RE: AI for MWIF - Norway

RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (Full Version)

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

Message

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 10:56:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck Either by redrawing the sea zone boundaries Sure, that is the solution, you're right. Look at this, this is only by changing the hex SE of Legaspi and making it only in the South China Sea : [image]local://upfiles/10447/5827227F194C4501BB994F6C69B415D4.jpg[/image]

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 11:10:20 AM)
Here's Auckland. Indeed all the hexes NW of Auckland were made adjacent to the Tasman Sea (the Sea W), except the mountain hex that is adjacent to the New Zealand Coast (the Sea to the NE). If I make the mountain hex adjacent to the Tasman Sea, the blue line will run on its side too. But if I do that, this hex won't be invadable anymore from the New Zealand Coast, which will seem counterintuitive. [image]local://upfiles/10447/FE1EE1DDDFE24CB582D7D559562821EE.jpg[/image]

Incy -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 11:56:51 AM)
I think both solutions look a bit strange. It seems to me the hex SE of Legaspi should be invadable from Bismarck sea. And the peninsula NW of Auckland should be invadable from both sea areas. I do not know the geography of Auckland, but if the port facilities are on only one side of the peninsula, the port should be on only that side. If there is a canal, or port facilities on both sides, the port should be adjacent to both sides (but only invadable from the east?)

Incy -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 12:01:21 PM)
Definately both sides: http://www.map-of-newzealand.co.uk/maps/auckland.gif How about making a canal, like Kiel? Based on the map the defence bonus a canal would give certainly seems very realistic?

Norman42 -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 3:42:34 PM)
My recommendation is to simply move the ports or sea boundaries to the spot needed to get the result you want. Rules exceptions for a few ports aren't needed or wanted, just adjust the map. Simple.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 4:02:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp [image]local://upfiles/10447/FE1EE1DDDFE24CB582D7D559562821EE.jpg[/image] OK, it's not very satisfactory. I've got another idea. The WiF FE map is like that (see below), and I am trying to achieve the same effect. Auckland is a a 2 Sea Area port, and it is the only one on those Sea Areas. So I need to change the Sea Area border between Brisbane and Auckland to solve the problem. See next post. [image]local://upfiles/10447/27F0ADF3B911459E9E5FCA4847EEF05B.jpg[/image]

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 4:04:33 PM)
I could change the Sea Area Border so that it is looking like that (ignore the upper blue / white line, the one I re-drew is the one below). [image]local://upfiles/10447/0C40F396B22141BAB74D0E9A4DFECEA8.jpg[/image]

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 4:06:37 PM)
Also, I note from the WiF FE map that the port and the city are greatly far away one from the other within the Auckland hex. Maybe the Major Port capacity of Auckland in WiF FE is representing the port capacity of another NZ port that would be nearer to the tip of North Island. Does anyone knows ?

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 4:10:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Incy I think both solutions look a bit strange. It seems to me the hex SE of Legaspi should be invadable from Bismarck sea. And the peninsula NW of Auckland should be invadable from both sea areas. Maybe I can put the Sea Area boundary like that ? [image]local://upfiles/10447/DE813061BAB9439099D9A945881EDD55.jpg[/image]

ptey -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 4:36:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: ptey quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets 1 - If you can modify the coastline between Legaspi and the hex SE of it, so it looks like naval units could move out of Legaspi SE without entering the Bismarck Sea (the all sea hex due east of Legaspi) that would help. This can be done by just trimming the coastline a bit. 2 - Let's move the city symbol for Auckland further inland (to the center of the hex?) and the port symbol to where the city symbol currently is located. Visually, that will reinforce the rule that naval units can move in and out of the Auckland port to both of the sea areas. Fair enough. [:)] I'll do that. Thanks. So that just leaves figuring out/writing code for Istanbul. Another possibility would be to move the minor port one hex south-east and rename it Sorsogon? Wikipedia doesnt seem to have much information of the history of the place, but today there apparently is something called Sorsogon City located in the bay at the west coast in the northen part of the hex south east of Legaspi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorsogon_City The city is the combination of two former towns it says, with a total population of 151.000 (2007). Compared with 179.000 in Legaspi (2000). Maybe the Legaspi port on the WIFFE maps is actually a depiction of the combination of these minor coastal towns at the southen tip of the peninsula? With Legaspi chosen as name because it was the biggest of the towns there. With the new scale, this might not be the best option anymore. Regardless. Instead of moving Legaspi to an incorrect location, and giving it the ability of a 2 sea area port, even though it doesnt look like one on the map. I think its better to move the port one hex to the south-east and rename it to the biggest (coastal)town in the hex. Hmmm. How about we leave the Legaspi hex as the port but move the port symbol to the 4 o'clock position, instead of the 3 o'clock position? That will put it very close to the hex SE of it, though not actually in the SE hex. [We should do this anyway.] Well, the solution i proposed achieves everything (clarity of map and same function is wiffe maps), except maintaining the Legaspi name. The other solutions proposed maintain the Legaspi name but at the cost of clarity of the map. I dont like that trade-off. If moving the Legaspi port symbol to an incorrect location within the hex, i dont see an argument for not moving it over the hex boundary to the south east as well, while keeping the Legaspi name for it, if people find this to be of importance.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 4:59:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Also, I note from the WiF FE map that the port and the city are greatly far away one from the other within the Auckland hex. Maybe the Major Port capacity of Auckland in WiF FE is representing the port capacity of another NZ port that would be nearer to the tip of North Island. Does anyone knows ? I've looked, and there is none. So Auckland is the main Major Port Facility of this area of New Zealand. Also, here is another map of Auckland. [image]local://upfiles/10447/DC6A84C2CBB741D5ACF9868324B3E71B.jpg[/image]

