RE: Japan Map

RE: Japan Map (Full Version)

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

Message

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Japan Map (12/22/2006 10:03:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Incy Personally I'd like to se way more cities in Japan, there's only like 7 there now. As far as I know we haven't had a serious thread on new Japanese cities yet? More cities would helt the defence of Japan and nothing much else, which would be realistic. Also, the japanese factories should probably be spread out into more cities? As for adding cities and / or ports in Japan, why not, what do the others think about this ? As for spreading the Japanese factories, I prefer not to do this, as this would change the strategic bombardement "target" aspect of Japan, but, why not too ? What are the others' opinions ? As for the railways that SemperAugustus described in poset #58, I fully agree with him (after also looking yesterday at the 1944 Collier Atlas) that the railways are not very well depicted. I will make the changes as he describes, and also checking on the atlas. Also, do you think that the STRAITS hexsides between the southen Japanese home islands should also have railways that allow rail moves between islands ? I already added one between Fukuoka and Hiroshima, but was wondering for all others. Railroad corrections, definitely; even when they cross straits, probably. I am not so sure about revising the Japanese ports and cities from WIFFE. Tha addiitonal cities we added in the USSR and China were driven primarily by problems keeping units in supply, and to a lesser degree, providing the Chinese with some better defensive hexes. I do not see a comparable situation in Japan.

SemperAugustus -> RE: Japan Map (12/22/2006 11:20:28 AM)
How about the Maizuru port (i.e. port in the Kyoto hex on the Japan sea coast)? It was a major military port and naval yard in Japan (along with Sasebo, Yokozuka and Kure).

composer99 -> RE: Japan Map (12/22/2006 5:07:53 PM)
I don't have my WiF:FE maps on hand, but if memory serves, there is no invadable clear hex in Japan (at least not in the south) where there is not also a city. The US will have a great deal less trouble getting ashore in Japan with the new scale for this and for other reasons. I think that some added cities here and there will be necessary to help the Japanese defence (or at least hinder the Allied onslaught). They will not have any other impact on the game, after all. Finally, we have decided to add cities to help both the Chinese and Soviet defence in the expanded Asia-Pacific areas. Sauce for the gander, sauce for the goose. As for shifting factories around, my first thought would be not to do it, but then again, usually by the time the US gets air units in range to strat bomb Japan it usually doesn't need to do it (having mostly dealt with the Japanese convoys by then). Besides, spreading the factories around will make it harder for Japan to adequately cover them.

lomyrin -> RE: Japan Map (12/22/2006 5:50:53 PM)
In the context of not changing from the WiFFE game any more than absolutely necessary, the differences caused by the game scale in the Pacific areas do suggest some changes to maintain some sort of equilibrium with activity, invasion, and fighting problems in MWiF that are different from those in WiFFE. To that extent I would support a few additional cities in Japan. I would not like to see the Tokyo major port relocated even if it makes historical sense. Lars

sajbalk -> RE: Japan Map (12/22/2006 9:58:05 PM)
The only reason that Japan needs more cities is for its own defense against an earlier US invasion. There will not be enough land units to cover the coasts, as in WiFFE. Thus MWiF needs a few more cities both to ensure assault attacks (once the armored marines get in the game) and the extra notional (often increased via shore bomb. or ground support). As to moving factories -- sure, why not. The total will remain the same but we are now allwoing 4 hexes or so in place of the 1. The citires, however, are the bigger concern.

