MWiF Map Review - America

[micheljq]

The action in WiF does not occur on the land of North America anyway, or on very rare occasions only.

[;)]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: fiveof6
If I had to choose one or the other, then yes I would move the NW line from Seattle to straight east. If both could be included, then that would be more accurate. Also, if the little inlet of water that cuts into the west side of the hex 1 west of Seatlle could be extended down the entire west side of the hexside before hooking east, then it would be more accurate.

As the original map had 1 strait hexside, I prefer to keep having only one.
If you say that the one W of Seattle is more realistic for that period, then I'll move the one that is NW of Seattle to W of Seattle.

Also in a previous post you said :

ORIGINAL: fiveof6
San Juan Islands

The southern most water hex to the east of Victoria is actually littered with the San Juan Islands. The US and Britain almost fought the Pig War over this island group. http://www.sanjuanmaps.com/images/sanjuanmap-med.jpg

At the time of WWII, there was no regular ferry service to these islands so the red connecting line is unnecessary.

I suppose that the strait hexside you are refering to is the one NW of Seattle, so that's a reason to remove it.

After looking closer at your included attachment, I noticed another change might be warranted. The Alpine hexside should be moved one hexside straight east, between the forest hex SE of Victoria and the mountain hex two west of Seattle.

This is not possible because alpine hexsides have to be drawn between 2 mountain hexes. The scale of the map, and the hexgrid, are such that sometime fine details can't be depicted.

There is no difficulty moving north-south on the coastline so perhaps the coastal terrain should be should be forest, east-west requires more effort. However, the abundance of roads and railroads east-west would mitigate the effects of any mountains except southern Oregon. One would have had little difficulty moving a military unit through the coast range on the many roads and railroads that crossed the coastal mountains. Most of the coast range is 700-1500 feet with some areas in S Oregon not accessible due to the depth of the mountains, and fewer rivers and roads.

I apologize for joining the discussion so late, but I'm not exactly sure what the standard is for terrain being considered Mountains. The above Alpine hexside is needed (Mt Olympus at about 7,000 ft), but outside that hexside, the rest of the Washington/Oregon coast range gradually builds to about 2000 feet with highest "peaks" no higher than 3,000 feet, with large rivers cutting through it about every 50 miles or so.

Mountain terrain is used for rugged land, not only high altitude lands.
I'm reluctant to modify the terrain based on only 1 claim, as I put a lot of trust in the original CWiF map designers (The MWiF map is inherited from CWiF).

[fiveof6]

Also in a previous post you said :

ORIGINAL: fiveof6
San Juan Islands

The southern most water hex to the east of Victoria is actually littered with the San Juan Islands. The US and Britain almost fought the Pig War over this island group. http://www.sanjuanmaps.com/images/sanjuanmap-med.jpg

At the time of WWII, there was no regular ferry service to these islands so the red connecting line is unnecessary.

I suppose that the strait hexside you are refering to is the one NW of Seattle, so that's a reason to remove it.

The San Juan Islands are straight east of Victoria (currently an open water hex) . The map correctly shows open water between Vancouver and Victoria, but the hex immediately east of Victoria should be islands.

Regarding the straight hexside NW of Seattle, see my previous post. There was access across both the NW and straight W of Seattle. The more heavily used route was/is straight W of Seattle.

I researched the Puget Sound Navigation Company that operated in Puget Sound between Tacoma and Victoria. While I could not locate a specific map for 1930-1940, they generally stated there was 70 regular cross sound routes, which would make transport easy for a side that controlled both sides of the run. It appears there would be no difficulty to cross this water barrier in the time frame of a game turn.

[/quote]
Mountain terrain is used for rugged land, not only high altitude lands.
I'm reluctant to modify the terrain based on only 1 claim, as I put a lot of trust in the original CWiF map designers (The MWiF map is inherited from CWiF).
[/quote]

I completely agree with picking your sources wisely. I lived the last 30 years in sight of the Washington/Oregon coast range. The range is not even close in scale as the mountains east of Seattle and Portland. In fact, they have an annual team fun run from Mount Hood (SE of Portland) to the Oregon Coast. If joggers/runners and bike riders could do it in 20 hours, then I have no doubt foot soldiers and tanks could do it over the course of three months.

Kevin

[fiveof6]

Slowly working my way through the map. I apologize if others have already brought these items up elsewhere (Its a huge forum!).

The clear hexes between the words "Montana" and "Wyoming" should be forest.

