Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey
Sorry - forgot about Eureka.  If you make Eureka a city, then it's a supply source, potentially.  I could see it functioning as a secondary source on a sea chain, given its size and the harbor, but not as a land-based element of a chain, because of the remoteness and ruggedness of the area.

Can I punt?  [:)]

I was thinking of making Eureka a minor port only. Would that make sense ?
The reason is to provide supply (through sea) to US units in the West Coast between Portland and Sacramento.
In WiF FE, US units at home are always in supply on the West Coast, the cities are always in the correct range. On the MWiF map, due to the scale change, the distance is too far. Adding Eureka would provide supply in between, through the sea.
But my question is : Would Eureka warrants a Minor Port ? Was Eureka large enough to have warships anchored, and to unload supply for armies ?

Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

I used to live near Eureka. Eureka is heavy logging industry, and has what I would call a minor port. Wood was, and is still shipped by land. The naval presence is due to the excellent fishing in the area during that time. The fishing industry is in crisis these days due to depletion of stock. Living up there, we would commonly hear fisherman gripe about how the Russians and Japanese were sailing across the pacific ocean to fish illegally in U.S. water or U.S. protected areas. California is one of those rare places where we actually have a non-commercial and non-recreational fishing area. It's part of Monterey bay. It's abundant with wildlife. The rest of the coast looks like a ghost town underwater by comparison. Historically, I'm not sure if the harbor was deep enough for WWII ships.

The hex? Eureka should be middle clear coastal hex you see on the map on the preceeding page. All three of those coastal hexes south of Portland should be forest BTW. There is nothing but old growth redwoods in those areas. Mendocino national forest is there, which is a huge reserve of either old growth or 3rd growth trees. Back in the 1940's the area was nothing BUT trees. Take a drive more than 100 miles north of San Francisco and you'll get the idea quick. The terrain is extremely irregular, and the coastal mountain hexes are no stretch of the imagination.

Some comments on my home areas in Quebec. Just tossing my 2 cents, but feel free to ignore - the game looks great.
 
1) Distances between cities along the st.lawrence and gulf look skewed. Maybe it's the choice of cartographic projection that messes it but the scale is inconsistent even then.
 
Best guess: Montreal and Quebec look way to far apart. Moving QC one or 2 hexes up river and extending the gulf might make sense (might need to drag the resources with it?). Sept Isles should be closer to baie Comeau. For comparison, real distance vs map hexes (you'll need to figure what the scale shoule be).
Mtl-Quebec 240km, 5 hexes
Quebec-BaieComeau 350km, 4 hexes
BaieComeau-7Isles 170km, 4 hexes
Quebec-gaspe 550km, 9 hexes
 
2) Not sure if Montreal should be moved north to help the above - it's at most 170km from Ottawa and looks ok. Montreal is a pretty large port btw, as the St. Lawrence is navigable to large ships up to it but not sure if that can be represented in the game.
 
3) 170km downriver from Quebec city on the north side is the Saguenay river. It's bigger than the Baie Comeau, a major geographic feature and in actuality creates a fjord well inland. There'd be grounds for creating a sea hexside. They still haven't bridged it at the mouth. It runs a good 200k west inland into a very large lake (40k diameter).
 
4) Why is newfoundland so far from the mainland? The straight is only about 40km wide.
 
Again - beautiful work - I wouldn't nitpick except you guys asked.

qgaliana, what would you think about the area be like that ?
Quebec was moved 1 hex SW and Newfoundland NE tip was extended.
This also made me see that a sea area border was to be changed near Harrington.

ORIGINAL: wyrmm

Astoria is at the mouth of the columbia, built small AK's and PT boats, and was the convoy staging area for the Pac NW. Population swelled from 25-30k to over 300k by wars end, and just as quickly reversed. At one point over 1000 ships were anchored, there is a picture where you can almost walk across the columbia on them. As to terrain types, yes, north of oakland.

Well, Eureka both seems larger and better fits what I need in the area.
Would Eureka be good to you too ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp

qgaliana, what would you think about the area be like that ?
Quebec was moved 1 hex SW and Newfoundland NE tip was extended.
This also made me see that a sea area border was to be changed near Harrington.

