Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Mmmm.... I found a major flaw in my drawing...
Iraq gets a border with Russia here, and that's wrong.

To have it right would need to "cut" 2 hexrows of the NE Iraq bit, and have Mosul moved 1 hex south. I looked at Google Earth, and it is true that the Mosul-Baghdad distance is wrong on the WiF FE maps, and that as Borger said, it should be southward, but maybe this would make too many changes just to correct the NW Persia bit abnormality ???

I'm ready to do it anyway, that's easy.

We either have a border between the USSR and Iraq or between Turkey and Iran.

Turkey and Iran have a common border on the real map.

I also believe that Iraq was placed on the WIFFE European map for the same reason
as Iran was placed on the map (to show where lend lease of resources etc. would
go). It's not correct to have Mosul shown on the European map if one wants to
have a pretty accurate map.

So I think we can make the map better if we do the following:

* Move Mosul and the oil resource 1 hex to the south-east.
* Give the 2 uppermost mountain hexes currently placed in Iraq to Turkey.

Then Turkey and Iran would have a common border and Russia and Iraq not.
At the same time it makes Mosul not further north than Tabriz. Place the
Mosul city dot on the south-east hexside. Then it will be located on the
same hexrow as Tabriz, but would appear to be further south (which is correct)

Maybe the oil resource south of Mosul (in the hex with the number 13) should
be moved 1 hex further south if we decide to move Mosul 1 hex south-east?

I think with these minor alterations the Caucasus map-area would be not very
wrong compared to the real map.

Would it be correct to put the Armenian capital Yerevan on the map? It's a
quite large city and often shown on strategic WW2 wargames map. I'm
a little surprised it's not part of WIFFE. Maybe because it was located outside
(or on the edge of) the European map? If the answer is yes then I believe
Yerevan would be located in the hex with the number 18 or the hex just east of
the hex with the number 17. If we don't want to make even further changes
to the European map Yerevan can be located in the hex east of the hex with
the number 17. Will adding Yerevan affect gameplay a lot in this area?

It's very good Froonp is going through the map the way he does in areas
like China, Causasus etc. Because these areas are the most critical, because
battles might occur here and part of the map area is changed from Asian
scaled level to European scaled level.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I am not keen on adding Yerevan. It would be in a mountain hex and looks as if it would be difficult to capture (rivers, alpine hexsides). Should the Germans get that far it would be an additional city for them to capture, since leaving it in Russian hands would risk reinforcements arriving there and threatening the rail lines needed for shipping resources.

[lomyrin]

I also dislike adding cities in the area - no Yerevan

Lars

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Mmmm.... I found a major flaw in my drawing...
Iraq gets a border with Russia here, and that's wrong.

This would be a major influence for the game as Russia can DOW iraq without going through Persia or Turkey. And similiary an Axis Iraq can be used to take hexes on the turkish border and being able to align Turkey. I would give turkey the hex with Number 18 and the hex SE of that.

[c92nichj]

B. Teheran placed in a mountain hex.
Because
- It is in a mountain hex on WiF maps.

I would vote against this as with the increased map scale Teheran is not so easy to take out as in normal WiF.
To keep the game balance either Teeran should be closer to the russian border so it easily reached on the suprise pulse or put it in a clear hex. Clear hex seems most reasonable for me.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin


I also dislike adding cities in the area - no Yerevan

Lars

I would not mind adding Yerevan, since I think that the Russians have a too hard time defending in regular WiF and could need a little boosting.

Something needs to be done about the french being too strong as well, but I know that Steve's view is to not change any rules, which I support, so I guess I just need to live with that the french campaign always takes longer and is harder than historically.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

B. Teheran placed in a mountain hex.
Because
- It is in a mountain hex on WiF maps.

I would vote against this as with the increased map scale Teheran is not so easy to take out as in normal WiF.
To keep the game balance either Teeran should be closer to the russian border so it easily reached on the suprise pulse or put it in a clear hex. Clear hex seems most reasonable for me.

I agree and I mae the Teheran hex this way.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I also dislike adding cities in the area - no Yerevan
Lars

I would not mind adding Yerevan, since I think that the Russians have a too hard time defending in regular WiF and could need a little boosting.

