RE: Maps for MWIF

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: Maps for MWIF

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: Maps for MWIF

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Maps for MWIF - 7/27/2005 9:15:09 AM

rtamesis

Posts: 78
Joined: 7/24/2004
Status: offline

Just to clarify things, I am not proposing that the map will look like this picture in a window displayed to the player. What I'm proposing is that the Fuller projection map be used to capture the geographical data onto hexes from which a particular region displayed to the user (such as Western Europe) can then be created on the fly from the database of hexes without worrying about map distortion.

(in reply to rtamesis)

Post #: 61

RE: Maps for MWIF - 7/27/2005 11:44:14 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtamesis
Just to clarify things, I am not proposing that the map will look like this picture in a window displayed to the player. What I'm proposing is that the Fuller projection map be used to capture the geographical data onto hexes from which a particular region displayed to the user (such as Western Europe) can then be created on the fly from the database of hexes without worrying about map distortion.

I understand your point. And it is mathematically elegant. But, ...

Accurate scale for the oceans is not much of a problem for WIF because of the design for naval movement. If each naval unit moved hex by hex, then accuracy would be a concern. As it is, the game uses movement by sea areas which are somewhat arbitrary but play just fine. At least I haven't heard any complaints about them. The only place sea hexes come into play is when air units fly from land to a sea box. Even then any distortion due to inaccuracy is minor given the scale of the game (# of planes per unit, # of kilometers per hex, and # of days per impulse).

For land movement accuracy is somewhat more of a concern but primarily at the higher and lower latitudes (near the poles). Historically not a whole lot happened on the ground there. Narvik is one exception and combat in northern Finland another. Other than that most of the war was fought in the central latitudes. Again the scale of the game is so broad that the imperfections due to projecting a sphere on a plane are mitigated.

Therefore, to recast the game map in terms of a Bucky World would be a lot of work for little benefit. WIF simply does not require that level of precision. Submarines did not go under the north pole during WW II nor did planes fly from Los Angeles to Paris. The simplistic rendering of the world in CWIF works quite well for the time period of the conflict and the level of technology available to the combatants.

I guess I am suppose to add "in my humble opinion" here to be properly deferential. Since by trade I am an applied mathematician, I like BuckMinster Fuller's ideas a lot. But they seem to be overkill for WIF.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to rtamesis)

Post #: 62

RE: Maps for MWIF - 8/16/2005 6:05:56 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

I much prefer CWiF to WiF.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 63

RE: Maps for MWIF - 9/21/2005 8:19:41 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

I am working today on placing the sea boxes within the sea areas. CWIF did not show any sea boxes on the map. WIF Final Edition has them but the Axis and Allies have to share them. Also WIF FE sometimes has the sea boixes at weird angles and positions.

What I believe is ideal is:
(1) For there to be two sets of 5 sea boxes for each sea area. They would be numbered from 0 to 4 and each side would have its own set. They should be arranged with one set directly above the other. The Axis units would be in one and the Allies units in the other so you can see at a glance if the enemy has units contesting a sea area - and which boxes they are in.
(2) For the sea boxes to be placed close to coasts where they are likely to be involved in land combat. For example, near invasion hexes and/or major ports where port attacks might be sent. Also near where naval air and fighter units might fly into the sea area for naval combat.
(3) That they not touch the land hexes.
(4) That the sea boxes be 5 in a row with the zero box on the left and the 4 box on the right.
(5) That the name for the sea area be immediately below the sea boxes.

For 75+ of the 81 sea areas these objectives can all be met easily. The problem areas are the Baltic Sea, the Red Sea, the Caspian Sea, and the Persian Gulf. There might be others, I have only checked half the map so far.

The first items on the above list that can't be achieved everywhere are #4 and #3. The alternative to #4 is to place them in a diagonal running from upper left to lower right. In the Baltic, I have to split them with the zero and one boxes on the top row and the other three boxes on the next row down.

How do you feel about my list of items for the ideal? Or doesn't it matter to you? Is #1 a really good idea and items #3, #4, and #5 violated to achieve it? Wadda ya think?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 64

RE: Maps for MWIF - 9/22/2005 12:21:47 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am working today on placing the sea boxes within the sea areas. CWIF did not show any sea boxes on the map. WIF Final Edition has them but the Axis and Allies have to share them. Also WIF FE sometimes has the sea boixes at weird angles and positions.

