RE: MWiF Map Review - America (Full Version)

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



Message

Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/22/2006 11:42:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

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.

When you say that it looks very good, are you talking about the mod I presented in post #71 ?
If yes, don't you think that Chihuahua is now too near from the US border ?

When you talk about Big Bend, you talk about the 2 desert hexes that are in Mexico, south of Rio Grande ?



coregames -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/22/2006 12:11:54 PM)

For what it's worth, I live in Albuquerque, and the Sandia Mountains are due east of us... the Manzano Mountains are just south of that. I would suggest removing the mountain hexes west and southwest of Albuquerue, and replacing the forest hex east of here with a mountain hex.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/22/2006 3:59:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: coregames

For what it's worth, I live in Albuquerque, and the Sandia Mountains are due east of us... the Manzano Mountains are just south of that. I would suggest removing the mountain hexes west and southwest of Albuquerue

And replacing them with what ?
How many should be removed ?

quote:

, and replacing the forest hex east of here with a mountain hex.

And the forest hex south of this forest hex too ?

Also, don't you think that may those Sandia Mountains and Manzano Mountains are not broken enough to be represented as a mountain hex, and are tree covered enough to be represented bya forest hex ?



Anendrue -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/23/2006 1:42:15 AM)

I mean the southernmost hex of the bend in the Rio Grande River on the western side of Texas. Just SE of El Paso. This is Big Bend National Park and it has some pretty rugged terrain from flat out desert to an arid mountainscape with pine trees.



coregames -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/23/2006 3:45:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

And the forest hex south of this forest hex too ?

Also, don't you think that may those Sandia Mountains and Manzano Mountains are not broken enough to be represented as a mountain hex, and are tree covered enough to be represented bya forest hex ?


Tijeras Canyon is pretty mountainous, and it is the only pass between the two ranges, which are about 10,000 feet - a mile above Albuquerque's elevation of 1 mile. Yes these steep mountains are covered in forest, but they are first and foremost mountains. I think the hex east of Albuquerque should be represented as a mountain hex. The hex south of that can be forest as you have it.

For purpose of comparison, although the Continental Divide is west of Albuquerque, the incline leading up to it is quite mild compared to Tijeras Canyon. You barely even know you've crossed a high point when you reach it - although it is a long stretch as you have on the map. Still, this area can't be harder to cross than the Sandia/Manzano range. Albuquerque is surrounded by mountains on all sides except south, even if it's up against the eastern mountains tightly. In game terms, this can only be represented with a mountain hex. All that being said, I can accept whatever is decided.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/23/2006 9:43:53 PM)

abj9562 wrote :
quote:

I mean the southernmost hex of the bend in the Rio Grande River on the western side of Texas. Just SE of El Paso. This is Big Bend National Park and it has some pretty rugged terrain from flat out desert to an arid mountainscape with pine trees.


coregames wrote :
quote:

Tijeras Canyon is pretty mountainous, and it is the only pass between the two ranges, which are about 10,000 feet - a mile above Albuquerque's elevation of 1 mile. Yes these steep mountains are covered in forest, but they are first and foremost mountains. I think the hex east of Albuquerque should be represented as a mountain hex. The hex south of that can be forest as you have it.

So I took into account what they said, and drew their changes into the map.
Here is it.
What do you think about it ?

abj9562, is it ok for the bend, and the desert mountain ?

coregames, is it ok for Albuquerque ?

[image]local://upfiles/10447/9328C89B32FF429291EAE678620492B4.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/23/2006 9:44:59 PM)

Also, I have added Rio Conchos (east and south of Chihuahua) because this river was represented on the WiF FE maps, and forgotten here.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/23/2006 9:46:18 PM)

What is the name of the river south of Phoenix ?
I put the city near the river (not seen on my drawing, but seen in the real map of the game), is this ok ?



coregames -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/24/2006 6:25:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp


coregames, is it ok for Albuquerque ?



