RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion

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: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion

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: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/9/2006 10:41:04 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

Maybe Australia and New Zealand? Maybe India, Burma, Malaya etc.?

Burma and Malaya are already dealt with in the "MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands" thread.
I've also already done Northeastern Australia.
But I now realize that I only posted abstracts of these maps, and that Burma & Malaya were not shown

.

I'll post them to this thread then !

India is for some time in the future, as would be more Pacific Islands (South East pacific was not yet reviewed), as well as Manchuria and Siberia. I would also like to review Central America. Well we'll see.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 211

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/9/2006 10:42:01 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toed

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

I believe the hex east of Oslo should belong to Sweden.
The Swedish-norweigian border is in the middle of the norweigian west coast and stockholm. on the map it is 10 hexes so 5 hexes should be swedish and 5 Norweigian, now 6 are Norweigain and 4 Swedish.
But maybe that's for game purposes.

I agree. I'd say that most of Norway south of Trondheim is to wide compared to Sweden or Sweden to narrow. However to fix this within the hexgrid available seems hard and not necessary in my opinion. And we do need to let our sad Norwegian brothers feel big for once.

We'll keep the border where it is then. Anyway, it would put it much near from Oslo, maybe too near ?

(in reply to Toed)

Post #: 212

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/9/2006 10:43:12 PM

Incy

Posts: 336
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline

You might want to place Troms� on the island rather than on the mainland.
Troms� is actually a quite small island in a fjordlike strait between the mainland and a larger island:
http://www.rhd.uit.no/art/tuss.jpg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I had time at my job this morning, so I redid the northern coastlines to have a better place for Tromso. This was not 100% accurate previously. Now it is better.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 213

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/9/2006 11:11:24 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

You might want to place Troms� on the island rather than on the mainland.
Troms� is actually a quite small island in a fjordlike strait between the mainland and a larger island:
http://www.rhd.uit.no/art/tuss.jpg

Well, looking at it from Google Earth from 11,24 km high reveals that Tromso sits in a 10 km x 3 km island, separated from the mainland by a 700 to 1800 m wide arm of sea.
Should this really count as an island ?

What are the other's opinions ?

(in reply to Incy)

Post #: 214

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/9/2006 11:59:30 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

You might want to place Troms� on the island rather than on the mainland.
Troms� is actually a quite small island in a fjordlike strait between the mainland and a larger island:
http://www.rhd.uit.no/art/tuss.jpg

Well, looking at it from Google Earth from 11,24 km high reveals that Tromso sits in a 10 km x 3 km island, separated from the mainland by a 700 to 1800 m wide arm of sea.
Should this really count as an island ?

What are the other's opinions ?

I assume this is similar to Singapore, where the hex is bigger than the island where the city actually is. That's always a messy situation to translate to a hex grid. We could either just ignore the interveneing water or place Tromso on an island with a straits connectnig it to the mainland. We just had a similar problem with Stockholm, where the hex in which the city is located has a lot of other terrain features. Deciding which features are important enough to warrant appearing on the MWIF map is a judgment call. In this case it is best made by people who know the area best.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 215

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/10/2006 12:04:39 AM

Peter Stauffenberg

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

You might want to place Troms� on the island rather than on the mainland.
Troms� is actually a quite small island in a fjordlike strait between the mainland and a larger island:
http://www.rhd.uit.no/art/tuss.jpg

Well, looking at it from Google Earth from 11,24 km high reveals that Tromso sits in a 10 km x 3 km island, separated from the mainland by a 700 to 1800 m wide arm of sea.
Should this really count as an island ?

What are the other's opinions ?

I think it's good enough as it is. You can't have every little detail on a map. Such a small island can be considered to be integrated into the mainland close to it.

I like the way Scandinavia looks right now and don't think we should try to improve it indefinitely. Sometimes we have to say good enough is good enough and move on to more important areas.

I feel that focus could now be shifted to Burma, Malaya, New Guinea etc. Our time can be better spent there now.