The mountain hex south of "Yellowstone" should be clear (cattle grazing, rangeland).
The two mountain hexes SW of "Yellowstone" (immediately adjacent to the train intersection/forest hex) should be forest. This area (Hysham Hills) may be higher terrain, but would not be a major barrier to operations. It is the gradual beginning of the Rocky Mountains. While the forest here is not terribly thick, it would provide defensive benefits.

Now the complicated part. Pretty much every hexside between the clear hex north of the "Bitterroot Range" to the hexside south of "Idaho" is Alpine. Even today it is the most remote area in the 48 states with access only by air or on foot. (There were hunters that flew out of this area after 9/11 that were very surprised to be intercepted by F16s because they had no communication with the outside world when the attacks happened and did not know there was national ground stop in effect.) I understand cosmetically every hexside in this area should not be Alpine, but most of them should. Except where there are rivers and railroads depicted, the mountain generally run north-southish.

Kevin

[Anendrue]

Out of curiosity. I and many other people have suggested changes to the map. For myself I used my personal knowledge of areas backed up by 1940's era maps. Are the suggested changes coming in from people based in current geography or 1940's geography?

[fiveof6]

I'm doing the same as you are. Personal experience combined with researching 1940s data.

Kevin

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: fiveof6
The clear hexes between the words "Montana" and "Wyoming" should be forest.

The mountain hex south of "Yellowstone" should be clear (cattle grazing, rangeland).
The two mountain hexes SW of "Yellowstone" (immediately adjacent to the train intersection/forest hex) should be forest. This area (Hysham Hills) may be higher terrain, but would not be a major barrier to operations. It is the gradual beginning of the Rocky Mountains. While the forest here is not terribly thick, it would provide defensive benefits.

Now the complicated part. Pretty much every hexside between the clear hex north of the "Bitterroot Range" to the hexside south of "Idaho" is Alpine. Even today it is the most remote area in the 48 states with access only by air or on foot. (There were hunters that flew out of this area after 9/11 that were very surprised to be intercepted by F16s because they had no communication with the outside world when the attacks happened and did not know there was national ground stop in effect.) I understand cosmetically every hexside in this area should not be Alpine, but most of them should. Except where there are rivers and railroads depicted, the mountain generally run north-southish.

Kevin

Kevin, I'd appreciate you draw your changes (even crudely using MS Paint) onto this (reduced size) screenshot, so that it is easier for me to understand what you mean. I understood most of it, but it is more precise.

Also, I a future post, I'll post the original WiF FE (AiF) America map. I always check to see if proposed changes are matching more or less with the AiF map.
For example, for your request to change the clear hexes between the words "Montana" and "Wyoming" into forest hexes, you'll see that the AiF map has a big forest hex precisely where you're asking to add forest, so this makes me think your request goes in the right way of having the MWiF map match the WiF FE map.

[Froonp]

Here is the relevant AiF / WiF FE map area.

[fiveof6]

I also added two clear hexes on the Canadian border and did a slight reroute on a railroad. Kevin

[iamspamus]

PFFFFTTTT. It does if I'm the Axis playing Days of Decision...oh, wait. Sniffle. [:(] Not being done yet... Release two or three is fine. [:D]

Jason

ORIGINAL: micheljq

The action in WiF does not occur on the land of North America anyway, or on very rare occasions only.

[;)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

PFFFFTTTT. It does if I'm the Axis playing Days of Decision...oh, wait. Sniffle. [:(] Not being done yet... Release two or three is fine. [:D]

Jason

ORIGINAL: micheljq

The action in WiF does not occur on the land of North America anyway, or on very rare occasions only.

[;)]

Our attention to the map, even to areas that do not see action during most games 1939-1945, is because I would like the map to be unchanged when I start working on future MWIF products in earnest. Seriously, you can consider this advance work on MWIF products 2 & 3 - I do.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

I also added two clear hexes on the Canadian border and did a slight reroute on a railroad. Kevin

Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted. In a single picture all is said.
What would be good too would be to have access to the maps that gave you the idea to change those hexes. But your explanations are already good.
I'll look at what I can do with my own sources.

[Astarix]

I would actually argue that an Alpine Hexside for the Grand Canyon is sufficient.  I've spent plenty of time actually hiking up and down into and out of the Canyon itself, thousands of tourists make this same trek every year.  Many of the trails used for this purpose have been in existence for decades, in some cases centuries.  There were native american tribes that settled and farmed the canyon floor.    The real issue in the canyon is one of scale.  The Grand Canyon is over 100 miles in length, as much as 40 miles wide at its widest and in many places over 6000 feet deep.  While many areas of the canyon walls apear to be sheer, they are actually not straight up and down.  Any modern army with sufficient engineering capabilities could cut new paths into the canyon.  A purely infantry/alpine formation could certainly traverse the canyon fairly readily.  Most of the year the Colorado River within the canyon itself is reasonably calm and could be crossed, albiet with some level of difficulty.  It is not unimaginable for a battalion or divison sized alpine or infantry formation to get across the Canyon if they had a mind to do so.  The issue, would be supply and cohesion.  There is no possible way you could move the kind of supplies this sized formation would require on a daily basis. 

