RE: Maps for MWIF (Full Version)

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



Message

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 4:25:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Port of Turku (or Åbo as it is also called) is not a port in the map I have.

Right. It's on no WiF FE maps.
There is also a city north of Turku (Finland), called Tampere, who should not be on the map.
Also, what is this red line north of Hango (Finland).
Also, the hex east of the Finnish island called Alan should have a shore in it, and the hexwest of Turku should have a shore too.



Where the WIF FE map disappears off into the northern off-map boxes/hexes many liberties were taken. This is even more pronounced around Bergen in Norway. The whole map is rather weird in those northern climes because the Mercator projection stretches each hex so it covers less terrain than ones south of it. CWIF made changes from WIF FE because it has the rest of the Baltic (Northern Baltic) to layout on the map. MWIF will follow CWIF's lead unless something really bad was done.

Why don't you like Tampere?

I'll look into the red lines around Hango.

I've been fixing the data in this area today. Two of those hexes you noted were all sea hexes. I also fixed a couple of hexes in Denmark.

If you want a chuckle, look at the hex due east of Stavropol in the Caucasus in your copy of CWIF. I bet you will find that the note at the bottom of the screen says it is adjacent to the Black Sea. You could do invasions into that hex from the Black Sea!



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 4:44:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Incy

1 - Currently a blue-sided hex "overrides" a blacksided hex, so the shared hexide is always blue. Since hexides shared between non-coastal and coastal hexes are always all-land, I think it would look better if black overrides blue instead.

btw, the blue/black hexide trick is a very nice way to show if an hexide is coastal !!
2 - How about a third color for all-sea hexides, so it can be seen at a glance what hexes are invadable?

Incy


1 - Ah, no. The way hexsides are done is rather bizarre. Only 3 hexsides are done per hex (left and two top hexsides, as I recall). The adjacent hexes are responsible for putting in the other hexside borders. This lets the program draw single pixel width borders (at low zoom levels that is important) without drawing every hexside border twice. Color of the hexside border depends on the associated hex.

The default color (dark gray) is only used if there is no other reason for drawing a hexside border. I will probably go into this code and clean it up once I get the rivers and lakes in place. I have already removed the canal hexside borders. The new coastal bitmaps remove the coastal hexside borders. The new rivers and lakes will remove those hexside borders. What will be left has to do with political boundaries, sea area boundaries, and weather zones. I want to make the weather zone boundaries optional (a toggle) becuase I do not find them that useful during play most of the time (95+%). I will thin out the sea area boundaries as much as possible and still have them visible at all level of zoom. I am considering removing irrelevant political boundaries, perhaps as game play options (e.g. Sudetenland). Where I am heading is to remove as many of those numerous CWIF hexside colors as possible and just leave the basic terrain features.

2 - Your interest in highlighting the invadable hexes is going in the opposite direction - using the hex borders for communicating additional information to the player. I know these are important at times, but not during all phases of game play. Passing the cursor over a hex gives you which sea areas it is adjacent to and is therefore from which ones it is invadable. That seems adequate to me, not good, but adequate. As I work on revising all the hexside borders, I'll keep your suggestion in mind.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 5:55:34 AM)

Hango is defined as part of the Finnish Borderlands in the data for CWIF.

If you start a scenario of Barbarossa in CWIF, you will find that the Hango hex has already been conceded to the USSR at the start of the scenario.

Am I right in assuming that is wrong? It is trivial to change.



lomyrin -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 8:27:52 AM)

Hango was leased to Russia by Finland for 30 years as a naval base after the 39-40 Finland/Russia war.

Lars



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 9:09:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Hango was leased to Russia by Finland for 30 years as a naval base after the 39-40 Finland/Russia war.

Lars


Ah, so CWIF has it right! Thanks.



Froonp -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 11:59:08 AM)

quote:

Why don't you like Tampere?

Well, because it is not on the WiF FE scandinavian map.



Froonp -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 12:02:20 PM)

quote:

2 - Your interest in highlighting the invadable hexes is going in the opposite direction - using the hex borders for communicating additional information to the player. I know these are important at times, but not during all phases of game play. Passing the cursor over a hex gives you which sea areas it is adjacent to and is therefore from which ones it is invadable. That seems adequate to me, not good, but adequate. As I work on revising all the hexside borders, I'll keep your suggestion in mind.

