Modifications to MWiF Caucasus Map portion

[Incy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participan ... II#Armenia

In Wif, germany will align Turkey, and Turkey had territorial ambitions in Armenia. I don't think may armenians would be in doubt about what side they were on in such a case.

In real life a turkish alignment to germany would not have been a 'sure thing', and it's a fair bet to assume that many armenians might have switched sides if things went better for germany in caucasus, and they felt alliance with germany would have safeguarded them against turkey and given them 'priority' in a post war caucasus. But turkish alignment to germany automatically makes armenia very loyal to USSR, and that is the only alternative in WIF.

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Skanvak
Froonp, I think the region to move include a bit more of the northern part, to the south we won't go below the persian Gulf.

And to the west I am sure we won't modify the original European map as it is the geographical repference for the earth shifting. We need a fixed point.

Is this better ?

Some numbers:



Persian Gulf <-> Black Sea; 1431 km; 19 hexes; 75 km/hex
Persian Gulf <-> Caspian Sea; 764 km; 8 hexes; 96 km/hex

Worldwide average for MWIF: 1 hex is 80 km north south direction.
So Persian Gulf <-> Caspian Sea could easily be 10 hexes instead of 8.

From lattitude comparisons we find that Theran should be placed one hex further north, and Bandur Shapur could easily have been put one further south.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

See post #50 in this thread for Bandar Shapur's location in MWIF (roughly the same latitude as Basra).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: ullern
Some numbers:



Persian Gulf <-> Black Sea; 1431 km; 19 hexes; 75 km/hex
Persian Gulf <-> Caspian Sea; 764 km; 8 hexes; 96 km/hex

Worldwide average for MWIF: 1 hex is 80 km north south direction.
So Persian Gulf <-> Caspian Sea could easily be 10 hexes instead of 8.

From lattitude comparisons we find that Theran should be placed one hex further north, and Bandur Shapur could easily have been put one further south.

I dont have the same numbers.
Counting all land hexes existing between both bodies of water :

Persian Gulf <-> Black Sea; 18 land hexes; 1,431 km (I did not check this measurement, it is from where to where ?); 79.5 km/hex.
Persian Gulf <-> Caspian Sea; 9 land hexes; 764 km (I did not check this measurement, it is from where to where ?); 84.9 km/hex.

The average distance per hex I measured on the WiF FE European map is : 76 km / hex.
The average distance per hex I measured on the MWiF map (outside European part of the map) is : 89 km / hex.

So the scale in this area of the world should be closer to 89 km / hex.

At a 89 km / hex, the distances should be :
Persian Gulf <-> Black Sea; 1,431 km ==> 16 land hexes instead of 18 land hexes.
Persian Gulf <-> Caspian Sea; 764 km ==> 8.6 that is 9 land hexes instead of 9 land hexes.

My conclusion is that movig the Caspian 2 hexes to the north would need to have the top of the Persian Gulf moved 2 hexes to the north too.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Incy

If you start fixing this part, IMHO the most impurtant thing to fix is the distance between Tiblisi and Baku, which is to long, and has no russian supply. Baku also needs to be much further north.

I think this matters because if Tiflis is lost the caucasus can become a russian death trap, for lack of supply. I think this matters in some games, It often happens that Russia falls back and defends the caucasus, and if Tiflis falls it's reasonable that russia should have a good shot at falling back to a Baku defence.

I think Yerevan should be made a city to give USSR better supply/reinforcement in the region. To move Baku we can delete the hex 3 hexes SE of Tiflis and another 2 hexes due east. Everything SE of this line would be shifted 1 hex northwest, down to around the iranian border, where 3 hexes would be inserted to stop the area shifted.

For supply to Baku, the USSR could put a convoy in the Caspian Sea. I think that is better than adding a new city to the map. If the USSR can't/won't put a convoy there, then why do they deserve supply after losing Tiflis?

Ah, by the way, I wanted to clarify this too.

On the WiF FE maps :
A Russian land unit placed in the mountain hex NE of Tiflis (hex numbered "24") have to trace a basic supply path of 6 to reach Baku.
A Russian land unit placed in the forest hex SE of Tiflis (hex numbered "23") have to trace a basic supply path of 6 to reach Baku.

