Map changes in the works - and a possible new name

[el cid again]

Andrew's "pipeline" down the Amur appears on the latest of Cobra's map art for RHS. But I don't want a pipeline there - and I didn't code a road like Andrew did - although in fact I do have something like a road in the same hexes (a hybred thing composed of trail and road hexes for technical reasons that would make no sense represented in art). And I DO put LCF (low capacity ferry) symbols on the map to indicate the Amur is a ferry route - which is essentially correct.

While I am a big advocate of navigable rivers, and introduced them to WITP (almost - Andrew took the idea and implemented it first as far as Nanking), the Amur is NOT such a river. Even a destroyer cannot sail up her - ships built upriver must be specially floated out and completed at Vladavostok - they cannot sail her if actually in normal trim. So I use the "ferry" system otherwise generally limted to adjacent hexes (the only other long distance one feeds the former Port Alice - which I renamed Coal Harbor for historical reasons - at the request of Canadians).

So Cobra is taking the pipeline (road like) symbol out of the RHS map. He may leave it in a specifically CHS version of his map art.

I am proposing we call the RHS map "Cobra's Map" - because while I concieved of it - and did the pw hex file - it is his art. Further, my ideas for changing things is filtering over into Andrew's map - and I just figured out players can "mix and match" the pwhex file as they please! Thus, if you are playing CHS but like "Cobra's Map" - you can get EXACTLY the same pwhex effects of CHS by using the pwhex.dat file Andrew does. OR you can get the river navigation, ferries, etc of MY pwhex.dat file IN CHS - by using MY pwhex.dat file. You even could play RHS and NOT have river navigation or ferries between islands - by putting Andrew's pwhex.dat file with the RHS map. [Edit: My map is, and always was, a plagerized version of the Andrew Brown Extended map - so to a much greater extent than the reverse - Andrew's ideas are on my map: it is almost entirely his creation - with a few changes.]

IF we are going down the road of TWO maps with Cobra's art - seems likely as there are already three (the original, regular art; the satellite art; and the soft tone satellite art) - THEN you may be able to pick

a CHS version (which you install with Andrew's pwhex.dat file) OR
a RHS version (which you install with the RHS pwhex.dat file).

And whatever version, I think that the map family using Cobra's art should be known as "Cobra's Map" -

Note that I was not clever enough to invent the idea of interchangable maps - but I am not at all opposed to it. When we learn of changes Andrew makes (or plans to make) we often fold them into the RHS map (even before Andrew actually makes them). This is possible because Andrew, Cobra and I exchange information on a continuous basis. We are ending up with different interpretations of certain things - like wether or not you can move from Sumatra to Java if you are Dutch - or wether or not you can sail the Yangze all the way to Wuhan (the point ocean ships have sailed to since the 19th century)? These different interpretations are in fact viable choices for PLAYERS to make now: it is no longer the modders in control of them. Pick your map, pick your pwhex file, and it will work.

I like it.

Note that I do not understand the idea "one must have lots of house rules to use an extended map" - and I have NONE at all. Cobra and I decided to preserve Andrew's interpretation of victory points at the map edges of the extended map - and these REWARD Japan for capture big time. We don't think it is easy to get there - and it should matter if they can. I think that running the LOC out to Aden and Panama makes great sense and have no interest in a "regular" map. What I DO have interest in is a map going to the Cape of Good Hope and including Madagascar.

[JeffroK]

Ahem, I wonder who first mentioned Coal Harbour was the real base and not Port Alice.

As for the Amur not being navigable.

Amur (ämʊr') , Chin. Heilongjiang, river, c.1,800 mi (2,900 km) long, formed by the confluence of the Shilka and Argun rivers, NE Asia, at the Russian-Chinese border; the Amur-Shilka-Onon system is c.2,700 mi (4,350 km) long. The Amur flows generally southeast, forming for more than 1,000 mi (1,610 km) the border between Russia and China, then NE through Russia before entering the Tartar Strait opposite Sakhalin island. Its chief tributaries are the Ussuri, Songhua, Zeya, and Bureya rivers. One of the chief waterways of Asia, the Amur is navigable for small craft for its entire length during the ice-free season (May–Nov.). The chief ports are the Russian cities of Khabarovsk (the head of large craft navigation), Komsomolsk, and Nikolayevsk.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Both Far East cruisers, Kaganovich and Kalinin, were launched at Komsomolsk and only fitted out at Vladivostok.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Cobra and I decided to preserve Andrew's interpretation of victory points at the map edges of the extended map - and these REWARD Japan for capture big time. We don't think it is easy to get there - and it should matter if they can.