What I believe is ideal is:
(1) For there to be two sets of 5 sea boxes for each sea area. They would be numbered from 0 to 4 and each side would have its own set. They should be arranged with one set directly above the other. The Axis units would be in one and the Allies units in the other so you can see at a glance if the enemy has units contesting a sea area - and which boxes they are in.

I'd be satisfied with only the normal 5 boxes, albeit with an enlarged size allowing to separate Axis & Allies ships & planes. Maybe with 8 places inside the box.
2 Places for the CP
2 Places for TRS, AMPH & loaded SCS
2 Places for NAV
2 Places for SCS & CVs

quote:

(2) For the sea boxes to be placed close to coasts where they are likely to be involved in land combat. For example, near invasion hexes and/or major ports where port attacks might be sent. Also near where naval air and fighter units might fly into the sea area for naval combat.

Good idea.
Even better, would be to have some number of possible positions for the sea boxes, and each player could select his prefered place. That way the sea box would be at his prefered place when it is him to be active.
Well...

Not sure finally it is a so good idea...

quote:

(3) That they not touch the land hexes.

It is not a problem if they touch land hexes, as long as you can tell which counter is in the sea box, and which is on land. I suggest that all counters in sea boxes may have some kind of blue highlight around the counter. This way there is no ambiguity.

quote:

(4) That the sea boxes be 5 in a row with the zero box on the left and the 4 box on the right.
(5) That the name for the sea area be immediately below the sea boxes.

This is more important than it seems !

quote:

For 75+ of the 81 sea areas these objectives can all be met easily. The problem areas are the Baltic Sea, the Red Sea, the Caspian Sea, and the Persian Gulf. There might be others, I have only checked half the map so far.

The first items on the above list that can't be achieved everywhere are #4 and #3. The alternative to #4 is to place them in a diagonal running from upper left to lower right. In the Baltic, I have to split them with the zero and one boxes on the top row and the other three boxes on the next row down.

How do you feel about my list of items for the ideal? Or doesn't it matter to you? Is #1 a really good idea and items #3, #4, and #5 violated to achieve it? Wadda ya think?

One thing that would be good too, I don't remember if it was suggested elsewhere (I seem to be but can't remember), would be to have the possibility to select a number of Sea Areas, and see all their sea boxes in a kind of summary-dialog, or to print them, or another way of seeing all of them side to side. It would help overseeing CP chains & escorts and the general deployment of one's fleet at sea.
Could be good too to be able to select Ports to be shown in this view too.

Best Regards

Patrice

< Message edited by Froonp -- 9/22/2005 12:29:32 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 65

RE: Maps for MWIF - 9/22/2005 7:34:36 AM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

(2) For the sea boxes to be placed close to coasts where they are likely to be involved in land combat. For example, near invasion hexes and/or major ports where port attacks might be sent. Also near where naval air and fighter units might fly into the sea area for naval combat.

Good idea. Even most naval combat took place close to a coast of some description. From memory, the record distance from land for a naval engagement (between ships anyway) is the battle between the French and British known as The Glorious First of June in 1794, which was fought about 600km out in the Atlantic. No doubt some naval buff will correct me

.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 66

RE: Maps for MWIF - 9/22/2005 11:52:43 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

(2) For the sea boxes to be placed close to coasts where they are likely to be involved in land combat. For example, near invasion hexes and/or major ports where port attacks might be sent. Also near where naval air and fighter units might fly into the sea area for naval combat.

Is it possible to have the sea boxes float on the map in such a way that it tries by itself to be always on the screen, or the nearest possible ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 67

RE: Maps for MWIF - 9/22/2005 7:16:54 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

(2) For the sea boxes to be placed close to coasts where they are likely to be involved in land combat. For example, near invasion hexes and/or major ports where port attacks might be sent. Also near where naval air and fighter units might fly into the sea area for naval combat.

Is it possible to have the sea boxes float on the map in such a way that it tries by itself to be always on the screen, or the nearest possible ?

More work and little benefit. It would be distracting to have them hovering/jumping around all the time. Remember than in many cases there are two or more sea areas visible at a time, each with its own set of sea boxes. At zoomed out resolution you could have a dozen or so visible.

