Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I am not proposing that the whole Sea Area boundary be defined in a CSV file, only a dozen or so of Sea Area Boundaries connections to selected hexes.

The game would see that Plymouth ought to have a Sea Ara Boundary traced so that it joins its initial at sea starting position to the position 7 on the hexagon of Plymouth. The rest of the Sea Area boundary would not change. It is similar to how railways flow. They are automatic, but in some selected hexes we made it connect to a specific place in the hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Steve, in a similar way to what we do for the lake and river graphics, that we draw in hex where the data show no lake or river, wouldn't it be possible to have a CSV map data file for drawing exceptional Sea Area boundaries connections to some exceptional land hexes ?

The CSV file would show the coordinates of the hex, and then a 1-12 number that would "connect" the Sea Area border to a place on the hexagon placed at the 1-12 O'Clock positions on its cirumference (12 being the top position and 6 the bottom one) (similar to how cities, ports, symbols are shown inside the hex, but here it would be on the cirumference).

That way we could have the Sea Area boundary connect to pretty much the place we would prefer.

For example, for Plymouth, I would connect it to position 7 (middle of the SW hexside).

If you look at the WIF FE map you will see that the sea area boundaries do more than just 'arrive' at the coastal hex. They also traverse all the open sea hexes and go around islands (e.g., the Pacific map). What you are proposing is a look up table, that would be of monstrous size.

Furthermore, I have no interest in rewriting code that is both complete and accurate just to duplicate the visual of hand drawn graphics.

I am not proposing that the whole Sea Area boundary be defined in a CSV file, only a dozen or so of Sea Area Boundaries connections to selected hexes.

The game would see that Plymouth ought to have a Sea Ara Boundary traced so that it joins its initial at sea starting position to the position 7 on the hexagon of Plymouth. The rest of the Sea Area boundary would not change. It is similar to how railways flow. They are automatic, but in some selected hexes we made it connect to a specific place in the hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
The Legaspi hex is clearly invadeable from either sea zone while its port no longer has direct access to the South China Sea in MWiF.

No, the port still have access to the South China Sea.
It is the same for the Major Port of Auckland (NZ) that has access to 2 Sea Areas while being physicaly placed on only the New Zealand Coast.

Those ports had access to 2 Sea Areas in WiF FE, they had to have access to the same 2 Sea Areas in MWiF.

You just have to use some WiFZen to accept it, imagining that the ships go around the peninsula's tip to go to the other Sea Area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think San Diego connects to both on the America in Flames maps and we've played it that way ever since regardless of what map we were using.

If you move the boundary near Legaspi to within the hex-row to the west somehow the whole makes more logical sense. The USA loses the ability to attack the South China Sea without losing a movement point, but the Japanese lose the ability to ship the resource along with the rest of their main convoy defenses in the South China. Seems like an OK trade to me (some would say worse for the Japanese) and you don't have to make people laugh trying to explain why Legaspi gets to be a two-zone port but Cebu doesn't (and some other similar examples). Narrow straits are dangerous and slow for capital ships.

I don't quite follow then why MWiF has some zone boundaries bisecting hex-sides, like south of Legaspi, but in other places not? I understand now why the lines can't be straight out at sea. It's actually clearest in MWiF when the lines connect to hex vertices.

Like Paul said, it is better to let some things change than to go through a bunch of mental gymnastics trying to explain why things get even more absurd by trying to 'keep them the same.' Legaspi is not the only example of this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think San Diego connects to both on the America in Flames maps and we've played it that way ever since regardless of what map we were using.

If you move the boundary near Legaspi to within the hex-row to the west somehow the whole makes more logical sense. The USA loses the ability to attack the South China Sea without losing a movement point, but the Japanese lose the ability to ship the resource along with the rest of their main convoy defenses in the South China. Seems like an OK trade to me (some would say worse for the Japanese) and you don't have to make people laugh trying to explain why Legaspi gets to be a two-zone port but Cebu doesn't (and some other similar examples). Narrow straits are dangerous and slow for capital ships.

I don't quite follow then why MWiF has some zone boundaries bisecting hex-sides, like south of Legaspi, but in other places not? I understand now why the lines can't be straight out at sea. It's actually clearest in MWiF when the lines connect to hex vertices.

