RE: MWiF Map Review - America

RE: MWiF Map Review - America (Full Version)

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

Message

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 12:04:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: abj9562 Supply could be a major issue in the western USA. Since highways have been a significant source of moving goods in the us perhaps a highway or two should appear with the same rules as railroads. Hwy 66 comes to mind very quickly due to its extreme importance in the wetward migration during the depression and dustbowl eras. Maybe a few others too. This might eliminate the empty map syndrome without placing insignificant cities. Well, isn't there already enough east-west rails on this map ? There are a lot ! There are rules for roads in WiF FE, but WiF FE roads are used in WiF FE in places where historicaly there was a transportation mean that was not as good as rail (road, river), but when there are so much rail already, WiF FE roads are useless to me. Opinions ? Note, Roads of MWiF already on the map : - a tiny bit of the Silk Road (China) - Burma Road (Burma, China) - Arctic Highway (Finland) - Kasai River Road (Belgian Congo) - Amazon River Road (Brazil) You see, those are all remote locations with a mean of transporting goods, but not as efficient as rail. quote: Another option would be to mark cities with significant military installations even if there was no city of importance there. Especially since there were large bases for armor and air throughout the SW USA during the war. Well, I'll leave the decision about this to Steve, I for one am happy with the existing cities. A couple of excceptions can be considered too. Adding cities west of the Mississippi should only be done when an obvious error has occurred. There is not a lot out there, especially in 1940. I also am opposed to adding roads. If the rail lines exist, then transporting troops and munitions is easy. If they don't, it isn't. As for the Boston to NYC stretch of coastline, I take back what I said earlier and now agree with Patrice about keeping things as they are in WIF FE - unless a specific reason for the change can be proposed.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 12:11:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: quote: 4. The coast between NY City and Boston could almost be filled in with the cities in Massachusetts or Connecticut or thereabouts like Providence RI (249k), Worcester MA (203k), Hartford CT (177k), or Springfield MA (163k). The coastline from Boston to Washington D. C. is now often referred to as a megametropolis - one continuous stretch of cities + suburbs. So I agree with your suggestion that the hexes from Boston to NYC being all city hexes. OK, I'll look at adding cities in the empty hexes. Coastline from Boston to Washington DC. - hex 63,318 : Boston - hex 64,318 : ? - hex 64,317 : Bridgeport minor port for the moment. - hex 64,316 or 65,316 : ? - hex 66,316 : New York - hex 66,315 : Newark - hex 67,314 : Philadelphia - hex 67,313 : ? - hex 68,313 : Baltimore - hex 69,312 : Washington I suppose there should be no additionnal cities in lower New Jersey (2 forest hexes south of NYC) and no additional cities in the peninsula south of Philadelphia (what's its name ?). So that is 3-4 cities to add. PS : See post #23 or #33 for the graphics of this area. The peninsula south of Philly is Delaware in the north and Maryland in the south. Delaware (my wife lived there until she went to college) doesn't have much in it. There is Wilmington in the north and the rest is mostly chicken farms ("Lower Delaware" is sometimes referred to as "Slower Delaware"). Most of this peninsula is fishing and/or beach resort towns. Though that could be said of a lot of the eastern seaboard of the US.

Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 12:12:06 AM)
quote: As for the Boston to NYC stretch of coastline, I take back what I said earlier and now agree with Patrice about keeping things as they are in WIF FE - unless a specific reason for the change can be proposed. Not that I would like to add chaos to the discussion (advocating the "add cities" side while I advocated the "add no cities "side previously), but if we look at the WiF FE map for the area, there is nearly 1 city per hex. So putting 1 city per hex is also what I called in post #54 "making it like WiF FE". [image]local://upfiles/10447/451772DB8238471298FE29F09EAD2533.jpg[/image]

sajbalk -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 12:32:45 AM)
I understand the concept of not adding too many cities, but I think the Boston to NYC stretch should be filled in and Ohio should get another city. Moving to another topic, some rivers should show lake status. 1. Cumberland in Tennessee and Kentucky. 2. Colorado in Nevada. 3. Missouri in the Dakotas. 4. I am not sure when Lake Powell in Utah was completed, but this would be another candidate.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 12:52:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sajbalk I understand the concept of not adding too many cities, but I think the Boston to NYC stretch should be filled in and Ohio should get another city. Moving to another topic, some rivers should show lake status. 1. Cumberland in Tennessee and Kentucky. 2. Colorado in Nevada. 3. Missouri in the Dakotas. 4. I am not sure when Lake Powell in Utah was completed, but this would be another candidate. The lake status is because they are impassable, I gather? For instance taking a corps sized unit in combat across the Grand Canyon wouldn't work out very well.

