quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is my example :

By RAW, Istanbul is not invadable from the East Med (it has no all sea hexside that touches the East Med).
By the MWiF logic, it is (It has an all sea hexside, and the hex is adjacent to the East Med).

[image]local://upfiles/10447/5B4F4E47275943A0BD769BA0D90EB08F.jpg[/image]

Yes.

But in my opinion RAW is very strange here.

It says Istanbul is a port on the East Med but not invadable from the East Med. I can understand when London can not be invaded because the long estuary enables the defenders to stop an invasion fleet far from the hex that London occupies. That doesn't appear to be the case with Istanbul.

I guess my main question is "What is being simulated here by placing the sea area boundary so carefully?" Assuming that this was done intentionally, is it worth the effort to duplicate in MWIF?

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is my example :

By RAW, Istanbul is not invadable from the East Med (it has no all sea hexside that touches the East Med).
By the MWiF logic, it is (It has an all sea hexside, and the hex is adjacent to the East Med).

[image]local://upfiles/10447/5B4F4E47275943A0BD769BA0D90EB08F.jpg[/image]

Yes.

But in my opinion RAW is very strange here.

It says Istanbul is a port on the East Med but not invadable from the East Med. I can understand when London can not be invaded because the long estuary enables the defenders to stop an invasion fleet far from the hex that London occupies. That doesn't appear to be the case with Istanbul.

I guess my main question is "What is being simulated here by placing the sea area boundary so carefully?" Assuming that this was done intentionally, is it worth the effort to duplicate in MWIF?

IMO it IS important to make it the same as WiFFE. Isn't that one of the "guiding principles" of this undertaking? Especially a hex as important as Istanbul. Certainly I understand the differences in the Pacific (or any other different scale map) as that decision was made a long time ago and had some real attraction in eliminating the scale difference. But just as in the war in China, we all have much to learn about how similar or how different that part of MWiF will play compared to WiFFE. I would like to see the European map work the same way as WiFFE, though.

BTW the Dardanelles are a very big reason for not making Istanbul invadeable from the Eastern Med - hence the Gallipoli campaign in WWI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is my example :

By RAW, Istanbul is not invadable from the East Med (it has no all sea hexside that touches the East Med).
By the MWiF logic, it is (It has an all sea hexside, and the hex is adjacent to the East Med).

[image]local://upfiles/10447/5B4F4E47275943A0BD769BA0D90EB08F.jpg[/image]

Yes.

But in my opinion RAW is very strange here.

It says Istanbul is a port on the East Med but not invadable from the East Med. I can understand when London can not be invaded because the long estuary enables the defenders to stop an invasion fleet far from the hex that London occupies. That doesn't appear to be the case with Istanbul.

I guess my main question is "What is being simulated here by placing the sea area boundary so carefully?" Assuming that this was done intentionally, is it worth the effort to duplicate in MWIF?

IMO it IS important to make it the same as WiFFE. Isn't that one of the "guiding principles" of this undertaking? Especially a hex as important as Istanbul. Certainly I understand the differences in the Pacific (or any other different scale map) as that decision was made a long time ago and had some real attraction in eliminating the scale difference. But just as in the war in China, we all have much to learn about how similar or how different that part of MWiF will play compared to WiFFE. I would like to see the European map work the same way as WiFFE, though.

BTW the Dardanelles are a very big reason for not making Istanbul invadeable from the Eastern Med - hence the Gallipoli campaign in WWI.

But you can invade the hex SW of Istanbul, which, being on the Sea of Marmara, is far past the Dardenelles.

I go back to my question of what is being simulated.

To my eye this looks like a rule/exception that affects 1 hex out of 70,200. Or 1 out of 5,000+ if you want to just count coastal hexes. Yet another case where we tell the new player: "Oh, and by the way, for this hex a special rule aplpies."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
There already is the ability for the player to see if a hex can be invaded, as I defined it earlier. And placing the cursor over any coastal hex lets you know to which sea areas it is adjacent.
I

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As an argument in your favor for treating Istanbul as a special hex, you might look at Manila (I think it is Manila). There is a problem with the hex being adjacent to two sea areas but the port only being accessible from one of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
The key hexes are the ones where the sea area boundaries meet (maybe 100 on the European map) and the problem needs to be solved both programatically and visually. If we were starting from scratch I'd suggest a special look-up table for the former and some form of visual indicator for the latter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
The key hexes are the ones where the sea area boundaries meet (maybe 100 on the European map) and the problem needs to be solved both programatically and visually. If we were starting from scratch I'd suggest a special look-up table for the former and some form of visual indicator for the latter.