Like Paul said, it is better to let some things change than to go through a bunch of mental gymnastics trying to explain why things get even more absurd by trying to 'keep them the same.' Legaspi is not the only example of this.

MWIF derives from the America in Flames map rather than America Mini-map. That is so (someday) it can include America in Flames.

==
I agreed a long time ago to make Legaspi an exception, with the hex bordering two sea areas and the port only one. I haven't coded it that way yet, but in this case I think the visual dictates how the simulation should work.

For Istanbul, I would be more comfortable with making the Dardenelles a barrier to invasions (or even naval movement) inside the Sea of Marmara, rather than just prohibitting an invasion of Istanbul. That makes more logical sense to me, and there are similar rules/constraints for the Kiel, Suez, and Panama canals already existing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I've been over the MWiF map to all the places that are different in scale to Europe, concentrating on the sea zone boundaries, since ports within a sea zone won't matter. Besides Legaspi, the only other one I've found that could be treated as an exception is Auckland. Rabaul looks fine to me both from the WiFFE and the MWiF point of view. Japan looks fine too.

BTW the map is a work of awesome beauty!! Kudos to all involved in creating it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Please recall one of my very first 10 posts (up to over 8000 now) where I stated quite clearly: I design; I code; I do not redesign and recode. During the design stage I warmly welcome and encourage suggestions; but after code has been written and functions, I am cold and heartless in regards to changes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Please recall one of my very first 10 posts (up to over 8000 now) where I stated quite clearly: I design; I code; I do not redesign and recode. During the design stage I warmly welcome and encourage suggestions; but after code has been written and functions, I am cold and heartless in regards to changes.

So let it be coded, so let it be done.

I am now confused as to what rule MWiF will use for invasions. Must a hex have a full sea hexside to be invadeable? If so Legaspi is invadeable only on the port side of the hex (which is on its starboard side --- )

I would never have assumed Legaspi was connected to two zones because the port is not being touched by the zone line, like all the other two zone ports. But I can accept the abtraction that it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
For Istanbul, I would be more comfortable with making the Dardenelles a barrier to invasions (or even naval movement) inside the Sea of Marmara, rather than just prohibitting an invasion of Istanbul. That makes more logical sense to me, and there are similar rules/constraints for the Kiel, Suez, and Panama canals already existing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
What's with Auckland that makes it unusual?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish
I am now confused as to what rule MWiF will use for invasions. Must a hex have a full sea hexside to be invadeable? If so Legaspi is invadeable only on the port side of the hex (which is on its starboard side --- )

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
C - Treat the port of Legaspi as different from all the other ports on the map, in that its hex is adjacent to two sea areas but the port can only be used by 1 of those sea areas (Bismarck Sea).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
C - Treat the port of Legaspi as different from all the other ports on the map, in that its hex is adjacent to two sea areas but the port can only be used by 1 of those sea areas (Bismarck Sea).

No, the Legaspi port should keep its ability to enter 2 Sea Areas. It is all the point of having Legaspi on the map. It is an entry point to the South China Sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
1 - If you can modify the coastline between Legaspi and the hex SE of it, so it looks like naval units could move out of Legaspi SE without entering the Bismarck Sea (the all sea hex due east of Legaspi) that would help. This can be done by just trimming the coastline a bit.

2 - Let's move the city symbol for Auckland further inland (to the center of the hex?) and the port symbol to where the city symbol currently is located. Visually, that will reinforce the rule that naval units can move in and out of the Auckland port to both of the sea areas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
1 - If you can modify the coastline between Legaspi and the hex SE of it, so it looks like naval units could move out of Legaspi SE without entering the Bismarck Sea (the all sea hex due east of Legaspi) that would help. This can be done by just trimming the coastline a bit.

2 - Let's move the city symbol for Auckland further inland (to the center of the hex?) and the port symbol to where the city symbol currently is located. Visually, that will reinforce the rule that naval units can move in and out of the Auckland port to both of the sea areas.

Fair enough.
I'll do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So that just leaves figuring out/writing code for Istanbul.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
1 - If you can modify the coastline between Legaspi and the hex SE of it, so it looks like naval units could move out of Legaspi SE without entering the Bismarck Sea (the all sea hex due east of Legaspi) that would help. This can be done by just trimming the coastline a bit.

