RE: Resource Types

RE: Resource Types (Full Version)

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

Message

Norman42 -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 1:54:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Current list of to be determined resources Indianapolis USA Little Rock USA Louisville USA Phoenix USA Clear 90,113 India Forest 90,106 India Mountain 95,110 India Warangal 97,107 India Clear 86,288 Mexico Clear 49,33 Netherlands Clear 65,299 USA Clear 64,296 USA Clear 69,293 USA Clear 54,273 USA Mountain 74,271 USA Forest 71,307 USA Mountain 65,310 USA Clear 68,306 USA Forest 72,306 USA Forest 58,283 USA Mountain 68,284 USA Mountain 66,278 USA Mountain 67,269 USA Clear 55,296 USA Clear 71,299 USA Mountain 74,304 USA Clear 51,64 USSR Clear 43,62 USSR Forest 63,72 USSR Forest 39,88 USSR Forest 42,87 USSR Biisk USSR Kokand USSR Clear 155,53 South Africa (see post #57) Clear 148,56 South Africa (see post #57) Forest 52,298 Timber ? (See post #60) Couple tough ones. 1West of Monterrey MEXICO = ? I see many resource regions in Mexico, however this area seems to have nothing but minor farming. Nothing even relatively close. Closest main resource area I can see is the Leon Silver Mines 3 hexes NW of Mexico City, or the Chihuahua mining complex to the west int the Chihuahua hex. 1East of Amsterdam NETHERLANDS = ? Again, there is no significant resource in this area. It is primarily mixed grain farmland and dairy. The closest resource of any kind here are the minor Salt Mines at Enschede in the south portion of this hex. The only real significant resources in the Netherlands seems to be the farming and dairy types, of which it is indeed quite significant(31% of western european dairy products in 1938). Will take a shot at some of the USA ones, though I'm no expert there: Indianapolis = Tough one as nothing really stands out in the area aside from Livestock(extensive). Perhaps Coal, there are some fields SW of the city Little Rock = Bauxite. Large deposites in...Bauxite, Arkansas! Louisville = Again, nothing really stands out here. Tobacco seems to be the primary product of the area. Lucky Strikes for the Boys 'Over There'? [:D] . Coalfields seem to be the main resource in Kentucky so probably go with that. Phoenix = Copper. Three major Copper producing areas surround Pheonix to S, W and E. .

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 1:55:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Norman42 quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Well, look at the attached picture. It shows the original WiF FE map, and the out of supply hexes are darkened. You see that there is a large piece of Ontario that is out of supply north of Lake Superior. Adding Sudbury for example was done to obtain the supply status that the original maps have thanks to Toronto and Ottawa. With the new scale, all the area north of Lake Huron would be out of supply. Nearly all the additional cities that were added to China / USA / USSR were added to restore the supply state of the original map, with credible means. Adding Sudbury is credible. Adding Fort Williams / Port Arthur would be credible too, in regards to the population number and supply hub nature of the area during WWII, but it would put in supply a huge part of the territory that should be out of supply normaly. So, what to do ? I prefer to keep the changes to a minimum, and CWiF originaly did not have a city here, so I prefer not to add one. It just seems odd to me to leave a key area of Canada the size of Spain out of supply, when in reality it had extensive commercial and military traffic, multiple cities, many lake ports that had large volumes of traffic, shipyards that built frigates and corvettes (Port Arthur Shipbuilding Co.), many main railway lines and excellent highways and airports, and as well, a fairly high population and industrial output compared to some other areas in the world that are "in supply" (looking at China and Russia and many South American areas here). Changes have been made on the map to represent the "reality on the ground", especially the Americas map due to scale changes and input that showed rectifications were needed. This seems like a definite candidate for a correction to the reality as it was. Its not really a significant war operations area, so the issue isnt a large one, but if you do want accuracy on the maps, it should be looked at. If the sanctity of keeping the WiFFE edition maps the same is more important then so be it. I have sympathy to what Norman42 says, and if it was only me, I'd add a city here. It really looks like a place that could be made more realistic, especially as Norman42 says, as this is not a significant war operation area. Opinions from other people, or from people knowing Canada ? I liked Norman's reasoning and vote to make it a city.