Patrice, I think the hex just east of Albuquerque is great, thank you. I would still keep the next hex east of that mountain hex clear. Great work, and thanks for taking my opinion into account.



coregames -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/24/2006 6:35:10 AM)

quote:

Original: Froonp

What is the name of the river south of Phoenix ?


Based on the map, I think you are talking about the Gila river, south of Phoenix.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/24/2006 12:39:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

Based off the same list I referenced above, I would suggest including:
1. An additional city or two in Ohio (S. of Lake Erie) to be Colombus (376k), Toledo (307k), Akron (275k), or Dayton (245k). Or even Youngstown (168k).
2. A city in upstate New York.Syracuse (221k) or Albany (135k).
3. Louisville, Kentucky is the largest city not mentioned at number 30 (369k).
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).
5. A good case could be made for another city in Michigan. Either GrandRapids (176k)  or Flint (163k). The former would be preferable for supply purposes.

I've made a map where the cities you mentionned are displayed.

Note : The figures above are not really the 1940 ones, I believe they are the 1950 ones, but as you also posted the 1940 list, I used the 1940 numbers.
Worcester of Springfield are not on the map, because they already are into another city's hex (same hex as Boston or Providence and ame hex as Hartford respectively).
Placing them also revealed that Indianapolis, Rochester and Bridgeport had to be moved 1 hex each, and that the Railway from Indianapolis / Cincinnati to Pittsburgh had to be twicked too. Also, I removed the 2 mountain hexes SW of Pitsburgh and replaced them with forests (as this is more like the WiF FE maps, and more like real maps I see.
Also, reviewing the list of cities of more than 100k in 1940, I saw that Bridgeport could be made a city (147k inhabitants warrants it).

I placed nearly all those cities that sajbalk listed, but I think that not all should be added, if any.

My personnal choice would be to add Albany (130k), Hartford (166k), Providence (253k), making Bridgeport a city, for the "Megalopolis effect", and to add Columbus (306k), Grand Rapids (164k) and Louisville (319k), and maybe Syracuse (205k).

Note : Those cities are added in violet writing on this map, but are not on the MWiF map, they are just tries waiting for comments.

quote:

Then there are some I would question as cities such as Wilmington NC, Charlestton SC, Alb., NM, and San Jose CA, at least in this time frame.

Yes, they are not in the list of all cities with more than 100k inhabitants, but as they are on the WiF FE map, I prefer to leave them as is.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/03656D489E494AAA83E01C1462D0E463.jpg[/image]



Peter Stauffenberg -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/24/2006 1:56:23 PM)

Here are my comments for the eastern cities:

Akron NO (are already crowded with cities)
Columbus YES (rail intersection)
Dayton NO (not needed when adding Columbus)
Toledo YES (city is quite big and not too close to other cities)
Grand Rapids YES (good for supply reasons in Michigan)
Flint NO (too close to Detroit and thus not needed. Grand Rapids fixes the supply)
Louisville YES (rail intersection and main city in Kentucky)
Syracuse YES (rail intersection and helps with supply in upper New York state)
Albany NO (not needed if adding Syracuse. Needed if Syracuse not added)
Bridgeport change to city NO (I don't think making megalopolis is a good idea. Then the eastern USA looks too crowded with cities). If we do this for USA we need to do this in Japan, China, India, Russia, Germany and other crowded areas too. We can easily live without some cities who are bigger than 100.000, but would be represented by cities in adjacent hexes.
Hartford YES (Halfway between New York and Boston. Rail intersection and nice to add if Albany is not added. If Syracuse is not added and Albany instead then I think we don't need to add Hartford and can add Providence instead)
Providence NO (Very close to Boston. Should only be added if Hartford is not added. This depends on which of the cities of Albany or Syracuse would be added.)

If Bridgeport is added as a city then I think we don't need Hartford and Albany, but should go with Providence and Syracuse instead.