Orm -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 6:12:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Also, here is another map of Auckland. [image]local://upfiles/10447/DC6A84C2CBB741D5ACF9868324B3E71B.jpg[/image] On that map it looks like it could be 2 harbours. One on the west side and one on the east (Takapuna) side. Could we make it so that Auckland has 2 major port symbols? One on each side and then let the port have access to both sea areas? -Orm

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 6:48:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Also, here is another map of Auckland. [image]local://upfiles/10447/DC6A84C2CBB741D5ACF9868324B3E71B.jpg[/image] On that map it looks like it could be 2 harbours. One on the west side and one on the east (Takapuna) side. Could we make it so that Auckland has 2 major port symbols? One on each side and then let the port have access to both sea areas? -Orm I was in Auckland a few years ago and have a slightly better map. Yes, there are two harbors though they do not connect - at least not in the sense that an aircraft carrier could move from one to the other. I am not sure if it is even possible for smaller craft (I should have bought a better map). One major port symbol in the middle of the isthmus seems right to me. No need to change the sea area boundaries at all.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 6:53:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Incy I think both solutions look a bit strange. It seems to me the hex SE of Legaspi should be invadable from Bismarck sea. And the peninsula NW of Auckland should be invadable from both sea areas. Maybe I can put the Sea Area boundary like that ? [image]local://upfiles/10447/DE813061BAB9439099D9A945881EDD55.jpg[/image] I had thought about this solution, but it looks a lot better than I had imagined it would. The hex SE of Legaspi is still invadable from the Bismarck Sea because it is adjacent to an all sea hex in the Bismarck Sea. That also means that naval transports in the Bismarck Sea could land/pick up units from there as well. The change to the graphic connecting Legaspi with the hex SE is still needed and the port symbol could be positioned at 17 (at 5 o'clock, but more inland). Position 18 might look even better.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 7:22:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I was in Auckland a few years ago and have a slightly better map. Yes, there are two harbors though they do not connect - at least not in the sense that an aircraft carrier could move from one to the other. I am not sure if it is even possible for smaller craft (I should have bought a better map). One major port symbol in the middle of the isthmus seems right to me. No need to change the sea area boundaries at all. So I don't touch the Sea Area border, and I put the port in position 9 and the city symbol in the middle of the hex, that's OK ? Ships can dock on any side of Auckland, and from any side can go to any sea area adjacent.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 7:28:03 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets [image]local://upfiles/10447/DE813061BAB9439099D9A945881EDD55.jpg[/image] I had thought about this solution, but it looks a lot better than I had imagined it would. The hex SE of Legaspi is still invadable from the Bismarck Sea because it is adjacent to an all sea hex in the Bismarck Sea. That also means that naval transports in the Bismarck Sea could land/pick up units from there as well. I'm sorry Steve, but this is wrong. In the above map, the hex SE of Legaspi is not even in the Bismarck Sea, so it can't be invaded from here at all. This is the same case as Hong Kong for example. quote: The change to the graphic connecting Legaspi with the hex SE is still needed and the port symbol could be positioned at 17 (at 5 o'clock, but more inland). Position 18 might look even better. You have got the changes yesterday, were they OK (I only send you the 2 hexes graphic, not the whole tile).

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 7:51:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets [image]local://upfiles/10447/DE813061BAB9439099D9A945881EDD55.jpg[/image] I had thought about this solution, but it looks a lot better than I had imagined it would. The hex SE of Legaspi is still invadable from the Bismarck Sea because it is adjacent to an all sea hex in the Bismarck Sea. That also means that naval transports in the Bismarck Sea could land/pick up units from there as well. I'm sorry Steve, but this is wrong. In the above map, the hex SE of Legaspi is not even in the Bismarck Sea, so it can't be invaded from here at all. This is the same case as Hong Kong for example. quote: The change to the graphic connecting Legaspi with the hex SE is still needed and the port symbol could be positioned at 17 (at 5 o'clock, but more inland). Position 18 might look even better. You have got the changes yesterday, were they OK (I only send you the 2 hexes graphic, not the whole tile). I haven't regenerated the graphics for that map segment. It is a lot of work because changing any coastal graphic requires reprocessing all the coastal bitmaps for the 6 master pages of coastal bitmaps.