Froonp -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 2:02:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Norman42 1West of Monterrey MEXICO = ? I see many resource regions in Mexico, however this area seems to have nothing but minor farming. Nothing even relatively close. Closest main resource area I can see is the Leon Silver Mines 3 hexes NW of Mexico City, or the Chihuahua mining complex to the west int the Chihuahua hex. West of Monterrey, this is Coahuila State, and the Wikipedia page about Coahuila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coahuila) says "About 95% of Mexico's coal reserves are found in Coahuila, which is the country's top mining state". So I suppose that the resource is Coal. quote: 1East of Amsterdam NETHERLANDS = ? Again, there is no significant resource in this area. It is primarily mixed grain farmland and dairy. The closest resource of any kind here are the minor Salt Mines at Enschede in the south portion of this hex. The only real significant resources in the Netherlands seems to be the farming and dairy types, of which it is indeed quite significant(31% of western european dairy products in 1938). I found gas on a 1970 "Basic Resources and Processing" map from the Netherlands. But I don't know if it was existing in the 40s. Maybe Marcus can find more informations ?

Norman42 -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 2:10:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp West of Monterrey, this is Coahuila State, and the Wikipedia page about Coahuila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coahuila) says "About 95% of Mexico's coal reserves are found in Coahuila, which is the country's top mining state". So I suppose that the resource is Coal. Thats a definate possiblility, though the resourse should probably be moved a bit north if it matters. The coalfields seem to be 2hexes NW of Monterrey, although they dont look very extensive, they are Mexico's only significant Coal mines. Note: I edited in a few USA resources above on the post #91

marcuswatney -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 3:00:26 AM)
I've not yet responded to your Post 57, about the South African resources. My thoughts are these: 1. Not coal! Coal is the least important resource in this game, given its profusion all over the map. And the UK sits on a massive bed of coal, yet in the game the UK is awarded only two resource centres (half Spain's alocation!). So clearly, coal is factored into the game, at least so far as besieged Britain is concerned. Or looked at another way, it would be idiotic to use convoys to bring South African coal to Britain when the UK is full of the stuff already. 2. The resource hex is presently located at the point the Orange River turns from westward flow to northwestwards (its source being to the right, mouth to the left). Your resource map (Post 57) shows that there is absolutely nothing at that point, the minor coalfield being to the east. 3. Since there is nothing at all at the resource hex's location, clearly it is in the wrong place. Therefore we may correct the error by moving it. South Africa is world-famous for its gold and diamonds. Therefore if we don't allocate each of these to the two resources we will look complete idiots. So shift the southern resource to Kimberley 1W1NW of Bloomfontein = diamonds, and the northern resource to 1SW Pretoria = gold. 4. CWiF will no doubt be discontinued as soon as MWiF is published, so we shouldn't worry about it but have our eyes set firmly on the future. The important thing is to get resource locations right (because this is our last chance), not reinforce errors just because that's the way some people have got used to playing the map. And here's something interesting. Remember the debate about the odd Chinese resource near Suchow which is now to become phosphates at the coast? Well, today I fished my copy of WiF out from under the roof-space. It turns out to be the first-edition game with second-edition rules, issued in 1985. And in that, the original location of that strange Chinese resource ... is between Nanking and Wuhan! I always said that the major iron-ore mines at Tayeh should appear in any game on China, and it appears that was Harry's and Greg's intention all along. How it came to wend its way northeast over the years is a question I would love to have answered.

marcuswatney -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 3:38:54 AM)
The Netherlands: The problem with identifying the type of resource in the Netherlands is that traditionally the Dutch have always been processors rather than producers. Thus my atlas reveals that in 1959 the Netherlands produced 2% of all the shoes and boots in the world, and 1% of all the world's newsprint. But looking at the statistics for the Netherlands at the end of the atlas, it is clear that pre-war the major Dutch resource was exactly what it is today: food. Pre-war it produced 2% of the world's potatoes. In the period 1953-55 it produced 3% of the world's milk and had the highest milk yield in the world (3.89 tonnes per cow p.a.). It exported 10% of the world's butter and 23% of the world's cheese. Given the starvation Germany faced in both World Wars, I think we may fairly class the strategic resources that comes from the Netherlands as simply Food.

