What if we change the map DURING a game?

[el cid again]

I just installed the new RHS map imagery (satellite imagery converted by Cobra) and ran an OLD game - and it works! THAT means we can do things like "build railroads" - "destroy bridges" - etc.

Would there be any interest in a hosted campaign game? That is, a game in which there were rules defining how engineers "build" and, from time to time, the "judge" issues revised maps to the players? This involves more than art - it involves changing the pwhex file.

Sid

[CobraAus]

I can see a lot of minds ticking over when they read this one

Cobra Aus

[bradfordkay]

Since you are only changing the road network, this could work nicely.

Another idea might be to issue different versions of the maps to cover the changes as the war progresses. It would be less tied into anyone's specific game actions, but would be less labour intensive (and thus available to all). Think: no ALCAN, Ledo Road or Burma RR at the start, but added on later year maps after historical completion dates.

[bradfordkay]

One thing about upgrading maps in the middle of the game. If any base locations are changed in the new version of the map, the game can get confused. I had a game started on Andrew's v1 that I later upgraded when the update to the map was released. Japanese troops that were marching to Akyab halted one hex short (which happens to be where Akyab was in the earlier version of the map) and stayed there vor over 11 months. Just a word to the wise...

[m10bob]

Since ports have the built in ability to enlarge, I wonder why historic hexes of "during war construction" could not be also "built in" to the Pwhex. file, with those historic hexes maybe marked with a red dot(?), (meaning this hex is "buildable" for roadway,etc.)
It would contravene the need to change files in future turns.
Maybe the game itself would figure the odds of completion as it does for ports?
The presence of "x" number of engineer construction units would be the requirement, in supply, with terrain (and historical size) being the limiting factor within the hex ref the amt of improvement possible.
The engineer unit might have a new command of "construct", when occupying one of these marked "constructable" hexes.
I don't think those hexes marked as such would be "gamey" as EITHER side with a topographers map would be able to see the same "constructable areas, (like railroads seeking the shortest route,etc..)

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I just installed the new RHS map imagery (satellite imagery converted by Cobra) and ran an OLD game - and it works! THAT means we can do things like "build railroads" - "destroy bridges" - etc.

Would there be any interest in a hosted campaign game? That is, a game in which there were rules defining how engineers "build" and, from time to time, the "judge" issues revised maps to the players? This involves more than art - it involves changing the pwhex file.

Sid

Whoa !! That'd be great ! Players could announce some major building projects to "referee" who could modify the maps/pwhex after required time.

[el cid again]

Another idea might be to issue different versions of the maps to cover the changes as the war progresses. It would be less tied into anyone's specific game actions, but would be less labour intensive (and thus available to all). Think: no ALCAN, Ledo Road or Burma RR at the start, but added on later year maps after historical completion dates.

The problem with this - and the Burma Siam RR - and the Bengal and Assam RR - is that - if you don't invest in the logistics and engineers - you should not get your Ledo Road (etc). Also, you might not be able to do it. Or you might not want to do it.

[el cid again]

One thing about upgrading maps in the middle of the game. If any base locations are changed in the new version of the map, the game can get confused.

This cannot be true: base locations are NOT defined on the map - or in the pwhex file. ONLY the location file does this. Scenarios saved probably have a copy of that file - and it could be corrupted - but it has nothing whatever to do with the map.

[el cid again]

Since ports have the built in ability to enlarge, I wonder why historic hexes of "during war construction" could not be also "built in" to the Pwhex. file, with those historic hexes maybe marked with a red dot(?), (meaning this hex is "buildable" for roadway,etc.)

You must mean "for WITP II" - it can't be because it was not done.
WE cannot do it. It takes code!

[Aawulf]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

One thing about upgrading maps in the middle of the game. If any base locations are changed in the new version of the map, the game can get confused.

This cannot be true: base locations are NOT defined on the map - or in the pwhex file. ONLY the location file does this. Scenarios saved probably have a copy of that file - and it could be corrupted - but it has nothing whatever to do with the map.

If the map was changed such that the destination hex's geography/transportation code was dramatically changed, then it could be "true".

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Since you are only changing the road network, this could work nicely.

Another idea might be to issue different versions of the maps to cover the changes as the war progresses. It would be less tied into anyone's specific game actions, but would be less labour intensive (and thus available to all). Think: no ALCAN, Ledo Road or Burma RR at the start, but added on later year maps after historical completion dates.

One would, of course, have appropriate engineer types present and paid for in supplies? The ALCAN involved wuite a few US Engineer Regiments, along with a goddly amount of civilian contractors. Ditto for the other "wilderness" roads/railroads.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Another idea might be to issue different versions of the maps to cover the changes as the war progresses. It would be less tied into anyone's specific game actions, but would be less labour intensive (and thus available to all). Think: no ALCAN, Ledo Road or Burma RR at the start, but added on later year maps after historical completion dates.