Looks better - I'd also move Sept Isles W one hex to make it closer to Baie-Comeau. Right now 7isles is on the wrong side of the river anyways. I can't speak for the terrain but it is pretty much all broken and forested everywhere.

There are way more large rivers and lakes than what you've got, but I don't think it's worth the effort digging too much. You'd need period maps as the topography has changed because of all the hydro projects. Beware large lakes in an atlas, they are likely recent hydro reservoirs.

Can't comment on the sea border as I'm not familiar with the game (but itching to learn)

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey
Sorry - forgot about Eureka.  If you make Eureka a city, then it's a supply source, potentially.  I could see it functioning as a secondary source on a sea chain, given its size and the harbor, but not as a land-based element of a chain, because of the remoteness and ruggedness of the area.

Can I punt?  [:)]

I was thinking of making Eureka a minor port only. Would that make sense ?
The reason is to provide supply (through sea) to US units in the West Coast between Portland and Sacramento.
In WiF FE, US units at home are always in supply on the West Coast, the cities are always in the correct range. On the MWiF map, due to the scale change, the distance is too far. Adding Eureka would provide supply in between, through the sea.
But my question is : Would Eureka warrants a Minor Port ? Was Eureka large enough to have warships anchored, and to unload supply for armies ?

Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

I used to live near Eureka. Eureka is heavy logging industry, and has what I would call a minor port. Wood was, and is still shipped by land. The naval presence is due to the excellent fishing in the area during that time. The fishing industry is in crisis these days due to depletion of stock. Living up there, we would commonly hear fisherman gripe about how the Russians and Japanese were sailing across the pacific ocean to fish illegally in U.S. water or U.S. protected areas. California is one of those rare places where we actually have a non-commercial and non-recreational fishing area. It's part of Monterey bay. It's abundant with wildlife. The rest of the coast looks like a ghost town underwater by comparison. Historically, I'm not sure if the harbor was deep enough for WWII ships.

The hex? Eureka should be middle clear coastal hex you see on the map on the preceeding page. All three of those coastal hexes south of Portland should be forest BTW. There is nothing but old growth redwoods in those areas. Mendocino national forest is there, which is a huge reserve of either old growth or 3rd growth trees. Back in the 1940's the area was nothing BUT trees. Take a drive more than 100 miles north of San Francisco and you'll get the idea quick. The terrain is extremely irregular, and the coastal mountain hexes are no stretch of the imagination.

Sorry, but the three hexes directly south of Portland (i.e., adjacent to it, one hex away, two hexes away) are definitely NOT redwoods. There isn't a single redwood in the area. That's the Willamette Valley, which is one of the biggest and flattest regions of the Pacific NW, west of the mountains. You could make a case for either forest or clear, but given the relatively developed infrastructure of roads and railroads I would argue for clear.

There are tons of redwoods in the Eureka area. But not due south of Portland.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Would it make sense to have both OIL resources in Bakersfield ?
And would it make sense to put Bakersfield into a Mountain hex ?
I'm asking this because the WiF FE maps has both oil resources in a mountain hexes outside of a city, so I would like to try to make it the same in MWiF.
About the transportion connection, I see that the railway from the north is passing through Bakersfield, so I intend on putting the OIL in the hex that is 2 hexes NW of Los Angeles and making the raiil goes through it.

I would argue against both oil in Bakersfield, if they need to be together and in a mountain hex (i.e. specifically not in the city factory hex) I would put them in the mountain hex west of the hex containing Los Angeles, on the rail. But Bakersfielding them is better than current.
I would not widen the mountain hex row north of Los Angeles beyond one hex - Bakersfield should be in a clear hex.
With regard to desert versus clear for Los Angeles, at the time the valley was sparsely populated, with quite a bit of low water use agriculture (orchards and grazing). Certainly the area is climactically arid, but I don't know what that means militarily. There was limited water in the region. The current megalopolis is watered by major, major engineering project aqueducts (several of them), but that supports millions today, and the population was much smaller then. But on the other hand, the city area is no Sahara - it is very mediterranean (hence the population influx). I think clear is more accurate than desert for the Los Angeles city hex itself. Certainly the high desert (to the northeast on the current map, beyond the mountains) was and is a desert environment, and is correctly indicated as such on the map you showed us. From a game standpoint desert implies difficulty in supplying into or through the hex, and I don't think that would be true for Los Angeles (but definitely is true for Barstow in the high desert).