brian brian -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 4:23:41 AM)
rant deleted

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 4:45:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian rant deleted Given some of the comments/concern about clutter, I decided I would only show the small font items , like resource types, at zoom levels 6, 7 & 8 (not at 1 - 5).

brian brian -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 5:23:36 AM)
I just hope you aren't using much time on this. Let Marcus write it up as an appendix on the CD and keep on truckin'. Every WiF player knows the Swedish resources are Iron Ore and Ploesti and the NEI have the oil. Beyond that, who has really cared?

Froonp -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 11:00:14 AM)
quote: 3. Since there is nothing at all at the resource hex's location, clearly it is in the wrong place. Therefore we may correct the error by moving it. South Africa is world-famous for its gold and diamonds. Therefore if we don't allocate each of these to the two resources we will look complete idiots. So shift the southern resource to Kimberley 1W1NW of Bloomfontein = diamonds, and the northern resource to 1SW Pretoria = gold. I agree with all that, so I moved both resources. The second one I was moved to Pretoria (where it is on the WiF maps).

Froonp -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 11:16:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Given some of the comments/concern about clutter, I decided I would only show the small font items , like resource types, at zoom levels 6, 7 & 8 (not at 1 - 5). Originaly I intended to have the type of resource written in size 6 (unledgible at zoom 1 & 2), but I think that I'll have them written in size 4 or smaller so that they are ledgible at the zooms at which they appear (6-8), but still very small. I would like these to be very very small so as to limit the clutter.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 11:20:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian I just hope you aren't using much time on this. Let Marcus write it up as an appendix on the CD and keep on truckin'. Every WiF player knows the Swedish resources are Iron Ore and Ploesti and the NEI have the oil. Beyond that, who has really cared? Patrice is doing all the changes to the data. I wrote 3 lines of code, which took 5 minutes.

marcuswatney -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 2:56:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian I just hope you aren't using much time on this. Let Marcus write it up as an appendix on the CD and keep on truckin'. Every WiF player knows the Swedish resources are Iron Ore and Ploesti and the NEI have the oil. Beyond that, who has really cared? It has to make commercial sense to make the game attractive to as wide a constituency as possible. Some people play wargames for pure entertainment but quite a few others read military histories as a hobby and see wargames as a way of learning more about that history. One of the strange things about WiF is that it is simultaneously both brilliant and dreadful. The impulse system, the unknown length of a turn, the use of HQs, the sea boxes, the highly detailed air and naval units with their multitude of varieties ... these are all stunning and, in their time, highly innovative. But the game is flawed by the unimportance of any island not on a front boundary, and by its extremely poor (non-existent, I would say) economic model. Correct me if I am wrong, because I may have missed a module in the intervening years, but am I not right that in WiF there isn't even a growth mechanic? Third Reich, published in 1974, eleven years before WiF, had a very basic growth mechanism that rewarded Germany for delaying total war by increasing its base income by 50% of build points available but not spent at the end of any particular year. Guns or butter? The decision was there for players to take. But in WiF what incentive is there not to spend, spend, spend? I played WiF a great deal in the early nineties but gave up in frustration at the difference between the wonderfully detailed playing pieces and the woefully inadequate terrain and economics. This failure was summed up in a recent post by a player who commented that he never bothered with a MacArthur drive through the Southwest Pacific because he couldn't see a point to it when Nimitz could just steam-roller through the Central Pacific. Precisely. But put in a rule for US Army-Navy rivalry similar to IJA-IJN rivalry and a true picture of what was really going on in Washington begins to emerge. MacArthur saw himself as a future presidential candidate and he had many friends where it mattered. So my gentle effort to encourage players to begin thinking about the running of a war economy I suppose does have a hidden agenda: what I would dearly like to see is Economies-in-Flames!

