Maps for MWIF

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: trees trees
I mentioned in the Hawaii thread about placing the port symbols on the sea boundaries when possible. True if you play WiF a lot you finally get used to the rule about which ports connect to which zones, Batavia being one of the most confusing examples. But the above graphic of Liverpool is a good illustration of why the sea zone should be drawn to bi-sect the port symbol. Many new players would look at that and think Liverpool is connected to the Bay of Biscay zone but not directly to the Faeroes Gap zone. The computer would do the movement right of course, but it's not as clearly intuitive the way it is drawn now. This game is already going to frustrate a lot of newcomers and anything to make things clearer will help.

Maybe where the icons look too small to me is at higher zoom levels...maybe the icons could be a little bigger, porportionate to the total hex area, at zoom 8 than at zoom 1?

I haven't been happy with the way sea zone boundaries enter coastal hexes but I have left it alone (CWIF code does all that). Drawing the boundary into the port presents several other problems. My current plan is to extend the sea boundary line about 1/4 of the way into the coastal hex (instead of 1/10). That will make it more forceful visually. Paying special attention to this geography as part of the tutorials will help. For example, "any coastal hex that is entered by a sea area boundary is accessible from the sea areas on both sides of the boundary". Note that there isn't always a port in the hex.

Icons are staying as is. I do not go back and redesign or rewrite code unless there is a strong reason to do so.

[trees trees]

ahhh. micons/m8.gif it is sometimes hard to remember what you have declared finished and what is still being decided.

on the sea zone boundaries I can think of good programming reasons to make the boundaries follow the hex lines. following the Liverpool example, the boundary follows the hex-sides of the all-sea hex NW of Liverpool. on the paper map the boundary neatly bi-sects that hex, making Liverpool accessible to both sea zones at the very first glance. perhaps if this part of the map code is still to be worked on, the 'data' map could keep that hex in the Bay of Biscay zone, but the line could be drawn on the screen like on the paper map. in this case though with no weather boundary near-by it never makes any difference what sea zone that particular hex-dot is in.

note that as it is drawn now, although Liverpool is just barely a port on the Faeroes Gap due to the sliver of ocean to the NE, it also no longer appears to be an invadable coastal hex from the Faeroes zone. This is a change from the paper maps which would cut into one of my favorite Sea Lion tactics, once ashore in force in England, of taking Scapa Flow and then further Royal Navy bases, such as Liverpool, from behind by using the Marines and Paratroopers. Capturing ships is kinda fun.

it appears Plymouth coud benefit from a small extension of the zone boundary as well.

on paper, the boundaries only sometimes use the hex-sides. in data, I could see where all the special cases not using the hex-sides would create would be a lot more work.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: trees trees
ahhh. micons/m8.gif it is sometimes hard to remember what you have declared finished and what is still being decided.

on the sea zone boundaries I can think of good programming reasons to make the boundaries follow the hex lines. following the Liverpool example, the boundary follows the hex-sides of the all-sea hex NW of Liverpool. on the paper map the boundary neatly bi-sects that hex, making Liverpool accessible to both sea zones at the very first glance. perhaps if this part of the map code is still to be worked on, the 'data' map could keep that hex in the Bay of Biscay zone, but the line could be drawn on the screen like on the paper map. in this case though with no weather boundary near-by it never makes any difference what sea zone that particular hex-dot is in.

note that as it is drawn now, although Liverpool is just barely a port on the Faeroes Gap due to the sliver of ocean to the NE, it also no longer appears to be an invadable coastal hex from the Faeroes zone. This is a change from the paper maps which would cut into one of my favorite Sea Lion tactics, once ashore in force in England, of taking Scapa Flow and then further Royal Navy bases, such as Liverpool, from behind by using the Marines and Paratroopers. Capturing ships is kinda fun.

it appears Plymouth coud benefit from a small extension of the zone boundary as well.

on paper, the boundaries only sometimes use the hex-sides. in data, I could see where all the special cases not using the hex-sides would create would be a lot more work.

Actually, I decided to stay with what CWIF did rather than WIF FE for drawing sea boundaries in the open sea. It was not so much because of the programming labor involved in the change, but that I thought the CWIF style was less ambiguous. If a sea boundary bisects a sea hex, can an air unit which can reach that very small partial sea hex enter the sea area or does it have to fly another hex? For example, with a fighter based in Holyhead, does it take 1 or 2 movement points to reach Faroes Gap? I know it is 2, but the way it is drawn in WIF FE leaves that open to argument. Less confusion with the sea boundary running along the hexside.

