RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

composer99 -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/15/2006 4:43:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

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


At 12 hexes away, only a few of the USA fighters can reach Tokyo from the Bonins islands. Most of the USA bombers can but they would have to fly at extended range.


Hmm... It is true historically (as far as I have read) that the US did not have much in the way of escorting fighter power on its bombing raids over Japan, but in WiFFE it certainly does given the ranges Patrice quotes. Plus bombers can reach without necessarily flying at extended range. I quite like the changes on the whole but I suppose they may make it more difficult for the US to hammer away at Japan in the late game (if the Japanese are prepared) than perhaps should be the case. Ah, well, that is something that playtesting will ultimately determine.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/15/2006 10:04:55 PM)

Here is a second pass I did at the Caroline Islands, this time with more maps, and with the big help of Google Earth. I did it because I was not 100% satisfied with the 1st pass (Post #17). I joined the Palau to the Caroline in this picture, they are so close.
I reviewed more particulary the western islands.

The modifications I would do are, from East to West :

- Delete the island hex S of Mokil / Pingelap.
- Move the Island that is W of Ponape 1 hex W (Orotuk).
- Add 1 island hex 3 hexes W of Truk (Pulusuk).
- Delete the 2 island hexes W of Pulap.
- Add 1 island hex NE of Satawal (Pikelot).
- Add 1 island hex NW of Satawal (West Fayu).
- Add 1 island hex W of Satawal (Elato & Lamotrek).
- Add 1 island hex NW of Olimarao (Gaferut).
- Delete the island hex SW of Ifalik.

With this map the global distances between islands within the Western Carolines Islands are much better respected (see Google Earth).
The global distances between islands within the Eastern Carolines Islands (Ponape) and the distance from them to Truk is not as good, the whole group of islands around Ponape is too near from Truk. Should me moved 1-2 hexes Eastwards. Moreover, this would be more accurate in regards to the position of the Ponape Island group to the Marshall to the north. Should I make a map showing the Ponape group Islands better placed ?

Also, I ask the question ;
Should the Yap Islands be part of the Caroline Islands Territory or the Palau Islands Territory ?
From real Geography it should be the later.
From WiF FE it should be the former.

I the earlier CwiF times, it was part of the Palau Islands, but I had Chris change it because it was part of the Caroline Islands in WiF FE.

Now I feel it would be better to respect real geography in this regards.


[image]local://upfiles/10447/ECB65FDF31A04E2FA55D40D90FF98CD8.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/15/2006 10:55:37 PM)

Patrice,

Yes to all your decisions.  Move the Eastern Carolines and make Yap islands part of Palau group.

While I want to stay faithful to WIFFE, the change in scale precludes that to a large degree in the number and placement of these small islands in the Pacific.  CWIF had several mistakes here which I have notes about from my own earlier examination (not as thorough as yours).

Therefore I am taking a long view.  5 years from now, when I look back on this decision, which choice will I be happier with?  That is the basis for my agreement with you on all of the islands floating about in the south Pacific.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/15/2006 11:32:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Patrice,
Yes to all your decisions.  Move the Eastern Carolines and make Yap islands part of Palau group.

While I want to stay faithful to WIFFE, the change in scale precludes that to a large degree in the number and placement of these small islands in the Pacific.  CWIF had several mistakes here which I have notes about from my own earlier examination (not as thorough as yours).

Therefore I am taking a long view.  5 years from now, when I look back on this decision, which choice will I be happier with?  That is the basis for my agreement with you on all of the islands floating about in the south Pacific.

Well, indeed this is more complicated than I first said.
I saw that the placing of the Carolines was quite awkward in the whole Pacific region.
In fact, I took a lot of measurements (Tokyo - Guam, Tokyo - Manila, Tokyo - Irkursk, Tokyo - Honolulu, Honolulu - Guam, Honolulu - San Diego, Honolulu - Los Angeles, Honolulu - San Francisco, Honolulu - Kwajalein, Kwajalein - Truk, Truk - Guam, Truk - Rabaul, Truk - Palau, Palau - Davao, Palau - Yap, Truk - Yap), and it seems that Truk and the whole Carolines are placed too much Eastwards. That's why the eastern Carolines (Ponape) seems to be too close to Truk. The Marshall and the Marianas are at the right place.

- The Eastern Carolines shouls be shifted about 1 hex Eastward (Kosrea 1 hex SE, 1 hex E).
- Truk and the Western Carolines should be shifted 3 hexes Westwards (in reality, Truk is a little West from Rabaul, nearly on the same North/South line, in MWiF it is really east of Rabaul).
- The Western Carolines from Pulap to Ifalik should be shifted 2 hexes Westwards.
- The Yap Island group should be shifted 1 hex Westwards.

