Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney


The problem with creating MWiF swamps is that they make the terrain more desirable, not less. 

This was exactly my issue with the swamp hex in this front line area. Swamps in this game are excellent terrain to hold for the defender, when in reality they are pretty miserable places for *both* sides to fight and notoriously hard to defend.

In this historical case the dikes were breached to create an area that neither side could move in, so effectively cutting off an avenue of attack for the Japanese. They weren't breached so the Chinese would have instant defensive terrain to fight in ( "Fortress Bisquick" - just add water![:D] )

Lake Hexsides seems more rational in this case.

.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the best way to depict the flooded area from the point of view of game-play is to use lake hexsides.

The problem with creating MWiF swamps is that they make the terrain more desirable, not less.  What the histories tell us is that the flooded area channelled attacks to the north and south of it: the inundation was effectively impassable to both sides when it came to combat operations.  That is best depicted by lake hexsides (with of course an explanation of 'Flooded Area').

Lake Chaoyang on my 1936/42 maps doesn't exist as a lake at all, but rather as a swamp between two rivers.  That seems a reasonable way to depict the Yellow River flooded zone.

I would suggest at least three, perhaps four, lake hexsides starting with the hexside SW Kaifeng and heading downstream.

I must say that I'm agreeing with what you wrote here, and think that if the flood area must be represented on the map, this is the best way to go.

A picture of the proposed modification to the map would help at this point. I think it would help us reach a consensus.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
A picture of the proposed modification to the map would help at this point. I think it would help us reach a consensus.

Funny that you were writing this at the same moment that I was making a picture of the place.

After Wosung sent me his maps, thanks Wosung, I could get a better idea of the extend of the flooding. So look what I'm proposing. I added 2 "lake hexsides". Also, I made the old course light blue.

Yes, for me that's it.

Now considering WIF terrain effects and not only map features, lake hexes might be a better choice than swamp hexes.

Regards

Thanks for the picture.

How about a name for the new lake: Flooded Area (1938)?

There are two lakes NE of Nanking but only one of them is named.

And you might consider relocating the resource within the hex so it does not look like it is named Lake Hungtse.[;)]

The Southern one of them would be Lake Kaoyu (Gaoyou Hu).

Regards

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
How about a name for the new lake: Flooded Area (1938)?

I would name it "Flooded area" only, as the flood lasted from 1938 to 1945, and more.

I vote for at least three flooded hexsides.  As presently depicted, the two flooded hexsides deny Japan only a single hex (the one SE of Changchow).  The third hexside downstream would deny them two, which seems more in keeping with the devastation.
 
I vote against a pale blue 'old Yellow River' because it confuses the issue.  Players are likely to expect some sort of combat bonus from it.  If you feel it is important to mark the old route, something completely original is needed, such as double dashed lines.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

And you might consider relocating the resource within the hex so it does not look like it is named Lake Hungtse.[;)]

Patrice has marked up an old map. A more recent version shows the resource (phosphates) moved to Tsingkow, which has been re-named Haichow.

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I vote for at least three flooded hexsides.  As presently depicted, the two flooded hexsides deny Japan only a single hex (the one SE of Changchow).  The third hexside downstream would deny them two, which seems more in keeping with the devastation.

I vote against a pale blue 'old Yellow River' because it confuses the issue.  Players are likely to expect some sort of combat bonus from it.  If you feel it is important to mark the old route, something completely original is needed, such as double dashed lines.

I like the look of that plan, Patrice. I also agree with both of these comments above of Marcus'. Add one more flooded hexside: the hexside just above the 'C' in 'China'; and don't add in the 'old river route', as it might tend to be confusing.

Labelling the lake "Wartime Flooded Area" seems most accurate.

.

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I vote for at least three flooded hexsides.  As presently depicted, the two flooded hexsides deny Japan only a single hex (the one SE of Changchow).  The third hexside downstream would deny them two, which seems more in keeping with the devastation.

Well, 2 seems the right number in regards to the map Wosung showed me.

I vote against a pale blue 'old Yellow River' because it confuses the issue.  Players are likely to expect some sort of combat bonus from it.  If you feel it is important to mark the old route, something completely original is needed, such as double dashed lines.

It was not yet decided how the old course would appear. Doted, dashed, light blue dark blue, not decided. Nethertheless, if it appears, there will be a text saying that it is the old course.

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

And you might consider relocating the resource within the hex so it does not look like it is named Lake Hungtse.[;)]

Patrice has marked up an old map. A more recent version shows the resource (phosphates) moved to Tsingkow, which has been re-named Haichow.

Yes, these are the old maps from last year when I used them for the draft of the coastlines, and for the terrain feature of China back when we discussed it heavily (not unlike now).

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, 2 seems the right number in regards to the map Wosung showed me.

Presently you have drawn two-and-a-half hexsides, so it is only a matter of half-a-hexside more to make a meaningful obstacle.

I have read the Hsu book (both the full edition and the abridged version) and remember it as pretty turgid and unreliable, so I do not think it would be a good source in this case. His maps are only sketches.

More significant is Wikipedia's statement that 54,000 sq km were flooded. If the diameter of a hexagon is 90 km, then the area of a single hex must be about 7000 sq km, implying that the total floods caused by the diversion were equivalent to seven or eight entire hexes. So I think asking for a third hexside is rather a modest request!

As Wikipedia says: "The flood submerged millions of homes, and since they were not informed beforehand, the majority of people did not have time to flee".

The Wargamer's issue with "The China Incident" game (I think that was the name) has blowing the dykes as an option for the Chinese player. Maybe MWiF II or III can develop this further someday...blow the dykes but increase Communist recruitment or something.

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, 2 seems the right number in regards to the map Wosung showed me.

