MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Froonp »

Here are what the Marianas look like.
No Changes made.

Note :
Guam-Tokyo : 27 hexes (20 MP on the WiF FE maps -- 10 hexes)
Saipan-Tokyo : 24 hexes (18 MP on the WiF FE maps -- 9 hexes)
Farallon de Pajaros-Tokyo : 18 hexes (12 MP on the WiF FE maps -- 6 hexes)


Image
Attachments
MarianaIslands1a.jpg
MarianaIslands1a.jpg (40.52 KiB) Viewed 390 times
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Froonp »

Here are what the Marianas look like in WiF FE.

Image
Attachments
MarianaIs..sWiFFE.jpg
MarianaIs..sWiFFE.jpg (22.18 KiB) Viewed 389 times
User avatar
lomyrin
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: San Diego

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by lomyrin »

I think Eauripik Island should be moved 2hexes - 1 hex east and then 1 hex southeast.

I agree that the three islands to the west shown as full hex lands should not be there.

Lars
User avatar
Anendrue
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:26 pm

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Anendrue »

I could be wrong and I may be thinking of a different game but I think the island north of Hawaii was originally a game mechanic of the original WiF for aircraft movement to/from the USA box and as correctly stated did not actually exist.
Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.
User avatar
Zorachus99
Posts: 789
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Palo Alto, CA

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Zorachus99 »

I have marched a MAR deep down into the Pacific with land moves, Borneo, Sumatra, and New Guinea all being connected. This is just from memory. There is an incredible chain of land hexes marine units can move along on the regular Wif Pacific map. Yes all of these are less effective than naval transport, however no invasions are done during movement, the notional units can become a non factor.

I'm also aware most of these moves between hexsides would require the MAR to flip, and in the new MWIF this is less likely to be the case.

The maps above disconnect some KEY island chains that were connected before. This will have HUGE in-game consequenses.

Is this what we want?

The few ways I can see to fix this.

1) Move islands to connect them (unsavory for distance purposes)
2) Create all sea hexsides for MAR units to move on (unsavory as a game change)

Or has the decision to make these changes already been made? The great sea chain to New Guinea gone forever? We are talking about a potentially HUGE number of hexes that were crossable by MAR that will not be possible on the new map.

I know the LCU's MAR used had very good range in calm water. Likely more than one hex. Can someone validate this?
Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I could be wrong and I may be thinking of a different game but I think the island north of Hawaii was originally a game mechanic of the original WiF for aircraft movement to/from the USA box and as correctly stated did not actually exist.
I measured, and this mysterious island is 44 hexes from San Diego or Los Angeles.
San Diego or Los Angeles to Honolulu is 47 hexes.
Removing this island makes flying to Honolulu a rebase mission restricted to 16-ranged planes. The mysterious island allowed 15-ranged planes to fly here.

Anyway, both are A LOT more than what it was with the WiF FE maps and the America Map : 34 MP (32 for Los Angeles) (18 from San Diego to the edge of America Map (16 for Los Angeles) + 10 to change maps (14.1.2) + 6 from the edge of the Pacific Map to Honolulu).

With the America Minimap it was 42 MP (30 from Los Angeles to the edge of America Map + 6 to change maps (14.1.2) + 6 from the edge of the Pacific Map to Honolulu) to Fly from Los Angeles to Honolulu.

Real flying distance is 4,210 km (Google Earth). This makes for a MWiF scale of 90 km (4210 / 47) per hex.

The average scale of km per hex on the MWiF maps is 85 km, if I use this scale Honolulu should be 50 hexes from San Diego, so I think that the MWiF map is once again the most correct of the 3 possibilities. Moreover, this 47 hexes distance can be seen as generous (compared to the 50 hexes given by the average scale), so I think that this mysterious island should be deleted.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I have marched a MAR deep down into the Pacific with land moves, Borneo, Sumatra, and New Guinea all being connected. This is just from memory. There is an incredible chain of land hexes marine units can move along on the regular Wif Pacific map. Yes all of these are less effective than naval transport, however no invasions are done during movement, the notional units can become a non factor.

I'm also aware most of these moves between hexsides would require the MAR to flip, and in the new MWIF this is less likely to be the case.

The maps above disconnect some KEY island chains that were connected before. This will have HUGE in-game consequenses.

I am against "fixing" that, because I think it was abusive on the Pacific Map. This rule was designed on the European Map and on the European Map it is OK. If you draw the European Map at the Pacific Scale, then the MAR unit will be able to accomplish incredible feats too.

I think scaling down to the European map (nearly) for the Pacific portion of the map get this "island hoping" capacity back to its normal capabilities.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I have marched a MAR deep down into the Pacific with land moves, Borneo, Sumatra, and New Guinea all being connected. This is just from memory. There is an incredible chain of land hexes marine units can move along on the regular Wif Pacific map. Yes all of these are less effective than naval transport, however no invasions are done during movement, the notional units can become a non factor.

