Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6
If I had to choose one or the other, then yes I would move the NW line from Seattle to straight east. If both could be included, then that would be more accurate. Also, if the little inlet of water that cuts into the west side of the hex 1 west of Seatlle could be extended down the entire west side of the hexside before hooking east, then it would be more accurate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6
San Juan Islands

The southern most water hex to the east of Victoria is actually littered with the San Juan Islands. The US and Britain almost fought the Pig War over this island group. http://www.sanjuanmaps.com/images/sanjuanmap-med.jpg

At the time of WWII, there was no regular ferry service to these islands so the red connecting line is unnecessary.

quote:

After looking closer at your included attachment, I noticed another change might be warranted. The Alpine hexside should be moved one hexside straight east, between the forest hex SE of Victoria and the mountain hex two west of Seattle.

quote:

There is no difficulty moving north-south on the coastline so perhaps the coastal terrain should be should be forest, east-west requires more effort. However, the abundance of roads and railroads east-west would mitigate the effects of any mountains except southern Oregon. One would have had little difficulty moving a military unit through the coast range on the many roads and railroads that crossed the coastal mountains. Most of the coast range is 700-1500 feet with some areas in S Oregon not accessible due to the depth of the mountains, and fewer rivers and roads.

I apologize for joining the discussion so late, but I'm not exactly sure what the standard is for terrain being considered Mountains. The above Alpine hexside is needed (Mt Olympus at about 7,000 ft), but outside that hexside, the rest of the Washington/Oregon coast range gradually builds to about 2000 feet with highest "peaks" no higher than 3,000 feet, with large rivers cutting through it about every 50 miles or so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6
San Juan Islands

The southern most water hex to the east of Victoria is actually littered with the San Juan Islands. The US and Britain almost fought the Pig War over this island group. http://www.sanjuanmaps.com/images/sanjuanmap-med.jpg

At the time of WWII, there was no regular ferry service to these islands so the red connecting line is unnecessary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6
The clear hexes between the words "Montana" and "Wyoming" should be forest.

The mountain hex south of "Yellowstone" should be clear (cattle grazing, rangeland).
The two mountain hexes SW of "Yellowstone" (immediately adjacent to the train intersection/forest hex) should be forest. This area (Hysham Hills) may be higher terrain, but would not be a major barrier to operations. It is the gradual beginning of the Rocky Mountains. While the forest here is not terribly thick, it would provide defensive benefits.

Now the complicated part. Pretty much every hexside between the clear hex north of the "Bitterroot Range" to the hexside south of "Idaho" is Alpine. Even today it is the most remote area in the 48 states with access only by air or on foot. (There were hunters that flew out of this area after 9/11 that were very surprised to be intercepted by F16s because they had no communication with the outside world when the attacks happened and did not know there was national ground stop in effect.) I understand cosmetically every hexside in this area should not be Alpine, but most of them should. Except where there are rivers and railroads depicted, the mountain generally run north-southish.

Kevin

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

The action in WiF does not occur on the land of North America anyway, or on very rare occasions only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iamspamus

PFFFFTTTT. It does if I'm the Axis playing Days of Decision...oh, wait. Sniffle. Not being done yet... Release two or three is fine.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

The action in WiF does not occur on the land of North America anyway, or on very rare occasions only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

I also added two clear hexes on the Canadian border and did a slight reroute on a railroad. Kevin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Astarix

I would actually argue that an Alpine Hexside for the Grand Canyon is sufficient.  I've spent plenty of time actually hiking up and down into and out of the Canyon itself, thousands of tourists make this same trek every year.  Many of the trails used for this purpose have been in existence for decades, in some cases centuries.  There were native american tribes that settled and farmed the canyon floor.    The real issue in the canyon is one of scale.  The Grand Canyon is over 100 miles in length, as much as 40 miles wide at its widest and in many places over 6000 feet deep.  While many areas of the canyon walls apear to be sheer, they are actually not straight up and down.  Any modern army with sufficient engineering capabilities could cut new paths into the canyon.  A purely infantry/alpine formation could certainly traverse the canyon fairly readily.  Most of the year the Colorado River within the canyon itself is reasonably calm and could be crossed, albiet with some level of difficulty.  It is not unimaginable for a battalion or divison sized alpine or infantry formation to get across the Canyon if they had a mind to do so.  The issue, would be supply and cohesion.  There is no possible way you could move the kind of supplies this sized formation would require on a daily basis. 

