RE: MWiF Map Review

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 - America

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 - America

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/11/2007 8:54:56 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
The maps look great and I know the lake coast lines will be fixed soon by Patrice. I only noticed the following:

It's hard to see the river between some of the Great Lakes.� Especially between:
* Lake Superior and Lake Huron
* Lake Erie and Lake Ontario

These rivers are hidden by the country border lines.

Thanks.

I believe Patrice once asked me to draw the rivers on top of the country borders, but I never got around to it. It is an easy enough change to make and needed in the instances you noted. I'll make it universal.

Oh, it isn't that easy for coastal hexes, because the rivers are drawn onto the bitmaps for those hexes as part of a preprocessing routine (that saves a lot of CPU cycles when drawing the map during play). For now, I'll just draw the rivers on top of the country borders for non-coastal hexes.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 331

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/12/2007 2:26:36 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

Hey Steve and Patrice,

Good maps, though it is weird to see the US with no state lines!

Two issues:

1) I think that Portland is not correct on this map. It is bisected by the Columbia River (E -> W river) and the Willammette
(N -> S river). Both rivers flow through it. It just looks weird on the Willammette rather than the main thoroughfare of the Columbia.

2) I wonder if Portland should have a minor port. The Columbia was huge up to that point. See this website:
http://www.usmm.net/armycargo.html
Portland is listed as a "subport" for San Fran til 1944 and then Seattle after that. Just thought I'd point that out.

The website might help with other ports in the US.

Keep up the good work.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The NW corner of the continental 48 states.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 332

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/12/2007 9:02:02 PM

Peter Stauffenberg

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
2) I wonder if Portland should have a minor port. The Columbia was huge up to that point. See this website:
http://www.usmm.net/armycargo.html
Portland is listed as a "subport" for San Fran til 1944 and then Seattle after that. Just thought I'd point that out.

Portland is an inland hex with no Pacific coast line. Therefore it has no port. E. g. there are several big ports
situated at one of the Great Lakes, but they are not on the map. The reason is that in WIFFE naval units can
travel along rivers from the coast to the lakes. So why have ports if there are no units to use them.

(in reply to iamspamus)

Post #: 333

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/12/2007 11:26:59 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
2) I wonder if Portland should have a minor port. The Columbia was huge up to that point. See this website:
http://www.usmm.net/armycargo.html
Portland is listed as a "subport" for San Fran til 1944 and then Seattle after that. Just thought I'd point that out.

Portland is an inland hex with no Pacific coast line. Therefore it has no port. E. g. there are several big ports
situated at one of the Great Lakes, but they are not on the map. The reason is that in WIFFE naval units can
travel along rivers from the coast to the lakes. So why have ports if there are no units to use them.

I believe you meant "cannot travel along rivers".

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 334

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 10:51:45 AM

Peter Stauffenberg

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
2) I wonder if Portland should have a minor port. The Columbia was huge up to that point. See this website:
http://www.usmm.net/armycargo.html
Portland is listed as a "subport" for San Fran til 1944 and then Seattle after that. Just thought I'd point that out.

Portland is an inland hex with no Pacific coast line. Therefore it has no port. E. g. there are several big ports
situated at one of the Great Lakes, but they are not on the map. The reason is that in WIFFE naval units can
travel along rivers from the coast to the lakes. So why have ports if there are no units to use them.

I believe you meant "cannot travel along rivers".

Of course. A stupid typo.

......

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 335

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 11:10:00 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
2) I wonder if Portland should have a minor port. The Columbia was huge up to that point. See this website:
http://www.usmm.net/armycargo.html
Portland is listed as a "subport" for San Fran til 1944 and then Seattle after that. Just thought I'd point that out.

Portland is an inland hex with no Pacific coast line. Therefore it has no port. E. g. there are several big ports
situated at one of the Great Lakes, but they are not on the map. The reason is that in WIFFE naval units can
travel along rivers from the coast to the lakes. So why have ports if there are no units to use them.

I believe you meant "cannot travel along rivers".

Of course. A stupid typo. ......

