RE: USFEE or USAFFE

RE: USFEE or USAFFE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design

Message

Montbrun -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (7/30/2004 2:08:33 AM)
Matrix has used a projection for the map. The "base-line" appears to be somewhere 2-3 hexes West of French Frigate Shoals, running North-South. At this point "North is North." As you procede further away from this "base-line," the map is more skewed, as it should be for this projection. Unfortunately, with "real" maps, the error in distances is greater the further away that you travel form the "base-line," if a scale factor is not applied. I make maps for a living, and I'm not quite sure what has been done with the WitP map. I've noticed that the distance between Wake Island and Midway is too short.....

BPRE -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/1/2004 10:15:49 PM)
Hi, Looking at the control zone map the border between the South zone and the South-East zone runs between Australia and DEI. When I go back to the Tactical map and turn on the Zone location text it shows that parts of Northern Territory and more of New Guinea belongs to the South Zone. Please adjust either map to show the correct information. /BPRE

Cmdrcain -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/2/2004 12:19:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter Matrix has used a projection for the map. The "base-line" appears to be somewhere 2-3 hexes West of French Frigate Shoals, running North-South. At this point "North is North." As you procede further away from this "base-line," the map is more skewed, as it should be for this projection. Unfortunately, with "real" maps, the error in distances is greater the further away that you travel form the "base-line," if a scale factor is not applied. I make maps for a living, and I'm not quite sure what has been done with the WitP map. I've noticed that the distance between Wake Island and Midway is too short..... Their map is a projection with the axis of earth sort of "turned" it is to I'd guess to stimulate better the long ocean distance between USA and Australia plus to get all of India into the map etc so its all ROtated a bit North Isn't quite straight up nor south straight down... Theres always compromises in any game and its a good compromise in the Original Pac war game, running supplies from USa to Australia was pretty fast, so one could auto convoy and manual convoy lots fast in present game with the way map is, it will take quite a while as it should to get supplies from west coast down to australia and South pacific. As to Wake, well it seems a bit short but its still in right direction and Wake was not really that far from Midway, truth is It seems to me that Midway is a bit too close to Hawaii

Montbrun -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/2/2004 2:29:59 AM)
...not complaining, just wondering...

Kizsam -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/2/2004 10:06:52 AM)
Hi City in China has the name "Changchow" printed on the map. However, the base name is "Amoy". Regards

Mike Scholl -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/3/2004 3:32:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter Matrix has used a projection for the map. The "base-line" appears to be somewhere 2-3 hexes West of French Frigate Shoals, running North-South. At this point "North is North." As you procede further away from this "base-line," the map is more skewed, as it should be for this projection. Unfortunately, with "real" maps, the error in distances is greater the further away that you travel form the "base-line," if a scale factor is not applied. I make maps for a living, and I'm not quite sure what has been done with the WitP map. I've noticed that the distance between Wake Island and Midway is too short..... The real problem with the "projection" is that as Mercator discovered, you have to stretch something (land or water) out of shape to keep the distances true for the other. This projection has chosed to try and keep the land elements pretty much to recogniz- able sizes while stretching or pinching the water areas in between. Unfortunately, the War in the Pacific was primarily a Naval and Air war, and the distances between the land bodies are far more important to the flow of play than the land areas themselves, Australia, while still badly done in terms of interior transportation, is realtively the right shape. Which unfortunately makes the water area between NE Australia and Papua- New Guinea far to large..., the Coral Sea has become an ocean that can no longer be crossed by historical means. It would have been far better to have stretched southern Australia out of shape (not much likely to happen there, especially in the outback) and made the Coral Sea more accurate. Another poor design choice that is and will con- tinue to cause trouble.

Subchaser -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/3/2004 1:19:37 PM)
Minor correction. Soviet base – Uglaharmensk, correct spelling Uglekamensk, but before 1961 this tiny village was called Severny Suchan. This is very strange choice of additional Soviet base in Primorye, population in 1940 was just slightly above 600 men, there were no strategic objects there, only two coal mines. Besides Vladivostok there are other somewhat big towns in that area, most important – port town, Soviet Pacific navy base Nakhodka and center of coal industry town of Suchan, but we see only Uglaharmensk on the map… strange!

Pascal_slith -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/11/2004 10:06:02 AM)
As I've indicated before, the Society Islands are missing from the map. The US built one of its first major advanced bases there at Bora-Bora, a very important refueling stop on the way to the ANZAC area.

