Modifications to MWiF China Map portion

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

it does give the impression of a double-river hexside...

My problem with the stub end of the pre-1938 Yellow River is that it is both unique in the game and not obvious as to what it means. More importantly, it is using the river color/graphic which has a very precise, and important, meaning for game play.

There is nothing like a double river hexside, so this is not problem. This has no game play consequences.
It is unique in the game as the fact that the river changed between 2 courses that are hundreds of miles appart is unique in the world. I think that this uniqueness warrants some kind of graphic way to show it.

At start, I had drawn it without the stub, but it simply looked like a normal river. The fact that it was rerouted disappeared, vanished. So I had the idea to keep a game non-important stub so that the fact that it was rerouted shows.

People reviewing and playing the game will make the remark that we have the Yellow River wrong, as 80% of the WWII maps have the wrong course (as well as the WiF FE map), so we will have to explain that this is the real historical flow of the river, so the stub enforces the fact that we know that this flow is the post 1938 one and that the pre 1938 one was going east. It simply show that we have perfectly done our homework with geography of China.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

it does give the impression of a double-river hexside...

Also, you have this kind of "double river drawing" in a huge number of places all across the map at many river junctions, beginning with the junction with the Yellow and the Huai river, so this will be common sight for the player.

[Zorachus99]

Why not simply make a remark like 'Yellow River pre-1940' or something appropriate?  A comment of that nature addresses the change of the rivers flow?
 
I strongly lean toward function over perfection.  The junction at Yellow and the Huai are easy to understand in comparison.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Why not simply make a remark like 'Yellow River pre-1940' or something appropriate?  A comment of that nature addresses the change of the rivers flow?

I strongly lean toward function over perfection.  The junction at Yellow and the Huai are easy to understand in comparison.

I like the idea of adding an extra label for the 'new' section of the Yellow River: "Yellow River (post-1938)"?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

it does give the impression of a double-river hexside...

Also, you have this kind of "double river drawing" in a huge number of places all across the map at many river junctions, beginning with the junction with the Yellow and the Huai river, so this will be common sight for the player.

Here are a few examples.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I like the idea of adding an extra label for the 'new' section of the Yellow River: "Yellow River (post-1938)"?

Done.
I also moved the "CHINA" label, so that it is not across the river nor across a railway.
You'll have the data for that tonight. I'm prudent and am not touching to the HST data until you issue a new version, when I'll have the HST data for the river as well as the new graphic.

[marcuswatney]

I too agree that the stub of river is confusing and should be replaced with some other feature or written exclamation.  Patrice mentions other hexsides with a double river ... but all those double rivers flow in the same direction.  River stubs are sources.  So this stub of river implies that there is a tributary flowing from east to west to join the Yellow River.  As presently depicted, it is the only section of river in the game that doesn't eventually flow into the sea!
 
They blew up the dykes to flood the area.  Earlier I suggested that therefore one of these hexes should become swamp.  I proposed Chengchow, for game-play reasons (because it seemed rational that the KMT would seek to improve its own defensive position not the Japanese's).  Wosung proposed Kaifeng for geographical accuracy.
 
If one of these becomes swamp, then a small label similar to the resource labels can be added as explanation, and the stub of river deleted.

[marcuswatney]

Rather than a swamp hex, another alternative is an impassable lake hexsides between Chenchow and the hex to the northeast, roughly where the stub is at the moment.  That would model accurately the effect of blowing the dykes.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Rather than a swamp hex, another alternative is an impassable lake hexsides between Chenchow and the hex to the northeast, roughly where the stub is at the moment.  That would model accurately the effect of blowing the dykes.

Well, I prefer making Chengchow a swamp.
Explanation : Chengchow is on the Chinese side at the start of all the game's scenarios. Making it a swamp helps deter the Japanese from taking it, and gives an element of explanation as to why the Japanese stoped there.

Opinions ?

[SemperAugustus]

Any reason Peking is being kept as a name as opposed to the more historical Peiping?

[Norman42]

ORIGINAL: Froonp


Well, I prefer making Chengchow a swamp.

Opinions ?

That is a fairly radical change.