I thought about that, and there is one solution.
The solution would be simply to make the Portland hex technicaly "coastal" to the Pacific Ocean, and so, Portland hex could be a port, and ships based here could exit the port and sail the Pacific.
Any hex, even if not really touching the sea, can be made technicaly "coastal" to any sea area. Paris for example, can be made coastal to the Med if I want.

If the Portland hex is made coastal, then troops can also be loaded and unloaded from here to and from the sea area it is coastal to.
Invasions cannot be done on the Portland hex, because it lacks any all sea hexsides adjacent to any sea area, which is a condition for a hex to be invadable.

So IMO the decision is only a design decision to be taken, by Steve, whether making Portland a port of not.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 336

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 11:11:23 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

1) I think that Portland is not correct on this map. It is bisected by the Columbia River (E -> W river) and the Willammette
(N -> S river). Both rivers flow through it. It just looks weird on the Willammette rather than the main thoroughfare of the Columbia.

As I can't modify the drawing of the rivers, I moved the Portland city icon so that it is at the place where the "P" of Portland is written in the screenshot.

(in reply to iamspamus)

Post #: 337

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 11:30:42 AM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
2) I wonder if Portland should have a minor port. The Columbia was huge up to that point. See this website:
http://www.usmm.net/armycargo.html
Portland is listed as a "subport" for San Fran til 1944 and then Seattle after that. Just thought I'd point that out.

Portland is an inland hex with no Pacific coast line. Therefore it has no port. E. g. there are several big ports
situated at one of the Great Lakes, but they are not on the map. The reason is that in WIFFE naval units can
travel along rivers from the coast to the lakes. So why have ports if there are no units to use them.

Hey Borger, thanks for the geography lesson on my home city!!! :-) Not meant to be mean...

I figured that I was up against the "that's not the way that it was in Wiffe" syndrome. Which is ok. HOWEVER, on the original map the US was two boxes. On the expanded map it was still a smaller scale than the Pacific map. In the AiF, it was Pacific scale (I believe). So, we've already moved a bit away from "that's not the way that it was in Wiffe".

I disagree with no ships sailing up a river. I am at work, so could only quickly look stuff up. Here is a picture of the battleship Oregon in Portland Harbor.
http://photos.salemhistory.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/max&CISOPTR=4355&REC=3

(Granted it is from 1910, but is not smaller than a WW2 destroyer, I would think.)

This site talks about the victory ships (connected with names of Kansas of all things) from Portland.
http://www.kancoll.org/khq/1947/47_2_henderson.htm

And the first site I put up talks about Porland being a secondary port for San Fran and then Seattle. So, I don't expect anything to change, but was just pointing out that it COULD.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

Hey Steve and Patrice,

Good maps, though it is weird to see the US with no state lines!

Two issues:

1) I think that Portland is not correct on this map. It is bisected by the Columbia River (E -> W river) and the Willammette
(N -> S river). Both rivers flow through it. It just looks weird on the Willammette rather than the main thoroughfare of the Columbia.

2) I wonder if Portland should have a minor port. The Columbia was huge up to that point. See this website:
http://www.usmm.net/armycargo.html
Portland is listed as a "subport" for San Fran til 1944 and then Seattle after that. Just thought I'd point that out.

The website might help with other ports in the US.

Keep up the good work.

Jason

Good to quote myself, I guess. My first point still stands. The placement is INCORRECT on the map. It should be ON the Columbia River AND the Willammette, so 1 space NE. The lower branch should read Willammette as the Columbia is the branch that moves on to the Pacific Ocean.

Please, don't take anything I said as offensive or harsh. I didn't mean it as such. I am not so concerned with the port issue, but the placement is wrong. Thanks.

Jason

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 338

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 11:56:55 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

As I can't modify the drawing of the rivers, I moved the Portland city icon so that it is at the place where the "P" of Portland is written in the screenshot.

quote:

My first point still stands. The placement is INCORRECT on the map. It should be ON the Columbia River AND the Willammette, so 1 space NE. The lower branch should read Willammette as the Columbia is the branch that moves on to the Pacific Ocean.

Isn't it ok as I placed it (where the "P" of Portland is written in the screenshot) ?