I can also only move the Eastern Carolines as I said (1 hex Eastwards) to make them farther away from Truk, but they won't be far enough.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 1:57:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Patrice,
Yes to all your decisions.  Move the Eastern Carolines and make Yap islands part of Palau group.

While I want to stay faithful to WIFFE, the change in scale precludes that to a large degree in the number and placement of these small islands in the Pacific.  CWIF had several mistakes here which I have notes about from my own earlier examination (not as thorough as yours).

Therefore I am taking a long view.  5 years from now, when I look back on this decision, which choice will I be happier with?  That is the basis for my agreement with you on all of the islands floating about in the south Pacific.

Well, indeed this is more complicated than I first said.
I saw that the placing of the Carolines was quite awkward in the whole Pacific region.
In fact, I took a lot of measurements (Tokyo - Guam, Tokyo - Manila, Tokyo - Irkursk, Tokyo - Honolulu, Honolulu - Guam, Honolulu - San Diego, Honolulu - Los Angeles, Honolulu - San Francisco, Honolulu - Kwajalein, Kwajalein - Truk, Truk - Guam, Truk - Rabaul, Truk - Palau, Palau - Davao, Palau - Yap, Truk - Yap), and it seems that Truk and the whole Carolines are placed too much Eastwards. That's why the eastern Carolines (Ponape) seems to be too close to Truk. The Marshall and the Marianas are at the right place.

- The Eastern Carolines shouls be shifted about 1 hex Eastward (Kosrea 1 hex SE, 1 hex E).
- Truk and the Western Carolines should be shifted 3 hexes Westwards (in reality, Truk is a little West from Rabaul, nearly on the same North/South line, in MWiF it is really east of Rabaul).
- The Western Carolines from Pulap to Ifalik should be shifted 2 hexes Westwards.
- The Yap Island group should be shifted 1 hex Westwards.

I can also only move the Eastern Carolines as I said (1 hex Eastwards) to make them farther away from Truk, but they won't be far enough.


What you need to be aware of here is the distortion due to the Mercator projection. Take some starting point (Tokyo seems appropriate) and measure distances from there using latitude and longitude. The farther you go from the equator, the more hexes will be required for a fixed distance. Using the major cities in Australia and New Zealand as secondary reference points would be a good idea too. Less important is the number of hexes to South America.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 3:51:25 AM)

Here's what the whole Palau + Carolines + Marshalls + Gilbert look like before any mods.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/FD737D13D35F49028C8303091661A7DD.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 3:54:37 AM)

Here is what it looks like with the mods I talked about.
It is more true to real Geography, and still true to WiF FE too (even if there ae less islands that MAR units could hop from one to the next).
The coastlines are only added to better understand the map.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/DC06609785EB45568149A3BF3EDE7877.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 3:58:03 AM)

Here's how it looks like in WiF FE Pacific Scaled map.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/17A86BD393EB4B00BD07FE7418EBA71A.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 4:03:10 AM)

Here is how it looks from space (Google Earth).
Palikir is Ponape.
Truk is the yellow blob W of Ponape.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/7FB8EDDF64A84DD2A039861DD8253A40.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 7:11:03 AM)

Ok.

The only suggested change I have to what you have done is moving the sea area boundary so it runs through Minto rather than east of it.

Edit: No, I take that back. But the sea area boundary should not run abreast of Orotuk. It should be clearly between Minto and Orotuk.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 7:16:16 AM)

And now I see that the same should be true for the Magur islands. My intent is for only Truk to be astride more than 1 sea area. Nama Lusap is ok, since that is true for WIFFE.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 11:54:41 AM)

quote:

Ok.

The only suggested change I have to what you have done is moving the sea area boundary so it runs through Minto rather than east of it.

Edit: No, I take that back. But the sea area boundary should not run abreast of Orotuk. It should be clearly between Minto and Orotuk.


quote:

And now I see that the same should be true for the Magur islands. My intent is for only Truk to be astride more than 1 sea area. Nama Lusap is ok, since that is true for WIFFE.

Here is what it looks like with those mods.
Also, I removed the Weather line around the Gilbert Islands, because WiF FE has them in the South Monsoon weather zone, as the Sea Area they are in.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/2CB78174682546D0982558FD26A6D1B5.jpg[/image]



YohanTM2 -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 4:26:41 PM)

Great stuff Patrice.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 4:40:02 PM)

Here is how look the Coral Sea Area (Solomons, New Hebrides, New Caledonia, New Britain, New Ireland, Eastern Papua, Santa Cruz).

Here I made strictly no modifications, only drew the coastlines. I did not drew the Austraian Coastline, maybe later.
I think it is fine.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/81FBA13DAABB45868AB1D6191356F6D3.jpg[/image]



Missouri_Rebel -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 5:00:39 PM)

What are those red dashed lines on the map and what do they represent? Also, will the whole map have the coastlines on them? They look awesome.

Mo Reb


edit: dang fat fingers....



