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 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 1:29:31 AM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

I hadn't really thought yet about moving the boundaries. I was just suggesting as a first step to look into the micro-geography of these islands and make sure they are actually accessible to military forces on the WiF scale (multiple hundreds of airplanes per counter). I still think there are some Pacific islands that are dry land but weren't actually useable in the war. I don't think it would pay off researching this in the Celebes or the Phillipines where there are so many various land masses, but in areas where dry land is more scarce I think this is important.

So I started googling around a little and discoverd that Chichijima at least deserves it's own hex...22,000 Japanese troops, nearly a complete WiF INF unit or at least a Div were bypassed there and left to surrender in September. (Smart Japanese play). George HW Bush was shot down raiding an important Japanese radio base on the island and if he hadn't been rescued by US forces he may have been eaten! (I always thought he had been shot down somwhere near Rabaul).

Hahashima Retto also was garrisoned to the tune of 4,000 Japanese troops, an in-supply notional at least.

But trying "Mukoshima Retto" on Google mostly leads to links of sites selling nautical charts......so that hex may deserve a closer look.

Looking into the "Volcano Islands" (the group containing Iwo Jima), revealed this sentence: "The subdued relief of Iwo Jima made it a natural site for airfields during World War II."; somewhat implying that some of the other islands perhaps weren't flat enough to build airfields on. (I'm thinking about the 'Kita-Iwo' hex here). Given the rock nature of that island and the Japanese use of caves it perhaps deserves mountain status?

Keep in mind that if an island starts out as clear as many as three WiF air counters (1,500 planes in 1945?) could soon show up there (HQ+Engineer). Since no rules will be changed you may wish to limit how many of these small islands are added to the map.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 121

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 1:30:33 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

Comparing this to WIF FE, to my eye, the big difference is the placement of the sea area boundary. If the boundary running from Tokyo to Chichishima Retto were moved to the east (right) then 4 island hexes would be removed from the riding on the boundary line. They would instead be inside the China Sea. Does that address your concern? The 4 hexes I mean are: Izu islands, Sumishu Jima, and Makeshima Retto.

I would not mind if the Sea Area Boder between the Japanese Coast and the China Sea were moved eastwards, but anyway this is no big deal in my opinion.
I wish good luck to any US player who wish to keep units in those islands in supply through the Japanese Coast, given that there is Japan adjacent to this Sea Area and that Japan will be able oto project a tremendous Air power in it. Also, there is nearly no other Air bases allowing the US to protect the supply here, so having those Izu islands, Sumishu Jima, and Makeshima Retto sitting on the border is useless to the US. I think it can stay as it is.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 122

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 1:34:14 AM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

Googling "Okinotori Shima" is also very interesting. There is so little land here that China and Japan are currently in a dispute over whether these are "rocks" or "islands". (If they are legally "islands" then they are part of Japan and since there could be oil nearby this is important). Japan has been pouring concrete onto the dry parts to make them more island like and has considered bio-engineering to make the coral grow faster. So I don't think this place deserves a hex on the MWiF map.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 123

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 1:37:31 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

But moving the sea boundary one hex east of them does not reduce their range to Tokyo, nor does it remove the total number of potential airbases within range "x" of the Japanese Home Islands.

Land based Naval Air units based in the Izu Islands can still fly missions into the Japanese Coast sea zone, just at a reduced effectiveness. (i.e. May cause some shorter legged aircraft to end up in a lower search box.)

Those Islands are part of the Japanese home country, so invading them makes Japan produce more.
Moreover, if the US are powerfull enough to maintain planes in those islands, and if the Japanese are not powerfull enough to cut their supply, Japan is dead meat anyway.

Moreover, the Allies already had enough air bases around Japan to mount air offensive using the WiF FE maps. If the Allies are strong enough to maintain air bases in those Japan home country islands, they would have been powerfull enough to have these airbases in Korea for instance, so the problem is the same in WiF FE, so there is no problem.

This to say that for me, those extra air base near to Japan are no worry.