Froonp -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 7:53:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I haven't regenerated the graphics for that map segment. It is a lot of work because changing any coastal graphic requires reprocessing all the coastal bitmaps for the 6 master pages of coastal bitmaps. Yes, but are the 2 hexes I sent you enought for you to regenerate the graphic of that map segment, or do you need the whole Malaya / NEI / Philippines tile ?

paulderynck -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 8:32:05 PM)
I really think the best solution is to leave the sea zone boundaries as they are, make the two peninsulas narrow enough in one spot, and place the port symbol over top so it touches both sea zones. Yeah it looks a bit odd and may require a note in a tutorial somewhere, but it conveys the info desired to the player and keeps changes to a minimum. This is preferrable to willy-nilly changes to which hexes can be invaded from which sea zones.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 9:14:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I haven't regenerated the graphics for that map segment. It is a lot of work because changing any coastal graphic requires reprocessing all the coastal bitmaps for the 6 master pages of coastal bitmaps. Yes, but are the 2 hexes I sent you enought for you to regenerate the graphic of that map segment, or do you need the whole Malaya / NEI / Philippines tile ? I need the whole map segment. [I haven't unzipped what you sent me yet.]

Sewerlobster -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 10:07:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish I am now confused as to what rule MWiF will use for invasions. Must a hex have a full sea hexside to be invadeable? If so Legaspi is invadeable only on the port side of the hex (which is on its starboard side ---[&:] ) On the page of this thread prior to this one there are several screen shots of the MWiF map showing that the hex Legaspi is located in - can be invaded from either sea zone as there are full sea hexsides adjacent to both. My mistake was in thinking "full sea hexside" refered just to the hex east of Legaspi, and thinking the other hexsides to the west were full coastal hexsides. It's been a while since I played and even longer since I had an opponent. I guess I was just making up rules as I went.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 11:36:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish I am now confused as to what rule MWiF will use for invasions. Must a hex have a full sea hexside to be invadeable? If so Legaspi is invadeable only on the port side of the hex (which is on its starboard side ---[&:] ) On the page of this thread prior to this one there are several screen shots of the MWiF map showing that the hex Legaspi is located in - can be invaded from either sea zone as there are full sea hexsides adjacent to both. My mistake was in thinking "full sea hexside" refered just to the hex east of Legaspi, and thinking the other hexsides to the west were full coastal hexsides. It's been a while since I played and even longer since I had an opponent. I guess I was just making up rules as I went. Actually, you were remembering old rules.

Plainian -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/24/2008 11:51:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp Also, here is another map of Auckland. [image]local://upfiles/10447/DC6A84C2CBB741D5ACF9868324B3E71B.jpg[/image] I don't want to divert any attention away from the main discussion but I'm struck by the real world map of Auk/New Zealand and its MWIF map? Aukland seems to take up more than half of the peninsula on the real map but it seems to have oodles of room on the WIF map? So is the MWIF correctly drawn or should Auk be in the hex to the NW of the current hex it sits in?

brian brian -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (8/25/2008 2:36:26 AM)
I disagree with making Auckland a two-zone port as well. Auckland is now six hexes from a Coral Sea hex-dot. (Legaspi is six complicated sailing hexes from a South China Sea hex-dot; nearby Cephu is only three from a Bismarck Sea hex-dot; I'm not saying Cephu should be a port on the Bismarck, but the current arrangement makes one wonder about the two ports). The problem with making these stretches to simultaneously change the map and keep it the same (an impossible contradiction), is it calls into question many other ports. Not far from Auckland is Rabaul, a mere three or four hexes from the Solomons. Why shouldn't it be a port on the Solomons? Because that would be good for Japan? Why should Auckland be a port on the Coral Sea? Because that would be good for the Allies? I already know the answer - "because of WiF:FE". If the 25 year development of WiF had been working like that, Truk would still be a port wholly inside the Solomons zone with much less of the strategic value it now has. That's how the map was in the 5th Edition of the game. Here is a cliche about placing the zone boundaries...you have to draw the line somewhere. So basically a little more geographically accurate line won't be drawn because of an older edition of the game. That seems like going backwards, not forward. So I've registered my disagreement and I'll try not to bring this up again. I've seen whole games of WiF go by where neither side used Auckland or Legaspi. (Btw, more useful than Legaspi may be that new jungle hex (an automatic airbase) on the border of the South China Sea in the Celebes. Why couldn't that be 'kept the same' and left all mountain hexes?)

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI for MWIF - Norway (4/7/2020 3:22:19 AM)
Bump.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6875