RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 12:09:49 AM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I want their learning curve to be a gentle climb, and not require pitons, ropes, and Sherpa guides.

Somebody forgot the beer?

Flipper

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 31

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 1:40:21 AM

Rexor

Posts: 295
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The Oort Cloud
Status: offline

I don't want to be a fly in the ointment, but aren't the sea areas too vast on this scale? Or is this just picking nits? I mean, compared to some of those in the Atlantic and Med, these babies are truly immense on the new Pacific scale.

(in reply to Anendrue)

Post #: 32

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 3:15:01 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rexor
I don't want to be a fly in the ointment, but aren't the sea areas too vast on this scale? Or is this just picking nits? I mean, compared to some of those in the Atlantic and Med, these babies are truly immense on the new Pacific scale.

A question that is easy to answer - sea area definitions are straight from WIF FE. The Gulf of Mexico has been added, as per America in Flames, but otherwise the sizes are the same. There are a few corrections I still need to make where CWIF and WIF FE differ (MWIF sea area boundaries will match WIF FE) but they are just a few hexes here and there in the middle of the ocean.

I have no interest in making changes from WIF FE's definitions of sea areas.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Rexor)

Post #: 33

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 2:04:45 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

As far as Islands go in the Pacific, the navigation maps even in the mid 50's were not all that complete and a many small Islands were either not on the maps or noted as 'reported by USS xxx in 1952 to be 15 miles NW of the printed location etc.

This is real, I was there on merchant ships at the time.

Lars

And I bet you've got a few stories you could tell us you salty old sea dog.

Dusky young island girls...swaying palms...fresh coconut milk...rum by the bucketload...preferably all together.

They must have been the days...

There are lots of advantages to living today, like the internet, but it seems to me that there was a period from the 30s to perhaps 1970 where men could still do stuff like work a passage to the South Seas and have real adventures. Maybe I've just watched too many old movies but you get the feeling that in those days there was more freedom to do unusual stuff.

It seems any adventuring today requires comprehensive insurance coverage, an environmental impact statement and 18 months of paperwork. Then when you get there, you find it's overrun with backpackers and souvenir stands.

No, no, no. Give me flying boats and nattily dressed gentlemen enjoying gin and tonics to the music of the Pacific lapping at the beach, while casting an educated eye over the local Tahitian lovlies. That's style!

Cheers, Neilster

< Message edited by Neilster -- 7/12/2006 2:05:28 PM >

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 34

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 2:12:24 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rexor

I don't want to be a fly in the ointment, but aren't the sea areas too vast on this scale? Or is this just picking nits? I mean, compared to some of those in the Atlantic and Med, these babies are truly immense on the new Pacific scale.

It's an interesting point, but even though the sea areas are now larger, the movement rates are now unified (ie higher in the Pacific than they were). Anyone got an analysis of how this pans out?

I guess playtesting will reveal any major bugs.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Rexor)

Post #: 35

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 7:54:54 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
It's an interesting point, but even though the sea areas are now larger, the movement rates are now unified (ie higher in the Pacific than they were). Anyone got an analysis of how this pans out?

I guess playtesting will reveal any major bugs.

Cheers, Neilster

I am not sure what you mean here by 'higher'.

For naval movement, MWIF matches WIF FE exactly.

It is only the air movement costs that might change, and Patrice has been reporting on that from time to time, for different sections of the Pacific.

There are mimimal changes to land movement too, where it is/was possible to step from island to island using marines.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 36

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 8:21:03 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

I think some of those 'shoals' and 'rocks' might be a bit small to have any military significance, i.e. long enough to build an airstrip on? It seems there are more land hexes now between Pearl and Midway?

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

This is also the most logical, because the only reason I can think of, that would lead to an island not having an airfield built on it, is that it is too mountainous.

I think of the Bonin island while writing this, because I'm currently preparing a map showing Japan, plus the Bonin, plus the Marianas, from Korea to Marcus Island. Should be ready for me to upload here soon.

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 37

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 9:06:52 PM

Anendrue

Posts: 817
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I think some of those 'shoals' and 'rocks' might be a bit small to have any military significance, i.e. long enough to build an airstrip on? It seems there are more land hexes now between Pearl and Midway?