Remember that fighting will most likely NOT take place in Eastern USA so there is no need for USA to have cities in every Atlantic coastal hex between Washington and Boston. It clutters the map too much in my opinion and then I would ask myself why it's done here while other parts of the world big cities are omitted to avoid cluttering.



Peter Stauffenberg -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/24/2006 4:58:04 PM)

I have some comments about the map parts shown thus far.

1. Add city of Thunder Bay in Canada?

Thunder Bay is a city on the NW bank of Lake Superior. It's located in the hex 3xNE+E of Duluth. It's the biggest city in the region on the Canadian side of the border and is maybe needed for supply reasons. The city is not very big (122.000 inhabitants now), but the only city in this area of Canada having a chance to be on the MWIF map.

2. Remember to remove the port of Duluth. The big lakes don't have any ports in MWIF so Duluth should be removed. Duluth proper has a population of 87.000, but with suburbs it has a population of 184.000. Is Duluth needed for supply purposes? Then it maybe could be a city?

3. Why is New Bern on the map as a port? In 1940 it only had a population of 11.815. Does USA really need a port in this hex? I have found no information that this city had any importance as a port except during the US civil war. I noticed it's on the WIFFE maps so I guess this makes it harder to take it away or replace it with another port?

4. Why use the port of Fernandina in NE Florida? It has a population of just 10.500 in the year 2000 and probably less inn 1940. And it's called Fernandina beach indicating it's just a beach for recreation etc. and not a vital port that could host warships.

I propose using the port city of Brunswick in southern Georgia instead.

Look here for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick,_Georgia

Wikipedia writes about Brunswick: The city is an important port city on the Atlantic Coast

The port can be placed on the MWIF map as is because the location chosen is the location of Brunswick. It's just south of the Altamaha river. Fernandina is closer to Jacksonville, in the same hex as Jacksonville.

5. Maybe we can add the port of Corpus Christi in southern Texas? It seems to be an important port and the MWIF map doesn't have a US port in this region. The population in 1940 was 108.000 so maybe it even deserves to be a city?

Look here for some info:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/corpus-christi-port.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Christi,_Texas

It should be located just south of the river at the coast 2xSE of San Antonio.

6. Maybe we should also add the port of Port Arthur in eastern Texas?

This is written about Port Arthur:
Port Arthur was founded by Arthur Edward Stilwell in the late 19th century, and was once the center of the largest oil refinery network in the world.

Look here for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur,_Texas

It's located at the coast in the oil hex E+NE of Galveston.

7. It seems that the rail intersection hex of Jackson, Mississippi, is maybe too small to add as a city. It had about 80.000 inhabitants in 1944. It's the rail intersection 5xW of Montgomery.

But maybe adding Shreveport, Lousiana, is a possibility? It had a population of 127.000 in 1940. This city is located in the oil hex rail intersection 2xE of Dallas.

Some info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shreveport,_Louisiana

8. US Pacific ports between San Francisco and Seattle?

I notice there are currently no US minor ports between San Franciso and Seattle. Is that true or have we forgotten some port that had any importance during WW2? I can't find any suitable port, but maybe it's like this because there is no such port. I don't know.

That is all I found so far. [:)]



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/24/2006 5:13:56 PM)

quote:

2. Remember to remove the port of Duluth. The big lakes don't have any ports in MWIF so Duluth should be removed. Duluth proper has a population of 87.000, but with suburbs it has a population of 184.000. Is Duluth needed for supply purposes? Then it maybe could be a city?

I made it a city, because population in 1940 is 101k.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/24/2006 5:27:19 PM)

quote:

1. Add city of Thunder Bay in Canada?

Thunder Bay is a city on the NW bank of Lake Superior. It's located in the hex 3xNE+E of Duluth. It's the biggest city in the region on the Canadian side of the border and is maybe needed for supply reasons. The city is not very big (122.000 inhabitants now), but the only city in this area of Canada having a chance to be on the MWIF map.

