Matrix Games Forums

This is a question that has popped into my mind from time to time, but I've never thought to ask anyone. Many games describe the size of the hexes. WitP says that are 60 miles across. Is that measured from corner to corner, or from flat side to flat side? The answer will affect how much area is actually covered by a hex.

Bill

Side to side IIRC.(This is a trick question, if you consider land movement to air/sea movement.)

bob. bob! BOB!!

I posted several times on this a long time ago, and you even responded. Most of what I was saying was for humor value, but let's see if I can abuse - I mean, "amuse" - you again.

No official source has answered the corner-to-corner or side-to-side question.

If it is side-to-side, each hex is 2700 square miles.

If it is corner-to-corner, each hex is 2846.4 (approx.) square miles.

Now, this is all good geometrical fun, but we still don't know (and I could get no one to tell me) whether these are nautical or statute miles...

The hexes are probably 60 statute miles across. I did a 100 two point comparison of CHS and stock maps - which is on a spreadsheet published somewhere on this Forum - and if you assume nautical miles the errors are significantly worse. Also - the CHS map scheme (and therefore the RHS map scheme which is a modification of it) has almost 10 times less average distance error between points. But there must be errors in a flat map scheme used in the way we are for a globe. Errors are as great as 50% - and commonly in the 20-30% range.

Ships are rated in knots and nautical miles - but move as if they were statute miles. Aircraft are rated in mph and land miles. WITP II probably will do everything in knots - if we ever get WITP II.

I may have miscalculated, but I get 3118 sq miles for side to side and 2338 sq miles for point to point.

I worked it all out using x for the cross bit and y for the side. I then checked my answer by converting the equation from using x to y and got 3 * SQRT(3)/2 * y^2 for both. So I think it's right.

For side to side x, I got SQRT(3)/2 * x^2
For point to point x, I got 3*SQRT(3)/8 * x^2

It is quite possible I need to get a life too...

Bill

ORIGINAL: el cid again
WITP II probably will do everything in knots - if we ever get WITP II.

If you think we will ever get a WITPII, you ARE knots.

Well - I do think we will. The project has been defined. It may be it is not being funded because WITP I is still generating too much cash - why kill the cash cow before its time? I don't think they defined it because there was no possibility of it happening. Waste of money to do that.

ORIGINAL: wdolson
It is quite possible I need to get a life too...

Bill

*sigh* yeah, I know, Bill. I ain't going into the standard hexagonal area calculation formula I used from a textbook, because it just doesn't matter.

I don't give a sh1t about being right anymore. I just wish that game designers would give you a straight answer once in a while. Heck, even once would be an improvement.

One of my favorite reralizations with UV/WitP came when I saw that a UV C-47 could fly a supply or transport mission from Cooktown to Port Moresby, while a WitP C-47 couldn't.

Then, when I saw that the WitP map was drawn assuming that Tokyo was the center of the universe, I knew that my perpetual disappointment with life in general and humanity in specific was justified.

So, it doesn't really matter to me if each hex is 1 or 1,000,000 square miles of any linear definition. We are playing in an arbitrary universe created by ... created by ... ummm...

Nothing really matters.
Anyone can see.
Nothing really matters - to me.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The project has been defined.

Sorry, pal, this is news to me. When and by whom?

ORIGINAL: wdolson
This is a question that has popped into my mind from time to time, but I've never thought to ask anyone. Many games describe the size of the hexes. WitP says that are 60 miles across. Is that measured from corner to corner, or from flat side to flat side? The answer will affect how much area is actually covered by a hex.

I use centre to centre. Which is the same as flat side to flat side. For calculating distances between two locations that makes more sense.

Andrew

I got this quote from a old thread, I even included it in the RHS handbook since I thought it helped clarify this point. Joel Billings - “I am not 100% sure about this, but I think when the map was first created, although it was planned to be set up in nautical miles, it was actually set up in statute miles. Due to issues with the flat map versus round world, I think I was unable to determine for sure what was done by the artists. Although this was several years ago, I recall thinking that although the map was probably done in statute miles, that it was ok for the ships to be in knots due to the inherent distance distortions on the map and the normal friction of war (ships rarely move in a direct line at rated speeds for a 24 hour period - zigzag anyone?). If the aircraft are rated in statute miles based on what you have determined from looking at sources, I'd go with that. I'm usually one that is precise about things, but came to realize on WitP that there was no way to get it perfect given the limitations of the system we were dealing with. Making a game, even a military simulation, is as much art as it is science. When I spoke with Mike Wood about this, he reminded me that speeds and ranges of aircraft depended much on the altitude being flown at, the weapons load out of the aircraft, the weather, and probably many other factors. Given the scale of this game, there is going to be abstraction and simplification, so what's usually important is to stay consistent from one weapon to another as much as the sources allow while getting the desired "feel".”