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/11/2004 4:54:57 PM)
Don't know if anyone mentioned it before, but I found two more typos: TriMcomalee, shouldn't it be TriNcomalee? Alor Star (Malay peninsula) should be Alor Setar according to my Encarta World Atlas [:D] O.

gdpsnake -> map issues (8/11/2004 8:09:17 PM)
It looks on the map as if a RR exists between Hue and Hanoi but troops ALWAYS march along the grey road which is slower and two hexes longer. Is this a RR or just a glitch in the terrain? Is there a RR or road between Ominato and the hex west of Muroram? Is there a Road or RR in hex 31,30? A japanese unit zipped right through this hex in one turn. Troops ALWAYS go to hex 41,40 while marching (the hex is empty) instead of following the RR depiction in 41,39. Is there a road between Takamatsu and the hex east of it?

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: map issues (8/12/2004 1:51:35 AM)
Another smallish map comment... in Mongolia there are some orange "residuals" from where the border was placed before (obviously). I guess border got moved further to the SW but it wasn't completely deleted at its old place. O.

Mike Scholl -> RE: map issues (8/12/2004 3:44:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gdpsnake It looks on the map as if a RR exists between Hue and Hanoi but troops ALWAYS march along the grey road which is slower and two hexes longer. Is this a RR or just a glitch in the terrain? They're curious. The "Coastal Highway" has been around for a long time, but this new road down the Highlands dropped from the sky on 12/01/41. Maybe they are looking for OZ or Never-Never Land.

Mike Scholl -> RE: map issues (8/12/2004 3:48:26 AM)
A LARGE map comment. Rabaul is totally out of B-17/B-24 range from any hex in Australia. Apparently the Japanese Fan-boy who created this map for 2x3 thought that it would make his life easier to leave reality out of the equation...

rtamesis -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/12/2004 3:54:43 AM)
I believe that in SPI's boardgame War in the Pacific, they accounted for the map distortion by creating different zones where movement near the equatorial area, for example, cost more in terms of movement points than in areas closer to the poles.

Mike Scholl -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/12/2004 4:36:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtamesis I believe that in SPI's boardgame War in the Pacific, they accounted for the map distortion by creating different zones where movement near the equatorial area, for example, cost more in terms of movement points than in areas closer to the poles. This probably isn't programmable in the WITP system, though it was an elegant solution 30 years ago. But what could (and should) have been done when they decided to go with a "projection" map was to take a good look at what Mercator figured out hundreds of years ago. If you look at a "Mercator Projection" map you will notice things like Greenland are HUGE compared to reality. He stretched them to keep the sea distances accurate because the maps were made for sailors who didn't care if the Greenland ice-cap was bigger than Antarctica's because no- one was going to use it to wander around in Greenland anyway. It was for sailing around Greenland, and on the waters in between it and other things. WITP is primarily a naval and air struggle, which the designers seem to have for- gotton. If Australia had been HUGE, it might have "looked funny" but at least they could have kept the sea and air distances between it and other parts of the map more accurate. The "Outback" is about as important to WW II as the Greenland Ice-cap..., distorting the he11 out of it wouldn't have made any real difference in game play at all. But significantly changing the ranges between Australia and Papua New Guinea/the Bismarck's DOES. And that was what 2by3 chose to do!

BPRE -> Fushun or Fushan (8/14/2004 9:22:41 PM)
Hi, It says Fushun on the map but in case you move the mouse over the base it's shown as Fushan. Minor but in case you're aiming for 100%.... /BPRE

guke -> Siem Reap, Bangkok etc. (8/14/2004 9:36:59 PM)
quote: Krung Thep is the Thai name for Bangkok (actually only the first part of a rather long name). On the map Krung Thep and Bangkok are separate locations which is wrong, I think. Contrary to someone elses post it should be Songkhla and not Songkhia. The base Siemrem Reap should be Siem Reap, Siem Reab or Siemreab (I've seen all three spellings) Quoting myself here, because it hasn't been mentioned in pry's summary of previous posts [;)] BTW, the full name of Bangkok is: Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit which translates to: The city of angels, the great city, the residence of the Emerald Buddha, the impregnable city (of Ayutthaya) of God Indra, the grand capital of the world endowed with nine precious gems, the happy city, abounding in an enormous Royal Palace that resembles the heavenly abode where reigns the reincarnated god, a city given by Indra and built by Vishnukarn [:)] Source: http://www.into-asia.com/bangkok/introduction/fullname.php regards, Gunnar

Cap Mandrake -> RE: Siem Reap, Bangkok etc. (8/15/2004 1:34:49 AM)
1) Maybe call "Lahaina"....simply "Maui"...as the airfield was, I believe, at Kahului on the other side of the island. 2) How about a Bay for San Francisco? It looks landlocked.

