Page 3 of 4
RE: map stuff
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:21 pm
by el cid again
Minor point but I don't think Lahaina (Maui) ever had a significant airfield. There was a military airfield on the other side of the island. Perhaps just call it Maui?
Aviation charts indicate there used to be a major airfield in the flat land in the middle of the island not far from Lahaina - I presume a wartime one.
There is another one farther towards the other side - which I presume you are talking about. But historically I think there was one and it might have been called Lahaina. I know a museum curator in Oahu - I will ask him.
RE: map stuff
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:30 pm
by el cid again
Where do you find guage and single-double track info? I can find that sort of thing for Europe but not for SEA.
There are wonderful references on railroads.
The Thai rail network is Metric gage. Now Metre gage can be very heavy duty - and the Thai main line is not the same as the spur lines - in terms of weight of rail and other factors. Some metre gage lines are very heavy duty - see South Africa. There is more to a rail line than the width of the track!
Thailand and Malaya and Vietnam ALL use metre gage, and Thailand and Malaya had actual rail connections in that era. So did Thailand and Cambodia, but Viet Nam didn't quite connect to Cambodia - it nearly did at two points - and could easily have done. Japan considered - and should have - built the small connections needed to run rail from the China border above Hanoi to Singapore. IT also considered - but didn't actually do - taking the entire Chinese rail line from Shanghai to Hanoi - by the time it did it did not matter. But this route - Shanghai to Singapore - is one immune to being torpedoed! Investing in it was a sound concept and Japan is a world class builder of railroads. Japan was very proud of "the first under ocean railroad" linking Honshu and Kyushu - (they have the longest tunnel on the planet between Honshu and Hokkaido today) - and the Japanese were very insulted by The Bridge on the River Kwai - because it implied they needed British technical help to build a railroad bridge!
RE: map stuff
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:37 pm
by el cid again
My apologies Mike, I don't have specific information about the track gauge, but if it was built by the Japanese during the war, then I expect that it was narrow gauge, like the Burma railway was. I can't imagine the Japanese building standard gauge double track lines at that time and place.
Japan did run standard gage in Manchukuo and Korea. A Japanese millionaire and legislator - an odd guy - wanted to build the Shinkoshen during the war! This high speed standard gage line set on Japanese islands mostly has to be in tunnels because it cannot turn sharp enough to avoid the many mountains at high speeds! It was built after the war. So Japan knew all about standard gage, and made rolling stock for it - also for use in China proper. But in Burma, as in the rest of SE Asia, all railroads of note were Metric. So Japan naturally built the Burma-Siam Railroad in the gage it would connect to on both ends. They also did NOT provide ANY rails for this line! Instead, they ripped up the Eastern line in Malaya and relaid the rail! But the Burma-Siam Railroad never was a very good connection. It was bombed too much, and running supplies over it, then down to Victoria point, was too subject to attrition. So they ran a line across the isthmus - well they extended an existing spur across. But until 1943 they could not use it for supplies to Victoria Point.
RE: map stuff
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:40 pm
by el cid again
Vizagapatam (one hex NE) would have been a more plausible choices because it had a decent port and one of the biggest RAF airbases was build in the vicinity (quite interesting choice, as there had been no AF before).
Also it was the only really significant shipbuilding facility in India.
RE: map stuff
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:48 am
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: el cid again
This point is raised every now and again. In the case of Skagway, I decided to just assume that units and supplies would be able to easily travel between Skagway and Juneau using local ferry transport, and that this could be represented by not having a separate base at Skagway and extending the rail line to Juneau. Since units only travel 90 miles per day maximum this did not seem unreasonable, and it allowed me to again save a base slot by not having a separate Skagway base.
IF it is a choice, and IF base slots are an issue, THEN it is better to kill the railroad and isolate Juneau. It is very false to have it on the land communications grid. I like the White Pass and Yukon RR - but not enough to have it run to Juneau - which it could never go to.
There is no need to be concerned about this, since in version 4 of my map Skagway and Juneau are represented as separate bases.
Andrew
RE: map stuff
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:47 am
by Gen.Hoepner
Andrew...i don't remember...but have you fixed that problem about Daily Waters- Alice spring in you map?
RE: map stuff
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:39 am
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
Andrew...i don't remember...but have you fixed that problem about Daily Waters- Alice spring in you map?
If you mean the fact that they are so far apart, I don't think that there is much I can do about it without sacrificing the accuracy of the map.
