Japan Map

[Incy]

Japan is certainly starting to look a lot better! Just having more stuff on the map (and more stuff to fight over) adds to the game, in my opinion!

If there's anything to add, it must be that maybe the Tokyo area is still to light. Looking at google earth, it seems to me modern Japan would deserve cities E, NW, and probably also SE and NE of Tokyo. Some of these sure looks like fairly old city structures independent from Tokyo (but it's hard to tell, they might just be modern suburbs..). A city SE of Tokyo would certanly help shore up the defence of Tokyo a lot, and would facilitate a defence of Japan based on giving up everything northeast of Tokyo.

I think there should probably also be added a factory to Tokyo. In WiFFE each hex was limited to 3 factories, but in real life I think the Tokyo and surrounding area must have been more important that that. Certainly another city (Hiroshima??) should give up a factory to be relocated to Tokyo.

Other changes could be:
-clear hex E of Osaka: Could this be made forest (or even mountain?)
-Steve mentioned the area east of Hiroshima. According to this map:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_e ... d_1971.jpg
I think a city (or two along the coast) east of Hiroshima would certainly be warranted.
-Should Niigata be made a city as well as a minor port?
-should a city (Shizuoka) be added W or SW of Yohohama?

[SemperAugustus]

Sorry about repeating this a few times, but is there a problem with putting in Maizuru (one of the four major military docks and ports)? Basically it means putting in a port in Kyoto...

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

Sorry about repeating this a few times, but is there a problem with putting in Maizuru (one of the four major military docks and ports)? Basically it means putting in a port in Kyoto...

Not a problem, but my own opinion is that it goes against the general line we followed when adding ports / cities to the map.

They were added, either to keep a city dense feature that the WiF FE maps had (in the Tokyo-Osaka area or the Shanghai area for instance, or the US East Coast), or to keep an "in supply" feature that the WiF FE maps had (with the minor port of Eureka on US West Coast, or Pakhoi in Southern China). Both features could be lost with the "magnifying out" of the map to the European Scale, and adding significant cities or port can be done.

This "magnifying out effect" makes hexes where 1 city or 1 port was displayed, to have now more than that, and this makes sense. Fuchow in China for example, now has became 4 minor ports with the "magnifying out" effect. Tokyo city hex became 2 cities, as Fukuoka and Osaka, etc... Nagasaki minor port hex was "magnifying out" and became 2 minor ports hexes.

In the case of Kyoto, if the original ADG designers thought that a minor port was warranted in this hex to represent Maizuru, they would have put it on the WiF FE map. This port not being present, leads me to think that it may not have been warranted for a WWII map.

This game being a portage of a paper game to a computer game, the original paper game has to be followed on closely, so I think we should not go on modifying the map too heavily, except as described above : to keep a feature that existed but got lost with the "magnified out" effect.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Incy

Japan is certainly starting to look a lot better! Just having more stuff on the map (and more stuff to fight over) adds to the game, in my opinion!

If there's anything to add, it must be that maybe the Tokyo area is still to light. Looking at google earth, it seems to me modern Japan would deserve cities E, NW, and probably also SE and NE of Tokyo. Some of these sure looks like fairly old city structures independent from Tokyo (but it's hard to tell, they might just be modern suburbs..). A city SE of Tokyo would certanly help shore up the defence of Tokyo a lot, and would facilitate a defence of Japan based on giving up everything northeast of Tokyo.

I would put nothing East of Tokyo.
Remember also when looking at modern day Japan that it changed a lot from 39-45 Japan. Maybe more than any other country.

I think there should probably also be added a factory to Tokyo. In WiFFE each hex was limited to 3 factories, but in real life I think the Tokyo and surrounding area must have been more important that that. Certainly another city (Hiroshima??) should give up a factory to be relocated to Tokyo.

Well, I'm not very much inclined into doing this. Moving factories from their original WiF FE location, except by "exploding" the cities that were gathered into an unique city, btween this and a new city, seems a too big change from the paper game to me.

Other changes could be:
-clear hex E of Osaka: Could this be made forest (or even mountain?)

Japan is said to be covered by 70% forest, and 70% mountains, so it would make sense, but is this the real reality of this hex ?
Opinions ?

-Steve mentioned the area east of Hiroshima. According to this map:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_e ... d_1971.jpg
I think a city (or two along the coast) east of Hiroshima would certainly be warranted.

Why not a city E of Hiroshima, part of the "magnifying out" effect. Moreover, this would help defend this clear hex.
But, this said, if you look at this place closely, you see that this is not a place threatened by invasion from the southern sea area. It is only adjacent to the Sea of Japan sea area (the one between Japan & Russia). If the allies are strong enough to mount an invasion in this sea area, I think that the game is quite over, and ciy or not city east of Hiroshima, Japan is ultimately dead now.