Making their locations flexible, so the player can relocate them, is feasible in most cases. Even that won't be possible in sea areas that are very small or weirdly shaped.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 68

Maps and Color Blind People - 9/23/2005 8:48:39 PM

pak19652002

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline

I vote for the unified CWIF map scale.

Also, I want to put a word in for the ~10% of males who are red/green color blind. A few simple solutions:

1) Make the colors as vivid as possible. Many or most so-called color "blind" people actually can see some color, but have problems differentiating between them if they are dull or blended.

2) Make sure the colors remain consistent. Although this probably won't be a problem on the computer, I have noticed that the color and shading of the cardboard counters varies considerably among the numerous additions to the game.

3) This is the big one: DON'T RELY ON COLOR AS THE SOLE MEDIUM OF INFORMATION. That is, always provide us poor handicapped people another way to receive vital information.

For example, on Cyberboard, I have had to resort to labeling units to tell the difference between Chinese and Italian as well as Russian and American counters. To me, they look the ALMOST same. Sometimes you can tell by the unit names, but it is a real pain in the neck.

Another killer is the A2A chart. I literally cannot tell when a pilot is to be killed. Those shaded boxes give me fits. Fortunately, MWIF will do all that work for me and I'm happy about it.

So, I'm glad somebody reminded me to mention it. Thanks.

Peter

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 69

RE: Maps and Color Blind People - 9/24/2005 4:29:44 AM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

I vote for the unified CWIF map scale.

You're gunna get it

.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to pak19652002)

Post #: 70

RE: Maps and Color Blind People - 9/26/2005 11:24:24 PM

pak19652002

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline

I know it sounds like piling on, but better safe than sorry.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 71

RE: Maps for MWIF - 10/26/2005 12:38:59 AM

pak19652002

Posts: 280
Joined: 1/2/2005
Status: offline

Lars and I noticed in the original CWIF that the Singapore hex is not fortified. Also, the approach by land is different in that the board game links Singapore to Malaya with two land hexes. CWIF only has one straits hexside and an all sea hexside.

I'm curious how Matrix is planning to reconcile these. I'm also mildly interested in why the original CWIF was set-up this way. Seems unlikely to be a mistake since Singapore is an objective city.

Thanks,

Peter

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 72

RE: Maps for MWIF - 10/26/2005 2:20:46 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pak19652002
Lars and I noticed in the original CWIF that the Singapore hex is not fortified. Also, the approach by land is different in that the board game links Singapore to Malaya with two land hexes. CWIF only has one straits hexside and an all sea hexside.

I'm curious how Matrix is planning to reconcile these. I'm also mildly interested in why the original CWIF was set-up this way. Seems unlikely to be a mistake since Singapore is an objective city.

Thanks,

Peter

You are correct in your statements and that is still the status today for MWIF (having taken the map more or less intact from its prgoenitor CWIF). I am not an expert in this area and I am open to suggestions.

As I read my atlas (not the most detailed of its genre, I might add), the WIF map is incorrect in that it assigns mountain terrain to the hex due west of Singapore. Topolocically, that terrain is 200 to 500 meters - a bit of a stretch for calling it mountainous. MWIF shows it as clear, which doesn't seem quite right either, but my atlas doesn't show vegetation as of 1940, so I really don't know. Without input from someone knowledgeable, I will go with current status (MWIF) on the underlying terrain for the hexes around Singapore. Singapore itself is shown as a clear hex in MWIF and as jungle in WIF. In my opinion, MWIF is wrong and it should be jungle terrain. All of this is very uncertain in my mind.

Part of the difficulty here is that Singapore is small vis-a-vis the size of a hex. It is techincally an island but is very close to the rest of Malaysia on roughly 50% of its border (due north). WIF shows it as occupying the southeastern tip of the Malay Peninsula. MWIF is more correct in its placement of Singapore at the southern tip with islands east and west. MWIF's all sea hexside connection to Sumatra is a stretch, but I guess they wanted to keep it consistent with WIF where Singapore is separated from Sumatra by an all sea hexside. I think MWIF has it wrong in that Singapore's connection to the rest of the Malay peninsula is across two all sea hexsides. In my opinion, those two hexes should be contiguous to Singapore.

The missing fortifications are easy to add and I will do so. They will occupy 4 hexsides and face due south. That will leave the two hexsides due north unfortified.