Pascal_slith -> RE: Siem Reap, Bangkok etc. (8/16/2004 12:58:44 AM)
Ocean Island graphic is on the map at hex 77,89 but no beach/base was in the database. Should simply be a beach without base, supplies like in UV. From my comments in the OOB: There are also far too many militarily significant bases, i.e. port or airfield size 1or greater WITH supplies and fuel, lying around the South Pacific and Southeast Asian islands. Many should be reduced to simple beaches (port and airfield 0) or at a minimum a port level 1 with no supplies or fuel. Finally, there is much too much fuel on hand in most ports, including major bases, EXCEPT for PH and the US West Coast ports. Considering 1 fuel point = 1 ton of fuel, PH should have about 600'000 (the approx. 4.5 million barrels on hand on Dec. 7th). As the West Coast had about 44.5 million barrels available, at least Los Angeles should have 950'000 fuel points available. (Sources: PH Attack Hearings (see website at www.ibiblio.org) and "The Pacific War Revisited" by Bischof and Dupont). The major Australian, New Zealand, DEI, Malayan (Singapore), and Indian bases also have too much fuel on hand. I'm working through the official histories and other sources for more exact corrections. Ocean Island has been missed as a beach/buildable base. It's on the map graphically (see hex 77,89). And Nauru was an important source of phosphates for Japanese agriculture, so it should have a resource production industry.

Pascal_slith -> RE: Siem Reap, Bangkok etc. (8/16/2004 1:00:50 AM)
As to the map errors in general, all 2by3 had to do was buy the National Geographic map collection on CD or DVD and they would have had no problems with correct names, locations, etc. There are a few really nice 1930's and 1940's maps on the NG discs.

Hipper -> Cox's Bazaar (8/17/2004 6:46:43 PM)
Hi Folks apologies if this has been pointed out before but there should be a base at hex 31 26 , called Cox's Bazaar A) its a great name. B) its where all the offensives in the Arkan started off from and it had at least 4 airfields in it otherwise the home base for offensives in the Arkan have to start off from Dacca on the otherside of the Bramaputra Cheers

Tanaka -> RE: Cox's Bazaar (8/20/2004 8:33:10 PM)
Interesting Alaska Comments: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=689653&key=nome ORIGINAL: kew I hate to nit-pick here but I'm from Alaska and I'd like to know where this road is from Anchorage to Nome. n fact I don't think there's more than a three hundred miles of road on the Seward Penninsula (where Nome is) The info below was teken from the Nome/VC website Highways: No road system connects Nome to any major city. Nome-Teller: 72 miles west, Nome-Council:73 miles east Nome-Taylor:87 miles north Rail:None They've talked about building one for years. I don't think there ever was one built during the war. I've flown there a few times to go hunting and I've never seen anything from the air that remotely resembles an old road. I doubt that any Japenese player would invade the USA from here and use the roads to their advantage, but just for the sake of realism is there any way to get the roads taken out of the game in the next patch? More Alaska discussions: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=697996

guke -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/21/2004 3:05:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl [This probably isn't programmable in the WITP system, though it was an elegant solution 30 years ago. But what could (and should) have been done when they decided to go with a "projection" map was to take a good look at what Mercator figured out hundreds of years ago. If you look at a "Mercator Projection" map you will notice things like Greenland are HUGE compared to reality. He stretched them to keep the sea distances accurate because the maps were made for sailors who didn't care if the Greenland ice-cap was bigger than Antarctica's because no- one was going to use it to wander around in Greenland anyway. It was for sailing around Greenland, and on the waters in between it and other things. This is not entirely correct. In Mercator Projections not only land areas but also the sea is shown much larger near the poles. Thus, even if a Mercator project- ion was used in WitP, Sea areas near Australia would be larger than in reality and all distances except right on the equator would be wrong. What Mercator did was to "stretch" his map towards the poles in order to keep the angles right (which is indeed very helpful for navigation). It is impossible to create a correct map on a two-dimensional surface. regards, Gunnar