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 124

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 1:41:08 AM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

"Sumishu Jima" seems to be primarily of interest to Volcano researchers and I don't think even the mighty USN SeaBees could help you fly airplanes from there.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 125

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 1:44:09 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees

Googling "Okinotori Shima" is also very interesting. There is so little land here that China and Japan are currently in a dispute over whether these are "rocks" or "islands". (If they are legally "islands" then they are part of Japan and since there could be oil nearby this is important). Japan has been pouring concrete onto the dry parts to make them more island like and has considered bio-engineering to make the coral grow faster. So I don't think this place deserves a hex on the MWiF map.

I would go your way about this island, because initialy (on the CWiF map, and on the MWiF map as it is without my modifications), this island is named Iwo Jima.
That is, at the place where Okinotori Shima lies in reality, the designers of the CWiF map did place Iwo Jima. They made a mistake because Iwo Jima is placed 5 hexes NE from it.

So maybe this Okinotori Shima island should not be on the map.

Also, deleting it remove the 4th island that sits on the Sea Area Border (there are only 3 on the WiF FE maps).

I vote for its deleting, who's with me ?

< Message edited by Froonp -- 7/26/2006 1:50:09 AM >

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 126

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 1:49:41 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
"Sumishu Jima" seems to be primarily of interest to Volcano researchers and I don't think even the mighty USN SeaBees could help you fly airplanes from there.

I would agree if that's it.

For the moment, here are the suggestions I collected for the Japan / Marianas map :

- Delete Okinotori Shima.
- Make Kita-Iwo a mountain hex.
- I'd push the little island that is east of Amani Island (north of Okinawa) 1 hex northeast.
- Make Sumishu Jima a mountain hex.
- 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.

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 127

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 1:52:24 AM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
The WiF FE map is nearly the same regarding the Bonin Islands. There are 3 island hexes that sit on the border and can be supplied from the Marianas. There are 4 in MWiF, so I think this is the same. Either 3 or 4 land based air units versus the 15-20 that Japan will have on the home island will be the same.

Anyway, when the US are controlling the bonin and projecting land based air powr into the China Sea, this is the end for Japan, this is like this already in WiF FE.

I completely agree with the second point. My point is that adding more critical Bonin hexes for Japan to defend makes things tougher for Japan, and things are tough enough already. If using either RaW Oil rules or Gas, there could be a mighty airforce in Japan proper but the question quickly becomes how long can it fly? (As it should, historically). If the US holds all of the Bonins there could easily be more than 3 or 4 land based air units there, and those are just used to fly in front of the USN CV fleet.

I suspect the Bonins are probably also easier to take if more hexes are added to the Marshalls along the sea-zone that Wake sits on as well. Land-based air is frequently quite dominant in WiF.

[In case you can't tell yet, I think the best US play is to back the historical Nimitz drive across the center of the Pacific, and forget about Guadalcanal>Rabaul].

I don't mind the new hexes, as long as they are realistically useable hexes. Military commanders have to deal with geography as-is.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 128

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 2:01:30 AM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

Looking at a picture of "Kita-Iwo" makes it quite clear this doesn't deserve it's own hex either.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 129

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 2:09:18 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
Looking at a picture of "Kita-Iwo" makes it quite clear this doesn't deserve it's own hex either.

Be carefull with the pictures yet, because you may only be seeing a part of the island on the picture (I say this out of the blue, having seen no picture of this island myself, but I would not contradict the CwiF map designer with only 1 photo).

Here is how Kita-Iwo looks from the sky, from 5 km altitude.
It is 4 km long for 2 km wide. For me it is enough to be on the map (Midway of Wake are not very larger, isn't it ???)
I would make it mountain, clearly.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 130

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 3:54:49 AM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

cool. the picture I looked at was of the volcano, and taken from the ocean. looked quite intimidating. on the part of that picture not obscured by clouds the island doesn't look all that flat.

maybe there are some nice old fashioned history _books_ that cover the B-29's, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa that discuss which islands were useable and which were not.

even Iwo Jima ... it is hard to imagine 1,500 fighters parked there with enough room left over for them to take off and land. then consider that it had no source of drinking water. and my comment about the rock island and caves was intended for Iwo Jima actually. I think it should be a mountain hex.