The Willammette label was put on the map too.

(in reply to iamspamus)

Post #: 339

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 11:58:45 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

And the first site I put up talks about Porland being a secondary port for San Fran and then Seattle. So, I don't expect anything to change, but was just pointing out that it COULD.

As I wrote in post #336, I can put the port (I'd make it a minor port), and it can work as a port, but I just need Steve feeling about it.
I for one am ok to put it.

(in reply to iamspamus)

Post #: 340

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 12:29:57 PM

Froonp

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

Here is what it looks like :

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 341

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 3:29:08 PM

Peter Stauffenberg

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
Hey Borger, thanks for the geography lesson on my home city!!! :-) Not meant to be mean...

I figured that I was up against the "that's not the way that it was in Wiffe" syndrome. Which is ok. HOWEVER, on the original map the US was two boxes. On the expanded map it was still a smaller scale than the Pacific map. In the AiF, it was Pacific scale (I believe). So, we've already moved a bit away from "that's not the way that it was in Wiffe".

I disagree with no ships sailing up a river. I am at work, so could only quickly look stuff up. Here is a picture of the battleship Oregon in Portland Harbor.
http://photos.salemhistory.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/max&CISOPTR=4355&REC=3

I'm not the advocate of speaking "that's not the way it was in wiffe". I think Steve, Patrice et al. know I've been coming up with lots of suggestions to changes that was not in wiffe.

We had a discussion some time ago about placing ports on the Great Lakes and create a separate Sea area for the great lakes. But it was finally rejected because the WIF rules are not made to allow for sailing with naval units up the rivers to the lakes. But in reality we all know that it's possible to travel from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes with naval vessels. It's just not part of WIF. WIF is a game and not a true representation of the real world.

E. g. there are a lot of big river ports all around the world. Especially in Russia. Stalingrad had for example a big port along the Volga. Baku was a major port on the Caspian Sea that could transport e. g. oil to the eastern bank of the Caspian Sea if the rail route to Baku was cut off.

There were different canals that connected rivers to the sea. E. g. the Volgo-Donskoy canal that made it possible to sail from the Black Sea via the Don river up almost to Stalingrad and cross the canal to the Volga river and then sail into the Caspian Sea. This canal wasn't finished until 1952, so it should not be part of MWIF.

Many big cities have ports along the river bank. Hamburg is a good example. It's situated along the Elbe river. Many ports are situated along the Rhine river too. The Rhine is used a lot for naval transportation.

But these cities are in WIF placed in coastal hexes. E. g. look at Hamburg and Antwerp. The city is inland and the port symbol is located at the coast even though the port was located where the city is. If Portland is moved 1 hex NW then it's possible to place a port in the hex and it's directly on the coast.

I know it's possible to do as Patrice says to make Portland technically a coastal hex in the hex it's situated, but I think the players will be confused because they see no coast line in the hex. It's possible, of course, to change the WIF rules so naval vessels can travel up rivers to inland ports, but then it has to be done everywhere where needed on the world and not only for Portland.

E. g. the Russian city Komsomolsk had shipyards during WW2 that produced e. g. submarines if I recall correctly. Komsomolsk is situated on the MWIF map several hexes inland along the Amur river. But it has no port. The Great Lakes had many important ports that could be reached via the St. Lawrence river. I know for a fact that many Norwegian sailors worked during WW2 on transport ships that were part of the convoys to Britain and they sailed originally from the Great Lakes along the St. Lawrence river.

So I agree with Patrice. Steve has to make a decision about what to do. If it was only the need for a port in Portland then you solve everything by moving the city symbol 1xNW and place the city in the east part of the hex close to the Columbia river and the port in the NW part of the city close to the coast.

< Message edited by Borger Borgersen -- 2/13/2007 3:48:15 PM >

(in reply to iamspamus)

Post #: 342

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 3:40:57 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

If it was only the need for a port in Portland then you solve everything by moving the city symbol 1xNW and place the city in the east part of the hex close to the Columbia river and the port in the NW part of the city close to the coast.