Montbrun -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/21/2004 3:38:06 PM)
Guke, Not true on a smaller scale - I do it every day - but at the WitP scale, yes, your statement is true in the fact that distance distortion must be accounted for by applying a scale factor based on the earth's ellipsoid shape... Brad

Mike Scholl -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/21/2004 4:26:24 PM)
Gunnar. You are correct in that I was over-simplifying Mercator's solution..., but if you will look at the map 2by3 has foisted off on us you will see that they made NO use of Mercator's methods. All of the "stretching" and "twisting" oc- curs in the sea areas (where the air/naval war was actually fought) instead of putting as much of the necessary distortion in the interior of places like Australia or New Guinea (where little or no action takes place). Mercator made his adjust- ments with specific goals in mind, whereas 2by3 seems to have given little or no thought to the "purpose" for which their map was created.

Cap Mandrake -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/21/2004 6:28:27 PM)
There appears to be a canal across the island containing Puerto Princessa in the PI (TF's plot a route right through the island) [image]local://upfiles/7983/Rp422920209.jpg[/image]

Cap Mandrake -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/21/2004 6:59:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guke quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl [This probably isn't programmable in the WITP system, though it was an elegant solution 30 years ago. But what could (and should) have been done when they decided to go with a "projection" map was to take a good look at what Mercator figured out hundreds of years ago. If you look at a "Mercator Projection" map you will notice things like Greenland are HUGE compared to reality. He stretched them to keep the sea distances accurate because the maps were made for sailors who didn't care if the Greenland ice-cap was bigger than Antarctica's because no- one was going to use it to wander around in Greenland anyway. It was for sailing around Greenland, and on the waters in between it and other things. This is not entirely correct. In Mercator Projections not only land areas but also the sea is shown much larger near the poles. Thus, even if a Mercator project- ion was used in WitP, Sea areas near Australia would be larger than in reality and all distances except right on the equator would be wrong. What Mercator did was to "stretch" his map towards the poles in order to keep the angles right (which is indeed very helpful for navigation). It is impossible to create a correct map on a two-dimensional surface. regards, Gunnar Well there is always 3d [:'(]...ultimately the hexagon is a 2-d shape and any 2-d map will have distortions, even on a small scale. Here is NASA's way cool "J-track 3d" Java applet to plot satellites in orbit. You can click and drag from SF to Sri Lanka presto change-o. Imagine if the satellite plots were on the surface and were instead TF's...which were clickable (or had mouseover data) [:D] "Shift-click" to zoom in "Ctrl-click" to zoom out Left-click and drag to rotate the globe http://science.nasa.gov/Realtime/jtrack/3d/JTrack3d.html

Lemurs! -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/21/2004 7:38:37 PM)
Hi all, I do not remember where i saw this but i remember a boardgame that tried to solve the same map problem. Their solution was to have map sections or slices that were each quite accurate and then had connection points to the next slice. You didn't miss anything, there were no transit zones, it just had a seperation between each slice. Mike

guke -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/21/2004 7:55:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Gunnar. You are correct in that I was over-simplifying Mercator's solution..., but if you will look at the map 2by3 has foisted off on us you will see that they made NO use of Mercator's methods. All of the "stretching" and "twisting" oc- curs in the sea areas (where the air/naval war was actually fought) instead of putting as much of the necessary distortion in the interior of places like Australia or New Guinea (where little or no action takes place). Mercator made his adjust- ments with specific goals in mind, whereas 2by3 seems to have given little or no thought to the "purpose" for which their map was created. Mike, If you compare the size of Australia with the size of East Asia for example, Australia is much too large already. But I actually agree with you in principle, the map is indeed very strange. the distance distortion seems much too large even for a Mercator projection around Australia while the distance distortion in the far north looks much little. Maybe instead of picking a standard projection 2by3 simply drew the map the way felt it would best for playing? regards, Gunnar

Mike Scholl -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (8/21/2004 8:09:57 PM)
Gunnar. Unfortunately I've been coming to the same conclusion that the map was drawn "the way... it would be best for playing"... the Japanese. Virtually all the "too short" portions seem to occur in areas of the initial Japanese expansion like SE Asia, while almost all of the "too long" distances seem to occur in areas where Allied resistance jelled like the Coral Sea. I've often wondered why they didn't chose to make the whole map "hexagonal shaped" with a flat at the top and bottom and a bulge in the middle (sort of building in the global spread at the Equator). I don't think there is any law that says a map has to be rec- tangular, and it would have certainly eased the need to stretch or twist things.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.0625