I keep this one for when I'll review the Canadian shores of the Great Lakes, which I haven't really done already, my review presented here was very focused on the USA.
I began drawing Coastlines for Canada yesterday, so I'll look at this soon.
I'm also keeping the redrawn railways of Flanker Leader for this time.

The other points you raised are open to discussion (3-8), but I'm not to akin to remove WiF FE cities or ports for replacing ones, for consistencies reasons with WiF FE, except blattant error. Maybe there is one with Fernandina, as I already had noticed that it was closer to Jacksonville, and that WiF FE might have it wrong.



Zorachus99 -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/24/2006 9:18:38 PM)

The east coast is a wall of cities in the new york area.  However considering, citizens are armed and dangerous, making invading these locations difficult makes sense. 

However the question really is: is it necessary to have this many cities when considering Europe and whether all cities with 100K inhabitants are represented as well?

Very hard to call.  The overall population of the US, in my guess, would be less per square kilometer than Europe, and as such should have less cities per hex.



Anendrue -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/24/2006 9:53:41 PM)

See next post please.



Anendrue -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 6:10:04 AM)

He has the western portion of Texas as arid desert which is correct. That would be the Chihuahuan Desert. This area extends from Mexico through the Big Bend region exstending Nort and West into New Mexico and east about 2/3rds of the way to San Antonio, and south of San Angelo and Midland Odessa Permian basin area. This map section picture I am replying yo just doesn't show all of Texas. Look at some earlier posts. BTW I have driven those roads for the better part of 25 years.

BTW Patrice this led me to spot another correction the hex NW of San Antonio, the hex west of San Antonio and the hex west of those two should be rough terrain. Here we call it the hill country. In reality it is the Llano uplift where they mine the semi precious stone Lanite and and a pink colored Granite.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 10:14:13 AM)

quote:

BTW Patrice this led me to spot another correction the hex NW of San Antonio, the hex west of San Antonio and the hex west of those two should be rough terrain. Here we call it the hill country. In reality it is the Llano uplift where they mine the semi precious stone Lanite and and a pink colored Granite.

abj9562, what are you calling "rough terrain" ?

Do you have Desert Mountain in mind ? Desert mountain should really be used where there are really broken terrain, that is mountainous terrain (as well as desertic).

As you say that you are calling it the "hill country", that makes me wonder if that should be Desert Mountains.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 1:13:45 PM)

Just before I comment on your proposals, I would like to point out that you used the figures of the 1950 census, not the 1940 census.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
2. Remember to remove the port of Duluth. The big lakes don't have any ports in MWIF so Duluth should be removed. Duluth proper has a population of 87.000, but with suburbs it has a population of 184.000. Is Duluth needed for supply purposes? Then it maybe could be a city?

Duluth was 101k in 1940, so I made it a city already.

quote:

3. Why is New Bern on the map as a port? In 1940 it only had a population of 11.815. Does USA really need a port in this hex? I have found no information that this city had any importance as a port except during the US civil war. I noticed it's on the WIFFE maps so I guess this makes it harder to take it away or replace it with another port?

Well, it does not bother me.

quote:

4. Why use the port of Fernandina in NE Florida? It has a population of just 10.500 in the year 2000 and probably less inn 1940. And it's called Fernandina beach indicating it's just a beach for recreation etc. and not a vital port that could host warships.
I propose using the port city of Brunswick in southern Georgia instead.
Look here for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick,_Georgia
Wikipedia writes about Brunswick: The city is an important port city on the Atlantic Coast
The port can be placed on the MWIF map as is because the location chosen is the location of Brunswick. It's just south of the Altamaha river. Fernandina is closer to Jacksonville, in the same hex as Jacksonville.

What I would like to do, is to put Fernandina in its right hex (as Jacksonville is a minor port on the WiF FE map, so it would kind of be too in MWiF), and add Brunswick as you said.

quote:

5. Maybe we can add the port of Corpus Christi in southern Texas? It seems to be an important port and the MWIF map doesn't have a US port in this region. The population in 1940 was 108.000 so maybe it even deserves to be a city?
Look here for some info:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/corpus-christi-port.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Christi,_Texas
It should be located just south of the river at the coast 2xSE of San Antonio.

