.
RE: Map Comments
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:01 am
by bradfordkay
IRC (I have only read the Docs twice , you can only move along a path where it is possible to trace supply. Can you trace supply to the hex you wish as a destination? ie is there an enemy unit sitting on the supply path somewhere?
The supply path has a certain "supply movement cost" limit too, as I recall.
My initial attampt was to send the troops to Akyab, which is a supplied base (low on supplies, but supplied). There were enemy troops in the hex with me, but not further along the line. I suppose it is possible that the game felt that the supply would come from Rangoon and thus the destination would be cut off from supply by the troops in the hex I was trying to leave. To me this seems silly, because I was trying to withdraw troops along the rail line towards the Indian border and thus towards more supply.
If this is the case, then the game mechanics need some work, because you should be able to withdraw your troops towards your own lines. Please don't get me wrong, I love WitP, I just think that my troops should have been able to march along that rail line since it was there. Now my troops had to withdraw into Rangoon where they are trapped and the raod to Akyab is wide open. You had better believe that I will be livid if later the Japanese will be able to march along that line.
RE: Map Comments
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:33 am
by ATCSMike
Well,
The northern 1/3-1/4 of Alaska is missing. The game shows it under the ice pack. I'm positive the ice wasn't covering that much of Alaska during WWII. [:D]
The mountain ranges are wrong. The Brooks Range (northern) and the Alaska Range (southern) don't connect at all. There are valleys and other mountains in between. As seen here:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/united_s ... 002_ak.jpg
There is no trail going to Nome. There is no railroad into the interior and there shouldn't be any kind of a road going into the SE part of the state. Those were more likely winter trails.
The Yukon River is missing along with the Tanana, and the Copper River. I know, I know, I'm getting picky, but those are 3 of the major rivers in AK.
Kodiak Island should be a little bigger and have an E-W orientation not N-S.
Anchorange seems to be in the wrong place, though it's hard to tell. The finger spit of land west of ANC shouldn't be there I think. If the river shown on the map is the Susitna River it should be further west, I believe.
Fairbanks is missing. It was one of the stopovers for Lend Lease with Russia.
Mike

RE: Map Comments
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 6:12 am
by Mike Scholl
The real problem with all the corrections peing posted for Australia and Alaska and other places is this.
There are hundreds of WWII era and later maps available as documents from all kinds of places. Doing
a map requires research and dilligence, but all the information is available. If they managed to totally
screw up the map when all that was needed was some carefull copying, how can the buyer trust any of
the other information in the game? That's what's dissappointing about a poorly done map..., it opens
everything the designers did in the whole game to mistrust.
RE: Map Comments
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 6:19 am
by bradfordkay
I have to revise my map comment. You CAN march along the rail line from Rangoon to Akyab (okay, rail only half the way), but you cannot choose as a destination any of the hexes in between the bases except for 29,33. If you try to choose 30,32 29,31 or 30,30 you get the "not allowed" message. I was wanting to defend each river crossing along the way, but am unable to choose those hexes as a destination for my retreating troops. If I choose Akyab as a destination, the troops will happily make the march. Go figure...
EDIT, days later: This was appearently fixed in the big patch, according to the list David posted.
USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 6:40 pm
by BPRE
Hi,
I just noticed that the Strategic map lists the Command HQ as USFEE but the actual HQ is named USAFFE and that's how it's shown in case you try to change HQ for a base.
The manual lists the command as USFEE too.
Best regards
BPRE
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:02 pm
by Jaws_slith
Found this one... I think New Guinea is more above Australia then it is now.

RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:08 pm
by BPRE
ORIGINAL: Jaws43
Found this one... I think New Guinea is more above Australia then it is now.
North is not straight up on the game map. You can't compare it directly with a normal map.
Is that explaining the difference?
Regards
BPRE
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:16 pm
by Jaws_slith
ORIGINAL: BPRE
ORIGINAL: Jaws43
Found this one... I think New Guinea is more above Australia then it is now.
North is not straight up on the game map. You can't compare it directly with a normal map.
Is that explaining the difference?
Regards
BPRE
Ok this is map North and you mean WitP map is True North?
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:44 pm
by BPRE
Hi,
I'm not that good at maps but when I compare the WitP map with a real map I can see that it is slightly turned. The equator as an example runs roughly from Nauru (79,91) to Waigen Is. (41,73) to the northern part of Sinkep Is. (22,53). I hope that shows what I meant.
I think the map is OK in regard of the position of New Guinea and Australia.
Regards
BPRE
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2004 11:08 pm
by Montbrun
Matrix has used a projection for the map. The "base-line" appears to be somewhere 2-3 hexes West of French Frigate Shoals, running North-South. At this point "North is North." As you procede further away from this "base-line," the map is more skewed, as it should be for this projection. Unfortunately, with "real" maps, the error in distances is greater the further away that you travel form the "base-line," if a scale factor is not applied. I make maps for a living, and I'm not quite sure what has been done with the WitP map. I've noticed that the distance between Wake Island and Midway is too short.....