Do we have ANY evidence at all that Chengchow had improved defences due to this alleged swamp? Do we have evidence that Chengchow is a swamp at all? I've seen no evidence of such.

Making a note on the map to show the historical deviations of the river is one thing, but making one of the key cities in the front line suddenly go from "moderate difficulty to capture" to "the best defended city in China"(with swamp and river hexsides Japan would be lucky to ever capture it) is way, way, WAY too much. Might as well call it "Cheningrad".

This change would radically modify the entire front in this area, so I'd need to see some pretty compelling evidence that it is needed to support this change.

.

[Fishbed]

Any reason Peking is being kept as a name as opposed to the more historical Peiping?

I definitely agree with that. It should read Peiping...

[Fishbed]

Hey Froonp, may I ask you about a little request? [:)]

Boss, maybe you'd like to change a little thing about the location of Nanchang together with the Gan Jiang

Ive been 2 years in Nanchang myself, and I cand positively confirm that the Gan river (Kan on your map) protects Nanchang western approachs, not eastern as it is the case on the preview map.

Here is an illustration of what I mean



Note that the west bank of the Gan Jiang was built up only during the last decades, and before that, I doubt there was anything across the Gan Jiang, even a bridge. It is quite important, because this means an agressor, like the Japanese historically, should attack unopposed from the east, while Chinese reinforcements from the north, the west and the south-west would have to cross the river. Nanchang being an important battleground of the Sino-Japanese war, I think that modification would come handy [8D]

I would advocate that the Gan/Kan river travels on the opposite side of the Nanchang Hex. This way, it will cross the Changsha-Nanchang railway in the south, like that:



What do you think? [:)]

I'd see no problem to turn Nanchang into a marshy hex either, anyway. That west bank of hers used to be unsuitable for anything before modern construction means were available, and there's still mud and water everywhere around the city...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Do we have ANY evidence at all that Chengchow had improved defences due to this alleged swamp? Do we have evidence that Chengchow is a swamp at all? I've seen no evidence of such.

I definitely agree with that. It should read Peiping...

Welcome to the forum.

I am sure that Patrice and/or Wosung and/or others will reply to your posts. Alas, I know nothing about all this and defer to those who are more knowledgeable.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Norman42
That is a fairly radical change.

Do we have ANY evidence at all that Chengchow had improved defences due to this alleged swamp? Do we have evidence that Chengchow is a swamp at all? I've seen no evidence of such.

Making a note on the map to show the historical deviations of the river is one thing, but making one of the key cities in the front line suddenly go from "moderate difficulty to capture" to "the best defended city in China"(with swamp and river hexsides Japan would be lucky to ever capture it) is way, way, WAY too much. Might as well call it "Cheningrad".

This change would radically modify the entire front in this area, so I'd need to see some pretty compelling evidence that it is needed to support this change.

You're exagerating, Chengchow is not even defended most of the time, and if this change was made and it was defended, then the 2 units here would be dead meat real quick. Swamp or not, I would not defend here so close to the Japanese, and so far from the Chinese homeland.

This said, I'm indifferent to whether this is a swamp or not, I proposed that because I think it makes no difference as to the game play of the Chinese theater.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Do we have ANY evidence at all that Chengchow had improved defences due to this alleged swamp? Do we have evidence that Chengchow is a swamp at all? I've seen no evidence of such.

I definitely agree with that. It should read Peiping...

Welcome to the forum.

I am sure that Patrice and/or Wosung and/or others will reply to your posts. Alas, I know nothing about all this and defer to those who are more knowledgeable.

Thanks for the welcome [:)]

Sorry I just realized I misquoted my original message about Peiping - bad start [:o]
Ive just edited

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

Any reason Peking is being kept as a name as opposed to the more historical Peiping?

I am an old man brought up to believe Peking was the capital of China. Even in my frail dotage, I have come to accept that perhaps its Beijing not Peking. But Peiping....please enough. I never had a bad grasp of geography but if this continues I won`t have a clue who I am or where I live.

In all seriousness - this could open up a whole can of worms - Volgograd?, Stalingrad?, Tsaritsyn? etc. Can I ask that we give serious consideration before such name changes are considered?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Norman42
That is a fairly radical change.