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey

Sorry, but the three hexes directly south of Portland (i.e., adjacent to it, one hex away, two hexes away) are definitely NOT redwoods. There isn't a single redwood in the area. That's the Willamette Valley, which is one of the biggest and flattest regions of the Pacific NW, west of the mountains. You could make a case for either forest or clear, but given the relatively developed infrastructure of roads and railroads I would argue for clear.

There are tons of redwoods in the Eureka area. But not due south of Portland.

I must be quite off on the geography of the area. I assumed those three hexes were south of the oregon border. If Eureka is placed, it should be either forest or Mountain hex. I lean toward either... The Willamettte Valley may be bigger than Medocino national forest (not sure) however it still is a gigantic forest in modern times. It was much larger in the 1940's. I lived in Crescent City for some six years, so know a lot of the backwood trails north of Eureka. Either mountain or forest would describe the area well.

What hex delineates the beginning of the California/Oregon border?

Hey guys, you now should try to agree on how your country is best represented [;)]
Here is a view of how it was at start (on the left) and how it is now (on the right).
The coastlines are not drawn on these view, to simplify.

Could you please tell me
- Which hexes should compose that flat lands Willamette Valley ?
- Whether the coastland north of Eureka is better represented as forest ?

About the north of Seattle, you seem to agree that this is better represented as forest.

I would argue against both oil in Bakersfield, if they need to be together and in a mountain hex (i.e. specifically not in the city factory hex) I would put them in the mountain hex west of the hex containing Los Angeles, on the rail. But Bakersfielding them is better than current.

Well, if you advise me to put the oil in the mountains west of Los Angeles, this is quite the starting situation [&:].
I'm not obliged to keep both in one hex [:-], but I would prefer having them not in cities, and having them in mountains. Now, if you tell me that one oil in Bakersfield is realistic, let's go for it.
So here are 2 shots, one as the area was before (on the left) and how it is now (on the right) without the coastlines to make it simple for me. On the shot on the right, Los Angeles is still a desert, but I will change it.
Please tell me where the 2 OIL and the RESOURCE should go.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Hey guys, you now should try to agree on how your country is best represented [;)]
Here is a view of how it was at start (on the left) and how it is now (on the right).
The coastlines are not drawn on these view, to simplify.

Could you please tell me
- Which hexes should compose that flat lands Willamette Valley ?
- Whether the coastland north of Eureka is better represented as forest ?

About the north of Seattle, you seem to agree that this is better represented as forest.

Zorachus' question is a good one - where on the map is the Oregon-California border? Patrice probably doesn't know for sure, either. What a collection of experts we are, huh?

I spent my whole life in Oregon and know it like the back of my hand. The third clear hex south of Portland in the left-hand image should be forest, and leave everything else the same. Zorachus is correct in that the Willamette Valley is forested, but it is also heavily laced with roads and highways and railroads. It has the most developed infrastructure in western Oregon, apart from metropolitan Portland itself. For this reason, I would consider it clear terrain in WiF terms. But I wouldn't get my undies in a bunch if it was forest, as in the right image.

As far as Eureka area, I yeild to Zorachus. I do think it should be a minor port, but the terrain around it ... I leave that to him. Thanks.

Here are the Borders of Oregon.

I spent my whole life in Oregon and know it like the back of my hand. The third clear hex south of Portland in the left-hand image should be forest, and leave everything else the same.

This "third clear hex south of Portland", is this the hex just SE of where the word "Ranges", from "Coastal Ranges" (the northern), is written ?

So, that would make, starting from Portland and going south along the railway, 2 Clear hexes, and 1 forest hex ?

(...) get my undies in a bunch (...)

I'm always puzzled as to the real hidden sense of these expressions [:)].
Does it mean that you would not bother too much if it was forest ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

One hex to the northwest of Sydney... and if you entrench there then you are in a "stockade", not a "fort" [:D]

(ethnic Australian reference there...)

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

One hex to the northwest of Sydney... and if you entrench there then you are in a "stockade", not a "fort" [:D]
(ethnic Australian reference there...)