Here are all these hexes on the Euroean map.
Doing this revealed to me that 2 of them were worng (one in Corsica and one in Greece), and I'll modify them today, but also revealed to me that the case of Istanbul seems to be unique on the European Map.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/C14FFB36D6CD43B69FAF5B104805F3B8.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As an argument in your favor for treating Istanbul as a special hex, you might look at Manila (I think it is Manila). There is a problem with the hex being adjacent to two sea areas but the port only being accessible from one of them.

In WiFFE, Manila is invadeable from the South China Sea only. In MWiF, to me it is not invadeable at all, if I apply RAW (no full sea hexsides to cross from either sea zone). But I have no issue with that because of the change of scale.

[image]local://upfiles/24497/263F9FCBB9DB4AE5B7C771A8DBA09FD3.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here are those hexes for Asia :

[image]local://upfiles/10447/A3B9E1988D1A4B2A9AE23D796E51B110.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As an argument in your favor for treating Istanbul as a special hex, you might look at Manila (I think it is Manila). There is a problem with the hex being adjacent to two sea areas but the port only being accessible from one of them.

In WiFFE, Manila is invadeable from the South China Sea only. In MWiF, to me it is not invadeable at all, if I apply RAW (no full sea hexsides to cross from either sea zone). But I have no issue with that because of the change of scale.

[image]local://upfiles/24497/263F9FCBB9DB4AE5B7C771A8DBA09FD3.jpg[/image]

It was Legaspi that I was concerned about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As an argument in your favor for treating Istanbul as a special hex, you might look at Manila (I think it is Manila). There is a problem with the hex being adjacent to two sea areas but the port only being accessible from one of them.

In WiFFE, Manila is invadeable from the South China Sea only. In MWiF, to me it is not invadeable at all, if I apply RAW (no full sea hexsides to cross from either sea zone). But I have no issue with that because of the change of scale.

[image]local://upfiles/24497/263F9FCBB9DB4AE5B7C771A8DBA09FD3.jpg[/image]

It was Legaspi that I was concerned about.

The Legaspi hex is clearly invadeable from either sea zone while its port no longer has direct access to the South China Sea in MWiF. I accept this as the result of the scale change. At least that is what I see if I apply RAW and the recent Q&A to the picture. I'm not clear on what the accessability of the port has to do with invading? I just assume that if you successfully invade from the South China Sea, then you crossed overland to take possession of the port versus having assaulted it on the harbour side.

// ****************************************************************************
function TMinorCountry.CooperatesWith(Cnt: TCountryID): Boolean;
// ****************************************************************************
// CooperatesWith returns whether Cnt cooperates with Self (a minor country).
// This routine is for countries, but in actual use it checks for whether units
// can cooperate.  Since cooperation is always based on country of origin and
// the status of the country (conquered, liberated, etc.), this routine is here
// rather than in WIFUnits.
// ****************************************************************************
var
  CMC: TMajorCountry;
  CountryIn: TCountryID;
begin
  CountryIn := Cnt; // So variable is not changed.
// ****************************************************************************
// For CW member countries, check if CW (major power) cooperates with CountryIn.
// ****************************************************************************
  if (ID in CommonwealthCountries) or (ID = Commonwealth.ID) then
    Result := Commonwealth.CooperatesWith(CountryIn)
// ****************************************************************************
// If checking whether Self cooperates with AOI, reverse the call, to check if
// AOI, (a subcountry), cooperates with Self. 
// ****************************************************************************
  else if CountryIn = AOI.ID then Result := AOI.CooperatesWith(Self.ID)
  else
  begin
// ****************************************************************************
// Commonwealth countries are treated as a one country for cooperation purposes.
// Communist China is distinct when determining cooperation.  Some units belong
// to subcountries and have IDs for that subcountry.  So, HomeCountry converts
// the subcountry IDs into a minor or major country ID.
// ****************************************************************************
    if CountryIn in CommonwealthCountries then
      CountryIn := Commonwealth.ID
    else if CountryIn <> CommunistChina.ID then
      CountryIn := Countries[CountryIn].HomeCountry.ID;
// ****************************************************************************
// In Barbarossa, Italian units are controlled by Germany.  The conversion to
// CMC is added code to handle that unique condition.
// ****************************************************************************
    if (CurrScenario = scBarbarossa) and (Self = Italy) then CMC := Italy
    else CMC := Self.ControllingMajorCountry;
// ****************************************************************************
// We are now ready to check for cooperation.
// ****************************************************************************
   	Result := (ID = CountryIn) or                        // From same country
              (Parent = Countries[CountryIn].Parent) or  // With same parent
              (CMC = Countries[CountryIn]) or     // With controling major power
              ((Self = France) and                // Free France with CW & USA
               VichyFrance.Legal and
               ((CountryIn = UnitedStates.ID) or
                (CountryIn = Commonwealth.ID)));
  end;
end;