We have all contributed a lot to improve the Scandinavian part of the MWIF map. So lets be content with what be already managed and move on. It's impossible to make the map in a way that everybody would be 100% satisfied with every hex. Our voting shows there are different opinions, but I think the end result is going to be great even though some of my suggestions were voted down.

Time to move on and get the last 4 items on our voting list settled. I guess Steve could by maybe the end of this week make a decision of yes and no for the remaining items based upon the votes at that time. When we have split votes (like for Tampere) then I believe he has to make his choice and we should support his decision. There are pros and cons for every suggestion and we can live with the result regardless of a yes or no.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 216

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/10/2006 2:19:01 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

You might want to place Troms� on the island rather than on the mainland.
Troms� is actually a quite small island in a fjordlike strait between the mainland and a larger island:
http://www.rhd.uit.no/art/tuss.jpg

Well, looking at it from Google Earth from 11,24 km high reveals that Tromso sits in a 10 km x 3 km island, separated from the mainland by a 700 to 1800 m wide arm of sea.
Should this really count as an island ?

What are the other's opinions ?

I think it's good enough as it is. You can't have every little detail on a map. Such a small island can be considered to be integrated into the mainland close to it.

I like the way Scandinavia looks right now and don't think we should try to improve it indefinitely. Sometimes we have to say good enough is good enough and move on to more important areas. I feel that focus could now be shifted to Burma, Malaya, New Guinea etc. Our time can be better spent there now.

We have all contributed a lot to improve the Scandinavian part of the MWIF map. So lets be content with what be already managed and move on. It's impossible to make the map in a way that everybody would be 100% satisfied with every hex. Our voting shows there are different opinions, but I think the end result is going to be great even though some of my suggestions were voted down.

Time to move on and get the last 4 items on our voting list settled. I guess Steve could by maybe the end of this week make a decision of yes and no for the remaining items based upon the votes at that time. When we have split votes (like for Tampere) then I believe he has to make his choice and we should support his decision. There are pros and cons for every suggestion and we can live with the result regardless of a yes or no.

Yeah, I'll do that.

I might add that for people who are really upset by what I decide, most of these decisions concern map data which will be available in the comma separated values files (CSVs) and can be edited by the players who feel an overwhelming need to do so.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 217

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/10/2006 4:50:06 PM

trees trees

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

just curious why Bergen is now five hexes away from Oslo, rather than the four on WiF:FE paper maps?

Note that without using the Scandinavian map at all, Trondheim is in supply from Oslo and the Germans gain a SUB base in supply in clear weather on the Norwegian Sea.

But now that Narvik no longer figures in for moving the Swedish Iron Ore, Norway is more generally a potential Allied theater in the mid-game than any other outcome.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 218

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/10/2006 5:00:44 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees

But now that Narvik no longer figures in for moving the Swedish Iron Ore, Norway is more generally a potential Allied theater in the mid-game than any other outcome.

You're wrong (see previous post #174)

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 219

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/10/2006 5:05:45 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

Note that without using the Scandinavian map at all, Trondheim is in supply from Oslo and the Germans gain a SUB base in supply in clear weather on the Norwegian Sea.

It is true if playing without the Scandinavia map.
Playing without the scandinavia map leads to gross simplifications.

Playing MWiF will be different than playing with the old off-map boxes, this is sure, but this is a blessing too.

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 220

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/11/2006 5:23:20 AM

trees trees

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

wow Thanks Patrice! We are playing a game currently that Norway got pulled into and we wasted at least a half hour trying to figure out what the rule on Narvik was. Since Narvik is not in the index, we had no luck deciphering where the rule had gone to in the rule book. We thought it must have been dropped from the rules (we are using 7m). Iced-in ports, the not obvious place to figure out resource transport rules... Then I missed post #174, this thread has been rolling along pretty fast some days!

Perhaps I'll see 25% of my heritage on the WiF map much more often once again. One sentence of WiF rule and the grand strategies change. One of my favorite O-chit plays once was to use a Super-Combined as the Germans to take every Norwegian port simultaneously, Japanese style. (Before we were using the Ski Divisions). The Allies were so surprised...

