Maps for MWIF

[Glen Felzien]

I think a possible approach to manipulating units within each sea box could be solved or made easier with a popup opaque window:

Click on the sea box you wish to view. An opaque window appears. This window can be moved anywhere within the sea zone. The shape of the window can be adjusted for both height and width.

Within the window, the units would be auto arranged or the player could arrange them him/herself by left clicking and dropping them anywhere with the confines of the window. Transport capable units that are loaded would be half covered by the unit they are carrying. Units that have been used in previous operations would have that particular factor shaded or red stroked out.

To select a unit for an operation, right click the unit. A menu appears that lists all the possible operations that unit is capable of within the rules. For example, right click the land unit, select invasion; all the invasion eligible hexes within that sea zone are highlighted. Left click the target hex and the unit appears in location and the transport appears fully in the sea box window.

Finally, a player could open as many sea boxes as he wishes both Axis and Allied thus allowing for side by side comparisons of the contents. The only drawback would be the small the sea zone, the fewer boxes can be opened or at least the popup window would have to be arranged smaller.

The upside to this appraoch is that the players themselves can determine the nature of the display.

Anyway, food for thought.

[Glen Felzien]

Regarding the previous post, maybe have an option that allows players to save their unit arrangements for each time they open a popup window.

[stretch]

Wow this is great, my biggest beef with CWiF completely fixed. Units in sea boxes on the map (in stacks). This is a great day getting to see it finally...

I think the opaque box for showing units is fine, as you point out the alternatives don't work very well anyway. Maybe have it pop up on mouseover instead of click to allow quick scanning of the multiple boxes? Were you referring to showing all units in say, a single box at once, or to look at the entire conents of the whole sea area at once?

Edit : got distracted by work and didn't see the above posts, obvuiously.

[pak19652002]

I'm warming up to the map now that it's been out there for a while and the terrain has been tweaked. I agree on Patrice's desert mountain comments and I would also add that still more relief should be added to both kinds of mountains. I don't want to get into the whole "brain terrain" debate again, but it's hard for me to tell the difference between the forest and mountain hexes and even the desert and desert mountain hexes. Adding some "height" to the peaks would be helpful.

After all, the mountains are supposed to be tall enough to slow down panzers.[;)]

Peter

[WiFDaniel]

Just want to praise you guys for the sea boxes. They look great!

Daniel

[c92nichj]

I will have the artist revise the map between Sheffield and Hull so it is clear. Leed's hex is not a coastal hex though, so it is a little tricky to render.

Are their other hexes like this? I seem to recall reading a list of them somehwere once upon a time. I can have the artist make them clearer than the paper maps.

- The hex east of Bordeaux
- The hex Southwest of Nantes
- The hex NorthWest of Stockholm
- The Hex East of Stettin

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

I will have the artist revise the map between Sheffield and Hull so it is clear. Leed's hex is not a coastal hex though, so it is a little tricky to render.

Are their other hexes like this? I seem to recall reading a list of them somehwere once upon a time. I can have the artist make them clearer than the paper maps.

- The hex east of Bordeaux
- The hex Southwest of Nantes
- The hex NorthWest of Stockholm
- The Hex East of Stettin

Thanks.

Am I right in assuming that these are all the same as for Sheffield-Hull? The inland hex is not reachable from the sea (through that inlet) while the two hexes forming the inlet are separated by an all sea hexside.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

I will have the artist revise the map between Sheffield and Hull so it is clear. Leed's hex is not a coastal hex though, so it is a little tricky to render.

Are their other hexes like this? I seem to recall reading a list of them somehwere once upon a time. I can have the artist make them clearer than the paper maps.

- The hex east of Bordeaux
- The hex Southwest of Nantes
- The hex NorthWest of Stockholm
- The Hex East of Stettin

Thanks.

Am I right in assuming that these are all the same as for Sheffield-Hull? The inland hex is not reachable from the sea (through that inlet) while the two hexes forming the inlet are separated by an all sea hexside.

I think so but I am sure that Patrice will comment soon enough and I would go by his rule, he have studied the maps more than me.
The original map is not that clear, it is especially important to get it right when it comes to the hex east of Bordeax as if it is all sea it makes it invadeable, there was a long discussion about that hex on the Yahoo Forum a while ago, but I cannot recall what the outcome was.

[Froonp]

I made a list some years ago, and asked Harry when in doubt.
Since that time, the maps were reprinted and some of these were visualy clarified.

Here is my list :
"Yes" means that the passage is allowed between the hexes, "No" means it is not allowed.
****************************************
WESTERN EUROPE MAP
0237 to Stettin (0337) : No (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)
Kiel (0638) to Bremen (0737) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)
0837 to 0937 (Netherlands) : Yes (clarified by Harry on 26/8/97) (Yes - CWiF) (Obvious Yes on (c) 2000 maps)
Amsterdam (1036) to 1037 (Netherlands) : Canal hexside (hex 1035 & 0936 are even shore bombardmentable)

Le Havre (1532) to 1531 : No (obvious) (No - CWiF)
Nantes (1829) to 1828 : Yes (clarified by Harry on 26/8/97) (Yes - CWiF) (Obvious Yes on (c) 2000 maps)
1725 to Bordeaux (1825) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)

London to Dover : Yes (obvious)
Bristol to Cardiff : No (obvious)
Hull (1440) to Sheffield (1539) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF)

0147 (Sweden, Europe) to 3146 (Sweden, Eastern Europe) : Yes (obvious, strait)

Note that the hexside between W0936 and W1036 is a lake hexside


EASTERN EUROPEAN MAP
Stockholm (3047) to 3148 : No (obvious on (c) 2000 western european map) (No - CWiF)
Hango (Finland) (2647) to 2748 : No (obvious)
2020 (Bulgaria) to 1921 (Bulgaria) : No (obvious)
1728 (Ukraine) to Nikolayev (1628) : No (me, pretty obvious)
Nikolayev (1628) to 1627 (Ukraine) : No (me, pretty obvious)
Evpatoria (1526) to Sevastopol (1425) : No (me, pretty obvious)
****************************************

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I made a list some years ago, and asked Harry when in doubt.
Since that time, the maps were reprinted and some of these were visualy clarified.