Moving the city out of the hex it is currently in would involve redrawing the river, which can't be. Portland is situated in the right hex, and I would not want to move it on the coast.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 343

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 4:54:44 PM

Peter Stauffenberg

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

If it was only the need for a port in Portland then you solve everything by moving the city symbol 1xNW and place the city in the east part of the hex close to the Columbia river and the port in the NW part of the city close to the coast.

Moving the city out of the hex it is currently in would involve redrawing the river, which can't be. Portland is situated in the right hex, and I would not want to move it on the coast.

That's fine with me. We still have ports in Seattle and Tacoma so it's not like the region is without ports and we desperately need to find a location to find a port for the region. I can easily live with Portland being located in the current location as a city without a port.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 344

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 5:28:44 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

If it was only the need for a port in Portland then you solve everything by moving the city symbol 1xNW and place the city in the east part of the hex close to the Columbia river and the port in the NW part of the city close to the coast.

Moving the city out of the hex it is currently in would involve redrawing the river, which can't be. Portland is situated in the right hex, and I would not want to move it on the coast.

That's fine with me. We still have ports in Seattle and Tacoma so it's not like the region is without ports and we desperately need to find a location to find a port for the region. I can easily live with Portland being located in the current location as a city without a port.

Me too

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 345

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 8:24:30 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

If it was only the need for a port in Portland then you solve everything by moving the city symbol 1xNW and place the city in the east part of the hex close to the Columbia river and the port in the NW part of the city close to the coast.

Moving the city out of the hex it is currently in would involve redrawing the river, which can't be. Portland is situated in the right hex, and I would not want to move it on the coast.

Well, The America In Flames map has Portland on the coast, though as a city and not as a port. It also has it mountain terrain, so one hex east of the current MWIF location would be the best match. However, I do not recommend that. If the rivers had been drawn differently, - that is the cosmetic rendering, not the placement in game terms - then it would more closely resemble reality. For example, the Columbia could have been drawn on the Portland side of the hexside which would have placed the city icon directly next to the river depiction. That would have 'solved' this problem I believe.

As for Portland being a port (it would seem reasonable simply given the name), I seem to recall having read about the mouth of the Columbia River being very treacherous. Sandbars prevent sailing up the river during low tide and the weather is liable to make all such journeys somewhat more dangerous than entering most harbors/ports. Not to say that Portland is not a port, but instead casting some doubt upon whether we should make it one in MWIF.

Borger commented on Hamburg and I would also give Philadelphia as an example of a MWIF major port that is far up a river, and not even close to the ocean (no salt water in the Delaware River once past the mouth of the Delaware, near southern New Jersey). However, there are some tidal effects on the river's water level. It is important to keep in mind the game's scale - each hex is 90 to 100 km (~60 miles). The placement of the icons within the hex often has to be such that they are not close to reality. Using Philadelphia again as an example, the port and city icon should be superimposed on each other, which isn't possible. And from an artistic aesthetics point of view, they should have some separation to make them easier for the player to see. What was done in the case of Philadelphia (and Hamburg), is to draw the river where it passes Philadelphia such that it looks like ocean. Purely a game designer invoking his priviledge to distort reality for game play, I believe.

Anyway, that is my contribution to this discussion. I would be interested in why Patrice says that Portland is placed correctly in the hex it is currently in.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 346

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 9:34:25 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

Anyway, that is my contribution to this discussion. I would be interested in why Patrice says that Portland is placed correctly in the hex it is currently in.

Well, see the accompanying picture, who show the area from my 1940 map, and the area from the game.
The real map has the north tilted to the right, but we can see that Portland, Tacoma and Seattle are roughtly on the same north / South axis. The MWiF map has them the same way.

Moreover, if we want to depict the Willamette river on the MWiF map, we need to have it running north / south from the Colombia River, so there needs to be 1 hexrow between Portland and the Sea.
Portland is on the shore on the AiF maps because the AiF hexes are Pacific scaled, so they are 2 or 3 times larger than our MWiF hexes. So Portland being on the shore on the AiF map is not an indication that it is on the shore in reality.

Moreover, the center of Porland (the red dot on the Google Earth map) is 100+ km from the shore, warranting it being 1 hex from the coast (1 hex is about 70-80 km in MWiF).