Do we have ANY evidence at all that Chengchow had improved defences due to this alleged swamp? Do we have evidence that Chengchow is a swamp at all? I've seen no evidence of such.

Making a note on the map to show the historical deviations of the river is one thing, but making one of the key cities in the front line suddenly go from "moderate difficulty to capture" to "the best defended city in China"(with swamp and river hexsides Japan would be lucky to ever capture it) is way, way, WAY too much. Might as well call it "Cheningrad".

This change would radically modify the entire front in this area, so I'd need to see some pretty compelling evidence that it is needed to support this change.

You're exagerating, Chengchow is not even defended most of the time, and if this change was made and it was defended, then the 2 units here would be dead meat real quick. Swamp or not, I would not defend here so close to the Japanese, and so far from the Chinese homeland.

This said, I'm indifferent to whether this is a swamp or not, I proposed that because I think it makes no difference as to the game play of the Chinese theater.

Rather than make changes "willy-nilly", I would prefer a better understanding of the changes to the countryside caused by redirecting the Yellow River to its historical southern flow. That assessment of the geography should take into consideration that MWIF 1 starts in 1939 and runs through to 1948 (at times). Which means that anything that occurred immediately (e.g., in the first 6 months) is of no consequence. We are looking for more permanent changes, that lasted for over a decade.

I have given a little thought (not much really) to having the Yellow River change course during play. That would only be for if and when Days of Decision are added to MWIF (product 2 or 3). DOD starts in 1936/1937 if I am not mistaken. Besides changing the flow of the Yellow River, it would also be possible to transform terrain to Swamp temporarily should that be a reasonable thing to do - to reflect what happened historically. For instance, a hex could be turned to Swamp for to 2 turns (4 months) after the dikes and canals are blown, and then returned to Clear. I am not saying we should do that; I am just saying that I could program that to happen if it were the right thing to do.

[marcuswatney]

My feeling is that the flooding of 54,000 sq km (21,000 sq miles) resulting in the deaths of 840,000 people deserves at least one swamp hex, don't you?  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Yellow_River_flood .
 
Whether or not it is usually good practice to defend as far forward as Chengchow, there will be games (e.g. during a Japanese Strike North, with passivity in China) where the terrain could be helpful.
 
And it does explain why the Japanese left such a marked bulge in their line right up to Ichi-Go.
 
Of course, the other point to consider is whether a swamp there would aid the Japanese too much late in the game.

[Fishbed]

I am an old man brought up to believe Peking was the capital of China. Even in my frail dotage, I have come to accept that perhaps its Beijing not Peking. But Peiping....please enough. I never had a bad grasp of geography but if this continues I won`t have a clue who I am or where I live.

In all seriousness - this could open up a whole can of worms - Volgograd?, Stalingrad?, Tsaritsyn? etc. Can I ask that we give serious consideration before such name changes are considered?

Well it shouldn't be a can of worms - actually, it is Peiking which is contrasting with everything else, not the opposite.

Stalingrad is named Stalingrad on the map, because it was named Stalingrad back then, even though it is Volgograd today, right? And no-one would call it Tsaritsyn because there's no reason for it.
Leningrad is named Leningrad on the map, because it was named Leningrad back then, even though it is St.Petersburg today, right? And no-one would call it Petrograd because there's no reason for it.

But Peiking (Beijing) is named Peiking (Beijing) on the map, while this used to be its name before 1928, and after 1949, but not between 1928 and 1949, which is exactly the scope of this game, isn't it? And this is for a reason: Peiking (Beijing - which means "the northern capital") was renamed Peiping (Beiping - which means "the northern peace") in 1928 because Nanking (Nanjing -which means the "southern capital") became the KMT's official capital city. Peiking losing its official status, they decided it had to lose its name too, and that name didn't come back before the Communist take over in 1949, which reverted to Peiking (Beijing) as a capital city.
Actually, my grand-father, who is a retired KMT general in Taiwan, still calls that place Peiping (Beiping)...!

Technically, I guess Allied maps between 1941 and 1945 probably mentioned Peiping as the official given name of that place.