-Should Niigata be made a city as well as a minor port?

Too strong departure from WiF FE for me.

-should a city (Shizuoka) be added W or SW of Yohohama?

Opinions from others ?

[po8crg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

For the ports I've added (Yokohama and Kobe), I'm tempted to make the Minor ports after all (from a game point of view, to give them less interest, especially to the allies), but I have no historical material to back this up. What are the opinions of the people who know Japan better than me ?

You'd be better off making Tokyo a minor port and Yokohama the major port. Yokohama was the principal home port of the Imperial Japanese Navy throughout WWII. If anything, the seazone boundary should be tweaked to put Yokohama on the boundary, thereby giving an incentive to the Japanese player to put his fleet there.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: po8crg

ORIGINAL: Froonp

For the ports I've added (Yokohama and Kobe), I'm tempted to make the Minor ports after all (from a game point of view, to give them less interest, especially to the allies), but I have no historical material to back this up. What are the opinions of the people who know Japan better than me ?

You'd be better off making Tokyo a minor port and Yokohama the major port. Yokohama was the principal home port of the Imperial Japanese Navy throughout WWII. If anything, the seazone boundary should be tweaked to put Yokohama on the boundary, thereby giving an incentive to the Japanese player to put his fleet there.

While I'd agree for the historical justifications, I would not take that decision myself.
Having Tokyo a major port sitting on a Sea area boundary is a famous feature of WiF FE, and I would not change that for MWiF, even if it is warranted by having Yokohama integrated into the Tokyo hex on the Pacific Scaled map of WiF FE.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: po8crg

ORIGINAL: Froonp
For the ports I've added (Yokohama and Kobe), I'm tempted to make the Minor ports after all (from a game point of view, to give them less interest, especially to the allies), but I have no historical material to back this up. What are the opinions of the people who know Japan better than me ?

You'd be better off making Tokyo a minor port and Yokohama the major port. Yokohama was the principal home port of the Imperial Japanese Navy throughout WWII. If anything, the seazone boundary should be tweaked to put Yokohama on the boundary, thereby giving an incentive to the Japanese player to put his fleet there.

One of the difficulties we have run into previously is that ports in WIF represent 2 types of ports: military and commercial. There are stacking limits on naval combat units for minor ports and none for major ports which makes a big difference for naval combat missions. There are also differences between major and minor ports concerning the ability to store oil and stack convoy units. All of which is to say that while historically a hex might have been important for combat vessels, if it did not have a large commercial (i.e., merchant marine) capacity, then deciding on a major versus minor designation is not easy. And could be argued late into the night.

[trees]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

And could be argued late into the night.

you guys were starting to freak me out until finally the posts stopped after the 23rd. thanks for the hard work!

[SemperAugustus]

Railroads in N. Honshu
I can't comment on the railroad to Ominato, there is one there now, not sure about 1940s. No railroad in 1922 though.

Based in 1922 info starting from north (changes only)
There should be a railroad between hex NW of Sendai and hex east of the hex (Railroad between Sakata and Ishinomaki)
There should be a railroad running from the hex SW of Sendai to hex west of Sendai, to hex NW. (connecting to railroad running between Sakata and Ishinomaki IRL this is the railroad running from Shinjo to Fukushima via Yamagata and Yonezawa)
There should also be railroad running from Niigata to the coast two hex NE of Tokyo
There was no railroad connecting Niigata to hex NE (i.e. there should be a gap)
There should also be a railroad from hex E of Tokyo to hex NE of Tokyo to hex NW of Tokyo
There should be a railroad from Tokyo running down the peninsular SE of Tokyo all the way to the tip

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

Railroads in N. Honshu
I can't comment on the railroad to Ominato, there is one there now, not sure about 1940s. No railroad in 1922 though.

Based in 1922 info starting from north (changes only)
There should be a railroad between hex NW of Sendai and hex east of the hex (Railroad between Sakata and Ishinomaki)
There should be a railroad running from the hex SW of Sendai to hex west of Sendai, to hex NW. (connecting to railroad running between Sakata and Ishinomaki IRL this is the railroad running from Shinjo to Fukushima via Yamagata and Yonezawa)
There should also be railroad running from Niigata to the coast two hex NE of Tokyo
There was no railroad connecting Niigata to hex NE (i.e. there should be a gap)
There should also be a railroad from hex E of Tokyo to hex NE of Tokyo to hex NW of Tokyo
There should be a railroad from Tokyo running down the peninsular SE of Tokyo all the way to the tip

Thanks for the comment.
I'll see what I can get from that, as well as my 1940 Atlas, and also the 1935 one that I should receive soon.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

Railroads in N. Honshu
I can't comment on the railroad to Ominato, there is one there now, not sure about 1940s. No railroad in 1922 though.