This said, I'm not happy with the big bend that the Willamette River is doing south of Portland. I think that the river should have been in straight north south direction. Or maybe this is "simulating" the eastward going bend that there is south of Albany, Oregon ?. That's something I missed in my earlier reviewing of the map.
What do you think of that, you people that live in this area ?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 347

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/13/2007 9:53:06 PM

Froonp

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

Here is a view from Google Earth.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 348

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/14/2007 3:11:25 AM

Jeff Gilbert

Posts: 67
Joined: 10/2/2005
Status: offline

Not to muddy the waters any about Portland but ...

If Eureka, California is a minor port, then Portland definately should be as Liberty ships did sail out from there.

I would go so far as to say the Eureka does not warrent minor port status as, from what I can find, its harbor has only been home to small fishing fleets sailing in and around the Humbold Bay.

Well ... my 2 cents worth.

_____________________________

Jeff Gilbert
US Army [Ret]
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 349

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/14/2007 4:03:32 AM

lomyrin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff Gilbert

Not to muddy the waters any about Portland but ...
If Eureka, California is a minor port, then Portland definately should be as Liberty ships did sail out from there.

I would go so far as to say the Eureka does not warrent minor port status as, from what I can find, its harbor has only been home to small fishing fleets sailing in and around the Humbold Bay.

Well ... my 2 cents worth.

Not that I believe it makes much of a difference but in 1956 a cargo ship of 10.000 tons loaded lumber in Eureka, so the port was functioning then for a lot more than fishing boats. I was on the ship in question.

Lars

(in reply to Jeff Gilbert)

Post #: 350

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/14/2007 9:57:15 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff Gilbert

Not to muddy the waters any about Portland but ...
If Eureka, California is a minor port, then Portland definately should be as Liberty ships did sail out from there.

I would go so far as to say the Eureka does not warrent minor port status as, from what I can find, its harbor has only been home to small fishing fleets sailing in and around the Humbold Bay.

Well ... my 2 cents worth.

Well, Eureka was added to provide at least supply from the sea, to the area between Portland and Sacramento. The WiF FE maps had the whole trip between those places supplied all the time, and the MWiF map has not. Adding Eureka restores this feature provided the US has a CP at sea. If people think that this is wrong, we can remove it.

I don't know if Eureka can be home to 4 warships, but Eureka was the biggest port place that we found in this area of California & Oregon. If people find a bigger place, we will be happy to change Eureka in that other place.

Also, given that it is not linked to the rest of the USA by rail, and that it is far from everything, I doubt that this port see any warship in MWiF, only fishing

(in reply to Jeff Gilbert)

Post #: 351

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/14/2007 3:38:21 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As for Portland being a port (it would seem reasonable simply given the name), I seem to recall having read about the mouth of the Columbia River being very treacherous. Sandbars prevent sailing up the river during low tide and the weather is liable to make all such journeys somewhat more dangerous than entering most harbors/ports. Not to say that Portland is not a port, but instead casting some doubt upon whether we should make it one in MWIF.

Hey Steve and Patrice,

Some damming of the River happened between the World Wars, but I think that the levels reduced dramatically after the war. This is an incredible, but unsourced (darn) entry in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_River
The mainstream of the Columbia River has 14 dams (3 in Canada, 11 in the United States) and 8 locks. Nearly half of all hydroelectricity in the United States comes from the Columbia and its tributaries.

I see what you mean about the treacherous mouth of the Columbia. Lots of ship wrecks around Astoria. I just know that there is still alot of traffic in the river. Portland's about 100 miles up stream (though not in a straight line), BTW. Just wanted to point it out, not kill to make it a port!

Jason

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 352

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/14/2007 3:40:49 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Anyway, that is my contribution to this discussion. I would be interested in why Patrice says that Portland is placed correctly in the hex it is currently in.

Well, see the accompanying picture, who show the area from my 1940 map, and the area from the game.
The real map has the north tilted to the right, but we can see that Portland, Tacoma and Seattle are roughtly on the same north / South axis. The MWiF map has them the same way.