Remember that to be invadable, an hex needs more than being adjacent to a sea area. It also needs to have an "all-sea hexside" adjacent to a sea area.
For example, London is not invadable. Venice neither. There are lots others.



hakon -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 6:12:34 PM)

quote:

Currently a blue-sided hex "overrides" a blacksided hex, so the shared hexide is always blue. Since hexides shared between non-coastal and coastal hexes are always all-land, I think it would look better if black overrides blue instead.

btw, the blue/black hexide trick is a very nice way to show if an hexide is coastal !!
How about a third color for all-sea hexides, so it can be seen at a glance what hexes are invadable?

Incy


If partially land hexsides were always black, would blue hexsides always be invadable (except for lake hexsides, of course)?

Having a black hexside would also mean that (non-MAR) land units can walk across, which is also important info.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 6:18:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Why don't you like Tampere?

Well, because it is not on the WiF FE scandinavian map.


Fair enough. I'll raze Tampere.

That little Scandanavian map also shows a hex northeast of Petsamo as being part of the Finnish Borderlands. It isn't in CWIF. Should it be changed for MWIF?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 6:27:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

quote:

Currently a blue-sided hex "overrides" a blacksided hex, so the shared hexide is always blue. Since hexides shared between non-coastal and coastal hexes are always all-land, I think it would look better if black overrides blue instead.

btw, the blue/black hexide trick is a very nice way to show if an hexide is coastal !!
How about a third color for all-sea hexides, so it can be seen at a glance what hexes are invadable?

Incy


If partially land hexsides were always black, would blue hexsides always be invadable (except for lake hexsides, of course)?

Having a black hexside would also mean that (non-MAR) land units can walk across, which is also important info.


I am somewhat leery about using the hexsides this way. It seems like a very subtle addition that might not be easy to see (especailly for color blind players (?)). The information you want about the map is very important though. Is there another way this could be achieved - perhaps toggling something on and off?

For instance, when land attacks are made, a very dramatic arrow symbol is shown bettwen the attacking hex and the attacked hex. That is a temporary graphic that goes away after the attack has been made. I could have a toggle for displaying invadable hexes using a comparable symbol between the sea area and invadable hexes. And an different toggle and symbol for where marine units can cross without naval transport. This is a brand new idea (13.7 seconds old). No emotional investment has been made on my part.



hakon -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 7:13:11 PM)

quote:

I am somewhat leery about using the hexsides this way. It seems like a very subtle addition that might not be easy to see (especailly for color blind players (?)). The information you want about the map is very important though. Is there another way this could be achieved - perhaps toggling something on and off?


Well, according to RAW, the important fact is whether or not there is a land connection between two hexes. If there is a land connection, the hex is not invadable (but can be moved across by land units), while no land connection means an invadable hex. In most cases, this is obvious from the map, but a very few hexsides are borderline. (pun intended)

For these hexsides, having a black hexside extending out into the seazone will make the case very clear, and I doubt that even color blind people will have much difficulty telling black from medium blue.

The most important part, of course, is inspecting all coastal hexes, and making sure that all land connections are sufficiently wide to be obvious, so that no color coding of the hexside is needed. The most beautiful solution, of course, is to have the sea part of the hexside be blue, and the land part be black (or dark gray, etc.)



Froonp -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 8:00:38 PM)

quote:

That little Scandanavian map also shows a hex northeast of Petsamo as being part of the Finnish Borderlands. It isn't in CWIF. Should it be changed for MWIF?

I have no idea for that.
Maybe lomyrin(who knew for Hango (Finland)) or Harry could tell.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 8:51:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

quote:

I am somewhat leery about using the hexsides this way. It seems like a very subtle addition that might not be easy to see (especailly for color blind players (?)). The information you want about the map is very important though. Is there another way this could be achieved - perhaps toggling something on and off?


Well, according to RAW, the important fact is whether or not there is a land connection between two hexes. If there is a land connection, the hex is not invadable (but can be moved across by land units), while no land connection means an invadable hex. In most cases, this is obvious from the map, but a very few hexsides are borderline. (pun intended)

For these hexsides, having a black hexside extending out into the seazone will make the case very clear, and I doubt that even color blind people will have much difficulty telling black from medium blue.