< Message edited by trees trees -- 8/11/2006 6:15:28 AM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 221

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/11/2006 10:29:48 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

wow Thanks Patrice! We are playing a game currently that Norway got pulled into and we wasted at least a half hour trying to figure out what the rule on Narvik was. Since Narvik is not in the index, we had no luck deciphering where the rule had gone to in the rule book. We thought it must have been dropped from the rules (we are using 7m). Iced-in ports, the not obvious place to figure out resource transport rules... Then I missed post #174, this thread has been rolling along pretty fast some days!

That's what electronic format rules are all about. CTRL+F, type Narvik, and you're done in 10 seconds

.
An alternate solution is to ask me

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 222

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/11/2006 2:27:40 PM

are

Posts: 13
Joined: 7/7/2006
Status: offline

I think you should add Bod� and the railroad going to it. During WW2 the germans used prisoners of war from Yugoslavia to construct a railroad from Bod� to Narvik. It was never finished.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 223

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/11/2006 2:49:46 PM

Peter Stauffenberg

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: are

I think you should add Bod� and the railroad going to it. During WW2 the germans used prisoners of war from Yugoslavia to construct a railroad from Bod� to Narvik. It was never finished.

When the war started the railroad northwards from Trondheim ended in Grong (not very close to Bod�). Grong is a small town maybe 1/3 of the way between Trondheim and Bod�. So the current MWIF map is correct stopping the rail line where it stops.

During the war the Germans used prisoners of war to extend the rail line from Grong to Bod�. This rail line was finished as late as 1962. A long time later than when the war ended so the rail line part from Grong to Bod� does not belong on the MWIF map. The Germans extended the rail line northwards and reached Mo i Rana in 1942. After 1942 they went further north and there are many stories about the sufferings of the prisoners of war in Saltfjellet between Mo i Rana and Fauske (just east of Bod�). After the war the Norwegian railway company (NSB) was so depleted of resources (old or destroyed trains) and Norway as a country had a lot of rebuilding to do. Only in 1952 did the Government agree to make major investments in the rail net and complete the rail line all the way to Bod�. In 1962 the rail line all the way to Bod� was officially opened.

In the 1980's and 1990's the was considerate political pressure from the politicians in the north to extend the rail line from Fauske via Narvik all the way to Troms�. But these plans were later abandoned and efforts were put to upgrade the road standard in northern Norway instead.

Another interesting matter to read is that the Germans linked the rail line near Stavanger to the rail line from Oslo to Kristiansand. In 1944 it was possible to travel all the way from Oslo to Stavanger by train. Before this time there was a gap south east of Stavanger without rail connection (I think the hex where Ullern wanted to change the terrain from clear to mountain).

The Germans had plans to extend the rail line all the way to Kirkenes, but they were defeated before they came that far. They used a lot of prisoners of war to build infrastructure in Norway.

So I think it's wrong to add the rail line all the way to Bod� since it was only opened as late as 1962. The map is supposed to show the situation in 1939 (start of the war) and then the end station of Grong is correct (the current one). But if you want to place rail lines in all the terrain that was built during the war it's possible to extend it as far north as Mo i Rana. Mo i Rana is just south of Svartisen glacier. It could be correct to do so because it's done for the rail line between Oslo and Stavanger and also Archangel to Murmansk. This rail line was also built during the war because the Russians feared the rail line between Leningrad and Murmansk could be cut.

(in reply to are)

Post #: 224

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/11/2006 3:47:56 PM

Froonp

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

MWiF would need a rail construction rule.
WiF FE never had (though there are numerous house rules about rail constructing), because of counter constraints, but MWiF is only limited by our imagination.

What about starting a thread about what could be (realisticaly) added to MWiF (even if only version 2.0) ?

I see many :
- Rail building and destroying
- Localized production, especially of ships, with the possibility of dealing damage to ships in building.
- Localized repairs on ships, with the possibility of dealing damage to ships in repair.
- Sub Pens.
- Carrier Pilots.
- Area linked Partisans.
- Line of Communication's Vichy (LoC Vichy)

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 225

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/11/2006 3:57:04 PM

c92nichj

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

I know steves answer allready and I fully support it.

