Europe map?

[hakon]

Hmm, looking at Google Earth, the Lübeck crossing to Denmark seems to be clearly the longest of any of the crossings. If you count the distance from the Lehman island, you should probably count Saltholm between Denmark and Malmö, too. And more importantly, the Copenhagen Malmö crossing is really only the secondary crossing point into sweden, with Helsingborg/Helsingør being the primary.

To me, it seems like the Danish crossing arrows have been very well thought out, as it is. And since this is part of the WIF FE european maps, I doubt that any kind of changes will even be considered.

I kind of support the Öland-Kalmar crossing arrow, though. There clearly should be one, judging from the distance (only about 4 km at various spots). It was probably left out because it is not likely to be used, ever, and printing it would clutter the map a bit. I don't see that it would add to the game very much.

As for scapa flow, I don't see the need for a change, either. The area is by far easiest to access from the sea, both for supply and invasion purposes.

Hakon

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Mike Fisher
also, i worry about scapa flow. surely the base for the main battle fleet had rail supply. according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_North_Line there is a railway that ended at thurso on the coast opposite, with a ferry to the islands and "The line did become strategically important during World War I and World War II as part of a supply route for Scapa Flow, Orkney: Jellicoe's Express linked Thurso directly with London (Euston) and Portsmouth". there is probably a case for putting in the rail line from inverness to thurso and a crossing arrow from the mainland to scapa flow/orkneys.

I would have thought that Scapa Flow should have a land supply route (having the major British naval base in a place that is so easily out of supply seems bizarre), and what you say shows that one seems to have existed through this railway.

However, in WiF, the nearest supply source is Glasgow & Edinburgh which are 6 hexes from Scapa Flow (though the would be Strait arrows), so even with the railway & strait, Scapa Flow would not be in supply except if an HQ was placed near it.
Aberdeen could have been made a city too, it had 167k inhabitants during WW2 (from Collier Atlas), but Aberdeen is 5 hexes from Scapa Flow, so it looks like even with the railway and the crossing arrow and a city in Aberdeen the best supply route to Scapa Flow is still from the Sea.

[Plainian]

Yes Aberdeen should be on the map as a minor port. In fact the main supply route to Scapa was from Aberdeen. My father sailed it many times and he said it was pretty rough journey. You might find it strange that there wasn't a shorter route but I'm told that the waters which separate Orkney (Scapa) and mainland Scotland (John o Groats) are very treacherous. (Pentland Firth)

Incidentally there is not much at Scapa. Its just a big natural harbour. No ship building or repair should be allowed there.....but thats for MWIF vers 2.

Of course living in Dundee I'd prefer Dundee to be on the WIF map. I'm pretty sure we based a destroyer flottila or two here including the Polish DD's which escaped from Poland. Possibly why we have a large Polish section in the city today.

[marcuswatney]

I would feel more comfortable if it were normal to supply Scapa Flow overland.  However, we always have to be aware that if you make a place too easy, the enemy tends to use it against you.  In Third Reich, Scapa Flow was connected to Scotland by a crossing-arrow, and all this did was to encourage a Sealion paradrop against Scapa Flow!
 
As Lerwick is not a two-front port, I do think the zone boundary should run at least one hex east of the Shetlands to underline this fact.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I would feel more comfortable if it were normal to supply Scapa Flow overland.  However, we always have to be aware that if you make a place too easy, the enemy tends to use it against you.  In Third Reich, Scapa Flow was connected to Scotland by a crossing-arrow, and all this did was to encourage a Sealion paradrop against Scapa Flow!

As Lerwick is not a two-front port, I do think the zone boundary should run at least one hex east of the Shetlands to underline this fact.

Well, I'm reluctant to have the Sea Area Boundary between the North Sea and the Faeroes Gap moved west, because it would put Bergen too near the Faeroes Gap. On the WiF FE map, Bergen is 7 MP from the Faeroes Gap. Now it is 6 MP. I the Sea Area Boundary is moved, it becomes 5 MP. Condors in Bergen would patrol the Sea Box Section 4 of the Faeroes. On the WiF map, or on the MWiF map as it is, they can "only" patrol the 3 Section.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I would feel more comfortable if it were normal to supply Scapa Flow overland.  However, we always have to be aware that if you make a place too easy, the enemy tends to use it against you.  In Third Reich, Scapa Flow was connected to Scotland by a crossing-arrow, and all this did was to encourage a Sealion paradrop against Scapa Flow!

As Lerwick is not a two-front port, I do think the zone boundary should run at least one hex east of the Shetlands to underline this fact.

Yeah, the zone boundary offers the opportunity for players to get confused.

But in addition to Patrice's comments about Bergen, moving the sea area boundary would put Lerwick itself farther from the North Sea, so air units based there would take an extra movment point to patrol the North Sea. Changing game play to avoid visual confusion would need a lot of justification.

