quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I want their learning curve to be a gentle climb, and not require pitons, ropes, and Sherpa guides.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rexor
I don't want to be a fly in the ointment, but aren't the sea areas too vast on this scale? Or is this just picking nits? I mean, compared to some of those in the Atlantic and Med, these babies are truly immense on the new Pacific scale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

As far as Islands go in the Pacific, the navigation maps even in the mid 50's were not all that complete and a many small Islands were either not on the maps or noted as 'reported by USS xxx in 1952 to be 15 miles NW of the printed location etc.

This is real, I was there on merchant ships at the time.

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rexor

I don't want to be a fly in the ointment, but aren't the sea areas too vast on this scale? Or is this just picking nits? I mean, compared to some of those in the Atlantic and Med, these babies are truly immense on the new Pacific scale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
It's an interesting point, but even though the sea areas are now larger, the movement rates are now unified (ie higher in the Pacific than they were). Anyone got an analysis of how this pans out?

I guess playtesting will reveal any major bugs.

Cheers, Neilster

quote:

I think some of those 'shoals' and 'rocks' might be a bit small to have any military significance, i.e. long enough to build an airstrip on? It seems there are more land hexes now between Pearl and Midway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I think some of those 'shoals' and 'rocks' might be a bit small to have any military significance, i.e. long enough to build an airstrip on? It seems there are more land hexes now between Pearl and Midway?

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

This is also the most logical, because the only reason I can think of, that would lead to an island not having an airfield built on it, is that it is too mountainous.

I think of the Bonin island while writing this, because I'm currently preparing a map showing Japan, plus the Bonin, plus the Marianas, from Korea to Marcus Island. Should be ready for me to upload here soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I think some of those 'shoals' and 'rocks' might be a bit small to have any military significance, i.e. long enough to build an airstrip on? It seems there are more land hexes now between Pearl and Midway?

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

This is also the most logical, because the only reason I can think of, that would lead to an island not having an airfield built on it, is that it is too mountainous.

I think of the Bonin island while writing this, because I'm currently preparing a map showing Japan, plus the Bonin, plus the Marianas, from Korea to Marcus Island. Should be ready for me to upload here soon.

True mountainous land would be a reason but there are a host of other geological reasons also. You dont just say here is some flat land of dimensions X by Y now build an airfield. Other reasons are water sources, ports, shoals, barriers, and transfer of supplies to the island. There were a host of reasons why many islands went undefended because of their tactical and strategic unimportance. However in a game play balance is the ultimate reason to include or not include a land mass etc... I am beginning to worry that all these changes with no testing could affect the game play. Please do some game testing on these changes as this will alleviate the ground swelling of tension in the community.

quote:

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I think some of those 'shoals' and 'rocks' might be a bit small to have any military significance, i.e. long enough to build an airstrip on? It seems there are more land hexes now between Pearl and Midway?

If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

This is also the most logical, because the only reason I can think of, that would lead to an island not having an airfield built on it, is that it is too mountainous.

I think of the Bonin island while writing this, because I'm currently preparing a map showing Japan, plus the Bonin, plus the Marianas, from Korea to Marcus Island. Should be ready for me to upload here soon.

True mountainous land would be a reason but there are a host of other geological reasons also. You dont just say here is some flat land of dimensions X by Y now build an airfield. Other reasons are water sources, ports, shoals, barriers, and transfer of supplies to the island. There were a host of reasons why many islands went undefended because of their tactical and strategic unimportance. However in a game play balance is the ultimate reason to include or not include a land mass etc... I am beginning to worry that all these changes with no testing could affect the game play. Please do some game testing on these changes as this will alleviate the ground swelling of tension in the community.

CWiF also had all these Islands in the Pacific in the very same scale. CWiF was tested and played quite a lot in the past and the play balance was fine and the Pacific theater a joy to play.

Lars

quote:

Let me also say that, except for the names (and the curved borders in the sea), I added nothing to this map, it is as this since the old CWiF days (except for the coastlines).

quote:

Please refresh my memory: What is the difference in stacking limits?
(That is, European map scale versus Pacific map scale.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Please refresh my memory: What is the difference in stacking limits?
(That is, European map scale versus Pacific map scale.)

There is none.
But if there is 1 extra island in one place, this island is an extra air base.
That said, none of the extra islands have any port of city, and some are mountain hexes (no planes here).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Note : I believe "Retto" means "Group of Islands" in Japanese. I wonder if "Shima" and "Jima" have the same meaning, which I suspect to be something like "volcaneous mountains island", or simply "mountain isles".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Note : I believe "Retto" means "Group of Islands" in Japanese. I wonder if "Shima" and "Jima" have the same meaning, which I suspect to be something like "volcaneous mountains island", or simply "mountain isles".