First implement MWIF, keep focussed on the task.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 226

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/11/2006 8:07:21 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: are
I think you should add Bod� and the railroad going to it. During WW2 the germans used prisoners of war from Yugoslavia to construct a railroad from Bod� to Narvik. It was never finished.

Are, welcome.

The final product of MWIF gets stronger the more people we have examining this work in progress and making suggestions. Most ideas do not pan out and even those that do are often combined with other ideas so much that the original one can be hard to recognize. As an outstanding example of this, take Nils original revision of the Scandinavian portion of the map. Occasionally someone suggests something that is immediately useful just as it is. On those occasions the usual response is "Why didn't I think of that?" or "I thought that was already included?".

So, please keep thinking, questioning, and suggesting. And as Patrice and c92nichj said, many improvements to WIF would be nice - with the more complex ones destined to having to wait for later MWIF release/products.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to are)

Post #: 227

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/12/2006 9:36:36 AM

gbirkeli

Posts: 3
Joined: 8/12/2006
Status: offline

I think it is sufficient to map the glaciers in Norway as alpine hexsides, rather than inventing a new hex type. They are not as large as a full hex, and it is possible for people to cross them if they are lightly equipped and properly trained. As for Svartisen, ordinary units should be allowed to pass from north to south on both the east and the west side of the glacier.

Bod� should not have a port. Even today it doesn't really have a port, but more a large harbor. I believe Mo i Rana (for iron ore) and perhaps even Fauske (for copper ore) had larger port/harbor facilities back then.

Gaute

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 228

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/12/2006 11:26:28 AM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

Excellent map. I have just one suggestion. The river on the NW hexside of Stockholm (Dal�lven) should extend 4-5 hexsides west/northwest.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 229

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/12/2006 1:07:39 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Excellent map. I have just one suggestion. The river on the NW hexside of Stockholm (Dal�lven) should extend 4-5 hexsides west/northwest.

This is something to consider. Perhaps Toed could give us his opinion, since in post #176 of this thread he drew in the river from Lake Siljan - which seems to be the one you are talking about.

The question is not whether there is a river there or not, but rather if the river poses a difficult enough obstacle for troop movement - comparable to the othe rivers on the European map (for instance).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 230

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/14/2006 3:48:12 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Here is a screen shot of the newly constructed forts (1/2 not 1/3 combat effect) for Lulea/Boden. The coastal bitmaps still have to be done, but all the terrain changes from the Scandinavian discussion are in place. I am using the Commonwealth color for the forts, even though they are Swedish (the colors are a close match. You can tell that they only have a 1/2 combat effect because the stars are white instead of black.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 231

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/14/2006 7:45:46 AM

c92nichj

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

Dal�lven is one of Swedens largest rivers. This picture is taken in the middle between Siljan and the baltic. The river actually starts in Norway close to femunden but it is obviously not as wide up north.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by c92nichj -- 8/14/2006 7:46:52 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 232

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/14/2006 7:59:41 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Dal�lven is one of Swedens largest rivers. This picture is taken in the middle between Siljan and the baltic. The river actually starts in Norway close to femunden but it is obviously not as wide up north.

Sounds like it should be on the map then. Which hexsides would be best for it to run along?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 233

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/14/2006 12:09:14 PM

Peter Stauffenberg

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees
just curious why Bergen is now five hexes away from Oslo, rather than the four on WiF:FE paper maps?

It's because Bergen was placed in the wrong hex on the WIFFE map. We decided to correct map errors in the
border areas on the WIFFE map (like Iran, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc.) because these corrections have few
implications on game play and makes it easier to link the European scaled WIFFE map to the MWIF map European
scaled maps that were earlier Asian scaled.

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 234

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/15/2006 8:32:43 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

My suggestion for where the Dal�lven should be on the map.

Any comments?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 235

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/17/2006 12:34:27 PM

Toed

Posts: 55
Joined: 8/5/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

My suggestion for where the Dal�lven should be on the map.

Any comments?