I prefer adding no cities, outside of China.
This said, I'd love if some "named places" could be on the map for these places where you can't put a city because of WiF FE maps, but where you would like to have a name written.

Also, I looked at the Urals part of Russia, and found that a couple of extra cities would be needed on the Trans-Siberian Railway to keep a Russia walking unit in supply between cities (as ity is the case on the WiF FE maps, cities are 4 MP appart on the Trans-Siberian railway, and a lot farther on the MWiF Map.

But this will be subject to a future thread I think. Let's concentrate on the Caucasus and the Middle East.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Mmmm.... I found a major flaw in my drawing...
Iraq gets a border with Russia here, and that's wrong.

This would be a major influence for the game as Russia can DOW iraq without going through Persia or Turkey. And similiary an Axis Iraq can be used to take hexes on the turkish border and being able to align Turkey. I would give turkey the hex with Number 18 and the hex SE of that.

I'm making changes right now to have this right.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm making changes right now to have this right.

Here is the result.
Would you find it good ?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm making changes right now to have this right.

Here is the result.
Would you find it good ?
[/quote]

Now I think the MWIF map in the Caucasus area looks as good as we can
hope for. [:)] IThese changes won't have any undesirable impact of game
play as I can see. So I think we should go for your latest version of
the Caucasus area map to be introduced to MWIF.

I see no need for changes now. I guess on the real MWIF
map the internal borders for Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan will
disappear?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
Now I think the MWIF map in the Caucasus area looks as good as we can
hope for. [:)] IThese changes won't have any undesirable impact of game
play as I can see. So I think we should go for your latest version of
the Caucasus area map to be introduced to MWIF.

I agree that this is as good as we can do, it is even better than that [:D]

I see no need for changes now. I guess on the real MWIF
map the internal borders for Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan will
disappear?

I suppose so.

In the China map thread, there was the question asked about the Chinese Provinces, and Steve ruled it out. I'm sorry about that, because I think it adds tremendous flavor & historical feeling to the game in my opinion, but I also can undestand his concerns. He plans on a release of Dec 2006, and there's so much left to do.

On the other hand, if I knew how this can be done in MWiF, I'd volunteer to give him a hand to add those Chinese Provinces, to add the USSR republics on the map too, and a couple of others too. France's Regions, or British's Counties would be straight "nay" if I'm asked, as they are too small thus cluttering the map unnecessarily, but USSR & Chinese Provinces who are the size of some Minor Countries in the game would be good to add.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm making changes right now to have this right.

Here is the result.
Would you find it good ?

Good work I like it.

One thing that I noted when looking over the map is that there is a new railroad added between Astrakhan and Kuybyshev. In normal Wif the germans only need to cut the railroad west of Saratov and Penza to deny the russians the oil in caucasus unless it's shipped over the caspian sea with convoys.

I'm no expert on the russian rail network during WWII, but I don't think I like the addition of this railroad.

[Froonp]

One thing that I noted when looking over the map is that there is a new railroad added between Astrakhan and Kuybyshev. In normal Wif the germans only need to cut the railroad west of Saratov and Penza to deny the russians the oil in caucasus unless it's shipped over the caspian sea with convoys.

I'm no expert on the russian rail network during WWII, but I don't think I like the addition of this railroad.

This bit of rail was added in the 2000 & 2004 printings of the WiF FE maps. Only the first (1996) version of the map did not have it.
So, it is normal that it is part of the MWiF maps, because now it is part of the WiF FE world (since 6 years).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
This bit of rail was added in the 2000 & 2004 printings of the WiF FE maps. Only the first (1996) version of the map did not have it.
So, it is normal that it is part of the MWiF maps, because now it is part of the WiF FE world (since 6 years).

On the other hand, there is a bit of rail north of Astrakhan on the MWiF maps that is absent fromt he WiF FE maps, and I'll ask Steve to remove it if he agrees.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Froonp
This bit of rail was added in the 2000 & 2004 printings of the WiF FE maps. Only the first (1996) version of the map did not have it.
So, it is normal that it is part of the MWiF maps, because now it is part of the WiF FE world (since 6 years).

On the other hand, there is a bit of rail north of Astrakhan on the MWiF maps that is absent fromt he WiF FE maps, and I'll ask Steve to remove it if he agrees.