No, because its 1940 population is below 100k. You figure is from the 1950 census that was wrongly posted here (the right 1940 census was posted thereafter).

quote:

6. Maybe we should also add the port of Port Arthur in eastern Texas?
This is written about Port Arthur:
Port Arthur was founded by Arthur Edward Stilwell in the late 19th century, and was once the center of the largest oil refinery network in the world.
Look here for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur,_Texas
It's located at the coast in the oil hex E+NE of Galveston.

I don't think there is a need for it on the MWiF map.

quote:

7. It seems that the rail intersection hex of Jackson, Mississippi, is maybe too small to add as a city. It had about 80.000 inhabitants in 1944. It's the rail intersection 5xW of Montgomery.
But maybe adding Shreveport, Lousiana, is a possibility? It had a population of 127.000 in 1940. This city is located in the oil hex rail intersection 2xE of Dallas.
Some info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shreveport,_Louisiana

I don't think there is a need for it on the MWiF map neither.

quote:

8. US Pacific ports between San Francisco and Seattle?
I notice there are currently no US minor ports between San Franciso and Seattle. Is that true or have we forgotten some port that had any importance during WW2? I can't find any suitable port, but maybe it's like this because there is no such port. I don't know.

I made an extra layer on the MWiF draft map I draw, showing the supply zone, from the original WiF FE map, and give or take some hexes, the supply cover on the MwiF map is nearly the same as the one of the WiF FE map.

There are only 3 places where there is less supply :
- Northern Maine (North of Boston & Portland -- WiF FE has wrongly Portland as a city, so a city should be added in this area).
- Northern Michigan.
- Northern California. Maybe a Eureka (minor port) can be added 4 hexes NW of Sacramento. This seems to be the biggest place in the area.

Opinions ?



Peter Stauffenberg -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 3:09:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Duluth was 101k in 1940, so I made it a city already.


Good.

quote:


Well, it does not bother me.


OK, let's keep New Bern then.

quote:

What I would like to do, is to put Fernandina in its right hex (as Jacksonville is a minor port on the WiF FE map, so it would kind of be too in MWiF), and add Brunswick as you said.


Would you then put a port in the Jacksonville hex and not use the name Fernandina? That seems like a better idea than to use
2 names for the same hex. Jacksonville is well known, Fernandina not. You think 2 ports in this region is a good idea
(BOTH Jacksonville AND Brunswick)? If you make Jacksonville a minor port then maybe this is good enough for the port
capacity in this region. I don't know.

quote:


No, because its 1940 population is below 100k. You figure is from the 1950 census that was wrongly posted here (the right 1940 census was posted thereafter).


Maybe you can add Corpus Christi as a minor port only then instead of adding a city here? To me it's strange that the US Gulf Coast has so few ports (except the major ports already there) when the US Atlantic port is filled with very minor ports like New Bern, Fernandina etc. I think adding a minor port in Texas could be a good idea.

quote:

I don't think there is a need for it on the MWiF map.


Well, maybe it's enough with just adding Corpus Christi as a port.

quote:

I don't think there is a need for it on the MWiF map neither.


Shreveport is maybe not that important to add on the map here in the south if we want to keep the map from being clogged with cities. But if that is so then I don't understand why we are in the process of adding so many new cities in the NE part of USA. Why is it ok in NE USA to add cities like Hartford, Flint, Albany, Akron, Dayton etc. while there are so few cities in the south compared to the north? Is it because you expect some military actions in the NE of USA so USA needs cities to add reinforcements?