Moreover, if we want to depict the Willamette river on the MWiF map, we need to have it running north / south from the Colombia River, so there needs to be 1 hexrow between Portland and the Sea.
Portland is on the shore on the AiF maps because the AiF hexes are Pacific scaled, so they are 2 or 3 times larger than our MWiF hexes. So Portland being on the shore on the AiF map is not an indication that it is on the shore in reality.

Moreover, the center of Porland (the red dot on the Google Earth map) is 100+ km from the shore, warranting it being 1 hex from the coast (1 hex is about 70-80 km in MWiF).

This said, I'm not happy with the big bend that the Willamette River is doing south of Portland. I think that the river should have been in straight north south direction. Or maybe this is "simulating" the eastward going bend that there is south of Albany, Oregon ?. That's something I missed in my earlier reviewing of the map.
What do you think of that, you people that live in this area ?

Thanks Patrice,

I will say that this makes sense from a 1940's map. I forgot how big portland has gotten. Basically, my grandparents live about 5-7 minutes from the airport / Columbia River (on your other map) and they live in Portland. It's really grown.

Jason

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 353

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/14/2007 3:45:05 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is a view from Google Earth.

Good Picture, thanks. The dot is the center of Portland. It now goes all the way to the Columbia. The airport is still "Portland" proper, ie. not a suburb. My grand parents live about 5-7 minutes East of the airport (and thus the Columbia) and they are still in Portland as well.

Anyway, thanks again.
Jason

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 354

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/14/2007 3:45:55 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff Gilbert

Not to muddy the waters any about Portland but ...
If Eureka, California is a minor port, then Portland definately should be as Liberty ships did sail out from there.

I would go so far as to say the Eureka does not warrent minor port status as, from what I can find, its harbor has only been home to small fishing fleets sailing in and around the Humbold Bay.

Well ... my 2 cents worth.

I wasn't going to mention that, but...

Jason

(in reply to Jeff Gilbert)

Post #: 355

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/14/2007 3:48:06 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus
Hey Borger, thanks for the geography lesson on my home city!!! :-) Not meant to be mean...

I figured that I was up against the "that's not the way that it was in Wiffe" syndrome. Which is ok. HOWEVER, on the original map the US was two boxes. On the expanded map it was still a smaller scale than the Pacific map. In the AiF, it was Pacific scale (I believe). So, we've already moved a bit away from "that's not the way that it was in Wiffe".

I disagree with no ships sailing up a river. I am at work, so could only quickly look stuff up. Here is a picture of the battleship Oregon in Portland Harbor.
http://photos.salemhistory.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/max&CISOPTR=4355&REC=3

I'm not the advocate of speaking "that's not the way it was in wiffe". I think Steve, Patrice et al. know I've been coming up with lots of suggestions to changes that was not in wiffe.

We had a discussion some time ago about placing ports on the Great Lakes and create a separate Sea area for the great lakes. But it was finally rejected because the WIF rules are not made to allow for sailing with naval units up the rivers to the lakes. But in reality we all know that it's possible to travel from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes with naval vessels. It's just not part of WIF. WIF is a game and not a true representation of the real world.

E. g. there are a lot of big river ports all around the world. Especially in Russia. Stalingrad had for example a big port along the Volga. Baku was a major port on the Caspian Sea that could transport e. g. oil to the eastern bank of the Caspian Sea if the rail route to Baku was cut off.

There were different canals that connected rivers to the sea. E. g. the Volgo-Donskoy canal that made it possible to sail from the Black Sea via the Don river up almost to Stalingrad and cross the canal to the Volga river and then sail into the Caspian Sea. This canal wasn't finished until 1952, so it should not be part of MWIF.

Many big cities have ports along the river bank. Hamburg is a good example. It's situated along the Elbe river. Many ports are situated along the Rhine river too. The Rhine is used a lot for naval transportation.

But these cities are in WIF placed in coastal hexes. E. g. look at Hamburg and Antwerp. The city is inland and the port symbol is located at the coast even though the port was located where the city is. If Portland is moved 1 hex NW then it's possible to place a port in the hex and it's directly on the coast.