The current alpine hexside rules cover this issue, it seems to me, as they allow the crossing of the hexside by an alpine unit, but do not allow the tracing of supply across the hexside. 

It might be more appropriate to discuss the depiction of the immediate area of the canyon.  Both sides of the Canyon are high mountain plateaus.  The southern rim is formed by the Kaibab plateau, which also hosts a national forest of the same name (The Kaibab National forest is a real honest to god conifer forest).  While the floor of the canyon is certainly Arid, as are the low deserts that surround the plateaus, the immediate vicinity of the Grand Canyon might be better depicted as forest or mountain and mountain desert, with the Colorado river hexsides also as alpine hexsides.  Certainly the South Rim could be Forest or Mountain Hexes and the North Rim Mountain Desert and Mountain Hexes.

Also, you should probably include Lake Meade on the map.  The Hoover Dam, which created the Lake, was completed in 1937 and the lake was filled by late 1938.

Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Astarix

I would actually argue that an Alpine Hexside for the Grand Canyon is sufficient.  I've spent plenty of time actually hiking up and down into and out of the Canyon itself, thousands of tourists make this same trek every year.  Many of the trails used for this purpose have been in existence for decades, in some cases centuries.  There were native american tribes that settled and farmed the canyon floor.    The real issue in the canyon is one of scale.  The Grand Canyon is over 100 miles in length, as much as 40 miles wide at its widest and in many places over 6000 feet deep.  While many areas of the canyon walls apear to be sheer, they are actually not straight up and down.  Any modern army with sufficient engineering capabilities could cut new paths into the canyon.  A purely infantry/alpine formation could certainly traverse the canyon fairly readily.  Most of the year the Colorado River within the canyon itself is reasonably calm and could be crossed, albiet with some level of difficulty.  It is not unimaginable for a battalion or divison sized alpine or infantry formation to get across the Canyon if they had a mind to do so.  The issue, would be supply and cohesion. There is no possible way you could move the kind of supplies this sized formation would require on a daily basis. 

The current alpine hexside rules cover this issue, it seems to me, as they allow the crossing of the hexside by an alpine unit, but do not allow the tracing of supply across the hexside. 

It might be more appropriate to discuss the depiction of the immediate area of the canyon.  Both sides of the Canyon are high mountain plateaus.  The southern rim is formed by the Kaibab plateau, which also hosts a national forest of the same name (The Kaibab National forest is a real honest to god conifer forest).  While the floor of the canyon is certainly Arid, as are the low deserts that surround the plateaus, the immediate vicinity of the Grand Canyon might be better depicted as forest or mountain and mountain desert, with the Colorado river hexsides also as alpine hexsides.  Certainly the South Rim could be Forest or Mountain Hexes and the North Rim Mountain Desert and Mountain Hexes.

Also, you should probably include Lake Meade on the map.  The Hoover Dam, which created the Lake, was completed in 1937 and the lake was filled by late 1938.

Jason

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Astarix

I would actually argue that an Alpine Hexside for the Grand Canyon is sufficient.  I've spent plenty of time actually hiking up and down into and out of the Canyon itself, thousands of tourists make this same trek every year.  Many of the trails used for this purpose have been in existence for decades, in some cases centuries.  There were native american tribes that settled and farmed the canyon floor.    The real issue in the canyon is one of scale.  The Grand Canyon is over 100 miles in length, as much as 40 miles wide at its widest and in many places over 6000 feet deep.  While many areas of the canyon walls apear to be sheer, they are actually not straight up and down.  Any modern army with sufficient engineering capabilities could cut new paths into the canyon.  A purely infantry/alpine formation could certainly traverse the canyon fairly readily.  Most of the year the Colorado River within the canyon itself is reasonably calm and could be crossed, albiet with some level of difficulty.  It is not unimaginable for a battalion or divison sized alpine or infantry formation to get across the Canyon if they had a mind to do so.  The issue, would be supply and cohesion. There is no possible way you could move the kind of supplies this sized formation would require on a daily basis. 

The current alpine hexside rules cover this issue, it seems to me, as they allow the crossing of the hexside by an alpine unit, but do not allow the tracing of supply across the hexside. 

