RE: Map Comments (Full Version)

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



Message

Herrbear -> RE: Map Comments (8/25/2004 8:12:48 AM)

I find the following errors in distance around the Wake, Midway and PH area.

Wake to PH should be 38 hexes but is only 32

Wake to Midway should be 19/20 hexes but is only 14

Wake to Guam should be 25 hexes but is only 22

Wake to Tokyo should be 33 hexes but is only 26

These figures are from Pan Am Clipper mileage figures from http://www.janersture.com/wake.

Midway to PH should be 21/22 hexes but is only 20



Tanaka -> RE: Map Comments (8/27/2004 8:25:52 PM)

More Alaska discussions:


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=697996



PeteG662 -> RE: Map Comments (9/3/2004 11:44:50 PM)

Found a little glitch with Yanam in India. I had a task force of on AK try to dock and unload there but it would not dock even though it has a port size of 0. I am unsure if this is a different version of the Mannagudi issue in reverse. The AK cannot dock despite the tab being lit. Can someone else try to replicate this to see please?

version 1.21, scenario 15, January 1942 timeframe.



Rainerle -> RE: Map Comments (9/16/2004 12:15:04 PM)

Hi,

the railroad on the eastern side of japan has a missing link between Sendai in the south and Aomori in the north. The RR runs through a water hexside which makes all units track back to the tokyo area, cross the country and then use the western side RR for trips to the north of japan.



11Bravo -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (9/26/2004 12:06:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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.


Very cool. Its like sticking little hexagonals of silly putty on a globe, pulling off the image, and arranging them on a table. I'm impressed with this idea. The entire thing could still be displayed in a rectangle but use the corners used for cheat sheets, terrain key, abbreviations, pinup girls, whatever. They can keep the coordinate system too, just need a check on the boundaries too keep from sailing off one of the six edges of the map. Very nice.



11Bravo -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (9/26/2004 12:08:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BPRE

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


Yep. I posted a list of these here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=716643



BPRE -> Canal through Bangka Is. (10/10/2004 6:13:33 PM)

Hi,

If you send ships from Palembang to Pontianak they will route straight through Bangka Island in hex 22,56. I guess the hexside between 22,56 and 23,56 should be forbidden for ships or similar.
Scenario 15 ver. 1.21 if it's useful.

/BPRE



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Canal through Bangka Is. (10/10/2004 9:23:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BPRE

Hi,

If you send ships from Palembang to Pontianak they will route straight through Bangka Island in hex 22,56. I guess the hexside between 22,56 and 23,56 should be forbidden for ships or similar.
Scenario 15 ver. 1.21 if it's useful.

/BPRE


I thought this was fixed.

On another note, Bora Bora sure would come in handy as a destination for Oz bound convoys. Given the AI habit of routing through enemy ZOC and a lack of waypoints, Bora Bora would be ideal for CS convoys.



Xargun -> RE: Map Comments (10/25/2004 4:59:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Found a little glitch with Yanam in India. I had a task force of on AK try to dock and unload there but it would not dock even though it has a port size of 0. I am unsure if this is a different version of the Mannagudi issue in reverse. The AK cannot dock despite the tab being lit. Can someone else try to replicate this to see please?

version 1.21, scenario 15, January 1942 timeframe.


A size 0 port is a port that does not exist. It is only listed in the game so you can expand it into a usable port.. A port must be size 1+ for ships to dock...

Xargun



BPRE -> RE: Map Comments (10/26/2004 1:08:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Found a little glitch with Yanam in India. I had a task force of on AK try to dock and unload there but it would not dock even though it has a port size of 0. I am unsure if this is a different version of the Mannagudi issue in reverse. The AK cannot dock despite the tab being lit. Can someone else try to replicate this to see please?

version 1.21, scenario 15, January 1942 timeframe.


A size 0 port is a port that does not exist. It is only listed in the game so you can expand it into a usable port.. A port must be size 1+ for ships to dock...

Xargun


Hi,

I've just unloaded a unit across the beach at Yanam. The ships stays in "at sea, unloading" but there's no problem unloading. Also 1.21, scenario 15 but in February 42.

/BPRE



Pascal_slith -> Society Islands (10/30/2004 12:54:13 PM)

What about adding the Society Islands (Tahiti, etc.)? One of the US Navy's first major refueling and staging bases was in this island group and the empty ocean area in the Southeast of the map does seem to extend beyond the location of these islands.



Admiral Scott -> RE: Map Comments (11/1/2004 7:48:24 AM)

Will there be any map changes/corrections in patch 1.3 and/or 1.4?