I know it's possible to do as Patrice says to make Portland technically a coastal hex in the hex it's situated, but I think the players will be confused because they see no coast line in the hex. It's possible, of course, to change the WIF rules so naval vessels can travel up rivers to inland ports, but then it has to be done everywhere where needed on the world and not only for Portland.

E. g. the Russian city Komsomolsk had shipyards during WW2 that produced e. g. submarines if I recall correctly. Komsomolsk is situated on the MWIF map several hexes inland along the Amur river. But it has no port. The Great Lakes had many important ports that could be reached via the St. Lawrence river. I know for a fact that many Norwegian sailors worked during WW2 on transport ships that were part of the convoys to Britain and they sailed originally from the Great Lakes along the St. Lawrence river.

So I agree with Patrice. Steve has to make a decision about what to do. If it was only the need for a port in Portland then you solve everything by moving the city symbol 1xNW and place the city in the east part of the hex close to the Columbia river and the port in the NW part of the city close to the coast.

I really wasn't trying to be mean! I understand that there are ports elsewhere that should be on the map, it's just with the growing of the US to "Europe sized", I noticed that something was missing there. Similar to the discussions on China and Asia and the adding of needed cities and such. Just my $.02.

Jason

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 356

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/14/2007 4:08:23 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff Gilbert

Not to muddy the waters any about Portland but ...
If Eureka, California is a minor port, then Portland definately should be as Liberty ships did sail out from there.

I would go so far as to say the Eureka does not warrent minor port status as, from what I can find, its harbor has only been home to small fishing fleets sailing in and around the Humbold Bay.

Well ... my 2 cents worth.

Well, Eureka was added to provide at least supply from the sea, to the area between Portland and Sacramento. The WiF FE maps had the whole trip between those places supplied all the time, and the MWiF map has not. Adding Eureka restores this feature provided the US has a CP at sea. If people think that this is wrong, we can remove it.

I don't know if Eureka can be home to 4 warships, but Eureka was the biggest port place that we found in this area of California & Oregon. If people find a bigger place, we will be happy to change Eureka in that other place.

Also, given that it is not linked to the rest of the USA by rail, and that it is far from everything, I doubt that this port see any warship in MWiF, only fishing .

Well, having lived in LA and travelling to Portland (998 miles / 1600km, door to door) There is not much between Sacramento and Salem. (All from Wikipedia, unless noted.)

Redding, CA had 80,000 people in 2000
Ashland, OR had 19,000 in 2005
Medford, OR had 75,000 in 2005
Roseburg, OR had 20,000 in 2005
Salem had 30-40,000 in about 1940 --- http://www.oregonlink.com/population_history.html

As a comparison, Eureka had 26,000 in 2005, so it doesn't quite fit the bill.

Basically, from a WiFFE point of view, this area was not good for supporting troops, unless you've got an HQ! It freaked me when you had Eureka on the map!

Jason

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 357

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/14/2007 5:27:09 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Well, Eureka was added to provide at least supply from the sea, to the area between Portland and Sacramento. The WiF FE maps had the whole trip between those places supplied all the time, and the MWiF map has not. Adding Eureka restores this feature provided the US has a CP at sea. If people think that this is wrong, we can remove it.

I don't know if Eureka can be home to 4 warships, but Eureka was the biggest port place that we found in this area of California & Oregon. If people find a bigger place, we will be happy to change Eureka in that other place.

Also, given that it is not linked to the rest of the USA by rail, and that it is far from everything, I doubt that this port see any warship in MWiF, only fishing .

Well, having lived in LA and travelling to Portland (998 miles / 1600km, door to door) There is not much between Sacramento and Salem. (All from Wikipedia, unless noted.)

Redding, CA had 80,000 people in 2000
Ashland, OR had 19,000 in 2005
Medford, OR had 75,000 in 2005
Roseburg, OR had 20,000 in 2005
Salem had 30-40,000 in about 1940 --- http://www.oregonlink.com/population_history.html
As a comparison, Eureka had 26,000 in 2005, so it doesn't quite fit the bill.