The current alpine hexside rules cover this issue, it seems to me, as they allow the crossing of the hexside by an alpine unit, but do not allow the tracing of supply across the hexside. 

It might be more appropriate to discuss the depiction of the immediate area of the canyon.  Both sides of the Canyon are high mountain plateaus.  The southern rim is formed by the Kaibab plateau, which also hosts a national forest of the same name (The Kaibab National forest is a real honest to god conifer forest).  While the floor of the canyon is certainly Arid, as are the low deserts that surround the plateaus, the immediate vicinity of the Grand Canyon might be better depicted as forest or mountain and mountain desert, with the Colorado river hexsides also as alpine hexsides.  Certainly the South Rim could be Forest or Mountain Hexes and the North Rim Mountain Desert and Mountain Hexes.

Also, you should probably include Lake Meade on the map.  The Hoover Dam, which created the Lake, was completed in 1937 and the lake was filled by late 1938.

Jason

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Astarix

I would actually argue that an Alpine Hexside for the Grand Canyon is sufficient.  I've spent plenty of time actually hiking up and down into and out of the Canyon itself, thousands of tourists make this same trek every year.  Many of the trails used for this purpose have been in existence for decades, in some cases centuries.  There were native american tribes that settled and farmed the canyon floor.    The real issue in the canyon is one of scale.  The Grand Canyon is over 100 miles in length, as much as 40 miles wide at its widest and in many places over 6000 feet deep.  While many areas of the canyon walls apear to be sheer, they are actually not straight up and down.  Any modern army with sufficient engineering capabilities could cut new paths into the canyon.  A purely infantry/alpine formation could certainly traverse the canyon fairly readily.  Most of the year the Colorado River within the canyon itself is reasonably calm and could be crossed, albiet with some level of difficulty.  It is not unimaginable for a battalion or divison sized alpine or infantry formation to get across the Canyon if they had a mind to do so.  The issue, would be supply and cohesion.  There is no possible way you could move the kind of supplies this sized formation would require on a daily basis. 

The current alpine hexside rules cover this issue, it seems to me, as they allow the crossing of the hexside by an alpine unit, but do not allow the tracing of supply across the hexside. 

It might be more appropriate to discuss the depiction of the immediate area of the canyon.  Both sides of the Canyon are high mountain plateaus.  The southern rim is formed by the Kaibab plateau, which also hosts a national forest of the same name (The Kaibab National forest is a real honest to god conifer forest).  While the floor of the canyon is certainly Arid, as are the low deserts that surround the plateaus, the immediate vicinity of the Grand Canyon might be better depicted as forest or mountain and mountain desert, with the Colorado river hexsides also as alpine hexsides.  Certainly the South Rim could be Forest or Mountain Hexes and the North Rim Mountain Desert and Mountain Hexes.

Also, you should probably include Lake Meade on the map.  The Hoover Dam, which created the Lake, was completed in 1937 and the lake was filled by late 1938.

Jason

Thank you.

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Astarix

I would actually argue that an Alpine Hexside for the Grand Canyon is sufficient.  I've spent plenty of time actually hiking up and down into and out of the Canyon itself, thousands of tourists make this same trek every year.  Many of the trails used for this purpose have been in existence for decades, in some cases centuries.  There were native american tribes that settled and farmed the canyon floor.    The real issue in the canyon is one of scale.  The Grand Canyon is over 100 miles in length, as much as 40 miles wide at its widest and in many places over 6000 feet deep.  While many areas of the canyon walls apear to be sheer, they are actually not straight up and down.  Any modern army with sufficient engineering capabilities could cut new paths into the canyon.  A purely infantry/alpine formation could certainly traverse the canyon fairly readily.  Most of the year the Colorado River within the canyon itself is reasonably calm and could be crossed, albiet with some level of difficulty.  It is not unimaginable for a battalion or divison sized alpine or infantry formation to get across the Canyon if they had a mind to do so.  The issue, would be supply and cohesion. There is no possible way you could move the kind of supplies this sized formation would require on a daily basis. 