How about minimising base VP outside of Japan and the US?

In AdmSprunce's "They Were Expendable" AAR, he got an AV by 01/01/45. About 77,500 VPs to 36,500. 16,000 and 2,000 of these were base VP, respectively. If we imagined we removed the base VP, the game would have had a ways yet to go.

By making Japan and the US the only places with a large base VP haul, it would be harder for both sides to achieve an AV. Then there'd be less incentive of the Japanese player to go for bust, but on the other hand, he'd have a better chance of making it to the autumn of '45 undefeated, which - at least in my book - counts as a Japanese victory.

There's a question of balance of course.

As it stands, the major base VP gain for Japan falls in three groups:

A given: Hong Kong, Manila, Singapore, Rangoon.

Possible: Suva, Noumea

Unlikely: HI, US, Chungking, Karachi, OZ.

Noumea in particular is a problem as it's worth a good number of VP to the Allied player - I forget, 50 or 100 VP per base increment - and removing these in effect hands them to Japan, making AV more, not less, likely. So the Allied player might have to be compesated somehow.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Ahem, I wonder who first mentioned Coal Harbour was the real base and not Port Alice.

As for the Amur not being navigable.

Amur (ämʊr') , Chin. Heilongjiang, river, c.1,800 mi (2,900 km) long, formed by the confluence of the Shilka and Argun rivers, NE Asia, at the Russian-Chinese border; the Amur-Shilka-Onon system is c.2,700 mi (4,350 km) long. The Amur flows generally southeast, forming for more than 1,000 mi (1,610 km) the border between Russia and China, then NE through Russia before entering the Tartar Strait opposite Sakhalin island. Its chief tributaries are the Ussuri, Songhua, Zeya, and Bureya rivers. One of the chief waterways of Asia, the Amur is navigable for small craft for its entire length during the ice-free season (May–Nov.). The chief ports are the Russian cities of Khabarovsk (the head of large craft navigation), Komsomolsk, and Nikolayevsk.

[;)]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Ahem, I wonder who first mentioned Coal Harbour was the real base and not Port Alice.

Well, it certainly wasn't me!

Regarding the Amur: The reason that I added the "pipeline" here was so that oil could be moved from Okha to the rest of the Soviet Union. There was a real pipeline there doing just that, although it didn't reach ALL the way to Komsomolsk, only part way (I looked for info on how the oil was shipped from the end of the pipeline to Komsomolsk but I didn't find any info - presumably it was by barge on the Amur, but I am not sure).

Unfortunately the game does not actually allow us to add an actual pipeline to the map - it is simulated by adding a road to the map data (As ElCid mentioned, he is doing something similar to this). This has side effects - LCUs and supplies can move up/down the road as well. I don't have a problem with supplies moving between Komsomolsk and Nikolaevsk, given the use of river transport on the Amur, but as for LCUs - In my latest map notes I explain, in the "House Rules" section, that it is up to players to decide on whether moving LCUs along the "pipeline" (road) between these two bases is "legal". Perhaps another option is for the Soviets to be allowed to do it, simulating their ownership of the river transports, but not the Japanese.

In short - doing such things on the map are a compromise. I originally decided not to use this "pipeline", and I used to add daily oil to Komsomolsk instead, but that is not a good solution to the "Okha oil problem" either.

Regarding victory points for bases: I have never paid too much attention to this, probably a bad thing. When I originally added Aden and the "Middle East" base to the "extended" map, the latter was representing a composite of British assets in the eastern Med and Africa. Due to what it was representing, I tried to make the base invulnerable to Japanese capture by manipulating the map data (this is why there is a black hexagon over the Middle East base on older versions of my map, by the way - to represent that the base should NOT be attacked by the Japanese). Because it was not meant to be attacked/attackable by the Japanese, I only gave the Middle East base a small number of victory points.

However my attempt to make the Middle East base invulnerable by manipulating the map data was not successful, so it was basically redundant, and I have now removed it. The "Aden" base now repesents the British Med/African bases, and so I now suggest the house rule that it not be attacked, instead of applying that to the Middle East base. For this reason I am now reducing the victory points allocated to Aden, down to 1.

For Panama, I have never suggested, by house rule or otherwise, that it should not be attacked. On the contrary, the Americans greatly feared an attack on the Panama Canal by the Japanese, and such a move should not be restricted by a house rule. They are, and should be, fair game. For this reason, the bases in Panama should have more than the minimum number of VPs.