JSBoomer -> RE: Map Comments (11/5/2004 6:56:27 AM)

As previously mentioned the rail/road links in British Columbia are not accurate at all. While I know that it is unlikely that in this game the Japanese player would attempt to attack North America I do feel that two more bases should be included on the map in B.C. Those are Esquimalt/Victoria and Terrace. The major base for Canadian naval operations in the Pacific was the naval base at Esquimalt ( just outside of Victoria ) and not Vancouver. While Canada had only minimal naval activity in the Pacifce the Base at Esquimalt was used by the British and American navies as well as the Canadian. Of less importance was the base at Terrace B.C. which is located about 200 miles east of Prince Rupert. The Brigade in Prince Rupert in the game was actually in Terrace which was ringed with bunkers and guns in case of a Japanese invasion. As well most of the RCAF squadrons in Prince Rupert were actually in Terrace as well. The garrison in Prince Rupert was usually only Bn in size.



BlackVoid -> RE: Map Comments (11/17/2004 2:24:20 AM)

Distances are wrong all over. In UV you could bomb Buna from AUS with B-25s. Now you cannot even reach PM.
The map is VERY LARGE. It is bound to have distortion if projected to a rectangle. Yes, an oval shape, I think would fix it. Would be a major work, so don't count on it. [&:]



Tomo -> RE: Map Comments (11/17/2004 10:53:24 AM)

KADINA in Okinawa island JAPAN is incorrect.
KADENA is correct.

Somewhat strange, Ikitsuki in JAPAN(southern island of KOREA).
This island is TSU-SHIMA, I guess.
There is a IKI-SHIMA southern of TSU-SHIMA but IKI-SHIMA is very very small islnad.
I don't think IKI-SHIMA is important so much.

SHIMIZU base in Japan, looks like a SHIMUZU. I cannot read well because it is too small letter. Please click the base and check it.

I feel it is better to change base name llike a Hiroshima/Kure. Tokyo = Tokyo/Yokosuka.
You know MAIZURU, KURE, SASEBO & YOKOSUKA have a big IJN base and mother base of Japanese marines.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Map Comments (12/27/2004 9:50:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Distances are wrong all over. In UV you could bomb Buna from AUS with B-25s. Now you cannot even reach PM.
The map is VERY LARGE. It is bound to have distortion if projected to a rectangle. Yes, an oval shape, I think would fix it. Would be a major work, so don't count on it. [&:]


Actually, had they chosen to make it hexagonal they would have solved most of their
problems with distance warping---and the hexes would fin nicely as well. I wonder
why eveyone seems to think a map has to be rectangular. The had to include a lot
of truely useless terrain on this one to do so, and still warp it.



Mike Scholl -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (12/28/2004 4:12:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 11Bravo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

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.


Very cool. Its like sticking little hexagonals of silly putty on a globe, pulling off the image, and arranging them on a table. I'm impressed with this idea. The entire thing could still be displayed in a rectangle but use the corners used for cheat sheets, terrain key, abbreviations, pinup girls, whatever. They can keep the coordinate system too, just need a check on the boundaries too keep from sailing off one of the six edges of the map. Very nice.


WOW! Somebody actually "got it"!. And it doesn't even have to be lined up North-South.
It can be tilted to put the maximum amount of usefull terrain onto the playing surface.
As opposed to the Artic Circle, the Canadian Shield, or a lot of the SE Pacific. There
would be a little distance shrinkage around the edges, but having San Francisco one hex
too close to San Diego matters very little to play. Having Pt. Moresby 2 hexes too far
from NE Australia matters a lot.



pasternakski -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (12/28/2004 6:57:42 AM)

Yeah, but won't those little hexagons of silly putty gum up your pooter?



michaelm75au -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (12/28/2004 7:28:07 AM)

It would be easier to change the hex values to agree with the graphic map. It looks like they are in the program though, not in a file like "pwhex.dat".



Mike Scholl -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (12/29/2004 8:38:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Yeah, but won't those little hexagons of silly putty gum up your pooter?


Hey.., if my "'pooter" can handle your comments and observations; it can
handle silly putty. (make a silly comment.., get a silly answer)



Tanaka -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (1/3/2005 11:52:46 AM)

was reading"midway" by fuchida and okumiya and it talked about the japanese plan to occupy kure island 60 miles northwest of midway so that it might be used as a seaplane base for direct support of the midway landing. should this island be in the game? they planned to do the same with french frigate shoals which is in the game....