For me the most important thing about making a map is to have CONSISTANT design rules everywhere on the map. If you go for one detail level at one part of the map then it would be strange if other parts of the map have a much lesser detail level. I think mainly about adding cities, ports and railroads. That is one reason I don't think the megalopolis idea of creating a continuous line of cities from Washington to Boston is a good idea. Was it really that crowded in 1940 from Washington to Boston? I noticed that many US cities have become a lot bigger during the last 50-60 years. One example is Las Vegas that had 8.400 inhabitants in 1940 and had 545.000 inhabitants in 2005.

So maybe it's a good idea to be more restrictive about adding new cities in NE USA. Especially new cities not needed for supply reasons, like adding a city adjacent to an already bigger city (like adding Providence adjacent to Boston).

quote:

I made an extra layer on the MWiF draft map I draw, showing the supply zone, from the original WiF FE map, and give or take some hexes, the supply cover on the MwiF map is nearly the same as the one of the WiF FE map.

There are only 3 places where there is less supply :
- Northern Maine (North of Boston & Portland -- WiF FE has wrongly Portland as a city, so a city should be added in this area).
- Northern Michigan.
- Northern California. Maybe a Eureka (minor port) can be added 4 hexes NW of Sacramento. This seems to be the biggest place in the area.
Opinions ?


The only possible cities to add in Northern Michigan are Sault Ste. Marie or Marquette. The problem is that both cities are quite small. The former with about 20.000 inhabitants and the latter with about 65.000 inhabitants today.

But it's maybe possible to add Green Bay in Wisconsin to help with supply there. Green Bay with suburbs has a population of 237.000 now (102.000 in the city itself). In 1950 the city had 53.000 inhabitants). Green Bay is located in the hex 2xNW+NE of Milwaukee.

But if it's too difficult to get normal supply with adding >100k cities then maybe it could help to make the Great Lakes a sea area and add ports to different cities (Duluth, Thunder Bay, Green Bay, Sault St. Marie, Marquette etc.). Then I think supply would be easier to obtain.

There are no big cities in Northern Maine. The only cities worth mentioning are Augusta and Bangor, but they're too small to be designated a city. I think for supply reasons adding Albany instead of Syracuse is a good idea. At least Albany reaches further into Maine than Syracuse with supply. Portland is the biggest city in Maine with a population of 64.000 now.

But does it really matter if some parts of USA don't have full supply? I don't think we will see any US units there or any combat. Adding cities just for supply is not a good idea unless it's in a region where supply in vital and combat is expected. So I think we can live with Portland as just a port and not add any new cities. The game goes to Northern Michigan. Don't add any new cities there except Duluth and Grand Rapids. Add ports on the great lakes if some supply is truly needed. At least the ports can have a population smaller than 100k [;)]

Eureka was also the town I found in Norther California that could be a port, but I found no news about Eureka having a useful port that could host military warships. So I guess we need some input from people living in Western USA to say which town is the most likely candidate for a Pacific port between San Francisco and Seattle.





Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 3:46:23 PM)

quote:

Shreveport is maybe not that important to add on the map here in the south if we want to keep the map from being clogged with cities. But if that is so then I don't understand why we are in the process of adding so many new cities in the NE part of USA. Why is it ok in NE USA to add cities like Hartford, Flint, Albany, Akron, Dayton etc. while there are so few cities in the south compared to the north? Is it because you expect some military actions in the NE of USA so USA needs cities to add reinforcements?

For me the most important thing about making a map is to have CONSISTANT design rules everywhere on the map. If you go for one detail level at one part of the map then it would be strange if other parts of the map have a much lesser detail level. I think mainly about adding cities, ports and railroads. That is one reason I don't think the megalopolis idea of creating a continuous line of cities from Washington to Boston is a good idea. Was it really that crowded in 1940 from Washington to Boston? I noticed that many US cities have become a lot bigger during the last 50-60 years. One example is Las Vegas that had 8.400 inhabitants in 1940 and had 545.000 inhabitants in 2005.

So maybe it's a good idea to be more restrictive about adding new cities in NE USA. Especially new cities not needed for supply reasons, like adding a city adjacent to an already bigger city (like adding Providence adjacent to Boston).