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

This is also the most logical, because the only reason I can think of, that would lead to an island not having an airfield built on it, is that it is too mountainous.

I think of the Bonin island while writing this, because I'm currently preparing a map showing Japan, plus the Bonin, plus the Marianas, from Korea to Marcus Island. Should be ready for me to upload here soon.

True mountainous land would be a reason but there are a host of other geological reasons also. You dont just say here is some flat land of dimensions X by Y now build an airfield. Other reasons are water sources, ports, shoals, barriers, and transfer of supplies to the island. There were a host of reasons why many islands went undefended because of their tactical and strategic unimportance. However in a game play balance is the ultimate reason to include or not include a land mass etc... I am beginning to worry that all these changes with no testing could affect the game play. Please do some game testing on these changes as this will alleviate the ground swelling of tension in the community.

_____________________________

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 38

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 9:55:21 PM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I think some of those 'shoals' and 'rocks' might be a bit small to have any military significance, i.e. long enough to build an airstrip on? It seems there are more land hexes now between Pearl and Midway?

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

This is also the most logical, because the only reason I can think of, that would lead to an island not having an airfield built on it, is that it is too mountainous.

I think of the Bonin island while writing this, because I'm currently preparing a map showing Japan, plus the Bonin, plus the Marianas, from Korea to Marcus Island. Should be ready for me to upload here soon.

True mountainous land would be a reason but there are a host of other geological reasons also. You dont just say here is some flat land of dimensions X by Y now build an airfield. Other reasons are water sources, ports, shoals, barriers, and transfer of supplies to the island. There were a host of reasons why many islands went undefended because of their tactical and strategic unimportance. However in a game play balance is the ultimate reason to include or not include a land mass etc... I am beginning to worry that all these changes with no testing could affect the game play. Please do some game testing on these changes as this will alleviate the ground swelling of tension in the community.

CWiF also had all these Islands in the Pacific in the very same scale. CWiF was tested and played quite a lot in the past and the play balance was fine and the Pacific theater a joy to play.

Lars

(in reply to Anendrue)

Post #: 39

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 9:59:02 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

I understand the concern of adding "extra" bases to the map.

Please refresh my memory: What is the difference in stacking limits?

(That is, European map scale versus Pacific map scale.)

We are enforcing Euro map scale stacking throughout the map now. Are the proposed changes adding that much new (airbase) room?

Bear in mind: We have not added new air or naval units compared to WiFFE, and we have not added new production capability to any of the Major Powers yet.

Also: An entire island group (like the Marshalls) is still "conquered" when all the minor ports of the group are occupied. Hex control changes would force a rebase.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 40

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 10:10:08 PM

Anendrue

Posts: 817
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I think some of those 'shoals' and 'rocks' might be a bit small to have any military significance, i.e. long enough to build an airstrip on? It seems there are more land hexes now between Pearl and Midway?

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

This is also the most logical, because the only reason I can think of, that would lead to an island not having an airfield built on it, is that it is too mountainous.

I think of the Bonin island while writing this, because I'm currently preparing a map showing Japan, plus the Bonin, plus the Marianas, from Korea to Marcus Island. Should be ready for me to upload here soon.

True mountainous land would be a reason but there are a host of other geological reasons also. You dont just say here is some flat land of dimensions X by Y now build an airfield. Other reasons are water sources, ports, shoals, barriers, and transfer of supplies to the island. There were a host of reasons why many islands went undefended because of their tactical and strategic unimportance. However in a game play balance is the ultimate reason to include or not include a land mass etc... I am beginning to worry that all these changes with no testing could affect the game play. Please do some game testing on these changes as this will alleviate the ground swelling of tension in the community.

CWiF also had all these Islands in the Pacific in the very same scale. CWiF was tested and played quite a lot in the past and the play balance was fine and the Pacific theater a joy to play.