When I was looking for a place to add to the MWiF maps, to restore the supply level between Sacramento CA and Portland OR, I looked for either a city with more than 100k inhabitants, to warrant it to be a city in WiF, or a coastal city warranting to have a Minor Port in WiF FE.
There is no city with 100k inhabitants between Sacramento & Portland so this possibility is out, and there are a few ports.
Eureka was 16k in 1940, 17k in 1944, and is situated next to Arcata and Trinidad, so I thought that those 3 place could warrant to be represented on the map as a Minor Port, not linked to the rest of the USA by railway.
Redding, Ashland, Medford, Roseburg and Salem all are inland cities, none are on the coast, so none can be a port.

quote:

Basically, from a WiFFE point of view, this area was not good for supporting troops, unless you've got an HQ! It freaked me when you had Eureka on the map!

Well, as it is now on the MWiF map, this place is not good neither for supporting troops. The place in itself does not provide supply, and is barely in supply itself, but if transport ships are at sea, this place can route the supply to the troops.

I don't see any other ways of giving the Sacramento to Portland trip the level of supply it has in WiF.
We can also dump it completely, removing Eureka, and live with the supply gap, its no worries for me.

< Message edited by Froonp -- 2/18/2007 12:59:59 AM >

(in reply to iamspamus)

Post #: 358

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/14/2007 9:52:49 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

Redding, CA had 80,000 people in 2000
Ashland, OR had 19,000 in 2005
Medford, OR had 75,000 in 2005
Roseburg, OR had 20,000 in 2005
Salem had 30-40,000 in about 1940

For additional information, from my 1940 & 1944 atlases :
Ashland, OR : 5k in 1940 & 1944.
Medford, OR : 11k in 1940 & 1944.
Roseburg, OR : 4k in 1940, 5k in 1944.
Salem, OR : 26k in 1940, 31k in 1944.
Portland, OR : 302k in 1940, 305k in 1944.

Redding, CA : population not mentionned.
Eureka, CA : 16k in 1940, 17k in 1944.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 359

RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 2/15/2007 5:03:25 PM

SS244

Posts: 2
Joined: 2/15/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: gbirkeli
I have a remark regarding Minneapolis and St. Paul. The two cities are quite close, about 15 km apart (according to Google Earth). That is about the distance between Marseille and Aubagne. It might be better to leave St. Paul out.
Gaute

A good point but I wonder about how to model that they are on different sides of the river. If land combat ever does occur here, the opposing forces are likely to be on opposite sides of the river. In which case, perhaps both hexes should be modelled as city hexes because of the advantages that would provide: easier to defend, increased stacking for air units, and a primary supply source. But I only visited there once, for a half a day, so I will defer to the judgment of others.

Both cities are on the WiF FE maps, so for me they are on the MWiF map.
But I noticed that MWiF added a couple of extra cities already to the USA. Newark and Spokane.

There are a lot of 'Newark's in the US. The one in northern NJ is an ok addition. It represents several smaller cities across the river from NYC, which together make up a significant urban area (Newark airport is there and a lot of industry).

I thought about adding Camden/Trenton - across from Philadelphia - but that area is more woods than urban.

I don't know about Spokane.

I realize that I am a newby here, and getting in on this conversation a bit late, but there are several good reasons for placing Spokane on the map. At the time no less than eight major railroads converged there, and 99 percent of all rail traffic bound for Seattle and Portland from eastern cities passed through its many yards. It would certainly be a position that one would want to defend, specifically its rail hub, which passed through the center of the downtown region, (an area now occupied by the River Fron Park which hosted the 1974 Worlds Fair and EXPO, and is incidentally an island), so any force attempting to defend it would do so from inside the city. The city itself is partitioned by the Spokane river, which is a fast flowing river, that in the early forties wasa spanned by only three auto traffic bridges and about a half dozen rail bridges, the eastern part of the river cascades into a deep gorge. While there are sure to be many rail junctions on the maps that have no city in the same hex, this particular junction is the bottle neck for traffic to and from Seattle and Portland. These features should give a defender an advantage regardless of the size of the city in question and I believe warrants the addition of Spokane to the map from a strategic stand point. Thanks for your attention.

_____________________________

Scratch one Flattop!

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 360