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 2:57:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus If you wanted to rearrange the map you could make the following changes: Add Yokohama (hex SW of Tokyo, port moved to Yokohama), Add Shizuoka (hex E of Nagoya) Move Osaka to hex SE of current position Add Kobe to current Osaka postion (port would remain in hex) Railroad is also a bit strange in places (arguably I think most of Japan would have rail). The main line to Sendai should probably be hex NW of Tokyo, next hex NW . You'll probably need to check your atlases for this... Looking at a 1920s map (it was a lot denser by 1930s): Railroad in Kyushu: from Kagoshima to Miyasaki Kagoshima to Fukuoka and Nagasaki (along the coast) Fukuoka to Oita (along the coast) (basically all hexes except for the green hex in SE part of Kyushu) Railroad in Shikoku Tokushima to hex NW of Tokushima Even in modern Japan the railroad doesn't look like the on on the map... Hokkaido Railroad from hex NE of Sapporo, SE hex , E hex, Nemuro From hex w of Nemuro (i.e. same hex as the other railroad) a railroad runs NW, NE Railroad Honshu (partial info don't have time for everything) Main line runs from Shimonoseki to Osaka (as on map) Second line runs from hex NW of Hiroshima to Niigata along the Japan sea coast Connections between these two - hex west of current Osaka to hex NW of Osaka Current Osaka to NW to same hex another one running in hexes NE of Nagoya all the way to hex SW of Niigata Following you advice, and looking at the Collier 1944 Atlas, I modified Japan as follow : - More rails (except in Shikoku, where there are less rails). - Osaka moved (still placed at the sea area boundaries intersections). - Kure added (city + major port). - Yokohama added (city + major port). For the rails, its true that there are a lot of rails in WWII Japan, and I'm even sure that there are not enough in the north of Honshu. For the added cities, I think that it is OK to add them because they help making these area "city dense" as they are in WiF FE, though not as city dense (in WiF FE, there is 1 city per hex on the southern shores of Honshu). For the added ports that go with those cities, I made them major ports, because it does not add feature to Japan. If you think they should be minor, please tell me. It looks like this (South part) [image]local://upfiles/10447/58B9CD3F23F44885B8C0FCCAE265D414.jpg[/image]

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 2:58:56 AM)
Northern Japan looks like this : Opinions ? [image]local://upfiles/10447/BD9E08878095467B836A301E5349488C.jpg[/image]

lomyrin -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 3:57:43 AM)
Looks good to me. Lars

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 4:45:31 AM)
I trust the forum readers more familiar with Japan geography than I, will review these changes closely. I have only 3 comments. 1 - the straits south of Yokohama doesn't make much sense. Should there be even more straits connections thereabouts? 2 - the rail line west of Kyoto should be lowered within the hex (position 6 or 18). 3 - the rail line SE of Nagasaki should be centered (poistion 25). You did mean Kobe instead of Kure, didn't you?

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 1:18:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I trust the forum readers more familiar with Japan geography than I, will review these changes closely. I have only 3 comments. 1 - the straits south of Yokohama doesn't make much sense. Should there be even more straits connections thereabouts? 2 - the rail line west of Kyoto should be lowered within the hex (position 6 or 18). 3 - the rail line SE of Nagasaki should be centered (poistion 25). You did mean Kobe instead of Kure, didn't you? For the straits, I think they make sense, given the modernized Japan and the high level of the transportatin system. For the ports I've added (Yokohama and Kobe), I'm tempted to make the Minor ports after all (from a game point of view, to give them less interest, especially to the allies), but I have no historical material to back this up. What are the opinions of the people who know Japan better than me ? I'm also tempted to make Kagoshima (mountain hex SE of Nagasaki) a minor port. Opinions ?

Peter Stauffenberg -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 2:19:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp [image]local://upfiles/10447/58B9CD3F23F44885B8C0FCCAE265D414.jpg[/image] Maybe it's possible to add the Japanese city of Kitakyushu. It's located in the clear hex east of Fukuoka. That gives the Japanese a better chance of defending this clear hex. Kitakyushu is a major city with a population today of more than 1 million inhabitants. I guess it's also an important port. I also support adding the minor port of Kagoshima in the mountain hex SE of Nagasaki. Kobe was one of the major Japanese industrial cities. Is it possible to move maybe 1 factory from Osaka (3 now) to Kobe? The same applies to Yokohama. Is it possible to move 1 factory from Tokyo to Yokohama? I don't think either of these changes go against the original WIFFE map. It showed Japan using the Asian map scale. Using the European map scale the WIFFE city of Tokyo is represented by both Yokohama and Tokyo. So it's only natural the factories are split into both hexes too. The same applies to Kobe / Osaka.