Well, let me just say that we have added not cities for the moment. All those violet wrote cities are not yet added, they just are the proposals I've heard of for the moment. I did put them all on the map for people to see them, but I do not expect to place even helf of them on the map.
Also, I'm more enclined to add cities to the NE because I think there are a lot more inhabitants in those areas, not that I expect any combat here (except if playing AiF). If I'm mistaken please tell me.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 3:52:21 PM)

quote:

But does it really matter if some parts of USA don't have full supply? I don't think we will see any US units there or any combat. Adding cities just for supply is not a good idea unless it's in a region where supply in vital and combat is expected. So I think we can live with Portland as just a port and not add any new cities. The game goes to Northern Michigan. Don't add any new cities there except Duluth and Grand Rapids. Add ports on the great lakes if some supply is truly needed. At least the ports can have a population smaller than 100k

Well, it does not matter for the moment, but I have 2 things in mind when making my review of the America map :
- Making it the same as the WiF FE maps in the effects (not necessarily be exactly the same in the form, but the same in the effects). The effects are for example : the difficulty to go from A to B, Supply, defensive postions in a given area, etc...
- Making it usable for when MWiF will be ready to play AiF with minimal changes.



wfzimmerman -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 3:56:28 PM)

questionable whether Northern Michigan should be suppliable. It's hard to imagine corps strength units operating efficiently in some parts of da UP. Same is true for large stretches of Canada.



sajbalk -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 5:33:38 PM)

I am inclined to agree with Mr. Borgerson's comments about the purple cities. One in Ohio, New York, and Michigan was my recommendation originally. His comments are more considered.

I would also second the motion to have Jacksonville be called the minor port.

Thanks again for all your work.




wfzimmerman -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 5:49:31 PM)

There should be a north-south railroad from Cincinnatti (through Dayton) (through Toledo) to Detroit.

If we look at this in terms of game play, it seems important to me to capture the fact that the US rail & road transportation was quite elaborate even by 1940.

Also if we look at this in terms of game play, if you imagine Axis troops reaching the East Coast, I am wondering if we are making the east coast a bit too difficult to conquer, with all those hero cities. if the game is going that well for the Axis, morale in US east coast cities would be pretty dismal...

No one has mentioned this, but it seems to me that the main beneficiary of all these improvements on the US map is going to be the AI, when playing against Axis players who have tweaked the CSV files to get themselves into a commanding position!



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 5:49:56 PM)

quote:

Borger Borgersen said :
Would you then put a port in the Jacksonville hex and not use the name Fernandina? That seems like a better idea than to use 2 names for the same hex. Jacksonville is well known, Fernandina not. You think 2 ports in this region is a good idea (BOTH Jacksonville AND Brunswick)? If you make Jacksonville a minor port then maybe this is good enough for the port capacity in this region. I don't know.


quote:

sajbalk said :
I would also second the motion to have Jacksonville be called the minor port.


There were 6 minor ports on the Carribean, on the WiF FE original maps : Key West, Jacksonville, Savannah, Charleston, Wilmington and New Bern.
As I have added Miami (minor port & city), and as Savannah is not a minor port on MWiF map (but was one on the WiF FE maps), I propose that Jacksonville be the city and minor port, and that Fernandina be deleted. Fernandina does not exist on the WiF FE maps anyway.



wfzimmerman -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 5:50:11 PM)

Jacksonville, definitely. Fernandino is insane.

I support Corpus Christi as a port.



Froonp -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 5:51:22 PM)

quote:

There should be a north-south railroad from Cincinnatti (through Dayton) (through Toledo) to Detroit.

Did you find a 1940 map of the USA ? I'm yet to find one.



sajbalk -> RE: MWiF Map Review - America (9/25/2006 6:50:52 PM)

here is a link to 1948 maps of the USA. I do not know the details of 1940-48 construction.

http://trains.rockycrater.org/pfmsig/atlas.php




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.140625