< Message edited by trees trees -- 7/26/2006 4:14:51 AM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 131

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/26/2006 7:38:07 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

even Iwo Jima ... it is hard to imagine 1,500 fighters parked there with enough room left over for them to take off and land. then consider that it had no source of drinking water. and my comment about the rock island and caves was intended for Iwo Jima actually. I think it should be a mountain hex.

Here is what Iwo Jima looks from 8000 m high (taken from Google Earth).
Don't forget that, the figure you announced (3 air units stacked on Iwo) is based on having an ENG and an HQ to augment the airplanes stacking limit per hex.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Froonp -- 7/26/2006 7:39:41 AM >

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 132

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/27/2006 12:39:42 AM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

I do realize how the stacking limits are arrived at. Without the 2d10 option you might see two Engineers in the Bonins and 2,000 planes per hex.

I propose eliminating the following hexes:

Sumishu Jima
Tori Shima
Mukeshima Retto
Nishi-No Shima
Kita-Iwo
Okinotori Shima

I just googled some of them again and most of them are volcanic specks of land. I think it was Tori Shima that is only 700 meters wide. Whatever the land hex three hexes WSW of Tori Shima is probably similar and should go too.

Note that in Europe the island of Pantellaria, 8.5 miles by 5 miles and "rocky", in between Tunisia and Sicily and a strategic concern for both sides (Italy garrisoned 12,000 troops on it); does not make it on to the WiF maps.

This would leave three hexes (Iwo Jima, Hahashima Retto, and Chichisima Retto) on the Marianas/China Sea boundary, as in WiFFe currently. (Though this does increase to two the number in the North Temperate zone, but disconnects Iwo Jima from Hahashima Retto). Perhaps Kita-Iwo is big enough for the CBs to gouge out more runways. You can 'wifzen' eliminating it as where the extra planes go if HQs or ENGs are used to increase stacking on Iwo Jima.

I propose eliminating those hexes from several concerns...to leave the map as-is in this area, the hard reality of the small size of these islands, and in part to not add to Japan's difficulties, though if these islands were big enough I'd say leave them in regardless of how it affects defending Japan.

I don't propose changing any sea boundaries.

Steve is correct that the important hexes are the ones on the boundaries that can be supplied from two different sea areas. I don't think Tinian should be added to the boundary south of Saipan.

When work commences on the Marshalls I hope the boundary can be very carefully drawn to leave only two land hexes directly on the boundary between the Marshalls and the Marianas as well (both minor ports on the current WiF map, extremely useful already). Good US play (well, it's always worked for me) is to use land-based air from Hawaii to dominate the Marshalls sea area, then use this dominance to cover landings in the Marshall Islands, then use these airbases in conjunction with Wake to dominate the Marianas zone, do some ultimate island hopping and land on the Bonins under cover of land based fighters.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 133

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/27/2006 2:55:50 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
I propose eliminating the following hexes:

Sumishu Jima
Tori Shima
Mukeshima Retto
Nishi-No Shima
Kita-Iwo
Okinotori Shima

I just googled some of them again and most of them are volcanic specks of land. I think it was Tori Shima that is only 700 meters wide. Whatever the land hex three hexes WSW of Tori Shima is probably similar and should go too.

I would prefer making Mukoshima Retto & Kita-Iwo as mountain hexes rather than delete them because they are quite large. Mountain hexes are pretty unusable by regular aircrafts (ENG & HQ are not used often to upgrade the stacking limit of a mountain isle, more to upgrade the stacking limit of an already valuable island), but still are usable for seaplanes.

I would agree to delete the smallest of them on the other hand (Sumishu Jima, Tori Shima, Okinotori Shima, Nishi-No Shima).

quote:

Note that in Europe the island of Pantellaria, 8.5 miles by 5 miles and "rocky", in between Tunisia and Sicily and a strategic concern for both sides (Italy garrisoned 12,000 troops on it); does not make it on to the WiF maps.