The problem with this - and the Burma Siam RR - and the Bengal and Assam RR - is that - if you don't invest in the logistics and engineers - you should not get your Ledo Road (etc). Also, you might not be able to do it. Or you might not want to do it.

Yes. Takes a bit of logistical planning to pull off.And you need good engineers, one thing that is in very short supply at the biginning of the war in the India/Burma theatre.

[el cid again]

One thing about upgrading maps in the middle of the game. If any base locations are changed in the new version of the map, the game can get confused.

This cannot be true: base locations are NOT defined on the map - or in the pwhex file. ONLY the location file does this. Scenarios saved probably have a copy of that file - and it could be corrupted - but it has nothing whatever to do with the map.

If the map was changed such that the destination hex's geography/transportation code was dramatically changed, then it could be "true".

First of all, a proposal to change a transportation code by adding 1 to its value is not a "dramatic" change.

Second, I deny any "dramatic" change matters a whit. I note that AI loves my ports on rivers in central China - not something designed into the game. It does not care.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I just installed the new RHS map imagery (satellite imagery converted by Cobra) and ran an OLD game - and it works! THAT means we can do things like "build railroads" - "destroy bridges" - etc.

Would there be any interest in a hosted campaign game? That is, a game in which there were rules defining how engineers "build" and, from time to time, the "judge" issues revised maps to the players? This involves more than art - it involves changing the pwhex file.

Sid

Whoa !! That'd be great ! Players could announce some major building projects to "referee" who could modify the maps/pwhex after required time.

Much needs to be done on this since all these projects would be manpower/supply sinks. Building anything in a malria zones is expensive.

[Aawulf]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

One thing about upgrading maps in the middle of the game. If any base locations are changed in the new version of the map, the game can get confused.

This cannot be true: base locations are NOT defined on the map - or in the pwhex file. ONLY the location file does this. Scenarios saved probably have a copy of that file - and it could be corrupted - but it has nothing whatever to do with the map.

If the map was changed such that the destination hex's geography/transportation code was dramatically changed, then it could be "true".

First of all, a proposal to change a transportation code by adding 1 to its value is not a "dramatic" change.

Second, I deny any "dramatic" change matters a whit. I note that AI loves my ports on rivers in central China - not something designed into the game. It does not care.

1. You have taken a leap from "If any base locations are changed in the new version of the map, the game can get confused" to a specific instance where "1" is added to the transportation code.

2. Whether you choose to deny or recognize it, the reality is that a dramatic change to the PWHex does have the capability of creating a great deal of confusion independent of whether or not changes are made to the bases in the location file.

A simple example would be to change a hex where a base is identified to be in the locations file to a deep water hex with no transportation links (252).

[el cid again]

1. You have taken a leap from "If any base locations are changed in the new version of the map, the game can get confused" to a specific instance where "1" is added to the transportation code.

Hardly. I started the thread. I proposed transportation changes. It is my proposal. I get to define what I want to define the way I want to define it. Criticism based on something else entirely is unrelated to my proposal.

[el cid again]

2. Whether you choose to deny or recognize it, the reality is that a dramatic change to the PWHex does have the capability of creating a great deal of confusion independent of whether or not changes are made to the bases in the location file.

I chose to deny it. Because it is false. While I didn't believe him, Cobra first pointed out that ANY pwhex file will work with ANY map or ANY scenario. It may look funny- but it will never crash the program. And IF you pick ANY pwhex file IN SYNC with the art - it will never look funny. Change it how you will. I am quite happy about it too - it means you can use Andrew's pwhex file and my map - or vice versa - and in honor of that we are now probably going to release an RHS map DESIGNED to show exactly what Andrew did in his pwhex file. I don't know what you are talking about. More than that, being intimately familiar with maps and pwhex files now, I don't think you know what you are talking about. No disrespect intended: your fears are unfounded.

[el cid again]

A simple example would be to change a hex where a base is identified to be in the locations file to a deep water hex with no transportation links (252).

First, what in the world has that got to do with my proposal to change transportation codes? Why is it germane to this thread?

Second, yes - it is quite true - you can program a location file wrong. Since I discussed ONLY changing art and pwhex files, what is THAT germane to this thread?

Third, yes - it is quite true - you can program a pwhex file and a location file not in sync with each other. Why would anyone do that on purpose?
Any changed file made to FACILITATE a game in progress would have to be done in a technically correct way. Why is it germane to say "doing it in a way that could not work - changing a file that is not even part of the proposal - is a problem"?????