What I think (notice the lack of knowledge in that verb) it should look like is:
Singapore as a jungle hex with two unfortified jungle hexes due north. The other 4 hexes adjacent to Singapore fortified (X3), otherwise the same as currently shown in MWIF. The southwest connection from Singapore to Sumatra is across an all sea hexside.

In game terms, this would make Singapore marginally easier to attack. It replaces a mountain hex with a jungle hex to the northwest of Singapore. Since that coastal hex borders the Bay of Bengal instead of the South China Sea, it shouldn't affect Japan's attack on the British. It might make the British counter attack somewhat easier. In any case, Singapore will be attackable from two unfortified land hexes, the same as in WIF.

At this point Patrice will usually say that we should ask Harry Rowland as the only person who can resolve these things. I'm not as keen on asking Harry every step of the way. Its not that I don't respect his opinion - I do - I just don't feel that everything has to be taken to Harry.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to pak19652002)

Post #: 73

RE: Maps for MWIF - 10/26/2005 10:20:59 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

Lars and I noticed in the original CWIF that the Singapore hex is not fortified. Also, the approach by land is different in that the board game links Singapore to Malaya with two land hexes. CWIF only has one straits hexside and an all sea hexside.

Hello,

CWiF maps looks like this (see picture attached) on my CWiF 0.7.71.
On this shot the hex is fortified on 4 sides (as on the WiF FE maps, albeit those are not the same hexsides).
- On the WiF FE Map, the fortified hexsides are : NW, W, SW, SE.
- On the CWiF Map, the fortified hexsides are : W, SW, SE, E.
It's not a problem, only the invadable hexsides are fortified, on both maps.

As for the straits hexside & the all sea hexside, I'll answer in another post (with another illo).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to pak19652002)

Post #: 74

RE: Maps for MWIF - 10/26/2005 10:24:54 AM

Froonp

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

As for the straits hexside & the all sea hexside to Singapore, I'll answer by a satellite view taken from Google Earth, that I'll compare to another satellite view taken from the same altitude (50 km) of Stalingrad area.

These view demonstrates, in my opinion, that the CWiF maps are incorrect to place Singapore behind all-sea hexsides, even if one is a strait.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 75

RE: Maps for MWIF - 10/26/2005 10:26:11 AM

Froonp

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

View of Stalingrad from same height show that the Volga is as wide as the water arm north of Singapore (the Tebrau Straits).

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Froonp -- 10/26/2005 11:01:03 AM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 76

RE: Maps for MWIF - 10/26/2005 10:46:29 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

I agree.

From your pictures of Singapore and Stalingrad it seems as if the correct hexside terrain would be comparable to a river - though it isn't really a river. That's because Singapore is an island and the water separating it from the rest of the Malay peninsula is part of the ocean.

Nice pictures.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 77

RE: Maps for MWIF - 10/26/2005 11:11:03 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I agree.

From your pictures of Singapore and Stalingrad it seems as if the correct hexside terrain would be comparable to a river - though it isn't really a river. That's because Singapore is an island and the water separating it from the rest of the Malay peninsula is part of the ocean.

Nice pictures.

Yes, That's what I though too, the correct terrain hexside should be a river.
But, Singapore is so small (See this extra map from the Wikipedia) that it doesn't even warrant a full hex (Pacific scale I mean), so the depiction made on the WiF FE maps is correct at the Pacific scale.

So from a game point of view I think that Singapore should be treated similary in both MWiF & WiF FE, and so should be attackable from 2 hexsides, fortified on the 4 other hexsides, and be constituated with a jungle terrain. It should be drawn as an island contained in the same hex than the malayan land on the other side of the Tebrau Straits.

The fact that the neighboring hexes are not exactly the same terrain is less important to me. With the scale changing, it can't always be the same as WiF FE.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 78

RE: Maps for MWIF - 10/26/2005 11:13:13 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

Nice pictures.

The Google Earth software is a marvel and I advise any one of you who has never seen it, and who have an interest in mapping as I have, to download it and try it as fast as possible.
It is free, and only needs an Internet Access (I believe) to show it all.
I can see my house on it

!!!

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 79

RE: Maps for MWIF - 10/26/2005 6:39:36 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Nice pictures.

The Google Earth software is a marvel and I advise any one of you who has never seen it, and who have an interest in mapping as I have, to download it and try it as fast as possible.
It is free, and only needs an Internet Access (I believe) to show it all.
I can see my house on it !!!