2 - Let's move the city symbol for Auckland further inland (to the center of the hex?) and the port symbol to where the city symbol currently is located. Visually, that will reinforce the rule that naval units can move in and out of the Auckland port to both of the sea areas.

Fair enough.
I'll do that.

Thanks.

So that just leaves figuring out/writing code for Istanbul.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ptey
Another possibility would be to move the minor port one hex south-east and rename it Sorsogon?
Wikipedia doesnt seem to have much information of the history of the place, but today there apparently is something called Sorsogon City located in the bay at the west coast in the northen part of the hex south east of Legaspi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorsogon_City
The city is the combination of two former towns it says, with a total population of 151.000 (2007). Compared with 179.000 in Legaspi (2000).
Maybe the Legaspi port on the WIFFE maps is actually a depiction of the combination of these minor coastal towns at the southen tip of the peninsula? With Legaspi chosen as name because it was the biggest of the towns there. With the new scale, this might not be the best option anymore.

quote:

Regardless. Instead of moving Legaspi to an incorrect location, and giving it the ability of a 2 sea area port, even though it doesnt look like one on the map. I think its better to move the port one hex to the south-east and rename it to the biggest (coastal)town in the hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ptey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
1 - If you can modify the coastline between Legaspi and the hex SE of it, so it looks like naval units could move out of Legaspi SE without entering the Bismarck Sea (the all sea hex due east of Legaspi) that would help. This can be done by just trimming the coastline a bit.

2 - Let's move the city symbol for Auckland further inland (to the center of the hex?) and the port symbol to where the city symbol currently is located. Visually, that will reinforce the rule that naval units can move in and out of the Auckland port to both of the sea areas.

Fair enough.
I'll do that.

Thanks.

So that just leaves figuring out/writing code for Istanbul.

Another possibility would be to move the minor port one hex south-east and rename it Sorsogon?
Wikipedia doesnt seem to have much information of the history of the place, but today there apparently is something called Sorsogon City located in the bay at the west coast in the northen part of the hex south east of Legaspi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorsogon_City
The city is the combination of two former towns it says, with a total population of 151.000 (2007). Compared with 179.000 in Legaspi (2000).
Maybe the Legaspi port on the WIFFE maps is actually a depiction of the combination of these minor coastal towns at the southen tip of the peninsula? With Legaspi chosen as name because it was the biggest of the towns there. With the new scale, this might not be the best option anymore.

Regardless. Instead of moving Legaspi to an incorrect location, and giving it the ability of a 2 sea area port, even though it doesnt look like one on the map. I think its better to move the port one hex to the south-east and rename it to the biggest (coastal)town in the hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
How about we leave the Legaspi hex as the port but move the port symbol to the 4 o'clock position, instead of the 3 o'clock position? That will put it very close to the hex SE of it, though not actually in the SE hex. [We should do this anyway.]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - Let's move the city symbol for Auckland further inland (to the center of the hex?) and the port symbol to where the city symbol currently is located. Visually, that will reinforce the rule that naval units can move in and out of the Auckland port to both of the sea areas.

Fair enough.
I'll do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So that just leaves figuring out/writing code for Istanbul.

Frankly, is it really necessary ?

As you said, as of now in MWiF the hex SW of Istanbul is invadable from the East Med. Who cares if Istanbul is invadable in MWiF from the East Med ?

Solution A is to leave things as they are in MWiF.
- Advantages : 0 time for implementing, as it is already like this. No exception to the rule, and all invasion status are visible on the map (just need to amend RAC).
- Drawbacks : You are changing the WiF FE invadable status or 1 hex that sees action once every 100 games on the European Map, invadable status that comes from the doubtfull drawing of a sea area boundary between the ports on each side, and invadable status that is partly moot because all the nearby hexes are invadable.

Solution B is to change the status of the whole area in the Dardanelles.
- Advantages : Apparent historical accuracy. Apparent, because it was not tempted during WW2, and the failed attempt that everyone cites in example of the Dardanelles invincibility dates from 1915-1916, so who knows what would have happened in WW2. By this argument, why not also add a 3 sided east facing fort in Verdun, and prevent any sortie by the Kriegsmarine in the North Sea for fear of a modern Jutland Battle ???
- Drawbacks : Removing the rightfull invadable status of 6 hexes on the European Map (not simply 1 or 2, but 6 hexes), and loosing a lots of programming time to achieve that doubtfull goal. Moreover, you'll have to create a way for the invadable status to show on the map because these hexes will be in total exception of what RAC and RAW will say about invasion.