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Paul,

WIFFE players see an all sea hexside bisected by a sea area boundary and say it is 'obvious' that the hex can be invaded from both sea areas. I look at it and see that only half of an all sea hexside is present for each sea area, so neither sea area can invade the hex: because there isn't a 'full' all sea hexside bordering, say, Liverpool, for either of the 2 sea areas.

My point is that what you say is visually clear on the WIF FE maps is just something you have learned to see as an invadable hex. The maps could have been drawn as in MWIF and you would have learned a different pattern as 'invadable': there is an all-sea hexside present and the hex borders two sea areas => invadable.

I intend to use the style developed by Chris for CWIF in MWIF. It is less dependent on the pen of the artist. The WIF FE map sea area boundaries were drawn using a straight line for the most part. You can see the problems this creates in Patrice's examples at Lisbon, Malta, and La Spezia. The line's relationship to the sea area hex dot can have a razor thin separation. At 8 levels of zoom, that isn't going to work for MWIF.

Now this doesn't achieve the same result for Istanbul (comparing WIF FE to MWIF). Are there any other places?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The problem is that the fundamental data is the hex's relationship to sea areas, with the relationship of a port to sea areas being one and the same as the relationship of the hex to the sea areas. So you could move a naval unit into/out of Legaspi from either sea area. That is how the code is written for all ports on the map.

To rewrite the code so the relationship of a port to sea areas is independent of the realtionship of the hex it sits in to those same sea areas would be a lot of work (vast understatement). Instead, I expect to have to have special code that says: "if the port we are examining is Legaspi, then different rules apply, ...". What I want to know is are there other ports for which I have to write special code?

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
The Legaspi hex is clearly invadeable from either sea zone while its port no longer has direct access to the South China Sea in MWiF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Sorry, but I can't figure out what are problems and what aren't problems from all these pictures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Panama would be the first one that comes to mind as it was featured in the Q&A when it was established that "most" ports do in fact have access to all adjacent sea zones in WiFFE. Unfortunately the scale change in the Pacific may have created many more of these exceptions (as is the case for Legaspi).

I'll review the MWiF maps and start making a list (gasp)[X(] of any "Legaspi"s I find.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Panama would be the first one that comes to mind as it was featured in the Q&A when it was established that "most" ports do in fact have access to all adjacent sea zones in WiFFE. Unfortunately the scale change in the Pacific may have created many more of these exceptions (as is the case for Legaspi).

I'll review the MWiF maps and start making a list (gasp)[X(] of any "Legaspi"s I find.

There are none, the CWiF map was faithfull to the WiF FE map in this regards, this is something I have checked some months (years ?) ago when I was making the mockup for the coastlines.

Legaspi is on 2 Sea Areas as I told you. Look at it ingame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
This is really counter-intuitive in view of the discussion about the port of Panama in the recent Q&A. How do I as a player know these are two (or more) sea zone ports?

quote:

IMO it would be better to move the port symbol 1 hex to the southeast and have the blue line bisect it or redraw the blue line as below:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I intend to use the style developed by Chris for CWIF in MWIF. It is less dependent on the pen of the artist. The WIF FE map sea area boundaries were drawn using a straight line for the most part. You can see the problems this creates in Patrice's examples at Lisbon, Malta, and La Spezia. The line's relationship to the sea area hex dot can have a razor thin separation. At 8 levels of zoom, that isn't going to work for MWIF.