So, on the WiF FE maps, Russian land units NE & SE of Tiflis, if Tiflis falls to the Germans, are not in supply if there are no Russian HQ on the way to Baku.

So the MWiF map is not worse than the WiF FE maps on this regard.

The distance to Baku from both these hexes is longer though on the MWiF map, respectively 9 and 8 hexes.

[brian brian]

Now I am more confused. The first page of my WiF rule book says a hex is 100km?

I stopped at the library yesterday and used their nice big atlas some. I found Tiflis/Tbilisi to be only around 165 km farther north than Baku by measuring the straight north-south distance from each city to the same parallel.

And yes, one of the other problems is that the north end of the Caspian is a bit too far south, about a hex or so I think. This can best be considered by comparing the locations of Rostov and Guryev, although with that one would already be starting to experience visual curvature distortions on two-dimensional paper maps that will vary depending on the scale and where one centers the view of a particular region. The whole Caspian could move north a row, but that is much less important than taking some rows out of the middle. Where the word 'Azerbaijan' is on the MWiF map would be a good row to delete; the row holding the Allied sea-boxes could be another. There is also too much room between Lake Sevan and the Russian border I think. I think some of the extra land in this region may have crept in by trying too hard to model the bigger peaks with alpine hexsides. To make an alpine hexside one needs two adjacent mountain hexes, and some of those occur where there may only be room for one mountain hex.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Now I am more confused. The first page of my WiF rule book says a hex is 100km?

Yes, this is a theory.
An hex is "about 100 km".
If you round 76 to the nearest hundred, it is 100 [:D].

The figure of 76 is a figure I calculated from measuring 13 inter-cities distances on the WiF FE map, and in the reality (using Google Earth), and make the division.

Here are my measurements :

[brian brian]

for supply, Baku is a supply source (complete with plenty of it's own oil obviously), convoy or not, although it is very good Russian play to put some convoys in the Caspian, because the WiF Germans on the 2d10 will certainly be cutting the Ural industrial region's access to the Caucasus oil by blocking the rail line through Saratov. on previous maps this happened at Rostov, now the choke point is different, and not that difficult to reach. the real Russians used the Volga for shipping quite a bit I believe.

the supply in the area isn't as big an issue for me. if you want supply, you use HQ units. the game already gives away logistic capabilities in a way that would make Napoleon simply drool, so I still hope map decisions aren't made to make supply yet easier for the player-commanders. even with cities five hexes apart in all directions, it still rains and the Stukas still fly in the rain and you still need HQ units.

marching units across phantom terrain does distract me quite a bit however, as does the way the offensive side can't just wall off an enemy city and ignore it, lest a heavily armed enemy army group begin to magically grow there.

[brian brian]

The first rule of World in Flames: always round up. Once you get that one figured out, the rest of the rules are pretty easy. Oh, and then there's the second rule of World in Flames, though you won't see this one written down. Aside from the numbers on the dice, counters and the charts, the rest of the numbers, well, they're a little flexible.

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: ullern
Some numbers:



Persian Gulf <-> Black Sea; 1431 km; 19 hexes; 75 km/hex
Persian Gulf <-> Caspian Sea; 764 km; 8 hexes; 96 km/hex

Worldwide average for MWIF: 1 hex is 80 km north south direction.
So Persian Gulf <-> Caspian Sea could easily be 10 hexes instead of 8.

From lattitude comparisons we find that Theran should be placed one hex further north, and Bandur Shapur could easily have been put one further south.

I dont have the same numbers.
Counting all land hexes existing between both bodies of water :

Persian Gulf <-> Black Sea; 18 land hexes; 1,431 km (I did not check this measurement, it is from where to where ?); 79.5 km/hex.
Persian Gulf <-> Caspian Sea; 9 land hexes; 764 km (I did not check this measurement, it is from where to where ?); 84.9 km/hex.

The average distance per hex I measured on the WiF FE European map is : 76 km / hex.
The average distance per hex I measured on the MWiF map (outside European part of the map) is : 89 km / hex.