It might be more appropriate to discuss the depiction of the immediate area of the canyon.  Both sides of the Canyon are high mountain plateaus.  The southern rim is formed by the Kaibab plateau, which also hosts a national forest of the same name (The Kaibab National forest is a real honest to god conifer forest).  While the floor of the canyon is certainly Arid, as are the low deserts that surround the plateaus, the immediate vicinity of the Grand Canyon might be better depicted as forest or mountain and mountain desert, with the Colorado river hexsides also as alpine hexsides.  Certainly the South Rim could be Forest or Mountain Hexes and the North Rim Mountain Desert and Mountain Hexes.

Also, you should probably include Lake Meade on the map.  The Hoover Dam, which created the Lake, was completed in 1937 and the lake was filled by late 1938.

Jason

Thank you.

The bolded area is the point of my response.

It is for the reasons you state; that no commander of a large unit would attempt it. Any battalion sized unit or larger would be unable to effectibely respond to any attack unless both sides were held. For gameplay purposes an Alpine hex might do. An alternative solution might be to create both an alpine and sea hexside at the same time in the same location. This would severly restrict movement and combat to all ground units. Therefore, the appropriate effect might be achieved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Sounds great. How likely is MWIF Product 2?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Except for the first hexside off of the Colorado River (where that river backwashes up the Gila River) the Gila River should be deleted as a terrain feature. It is intermittant at best, and when flowing is so shallow a person could walk across. I've attached a satellite photo showing the entire river being channelled through a few pipes on an elevated road. The Gila River is not on on the same scale as the Volga or Ganges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Except for the first hexside off of the Colorado River (where that river backwashes up the Gila River) the Gila River should be deleted as a terrain feature. It is intermittant at best, and when flowing is so shallow a person could walk across. I've attached a satellite photo showing the entire river being channelled through a few pipes on an elevated road. The Gila River is not on on the same scale as the Volga or Ganges.

Well, it depends upon what is being represented by the river. In the southwestern US, many rivers are dry or underground for at least part of each year. The river bed is still a militarily significant feature in many cases. As an example, I have often driven US Highway 101 between San Francisco and Paso Robles (call it halfway to LA from SF). As you pass King City, the river there (I forget if it is the Salinas River or another one) is often all but dry by mid-September. The highway bridge over the river bed (or a similar span built by combat engineers) would still be a locally significant tactical objective given that the bed is a few tens of feet deep with steep, eroded banks. The river bed would be better than most castle moats.

On the level of a WiF hex, I think easier crossing points could be found outside King City, but at the local level, it would have an impact on operations. Maybe the Gila River is in a similar situation that covers more of the "hexside". It is kind of hard to tell how steep the banks are in the photos, but they are clearly there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Except for the first hexside off of the Colorado River (where that river backwashes up the Gila River) the Gila River should be deleted as a terrain feature. It is intermittant at best, and when flowing is so shallow a person could walk across. I've attached a satellite photo showing the entire river being channelled through a few pipes on an elevated road. The Gila River is not on on the same scale as the Volga or Ganges.

Well, it depends upon what is being represented by the river. In the southwestern US, many rivers are dry or underground for at least part of each year. The river bed is still a militarily significant feature in many cases. As an example, I have often driven US Highway 101 between San Francisco and Paso Robles (call it halfway to LA from SF). As you pass King City, the river there (I forget if it is the Salinas River or another one) is often all but dry by mid-September. The highway bridge over the river bed (or a similar span built by combat engineers) would still be a locally significant tactical objective given that the bed is a few tens of feet deep with steep, eroded banks. The river bed would be better than most castle moats.

On the level of a WiF hex, I think easier crossing points could be found outside King City, but at the local level, it would have an impact on operations. Maybe the Gila River is in a similar situation that covers more of the "hexside". It is kind of hard to tell how steep the banks are in the photos, but they are clearly there.

Rivers in WIF do not affect movement, only combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Except for the first hexside off of the Colorado River (where that river backwashes up the Gila River) the Gila River should be deleted as a terrain feature. It is intermittant at best, and when flowing is so shallow a person could walk across. I've attached a satellite photo showing the entire river being channelled through a few pipes on an elevated road. The Gila River is not on on the same scale as the Volga or Ganges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I was merely providing a fact about the rules. As for this discussion, I personally have no opinion about what should/should not be a river hexside.

[When I do have an opinion, I am usually quite straight forward about giving it. Indirect asides are just not my style.]