[marcuswatney]

Does Lerwick even need to be a port?  The Shetland Bus set off from there, but precious little else.
 
The problem is that the zone boundary as presently placed looks totally artificial.  To avoid the accusation of a fudge, zone boundaries either need to steer clear of island groups entirely (as with the Faroes) or make them two-zone land-masses (like the Orkneys).  Having Scapa Flow look two ways but Lerwick only westwards is, from the cartographic point of view, inconsistent.
 
If Lerwick were deleted as a port, then the zone boundary could pass through the centre of the Shetlands, making much more sense.
 
Secondly: why is there a political boundary between Northern Ireland and Britain?  Northern Ireland is not a territory, but an integral part of the United Kingdom, just as Alaska is an integral part of the United States.  The full title of the state is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and since the map has United Kingdom in big red letters, then Northern Ireland needs to be included.  If for some reason you insist on treating Northern Ireland as a separate territory, then the mainland should be re-designated Great Britain, and, for consistency, Scotland and the Isle of Man should be created as separate territories too.
 
Likewise, ownership of Shetlands and Orkney would be better described as UK rather than Gbr.

[Taxman66]

It does look a bit silly, but on the other hand it reduces the value of the port, which is probably a good thing. If you delete it as a port, the boundry really doesn't matter all that much, except as an airbase for Nav.

There is a USE option for the CW to turn Northern Ireland over to the USA.  I doubt it's ever used much unless the US is desperate for Tension markers (having failed to move enough with poor rolls).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Does Lerwick even need to be a port?  The Shetland Bus set off from there, but precious little else.

The problem is that the zone boundary as presently placed looks totally artificial.  To avoid the accusation of a fudge, zone boundaries either need to steer clear of island groups entirely (as with the Faroes) or make them two-zone land-masses (like the Orkneys).  Having Scapa Flow look two ways but Lerwick only westwards is, from the cartographic point of view, inconsistent.

If Lerwick were deleted as a port, then the zone boundary could pass through the centre of the Shetlands, making much more sense.

Secondly: why is there a political boundary between Northern Ireland and Britain?  Northern Ireland is not a territory, but an integral part of the United Kingdom, just as Alaska is an integral part of the United States.  The full title of the state is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and since the map has United Kingdom in big red letters, then Northern Ireland needs to be included.  If for some reason you insist on treating Northern Ireland as a separate territory, then the mainland should be re-designated Great Britain, and, for consistency, Scotland and the Isle of Man should be created as separate territories too.

Likewise, ownership of Shetlands and Orkney would be better described as UK rather than Gbr.

I totally agree with your last sentence. I keep thinking it refers to Gibraltar.[:D]

TaxMan66 explained the reason for the boundary for Northern ireland.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Does Lerwick even need to be a port?  The Shetland Bus set off from there, but precious little else.

I'll leave it here as it is, trusting the original CWiF map maker. I prefer staying minimalistic with the changes.

The problem is that the zone boundary as presently placed looks totally artificial.  To avoid the accusation of a fudge, zone boundaries either need to steer clear of island groups entirely (as with the Faroes) or make them two-zone land-masses (like the Orkneys).  Having Scapa Flow look two ways but Lerwick only westwards is, from the cartographic point of view, inconsistent. If Lerwick were deleted as a port, then the zone boundary could pass through the centre of the Shetlands, making much more sense.

It is consistent with the logic that Scapa Flow was a strategic port, and that Lerwick was not.
If I'd put Lerwick (even without a port) on the sea area boundary, it could receve supply from the North Sea, and you'd immediately see the German conquer it to base a NAV here. WiF don't have that (an "easy" to get and "easy" to supply air base on the Faeroes for the Germans, and I don't want to add one.

[Stabilo]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Germany and the Netherlands.

I would like to see "Rheine" as the name of the railroad crossing north of Essen and Hanover. It was one of the five main targets of the allied air offensives 1944 on German traffic facilities. Perhaps you can add the name on a higher resolution map.

[marcuswatney]

And I'm still begging for the hex NE of Liege to be shown correctly as part of the Netherlands (with the resource shifted to Dusseldorf).
 
To illustrate just how seriously wrong the map is at present: in reality Aachen is on the triple border between Germany, Begium and the Netherlands!!!

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

And I'm still begging for the hex NE of Liege to be shown correctly as part of the Netherlands (with the resource shifted to Dusseldorf).

To illustrate just how seriously wrong the map is at present: in reality Aachen is on the triple border between Germany, Begium and the Netherlands!!!

I don't see this proposed change affecting Germany's invasion of Belgium or the Netherlands. Or am I missing something?

On the other hand, Germany does own 3/4rds of the land between the Rhine and the Maas. The problem is that the hexgrid is too coarse to model these country borders well.