The current alpine hexside rules cover this issue, it seems to me, as they allow the crossing of the hexside by an alpine unit, but do not allow the tracing of supply across the hexside. 

It might be more appropriate to discuss the depiction of the immediate area of the canyon.  Both sides of the Canyon are high mountain plateaus.  The southern rim is formed by the Kaibab plateau, which also hosts a national forest of the same name (The Kaibab National forest is a real honest to god conifer forest).  While the floor of the canyon is certainly Arid, as are the low deserts that surround the plateaus, the immediate vicinity of the Grand Canyon might be better depicted as forest or mountain and mountain desert, with the Colorado river hexsides also as alpine hexsides.  Certainly the South Rim could be Forest or Mountain Hexes and the North Rim Mountain Desert and Mountain Hexes.

Also, you should probably include Lake Meade on the map.  The Hoover Dam, which created the Lake, was completed in 1937 and the lake was filled by late 1938.

Jason

Thank you.

The bolded area is the point of my response.

It is for the reasons you state; that no commander of a large unit would attempt it. Any battalion sized unit or larger would be unable to effectibely respond to any attack unless both sides were held. For gameplay purposes an Alpine hex might do. An alternative solution might be to create both an alpine and sea hexside at the same time in the same location. This would severly restrict movement and combat to all ground units. Therefore, the appropriate effect might be achieved.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Astarix

I would actually argue that an Alpine Hexside for the Grand Canyon is sufficient.  I've spent plenty of time actually hiking up and down into and out of the Canyon itself, thousands of tourists make this same trek every year.  Many of the trails used for this purpose have been in existence for decades, in some cases centuries.  There were native american tribes that settled and farmed the canyon floor.    The real issue in the canyon is one of scale.  The Grand Canyon is over 100 miles in length, as much as 40 miles wide at its widest and in many places over 6000 feet deep.  While many areas of the canyon walls apear to be sheer, they are actually not straight up and down.  Any modern army with sufficient engineering capabilities could cut new paths into the canyon.  A purely infantry/alpine formation could certainly traverse the canyon fairly readily.  Most of the year the Colorado River within the canyon itself is reasonably calm and could be crossed, albiet with some level of difficulty.  It is not unimaginable for a battalion or divison sized alpine or infantry formation to get across the Canyon if they had a mind to do so.  The issue, would be supply and cohesion. There is no possible way you could move the kind of supplies this sized formation would require on a daily basis. 

The current alpine hexside rules cover this issue, it seems to me, as they allow the crossing of the hexside by an alpine unit, but do not allow the tracing of supply across the hexside. 

It might be more appropriate to discuss the depiction of the immediate area of the canyon.  Both sides of the Canyon are high mountain plateaus.  The southern rim is formed by the Kaibab plateau, which also hosts a national forest of the same name (The Kaibab National forest is a real honest to god conifer forest).  While the floor of the canyon is certainly Arid, as are the low deserts that surround the plateaus, the immediate vicinity of the Grand Canyon might be better depicted as forest or mountain and mountain desert, with the Colorado river hexsides also as alpine hexsides.  Certainly the South Rim could be Forest or Mountain Hexes and the North Rim Mountain Desert and Mountain Hexes.

Also, you should probably include Lake Meade on the map.  The Hoover Dam, which created the Lake, was completed in 1937 and the lake was filled by late 1938.

Jason

Thank you.

The bolded area is the point of my response.

It is for the reasons you state; that no commander of a large unit would attempt it. Any battalion sized unit or larger would be unable to effectibely respond to any attack unless both sides were held. For gameplay purposes an Alpine hex might do. An alternative solution might be to create both an alpine and sea hexside at the same time in the same location. This would severly restrict movement and combat to all ground units. Therefore, the appropriate effect might be achieved.

I still see this as a MWIF product 2 issue. For MWIF product 2, we would be free to create new hex terrain types (e.g., Atoll, Rough) and hexside terrain types (e.g., Canyon). Then we could have new graphics to indicate those changes visually and whatever rules seem most appropriate.

[Anendrue]

Sounds great. How likely is MWIF Product 2?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Sounds great. How likely is MWIF Product 2?

Depends on sales of MWIF product 1 (like any other sequel[;)]).

[Anendrue]

Well I will do my part! [:)] 
 
Hopefully Matrix will market the game well. If ADG is in the sales loop as I think it is, then sales should at least compare to a new release of WiF. Well I better let this go before I am hammered for hijacking the thread.

[fiveof6]

I realize this info is probably for ver. 2 but here you go.

Kevin