You Australians prefer to say "stockade" rather than "fort" ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here are the Borders of Oregon.

I spent my whole life in Oregon and know it like the back of my hand. The third clear hex south of Portland in the left-hand image should be forest, and leave everything else the same.

This "third clear hex south of Portland", is this the hex just SE of where the word "Ranges", from "Coastal Ranges" (the northern), is written ?

So, that would make, starting from Portland and going south along the railway, 2 Clear hexes, and 1 forest hex ?

(...) get my undies in a bunch (...)

I'm always puzzled as to the real hidden sense of these expressions [:)].
Does it mean that you would not bother too much if it was forest ?

The hex south of Eureka looks good as clear due to the availability of landing zones. From the beach it is some hard leg travel to get anywhere else. Mountain hexes seem to be the right selection.

The three coastal hexes north of Eureka which were marked as forest are open to interpretation. I had mistaken them initially as being in California. The most southern hex should be forest IMO. Returning the top two to clear would be fine by me. I'm not as familiar with that area. Based on previous discussion, it seems to make more sense to have them clear as they are far less rugged.

Thanks, and glad to help. [:)]

The three coastal hexes north of Eureka which were marked as forest are open to interpretation. I had mistaken them initially as being in California. The most southern hex should be forest IMO. Returning the top two to clear would be fine by me. I'm not as familiar with that area. Based on previous discussion, it seems to make more sense to have them clear as they are far less rugged.

Thanks, and glad to help.

Thanks to you.
I did as you said.

So, that would make, starting from Portland and going south along the railway, 2 Clear hexes, and 1 forest hex ?

I did this way also.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here are the Borders of Oregon.

I spent my whole life in Oregon and know it like the back of my hand. The third clear hex south of Portland in the left-hand image should be forest, and leave everything else the same.

This "third clear hex south of Portland", is this the hex just SE of where the word "Ranges", from "Coastal Ranges" (the northern), is written ?

So, that would make, starting from Portland and going south along the railway, 2 Clear hexes, and 1 forest hex ?

(...) get my undies in a bunch (...)

I'm always puzzled as to the real hidden sense of these expressions [:)].
Does it mean that you would not bother too much if it was forest ?

"Undies in a bunch" is a shortened form of "underwear in a bunch". This conveys the impression of a guy's underwear (boxer shorts I always assumed) somehow getting wadded into a lump (exactly how that occurs has never been clear to me) making it quite uncomfortable to walk or sit. The assumption here is that you are in "polite society" and cannot immediately correct the situation.

One typical use of the expression is "Don't get your undies all in a bunch!" Meaning, loosely, "Don't get upset", but with the secondary connotation of making a big deal out of nothing.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

One hex to the northwest of Sydney... and if you entrench there then you are in a "stockade", not a "fort" [:D]

(ethnic Australian reference there...)

And here I thought Eureka was in Greece.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

One hex to the northwest of Sydney... and if you entrench there then you are in a "stockade", not a "fort" [:D]
(ethnic Australian reference there...)

You Australians prefer to say "stockade" rather than "fort" ?

No not really. This is a reference to an uprising in the Victorian goldfields sometime in the 19th century by miners. The miners were a pissed off by mining failure/ high food prices/ corruption etc and staged the only major violent protest in Australian history (at least so I seem to remember from my year 8 text books). This all happened at a place called "Eureka" where they built themselves a little fort, a stockade.

Christo

ORIGINAL: christo

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

One hex to the northwest of Sydney... and if you entrench there then you are in a "stockade", not a "fort" [:D]
(ethnic Australian reference there...)

You Australians prefer to say "stockade" rather than "fort" ?

No not really. This is a reference to an uprising in the Victorian goldfields sometime in the 19th century by miners. The miners were a pissed off by mining failure/ high food prices/ corruption etc and staged the only major violent protest in Australian history (at least so I seem to remember from my year 8 text books). This all happened at a place called "Eureka" where they built themselves a little fort, a stockade.

Christo

Eureka was between Melbourne and Ballarat, and much closer to Ballarat - say one or two hexes northwest of Melbourne. Nowhere near Sydney. The miners lost militarily, but won later in parliament.