RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (Full Version)

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



Message

wfzimmerman -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 6:16:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I think Addu Atoll was used actively in Spring 1942. That is the implication of the following (from http://members.dodo.com.au/~mervynw/supermarkets.htm ):

After victualling some units at Trincomalee, "Taiping" proceeded to Colombo and then her first major assignment, to victual the Eastern Fleet at Addu Atoll in the Maldive Islands. Storing a battle fleet at a forward base, right on the equator, was a demanding operation for the fairly inexperienced Australian Stores Party but on the three occasions which "Taiping" replenished 40 odd ships, she received a "Thank you. Well done", from the Commander-in-Chief.
Addu Atoll was a secret emergency base which the R.N. had commenced building in August 1941 as a stand by for Trincomalee. Four months later their foresight and planning paid off and in early 1942 Addu (or "Port T" as it was known for security) provided a strategic storing and fueling facility in a key position. Several large A.I.F. Troop convoys also refueled at Addu on their way from Aden to Fremantle.
In early 1942 the Japanese Navy, fresh from their triumphs at Pearl Harbour and the Far East, steamed westward from Singapore to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Hoping to find the British Eastern Fleet, they raided both Colombo and Trincomalee with carrier based planes. They were unaware of the existence of Addu Atoll as a fleet base. Although the two fleets came close, they never sighted each other and consequently no engagement took place.


This seems more like a "build a port" (not in rules, right?) or a Naval Supply Unit than a port that deserves to be on the map.



marcuswatney -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 8:06:23 PM)

By being based at Addu Atoll during the Japanese incursion into the Bay of Bengal, Eastern Fleet escaped the attacks on Trincomalee and Colombo, so it was certainly something more than a Naval Supply Unit.  And forty ships at Addu Atoll sounds like a major port to me.

As for 'build a port', Addu Atoll has the same status as Rabaul, so you shouldn't have one without the other.



composer99 -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 9:31:54 PM)

Addu Atoll would put a major port in the middle of the Indian Ocean? That would give a big benefit to Japan with little corresponding benefit for the Allies, I think.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 9:48:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

By being based at Addu Atoll during the Japanese incursion into the Bay of Bengal, Eastern Fleet escaped the attacks on Trincomalee and Colombo, so it was certainly something more than a Naval Supply Unit.  And forty ships at Addu Atoll sounds like a major port to me.

As for 'build a port', Addu Atoll has the same status as Rabaul, so you shouldn't have one without the other.

Not all ships are equal. For instance, destroyers are not separate units in WIF, but instead are incorporated into the units for capital ships. likewise, naval transport units are not a single transport ship.

Minor ports have a capacity of 4 naval units, which might very well be equivalent to the 40 ships you mention here.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 10:23:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Addu Atoll would put a major port in the middle of the Indian Ocean? That would give a big benefit to Japan with little corresponding benefit for the Allies, I think.

I think so too.

In WiF FE, if the British use Addu Atoll for their Eastern Fleet, the Japanese will simlply Port Attack Addu Atoll. There is no hidden port nor hiddent ships in WiF FE.

On the other hand, in WiF FE, when the Japanese are Port Striking Tricomalee and the CW has enough suprise points to avoid the combat, then the WiF Zen is that the ships had an advance warning of the strike, and have sailed out of the port to somewhere else the enemy does not know of. Maybe this can be some sort of Addu Atoll.

Putting Addu Atoll on the map will only serve the Japanese, which will give them in the game an asset that they did not have during WWII, because they did not even know of the existence of this port.

In WIF FE, they will know of this port from day 1 and will be able to conquer it and have a free Major Port on the Arabian Sea, which can't exist in WiF FE unless the Japanese conquer Bombay, and put it in supply. Putting Addu Atoll in supply is enormously easy for the Japanese, they only need 1 CP in the Bay of Bengal, that they can cover and defend using NAVs in the Siamese Peninsula. Putting Bombay in supply on the other hand would be extremely difficult, unless they also have uprooted the British fro Aden. At this moment, if the Japanese have taken Aden, Addu Atoll becomes unimportant.

Bottom line, IMO if this port is put on the map, there is no way it can be a major port, and it would not be on 2 Sea Areas. Even Tricomalee is not on 2 Sea Areas. Being on multiple Sea Areas is reserved for special places.



wfzimmerman -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 10:28:17 PM)

I am not understanding the logic for putting a port for Addu Atoll on the 1939-1945 map when it was only begun in August 1941 ...



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 11:02:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Not all ships are equal. For instance, destroyers are not separate units in WIF, but instead are incorporated into the units for capital ships. likewise, naval transport units are not a single transport ship.

Minor ports have a capacity of 4 naval units, which might very well be equivalent to the 40 ships you mention here.