So the scale in this area of the world should be closer to 89 km / hex.

At a 89 km / hex, the distances should be :
Persian Gulf <-> Black Sea; 1,431 km ==> 16 land hexes instead of 18 land hexes.
Persian Gulf <-> Caspian Sea; 764 km ==> 8.6 that is 9 land hexes instead of 9 land hexes.

My conclusion is that movig the Caspian 2 hexes to the north would need to have the top of the Persian Gulf moved 2 hexes to the north too.

There are many ways to count hexes.

Persian Gulf <-> Black Sea. I counted Basra and a straight line to hex east of Trabazon. Basra [82,76] - hex east of Trabazon [64,67] => 82-64 = 18. But when I count both the coastal hexes you get 19 instead of 18. Or to put it another way, if you count none of the coastal hexes you'll get 17.

Persian Gulf <-> Caspian Sea; I counted Bandar Shapur and a straight line to hex north east of Teheran. Bandar Shapur is [81,77] while hex north east of Teheran is [74,81]. 81-74 = 7. And again I counted both coastal hexes. So it's 8.

But there are more ways to count. If I only included invade-able hexes I would get 19 and 9. Or if I counted invade-able hexes and didn't count the start coast hex, which may be more appropriate since we can assume that the bodies of waters start halfway into the hex, I would get 18 and 8.

Also we could count from nearest hexdot to nearest hexdot, but I think that's not so relevant.

***

Measuring is also a question of where do you measure. Now I tried to take from Basra to nearest place in Black Sea I was able to find, and likewise Bandar Shapur to nearest place in Caspian I could find. And the Google map measurement is shown in the two screen shots I placed on top of each other in the attached picture.



That gave me slightly lower measurements then what I presented in my last post - I obviously started further out in the Gulf yesterday.

If we consider these new measurements, and consider that a WIF optional rule flying boat flies 18 hexes from Basra to the nearest hex in the Black Sea, or 7 hexes from Bandar Shapur to nearest hex in Caspian Sea. I get 77 km/hex for Black Sea and 102 km/hex for Caspian.

If I only count the invadeable hexes there is one more across Persia but not at the other way so I get 77 km/hex for Black Sea and 89 km/hex for Caspian.

If we add a new hexrow to Persia (in the middle somewhere) moving the Coast of Caspian to the north, so the southernmost hex of Caspian is row 73 instead of 74, and only count invadeable hexes then I get 79 km/hex for Caspian which is still larger than for Black Sea.

***

It's the average distance per hex inside and outside the European map that's the root of the problem I believe, and as all WIF gurus know, the border goes through Caucasus and Iraq.

[Skanvak]

Froonp,

Thank you it is better.

To the other.

To clarify the debate we should agree on what is "correct" I mean by this fixed.

My understanding was to consider that the original WiF European map as to be consider correct and we put the rest from there.
Of course I'd like to have a real geograph (as someone whose job is to make maps) have a look at it and decide of a good process for correcting.

As is it Do we all agree that the European map is fixed?

Ullern, thanks for the number. I am bit supprised for 2 hexes I was quite convince for 3. But this is the good to go. We should find were the map is distorted and where it is not, that will define the part to move.

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Froonp,

Thank you it is better.

To the other.

To clarify the debate we should agree on what is "correct" I mean by this fixed.

My understanding was to consider that the original WiF European map as to be consider correct and we put the rest from there.
Of course I'd like to have a real geograph (as someone whose job is to make maps) have a look at it and decide of a good process for correcting.

As is it Do we all agree that the European map is fixed?

Ullern, thanks for the number. I am bit supprised for 2 hexes I was quite convince for 3. But this is the good to go. We should find were the map is distorted and where it is not, that will define the part to move.

I can give you even more numbers [:D]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth I find that the Earth is 148,940,000 km2 land (29.2 %) and 361,132,000 km2 water (70.8 %).

Subtract 14 000 000 km2 for continent of Antarctica which isn't included in MWIF (also found on wikipedia) and I get 134,940,000 km2 land.

In MWIF:

Numbers of hexdots 44012
Hexes with all lake 81
Hexes with land 26107 of which 4993 is coastal hexes.