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 3:25:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen Maybe it's possible to add the Japanese city of Kitakyushu. It's located in the clear hex east of Fukuoka. That gives the Japanese a better chance of defending this clear hex. Kitakyushu is a major city with a population today of more than 1 million inhabitants. I guess it's also an important port. I also support adding the minor port of Kagoshima in the mountain hex SE of Nagasaki. Kobe was one of the major Japanese industrial cities. Is it possible to move maybe 1 factory from Osaka (3 now) to Kobe? The same applies to Yokohama. Is it possible to move 1 factory from Tokyo to Yokohama? I don't think either of these changes go against the original WIFFE map. It showed Japan using the Asian map scale. Using the European map scale the WIFFE city of Tokyo is represented by both Yokohama and Tokyo. So it's only natural the factories are split into both hexes too. The same applies to Kobe / Osaka. I'm reluctant to change the factories in Tokyo, because it is the capital of Japan. I added Kagoshima as a minor port, but no more cities. I already have added 2 (out of 8 originaly), I think this is already good. Those I added in the center of Japan are added because of the high density of cities there, and to higher the defensive capacity of this critic part of Japan. I'm reluctant to add more elswhere. I saw that the list of 100k+ population is larger than what is shown on this map, but maybe the ADG chose 200k for the Japanese cities, because Japanese cities were quite brittle at that time (mostly built of wood), but I may be wrong, this is just a personal thought. [image]local://upfiles/10447/4C95E99473004AA2827B5BC55686C017.jpg[/image]

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 3:27:40 PM)
I added some rails to the north of Honshu, and I think this is accurate now. [image]local://upfiles/10447/5281DB3255E445BFA7438C0C5AE0309A.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 6:52:26 PM)
I agree with Borger: (1) adding Kitakyushu and (2) moving a Tokyo factory to Yokohama. Comparing the WIF FE map to the current MWIF and considering the conquest of Japan, the placement of the factories is very important. Conquest requires capturing all the factory hexes in the home country. WIFFE - 7 factory hexes: 4 in forest, 2 in clear and 1 in mountain. - 6 of the factories are concentrated into one area where the Japanese player can use units defending one factory hex to counterattack an adjacent factory hex. - reinforcements can be placed in the 6 continuous factory/city hexes and defensive units rearranged to optimize strength levels in each hex. - there are no clear hexes to invade in Japan, except for the 2 city/factory hexes. Almost all non-city hexes are mountains, making invasion very difficult. MWIF - 8 factory hexes: 1 in forest, 4 in clear, and 3 in mountain (ground strikes are much easier). - 4 of the factory hexes are in a concentrated group, while 4 are isolated. Mutual support is drastically reduced. - redeploying units between reinforcement arrival locations (i.e., cities) and factory hexes is much harder. An invader has several places where he can split the defenders and take them out piecemeal. - 7 new clear terrain hexes to invade, 6 of these are adjacent to factory hexes. So, while the individual factory hexes have become harder to take (more mountains) the places to start the invasion are numerous. I don't see how Japan can cover all the invasion hexes with units (they use to be able to do that with 7 units). The increased opportunity for succesful ground strikes and the inability of the defender to rearrange units between factory hexes is of tremendous help to the invader. Adding a city and splitting a factory off from Tokyo will make the invader's task a little harder. Purely from a gaming point of view, adding a city to the clear hex east of Hiroshima looks reasonable. These proposed changes still leave the invader with a better position to start an invasion, but adds somewhat to his task once he gets ashore.

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 7:18:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I agree with Borger: (1) adding Kitakyushu and (2) moving a Tokyo factory to Yokohama. (1) I don't know where SemperAugustus got his figures for Japanese cities in 1935 & 1940, but Wikipedia says that "The city of Kitakyushu was founded on February 10, 1963 and was designated on April 1, 1963 by government ordinance. It resulted from the amalgamation of five cities, Moji, Kokura, Tobata, Yahata and Wakamatsu, centred around the ancient feudal city of Kokura." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitakyushu) So I prefer moving Fukuoka (300k in 1944) in the clear hex (which is its right position anyway), making that clear hex forest (which is warranted by the land cover I believe), move the sea boundary so that Fukuoka sayst the only one on 2 sea area, and put Sasebo (133k in 1944) a new city plus minor port where Fukuoka was. (2) OK for that.

Peter Stauffenberg -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 7:27:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Adding a city and splitting a factory off from Tokyo will make the invader's task a little harder. Purely from a gaming point of view, adding a city to the clear hex east of Hiroshima looks reasonable. Kitakyushu is in the clear hex 1 hex east of Fukuoka (not Hiroshima). Look at this link for the city sizes of Japan from 1890 till today: http://www.demographia.com/db-jp-city1940.htm Take a special look of the text for Kitakyushu. It says: Kitakyusha is the result of a 1963 consolidation of Kokura, Moji, Tobata, Wakamatsu and Yawata. So maybe we can use the city name of Kokura for the MWIF map. Kokura was actually one of the first 2 cities destined to be nuked by the Americans. Kokura was on the list instead of Nagasaki. But because the weather was overcast there the airplane moved to Nagasaki instead. Look here for the details about Kokura: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokura Info about Kitakyushu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitaky%C5%ABsh%C5%AB