You do realize that the view of your house is exactly the same as what a bombadier would see?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 80

RE: Maps for MWIF - 10/26/2005 6:42:54 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Yes, That's what I though too, the correct terrain hexside should be a river.
But, Singapore is so small (See this extra map from the Wikipedia) that it doesn't even warrant a full hex (Pacific scale I mean), so the depiction made on the WiF FE maps is correct at the Pacific scale.

So from a game point of view I think that Singapore should be treated similary in both MWiF & WiF FE, and so should be attackable from 2 hexsides, fortified on the 4 other hexsides, and be constituated with a jungle terrain. It should be drawn as an island contained in the same hex than the malayan land on the other side of the Tebrau Straits.

The fact that the neighboring hexes are not exactly the same terrain is less important to me. With the scale changing, it can't always be the same as WiF FE.

Ok. So how about all three hexes being jungle (Singapore and the two hexes to its north) with no intervening hexside terrain. The other 4 hexsides would be the same as in CWIF: fortified with all sea hexsides connecting to a couple of island hexes and one connecting to Sumatra?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 81

RE: Maps for MWIF - 10/26/2005 7:18:30 PM

Froonp

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

I think it is the best solution.

And the artist who is doing the coastal hexes should paint singapore as a diamond shaped island within the hex it is presently.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 82

RE: Maps for MWIF - 11/2/2005 6:06:29 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

I had a question about the MWiF map. In the basic game, North America is reduced to a smaller map. (I believe the scale on that map is 6 European hexes to 1 NA map hex.)

In "America in Flames", the sea zones are rearranged (with some new ones created as well), changing some of the trade routes and Convoy point requirements if including the new map set. For example, a new sea zone appears off the coast of Texas on the AiF map... (I apologise, I am not at home and I dont remember the name of the new sea zone.) This sea zone is not in the old CWiF.

I was curious if the sea zones from America in Flames, CWiF, or some merge/combination of the two are going to be in the MWiF maps...

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 83

RE: Maps for MWIF - 11/2/2005 7:27:30 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
I had a question about the MWiF map. In the basic game, North America is reduced to a smaller map. (I believe the scale on that map is 6 European hexes to 1 NA map hex.)

In "America in Flames", the sea zones are rearranged (with some new ones created as well), changing some of the trade routes and Convoy point requirements if including the new map set. For example, a new sea zone appears off the coast of Texas on the AiF map... (I apologise, I am not at home and I dont remember the name of the new sea zone.) This sea zone is not in the old CWiF.

I was curious if the sea zones from America in Flames, CWiF, or some merge/combination of the two are going to be in the MWiF maps...

Good catch. As I said somewhere recently, I just got my copy of America in Flames last week. I haven't had a chance to go over that map vis-a-vis MWIF's detailed global map.

Giving it a quick once over I see several places where there are differences. The biggest is the one you mentioned, MWIF doesn't currently have the Gulf of Mexico separate from the Carribean. Since I want the MWIF map to not have to change should we ever put out America in Flames as a future MWIF product, then I will make MWIF match the America in Flames map. At least in regards to sea areas.

Other differences I found are where the sea areas cut into the South America east coast (slight change), the port in the Azores being on a sea area boundary, and where the sea areas meet at Clipperton in the Pacific. These all seem to be changes from the miniture Americas map in WIF Final Edition.

MWIF also has more sea areas around the polar regions. These are to round out the globe (pun intended) and the new sea areas are essential so that there aren't any "short cuts" - as would occur if the polar sea areas were represented by a sinlge large sea area. None of these should have any effect on game play.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 84

RE: Maps for MWIF - 11/3/2005 12:15:01 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

the port in the Azores being on a sea area boundary

Just a couple of remarks here.
The Azores on the America map and on the American minimap are not on a sea area boundary. The Azores is in both maps inside the North Atlantic Sea Area, and is in now way adjacent to the Bay of Biscay. I mean that, a plane or ship stationed at the Azores, need first to enter the North Atlantic Sea Area (an hexdot there for a plane) before moving elswhere.
The representation of the Azores on the CWiF map seems right to me.
I would just like to know that it is situated the same distance from France and from the USA than in the paper game.
By the way, on my CWiF copy, The Azores is not a port ?!?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 85

RE: Maps for MWIF - 11/3/2005 3:13:23 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

the port in the Azores being on a sea area boundary

Just a couple of remarks here.
The Azores on the America map and on the American minimap are not on a sea area boundary. The Azores is in both maps inside the North Atlantic Sea Area, and is in now way adjacent to the Bay of Biscay. I mean that, a plane or ship stationed at the Azores, need first to enter the North Atlantic Sea Area (an hexdot there for a plane) before moving elswhere.
The representation of the Azores on the CWiF map seems right to me.
I would just like to know that it is situated the same distance from France and from the USA than in the paper game.
By the way, on my CWiF copy, The Azores is not a port ?!?