[trees trees]

actually, that's where the dots come in to play. the boundary we are talking about is to the north of the hex-dot, so even from Liverpool it takes a lot more than 2 mp (iirc) for an aircraft to enter the 0 box of the Faerores Gap. airplanes fly to the first all sea hex-dot they can reach. as long as the lines are drawn carefully around the dots it works out pretty simply.

i thought you might have dropped some of the non hex-side lines so there was no question which sea zone a sea hex belonged too. but I guess you would always need a bit of data to identify which hexes are considered 'coastal' (i.e. legally invadable) to which zones anyway.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: trees trees
actually, that's where the dots come in to play. the boundary we are talking about is to the north of the hex-dot, so even from Liverpool it takes a lot more than 2 mp (iirc) for an aircraft to enter the 0 box of the Faerores Gap. airplanes fly to the first all sea hex-dot they can reach. as long as the lines are drawn carefully around the dots it works out pretty simply.

i thought you might have dropped some of the non hex-side lines so there was no question which sea zone a sea hex belonged too. but I guess you would always need a bit of data to identify which hexes are considered 'coastal' (i.e. legally invadable) to which zones anyway.

Several forum members were on my case a few months back, wanting more graphics in the coastal hexes to differentiate which ones could be invaded. Since placing a cursor over a hex gives you that information (along with terrain type, weather, etc.), it seemed overkill to me. I understand that it is a problem when playing over the board because there is no recourse other than digging out the rulebook or some facsimile thereof. But with the computer, it is available instantly by browsing with the cursor. Modifying the map terrain to communicate these subtle (but nonetheless important) hex distinctions is still unjustified to my mind.

[wfzimmerman]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



Several forum members were on my case a few months back, wanting more graphics in the coastal hexes to differentiate which ones could be invaded. Since placing a cursor over a hex gives you that information (along with terrain type, weather, etc.), it seemed overkill to me. I understand that it is a problem when playing over the board because there is no recourse other than digging out the rulebook or some facsimile thereof. But with the computer, it is available instantly by browsing with the cursor. Modifying the map terrain to communicate these subtle (but nonetheless important) hex distinctions is still unjustified to my mind.

Browsing with the cursor is not as satisfactory a way of getting the big picture as simply looking at the screen once.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Several forum members were on my case a few months back, wanting more graphics in the coastal hexes to differentiate which ones could be invaded. Since placing a cursor over a hex gives you that information (along with terrain type, weather, etc.), it seemed overkill to me. I understand that it is a problem when playing over the board because there is no recourse other than digging out the rulebook or some facsimile thereof. But with the computer, it is available instantly by browsing with the cursor. Modifying the map terrain to communicate these subtle (but nonetheless important) hex distinctions is still unjustified to my mind.

Browsing with the cursor is not as satisfactory a way of getting the big picture as simply looking at the screen once.

Perhaps a toggle switch to show 'invadable' hexes?

[Froonp]

note that as it is drawn now, although Liverpool is just barely a port on the Faeroes Gap due to the sliver of ocean to the NE, it also no longer appears to be an invadable coastal hex from the Faeroes zone. This is a change from the paper maps

I agree.

An hex is invadable if it has an all-sea hexside, period (11.14).
From this, Liverpool is clearly invadable.

Then, this hex can be invaded from any sea area that this all-sea hexside touches upon (as the rule says).

From this rule, this is not evident when seeing the MWiF map that the Liverpool hex can be invaded from the Faeroes Gap.

[wodin]

Liverpool should be juts North of the peninsula.

[Froonp]

For example, with a fighter based in Holyhead, does it take 1 or 2 movement points to reach Faroes Gap? I know it is 2, but the way it is drawn in WIF FE leaves that open to argument. Less confusion with the sea boundary running along the hexside.

Steve you're wrong.
A plane must fly to the nearest hexdot that is in the Sea Area where he wants to perform a mission.
Here it needs 5 MP to reach the Faeroes Gap Sea Area.

[wfzimmerman]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Several forum members were on my case a few months back, wanting more graphics in the coastal hexes to differentiate which ones could be invaded. Since placing a cursor over a hex gives you that information (along with terrain type, weather, etc.), it seemed overkill to me. I understand that it is a problem when playing over the board because there is no recourse other than digging out the rulebook or some facsimile thereof. But with the computer, it is available instantly by browsing with the cursor. Modifying the map terrain to communicate these subtle (but nonetheless important) hex distinctions is still unjustified to my mind.