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 8:49:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I agree with Borger: (1) adding Kitakyushu and (2) moving a Tokyo factory to Yokohama. (1) I don't know where SemperAugustus got his figures for Japanese cities in 1935 & 1940, but Wikipedia says that "The city of Kitakyushu was founded on February 10, 1963 and was designated on April 1, 1963 by government ordinance. It resulted from the amalgamation of five cities, Moji, Kokura, Tobata, Yahata and Wakamatsu, centred around the ancient feudal city of Kokura." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitakyushu) So I prefer moving Fukuoka (300k in 1944) in the clear hex (which is its right position anyway), making that clear hex forest (which is warranted by the land cover I believe), move the sea boundary so that Fukuoka sayst the only one on 2 sea area, and put Sasebo (133k in 1944) a new city plus minor port where Fukuoka was. (2) OK for that. Borger Borgersen said : quote: Take a special look of the text for Kitakyushu. It says: Kitakyusha is the result of a 1963 consolidation of Kokura, Moji, Tobata, Wakamatsu and Yawata. So maybe we can use the city name of Kokura for the MWIF map. Kokura was actually one of the first 2 cities destined to be nuked by the Americans. Kokura was on the list instead of Nagasaki. But because the weather was overcast there the airplane moved to Nagasaki instead. Look here for the details about Kokura: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokura Kokura population in 1944 was 88k. So I prefer having Fukuoka as the city of this hex. This is how it looks now : [image]local://upfiles/10447/539054368E9A41B6943C04DFFE89B58B.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 9:27:57 PM)
Ok. How about placing Kagoshima in position 5 (17) instead of 6 (18)?

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 9:40:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Ok. How about placing Kagoshima in position 5 (17) instead of 6 (18)? Normaly, its real position would be between this and the hex to the SE. Position 18 is already off. Position 5 or 17 would have the railway avoid the sea, but the port would not be in the right position. In fact, there is something that you could add to the map possibilities : The ability to make the rail pass through another place than the city or port that is in the hex. It would be usefull in this hex, in Messina (Sicily), Brest (France) and many other places where the port symbol is not at the right place, for the sake of having the rail not beeing at sea.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Japan Map (12/23/2006 10:50:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Ok. How about placing Kagoshima in position 5 (17) instead of 6 (18)? Normaly, its real position would be between this and the hex to the SE. Position 18 is already off. Position 5 or 17 would have the railway avoid the sea, but the port would not be in the right position. In fact, there is something that you could add to the map possibilities : The ability to make the rail pass through another place than the city or port that is in the hex. It would be usefull in this hex, in Messina (Sicily), Brest (France) and many other places where the port symbol is not at the right place, for the sake of having the rail not beeing at sea. Having the port symbol (or the city symbol) not realistically positioned in a hex is of less concern to me than having the rail lines avoid the water. We often place the port symbol so a sea area boundary points directly to the port, regardless of what is 'realistic'. Also, when a city is a port, only one of the symbols is 'correctly' placed. As for providing even finer control over where the rail lines run within a hex, the pain exceeds the gain.

Incy -> RE: Japan Map (12/24/2006 6:06:48 PM)
Japan is certainly starting to look a lot better! Just having more stuff on the map (and more stuff to fight over) adds to the game, in my opinion! If there's anything to add, it must be that maybe the Tokyo area is still to light. Looking at google earth, it seems to me modern Japan would deserve cities E, NW, and probably also SE and NE of Tokyo. Some of these sure looks like fairly old city structures independent from Tokyo (but it's hard to tell, they might just be modern suburbs..). A city SE of Tokyo would certanly help shore up the defence of Tokyo a lot, and would facilitate a defence of Japan based on giving up everything northeast of Tokyo. I think there should probably also be added a factory to Tokyo. In WiFFE each hex was limited to 3 factories, but in real life I think the Tokyo and surrounding area must have been more important that that. Certainly another city (Hiroshima??) should give up a factory to be relocated to Tokyo. Other changes could be: -clear hex E of Osaka: Could this be made forest (or even mountain?) -Steve mentioned the area east of Hiroshima. According to this map: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/japan_ind_1971.jpg I think a city (or two along the coast) east of Hiroshima would certainly be warranted. -Should Niigata be made a city as well as a minor port? -should a city (Shizuoka) be added W or SW of Yohohama?