Yes, and I'm sorry it does not. But the supply system of WiF would make it pretty useless anyway.

quote:

This would leave three hexes (Iwo Jima, Hahashima Retto, and Chichisima Retto) on the Marianas/China Sea boundary, as in WiFFe currently. (Though this does increase to two the number in the North Temperate zone, but disconnects Iwo Jima from Hahashima Retto). Perhaps Kita-Iwo is big enough for the CBs to gouge out more runways. You can 'wifzen' eliminating it as where the extra planes go if HQs or ENGs are used to increase stacking on Iwo Jima.

I think that the Weather border should be moved so that Hahashima Retto is no more in the Temperate zone, so that there is only 1 island hexe in the Temperate Weather Zone, on the Sea Area Border.

quote:

I don't think Tinian should be added to the boundary south of Saipan.

Tinian should not be on the border, it's right. But Tinian should be on the map.

quote:

When work commences on the Marshalls I hope the boundary can be very carefully drawn to leave only two land hexes directly on the boundary between the Marshalls and the Marianas as well (both minor ports on the current WiF map, extremely useful already).

This work is already done. See previous posts. IIRC, it respects the WiF FE map in regards to the number of island sitting on the Sea Area border.

quote:

Good US play (well, it's always worked for me) is to use land-based air from Hawaii to dominate the Marshalls sea area, then use this dominance to cover landings in the Marshall Islands, then use these airbases in conjunction with Wake to dominate the Marianas zone, do some ultimate island hopping and land on the Bonins under cover of land based fighters.

I would add to invade Truk after "dominate the Marianas Zone" and to invade the Philippines after "land on the Bonins", because without Truk nor the Philippines the US won't go anywhere with only air support in the Bonin & Marianas & Marshalls.

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 134

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/27/2006 2:58:33 PM

Froonp

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

Just to add that my list of suggestion for the "Japan, Bonin, Mariana" map is now :

Suggestions :

- Push the little island that is east of Amani Island (north of Okinawa) 1 hex northeast.
- Delete Okinotori Shima.
- Make Mukoshima Retto, Kita-Iwo mountain hexes.
- Delete Sumishu Jima, Tori Shima, Okinotori Shima, Nishi-No Shima.
- Move the Weather border so that Hahashima Retto is no more in the Temperate zone.
- Tinian should not be on the Sea Area border.

All of these make for closer map to WiF FE, and closer map to reality.

The list of modifications already made to the posted map :

- Iwo Jima is wrongly placed. In reality it is the island in the southern Bonin. The Island marked Iwo Jima is Okinotori
Shima instead.
- Thus, the Territory of Iwo Jima should be deleted from the game (the island Okinotori Shima is in the Bonin Territory).
- I removed the clear terrain island south of Japan (west of Tori Shima).

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 135

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/27/2006 3:04:54 PM

Froonp

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

Here is basicaly how the Marshalls / Gilberts / Carolines looks (repost of picture in post #72)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 136

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/27/2006 5:28:30 PM

Froonp

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

This afternoon, I looked at each Mariana island using Google Earth, and I came up with this :

- Farallon de Pajaros, Maug Islands, Asuncion, Agrihan, Alamagan, Guguan, Anataham, Farallon de Medinilla should be mountain hexes.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 137

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/27/2006 8:45:44 PM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

nice work there in the Marshalls, I hadn't scrolled over to the right to look at these when originally posted.

a lot of US players do stop to take Truk and the Phillipines. I prefer to skip them, using the Naval Supply Units in the Marshalls to base the necessary fleet. With the Bonins you can begin to use the carriers and land-based air (with Clark and the CBs and the float-plane NAVs to absorb AA) to finish off the rest of whatever Japan has that floats.

Tinian should be on the map, yes. But it looks simple to route the boundary around it.

In the Marshalls one hex will be added to the boundary. Nimitz appreciates that a lot.