Browsing with the cursor is not as satisfactory a way of getting the big picture as simply looking at the screen once.

Perhaps a toggle switch to show 'invadable' hexes?

That would be fine!

Is there an "air coverable" view? i.e. show all hexes within reach of any plane currently on the map?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

Is there an "air coverable" view? i.e. show all hexes within reach of any plane currently on the map?

I hadn't thought about it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Liverpool should be juts North of the peninsula.

The placement of the city and port icons within a hex was sometimes compromised by the need to fit everything in.

[wfzimmerman]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

Is there an "air coverable" view? i.e. show all hexes within reach of any plane currently on the map?

I hadn't thought about it.

FWIW, it's a very useful feature in Computer War in Europe. Air cover is often a key factor in invasion planning in that game. Maybe it's less true in WIF ... i don't know.

[trees trees]

hmmm. new question: is Barrow now a port and coastal hex on the Bay of Biscay?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

hmmm. new question: is Barrow now a port and coastal hex on the Bay of Biscay?

No, it isn't. Only on the Faeroes.
However, a plane looking for a mission in the Bay of Biscay would only need 1 MP to go patrolling there.
Barrow is not invadable from the Bay of Biscay neither.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

For example, with a fighter based in Holyhead, does it take 1 or 2 movement points to reach Faroes Gap? I know it is 2, but the way it is drawn in WIF FE leaves that open to argument. Less confusion with the sea boundary running along the hexside.

Steve you're wrong.
A plane must fly to the nearest hexdot that is in the Sea Area where he wants to perform a mission.
Here it needs 5 MP to reach the Faeroes Gap Sea Area.

Yes, of course. I was only looking at 3 hexes when I wrote the post.

In general this ongoing discussion about invadable hexes is caused by how WIF, in general, simulates invasions. The abstraction of the oceans into sea areas and the coastline into hexes creates a lot of opportunity for confusion. The very careful wording of the WIF FE rules and how the WIF FE map is drawn are in response to the potential confusion. Small differences here and there can have major importance when playing.

CWIF (and MWIF) handles what is invadable not by how the map is drawn - the program doesn't care. Not does it rely on the rules - "all sea hexsides" do not enter into the program at all for invasions. Instead it takes the rather simple approach of having each hex in the game identified as to which sea areas it is 'adjacent'. Hard coded into the data file, just like terrain and where cities are located, is which sea area a hex is adjacent to. Barrow is only adjacent to Faeroes Gap. Liverpool is adjacent to Faeroes Gap and the Bay of Biscay. You can interpret the word adjacent here to mean that the hex can be reached from the sea area for invasions, or to pickup/drop off of units, etc..

As an example of how unconcerned the game is about the map, an earlier typo had a hex just north of the Caucasus mountains as adjacent to the Black Sea, even thought the hex was landlocked and 4 hexes away from any coastal hex. You could have invaded that hex from the Black Sea. "A little teleportation music, Scotty?"

So, I would rather rely on communicating the invadable (adjacent to sea area) hexes some way other than relying on the subtle placement of port symbols or sea area boundary lines. Click on a toggle and - for a given sea area - all the adjacent coastal hexes are indicated/highlighted, or something. I prefer this to be a heavy handed solution, not a margnially visible line.

[Froonp]

So, I would rather rely on communicating the invadable (adjacent to sea area) hexes some way other than relying on the subtle placement of port symbols or sea area boundary lines. Click on a toggle and - for a given sea area - all the adjacent coastal hexes are indicated/highlighted, or something. I prefer this to be a heavy handed solution, not a margnially visible line.

Steve, remember the all-sea hexside, this is a mandatory condition for invasion.
In the picture below, the hexes outlined with the red circles cannot be invaded.

[mlees]

In AH's Third Reich, the only hexes that can be invaded had a "sand" color/texture along the waters edge... however this game has many more invasion beaches... hmmm.

[c92nichj]

So, I would rather rely on communicating the invadable (adjacent to sea area) hexes some way other than relying on the subtle placement of port symbols or sea area boundary lines. Click on a toggle and - for a given sea area - all the adjacent coastal hexes are indicated/highlighted, or something. I prefer this to be a heavy handed solution, not a margnially visible line.

I think this should be a good solution, making it obvious how you can invade.
An example could be to highlight all invadable hexes with an Orange outline when a toggle is switched on. When moving the cursor over a searea the highlight would change to yellow for the hexes invadable from that sea area.