Assuming that coastal hexes are all sea because they are really tiny islands, and that I'm not going to include all lake hexes, then I'm counting 21114 full land hexes. 134,940,000 km2 land divided on 21114 full land hexes is 6391 km2 per hex.

Assuming the previous assumption is bullshit and coastal hexes should really be treated as full land hexes I have 26107 full land hexes (still not counting all lake hexes). Which gives me 5168 km2 per hex.

***

Using formula for hexagons (looked up in wikipedia again) I find that

If we count the coastal hexes as all sea, then an average hexagon must be 86 km across the shortest way, and 99 km across from corner to corner.

If we count the coastal hexes as all land, then an average hexagon must be 77 km across the shortest way, and 89 km across from corner to corner.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: ullern
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth I find that the Earth is 148,940,000 km2 land (29.2 %) and 361,132,000 km2 water (70.8 %).

Subtract 14 000 000 km2 for continent of Antarctica which isn't included in MWIF (also found on wikipedia) and I get 134,940,000 km2 land.

In MWIF:

Numbers of hexdots 44012
Hexes with all lake 81
Hexes with land 26107 of which 4993 is coastal hexes.

Assuming that coastal hexes are all sea because they are really tiny islands, and that I'm not going to include all lake hexes, then I'm counting 21114 full land hexes. 134,940,000 km2 land divided on 21114 full land hexes is 6391 km2 per hex.

Assuming the previous assumption is bullshit and coastal hexes should really be treated as full land hexes I have 26107 full land hexes (still not counting all lake hexes). Which gives me 5168 km2 per hex.

***

Using formula for hexagons (looked up in wikipedia again) I find that

If we count the coastal hexes as all sea, then an average hexagon must be 86 km across the shortest way, and 99 km across from corner to corner.

If we count the coastal hexes as all land, then an average hexagon must be 77 km across the shortest way, and 89 km across from corner to corner.

If coastal hexes contain 0% land, we are on your first hypothesis,
If coastal hexes contain 100% land we are on your second hypothesis.

These numbers look like my rough measurements (which are sometimes on the shortest hexagon distance, sometimes on the longest) are quite good.

If we assume that coastal hexes contain 50% land, that's 21,114 full land hexes + 2497 full land hexes (50% of 4,993 coastal hexes) = 23,611 full land hexes. 134,940,000 km2 land divided on 23,611 full land hexes is 5,715 km2 per hex.

If we assume that coastal hexes contain 50% land, then an average hexagon must be 81 km across the shortest way, and 94 km across from corner to corner.

[paulderynck]

To prevent further calculation due to the fact that parts of Northern Canada and Russia, and Greenland, are land hexes that are not on the MWIF map, it is a good brain-saving assumption to say that those missing land hexes are compensated by the extreme over projection at northern latitudes which tends to give many (some?) more land hexes than warranted for the area shown.

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: ullern
Subtract 14 000 000 km2 for continent of Antarctica which isn't included in MWIF

Wait. What? Why? Ice in Flames.

[Taxman66]

Penguins in flames sounds better.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Penguins in flames sounds better.

But it is the Arctic. Polar Bears in Flames? Or perhaps, Aurora Borealis.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Penguins in flames sounds better.

But it is the Arctic. Polar Bears in Flames? Or perhaps, Aurora Borealis.

It's Antarctic.
Arctos in Greek, Arktikos in ancient Greek and Arcticus in Latin mean Bear.

I read in a Dan Brown novel that Arctic is named for the Polar Bears that live there, and that Antarctic is named like that because there are no Polar Bears living there.
But I also read that Arctic is named like that because it is on a part of Earth that is in the area of the Bear Constellation, the small and the large, and that Antarctic is named like that because it is at the opposite side.

[Skanvak]

It cannot be ice in flames as it will melt.

I don't think taht the km² per hex will help the discution or the real distance as we are on a mercator map and Paul point out correctly that distance are distorted as you leave the equator. Russia for example is too big. I hve been busy this week end, still thinking about it.

[Neilster]

The Middle East...and other bits.

Cheers, Neilster