brian brian -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 5:06:47 PM)
good points Marcus. It was I who pointed out that WiF lets you pick a one or two prong drive through the Pacific (or none: India > Malay Barrier > heart of Japanese economy), and I will never play with the Japanese Command Conflict option because of the lack of matching ones for the Western Allies, who had similar problems in certain areas. WiF does have some built in economic growth now as each country's production multiple goes up steadily throughout the game, but there are little to no player decisions affecting that. And there aren't a lot of competitors out there for a game of WiF's scope; the ones I know about make WiF's economics look fairly detailed. Didn't Victory Game's take on the Pacific struggle include a fixed reinforcement schedule throughout the whole game? What other game allows the players to design their armed forces as they go? Moving beyond generic 'other' resources and oil resources makes for interesting reading, but I I for one don't care if a resource is labelled on an already busy map. And the paper game is just about to update and improve the unit production process as soon as the next Annual comes out any ole year now.

warspite1 -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 5:43:14 PM)
Surely we are not looking at introducing "economies-in-flames"? With the likely game launch already put back to the end of 2008, do we really want to be exploring further new concepts before getting the game launched? One of the great things about WIF is the constant new product that has come onto the market - Ships in Flames, Planes in Flames, Politics in Flames et al. Players could then incorporate these or not as they chose. However the point is that there was a tried and tested game on the market to add to. Sorry if I have the wrong end of the stick, but if not PLEASE can we stick to producing in computer format (as far as possible) a faithful reproduction of WIF - which I thought was the goal. Things like tinkering - or even radically overhauling - the economic rules can surely follow once the game is out. For what its worth I love all aspects of WWII history - military, economic, political - and would welcome looking at some of these concepts in due course - but please can we have the initial game out first?

marcuswatney -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 6:52:37 PM)
I wasn't suggesting Economies-in-Flames for MWiF ... I was just merely musing about the possible future direction of the system in Harry's earshot.

marcuswatney -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 7:30:42 PM)
India: 1SE Patna iron 2% near Mahanad iron near 'India' manganese 21% (this one better placed 2S) 2NE Hyderabad: can't find anything here - choices are: 2SW Hyderabad more manganese (at Sandur) 1NW Madras Mica 28% (at Nellore) 1SE Calicut rubber (at Travancore) 2W Madras gold (Kolar, just east of Bangalore) The mica and rubber being on the coast makes their capture too easy for the Japanese, so I would recommend more manganese, as gold production is <2%.

marcuswatney -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 8:07:24 PM)
Cyprus: chromium <2% (in Troodos Mountains) or copper <1% (at Lefka). Recommend chromium as it is definitely in the mountains. Czechoslovakia: 1W Prague iron <1% I reckon that leaves only Canada, USA and Mexico remaining (which I will leave to others to determine) plus some of USSR.

marcuswatney -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 8:25:10 PM)
Bulgaria: Lead or zinc? I recommend lead, as it is used in batteries and ammunition.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 9:38:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Surely we are not looking at introducing "economies-in-flames"? With the likely game launch already put back to the end of 2008, do we really want to be exploring further new concepts before getting the game launched? One of the great things about WIF is the constant new product that has come onto the market - Ships in Flames, Planes in Flames, Politics in Flames et al. Players could then incorporate these or not as they chose. However the point is that there was a tried and tested game on the market to add to. Sorry if I have the wrong end of the stick, but if not PLEASE can we stick to producing in computer format (as far as possible) a faithful reproduction of WIF - which I thought was the goal. Things like tinkering - or even radically overhauling - the economic rules can surely follow once the game is out. For what its worth I love all aspects of WWII history - military, economic, political - and would welcome looking at some of these concepts in due course - but please can we have the initial game out first? Additions or changes to my task list are generally greeted with a flame thrower.[sm=sterb032.gif]

Froonp -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 9:38:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marcuswatney Cyprus: chromium <2% (in Troodos Mountains) or copper <1% (at Lefka). Recommend chromium as it is definitely in the mountains. I had written Copper, because I saw that there was more Cu than Ch on the map. I changed to Chromium. quote: Czechoslovakia: 1W Prague iron <1% I had written Coal, but there is also Iron. quote: I reckon that leaves only Canada, USA and Mexico remaining (which I will leave to others to determine) plus some of USSR. Canada is done, and Mexico too.