In other words,

I see a little silhouetto of a man.
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the fandango?

This, to me, just highlights what an undisciplined mess design and development of UV and WitP was.

Some players I know threw up their hands in frustration and quit.

I see their point. I only wonder that the games turned out being playable at all.

If you don't even have a firm idea of something as basic as the map scale, how much of a grip do you have on the more esoteric elements of the game design?

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: wdolson
It is quite possible I need to get a life too...

Bill

*sigh* yeah, I know, Bill. I ain't going into the standard hexagonal area calculation formula I used from a textbook, because it just doesn't matter.

I don't give a sh1t about being right anymore. I just wish that game designers would give you a straight answer once in a while. Heck, even once would be an improvement.

One of my favorite reralizations with UV/WitP came when I saw that a UV C-47 could fly a supply or transport mission from Cooktown to Port Moresby, while a WitP C-47 couldn't.

Then, when I saw that the WitP map was drawn assuming that Tokyo was the center of the universe, I knew that my perpetual disappointment with life in general and humanity in specific was justified.

So, it doesn't really matter to me if each hex is 1 or 1,000,000 square miles of any linear definition. We are playing in an arbitrary universe created by ... created by ... ummm...

Nothing really matters.
Anyone can see.
Nothing really matters - to me.

I think this is a bit too harsh. The map of WITP is much bigger than in UV. It covers a third of the globe - more than half if you use CHS or RHS in terms of longitude. It is utterly impossible to represent a spherical world on a flat map scheme without gross distortion somewhere - unless you are willing to accept "cuts" in the map and "jumps" between them. Then there is the matter of cost. Labor is the big deal in software, and it is a horrible sink for capital. They had to do this economically - or we would never get a product. They did well. Granted, Andrew did better - Andrew was not paid and could afford to do better. A Vice President of Boeing (and former college classmate of mine) once told me "talented amateurs do better work than professionals - theirs is a labor of love - and they take the time to get it right while professionals always have to bring the thing in within budget - meaning they must compromise and not do things in the detail they might prefer."

Add to that the idea that Tokyo is not the center of PTO universe. WITP should always use Tokyo time. It was the ONLY time ever used by the Japanese - one side in the game - and it is the dominant time zone for its most critical battles.
Map projection wise it is difficult to pick a better point to be the center. The only points that might be picked that are not Japanese are Guam and Manila. Really - that criticism appears not to grasp the nature of how a reasonable map would have to be constructed for this theater. It is at least a reasonable choice, one of the top five or six candidates, and arguably the optimum one - in the sense only Tokyo and Manila are significant economically - and Tokyo is the heart of the Japanese empire - while Manila the center only of the Philippines.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The project has been defined.

Sorry, pal, this is news to me. When and by whom?

I think a diligent search will yield some posting or other was made about it. In fact, I think David Heath may have said something about it when he announced hiring of two more WITP programmers - or hinted anyway. The work was done about a year ago - and it involed both a formal Matrix definition effort and inputs from outside. I have no doubt whatever that one of those inputs was a Forum thread on the matter which was started after David's announcement.
But that was not the only external input. Since it is SOP that participants in such inputs are asked not to talk about it, and since Matrix has a remarkably large international group of contributors with high ethical standards, you are not likely to hear a lot about it directly. What was defined, and what to do about it, are properly propriatary matters not to be debated in a public forum. That does not change we have been told such a project is a possibility. WITP is a remarkable software product - it probably makes more money than all other Matrix products combined - and has its own staff still (unlike most "completed" games) - and it is not likely to go away - but will continue to develop. There are some very interesting technical things coming up soon in WITP I. So soon RHS Level 7 may not complete before you see them. It may be that WITP II will not happen - but we have no indication that is the case at this point.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

In other words,

I see a little silhouetto of a man.
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the fandango?

This, to me, just highlights what an undisciplined mess design and development of UV and WitP was.

Some players I know threw up their hands in frustration and quit.

I see their point. I only wonder that the games turned out being playable at all.

If you don't even have a firm idea of something as basic as the map scale, how much of a grip do you have on the more esoteric elements of the game design?