I had once upon a time evaluated a TRS to representing about 180 ships.

1 TRS, 1 AMPH or 6 CP equal 1 million tons of merchant shipping (100 to 300 ships of 3,000 to 10,000 tons - 180 ships average).
As a note this makes 1 CP equivallent to 30 ships in average.

Also, 1 SCS or CV are equal to 1 capital ship plus 4-6 DD. So 4 WiF FE ships can turn into 28 warships (4 capital ships, 24 destroyers)



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 11:05:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

I am not understanding the logic for putting a port for Addu Atoll on the 1939-1945 map when it was only begun in August 1941 ...

There is a logic, because if the British built a port in 41-42, then they could have built it before, or even worse, the Japanese could have built it too when they would have conquered the Maldives. Also, the timeframe of the Pacific war is 42-45, and during this timeframe Addu atoll was operational. So if the WiF FE Pacific war started in 1940, we could assume that the port would have been built sooner.

No, what prevents me from adding a major port here, is what I said in my post #65.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 11:14:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

I am not understanding the logic for putting a port for Addu Atoll on the 1939-1945 map when it was only begun in August 1941 ...

There is a logic, because if the British built a port in 41-42, then they could have built it before, or even worse, the Japanese could have built it too when they would have conquered the Maldives. Also, the timeframe of the Pacific war is 42-45, and during this timeframe Addu atoll was operational. So if the WiF FE Pacific war started in 1940, we could assume that the port would have been built sooner.

No, what prevents me from adding a major port here, is what I said in my post #65.

Then let's refine the question to whether or not to add Addu Atoll as a minor port in a single sea area.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 11:18:28 PM)

quote:

Then let's refine the question to whether or not to add Addu Atoll as a minor port in a single sea area.

Adding it as a minor port in the single sea area it is in (Western Indian Ocean) is perfectly OK for me, as the Japanese already have a number of minor ports they can conquer in that area, so one more don't give them an edge.

Adding it as a minor port on 2 Sea areas would be OK too, but only of Malé is removed as a minor port.

Indeed, I think that the original WiF designers have put the Malé minor port singly as a simple representation of the area, and that Malé represents all the port capacity of the Maldives. If that port capacity is better represented in Addu Atoll, then I'm OK.



Norman42 -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 11:20:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Indeed, I think that the original WiF designers have put the Malé minor port singly as a simple representation of the area, and that Malé represents all the port capacity of the Maldives. If that port capacity is better represented in Addu Atoll, then I'm OK.


Agreed.



warspite1 -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/21/2008 11:57:38 PM)

I agree also. I am not saying for one moment Marcuswatney is wrong in his assessment. My reason for agreeing with Froonp is the possible large effect on gameplay which I do not think we should be contemplating now. Lets just put Addu possible changes on the list for MWIF2.



marcuswatney -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (2/22/2008 1:29:57 AM)

Addu Atoll is described as a fleet base so it must have been capable of holding all the front-line units, even if so far I have found a reference to only forty.

But, yes, I accept that a major port southwest of Ceylon could actually weaken the Commonwealth by creating one more critical hex that simply has to be defended.  On the other hand, Trincomalee (not being a city) is a hugely unattractive place to base the Eastern Fleet, being on the same front as Singapore.

My main irritation was to see inconsequential Male given minor port status while Addu Atoll was ignored.  Simply moving the Male minor port symbol (and the front boundary) to Addu Atoll would at least address the historicity ... and in passing dispose of that rather odd kink where the weather zone departs from the front boundary.

I agree with Patrice in Post 68 that deciding whether something actually built in mid-game should or should not be included on the map depends on when realistically combat might have been expected to take place there.  So, railways in the Soviet Far East simply have to reflect the situation in 1939, because an opening Japanese attack on Russia is a perfectly viable strategy.  But, on the other hand, since a meaningful Japanese attack west of Ceylon before the construction date of August 1941 is hard to imagine, some sort of port at Addu Atoll should appear.

The classic example of this conundrum is Rabaul, which was virtually destroyed in the eruption of 1937, and damaged again by its volcanoes in 1941 (before being finally wiped out in 1994).  It was known as a fine anchorage, but it certainly wasn't a major port at the time the Japanese landed in January 1942.  The Japanese made it a major port, creating a labyrinth of tunnels and providing all the infrastructure needed to service a fleet (including a brothel!), and that is why, rightly, it appears in the game as a major port ... even though in 1939 it was just a devastated bay.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (3/15/2008 4:58:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Indeed, I think that the original WiF designers have put the Malé minor port singly as a simple representation of the area, and that Malé represents all the port capacity of the Maldives. If that port capacity is better represented in Addu Atoll, then I'm OK.