On the 1935 map I have, the railway is not draw up to Ominato, but it reaches Aomori (which seems to be a large port on the same body of water than Ominato). On the 1944 map, the railway goes up to Ominato.
However, it is here on the WiF FE maps, so it should be here on the MWiF map.

Based in 1922 info starting from north (changes only)
There should be a railroad between hex NW of Sendai and hex east of the hex (Railroad between Sakata and Ishinomaki)
There should be a railroad running from the hex SW of Sendai to hex west of Sendai, to hex NW. (connecting to railroad running between Sakata and Ishinomaki IRL this is the railroad running from Shinjo to Fukushima via Yamagata and Yonezawa)

This one is shown as you describe on a 1912 map, but it is not complete on the 1944 & 1935 maps I have. On both, it stops at Tendo. I should receive a 1937 map, I'll see what it says.

There should also be railroad running from Niigata to the coast two hex NE of Tokyo
There was no railroad connecting Niigata to hex NE (i.e. there should be a gap).

This railway stops at Murakami (not far, north of Niigata) on the 1935 map I have. But the line is completed up to the north of Honshu on the 1944 map. I'll see on the 1937 map.
As a note, Harry Rowland (original designer of WiF FE) based the WiF FE maps mainly on a 1935 map, so the rail stops at Niigata. From a game consistency point of view, I think we should make as you say, stop the rail at Niigata.

There should also be a railroad from hex E of Tokyo to hex NE of Tokyo to hex NW of Tokyo

I'm suspicious with this one. Not sure there is such a line that goes around Tokyo. To go by rail from NW or NE of Tokyo to SW of it, you can't go around Tokyo hex.

There should be a railroad from Tokyo running down the peninsular SE of Tokyo all the way to the tip

Right.

[Froonp]

Looks like that.
The railway from SW of Niigata to Tokyo may disapear, as it is not on the 1935 map and not on the WiF FE map, only on the 1944 map. I'll see on the 1937 map.

[Froonp]

Also, seems from the maps that there should be railways extending into the forest hexes south of Yokohama & Nagoya.

Japan was really well covered by railways in the 40s, especially if you compare it to other Asian countries such as China for example. That's amazing !

[SemperAugustus]

Japan was industrialized and densely populated, so it would have made good economic sense at the time. The Japanese also used narrow gauge railroads to cut down on the costs of tunnelling, so the costs of construction might have been lower than elsewhere.

[SemperAugustus]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Japan was really well covered by railways in the 40s, especially if you compare it to other Asian countries such as China for example. That's amazing !

India had quite a dense network too, at least in places

Is the Korea map up? I haven't seen it...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Japan was really well covered by railways in the 40s, especially if you compare it to other Asian countries such as China for example. That's amazing !

India had quite a dense network too, at least in places

Is the Korea map up? I haven't seen it...

Post #3 of this thread shows all of Korea. India was done earlier too (different thread).

[Mziln]

Link to: Korea is post 3

Link to: India

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Link to: Korea is post 3

This one links to the first drafts of my coastline drawings.

Korea as it is right now in the game is shown here Korea (this same thread) in post #3.

[trees]

uh-oh, much of NW Korea isn't in supply any more.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: trees

uh-oh, much of NW Korea isn't in supply any more.

You're right. Pyongyang (real WW2 name : Heijo, population 145k in 1935) and Seoul, used to put any troop on the northern Korean border in supply. Pyongyang was only usefull for TERR units though.
Unfortunately, no new city can be added in Korea (with 100k+ pop), to help here.
Well, Japanese troops can be on the Korean northern border and still be in supply, they just have to be on the border, so I suppose this is not too much of a problem.

There is the same problem in Manchuria. Harbin used to put in supply troops on the eastern and northern borders. In MWiF, this is no more. Troops can still be placed 4 hexes east of Harbin (to be in supply), and still not be very far from the Russian border (either on the border, or 1 hex from it), so here this is OK too for me.

On the north front, if a Japanese unit goes 4 hexes north of Harbin, it is still 2-3 hexes far from the Russian border. On WiF FE, Japanese units can be on the Russian border, hidden behind a river, on MWiF, they can't, and there's no more river (the Songhua was so wrongly placed on the WiF FE maps that it offered an extra protection for Japanese withdrawing from the northern russian border, now it is right north of Harbin, so Japanese troops need to be in Harbin to be protected by the Songhua river).

So, what should be done ?