The most important part, of course, is inspecting all coastal hexes, and making sure that all land connections are sufficiently wide to be obvious, so that no color coding of the hexside is needed. The most beautiful solution, of course, is to have the sea part of the hexside be blue, and the land part be black (or dark gray, etc.)


This seems at odds with the rule that Froonp posted earlier ("... adjacent to 1 all sea hex ... London not invadable").

Can you reconcil the two? Or explain how you are both saying the same thing?



hakon -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 9:36:49 PM)

This is pretty simple. A hexside being a land connection and it being an all-sea hexside are mutually exclusive.

An all sea hex side has no land connection. (Possibly a straight connection, but not a regular land connection.). Unless it is a straight (which should have a separate sympol, probably red arrows like the board game), only marines can move across an all sea hexside.

Consequently if two hexes are connected by land, the hexside separating them can not be an all sea hex side.

If you take a look at the london hex, all six hexes surrounding it have a land connection to london, so london has no all sea hexsides, and can not be invaded.




Froonp -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 9:44:33 PM)

quote:

This seems at odds with the rule that Froonp posted earlier ("... adjacent to 1 all sea hex ... London not invadable").

Can you reconcil the two? Or explain how you are both saying the same thing?

11.14 says
"You may only invade an enemy controlled coastal hex that has at least 1 all-sea hexside (at least part, but not necessarily all, of this coastal hexside must touch upon the sea area where the TRS is located)".


[image]local://upfiles/10447/520B98F8313A4ED8A9AD891E9195395D.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 9:50:28 PM)

Another example (I love examples).
[image]local://upfiles/10447/B4D6911D9D494D298F72C47231F752C4.jpg[/image]

Edit : This one is also for showing that it is not necessary to be adjacent to an hexdot as some ghosts of the WiF past may lead some of us old players to believe.



hakon -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 10:28:19 PM)

quote:


This seems at odds with the rule that Froonp posted earlier ("... adjacent to 1 all sea hex ... London not invadable").

Can you reconcil the two? Or explain how you are both saying the same thing?


As usual, Patrice is spot-on. [:)]



lomyrin -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 10:29:30 PM)

Looking at the CWiF maps I believe, but am not absolutely certain, that the CWiF hex 12,60 northeast of Petsamo should be Russian controlled after the 39-40 Winter war between Finland and Russia. Thus the Barbarossa scenario should show it as Russian.

Finland did cede the Finnish part of the Rybachi peninsula to Russia.

Lars



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 11:17:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Looking at the CWiF maps I believe, but am not absolutely certain, that the CWiF hex 12,60 northeast of Petsamo should be Russian controlled after the 39-40 Winter war between Finland and Russia. Thus the Barbarossa scenario should show it as Russian.

Finland did cede the Finnish part of the Rybachi peninsula to Russia.

Lars


But not hex (13, 59)?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 11:30:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Another example (I love examples).
[image]local://upfiles/10447/B4D6911D9D494D298F72C47231F752C4.jpg[/image]

Edit : This one is also for showing that it is not necessary to be adjacent to an hexdot as some ghosts of the WiF past may lead some of us old players to believe.


Thanks Patrice, that clarifies it for me.

Hakon, getting back to your (or somebody's) original request for color coding to indicate "all sea" hexsides. I could use something like the red arrows in Patrice's previous post to show possible invasion sites. You could toggle it off and on like you would the flags that indicate who controls which hex. It would dramatically convey the information you want.

That also means the map wouldn't have a variety of different hexside colors that have to be decoded by the players. I just picture the entire USA coastline having hexsides indicating all sea/invadable. Afterall, this discussion started because I changed the color of the hexsides that abut all sea hexes to blue in order to make the hex grid less dominant visually. Making the hex grid a more forceful presence on the map is not one of my goals.



c92nichj -> Winterwar peace treaty (1/22/2006 11:50:54 PM)

The new SE border will follow in principle the border of "Peter the Great" drawn in 1721, where the entire Karelian isthmus with the city of Viborg, the whole of Viborg Bay with its islands, as well as the territory west and north of Lake Ladoga with the cities of Käkisalmi and Sortavala, are ceded.