Great looking map as usual. [:)]

Look at this link for meaning of Japanese names:
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/japanlan.htm

You're right that Shima and Jima mean island.

You're right that retto means archipelago (group of islands). Look here for details:
http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/wildhorse/chap1-1.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
It's an interesting point, but even though the sea areas are now larger, the movement rates are now unified (ie higher in the Pacific than they were). Anyone got an analysis of how this pans out?

I guess playtesting will reveal any major bugs.

Cheers, Neilster

I am not sure what you mean here by 'higher'.

For naval movement, MWIF matches WIF FE exactly.

It is only the air movement costs that might change, and Patrice has been reporting on that from time to time, for different sections of the Pacific.

There are mimimal changes to land movement too, where it is/was possible to step from island to island using marines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
...

So what of this naval movement conundrum? Isn't naval movement artificially generous in the Pacific if the sea areas are now much bigger? I understand what you said about not changing them but I'm interested in what you have to say. Surely this also came up in CWiF testing.

Cheeers, Neilster

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

I would prefer if the number of airbases close to Japan on Islands was similiar to the number on the WIFFE map.
The solution with making the other islands having mountain terrain seems to be a good solution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
...

So what of this naval movement conundrum? Isn't naval movement artificially generous in the Pacific if the sea areas are now much bigger? I understand what you said about not changing them but I'm interested in what you have to say. Surely this also came up in CWiF testing.

Cheeers, Neilster

How ADG decided on sea areas is beyond my knowledge. I am sure it was difficult to decide tough travel over the open ocean must have been easier than in close to shore. The decision to use both range and movement points for naval units clearly came about because using just 1 number wasn't getting the job done. No matter what you think about it as a design decision, this is the core element of the naval movement system. From that and the placement in a sea box number driving search roles, surprise, and general capabilities of a naval unit when at sea, comes second. Only then do you have the ability to make decisions about where to draw the sea areas - how many and the boundaries between them. Almost every boundary would be a potential source of contentious argument - so I do not want to touch them with a ten foot pole.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The only change I have made for MWIF, from the map you showed, has been to make the Gulf of Mexico a separate sea area. Previously, it had been part of the Carribean Sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The only change I have made for MWIF, from the map you showed, has been to make the Gulf of Mexico a separate sea area. Previously, it had been part of the Carribean Sea.

This is a substantial change. It will require an additional 3 US convoys to ship the Venezuela oil home and the USA to begin with does not have three spare convoys so they will lose an oil each turn to begin with in the Global war.

The CW also will not be able to ship Venezuela oil to be saved in Canada without the commitment of adiitional convoys in the Gulf of Mexico, an added burden on the CW in the Global war since the CW does not have those extra convoys available to begin with.

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The only change I have made for MWIF, from the map you showed, has been to make the Gulf of Mexico a separate sea area. Previously, it had been part of the Carribean Sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
Looking again at the CWiF maps, you are correct and I was in error about the Caribbean.

I did not think of the Caribbean as extending north of the Bahamas or the Antilles Island chain, but it indeed does in CWiF.

Lars

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Please note also that, while there are more islands in the Sea south of Japan, most of those islands are hard for the Allies to supply (need the allies to be masters of the China Sea, which if is true, pretty means that Japan is already dead now). The only islands which are "easy" to put in supply (needing supply from the Marianas Sea Zone only) are those who are on the Sea Zone boundary between the Marianas Sea Zone and the China Sea Sea Zone.
There are 4 of them now (MWiF), and there were 3 before (WiF FE).
The 4 we have now are at ranges 12-20 from Tokyo.
The 3 we had before are at ranges 6-10 from Tokyo.
So, while there are more, they are much far away. Indeed they are placed at realistic distances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Please note also that, while there are more islands in the Sea south of Japan, most of those islands are hard for the Allies to supply (need the allies to be masters of the China Sea, which if is true, pretty means that Japan is already dead now). The only islands which are "easy" to put in supply (needing supply from the Marianas Sea Zone only) are those who are on the Sea Zone boundary between the Marianas Sea Zone and the China Sea Sea Zone.
There are 4 of them now (MWiF), and there were 3 before (WiF FE).
The 4 we have now are at ranges 12-20 from Tokyo.
The 3 we had before are at ranges 6-10 from Tokyo.
So, while there are more, they are much far away. Indeed they are placed at realistic distances.

As long as they're close enough for strat bombers & (maybe) escorting fighters.