I'm also aware most of these moves between hexsides would require the MAR to flip, and in the new MWIF this is less likely to be the case.

The maps above disconnect some KEY island chains that were connected before. This will have HUGE in-game consequenses.

I am against "fixing" that, because I think it was abusive on the Pacific Map. This rule was designed on the European Map and on the European Map it is OK. If you draw the European Map at the Pacific Scale, then the MAR unit will be able to accomplish incredible feats too.

I think scaling down to the European map (nearly) for the Pacific portion of the map get this "island hoping" capacity back to its normal capabilities.
I agree.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Anendrue
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:26 pm

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Anendrue »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: abj9562

I could be wrong and I may be thinking of a different game but I think the island north of Hawaii was originally a game mechanic of the original WiF for aircraft movement to/from the USA box and as correctly stated did not actually exist.
I measured, and this mysterious island is 44 hexes from San Diego or Los Angeles.
San Diego or Los Angeles to Honolulu is 47 hexes.
Removing this island makes flying to Honolulu a rebase mission restricted to 16-ranged planes. The mysterious island allowed 15-ranged planes to fly here.

Anyway, both are A LOT more than what it was with the WiF FE maps and the America Map : 34 MP (32 for Los Angeles) (18 from San Diego to the edge of America Map (16 for Los Angeles) + 10 to change maps (14.1.2) + 6 from the edge of the Pacific Map to Honolulu).

With the America Minimap it was 42 MP (30 from Los Angeles to the edge of America Map + 6 to change maps (14.1.2) + 6 from the edge of the Pacific Map to Honolulu) to Fly from Los Angeles to Honolulu.

Real flying distance is 4,210 km (Google Earth). This makes for a MWiF scale of 90 km (4210 / 47) per hex.

The average scale of km per hex on the MWiF maps is 85 km, if I use this scale Honolulu should be 50 hexes from San Diego, so I think that the MWiF map is once again the most correct of the 3 possibilities. Moreover, this 47 hexes distance can be seen as generous (compared to the 50 hexes given by the average scale), so I think that this mysterious island should be deleted.

Oh I definitely agree the island does not exist. My only concern is play balance. So long as the original intent to get a certain amount of aircraft in/out of the Hawaian islands during turn X is maintained would be my only concern.

Play balance is the critical aspect of this game. So long as we do not sacrafice balance for eye candy then I am happy.

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: abj9562
Oh I definitely agree the island does not exist. My only concern is play balance. So long as the original intent to get a certain amount of aircraft in/out of the Hawaian islands during turn X is maintained would be my only concern.

Play balance is the critical aspect of this game. So long as we do not sacrafice balance for eye candy then I am happy.

I believe everyone has the same goal here: recreating WIF on the computer to the highest degree we can.

The visual appearance is rather important too though. Players should be able to understand what they see on the screen effortlessly, if at all possible. Some experienced WIF players might find this to be overkill, but I worry about newcomers to the world of WIF who lack background experience with the board game. I want their learning curve to be a gentle climb, and not require pitons, ropes, and Sherpa guides.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
wworld7
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:57 am
Location: The Nutmeg State

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by wworld7 »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I want their learning curve to be a gentle climb, and not require pitons, ropes, and Sherpa guides.

Somebody forgot the beer?

Flipper
Flipper
Rexor
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 2:41 pm
Location: The Oort Cloud

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Rexor »

I don't want to be a fly in the ointment, but aren't the sea areas too vast on this scale? Or is this just picking nits? I mean, compared to some of those in the Atlantic and Med, these babies are truly immense on the new Pacific scale.
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." (H.G. Wells)
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Rexor
I don't want to be a fly in the ointment, but aren't the sea areas too vast on this scale? Or is this just picking nits? I mean, compared to some of those in the Atlantic and Med, these babies are truly immense on the new Pacific scale.

A question that is easy to answer - sea area definitions are straight from WIF FE. The Gulf of Mexico has been added, as per America in Flames, but otherwise the sizes are the same. There are a few corrections I still need to make where CWIF and WIF FE differ (MWIF sea area boundaries will match WIF FE) but they are just a few hexes here and there in the middle of the ocean.

I have no interest in making changes from WIF FE's definitions of sea areas.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 3002
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

As far as Islands go in the Pacific, the navigation maps even in the mid 50's were not all that complete and a many small Islands were either not on the maps or noted as 'reported by USS xxx in 1952 to be 15 miles NW of the printed location etc.

This is real, I was there on merchant ships at the time.

Lars

And I bet you've got a few stories you could tell us you salty old sea dog. [X(]

Dusky young island girls...swaying palms...fresh coconut milk...rum by the bucketload...preferably all together. [;)] They must have been the days...

There are lots of advantages to living today, like the internet, but it seems to me that there was a period from the 30s to perhaps 1970 where men could still do stuff like work a passage to the South Seas and have real adventures. Maybe I've just watched too many old movies but you get the feeling that in those days there was more freedom to do unusual stuff.