Just one. Dal�lven splits roughly halfway (below the D in SWEDEN on the map) between the coast and the Norwegian border into V�sterdal�lven which has a path similar to your suggestion, and �sterdal�lven which has a more northerly path. I would suggest that the river is drawn on the north (E, NE, NW) side of the hex containing the letters SWE instead of its south (SE, SW, W) side. This will also better represent the Siljan lake that should have been on the NE hexside of the "SWE" hex if on the map if it was slightly larger. Or both paths can be represented, but I personally feel that one of the two paths is enough to represent their effect in MWiF.

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 236

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/17/2006 11:06:58 PM

Peter Stauffenberg

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

I'm looking at the map and wonder if maybe the border line between Sweden and Norway should be altered a little.

I think especially about the following hexes should maybe become Swedish instead:
* Forest hex 2xNE of Oslo
* Forest hex 3xNE of Oslo

This takes care of the impression of lake Mj�sa being too far away from the Swedish border. Now it will be just
one hex away from the border. It also takes care of making the most narrow part of Sweden a little wider
(4 hexes instead of just 3). It's strange that the hex line just south of lake Femunden has 6 hexes inside Norway
and only 3 hexes inside Sweden. This change will make it better (5 Norwegian and 4 Swedish). I guess these two
hex changes will have very little impact on game play because it's not along ay rail lines.

The clear hex 1xSE of Oslo and the clear hex 1xE of Oslo are both 50% Swedish, but I think they can stay this way
because they are part of the WIFFE European map.

The forest hex just east of Lake Femunden is also 50% Swedish, but I think it's better to keep it as is so the lake
is not hidden along the border line.

What do you think about my proposed minor change to the border line?

(in reply to Toed)

Post #: 237

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/18/2006 10:15:40 AM

Toed

Posts: 55
Joined: 8/5/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

I'm looking at the map and wonder if maybe the border line between Sweden and Norway should be altered a little.

I think especially about the following hexes should maybe become Swedish instead:
* Forest hex 2xNE of Oslo
* Forest hex 3xNE of Oslo

This takes care of the impression of lake Mj�sa being too far away from the Swedish border. Now it will be just
one hex away from the border. It also takes care of making the most narrow part of Sweden a little wider
(4 hexes instead of just 3). It's strange that the hex line just south of lake Femunden has 6 hexes inside Norway
and only 3 hexes inside Sweden. This change will make it better (5 Norwegian and 4 Swedish). I guess these two
hex changes will have very little impact on game play because it's not along ay rail lines.

The clear hex 1xSE of Oslo and the clear hex 1xE of Oslo are both 50% Swedish, but I think they can stay this way
because they are part of the WIFFE European map.

The forest hex just east of Lake Femunden is also 50% Swedish, but I think it's better to keep it as is so the lake
is not hidden along the border line.

What do you think about my proposed minor change to the border line?

You are correct. The border are a bit to easterly. I mentioned this in post 209 in this thread and as I wrote then it is very hard get the border in the right place. Since the border seems to enjoy existing in the middle of the hexes.

If we are moving the border I suggest that it is just moved in the forest hex 3xNE of Oslo. Because the border is, with the exeption of a ~60 km * 30 km Norwegian "bite" at Trysil (a bit small to be represented as a whole hex imo), almost a straight line from east of Oslo up to east Trondheim and this one change would make it as straight as a north to south line can get in a hexgrid.

< Message edited by Toed -- 8/18/2006 10:18:23 AM >

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 238

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/18/2006 1:33:07 PM

c92nichj

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

I found the following map on the net, not sure who made it, but I think it is pretty good. It have added swamp in the northern sweden just as northern Finalnd which I guess is pretty accurate way of describing the climate up there.

(in reply to Toed)

Post #: 239

RE: Modifications to MWiF Scandinavia Map portion - 8/18/2006 2:37:18 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

I think especially about the following hexes should maybe become Swedish instead:
* Forest hex 2xNE of Oslo
* Forest hex 3xNE of Oslo

...

What do you think about my proposed minor change to the border line?

I agree.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 240