In MWIF (CWIF) the island chain of the Azores contains an island that has a port, Porta Delgada, owned by Portugal. It sits on the border between the sea areas Cape St. Vincent and North Atlantic. In the America in Flames map, there is a port shown in the Azores that resides in the middle of the North Atlantic sea area. It can make a difference during game play whether the port is in the middle of the North Atlantic or on the sea area boundary. I just became aware of the difference in the two maps and I haven't made any decision about this; or even given it any thought.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 86

RE: Maps for MWIF - 11/3/2005 5:38:17 AM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

In MWIF (CWIF) the island chain of the Azores contains an island that has a port, Porta Delgada, owned by Portugal. It sits on the border between the sea areas Cape St. Vincent and North Atlantic. In the America in Flames map, there is a port shown in the Azores that resides in the middle of the North Atlantic sea area. It can make a difference during game play whether the port is in the middle of the North Atlantic or on the sea area boundary. I just became aware of the difference in the two maps and I haven't made any decision about this; or even given it any thought.

Speaking from both WiF and CWiF experience, I can tell you that where the island chain or the port is, so long as it connects with the North Atlantic, hasn't affected my play as the Commonwealth - I'll declare war on Portugal and take the island(s) over no matter what if it gets me my anti-submarine airbase.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 87

RE: Maps for MWIF - 11/3/2005 8:36:37 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

In MWIF (CWIF) the island chain of the Azores contains an island that has a port, Porta Delgada, owned by Portugal. It sits on the border between the sea areas Cape St. Vincent and North Atlantic.

Yes, how stupid I am !!!
Yesterday night, I wasn't seeing this porta anymore, even if I seem to remember tha I had a port herein during my CWiF games !!! I guess I was too much sleepy

quote:

In the America in Flames map, there is a port shown in the Azores that resides in the middle of the North Atlantic sea area. It can make a difference during game play whether the port is in the middle of the North Atlantic or on the sea area boundary. I just became aware of the difference in the two maps and I haven't made any decision about this; or even given it any thought.

The purist in me say "put it back in the N Atlantic, and the normal man in me (yes, there's one) feels that it is not very important.

The worst about the Azores is the whole "CW Declare war on Portugal" issue, but this is a WiF issue, not an MWiF.

Best Regards

Patrice

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 88

RE: Maps for MWIF - 12/20/2005 9:42:05 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Making good progress on the maps. Here are some screen shots of the 12 terrain types using 136 x 152 pixel hexes in 24 bit color.

I have recoded the program to accept the increase in size and colors while retaining the zooming capability of CWIF. That means that the hexes can be zoomed to be 12 by 17, 24 by 34, 36 by 51, and on up to 136 by 152. The smallest is labeled 25% resolution and the largest 200% resolution. I expect most people to play at 100% or 125%.

A full screen refresh on my system (2.53 GHz, 1GB main memory, Windows XP) takes about 1/10 second - faster than a key click. The screen refresh starts on key press down and it finishes it before I can get to key press up. There is a delay of a couple of seconds when doing a refresh at 25% resolution (all of Europe from the British Isles to the Urals - Stockholm to Alexandria), but less than 1/2 second at 50%. All the others are blazing fast.

The map coastlines are under development so the screen shots here do not show any coastlines. The rivers will also be redone. Same for cities, factories, alpine hex sides, etc..

I have almost completed redoing the counters at 96 by 96 pixels (up from 48 by 48). I will post more information on their redesign with some screen shots later this week.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 89

RE: Maps for MWIF - 12/20/2005 9:59:50 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Here's Moscow at 200%. The conversion from .bmp to .jpg loses some of the finer detail. All of these screen shots filled just about the full screen. I have cropped some of them a bit.