I see I was right about your earlier post. You are being unreasonable and unfair. And I am a technical nit picker - one unwilling to even consider playing stock because of the map alone. But your comments smack of the views of a person who has never tried to do a map like this. [I have done WITP about 6 or 8 times mechanically, on scales from 5 million to 1 down to 1 million to 1; and I have designed two modified map systems based on Andrew Brown's Extended Map system; I also proposed an entirely new map system and rejected it on the basis of the work/time required to do that work.] It also smacks of a person who has never navigated ships in a seaway - and had to calculate endlessly the difference between "speed through the water" and "speed made good over ground". Although I was very upset to learn that aircraft were in mph and ships in knots, it is very likely that the compromise adopted by both Matrix and Andrew is more accurate as simulation than doing it consistently would be (in terms of getting the actual ratio of distances ships move in 12 hours vs planes). If I am a "theory man" and a "detail man" who habitually likes everything to be consistent, and worked out to three or four decimal places, I am unwilling not to be respectful of choices made by competent professionals in the context of real world work loads. I know as much about WITP as anyone does now - a tester can work out the code in a sense that is more complete than the code writers understand (due to the technical way modern code is made) - and I am constantly amazed how WELL WITP works. It is a miracle it works at all - but it does something more than work. Here I will quote a former player, a professional mathmetician and programmer, who now is on the inside: "The game does a better job of conquering the SRA than human players do on the average." Utterly amazing. [He said that after playing 12,000 turns]

Being negative is not productive - and since programmers and others working on the project more or less are unable to defend themselves - it is a bit like kicking a man when he is down. Don't do it. It won't accomplish anything useful.
If you have a problem, present it together with a solution. If you are unwilling to fund the solution, then wait until the capitalists behind Matrix do so - and do so respectively. It is not we who make their capital decisions. When one guy offered to pay Matrix for a change, he got a phone call from the top. If you won't do that, then you need to accept what is economically viable. And wait until the things coming arrive - because there are things coming - including map things - wether or not we go to a WITP II system. This game is going to get better.

Matrix has done something wonderful - and it is hard to find others doing it: they let US mod the game. You have a vast amount of talent working on this. And Matrix has decided to integrate that talent. They not only have done things in response to modders (e.g. since 1.6 the Soviet Navy is part of the game code - something not part of the original concept and introduced by CHS and RHS) - they have facilitated modders doing things not done by stock (e.g. Andrew and I were told how to make cavalry art appear) - and they proposed an integrated standardized art system for CHS, RHS and stock - which proposal is now being implemented. This will permit Matrix and modders both to mix and match art and it will all be consistent. There is more - but not everything need be said to make the point. Matrix is more open than other companies, and it takes input from outside itself, and it is respectful of those who have positive things to contribute.

ORIGINAL: Mifune

I got this quote from a old thread, I even included it in the RHS handbook since I thought it helped clarify this point. Joel Billings - “I am not 100% sure about this, but I think when the map was first created, although it was planned to be set up in nautical miles, it was actually set up in statute miles. Due to issues with the flat map versus round world, I think I was unable to determine for sure what was done by the artists.

In defence of what Joel Billings stated, if you are going to make a 2D map covering as much of the globe as the WitP map does, then there will be differences in scale in different parts of the map. The only way to avoid this is to cut the map up, as Sid comented above (some map projections cut the globe up like an orange peel, which is more accurate, but in my opinion that is ugly).

You can use a map system that minimises this problem, such as using larger "areas" around the map edges, but if you use a consistently sized hex grid, then the map scale around the map edges will be up to 30% smaller than in the middle.

So consider a map made to be 60 nautical miles per hex. If you use that scale in the centre of the map, then the error will be 15% halfway out to the edges, and about 30% near the edges. 15% happens to be the difference between nautical and statute miles, so in other words large parts of the map are actually 60 statute miles per hex, along with the parts that are 60 NM per hex. There is no consistent scale, which is partly why it is hard to pin an exact scale on the map - not only the stock map, but my map as well.

Unless you do something, such as one of the options I mention, to counteract the problem, or use a 3D map, then all you can do is minimise the errors as best you can and accept that the errors are there.

Andrew

It seems to me that the next step in design (hopefully WITP2) would be to use a 3D map like Google Earth or Earth Explorer. Imagine - WITW - War in the World!

The technology clearly exists to have a 3D globe and to be able to store data on it so I am thinking (not being a programmer) that you could marry the game code to a 3D map.

See the new Fighting Steel may system for strategic map.

"Being negative is not productive - and since programmers and others working on the project more or less are unable to defend themselves - it is a bit like kicking a man when he is down. Don't do it. It won't accomplish anything useful.
If you have a problem, present it together with a solution. If you are unwilling to fund the solution, then wait until the capitalists behind Matrix do so - and do so respectively".......






HEAR, HEAR...............