Now this doesn't achieve the same result for Istanbul (comparing WIF FE to MWIF). Are there any other places?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The problem is that the fundamental data is the hex's relationship to sea areas, with the relationship of a port to sea areas being one and the same as the relationship of the hex to the sea areas. So you could move a naval unit into/out of Legaspi from either sea area. That is how the code is written for all ports on the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I intend to use the style developed by Chris for CWIF in MWIF. It is less dependent on the pen of the artist. The WIF FE map sea area boundaries were drawn using a straight line for the most part. You can see the problems this creates in Patrice's examples at Lisbon, Malta, and La Spezia. The line's relationship to the sea area hex dot can have a razor thin separation. At 8 levels of zoom, that isn't going to work for MWIF.

Now this doesn't achieve the same result for Istanbul (comparing WIF FE to MWIF). Are there any other places?

I've been thinking about this some more since last night, and since there are exceptions to the blue line following the hex border, why can't the blue line be redrawn to fix the impression of non-invadeability for the veteran WiFFErs? After all they will be the corps of the initial buyers and the Newbies have to learn the system regardless.

Is there something about the blue line that affects the program's decision on invadeability? If not then, the lines can be corrected for Tripoli, Liverpool, Kristiansand, and Plymouth. It can be redrawn to make MWiF match WiFFE for Narvik and it is already correct for Istanbul.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The problem is that the fundamental data is the hex's relationship to sea areas, with the relationship of a port to sea areas being one and the same as the relationship of the hex to the sea areas. So you could move a naval unit into/out of Legaspi from either sea area. That is how the code is written for all ports on the map.

I hope you aren't saying that the presence of a port is used to determine invadeability somehow? There are many ports that cannot be invaded - Trieste for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

There is a hex in paper WiF:FE that takes some getting used to in this regard, that being Batavia. The port symbol is only one one zone, but you can use the port to enter two zones. How about this for a solution - make Legaspi the example in the tutorial. It could be the new Batavia. Think carefully about trying to explain it to a new player without it looking very contradictory to several other one-zone ports, like Cebu only a few hexes away.

As for drawing the zone boundaries, like I said about Liverpool last year, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The current paper system works perfectly fine. Why confuse the experienced players to no purpose? I _could_ right-click the map to identify the invadable hexes and then scratch my head about why Liverpool is invadable from the Faeroes Gap. Or I could just look at the boundary drawn to the center of the hex. For new players, however you solve this has to be taught in a tutorial anyway.

Look how this question re-appeared ... over a strategy question after looking at a screen shot. I think something that could be conveyed by a mere visual is far more elegant than making it into something that has to be conveyed by another mouse-click. There are going to be thousands of mouse-clicks in this game already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Steve, in a similar way to what we do for the lake and river graphics, that we draw in hex where the data show no lake or river, wouldn't it be possible to have a CSV map data file for drawing exceptional Sea Area boundaries connections to some exceptional land hexes ?

The CSV file would show the coordinates of the hex, and then a 1-12 number that would "connect" the Sea Area border to a place on the hexagon placed at the 1-12 O'Clock positions on its cirumference (12 being the top position and 6 the bottom one) (similar to how cities, ports, symbols are shown inside the hex, but here it would be on the cirumference).

That way we could have the Sea Area boundary connect to pretty much the place we would prefer.

For example, for Plymouth, I would connect it to position 7 (middle of the SW hexside).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Steve, in a similar way to what we do for the lake and river graphics, that we draw in hex where the data show no lake or river, wouldn't it be possible to have a CSV map data file for drawing exceptional Sea Area boundaries connections to some exceptional land hexes ?

The CSV file would show the coordinates of the hex, and then a 1-12 number that would "connect" the Sea Area border to a place on the hexagon placed at the 1-12 O'Clock positions on its cirumference (12 being the top position and 6 the bottom one) (similar to how cities, ports, symbols are shown inside the hex, but here it would be on the cirumference).

That way we could have the Sea Area boundary connect to pretty much the place we would prefer.

For example, for Plymouth, I would connect it to position 7 (middle of the SW hexside).

If you look at the WIF FE map you will see that the sea area boundaries do more than just 'arrive' at the coastal hex. They also traverse all the open sea hexes and go around islands (e.g., the Pacific map). What you are proposing is a look up table, that would be of monstrous size.

Furthermore, I have no interest in rewriting code that is both complete and accurate just to duplicate the visual of hand drawn graphics.