Is that what you meant?
RE: map stuff
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:45 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: el cid again
The Thai rail network is Metric gage. Now Metre gage can be very heavy duty - and the Thai main line is not the same as the spur lines - in terms of weight of rail and other factors. Some metre gage lines are very heavy duty - see South Africa. There is more to a rail line than the width of the track!
It has much more to do with the "weight" of the rails. How heavy is it per foot or yard or meter? That and the roadbed determine the "Axile Load". Most Asian Rails were pretty light weight compared to European of American Rails..., often less than half. Which meant the rolling stock had to be smaller and lighter, and also the engines.
RE: map stuff
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:45 am
by el cid again
It has much more to do with the "weight" of the rails. How heavy is it per foot or yard or meter? That and the roadbed determine the "Axile Load". Most Asian Rails were pretty light weight compared to European of American Rails..., often less than half. Which meant the rolling stock had to be smaller and lighter, and also the engines.
This is quite true. And Janes lists the weight of rail for every line in the world - including the secondary spur lines and tirtiary lines. The main lines get more. Japan itself uses a narrow gage - but there is a vast difference between a primary and a secondary line. I don't carry this around in my head - but I can give you both the weight of rail and the weight of loads as measured by rolling stock if you wish. The point is that saying "narrow gage" does not mean it has a low loading. And the main lines used here were of British and French origin, not Japanese. Even the lines laid by Japan in SE Asia during WWII used Malay track.
Malaya: Main Lines: 40 kg and 60 kg per meter. Rails 40 feet long (12.2 meters). Max curve 12.25 degrees. Ruling gradent 1% slope except Taiping Pass 1.25%. Max axilload 16 tons.
Thailand: Heaviest line: 40 kg per meter. Lightest line 25 kg per meter. Many variations between these values for spurs depending on requirements (30, 35, 37, even 42 - 2 different 35s!). Max axelload 15 tons.
Vietnam: uniform 43 kg per meter. Max axelload 14 tons.
Burma: Main line 75 pound/yard rail (= 31 kg/meter). Secondary lines 60 pound/yard (25 kg/meter). Max axelload 12 tons.
RE: map stuff
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:54 am
by Gen.Hoepner
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
Andrew...i don't remember...but have you fixed that problem about Daily Waters- Alice spring in you map?
If you mean the fact that they are so far apart, I don't think that there is much I can do about it without sacrificing the accuracy of the map.
Is that what you meant?
Yes, we need another base between Daily and Alice...it's a major issue for any Australian Campaign....i think it's something that should be addressed....
RE: map stuff
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:15 pm
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Tanaka
Andrew, If you happen to still be taking notes for any future map updates I just realized that the base and major battle of Wau is not on the map. Should be located right behind Lae and Salamaua. I wish I had thought of this during your last update but just thought Id mention it. This base of course was pretty important in UV. This is where the Kanga Force (is this unit in CHS???) gaurded the trail to Port Moresby...
Should be located around the highlighted hex on screenshot behind Lae.
You will be happy to hear that Wau has been added, along with a modification to the trails in that area.
RE: map stuff
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:20 pm
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
Yes, we need another base between Daily and Alice...it's a major issue for any Australian Campaign....i think it's something that should be addressed....
I actually think that adding such a base won't help much. LCUs approaching Daly Waters from that direction would still only be able to move one hex off the road before moving outside the supply radius. The real killer is that each hex that doesn't contain a trail/road/railway, even a clear hex, adds 50 to the supply length, out of 100. Personally I think that this should be changed - 50 is OK for jungle or swamp, but clear hexes should be 25, the same as trail.
Nevertheless I am going to add a base halfway between Daly Waters and Alice Springs - Tennant Creek - to see what effect it has on the game. Normally I wouldn't bother, but invading Northern Australia seems to be a popular Japanese passtime in WitP, so that area does warrant some attention.
Andrew
RE: map stuff
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:43 am
by Tanaka
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Tanaka
Andrew, If you happen to still be taking notes for any future map updates I just realized that the base and major battle of Wau is not on the map. Should be located right behind Lae and Salamaua. I wish I had thought of this during your last update but just thought Id mention it. This base of course was pretty important in UV. This is where the Kanga Force (is this unit in CHS???) gaurded the trail to Port Moresby...
Should be located around the highlighted hex on screenshot behind Lae.
You will be happy to hear that Wau has been added, along with a modification to the trails in that area.