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 6:44:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel
What are those red dashed lines on the map and what do they represent? Also, will the whole map have the coastlines on them? They look awesome.
Mo Reb

The dashed red lines & curves show the boundaries between the territories formed by the Islands.
For example, there is the New Hebrides Territory, and the Santa Cruz Islands territory. I traced those red dashed lines to better see which islands are part of which Territory on the MWiF map. The MWiF maps tells you which Territory / Minor Country / Major Power an hex belong, but a JPG doesn't, so this was to see that.

Territory / Minor Country / Major Power are the 3 political entities that exist in WiF FE.

I believe the whole map will have coastlines on them.



Zorachus99 -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 7:19:34 PM)

Am I seeing an invadable alpine hexside where Papua is described on the map?

I dont think I've ever seen an all-sea alpine hexside.

Does this mean only mtn units can invade from a amphib?

It's an interesting edge case for combat.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 7:30:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Am I seeing an invadable alpine hexside where Papua is described on the map?
I dont think I've ever seen an all-sea alpine hexside.
Does this mean only mtn units can invade from a amphib?
It's an interesting edge case for combat.

It's just that I drew the Coastline too near from the Alpine hexside.
There is a Mountain hex SW of that Alpine hexside. This Alpine hexside is not on the coast.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/F07CF216EFC840A28661D5E6F2C88F78.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/16/2006 11:29:44 PM)

Patrice,

Thank you for all the work you've done on this.[&o][&o][&o]

You have been adding in a lot of the names for individual islands, which I really like. I can add these to the MWIF data files easily enough. The format I would need them in is:

Labels for map: [cities, ports, governed areas]
ID, column, row, OfsX, OfsY, city position (0-24), port position (0-24), factory position (0-24), resource position (0-24), color, size, text of label

Don’t worry about the ID, I will assign consecutive numbers starting with the next available number. Also, you can use zeroes for most of the fields. What I need is the name itself (last data field) and the hex row and column numbers where the name/label should start. Note that the label’s starting hex is only occasionally the same as the island hex itself.

An example would be:
0,ccc,rrr,0,0,0,0,0,0,clBlack,9,name

There are no blanks allowed and obviously ccc, and rrr are the column and row numbers (leading zeroes not required). I am assuming a font size number of 9 (which gets modified according to zoom level) but will probably try different ones out to see how they look.

Steve



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/17/2006 12:05:13 AM)

quote:

There are no blanks allowed and obviously ccc, and rrr are the column and row numbers (leading zeroes not required). I am assuming a font size number of 9 (which gets modified according to zoom level) but will probably try different ones out to see how they look.


Great you like those islands names. They add a lot to the WWII feel, as lots of those islands sound familliar to people who know WWII. Often those names were not on the WiF FE maps because the scale precluded drawing too many islands. Makin, Chichishima, Tinian, Wotje, Vella Lavella (Baa Baa Baaaaaa [:D]), Espiritu Santo, Bougainville...

Also what are OfsX, OfsY ?
Have you got a schema of the 0-24 positions within an hex ? I could try to pre-position some names.
About the positions, I'll take the positions I showed in my posted bitmaps.

Edit : While I'm at it, I'll include the Chinese names from the China map too, and those of Caucasus, and those of Urals.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/17/2006 2:10:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
...
Also what are OfsX, OfsY ?
Have you got a schema of the 0-24 positions within an hex ? I could try to pre-position some names.
About the positions, I'll take the positions I showed in my posted bitmaps.

Edit : While I'm at it, I'll include the Chinese names from the China map too, and those of Caucasus, and those of Urals.


I promise nothing about the Chinese and Caucaus names, map clutter being a concern. In the Pacific, there is mostly blue water so including the island names shouldn't make the map too congested.

OFsX and OFsY are offsets for the upper left corner of the first letter of the name within the starting hex for the label. The scale is 0 to 67 across and 0 to 75 vertically. So, 0,0 places the upper left corner of the first letter in the upper left corner of the hex. Since a hex doesn't have an upper left corner, this means it is located in the upper left corner of the rectangle in which the hexagon is inscribed. You asked! I'll adjust these if you just put in zeroes.

The 0 to 24 positions are only used for placing icons (ports, cities, factories, and resources). Zero is the center of the hex. 1 - 12 are the 12 clock positons midway between the center and the hexagon edge. 13 - 24 are the same 12 clock positions but closer to the edge (2/3rds of the way). Probably more information than you wanted, but what the heck. These are set to zero for simple labels. They are used for labels such as London and Antwerp.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/17/2006 8:22:01 AM)

quote:

I promise nothing about the Chinese and Caucaus names, map clutter being a concern. In the Pacific, there is mostly blue water so including the island names shouldn't make the map too congested.