So please, stick with solution A, lets leave things as they are and not introduce a Dardanelle invasion prohibition in WiF FE, nor make an exception for the single port of Istanbul.

Let's just amend RAC saying that the only thing needed for an invasion is an all-sea hexside, and the hex to be coastal, and the Sea Area to touch upon that coastal hex.

I'm sure that if Harry was asked this for MWiF he'd ask to leave things as is, and tell us that he answered the FAQ in the clarification way, not the errata way, and that the map as drawn is read like that. I'm sure there is no real will to forbid an invasion of Istanbul from the East Med in this drawing of the Sea Area Boundary.

If you open the way to this, I have a list of a dozen places in the world that you should restrict the same way, possibly hundreds can be found, so please, let's leave that like it is, that is simple.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - Let's move the city symbol for Auckland further inland (to the center of the hex?) and the port symbol to where the city symbol currently is located. Visually, that will reinforce the rule that naval units can move in and out of the Auckland port to both of the sea areas.

Fair enough.
I'll do that.

Wow, here I thought the Germans were smart to dig the Kiel canal, but I really have to hand it to the Kiwis! Digging a 20 km canal through a mountain range and one that can accommodate aircraft carriers to boot -- is one thing -- but then keeping it a secret. Totally awesome !!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - Let's move the city symbol for Auckland further inland (to the center of the hex?) and the port symbol to where the city symbol currently is located. Visually, that will reinforce the rule that naval units can move in and out of the Auckland port to both of the sea areas.

Fair enough.
I'll do that.

Wow, here I thought the Germans were smart to dig the Kiel canal, but I really have to hand it to the Kiwis! Digging a 20 km canal through a mountain range and one that can accommodate aircraft carriers to boot -- is one thing -- but then keeping it a secret. Totally awesome !!

Patrice's point is that 1 MP for a naval unit can covers an enormous number of hexes. Enabling a naval unit to leave Auckland and loop around the northern part of New Zealand to enter the Tasman Sea adds only a couple of hexes to that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
So that just leaves figuring out/writing code for Istanbul.

Frankly, is it really necessary ?

As you said, as of now in MWiF the hex SW of Istanbul is invadable from the East Med. Who cares if Istanbul is invadable in MWiF from the East Med ?

Solution A is to leave things as they are in MWiF.
- Advantages : 0 time for implementing, as it is already like this. No exception to the rule, and all invasion status are visible on the map (just need to amend RAC).
- Drawbacks : You are changing the WiF FE invadable status or 1 hex that sees action once every 100 games on the European Map, invadable status that comes from the doubtfull drawing of a sea area boundary between the ports on each side, and invadable status that is partly moot because all the nearby hexes are invadable.

Solution B is to change the status of the whole area in the Dardanelles.
- Advantages : Apparent historical accuracy. Apparent, because it was not tempted during WW2, and the failed attempt that everyone cites in example of the Dardanelles invincibility dates from 1915-1916, so who knows what would have happened in WW2. By this argument, why not also add a 3 sided east facing fort in Verdun, and prevent any sortie by the Kriegsmarine in the North Sea for fear of a modern Jutland Battle ???
- Drawbacks : Removing the rightfull invadable status of 6 hexes on the European Map (not simply 1 or 2, but 6 hexes), and loosing a lots of programming time to achieve that doubtfull goal. Moreover, you'll have to create a way for the invadable status to show on the map because these hexes will be in total exception of what RAC and RAW will say about invasion.


So please, stick with solution A, lets leave things as they are and not introduce a Dardanelle invasion prohibition in WiF FE, nor make an exception for the single port of Istanbul.

Let's just amend RAC saying that the only thing needed for an invasion is an all-sea hexside, and the hex to be coastal, and the Sea Area to touch upon that coastal hex.

I'm sure that if Harry was asked this for MWiF he'd ask to leave things as is, and tell us that he answered the FAQ in the clarification way, not the errata way, and that the map as drawn is read like that. I'm sure there is no real will to forbid an invasion of Istanbul from the East Med in this drawing of the Sea Area Boundary.

If you open the way to this, I have a list of a dozen places in the world that you should restrict the same way, possibly hundreds can be found, so please, let's leave that like it is, that is simple.