Slitherine

quote:

4) The huge Columbia River due west of Portland should run straight to the sea, rather than hooking NW to Grays Harbor and the Aberdeen inlet. There is some small room for debate about this, but given the location of Tacoma, there is no question. It should run due west to the sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ajds

Is it too late to comment on the America map detail? My first comment is with regards to the southern California resource placement. The current map has oil in the mountains to the northeast of the Los Angeles basin - to my knowledge there was no significant oil production in that area. Regional oil production was in the western Los Angeles basin and in Bakersfield. On the map this means I suggest moving the oil resources into the clear hex with the city marker and factories, or perhaps moving one there and putting the other into Bakersfield (the southernmost clear hex of the San Joaquin Valley north of Los Angeles). This latter idea would of course require a transportion connection to make the resouce usable and hence may not be tenable (as I don't believe we have pipelines in the game currently). There was (is) heavy crude production and refining in Bakersfield as well as Los Angeles.

quote:

My second comment is also with regard to the current location of the southern California oil resource, as it seems to be in the right place for a normal resource marker, perhaps the one currently in the mountains southeast of San Jose. I say this because the Kaiser steel mills were historically in the San Bernardino area east of Los Angeles, served by the Eagle Mountain iron mine even further east. I am not suggesting there isn't significant resources in the coastal mountains where the current resource marker is, I just am not aware of them, but the Kaiser mills and related mine were substantial in the WWII timeframe. In addition there was and is quite a bit of strategic mineral mining in the desert hexes to the northeast of Los Angeles (notably potash and cement), supporting the resource on that side of Los Angeles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Thanks for the feedback ajds and monkey.
I'm considering it.

About NW USA, do you think that Vancouver and Victoria (I know they are in Canada, but you might know) should be in those types of hexes (Clear and forest). The WiF FE maps has them both as mountain hexes. Would mountain hexes be better ?

Also :
San Francisco is in a Forest hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?
Los Angeles is in a Desert hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?
Tacoma is in a Forest hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?
Portland is in a Mountain hex on the WiF FE map, and in a clear hex in MWiF. What is best in your opinion ?

Also, a few weeks ago, Borger asked :

quote:

US Pacific ports between San Francisco and Seattle

I notice there are currently no US minor ports between San Franciso and Seattle. Is that true or have we forgotten some port that had any

importance during WW2? I can't find any suitable port, but maybe it's like this because there is no such port. I don't know.

What's your opinion with this ?

I am tempted to add Eureka, somewhere on the center west coast. Do you think it is a good idea ?

Wise Men Still Seek Him

quote:

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey
Sorry - forgot about Eureka.  If you make Eureka a city, then it's a supply source, potentially.  I could see it functioning as a secondary source on a sea chain, given its size and the harbor, but not as a land-based element of a chain, because of the remoteness and ruggedness of the area.

Can I punt? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: wyrmm
For Historical Accuracy, the In between port was Astoria Oregon, but is probably too close to portland on the map.

quote:

All cities North of San Fran should be forest and/or mountain. I can see both from my window. ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: wyrmm
For Historical Accuracy, the In between port was Astoria Oregon, but is probably too close to portland on the map.

in which hex would it be ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey
Sorry - forgot about Eureka.  If you make Eureka a city, then it's a supply source, potentially.  I could see it functioning as a secondary source on a sea chain, given its size and the harbor, but not as a land-based element of a chain, because of the remoteness and ruggedness of the area.

Can I punt? 

I was thinking of making Eureka a minor port only. Would that make sense ?
The reason is to provide supply (through sea) to US units in the West Coast between Portland and Sacramento.
In WiF FE, US units at home are always in supply on the West Coast, the cities are always in the correct range. On the MWiF map, due to the scale change, the distance is too far. Adding Eureka would provide supply in between, through the sea.
But my question is : Would Eureka warrants a Minor Port ? Was Eureka large enough to have warships anchored, and to unload supply for armies ?

Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wyrmm

Astoria is at the mouth of the columbia, built small AK's and PT boats, and was the convoy staging area for the Pac NW. Population swelled from 25-30k to over 300k by wars end, and just as quickly reversed. At one point over 1000 ships were anchored, there is a picture where you can almost walk across the columbia on them. As to terrain types, yes, north of oakland.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

qgaliana, what would you think about the area be like that ?
Quebec was moved 1 hex SW and Newfoundland NE tip was extended.
This also made me see that a sea area border was to be changed near Harrington.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey
Sorry - forgot about Eureka.  If you make Eureka a city, then it's a supply source, potentially.  I could see it functioning as a secondary source on a sea chain, given its size and the harbor, but not as a land-based element of a chain, because of the remoteness and ruggedness of the area.

Can I punt? 

I was thinking of making Eureka a minor port only. Would that make sense ?
The reason is to provide supply (through sea) to US units in the West Coast between Portland and Sacramento.
In WiF FE, US units at home are always in supply on the West Coast, the cities are always in the correct range. On the MWiF map, due to the scale change, the distance is too far. Adding Eureka would provide supply in between, through the sea.
But my question is : Would Eureka warrants a Minor Port ? Was Eureka large enough to have warships anchored, and to unload supply for armies ?

Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

I used to live near Eureka. Eureka is heavy logging industry, and has what I would call a minor port. Wood was, and is still shipped by land. The naval presence is due to the excellent fishing in the area during that time. The fishing industry is in crisis these days due to depletion of stock. Living up there, we would commonly hear fisherman gripe about how the Russians and Japanese were sailing across the pacific ocean to fish illegally in U.S. water or U.S. protected areas. California is one of those rare places where we actually have a non-commercial and non-recreational fishing area. It's part of Monterey bay. It's abundant with wildlife. The rest of the coast looks like a ghost town underwater by comparison. Historically, I'm not sure if the harbor was deep enough for WWII ships.

The hex? Eureka should be middle clear coastal hex you see on the map on the preceeding page. All three of those coastal hexes south of Portland should be forest BTW. There is nothing but old growth redwoods in those areas. Mendocino national forest is there, which is a huge reserve of either old growth or 3rd growth trees. Back in the 1940's the area was nothing BUT trees. Take a drive more than 100 miles north of San Francisco and you'll get the idea quick. The terrain is extremely irregular, and the coastal mountain hexes are no stretch of the imagination.

Wise Men Still Seek Him

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Would it make sense to have both OIL resources in Bakersfield ?
And would it make sense to put Bakersfield into a Mountain hex ?
I'm asking this because the WiF FE maps has both oil resources in a mountain hexes outside of a city, so I would like to try to make it the same in MWiF.
About the transportion connection, I see that the railway from the north is passing through Bakersfield, so I intend on putting the OIL in the hex that is 2 hexes NW of Los Angeles and making the raiil goes through it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey

Sorry, but the three hexes directly south of Portland (i.e., adjacent to it, one hex away, two hexes away) are definitely NOT redwoods. There isn't a single redwood in the area. That's the Willamette Valley, which is one of the biggest and flattest regions of the Pacific NW, west of the mountains. You could make a case for either forest or clear, but given the relatively developed infrastructure of roads and railroads I would argue for clear.

There are tons of redwoods in the Eureka area. But not due south of Portland.

quote:

I would argue against both oil in Bakersfield, if they need to be together and in a mountain hex (i.e. specifically not in the city factory hex) I would put them in the mountain hex west of the hex containing Los Angeles, on the rail. But Bakersfielding them is better than current.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Hey guys, you now should try to agree on how your country is best represented
Here is a view of how it was at start (on the left) and how it is now (on the right).
The coastlines are not drawn on these view, to simplify.

Could you please tell me
- Which hexes should compose that flat lands Willamette Valley ?
- Whether the coastland north of Eureka is better represented as forest ?

About the north of Seattle, you seem to agree that this is better represented as forest.

Wise Men Still Seek Him

quote:

I spent my whole life in Oregon and know it like the back of my hand. The third clear hex south of Portland in the left-hand image should be forest, and leave everything else the same.

quote:

(...) get my undies in a bunch (...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

One hex to the northwest of Sydney... and if you entrench there then you are in a "stockade", not a "fort"
(ethnic Australian reference there...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here are the Borders of Oregon.

quote:

I spent my whole life in Oregon and know it like the back of my hand. The third clear hex south of Portland in the left-hand image should be forest, and leave everything else the same.

This "third clear hex south of Portland", is this the hex just SE of where the word "Ranges", from "Coastal Ranges" (the northern), is written ?

So, that would make, starting from Portland and going south along the railway, 2 Clear hexes, and 1 forest hex ?

quote:

(...) get my undies in a bunch (...)

I'm always puzzled as to the real hidden sense of these expressions .
Does it mean that you would not bother too much if it was forest ?

quote:

The three coastal hexes north of Eureka which were marked as forest are open to interpretation. I had mistaken them initially as being in California. The most southern hex should be forest IMO. Returning the top two to clear would be fine by me. I'm not as familiar with that area. Based on previous discussion, it seems to make more sense to have them clear as they are far less rugged.

Thanks, and glad to help.

quote:

So, that would make, starting from Portland and going south along the railway, 2 Clear hexes, and 1 forest hex ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here are the Borders of Oregon.

quote:

I spent my whole life in Oregon and know it like the back of my hand. The third clear hex south of Portland in the left-hand image should be forest, and leave everything else the same.

This "third clear hex south of Portland", is this the hex just SE of where the word "Ranges", from "Coastal Ranges" (the northern), is written ?

So, that would make, starting from Portland and going south along the railway, 2 Clear hexes, and 1 forest hex ?

quote:

(...) get my undies in a bunch (...)

I'm always puzzled as to the real hidden sense of these expressions .
Does it mean that you would not bother too much if it was forest ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

One hex to the northwest of Sydney... and if you entrench there then you are in a "stockade", not a "fort"

(ethnic Australian reference there...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

One hex to the northwest of Sydney... and if you entrench there then you are in a "stockade", not a "fort"
(ethnic Australian reference there...)

You Australians prefer to say "stockade" rather than "fort" ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: christo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Edit : Also, in which hex would be Eureka ?

One hex to the northwest of Sydney... and if you entrench there then you are in a "stockade", not a "fort"
(ethnic Australian reference there...)

You Australians prefer to say "stockade" rather than "fort" ?

No not really. This is a reference to an uprising in the Victorian goldfields sometime in the 19th century by miners. The miners were a pissed off by mining failure/ high food prices/ corruption etc and staged the only major violent protest in Australian history (at least so I seem to remember from my year 8 text books). This all happened at a place called "Eureka" where they built themselves a little fort, a stockade.

Christo