There are the lakes names, the names of the added cities, the names of the mistspelled cities (Lan-Chow who becomes Lanchow you remember ?).
There is also the rivers' names. Do you also write the names of the rivers on the map using the same CSV files ? I was also thinking of adding the river names to the file.

Just a couple of questions too :
You also said there could not be blanks. There can be no blank in the text label neither ?
Is it possible to have 2 names for a given hex ?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/17/2006 10:08:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I promise nothing about the Chinese and Caucaus names, map clutter being a concern. In the Pacific, there is mostly blue water so including the island names shouldn't make the map too congested.

There are the lakes names, the names of the added cities, the names of the mistspelled cities (Lan-Chow who becomes Lanchow you remember ?).
There is also the rivers' names. Do you also write the names of the rivers on the map using the same CSV files ? I was also thinking of adding the river names to the file.

Just a couple of questions too :
You also said there could not be blanks. There can be no blank in the text label neither ?
Is it possible to have 2 names for a given hex ?

I would like the lake and river names, if you would be so kind. CWIF was missing a whole lot of those. The name/text comes last in the data record so blanks are ok there. Multiple names in the same hex are ok too (Aachen and Rhineland for example). All labels for the map come from the same CSV file.



Neilster -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/17/2006 1:05:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

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


At 12 hexes away, only a few of the USA fighters can reach Tokyo from the Bonins islands. Most of the USA bombers can but they would have to fly at extended range.


Hmm... It is true historically (as far as I have read) that the US did not have much in the way of escorting fighter power on its bombing raids over Japan, but in WiFFE it certainly does given the ranges Patrice quotes. Plus bombers can reach without necessarily flying at extended range. I quite like the changes on the whole but I suppose they may make it more difficult for the US to hammer away at Japan in the late game (if the Japanese are prepared) than perhaps should be the case. Ah, well, that is something that playtesting will ultimately determine.


Both P-51s and P-47Ns were based on Iwo Jima to escort B-29s. The P-47N was a fairly radical redesign of the basic P-47 platform with longer, square tipped wings that included fuel for the first time (as well as new ailerons that in concert with the revised wing shape, significantly enhanced roll rate and overall manoeuvrability). This extract about basing fighters on Iwo Jima from an account of the USAAF in the Pacific (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/V/AAF-V-19.html) indicates a much larger combat radius than the 13 of the P-47N in WiF anyway...

This was on 21 July; a week later, assuming with his usual optimism that the JCS would go along, Arnold approved a project for assigning to XXI Bomber Command as many as 5 fighter groups, to include P-51's and P-47N's, the latter rated as having a tactical radius of 1,350 miles.

A quick, back of the envelope calculation gives a figure closer to 20 for the range of the P-47N in MWiF.

As a side note, having another look at the combat factors on the late war US fighters, I'd have to say they are all over the place. The P-59 Airacomet was a dog and doesn't deserve 8. The later P-38s probably should be higher. The P-47N's air-cooled ruggedness and total dominance of the P-51 at high altitude due to its massive turbocharger should see it with higher ratings than the later P-51s. I'll be making a few changes to the CSV files.

Cheers, Neilster




YohanTM2 -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/19/2006 1:23:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
I'll be making a few changes to the CSV files.

Cheers, Neilster




Not if I'm playing Japan you won't <g>



Hortlund -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/19/2006 12:12:24 PM)

I love the new map, looks great.

Just one thing though. Do we have to name every single island? It just clutters up the map something immensely. Maybe we could just have island-names at the most important ones?



Hortlund -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/19/2006 12:18:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

[image]local://upfiles/10447/BBAC2FB82CE4403480C4802CBE0306F8.jpg[/image]


This is the image I had in mind when I wrote that post btw.



YohanTM2 -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/19/2006 3:20:02 PM)

I have to agree, it is overkill



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/19/2006 11:10:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan
I have to agree, it is overkill

Well, we'll see how it looks on the final map (this one is just an edited printscreen). Anyway, I already entered all of them into the CSV files. We'll remove some of them if it looks bad.
I for one love to see all the islands [:D]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands (7/19/2006 11:53:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
[image]local://upfiles/10447/BBAC2FB82CE4403480C4802CBE0306F8.jpg[/image]

This is the image I had in mind when I wrote that post btw.


If you compare the top of this map to the bottom I think you will agree that the bottom looks ok. So perhaps the solution is to alternate the placement of the names from the left to the right of the islands to reduce it looking like troops passing in review.

There isn't any 'action' going on in this area: no other terrain features to show and the only units will be occupying the island hexes. Naval units at sea will be in sea boxes.

What I am getting at here is that without the names, there is nothing but blue ocean, and you can visually get your fill of that in many other places. I think at least one island in each hex should be named so that players can communicate with each other without having to refer to hex numbers.

But, as Patrice said, it is trivial to delete names. I'll let everyone review this again after we get the pretty version of the map.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.359375