Lars

Thank you for your explanation. While I have played WiF I have never played CWiF. However I understand that Steve is caught betweeen replicating WiF FE as he has stated clearly many times and using the CWiF code as a base and due to the necessities of programming must combine these. If that is the only thing changing then fine. However I understand that city placements which affects ranges and stacking in China has occurred and in other map areas. That alone could change the strategic objectives and game flow. If the same thing happens in the Pacific then what? I think Steve and Patrice have done a good job of trying to integrate them. I just want to know what level of regression testing is occurring and what the effect of all these changes is going to be?

_____________________________

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 41

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 10:48:01 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

Here is what the Japan area looks like. It is 48% the original size, so if you'd like close up, just ask, and I'll post them.

Let me also say that I am only drawing coastlines to better see the map, and to better review it. Those coastlines are not the final ones that the Artis will do.

Let me also say that, except for the names (and the curved borders in the sea), I added nothing to this map, it is as this since the old CWiF days (except for the coastlines).

Now, for the modifications I'd make to it to make it better :

- I'd remove the clear terrain island for which I did not drew the coastlines, south of Japan (because it is never on the maps I check).
- I'd push the little island that is east of Amani Island (north of Okinawa) 1 hex northeast.
- Maybe I'd make 1-2 hexes in the Bonin Islands be Mountains terrain Kita Iwo & Nishi-No Shima, but this would need to be checked on precise maps, what I did not do.

Note : I believe "Retto" means "Group of Islands" in Japanese. I wonder if "Shima" and "Jima" have the same meaning, which I suspect to be something like "volcaneous mountains island", or simply "mountain isles".

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Froonp -- 7/12/2006 10:52:28 PM >

(in reply to Anendrue)

Post #: 42

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 10:51:08 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

Let me also say that, except for the names (and the curved borders in the sea), I added nothing to this map, it is as this since the old CWiF days (except for the coastlines).

Well, I'm an ugly liar, because I did modify something (I forgot, because I made this at start) :

- Iwo Jima was wrongly placed on the original CWiF / MWiF map. In reality it is the island in the southern Bonin. The Island marked Iwo Jima is Okinotori Shima instead. I made this modification on the above map.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 43

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 10:55:06 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

Please refresh my memory: What is the difference in stacking limits?
(That is, European map scale versus Pacific map scale.)

There is none.
But if there is 1 extra island in one place, this island is an extra air base.
That said, none of the extra islands have any port of city, and some are mountain hexes (no planes here).

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 44

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/12/2006 11:04:32 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Please refresh my memory: What is the difference in stacking limits?
(That is, European map scale versus Pacific map scale.)

There is none.
But if there is 1 extra island in one place, this island is an extra air base.
That said, none of the extra islands have any port of city, and some are mountain hexes (no planes here).

Yup. Thanks. Just downloaded and looked at Raw v7 just now.

I also found out that Engineers increase the stacking limit by one, as well! Wow! Didn't know that! Hmmm....

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 45

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/13/2006 12:42:59 AM

Peter Stauffenberg

Posts: 403
Joined: 2/24/2006
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Note : I believe "Retto" means "Group of Islands" in Japanese. I wonder if "Shima" and "Jima" have the same meaning, which I suspect to be something like "volcaneous mountains island", or simply "mountain isles".

Great looking map as usual.

Look at this link for meaning of Japanese names:
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/japanlan.htm

You're right that Shima and Jima mean island.

You're right that retto means archipelago (group of islands). Look here for details:
http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/wildhorse/chap1-1.html

< Message edited by Borger Borgersen -- 7/13/2006 12:47:44 AM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 46

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/13/2006 11:07:04 AM

wosung

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Note : I believe "Retto" means "Group of Islands" in Japanese. I wonder if "Shima" and "Jima" have the same meaning, which I suspect to be something like "volcaneous mountains island", or simply "mountain isles".

Great looking map as usual.

Look at this link for meaning of Japanese names:
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/japanlan.htm

You're right that Shima and Jima mean island.

You're right that retto means archipelago (group of islands). Look here for details:
http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/wildhorse/chap1-1.html

Right for the translations

retto = Flock of Islands, Archipelago

Shima/Jima = Island (The Character means literally: "Birds on a Rock")

And, Patrice: I really like the Map!

Regards

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 47

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/13/2006 3:16:55 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
It's an interesting point, but even though the sea areas are now larger, the movement rates are now unified (ie higher in the Pacific than they were). Anyone got an analysis of how this pans out?