Froonp -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 9:40:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marcuswatney I wasn't suggesting Economies-in-Flames for MWiF ... I was just merely musing about the possible future direction of the system in Harry's earshot. The latest Annual, the 2008 one that is about to be released, contain a new free kit called Production in Flames. It has nothing to do with gicing names to resources, but it refines the production rules of WiF FE.

Froonp -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 9:40:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marcuswatney Bulgaria: Lead or zinc? I recommend lead, as it is used in batteries and ammunition. I had written Lead/Zinc. I left Lead only.

Froonp -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 9:47:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marcuswatney India:� 1SE Patna iron 2% near Mahanad iron near 'India' manganese 21% (this one better placed 2S) 2NE Hyderabad: can't find anything here - choices are: 2SW Hyderabad more manganese (at Sandur) 1NW Madras Mica 28% (at Nellore) 1SE Calicut rubber (at Travancore) 2W Madras gold (Kolar, just east of Bangalore) The mica and rubber being on the coast makes their capture too easy for the Japanese, so I would recommend more manganese, as gold production is <2%. The resources are not where you indicate. They are here : [image]local://upfiles/10447/91F5EE81989F4C358AF5387C8F724617.jpg[/image]

warspite1 -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 9:58:07 PM)
The latest Annual, the 2008 one that is about to be released, contain a new free kit called Production in Flames. It has nothing to do with gicing names to resources, but it refines the production rules of WiF FE. Does anyone have any idea when the 2008 annual is due on sale?

Froonp -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 10:06:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marcuswatney India:� 1SE Patna iron 2% near Mahanad iron near 'India' manganese 21% (this one better placed 2S) 2NE Hyderabad: can't find anything here - choices are: 2SW Hyderabad more manganese (at Sandur) 1NW Madras Mica 28% (at Nellore) 1SE Calicut rubber (at Travancore) 2W Madras gold (Kolar, just east of Bangalore) The mica and rubber being on the coast makes their capture too easy for the Japanese, so I would recommend more manganese, as gold production is <2%. OK, I re read and better understood your post. I found coal in Yellandu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellandu) just 2 hex east of Hyderabad, which leaves the RP near the place where WiF FE has it.

Froonp -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 10:08:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: The latest Annual, the 2008 one that is about to be released, contain a new free kit called Production in Flames. It has nothing to do with gicing names to resources, but it refines the production rules of WiF FE. Does anyone have any idea when the 2008 annual is due on sale? Soon. Is that OK ? [;)]

Froonp -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 10:13:07 PM)
Deleted because redone below, better.

Froonp -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 10:46:02 PM)
Here are the resources not yet identified (with directions as to where they are). Clear 65,299 USA (2 hexes SW of Chicago) Clear 64,296 USA (W Des Moines) Clear 69,293 USA (SW Kansas City) Clear 54,273 USA (E Spokane) Mountain 74,271 USA (NW Los Angeles) Forest 71,307 USA (NW Knoxville) Mountain 65,310 USA (W Pittsburg) Clear 68,306 USA (SW Colombus, Ohio) Forest 72,306 USA (E Knoxville) Forest 58,283 USA (Billings) Mountain 68,284 USA (2 hex SW Denver) Mountain 66,278 USA (E Salt Lake City) Mountain 67,269 USA (W Reno, Sierra Nevada) Clear 55,296 USA (NW Duluth) Clear 71,299 USA (SE Saint Louis) Mountain 74,304 USA (NE Birmingham, SW Chattanooga) Clear 51,64 USSR (SE Voronezh) Clear 43,62 USSR (E Moscow) Forest 63,72 USSR (SE Tiflis) Forest 39,88 USSR (W Sverdlovsk) Kokand USSR (3 hex SE Tashkent) Forest 42,87 USSR (2 hex NE Ufa, Urals)

warspite1 -> RE: Resource Types (2/10/2008 10:51:26 PM)
The latest Annual, the 2008 one that is about to be released, contain a new free kit called Production in Flames. It has nothing to do with gicing names to resources, but it refines the production rules of WiF FE. Does anyone have any idea when the 2008 annual is due on sale? Soon. Is that OK ? Sounds good to me! - thank you [:)]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.671875