It seems any adventuring today requires comprehensive insurance coverage, an environmental impact statement and 18 months of paperwork. Then when you get there, you find it's overrun with backpackers and souvenir stands. [:-]

No, no, no. Give me flying boats and nattily dressed gentlemen enjoying gin and tonics to the music of the Pacific lapping at the beach, while casting an educated eye over the local Tahitian lovlies. That's style!

Cheers, Neilster


Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 3002
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Neilster »

ORIGINAL: Rexor

I don't want to be a fly in the ointment, but aren't the sea areas too vast on this scale? Or is this just picking nits? I mean, compared to some of those in the Atlantic and Med, these babies are truly immense on the new Pacific scale.

It's an interesting point, but even though the sea areas are now larger, the movement rates are now unified (ie higher in the Pacific than they were). Anyone got an analysis of how this pans out?

I guess playtesting will reveal any major bugs.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Neilster
It's an interesting point, but even though the sea areas are now larger, the movement rates are now unified (ie higher in the Pacific than they were). Anyone got an analysis of how this pans out?

I guess playtesting will reveal any major bugs.

Cheers, Neilster

I am not sure what you mean here by 'higher'.

For naval movement, MWIF matches WIF FE exactly.

It is only the air movement costs that might change, and Patrice has been reporting on that from time to time, for different sections of the Pacific.

There are mimimal changes to land movement too, where it is/was possible to step from island to island using marines.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Froonp »

I think some of those 'shoals' and 'rocks' might be a bit small to have any military significance, i.e. long enough to build an airstrip on? It seems there are more land hexes now between Pearl and Midway?

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

This is also the most logical, because the only reason I can think of, that would lead to an island not having an airfield built on it, is that it is too mountainous.

I think of the Bonin island while writing this, because I'm currently preparing a map showing Japan, plus the Bonin, plus the Marianas, from Korea to Marcus Island. Should be ready for me to upload here soon.
User avatar
Anendrue
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:26 pm

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by Anendrue »

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think some of those 'shoals' and 'rocks' might be a bit small to have any military significance, i.e. long enough to build an airstrip on? It seems there are more land hexes now between Pearl and Midway?

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

This is also the most logical, because the only reason I can think of, that would lead to an island not having an airfield built on it, is that it is too mountainous.

I think of the Bonin island while writing this, because I'm currently preparing a map showing Japan, plus the Bonin, plus the Marianas, from Korea to Marcus Island. Should be ready for me to upload here soon.

True mountainous land would be a reason but there are a host of other geological reasons also. You dont just say here is some flat land of dimensions X by Y now build an airfield. Other reasons are water sources, ports, shoals, barriers, and transfer of supplies to the island. There were a host of reasons why many islands went undefended because of their tactical and strategic unimportance. However in a game play balance is the ultimate reason to include or not include a land mass etc... I am beginning to worry that all these changes with no testing could affect the game play. Please do some game testing on these changes as this will alleviate the ground swelling of tension in the community.
Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.
User avatar
lomyrin
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: San Diego

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by lomyrin »

ORIGINAL: abj9562

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think some of those 'shoals' and 'rocks' might be a bit small to have any military significance, i.e. long enough to build an airstrip on? It seems there are more land hexes now between Pearl and Midway?

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

This is also the most logical, because the only reason I can think of, that would lead to an island not having an airfield built on it, is that it is too mountainous.

I think of the Bonin island while writing this, because I'm currently preparing a map showing Japan, plus the Bonin, plus the Marianas, from Korea to Marcus Island. Should be ready for me to upload here soon.

True mountainous land would be a reason but there are a host of other geological reasons also. You dont just say here is some flat land of dimensions X by Y now build an airfield. Other reasons are water sources, ports, shoals, barriers, and transfer of supplies to the island. There were a host of reasons why many islands went undefended because of their tactical and strategic unimportance. However in a game play balance is the ultimate reason to include or not include a land mass etc... I am beginning to worry that all these changes with no testing could affect the game play. Please do some game testing on these changes as this will alleviate the ground swelling of tension in the community.

CWiF also had all these Islands in the Pacific in the very same scale. CWiF was tested and played quite a lot in the past and the play balance was fine and the Pacific theater a joy to play.

Lars
User avatar
mlees
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:14 am
Location: San Diego

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Post by mlees »

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

I understand the concern of adding "extra" bases to the map.

Please refresh my memory: What is the difference in stacking limits?

(That is, European map scale versus Pacific map scale.)

We are enforcing Euro map scale stacking throughout the map now. Are the proposed changes adding that much new (airbase) room?

Bear in mind: We have not added new air or naval units compared to WiFFE, and we have not added new production capability to any of the Major Powers yet.

Also: An entire island group (like the Marshalls) is still "conquered" when all the minor ports of the group are occupied. Hex control changes would force a rebase.
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”