SemperAugustus -> RE: Japan Map (12/27/2006 3:51:16 AM)
Sorry about repeating this a few times, but is there a problem with putting in Maizuru (one of the four major military docks and ports)? Basically it means putting in a port in Kyoto...

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/27/2006 7:56:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus Sorry about repeating this a few times, but is there a problem with putting in Maizuru (one of the four major military docks and ports)? Basically it means putting in a port in Kyoto... Not a problem, but my own opinion is that it goes against the general line we followed when adding ports / cities to the map. They were added, either to keep a city dense feature that the WiF FE maps had (in the Tokyo-Osaka area or the Shanghai area for instance, or the US East Coast), or to keep an "in supply" feature that the WiF FE maps had (with the minor port of Eureka on US West Coast, or Pakhoi in Southern China). Both features could be lost with the "magnifying out" of the map to the European Scale, and adding significant cities or port can be done. This "magnifying out effect" makes hexes where 1 city or 1 port was displayed, to have now more than that, and this makes sense. Fuchow in China for example, now has became 4 minor ports with the "magnifying out" effect. Tokyo city hex became 2 cities, as Fukuoka and Osaka, etc... Nagasaki minor port hex was "magnifying out" and became 2 minor ports hexes. In the case of Kyoto, if the original ADG designers thought that a minor port was warranted in this hex to represent Maizuru, they would have put it on the WiF FE map. This port not being present, leads me to think that it may not have been warranted for a WWII map. This game being a portage of a paper game to a computer game, the original paper game has to be followed on closely, so I think we should not go on modifying the map too heavily, except as described above : to keep a feature that existed but got lost with the "magnified out" effect.

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/27/2006 1:17:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Incy Japan is certainly starting to look a lot better! Just having more stuff on the map (and more stuff to fight over) adds to the game, in my opinion! If there's anything to add, it must be that maybe the Tokyo area is still to light. Looking at google earth, it seems to me modern Japan would deserve cities E, NW, and probably also SE and NE of Tokyo. Some of these sure looks like fairly old city structures independent from Tokyo (but it's hard to tell, they might just be modern suburbs..). A city SE of Tokyo would certanly help shore up the defence of Tokyo a lot, and would facilitate a defence of Japan based on giving up everything northeast of Tokyo. I would put nothing East of Tokyo. Remember also when looking at modern day Japan that it changed a lot from 39-45 Japan. Maybe more than any other country. quote: I think there should probably also be added a factory to Tokyo. In WiFFE each hex was limited to 3 factories, but in real life I think the Tokyo and surrounding area must have been more important that that. Certainly another city (Hiroshima??) should give up a factory to be relocated to Tokyo. Well, I'm not very much inclined into doing this. Moving factories from their original WiF FE location, except by "exploding" the cities that were gathered into an unique city, btween this and a new city, seems a too big change from the paper game to me. quote: Other changes could be: -clear hex E of Osaka: Could this be made forest (or even mountain?) Japan is said to be covered by 70% forest, and 70% mountains, so it would make sense, but is this the real reality of this hex ? Opinions ? quote: -Steve mentioned the area east of Hiroshima. According to this map: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/japan_ind_1971.jpg I think a city (or two along the coast) east of Hiroshima would certainly be warranted. Why not a city E of Hiroshima, part of the "magnifying out" effect. Moreover, this would help defend this clear hex. But, this said, if you look at this place closely, you see that this is not a place threatened by invasion from the southern sea area. It is only adjacent to the Sea of Japan sea area (the one between Japan & Russia). If the allies are strong enough to mount an invasion in this sea area, I think that the game is quite over, and ciy or not city east of Hiroshima, Japan is ultimately dead now. quote: -Should Niigata be made a city as well as a minor port? Too strong departure from WiF FE for me. quote: -should a city (Shizuoka) be added W or SW of Yohohama? Opinions from others ?

po8crg -> RE: Japan Map (12/27/2006 2:55:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp For the ports I've added (Yokohama and Kobe), I'm tempted to make the Minor ports after all (from a game point of view, to give them less interest, especially to the allies), but I have no historical material to back this up. What are the opinions of the people who know Japan better than me ? You'd be better off making Tokyo a minor port and Yokohama the major port. Yokohama was the principal home port of the Imperial Japanese Navy throughout WWII. If anything, the seazone boundary should be tweaked to put Yokohama on the boundary, thereby giving an incentive to the Japanese player to put his fleet there.