Here is my list :
"Yes" means that the passage is allowed between the hexes, "No" means it is not allowed.
****************************************
WESTERN EUROPE MAP
0237 to Stettin (0337) : No (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)
Kiel (0638) to Bremen (0737) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)
0837 to 0937 (Netherlands) : Yes (clarified by Harry on 26/8/97) (Yes - CWiF) (Obvious Yes on (c) 2000 maps)
Amsterdam (1036) to 1037 (Netherlands) : Canal hexside (hex 1035 & 0936 are even shore bombardmentable)

Le Havre (1532) to 1531 : No (obvious) (No - CWiF)
Nantes (1829) to 1828 : Yes (clarified by Harry on 26/8/97) (Yes - CWiF) (Obvious Yes on (c) 2000 maps)
1725 to Bordeaux (1825) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)

London to Dover : Yes (obvious)
Bristol to Cardiff : No (obvious)
Hull (1440) to Sheffield (1539) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF)

0147 (Sweden, Europe) to 3146 (Sweden, Eastern Europe) : Yes (obvious, strait)

Note that the hexside between W0936 and W1036 is a lake hexside


EASTERN EUROPEAN MAP
Stockholm (3047) to 3148 : No (obvious on (c) 2000 western european map) (No - CWiF)
Hango (Finland) (2647) to 2748 : No (obvious)
2020 (Bulgaria) to 1921 (Bulgaria) : No (obvious)
1728 (Ukraine) to Nikolayev (1628) : No (me, pretty obvious)
Nikolayev (1628) to 1627 (Ukraine) : No (me, pretty obvious)
Evpatoria (1526) to Sevastopol (1425) : No (me, pretty obvious)
****************************************

In all those hexpairs with a 'NO' does that also mean that the hex between them are shorebombardable and possible to supply by sea for example hex 0236?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Thanks, Patrice. I'll double check MWIF concerning these hexes.

[Froonp]

In all those hexpairs with a 'NO' does that also mean that the hex between them are shorebombardable and possible to supply by sea for example hex 0236?

We need to have a close look at the map to answer that. If the sea extend into the "middle hex", it is yes, otherwise it is no.

0237 to Stettin (0337), Middle hex : 0236 : No.
Kiel (0638) to Bremen (0737), Middle hex : Hamburg : Not shorebombardable, but yes for supply because it is a port.
For the Zuider Zee, we should ask harry whether hex 0936 is invadable & shorebombardable and whether 1035 is shorebombardable (it is clearly not invadable), because my comment came from the WiF list at the time.

Le Havre (1532) to 1531, Middle hex : Rouen : has access to the sea, so Yes.
1725 to Bordeaux (1825), Middle hex : 1724 : No.

Bristol to Cardiff, Middle hex : 1735 : Yes.
Hull (1440) to Sheffield (1539), Middle hex : Leeds : No.

Stockholm (3047) to 3148, Middle hex : 0147 : No. (On my (c) 2004 maps, passage seems possible between Stockholm (3047) to 3148).
Hango (Finland) (2647) to 2748, Middle hex : 2648 : Yes.
2020 (Bulgaria) to 1921 (Bulgaria), Middle hex : Burgas : Yes.
1728 (Ukraine) to Nikolayev (1628), Middle hex : 1629 : No.
Nikolayev (1628) to 1627 (Ukraine), Middle hex : 1527 : No.
Evpatoria (1526) to Sevastopol (1425), Middle hex : 1426 : No.

For the Pacific & Asia Maps, its all new so its to Harry & Matrix & Steve to decide.

[Froonp]

For the Pacific & Asia Maps, its all new so its to Harry & Matrix & Steve to decide.

But the art of the map and the game engine (who is deciding if passage is possible or not) has to be consistent.

For Sheffield & Hull, the art is far from consistent with the impossible passage.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

After a hiatus of 4 weeks the graphics guy is back. Here are some screen shots showing the new mountain and swamp. Comments?

The weird lines around the coastal hexes are gone. I moved the sea boxes. It is mostly the mountains that are new though.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is a closer view at zoom level 6. The previous shot was at 4. I changed the font for the river names: smaller and italics.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here are a mix of terrain types at level 8 zoom (maximum). This is somewhere in deepest Africa. The swamp has been modified because it was too similar to the clear terrain.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The last in the series. I haven't repositioned the labels for cities et al in this portion of the map. My concern is the similarity between the swamp and forest.

[Caranorn]

The swamp looks good to me, quite different from the forest.

[Froonp]

The last in the series. I haven't repositioned the labels for cities et al in this portion of the map. My concern is the similarity between the swamp and forest.

For me they are too close.
I think that the forest should be darker green.
Anyway, the swamp is going the good direction.

[Froonp]

Here are some screen shots showing the new mountain and swamp. Comments?

The mountains are going in the right direction IMHO, as the swamps.
The mountains now really seem to have a relief.
But IMO it should be more visible, it isn't visible enough.

For the sea boxes, I still feel they would look much better if they were larger and if they touched each others. Moreover, the WiF rule talks about the sea box designating the whole 0 to 4 arrangement of sections. Seeing this maps, you could think there are 10 boxes. This could be confusing. Or you could draw a line around them so that we know its only one sea box.