Humm, [:(] I think I read too fast and I thought that the bit of rail that c92nichj was talking about was the one linking Astrakhan to Baku.
I think that the one he talks about is the one I also find out to be supposed to be deleted.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
On the other hand, if I knew how this can be done in MWiF, I'd volunteer to give him a hand to add those Chinese Provinces, to add the USSR republics on the map too, and a couple of others too. France's Regions, or British's Counties would be straight "nay" if I'm asked, as they are too small thus cluttering the map unnecessarily, but USSR & Chinese Provinces who are the size of some Minor Countries in the game would be good to add.

Enumerating Minor countries changes all the cities within to secondary supply sources. The consequenses of this one change *might* be farther reaching than you'd expect. Look at Checkoslovakia and Austria in the RAW. They are both considered part of the Home country in scenarios that begin 1939+. This means they are primary supply sources, and home units can be built there. Both countries are recent wartime aquisitions. Were Georgia, armenia, and Azerbaijan also such? Do you want to add to the RAW?

Further comment welcomed. I could suppose there is a lot of room for debate on this. But we could have debate on the RAW terratorial organization on many many other places.

My gut feeling (did you know your gut has more nerve endings than your brain?) is that this could end up being a bag of worms.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: Froonp
On the other hand, if I knew how this can be done in MWiF, I'd volunteer to give him a hand to add those Chinese Provinces, to add the USSR republics on the map too, and a couple of others too. France's Regions, or British's Counties would be straight "nay" if I'm asked, as they are too small thus cluttering the map unnecessarily, but USSR & Chinese Provinces who are the size of some Minor Countries in the game would be good to add.

Enumerating Minor countries changes all the cities within to secondary supply sources. The consequenses of this one change *might* be farther reaching than you'd expect. Look at Checkoslovakia and Austria in the RAW. They are both considered part of the Home country in scenarios that begin 1939+. This means they are primary supply sources, and home units can be built there. Both countries are recent wartime aquisitions. Were Georgia, armenia, and Azerbaijan also such? Do you want to add to the RAW?

Further comment welcomed. I could suppose there is a lot of room for debate on this. But we could have debate on the RAW terratorial organization on many many other places.

My gut feeling (did you know your gut has more nerve endings than your brain?) is that this could end up being a bag of worms.

Could you please not use the phrases "gut feelings" and "bag of worms" in the same sentence.

WIF FE - that is what we are recreating here. The rescaling for the unified world map necessitates changes and we are reviewing how CWIF made those decisions. That is the focus, or, more to the point, the restrictions on the discussion. Going farther afield to make modifications that cause MWIF to differ in more ways/details from WIF FE is a waste of energy and time as far as MWIF product 1 is concerned.

[Froonp]

Enumerating Minor countries changes all the cities within to secondary supply sources. The consequenses of this one change *might* be farther reaching than you'd expect. Look at Checkoslovakia and Austria in the RAW. They are both considered part of the Home country in scenarios that begin 1939+. This means they are primary supply sources, and home units can be built there. Both countries are recent wartime aquisitions. Were Georgia, armenia, and Azerbaijan also such? Do you want to add to the RAW?

Zorachus99, I'm not saying that Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and the Chinese provinces should be minor countries, I'm just saying that it would be fun, pretty and give a welcomed historical feel to the game, to have them drawn on the map.
Drawn only, without any play impact. No new city, no new capital city, no new minor power, no new Austria or Czechoslovakia.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Enumerating Minor countries changes all the cities within to secondary supply sources. The consequenses of this one change *might* be farther reaching than you'd expect. Look at Checkoslovakia and Austria in the RAW. They are both considered part of the Home country in scenarios that begin 1939+. This means they are primary supply sources, and home units can be built there. Both countries are recent wartime aquisitions. Were Georgia, armenia, and Azerbaijan also such? Do you want to add to the RAW?

Zorachus99, I'm not saying that Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and the Chinese provinces should be minor countries, I'm just saying that it would be fun, pretty and give a welcomed historical feel to the game, to have them drawn on the map.
Drawn only, without any play impact. No new city, no new capital city, no new minor power, no new Austria or Czechoslovakia.

The idea may have some merit. I suppose it's a 'like to have' kind of thing, rather than a neccesity.