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2004 7:15 pm
by BPRE
Hi,
Looking at the control zone map the border between the South zone and the South-East zone runs between Australia and DEI. When I go back to the Tactical map and turn on the Zone location text it shows that parts of Northern Territory and more of New Guinea belongs to the South Zone. Please adjust either map to show the correct information.
/BPRE
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:19 pm
by Cmdrcain
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
Matrix has used a projection for the map. The "base-line" appears to be somewhere 2-3 hexes West of French Frigate Shoals, running North-South. At this point "North is North." As you procede further away from this "base-line," the map is more skewed, as it should be for this projection. Unfortunately, with "real" maps, the error in distances is greater the further away that you travel form the "base-line," if a scale factor is not applied. I make maps for a living, and I'm not quite sure what has been done with the WitP map. I've noticed that the distance between Wake Island and Midway is too short.....
Their map is a projection with the axis of earth sort of "turned" it is to I'd guess to stimulate better the long ocean distance between USA and Australia plus to get all of India into the map etc so its all ROtated a bit North Isn't quite straight up nor south straight down...
Theres always compromises in any game and its a good compromise
in the Original Pac war game, running supplies from USa to Australia was pretty fast, so one could auto convoy and manual convoy lots fast
in present game with the way map is, it will take quite a while as it should to get supplies from west coast down to australia and South pacific.
As to Wake, well it seems a bit short but its still in right direction and Wake was not really that far from Midway, truth is It seems to me that Midway is a bit too close to Hawaii
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:29 pm
by Montbrun
...not complaining, just wondering...
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:06 am
by Kizsam
Hi
City in China has the name "Changchow" printed on the map. However, the base name is "Amoy".
Regards
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 12:32 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
Matrix has used a projection for the map. The "base-line" appears to be somewhere 2-3 hexes West of French Frigate Shoals, running North-South. At this point "North is North." As you procede further away from this "base-line," the map is more skewed, as it should be for this projection. Unfortunately, with "real" maps, the error in distances is greater the further away that you travel form the "base-line," if a scale factor is not applied. I make maps for a living, and I'm not quite sure what has been done with the WitP map. I've noticed that the distance between Wake Island and Midway is too short.....
The real problem with the "projection" is that as Mercator discovered, you have to
stretch something (land or water) out of shape to keep the distances true for the other.
This projection has chosed to try and keep the land elements pretty much to recogniz-
able sizes while stretching or pinching the water areas in between. Unfortunately, the
War in the Pacific was primarily a Naval and Air war, and the distances between the
land bodies are far more important to the flow of play than the land areas themselves,
Australia, while still badly done in terms of interior transportation, is realtively the right
shape. Which unfortunately makes the water area between NE Australia and Papua-
New Guinea far to large..., the Coral Sea has become an ocean that can no longer be
crossed by historical means. It would have been far better to have stretched southern
Australia out of shape (not much likely to happen there, especially in the outback) and
made the Coral Sea more accurate. Another poor design choice that is and will con-
tinue to cause trouble.
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:19 am
by Subchaser
Minor correction.
Soviet base – Uglaharmensk, correct spelling Uglekamensk, but before 1961 this tiny village was called Severny Suchan. This is very strange choice of additional Soviet base in Primorye, population in 1940 was just slightly above 600 men, there were no strategic objects there, only two coal mines. Besides Vladivostok there are other somewhat big towns in that area, most important – port town, Soviet Pacific navy base Nakhodka and center of coal industry town of Suchan, but we see only Uglaharmensk on the map… strange!
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:06 am
by Pascal_slith
As I've indicated before, the Society Islands are missing from the map. The US built one of its first major advanced bases there at Bora-Bora, a very important refueling stop on the way to the ANZAC area.
RE: USFEE or USAFFE
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 1:54 pm
by Oleg Mastruko
Don't know if anyone mentioned it before, but I found two more typos:
TriMcomalee, shouldn't it be TriNcomalee?
Alor Star (Malay peninsula) should be Alor Setar according to my Encarta World Atlas [:D]
O.
map issues
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:09 pm
by gdpsnake
It looks on the map as if a RR exists between Hue and Hanoi but troops ALWAYS march along the grey road which is slower and two hexes longer. Is this a RR or just a glitch in the terrain?
Is there a RR or road between Ominato and the hex west of Muroram?
Is there a Road or RR in hex 31,30? A japanese unit zipped right through this hex in one turn.
Troops ALWAYS go to hex 41,40 while marching (the hex is empty) instead of following the RR depiction in 41,39.
Is there a road between Takamatsu and the hex east of it?