Adding extra bases, with extra VP points, will change the balance of the game, however, and that is something that I have not studied at all.

Andrew

[el cid again]

As for the Amur not being navigable.

Amur (ämʊr') , Chin. Heilongjiang, river, c.1,800 mi (2,900 km) long, formed by the confluence of the Shilka and Argun rivers, NE Asia, at the Russian-Chinese border; the Amur-Shilka-Onon system is c.2,700 mi (4,350 km) long. The Amur flows generally southeast, forming for more than 1,000 mi (1,610 km) the border between Russia and China, then NE through Russia before entering the Tartar Strait opposite Sakhalin island. Its chief tributaries are the Ussuri, Songhua, Zeya, and Bureya rivers. One of the chief waterways of Asia, the Amur is navigable for small craft for its entire length during the ice-free season (May–Nov.). The chief ports are the Russian cities of Khabarovsk (the head of large craft navigation), Komsomolsk, and Nikolayevsk.

I agree with this data. You misunderstand its WITP significance: it is NOT navigable UNLESS you want to allow the Yamato to got there! The Amur is not like that. The lower Yangze is.

[el cid again]

Both Far East cruisers, Kaganovich and Kalinin, were launched at Komsomolsk and only fitted out at Vladivostok.

Again, I know that and agree with that. But you are missing the point: Once fitted out neither could sail back to Komsomolsk. IF we allow the Amur to be navigable, cruisers can go there - and bombard!

[el cid again]

Unfortunately the game does not actually allow us to add an actual pipeline to the map - it is simulated by adding a road to the map data (As ElCid mentioned, he is doing something similar to this). This has side effects - LCUs and supplies can move up/down the road as well. I don't have a problem with supplies moving between Komsomolsk and Nikolaevsk, given the use of river transport on the Amur, but as for LCUs - In my latest map notes I explain, in the "House Rules" section, that it is up to players to decide on whether moving LCUs along the "pipeline" (road) between these two bases is "legal". Perhaps another option is for the Soviets to be allowed to do it, simulating their ownership of the river transports, but not the Japanese.

The Amur has, for two centuries, been a significant barge route. Any owning player can be thought of as able to float cargo/troops down it.
Thus my use of the term "ferry" - and use of trail hexes to be "slow" movement rates. The only reason they cannot all be trail hexes is technical - it won't work for more than three hexes - so we "sandwich" in two road hexes - and it works - slowly - close enough. It moves supplies slowly too. But resources and oil move at the speed of light!

[el cid again]

For Panama, I have never suggested, by house rule or otherwise, that it should not be attacked. On the contrary, the Americans greatly feared an attack on the Panama Canal by the Japanese, and such a move should not be restricted by a house rule. They are, and should be, fair game. For this reason, the bases in Panama should have more than the minimum number of VPs.

The British fears for the Mideast - and for Madagascar - were similar. This is the reason for the Allied occupation of Madagascar and Iran in fact.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

For Panama, I have never suggested, by house rule or otherwise, that it should not be attacked. On the contrary, the Americans greatly feared an attack on the Panama Canal by the Japanese, and such a move should not be restricted by a house rule. They are, and should be, fair game. For this reason, the bases in Panama should have more than the minimum number of VPs.

The British fears for the Mideast - and for Madagascar - were similar. This is the reason for the Allied occupation of Madagascar and Iran in fact.

They feared an air attack or sabatoge, but not an invasion. The real invasion threat actually was from Germany in early war.

[bradfordkay]

Didn't Andrew first come up with the idea of a navigable river when he turned Portland, Oregon, into a major port on his first map (or was it the second version of his map - I've been playing on it so long I can't recall)?

[el cid again]

The British fears for the Mideast - and for Madagascar - were similar. This is the reason for the Allied occupation of Madagascar and Iran in fact.


They feared an air attack or sabatoge, but not an invasion. The real invasion threat actually was from Germany in early war.

I refer you to Churchill. His fear may have been exaggerated - or not.
Madagascar was a Vichy controlled territory - and it would not really take an "invasion" to send things there. India was also virtually in revolution - every politician in country was in PRISON! [There had been a convention of the unified Congress party - in the days it INCLUDED Muslims - and they demanded recognition of India's claims for independence as a condition for supporting the war. The British probably overreacted, and considered it treason, creating a very awkward situation - one that might have been exploited a great deal - see Calvorocci et all in Total War and An Atlas of Revolutions.]