Hurrah! Thanks Andrew! Looking forward to the next map! [:D]
RE: map stuff
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:00 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Tanaka
This is where the Kanga Force (is this unit in CHS???) gaurded the trail to Port Moresby...
Yes, Kanga Force is in CHS but as it's separate components. Kanga Force was formed from the New Guinea Volunteer Rifles (NGVR) Battalion, 2/5 Independent Company (Commandos), a reinforcement platoon from 2/1 Independent Company (originally intended for Kavieng), mortars from the Port Moresby Garrision, and some medical and supply detachments.
The attached map is from my personal scenario and not from CHS, but I suspect CHS will look about the same.

RE: map stuff
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:59 am
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
The attached map is from my personal scenario and not from CHS, but I suspect CHS will look about the same.
About the same. The only difference being that I also added a trail between Lae and Salamaua, and the trail from PM still extends one hex along the coast to the NW.
If you don't think the trail between Lae and Salamaua should be there, Don, I can remove it...
Andrew
RE: map stuff
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 2:55 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
The attached map is from my personal scenario and not from CHS, but I suspect CHS will look about the same.
About the same. The only difference being that I also added a trail between Lae and Salamaua, and the trail from PM still extends one hex along the coast to the NW.
If you don't think the trail between Lae and Salamaua should be there, Don, I can remove it...
Andrew
Andrew
I can't seem to find any mention of the condition of the track between Salamaua and Lae in my library. Found one map which shows it as a dotted line running along the coast but no description. I'd say you are correct about the trail and I'll add it to my scenario as well.
I also agree with letting the trail from Port Moresby extend NW one hex. Again I can supply no details except that it most assuredly should go no further: "On the southern coast the Lakekamu River Mouth was 150 miles north-west of Port Moresby, 12 to 15 days journey by land, up to 24 hours' by small lugger or schooner."
Don
RE: map stuff
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:39 am
by Tanaka
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
The attached map is from my personal scenario and not from CHS, but I suspect CHS will look about the same.
About the same. The only difference being that I also added a trail between Lae and Salamaua, and the trail from PM still extends one hex along the coast to the NW.
If you don't think the trail between Lae and Salamaua should be there, Don, I can remove it...
Andrew
Andrew
I can't seem to find any mention of the condition of the track between Salamaua and Lae in my library. Found one map which shows it as a dotted line running along the coast but no description. I'd say you are correct about the trail and I'll add it to my scenario as well.
I also agree with letting the trail from Port Moresby extend NW one hex. Again I can supply no details except that it most assuredly should go no further: "On the southern coast the Lakekamu River Mouth was 150 miles north-west of Port Moresby, 12 to 15 days journey by land, up to 24 hours' by small lugger or schooner."
Don
I take it the UV scenario map is not correct either???

RE: map stuff
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:49 am
by Tanaka
RE: map stuff
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:37 pm
by bradfordkay
Andrew, are you still taking suggestions/requests for the new map? Mine is a small one. I recall you listing your reasons, but I'm going to request anyway that the central hex of teh Olympic Peninsula west of Seattle be made into a mountainous terrain hex. While the mountains there may not exceed 10,000 feet, they are quite impassable for normal purposes. They also reach up to 8000 feet with a base at or near sea level (whereas many other mountains shown on the map have their bases over 6000'). Mt Olympus has one of the largest glacier systems in the lower 48 United States. I've hiked and climbed extensively in the Olympics, and can assure you that they merit the change.
This requested change will have little to no effect on the game, but it will make my map look more like what I see when I look at the actual location (or any other map of the area).
RE: map stuff
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:46 pm
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
Andrew, are you still taking suggestions/requests for the new map? Mine is a small one. I recall you listing your reasons, but I'm going to request anyway that the central hex of teh Olympic Peninsula west of Seattle be made into a mountainous terrain hex. While the mountains there may not exceed 10,000 feet, they are quite impassable for normal purposes. They also reach up to 8000 feet with a base at or near sea level (whereas many other mountains shown on the map have their bases over 6000'). Mt Olympus has one of the largest glacier systems in the lower 48 United States.
OK. I will bow to local knowledge and add it in. Just to make sure I don't make an error, please give me the exact hex number.
I've hiked and climbed extensively in the Olympics, and can assure you that they merit the change.
NOW I am jealous. I love getting into the mountains, and thre is not much opportunity for that in Australia. I hope to spend more time in the mountains of North America someday...