I guess playtesting will reveal any major bugs.

Cheers, Neilster

I am not sure what you mean here by 'higher'.

For naval movement, MWIF matches WIF FE exactly.

It is only the air movement costs that might change, and Patrice has been reporting on that from time to time, for different sections of the Pacific.

There are mimimal changes to land movement too, where it is/was possible to step from island to island using marines.

Err...I forgot about naval movement. Not too bright when we're considering the Pacific.

I was thinking about land movement but I haven't played WiF in so long I forget a lot of the rules. I thought moving a hex on the pacific map in WiF costs 2MP at least? So what I meant by "higher" is that at the unified scale a 4MP unit can move 4 hexes instead of 2.

So what of this naval movement conundrum? Isn't naval movement artificially generous in the Pacific if the sea areas are now much bigger? I understand what you said about not changing them but I'm interested in what you have to say. Surely this also came up in CWiF testing.

Cheeers, Neilster

< Message edited by Neilster -- 7/13/2006 3:20:40 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 48

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/13/2006 8:10:50 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
...

So what of this naval movement conundrum? Isn't naval movement artificially generous in the Pacific if the sea areas are now much bigger? I understand what you said about not changing them but I'm interested in what you have to say. Surely this also came up in CWiF testing.

Cheeers, Neilster

How ADG decided on sea areas is beyond my knowledge. I am sure it was difficult to decide tough travel over the open ocean must have been easier than in close to shore. The decision to use both range and movement points for naval units clearly came about because using just 1 number wasn't getting the job done. No matter what you think about it as a design decision, this is the core element of the naval movement system. From that and the placement in a sea box number driving search roles, surprise, and general capabilities of a naval unit when at sea, comes second. Only then do you have the ability to make decisions about where to draw the sea areas - how many and the boundaries between them. Almost every boundary would be a potential source of contentious argument - so I do not want to touch them with a ten foot pole.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 49

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/14/2006 8:29:18 AM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

I would prefer if the number of airbases close to Japan on Islands was similiar to the number on the WIFFE map.
The solution with making the other islands having mountain terrain seems to be a good solution.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 50

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/14/2006 1:41:22 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

I would prefer if the number of airbases close to Japan on Islands was similiar to the number on the WIFFE map.
The solution with making the other islands having mountain terrain seems to be a good solution.

Please note also that, while there are more islands in the Sea south of Japan, most of those islands are hard for the Allies to supply (need the allies to be masters of the China Sea, which if is true, pretty means that Japan is already dead now). The only islands which are "easy" to put in supply (needing supply from the Marianas Sea Zone only) are those who are on the Sea Zone boundary between the Marianas Sea Zone and the China Sea Sea Zone.
There are 4 of them now (MWiF), and there were 3 before (WiF FE).
The 4 we have now are at ranges 12-20 from Tokyo.
The 3 we had before are at ranges 6-10 from Tokyo.
So, while there are more, they are much far away. Indeed they are placed at realistic distances.

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 51

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/14/2006 2:25:56 PM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
...

So what of this naval movement conundrum? Isn't naval movement artificially generous in the Pacific if the sea areas are now much bigger? I understand what you said about not changing them but I'm interested in what you have to say. Surely this also came up in CWiF testing.

Cheeers, Neilster

How ADG decided on sea areas is beyond my knowledge. I am sure it was difficult to decide tough travel over the open ocean must have been easier than in close to shore. The decision to use both range and movement points for naval units clearly came about because using just 1 number wasn't getting the job done. No matter what you think about it as a design decision, this is the core element of the naval movement system. From that and the placement in a sea box number driving search roles, surprise, and general capabilities of a naval unit when at sea, comes second. Only then do you have the ability to make decisions about where to draw the sea areas - how many and the boundaries between them. Almost every boundary would be a potential source of contentious argument - so I do not want to touch them with a ten foot pole.

Oh, I didn't have an opinion about the design decision. I was labouring under a misconception. The CWiF map below indicates that everything should be pretty hunky dorey.