A part of the area near Salla and Kuusamo are ceded, due to the closeness of the Murmansk railroad

In Kalastajasaarento (the island NE of Petsamo, Rybachi Peninsula in English), the western part of the island is ceded

The Finnish islands in the eastern part of Gulf of Finland are ceded (Suursaari and the islands to the east)

Hangö and the surrounding area is for 30 years (the Soviet Union gets the right to establish a military base, with as much armed forces as deemed necessary)


[image]local://upfiles/15172/2DAF2A558D964EE9B33DC9CB71E21E83.gif[/image]



hakon -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/22/2006 11:51:42 PM)

In fact, my main was the aesthetics of the blue color of parially land hexsides. (It reminded me of rivers.) Using only black hexsides (like the board game) would work for me. If there has to be several different colors on the hexsides, this should convey some kind of meaning, imho.

The prettiest solution (assuming that blue hexsides at sea is wanted) would be to have the sea-part blue and the land-part black. I realize that this is more work, though.

Anyway, this is just minor nitpick from my side, the maps already look great.



Froonp -> RE: Winterwar peace treaty (1/23/2006 12:03:58 AM)

quote:

The new SE border will follow in principle the border of "Peter the Great" drawn in 1721,


According to this map (thanks c92nichj, do you have it larger ?), the hexes in CWiF that are for the moment part of the Finnish Borderlands around hex 26.57 (near Salla, east of Oulu), should be more to the north. It's also what the Scandinavian map shows.

Now, maybe a screenshot of these lands (near Salla) should be shown to a Finnish player (c92nichj ? lomyrin ?) so that he designate which hexes should be part of the Finnish Borderlands.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Winterwar peace treaty (1/23/2006 12:24:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

The new SE border will follow in principle the border of "Peter the Great" drawn in 1721,


According to this map (thanks c92nichj, do you have it larger ?), the hexes in CWiF that are for the moment part of the Finnish Borderlands around hex 26.57 (near Salla, east of Oulu), should be more to the north. It's also what the Scandinavian map shows.

Now, maybe a screenshot of these lands (near Salla) should be shown to a Finnish player (c92nichj ? lomyrin ?) so that he designate which hexes should be part of the Finnish Borderlands.


Ok.

I had to split it into three pieces. This is from Global War (September 1939) so all the Finnish Borderlands are still under Finnish rule.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/5342EE175D9240D8A3F8E8A02229CE9C.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Winterwar peace treaty (1/23/2006 12:25:53 AM)

The center piece of 3, which shows the area Patrice believes should be reviewed for accuracy.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/6E31C99AC7804012ABC92BAB25DCBE36.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Winterwar peace treaty (1/23/2006 12:36:14 AM)

I have just started work improving the railroads.

Hango doesn't say Finnish borderlands - mainly becuase the area is rather crowded - but that is why there is a thin red outline for it.

------------

About the railroads.

I have them so they now go to the city in the hex, if there is one. 2nd priority is a port and 3rd is a resource point. 4th is a straits connection. Otherwise they are just "pass-through" hexes. I have adjusted how they are drawn for each of the 8 zoom levels so they appear as a slightly darker yellow than the cities with a brown outline. At the 2 lowest levels of zoom, they are pure black.

There is a road in the first of these 3 screen shots that runs up to Petsamo. WIF displays very few roads.

I am going to add cross ties for the railroads. Have them pass through other parts of the hexside than the center. Avoid wet areas. And as a "piece de resistance" (sp?) curve them like Beckham. Oh, and try to find a clever way to handle intersections.

(Patrice, sorry about Tampere. Its day's are numbered).

[image]local://upfiles/16701/90F8E8FD8B7B47AE912EEDA84327BB3E.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: Winterwar peace treaty (1/23/2006 12:39:23 AM)

quote:

(Patrice, sorry about Tampere. Its day's are numbered).

Hey, I've nothing against Tampere, it's just not on the WiF FE Scandinavian map [:D]



lomyrin -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/23/2006 12:52:40 AM)

I believe hx 13,59 should have been Russian to begin with in 1939.

Lars



lomyrin -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/23/2006 1:00:05 AM)

Please disregard the entry re hex 13,59, looking better at the map, it should be Finnish.

Lars



c92nichj -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/23/2006 1:23:00 AM)

The reason USSR claimed the Saala area was that it was to close to the murmansk railroad. This is represnted in the scandinavian map from ADG.

Looking at the CWIF map I think that the whole of Northern Finland looks skewed.

[image]local://upfiles/15172/D4866046F3B94F18A071F64A905C941B.gif[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.75