Here is how the area looks now.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/F9391536EDDE478D8A4B580DCA80F05C.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (3/15/2008 5:00:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Indeed, I think that the original WiF designers have put the Malé minor port singly as a simple representation of the area, and that Malé represents all the port capacity of the Maldives. If that port capacity is better represented in Addu Atoll, then I'm OK.

Here is how I would modify the area to render things as history and reality was at the time, and to try to keep things how they worked in WiF (1 minor port only in Maldives).

[image]local://upfiles/10447/D6A184E308034C8691C8388DECA33B2E.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (3/15/2008 5:06:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Indeed, I think that the original WiF designers have put the Malé minor port singly as a simple representation of the area, and that Malé represents all the port capacity of the Maldives. If that port capacity is better represented in Addu Atoll, then I'm OK.

Here is how I would modify the area to render things as history and reality was at the time, and to try to keep things how they worked in WiF (1 minor port only in Maldives).

Steve I can include these data changes for today's changes if you want, as there is a moved port.



marcuswatney -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (3/15/2008 5:49:18 PM)

I think that looks very good, and shifting the zone boundary makes Victoria look more comfortable too.

Could we move the West Indian Ocean sea boxes closer to the Chagos?  They are looking a bit squeezed now!



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (3/15/2008 6:19:41 PM)

Also
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Indeed, I think that the original WiF designers have put the Malé minor port singly as a simple representation of the area, and that Malé represents all the port capacity of the Maldives. If that port capacity is better represented in Addu Atoll, then I'm OK.

Here is how I would modify the area to render things as history and reality was at the time, and to try to keep things how they worked in WiF (1 minor port only in Maldives).

Steve I can include these data changes for today's changes if you want, as there is a moved port.

Here is how i t looks on the WiF FE maps.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/B996C3D59BFC456689F7DC25013B0D97.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (3/15/2008 6:21:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney
Could we move the West Indian Ocean sea boxes closer to the Chagos?  They are looking a bit squeezed now!

Sure.
But keep in mind that the above picture is only that, a draft picture. The map has not yet been modified.
The Sea Boxes are trivial to move, we'll see where we put them when the map is modified.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (3/15/2008 8:43:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Indeed, I think that the original WiF designers have put the Malé minor port singly as a simple representation of the area, and that Malé represents all the port capacity of the Maldives. If that port capacity is better represented in Addu Atoll, then I'm OK.

Here is how I would modify the area to render things as history and reality was at the time, and to try to keep things how they worked in WiF (1 minor port only in Maldives).

Steve I can include these data changes for today's changes if you want, as there is a moved port.

I thought you had sent me everything last night, and I already regenerated the coastal bitmaps based on those revised files (some time after midnight).

But this is just a change in TER, so it doesn't affect the coastal bitmaps - just saved games.

So, sure, send me the revised file and I'll include it in 7.05 today.



marcuswatney -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (3/16/2008 12:56:18 AM)

That's interesting.  Malé is in the central part of the Maldives, yet the WiF FE map shows the port in the southernmost hex.  In other words, it looks like the WiF FE minor port was always meant to represent Addu Atoll, but was just named incorrectly.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (3/16/2008 10:57:32 AM)

Here are the revisions, as implemented in version 7.05.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/36557F9721C94771AA8B1C3A546EB259.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (7/15/2008 8:52:05 AM)

I wanted to do a series of screen shots for the southern half of Asia. lacking any better place to put them, I chose this thread.
=====
Starting in with the Middle East.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/74B96807460A4D8CB0A36E630E67772B.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (7/15/2008 8:53:31 AM)

Due south of the previous post. All of these are at zoom 5.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/408242DE07E54A47A3B287973CD140D3.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (7/15/2008 8:55:14 AM)

Continuing south. This is mostly the Horn of Africa, but I didn't want to leave out Aden from this series.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/ABA390C62F5D47C4AA6FF5864B6CD4E0.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (7/15/2008 8:56:41 AM)

Jumping back to the north. This is due east of the first in this series.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/89F88C967E944D47844CF6F8D635531D.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (7/15/2008 8:58:45 AM)

Due south of the previous post. This abuts the second in this series.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/15E27B351BCC489EB255A38E94DC96ED.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (7/15/2008 9:00:55 AM)

Continuing south but moving slightly farther east. This map segment adjoins both the previous and the next map segments.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/EEDE6389F4DE4AF8B005099F9BC8F3A0.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (7/15/2008 9:02:50 AM)

Moving north. This map segment connects to the 5th in the series (2 posts previous).

[image]local://upfiles/16701/EBA416A33C7744B684E43F49097CA2BD.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - India & Burma (7/15/2008 9:04:33 AM)

Due north from the previous post.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/42548459212B4CF58029127A973EC106.jpg[/image]



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375