Cheers, Neilster

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 52

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/14/2006 8:12:02 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

The only change I have made for MWIF, from the map you showed, has been to make the Gulf of Mexico a separate sea area. Previously, it had been part of the Carribean Sea.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 53

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/14/2006 8:44:52 PM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The only change I have made for MWIF, from the map you showed, has been to make the Gulf of Mexico a separate sea area. Previously, it had been part of the Carribean Sea.

This is a substantial change. It will require an additional 3 US convoys to ship the Venezuela oil home and the USA to begin with does not have three spare convoys so they will lose an oil each turn to begin with in the Global war.

The CW also will not be able to ship Venezuela oil to be saved in Canada without the commitment of adiitional convoys in the Gulf of Mexico, an added burden on the CW in the Global war since the CW does not have those extra convoys available to begin with.

Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 54

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/14/2006 9:50:57 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The only change I have made for MWIF, from the map you showed, has been to make the Gulf of Mexico a separate sea area. Previously, it had been part of the Carribean Sea.

This is a substantial change. It will require an additional 3 US convoys to ship the Venezuela oil home and the USA to begin with does not have three spare convoys so they will lose an oil each turn to begin with in the Global war.

The CW also will not be able to ship Venezuela oil to be saved in Canada without the commitment of adiitional convoys in the Gulf of Mexico, an added burden on the CW in the Global war since the CW does not have those extra convoys available to begin with.

Lars

No.

The Carribean still connects Venezeula to the Norfolk (for example). The Gulf of Mexico, as defined in America in Flames (which is why I made the change in the first place) stops at Key west, Havana, and Honduras. This makes no impostion on the USA or the CW for additional convoys to reach Venezeula.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 55

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/14/2006 10:12:49 PM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

Looking again at the CWiF maps, you are correct and I was in error about the Caribbean.

I did not think of the Caribbean as extending north of the Bahamas or the Antilles Island chain, but it indeed does in CWiF.

Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 56

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/14/2006 10:17:30 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The only change I have made for MWIF, from the map you showed, has been to make the Gulf of Mexico a separate sea area. Previously, it had been part of the Carribean Sea.

The Gulf of Mexico exists in WiF FE since the America Map appeared, in 1998.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 57

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/14/2006 10:53:10 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
Looking again at the CWiF maps, you are correct and I was in error about the Caribbean.

I did not think of the Caribbean as extending north of the Bahamas or the Antilles Island chain, but it indeed does in CWiF.

Lars

I bet the people in Norfolk would be surprised to think of the ocean waves to their immediate southeast as the Caribbean.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 58

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/15/2006 4:00:45 AM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Please note also that, while there are more islands in the Sea south of Japan, most of those islands are hard for the Allies to supply (need the allies to be masters of the China Sea, which if is true, pretty means that Japan is already dead now). The only islands which are "easy" to put in supply (needing supply from the Marianas Sea Zone only) are those who are on the Sea Zone boundary between the Marianas Sea Zone and the China Sea Sea Zone.
There are 4 of them now (MWiF), and there were 3 before (WiF FE).
The 4 we have now are at ranges 12-20 from Tokyo.
The 3 we had before are at ranges 6-10 from Tokyo.
So, while there are more, they are much far away. Indeed they are placed at realistic distances.

As long as they're close enough for strat bombers & (maybe) escorting fighters.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 59

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/15/2006 5:43:13 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Please note also that, while there are more islands in the Sea south of Japan, most of those islands are hard for the Allies to supply (need the allies to be masters of the China Sea, which if is true, pretty means that Japan is already dead now). The only islands which are "easy" to put in supply (needing supply from the Marianas Sea Zone only) are those who are on the Sea Zone boundary between the Marianas Sea Zone and the China Sea Sea Zone.
There are 4 of them now (MWiF), and there were 3 before (WiF FE).
The 4 we have now are at ranges 12-20 from Tokyo.
The 3 we had before are at ranges 6-10 from Tokyo.
So, while there are more, they are much far away. Indeed they are placed at realistic distances.

As long as they're close enough for strat bombers & (maybe) escorting fighters.

At 12 hexes away, only a few of the USA fighters can reach Tokyo from the Bonins islands. Most of the USA bombers can but they would have to fly at extended range.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 60