Presently you have drawn two-and-a-half hexsides, so it is only a matter of half-a-hexside more to make a meaningful obstacle.

I have read the Hsu book (both the full edition and the abridged version) and remember it as pretty turgid and unreliable, so I do not think it would be a good source in this case. His maps are only sketches.

More significant is Wikipedia's statement that 54,000 sq km were flooded. If the diameter of a hexagon is 90 km, then the area of a single hex must be about 7000 sq km, implying that the total floods caused by the diversion were equivalent to seven or eight entire hexes. So I think asking for a third hexside is rather a modest request!

As Wikipedia says: "The flood submerged millions of homes, and since they were not informed beforehand, the majority of people did not have time to flee".

Most floods are temporary. We are interested in the effects on the landscape over a year after the primary event, and continuing on for almost a decade after that. I doubt that the 54,000 square miles remained submerged for that period of time.

Well we won't get the flooded area ultra realistic.

Because that would mean to take also seasons in account. According to Hsu, in spring the Yellow River lacked water (p.228). What does that exactly mean for the scope of the flooded area, say in 1944?

We simply lack the data about the detailed military impact of the flood. Plus: information about the Japanese/Chinese military planning for the river bow seems to be also very sketchy.

So at best MWIF can abstract these factors.

For the reliability of Hsu: The book is an english excerpt from the 10 vol. "History of the Sino-Japanese War" compiled by the Military History Bureau of the Ministry of National Defense, Republic of China. The english version was published in 1971, the year of Kissenger's PRC diplomacy, which resulted in the ROC/PRC switch in the UN Security council. So yes, it's partisan in it's over all aims.

But nevertheless most wikipedia entries use Hsu as one main source, simply because of the lack of other translated sources.

For detailed data I checked not only the maps but also the texts and cross-checked with other books, newer, mainland China and Western publications among them. On the flodded area there seems to be not so much contradiction between them, but general lack of information for our purpose:

Post-2000 Taiwanese sources, frex are more concerned with the ethical aspect of blowing the dykes but not with flood facts.

Maps from a standard PRC Military Encyclopedia from the 1990s, (Zhongguo dabaike: junshi) I also mailed to Patrice also show an identical scope of the flooded area for 1944.

And then I found another source for 1938, which gives a 300 km long flooded area between Kaifeng and the Huai River. I try to post it. It is said that the area is slightly scoped towards the south. It is also said that the blowing of the dykes was immensely important for the Chinese, for it seperates them from the Japanese. Thus it saved Chengchow and the line of communication between the Northwest (Loyang, Sian) and Central China (p.270). But this was in 1938.
Wolf Schenke, Reisen an der Gelben Front: Beobachtungen eines deutschen Kriegsberichterstatters in China. (travel along the yellow front: obervations of a German war reporter in China), Berlin 1943.
Schenke was the correspondent of the Nazi daily: Der Völkische Beobachter for the Chinese side of the front. But as a German, in 1938 he could travel on both sides of the front. He visited the Yellow river bow and Chengchow in spring 1938, just before the flood.


Bottom line: Best solution would probably be a 3rd lake hex only for the first half of the war. If this is not possible both remaining options (3rd hex yes/no) are equally "historical". And it would be up to playtesting to decide the issue.


Regards

This is the Schenke map for 1938. (The flooded area is in the centre of the picture).


Matrix really should increase the size of uploadable pictures.

regards.

We're not talking about a flood caused by rainfall or monsoon, that then ends.  We're talking about a flood caused by the unrestricted flow of China's second largest river, with more water being fed in as quickly as it flows away, whether into the ground or out to sea.  I would think it would reach equilibrium pretty quickly.
 
Also, my maths was wrong.  The area of a regular hexagon of diameter 90km is only 5261 sq km.  That is to say, the area flooded initially was equivalent to more than ten hexagons.  Even accounting for some dissipation, that surely merits at least three hexsides.

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney
Also, my maths was wrong.  The area of a regular hexagon of diameter 90km is only 5261 sq km.  That is to say, the area flooded initially was equivalent to more than ten hexagons.  Even accounting for some dissipation, that surely merits at least three hexsides.

My own math tell me that, an hex with a diameter D has a surface S equal to :
S = ((square root of 3) / 2) * square of D.

The average MWiF hex is 89 km in diameter, so its surface is 6859,79 square kilometers.
So our 54,000 square kilometers are 7-8 hexes.


As a note, hexagons are more often defined by the length of their side, a, which is equal to :
a = D / (square root of 3)

The surface of an hexagon whose side is a is S who is equal to :
S = =((3 * (square root of 3)) / 2) * square of a.

Steve, tell me if I'm wrong, you who are a demi god of Maths.

ORIGINAL: wosung
Bottom line: Best solution would probably be a 3rd lake hex only for the first half of the war. If this is not possible both remaining options (3rd hex yes/no) are equally "historical". And it would be up to playtesting to decide the issue.

Frankly, I think that either 1, 2 or 3 hexsides of lake on this flooded area will make absolutely no difference to the war in China in MWiF.
I think that because the war in China in MWiF is fought along the railways that allow to advance toward the heart of China (Chungking, Lanchow), and I believe that the Chinese that will try to defend at Chenchow will find himself quickly outflanked from the north, surrounded and destroyed. He will loose 2 corps in the first turn of the game, and this will open the road for Japan to conquer Sian easily, and maybe more. So I think that no Chinese in his right mind will defend here. The place is still undefendable, with or without the lake hexsides.
I am for adding them, just for the historical accuracy.

Ah, once we will have put this new river into the game, we will have to redefine the 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and maybe 1944 start lines so that the Japanese start east of the new Yellow River (just a couple of hexes to change), is this right ?