Anendrue -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 4:00:23 AM)
Edited. See next post.

Anendrue -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 4:32:42 AM)
More Rio Grande river changes after i thought about it some more. Add the hex 2 hexes SE of El Paso and raise the river North one more hex where you moved it earlier to include the rough terrain hex. The oil fields could use some adjusting. I included an oil field map of Texas to help on that one. The major fields are named and outlined on the map should give some pretty accurate perspective on the placement. Sorry about the changes; it is my home state and like most Texans I am overly proud and slightly obnoxious about it. [;)]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 5:31:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abj9562 More Rio Grande river changes after i thought about it some more. Add the hex 2 hexes SE of El Paso and raise the river North one more hex where you moved it earlier to include the rough terrain hex. The oil fields could use some adjusting. I included an oil field map of Texas to help on that one. The major fields are named and outlined on the map should give some pretty accurate perspective on the placement. Sorry about the changes; it is my home state and like most Texans I am overly proud and slightly obnoxious about it. [;)] No need to apologize. The best advice we get on the geography of different regions is from people who live there. Indeed, we depend on input from 'locals' to improve the map.

Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 10:10:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: sajbalk I understand the concept of not adding too many cities, but I think the Boston to NYC stretch should be filled in and Ohio should get another city. Moving to another topic, some rivers should show lake status. 1. Cumberland in Tennessee and Kentucky. 2. Colorado in Nevada. 3. Missouri in the Dakotas. 4. I am not sure when Lake Powell in Utah was completed, but this would be another candidate. The lake status is because they are impassable, I gather? For instance taking a corps sized unit in combat across the Grand Canyon wouldn't work out very well. Talking about the Grand Canyon, as it is made not, it is perfectly crossable by any unit. It is just a river between Clear, Desert and Mountains hexes. Can something be done to make Grand Canyon hexsides impassable without putting an Alpine hexside or a Lake hexside ?

Anendrue -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 3:53:03 PM)
If you could put an alpine hexside and then overlay that with an additional sea and then lake hexsides; I believe you'd get the impassability to all land units and it would even appear to be seperated by water. However I do't know if the multiple hexsides would work, It depends on how Steve programmed it.

Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 4:10:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abj9562 More Rio Grande river changes after i thought about it some more. Add the hex 2 hexes SE of El Paso and raise the river North one more hex where you moved it earlier to include the rough terrain hex. The oil fields could use some adjusting. I included an oil field map of Texas to help on that one. The major fields are named and outlined on the map should give some pretty accurate perspective on the placement. Sorry about the changes; it is my home state and like most Texans I am overly proud and slightly obnoxious about it. [;)] Well, I'm not too keen on moving the border much to the north, not that I am reluctant to cede American territory to Mexico, but the overall USA border wouldn't look good. You see, west of El Paso the border is kind of an horizontal line, and that horizontal line, if prolongated to the east, should pass well north of the Rio Grande Great Bend, which would not be the case anymore if I make the bend push more to the north. However, I though about another solution, here is a rough sketch of it : Chihuahua is about 180 km from the USA / Mexican border, and it would fall 1 hex from it with my sketch, but if I place the city in the SE corner of the hex, it would not show very much. Well, anyway I still prefer it as it is now. [image]local://upfiles/10447/014D850614DA40529ECE283B1EB93AB6.jpg[/image]

gbirkeli -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 6:37:35 PM)
I have a remark regarding Minneapolis and St. Paul. The two cities are quite close, about 15 km apart (according to Google Earth). That is about the distance between Marseille and Aubagne. It might be better to leave St. Paul out. Gaute

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 8:10:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: abj9562 More Rio Grande river changes after i thought about it some more. Add the hex 2 hexes SE of El Paso and raise the river North one more hex where you moved it earlier to include the rough terrain hex. The oil fields could use some adjusting. I included an oil field map of Texas to help on that one. The major fields are named and outlined on the map should give some pretty accurate perspective on the placement. Sorry about the changes; it is my home state and like most Texans I am overly proud and slightly obnoxious about it. [;)] Well, I'm not too keen on moving the border much to the north, not that I am reluctant to cede American territory to Mexico, but the overall USA border wouldn't look good. You see, west of El Paso the border is kind of an horizontal line, and that horizontal line, if prolongated to the east, should pass well north of the Rio Grande Great Bend, which would not be the case anymore if I make the bend push more to the north. However, I though about another solution, here is a rough sketch of it : Chihuahua is about 180 km from the USA / Mexican border, and it would fall 1 hex from it with my sketch, but if I place the city in the SE corner of the hex, it would not show very much. Well, anyway I still prefer it as it is now. [image]local://upfiles/10447/014D850614DA40529ECE283B1EB93AB6.jpg[/image] Some of this will be improved by having the river lines drawn in freehand instead of rigidly following the hexgrid. Not much can be done about the border between the countries though - that will match the hexgrid. For example, here is the Rhine river line. [image]local://upfiles/16701/305616309FAF439BA844EE5C6D65A998.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 8:18:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gbirkeli I have a remark regarding Minneapolis and St. Paul. The two cities are quite close, about 15 km apart (according to Google Earth). That is about the distance between Marseille and Aubagne. It might be better to leave St. Paul out. Gaute A good point but I wonder about how to model that they are on different sides of the river. If land combat ever does occur here, the opposing forces are likely to be on opposite sides of the river. In which case, perhaps both hexes should be modelled as city hexes because of the advantages that would provide: easier to defend, increased stacking for air units, and a primary supply source. But I only visited there once, for a half a day, so I will defer to the judgment of others.

Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 9:16:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: gbirkeli I have a remark regarding Minneapolis and St. Paul. The two cities are quite close, about 15 km apart (according to Google Earth). That is about the distance between Marseille and Aubagne. It might be better to leave St. Paul out. Gaute A good point but I wonder about how to model that they are on different sides of the river. If land combat ever does occur here, the opposing forces are likely to be on opposite sides of the river. In which case, perhaps both hexes should be modelled as city hexes because of the advantages that would provide: easier to defend, increased stacking for air units, and a primary supply source. But I only visited there once, for a half a day, so I will defer to the judgment of others. Both cities are on the WiF FE maps, so for me they are on the MWiF map. But I noticed that MWiF added a couple of extra cities already to the USA. Newark and Spokane.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 9:56:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: gbirkeli I have a remark regarding Minneapolis and St. Paul. The two cities are quite close, about 15 km apart (according to Google Earth). That is about the distance between Marseille and Aubagne. It might be better to leave St. Paul out. Gaute A good point but I wonder about how to model that they are on different sides of the river. If land combat ever does occur here, the opposing forces are likely to be on opposite sides of the river. In which case, perhaps both hexes should be modelled as city hexes because of the advantages that would provide: easier to defend, increased stacking for air units, and a primary supply source. But I only visited there once, for a half a day, so I will defer to the judgment of others. Both cities are on the WiF FE maps, so for me they are on the MWiF map. But I noticed that MWiF added a couple of extra cities already to the USA. Newark and Spokane. There are a lot of 'Newark's in the US. The one in northern NJ is an ok addition. It represents several smaller cities across the river from NYC, which together make up a significant urban area (Newark airport is there and a lot of industry). I thought about adding Camden/Trenton - across from Philadelphia - but that area is more woods than urban. I don't know about Spokane.

Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/19/2006 11:20:51 PM)
quote: However, I though about another solution, here is a rough sketch of it : Chihuahua is about 180 km from the USA / Mexican border, and it would fall 1 hex from it with my sketch, but if I place the city in the SE corner of the hex, it would not show very much. Just wanted to point out that this mod (Post #71) is not adopted on the map, I'm waiting for comments about it, whether it is good or not.

Missouri_Rebel -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/20/2006 4:27:33 AM)
I like the flow of the rivers but couldn't help but notice that they seem rather narrow compared to the hexsides. I think that a wider representation would help avoid some confusion and just look better. What do you think? Also, I am not familiar with the rules but are there any differences between smaller river and large rivers or is it either passible or lake-like? i.e.impassible Rivers such as the Mississippi and Volga might be different than some of the others due to their size A variant width hand-drawn river would look GREAT but, would be a huge pain considering the ammount of rivers on the map and probably not worth the time and trouble. Any drawing tool that could do that, make em look unique and realistic? Just a thought. Mo reb

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/20/2006 5:03:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel I like the flow of the rivers but couldn't help but notice that they seem rather narrow compared to the hexsides. I think that a wider representation would help avoid some confusion and just look better. What do you think? Also, I am not familiar with the rules but are there any differences between smaller river and large rivers or is it either passible or lake-like? i.e.impassible Rivers such as the Mississippi and Volga might be different than some of the others due to their size A variant width hand-drawn river would look GREAT but, would be a huge pain considering the ammount of rivers on the map and probably not worth the time and trouble. Any drawing tool that could do that, make em look unique and realistic? Just a thought. Mo reb The rivers drawn in so far are perfect replicas (pixel for pixel) of the ones in the WIF Final Edition European map. Probably of interest here is that the scale is roughly 90 kilometers per hex (~56 miles) so the rivers are actually way too thick already. A river 1 mile wide should only get 1 or 2 pixels in width; what you see in the screen shots are about 3 pixels wide. We'll stick with what Australian Design Group did in WIF FE for rendering the rivers.

Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/20/2006 8:54:13 AM)
quote: Also, I am not familiar with the rules but are there any differences between smaller river and large rivers or is it either passible or lake-like? i.e.impassible Rivers such as the Mississippi and Volga might be different than some of the others due to their size Unfortunately, WiF FE does not have 2 kinds of rivers. All rivers are the same. However, some rivers are so wide that some parts of them are represented by lake hexsides. But this is very rare too, there is none of these on the European maps. I would have liked the Volga to have those, and I added some on the Urals map, but not on the Europe map.

Jeff Gilbert -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/20/2006 6:21:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Unfortunately, WiF FE does not have 2 kinds of rivers. All rivers are the same. However, some rivers are so wide that some parts of them are represented by lake hexsides. But this is very rare too, there is none of these on the European maps. I would have liked the Volga to have those, and I added some on the Urals map, but not on the Europe map. I do agree that there are a number of rivers that might warrent a lake-like hexside (parts of the Yellow, Gangee, Volga and Misouri, lower Mississippi and the Colorado through the Grand Canyon). That said, I don't think these not being represented as such will have an adverse impact on game play. Well, none I've seen so far. We've been campaining about the Volga for years without issue and, so far, I haven't had any ground combat in North America. [:)]

mlees -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/20/2006 8:21:48 PM)
In post #25 you mentioned that Richmond is on the coast. It is not. In post #63, you see that the WiF America minimap (at a scale of 6 european hexes to one america hex) that Richmond is lumped together with Norfolk. But at the European scale, I think that Richmond is inland, in a seperate hex from Norfolk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_VA

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/20/2006 9:26:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees In post #25 you mentioned that Richmond is on the coast. It is not. In post #63, you see that the WiF America minimap (at a scale of 6 european hexes to one america hex) that Richmond is lumped together with Norfolk. But at the European scale, I think that Richmond is inland, in a seperate hex from Norfolk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_VA Yes, Richmond is separate from Norfolk (a different hex). I think of Richmond as being like Philadelphia, in that it has access to the sea, though without any beachfront property. That is all I meant by it being on the 'coast'.

mlees -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/20/2006 11:06:06 PM)
Is the river it is on deep enough for ocean going vessels? Do ocean going freighters sail up the James River and dock in Richmond? I find that surprising. Shows what I know...

Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/20/2006 11:14:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: mlees In post #25 you mentioned that Richmond is on the coast. It is not. In post #63, you see that the WiF America minimap (at a scale of 6 european hexes to one america hex) that Richmond is lumped together with Norfolk. But at the European scale, I think that Richmond is inland, in a seperate hex from Norfolk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_VA Yes, Richmond is separate from Norfolk (a different hex). I think of Richmond as being like Philadelphia, in that it has access to the sea, though without any beachfront property. That is all I meant by it being on the 'coast'. Richmond is not coastal to the sea in MWiF anyway. Also, you seems to say that Richmond is on a river named the James River, but I found it was named Roanoke River on the Wif FE maps. Which one is right ?

Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/20/2006 11:21:27 PM)
quote: Also, you seems to say that Richmond is on a river named the James River, but I found it was named Roanoke River on the Wif FE maps. Which one is right ? OK, I've understood, the Roanoke river is the one to the south. I mistplaced Richmond near this later instead of the James, I'm modifying.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/20/2006 11:34:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees Is the river it is on deep enough for ocean going vessels? Do ocean going freighters sail up the James River and dock in Richmond? I find that surprising. Shows what I know... From the link that you provided: According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 62.5 mi² (162.0 km²). 60.1 mi² (155.6 km²) of it is land and 2.5 mi² (6.4 km²) of it (3.96%) is water. The city is located in the Piedmont region of Virginia, at the highest navigable point of the James River. I assume that navigatable point means ocean going ships, though perhaps not some of the gargantuan ones floatnig about these days.

mlees -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/20/2006 11:38:35 PM)
Yup, I noticed it. But I wasn't sure what was meant by navigable. Navigable to what? Barges? Liberty ships? Hopefully, someone smarter than me can answer that. I am clear on the other side of the continent.

Jeff Gilbert -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/21/2006 7:49:46 PM)
The Port of Richmond, VA did and does serve ocean going ships ... I am still looking for a WWII reference of types.

Anendrue -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/22/2006 9:40:30 AM)
Looks very good. Big Bend should be a Mountain Desert hex. I have spent lots of time in the park. It is very rough desert rising from 1850' to over 7300' with a 50F degree temperature differance at times.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.984375