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/27/2006 4:14:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: po8crg quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp For the ports I've added (Yokohama and Kobe), I'm tempted to make the Minor ports after all (from a game point of view, to give them less interest, especially to the allies), but I have no historical material to back this up. What are the opinions of the people who know Japan better than me ? You'd be better off making Tokyo a minor port and Yokohama the major port. Yokohama was the principal home port of the Imperial Japanese Navy throughout WWII. If anything, the seazone boundary should be tweaked to put Yokohama on the boundary, thereby giving an incentive to the Japanese player to put his fleet there. While I'd agree for the historical justifications, I would not take that decision myself. Having Tokyo a major port sitting on a Sea area boundary is a famous feature of WiF FE, and I would not change that for MWiF, even if it is warranted by having Yokohama integrated into the Tokyo hex on the Pacific Scaled map of WiF FE.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Japan Map (12/27/2006 7:02:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: po8crg quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp For the ports I've added (Yokohama and Kobe), I'm tempted to make the Minor ports after all (from a game point of view, to give them less interest, especially to the allies), but I have no historical material to back this up. What are the opinions of the people who know Japan better than me ? You'd be better off making Tokyo a minor port and Yokohama the major port. Yokohama was the principal home port of the Imperial Japanese Navy throughout WWII. If anything, the seazone boundary should be tweaked to put Yokohama on the boundary, thereby giving an incentive to the Japanese player to put his fleet there. One of the difficulties we have run into previously is that ports in WIF represent 2 types of ports: military and commercial. There are stacking limits on naval combat units for minor ports and none for major ports which makes a big difference for naval combat missions. There are also differences between major and minor ports concerning the ability to store oil and stack convoy units. All of which is to say that while historically a hex might have been important for combat vessels, if it did not have a large commercial (i.e., merchant marine) capacity, then deciding on a major versus minor designation is not easy. And could be argued late into the night.

trees -> RE: Japan Map (12/28/2006 4:23:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets And could be argued late into the night. you guys were starting to freak me out until finally the posts stopped after the 23rd. thanks for the hard work!

SemperAugustus -> RE: Japan Map (12/28/2006 5:40:20 PM)
Railroads in N. Honshu I can't comment on the railroad to Ominato, there is one there now, not sure about 1940s. No railroad in 1922 though. Based in 1922 info starting from north (changes only) There should be a railroad between hex NW of Sendai and hex east of the hex (Railroad between Sakata and Ishinomaki) There should be a railroad running from the hex SW of Sendai to hex west of Sendai, to hex NW. (connecting to railroad running between Sakata and Ishinomaki IRL this is the railroad running from Shinjo to Fukushima via Yamagata and Yonezawa) There should also be railroad running from Niigata to the coast two hex NE of Tokyo There was no railroad connecting Niigata to hex NE (i.e. there should be a gap) There should also be a railroad from hex E of Tokyo to hex NE of Tokyo to hex NW of Tokyo There should be a railroad from Tokyo running down the peninsular SE of Tokyo all the way to the tip

Froonp -> RE: Japan Map (12/28/2006 10:54:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus Railroads in N. Honshu I can't comment on the railroad to Ominato, there is one there now, not sure about 1940s. No railroad in 1922 though. Based in 1922 info starting from north (changes only) There should be a railroad between hex NW of Sendai and hex east of the hex (Railroad between Sakata and Ishinomaki) There should be a railroad running from the hex SW of Sendai to hex west of Sendai, to hex NW. (connecting to railroad running between Sakata and Ishinomaki IRL this is the railroad running from Shinjo to Fukushima via Yamagata and Yonezawa) There should also be railroad running from Niigata to the coast two hex NE of Tokyo There was no railroad connecting Niigata to hex NE (i.e. there should be a gap) There should also be a railroad from hex E of Tokyo to hex NE of Tokyo to hex NW of Tokyo There should be a railroad from Tokyo running down the peninsular SE of Tokyo all the way to the tip Thanks for the comment. I'll see what I can get from that, as well as my 1940 Atlas, and also the 1935 one that I should receive soon.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.03125