[wosung]

Marcus is right about the triple border near Aachen.

Now something completely different: The tiny island between the harbor Rostock and the island Rügen in the Baltic Sea: "Wollin" could be replaced by "Usedom", which is the much more known Western island. (Ehrm, I never heard of Wollin and I'm German.) Besides, the Heeresversuchsstelle Peenemünde was on Usedom, not on Wollin. And: The shape of the island could be more lengthy. Actually Usedom and Wollin nearly cover the whole Bay of Stettin (Kleines/Großes Haff).

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peenemuende

Regards

[marcuswatney]

If it is agreed that the change will not significantly affect play, can we please do it?
 
As a Briton who has worked extensively in the Netherlands, this error is as irritating to me as my drawing Alaska without its long tail stretching down towards Vancouver would be to an American.
 
The reason the fort was built at Eben Emael was that it (and Liege) guarded the only easy avenue of attack for invading German forces, between the rough terrain of the Ardennes and what-was-expected-to-be-neutral Netherlands.  As the map stands at the moment, this strategic imperative is completely absent.
 
By shifting the resource one hex east so it is still German, and then giving the vacated hex (Maastricht) to the Netherlands, you will also be giving Germany back the tactical incentive to attack the Netherlands in 1940, as was done historically.
 
When I am considering whether to buy a game, the first thing I look at is the map.  Its accuracy gives me an indication of the likely level of research  throughout the game.  That in turn guides my buying decision.  So it is not just a matter of chrome.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

If it is agreed that the change will not significantly affect play, can we please do it?

As a Briton who has worked extensively in the Netherlands, this error is as irritating to me as my drawing Alaska without its long tail stretching down towards Vancouver would be to an American.

The reason the fort was built at Eben Emael was that it (and Liege) guarded the only easy avenue of attack for invading German forces, between the rough terrain of the Ardennes and what-was-expected-to-be-neutral Netherlands.  As the map stands at the moment, this strategic imperative is completely absent.

By shifting the resource one hex east so it is still German, and then giving the vacated hex (Maastricht) to the Netherlands, you will also be giving Germany back the tactical incentive to attack the Netherlands in 1940, as was done historically.

When I am considering whether to buy a game, the first thing I look at is the map.  Its accuracy gives me an indication of the likely level of research  throughout the game.  That in turn guides my buying decision.  So it is not just a matter of chrome.

I agree with Marcus here. Maybe we should contact Harry Rowland in ADG and ask what he thinks. I think this change should become a part of the WIFFE map errata similar to the change we already did with the Cernauti hex in Romania. If we get Harry's permission to give the hex NE of Liege to Holland and move the resource to Düsseldorf then it will become an official part of WIFFE and not only MWIF.

[cockney]

I also agree, as the movment of the Dutch border don't affect game balance but does give the Germans more of a reason to invade Holland.

[composer99]

As a WiF player I am not so keen on making that change unless it has been assented to by ADG - Harry Rowland can read maps as well as anyone else, and if he & anyone else involved in making the WiF:FE maps have left that border that way since those maps came out in 2000, there must be a good design and/or balance reason for it.

Personally, I think that hex is the way it is because Germany is nerfed by the game mechanics (namely Zones of Control) into being unable to perform its historical push through the Ardennes, and the extra hex on the Belgian frontier is a compensation.

[Norman42]

If it is agreed that the change will not significantly affect play, can we please do it?

It very much affects play.

It makes the German push into the Low Countries and France much harder. It guarantees the Allies the Dyle river line in force and probably a defended Maas river line too, and also makes Brussels hold out for easily 1 or 2 more impulses. Germany also loses the only airbase hex that a 109 can intercept over Antwerp/Rotterdam/Amsterdam until they can rebase forward(do not underestimate this impact). All this could add a full turn or more to the conquest of France, a domino effect from making Germany crack one more extra river/city line of defences with less air cover.

What this does is *force* Germany into a 1939 DoW on the Netherlands, just to try to get to its normal start line for 1940 Belgium, giving France much more breathing room. The Western Campaign is already rather skewed to the Allies; France is way too strong in 1940. Yes, the map in that area isn't perfect, but making it even harder on Germany is definitely not the direction that needs to be pushed.

A Low Countries DoW in J/F40 is common (3 months earlier then historical) and yet France more often then not still lasts past J/A 1940 (a month or more later then historical). The French defence does not need strengthening.

[Jagdtiger14]

I have to strongly agree with Norman on this issue!!! His analysis is dead on. If a map change is made that gives Netherlands that hex, then Germany would need to be compensated with???...at least an extra O-chit, and probably more. I do agree with Aachen though...it should be in that clear hex in question. A replacement city would also need to be put into the hex that Aachen is currently in.