[el cid again]

Didn't Andrew first come up with the idea of a navigable river when he turned Portland, Oregon, into a major port on his first map (or was it the second version of his map - I've been playing on it so long I can't recall)?

Maybe. I am not sure if this happened before - or at the same time - he allowed river navigation to Nanking. But I think both were in response to requests from me. In any case, he was not willing to go all the way to Wuhan (Hankow) - and that is why I wanted a variation of his map. The Yangze is navigable to ocean ships to Wuhan - where there is a 78 year old shipyard - and the Great Bridge at Nanking was designed to clear the Queen Mary benieth her. I regard the reform of Portland being inland as a great reform - and Andrew writes he likes the idea of making Calcutta a river port - so the fact is that we are very, very close in our thinking about river ports. We also both believe that giving players options is a good thing. I think it was Andrew's idea which resulted in the RHS variation of CHS (although the name came from Joe). He felt that giving players different sets of planes, options about how to deal with the possibility of Shinano as a CV or BB, etc, is a good idea.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Maybe. I am not sure if this happened before - or at the same time - he allowed river navigation to Nanking. But I think both were in response to requests from me.

No. Portalnd has been a port on my map for a very long time now. The system used to allow ships to use Portland is the same on that was later used to make the other "navigable" rivers.

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
They feared an air attack or sabatoge, but not an invasion. The real invasion threat actually was from Germany in early war.

Also, keep in mind that "Aden" represents not only Aden itself, along with other Middle Eastern/Egyptian bases such as Alexandria. It also represents East Africa and South Africa (Capetown/Durban), and later, Madagascar. Aden is a "meta base" designed to represent all of these places, as a way of allowing the British to move forces and supplies into the theatre even if India was attacked. That is why I recommend the house rule that it not be attacked/invaded by the Japanese.

Andrew

[el cid again]

No. Portalnd has been a port on my map for a very long time now. The system used to allow ships to use Portland is the same on that was later used to make the other "navigable" rivers.

I now dimly remember Andrew explaining to me how he made navigation on the Inland Sea and on the Columbia River possible - I am sure he is right he did these things long ago.

And since I have not said so for a few weeks - let me say that it is Andrew Brown's Extended Map that brought me to WITP for real. I own a version 1.0 copy - and NEVER was willing to attempt to use it with the (explitive deleted) stock map. Joe wrote "Andrew must be a genius" for figuring out his map - and I second the motion.

[el cid again]

Also, keep in mind that "Aden" represents not only Aden itself, along with other Middle Eastern/Egyptian bases such as Alexandria. It also represents East Africa and South Africa (Capetown/Durban), and later, Madagascar. Aden is a "meta base" designed to represent all of these places, as a way of allowing the British to move forces and supplies into the theatre even if India was attacked. That is why I recommend the house rule that it not be attacked/invaded by the Japanese.

Interestingly, I think of Aden slightly differently. I believe it is the point at which supplies, oil etc reach the theater FROM the mideast or the Cape of Good Hope route - not that it IS those places. Thus, I am removing from play ships moving supplies from them TO Aden. I don't think you CAN capture those places - so I calculate what is AT Aden - and ADD to it what COMES to Aden from these (and more distant) places. Thus when I talk about capturing Aden, I refer to the point at the end of the Red Sea - not all the places behind it.

I think of Panama in the same way. There is what is there - and what comes there (and a trick - since the stockpile cannot be high enough for oil - some of the oil there in real life shows up as daily supply - to make up for the inadequate size of the supply tanks I can program at the start).
You CAN capture Panama - and the supplies stored there - but you cannot capture New Orleans, New York City or whatever other point is shipping to it.

I think of Melbourne in the same way. There is what is there - and what comes there - via the Cape Horne route mostly - thinks like the Queens (Elizabeth and Mary). You can capture Melbourne, but not London - which is feeding it.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
You CAN capture Panama - and the supplies stored there - but you cannot capture New Orleans, New York City or whatever other point is shipping to it.

I agree with that - I will have to emphasise in the CHS notes that there should not be a restriction on the Japanese attacking Panama on the extended map (in the same way that I suggest restricting attacks on Aden). Panama is "fair game" as far as I am concerned, otherwise the Allies can strip the whole area of its forces.

Andrew

[el cid again]

I wonder if it is practical to make a bit more of the approaches to the Gulf of Panama on the map? That way patrol aircraft make more sense - and ships have a number of possible routes - making submarine interception less than an exact science. The "mini-map" already exists: can it be expaned a bit to Westward?