I think Pantellaria doesn't make the map because the terrain was so rocky that an airbase couldn't be built on it without considerable investment in bulldozers and such. Hard to tell from hints in the few references to it that are available. Plus Sicily and Malta are so close at hand it may not have been worth it. I think it was mainly used as a base for torpedo boats. ???

But given the sea-zone system in WiF, land-based air is already freakishly overly useful. Adding more places to use them from will pronouce this a little bit more.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 138

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 7/28/2006 10:12:06 AM

Neilster

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

From what I've gathered this omnipresent land-based air thing is something to watch out for.

The Italians had aircraft on Pantellaria and it was later used by the Allies as an air base for the invasion of Sicily. I can't find any information on its capacity though. It appears to only have had one airfield and as it's area is only 83 square kilometres of volcanic land with an 836m high mountain, I'm guessing there isn't all that much flat space to build more.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 139

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 8/5/2006 10:15:32 AM

rtamesis

Posts: 78
Joined: 7/24/2004
Status: offline

There is a typographical error on the map of the Philippines. The island labeled Palay should be changed to Panay instead.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 140

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 8/5/2006 12:57:32 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtamesis

There is a typographical error on the map of the Philippines. The island labeled Palay should be changed to Panay instead.

Thanks, I did not see it.

(in reply to rtamesis)

Post #: 141

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 8/5/2006 3:07:25 PM

Neilster

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtamesis

There is a typographical error on the map of the Philippines. The island labeled Palay should be changed to Panay instead.

As in the gun-boat what got sunk. How appropriate to a discussion of the Pacific theatre of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panay_incident

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to rtamesis)

Post #: 142

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 8/9/2006 10:44:49 PM

Froonp

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

Here is a view of Southeast Asia that I've done, seen at 30% size only.
I'll post a close up for Malaya & Burma next.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Froonp -- 8/9/2006 10:46:21 PM >

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 143

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 8/9/2006 10:50:20 PM

Froonp

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

Here are Southern Burma & Malaya.
Singapore was discussed in an old thread, and I re-did it here as we discussed it.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 144

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 8/9/2006 10:55:50 PM

Froonp

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

As part of the review of the map, I also did draft coastlines of NE Australia, and of New Guinea.

I post them too, this is not only to get praises

, this is also to get comments about the map and about what could be blatantly wrong with the MWiF map, so that it can be corrected.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 145

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 8/9/2006 11:35:51 PM

Ballista

Posts: 183
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

Outstanding ! It looks great ! I really, really can't wait to scroll over the map and look at it at various levels of detail......

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 146

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 8/10/2006 4:52:01 PM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

maybe the Delta area south of Rangoon would be a bit swampy?

(in reply to Ballista)

Post #: 147

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 8/10/2006 8:31:38 PM

Ballista

Posts: 183
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

The same could apply to the delta south of Saigon I would think....

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 148

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 8/10/2006 10:41:52 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ballista

The same could apply to the delta south of Saigon I would think....

The WiF FE Pacific scaled maps supports this.
I've added both your suggestions in my suggestion file for this map.

(in reply to Ballista)

Post #: 149

RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands - 8/11/2006 12:33:14 AM

wosung

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

Patrice, first thanx for the great looking maps.

Based on the scaled map, what about adding a few more minor ports (or even just "named hexes") in Northern Papua? From West to East Madang, Buna/Dobodura and Milne Bay comes to mind. And perhaps Kavieng in New Ireland.

According to Eric Bergerud, 1. Fire in the Sky, and 2. Touched with Fire by the same author (former, about the air war, latter about the land war in the South Pacific):

1. even Port Moresby wasn't a big place in 1940/41: 2.000 inhabitants, and not much of an harbour. (2. p. 60).

2. in Milne Bay, for example there was a Lever Bros. coconut plantation, because of the good natural harbour.(2. p. 251).

So the differences down there were just gradual. But all you Australian, New Zealand and Tasmanian folks at the forum probably do know better.

Questions is, how far would these ports change balance of play in the South Pacific.

Another thing, I noticed: On your map New Ireland basically extends from East to West. Shouldn't it extend more from North to South, that means, shouldn't the angel be steeper??

Regards

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 150