SemperAugustus -> RE: USFEE or USAFFE (1/9/2005 8:26:18 PM)

Peking was called Peiping until 1949. Name was changed in 1928. Port Arthur is also anachronistic the Chinese name would be Lüshun.



steve99x -> RE: Map Comments (1/21/2005 9:24:03 PM)

maybe someone deep in the thread mentioned this, but the small island off the coast of Kauai is spelled with two "i"s... NIIHAU



JeffroK -> RE: Map Comments (1/26/2005 6:09:13 AM)

Papua (Southern New Guinea)
The tracks between Pt Moresby & Gili-Gili(Milne Bay) and Pt Moresby-Lae should be removed.
A track could be placed between Buna & Lae

While typos are annoying, items which change the game are important



el cid again -> RE: Map Comments (10/15/2005 2:49:37 AM)

Actually the White Pass and Yukon RR WAS strategically significant in WWII. It was run by the US Army, and it was used to facilitate the Alcan highway and CANOL (pipe line) projects. [Canadian oil was sent to the air force bases near Anchorage by the CANOL project. There is a short sea link - but the eight inch pipe is STILL the main way Elmendorf AFB gets its avgas - although there is now a proper port at Anchorage with storage tanks.

Anchorage was an ANCHORAGE - population 500 in 1941 - NOT a port at all - and hardly a level 6 port!!!




Halsey -> RE: Map Comments (10/15/2005 3:06:19 AM)

This is an extremely old thread.[;)]
Most players are using Andrew Brown's updated map for the CHS.
There are many more scenarios for it. Not just the CHS.

It's nothing like the original game map.
Much, much better.[;)]



el cid again -> RE: Map Comments (11/7/2005 10:56:05 AM)

quote:

the railroad on the eastern side of japan has a missing link between Sendai in the south and Aomori in the north. The RR runs through a water hexside which makes all units track back to the tokyo area, cross the country and then use the western side RR for trips to the north of japan.


This may be an art error. The real world rail net of the period DID require use of the western route - because there was no eastern one!




madgamer2 -> RE: Map Comments (1/1/2008 7:17:21 AM)

I can see where this is going. We put the canal in there for historical reasons. Some over active PBEM bigger is better will say
"HEY we got the canal now we need a War in the Atlantic to link with this game!"
It seems like when I had the old apple 2 with that little bit of memory and 8 Bit OS we kept wishing that games should get bigger and better and they have and I think they will go on doing so but at some point in the future this old gamer will throw the sponge in the water bucket and ride on. This whole thing about bigger and bigger might be an age related thing, after all when I was young in those early days I wanted bigger and better games so why should this generation be any different. Build a bigger game and lots of folks will stand in line to buy it.
I love this game and will keep playing it till my brain is dust and my fingers fall off. My problem is that the size and scope of the game is about all I can deal with. I think that AE will make it better and easier to play. I learned back in the 70's that even though I loved most of the big games (War in Europe come to mind) it was not possible gfor me to play them due to complexity and lack of any AI because that was BC before Computers) and the same thing is happening now. I except the complex nature of WitP because I love it but I don't think I could be that good at playing anPBEM or God forbid a Head to Head game. My brain can only deal with so much and I fear that is where I am at now or will soon be.
I was just wondering if I am alone in this situation. It would be nice to find others who believe as I do so I don't feel like a one armed man in a face slapping contest.

Lawrence



GaryChildress -> RE: Map Comments (1/1/2008 7:37:21 AM)

Actually I was going to post a suggestion that a version of the entire World War be done with the War in the Pacific engine. Maybe two maps, one for the Atlantic, one for the Pacific. East Africa would be the cut off point for the Pacific Map and then once through Suez or around the Cape of Africa you're onto the second map. [:D]



madgamer2 -> RE: Map Comments (1/1/2008 8:00:21 AM)

Well ya will have to carry on with out me.  This game is pushing my mental limit.  I do not play it to finish it or even to win but I play it because I love the dam thing.  I hope that AE will make the interface better and even with the added features maybe a little easier for us old guys.  In one thread I mentioned an old DOS game called "action Stations" with simple WW 2 plotting board graphics but a great AI and lots of scenario's.  If you could ever find a copy  ya should take a look at it.
All kidding aside I would consider a two ocean game if you could make the computer system do more of the work.  Also the Atlantic sea war was a totally different kind of war.  It might be possible to have the computer run one  and a human the other. 

looking forward to seeing AE but I would give an arm or leg if I could find out where the price range is going to be for download and boxed and even if it runs $70'80 I would go for it.

Lawrence



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.140625