RE: Maps for MWIF (Full Version)

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



Message

Glen Felzien -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/4/2006 8:42:37 PM)

I think a possible approach to manipulating units within each sea box could be solved or made easier with a popup opaque window:

Click on the sea box you wish to view. An opaque window appears. This window can be moved anywhere within the sea zone. The shape of the window can be adjusted for both height and width.

Within the window, the units would be auto arranged or the player could arrange them him/herself by left clicking and dropping them anywhere with the confines of the window. Transport capable units that are loaded would be half covered by the unit they are carrying. Units that have been used in previous operations would have that particular factor shaded or red stroked out.

To select a unit for an operation, right click the unit. A menu appears that lists all the possible operations that unit is capable of within the rules. For example, right click the land unit, select invasion; all the invasion eligible hexes within that sea zone are highlighted. Left click the target hex and the unit appears in location and the transport appears fully in the sea box window.

Finally, a player could open as many sea boxes as he wishes both Axis and Allied thus allowing for side by side comparisons of the contents. The only drawback would be the small the sea zone, the fewer boxes can be opened or at least the popup window would have to be arranged smaller.

The upside to this appraoch is that the players themselves can determine the nature of the display.

Anyway, food for thought.



Glen Felzien -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/4/2006 8:51:29 PM)

Regarding the previous post, maybe have an option that allows players to save their unit arrangements for each time they open a popup window.



stretch -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/4/2006 8:53:29 PM)

Wow this is great, my biggest beef with CWiF completely fixed. Units in sea boxes on the map (in stacks). This is a great day getting to see it finally...

I think the opaque box for showing units is fine, as you point out the alternatives don't work very well anyway. Maybe have it pop up on mouseover instead of click to allow quick scanning of the multiple boxes? Were you referring to showing all units in say, a single box at once, or to look at the entire conents of the whole sea area at once?

Edit : got distracted by work and didn't see the above posts, obvuiously.



pak19652002 -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/4/2006 9:29:40 PM)

I'm warming up to the map now that it's been out there for a while and the terrain has been tweaked. I agree on Patrice's desert mountain comments and I would also add that still more relief should be added to both kinds of mountains. I don't want to get into the whole "brain terrain" debate again, but it's hard for me to tell the difference between the forest and mountain hexes and even the desert and desert mountain hexes. Adding some "height" to the peaks would be helpful.

After all, the mountains are supposed to be tall enough to slow down panzers.[;)]

Peter



WiFDaniel -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/6/2006 10:14:55 PM)

Just want to praise you guys for the sea boxes. They look great!

Daniel



c92nichj -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/7/2006 3:29:41 PM)

quote:

I will have the artist revise the map between Sheffield and Hull so it is clear. Leed's hex is not a coastal hex though, so it is a little tricky to render.

Are their other hexes like this? I seem to recall reading a list of them somehwere once upon a time. I can have the artist make them clearer than the paper maps.

- The hex east of Bordeaux
- The hex Southwest of Nantes
- The hex NorthWest of Stockholm
- The Hex East of Stettin



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/7/2006 6:12:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

quote:

I will have the artist revise the map between Sheffield and Hull so it is clear. Leed's hex is not a coastal hex though, so it is a little tricky to render.

Are their other hexes like this? I seem to recall reading a list of them somehwere once upon a time. I can have the artist make them clearer than the paper maps.

- The hex east of Bordeaux
- The hex Southwest of Nantes
- The hex NorthWest of Stockholm
- The Hex East of Stettin


Thanks.

Am I right in assuming that these are all the same as for Sheffield-Hull? The inland hex is not reachable from the sea (through that inlet) while the two hexes forming the inlet are separated by an all sea hexside.



c92nichj -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/7/2006 7:05:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

quote:

I will have the artist revise the map between Sheffield and Hull so it is clear. Leed's hex is not a coastal hex though, so it is a little tricky to render.

Are their other hexes like this? I seem to recall reading a list of them somehwere once upon a time. I can have the artist make them clearer than the paper maps.

- The hex east of Bordeaux
- The hex Southwest of Nantes
- The hex NorthWest of Stockholm
- The Hex East of Stettin


Thanks.

Am I right in assuming that these are all the same as for Sheffield-Hull? The inland hex is not reachable from the sea (through that inlet) while the two hexes forming the inlet are separated by an all sea hexside.



I think so but I am sure that Patrice will comment soon enough and I would go by his rule, he have studied the maps more than me.
The original map is not that clear, it is especially important to get it right when it comes to the hex east of Bordeax as if it is all sea it makes it invadeable, there was a long discussion about that hex on the Yahoo Forum a while ago, but I cannot recall what the outcome was.



Froonp -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/7/2006 9:43:30 PM)

I made a list some years ago, and asked Harry when in doubt.
Since that time, the maps were reprinted and some of these were visualy clarified.

Here is my list :
"Yes" means that the passage is allowed between the hexes, "No" means it is not allowed.
****************************************
WESTERN EUROPE MAP
0237 to Stettin (0337) : No (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)
Kiel (0638) to Bremen (0737) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)
0837 to 0937 (Netherlands) : Yes (clarified by Harry on 26/8/97) (Yes - CWiF) (Obvious Yes on (c) 2000 maps)
Amsterdam (1036) to 1037 (Netherlands) : Canal hexside (hex 1035 & 0936 are even shore bombardmentable)

Le Havre (1532) to 1531 : No (obvious) (No - CWiF)
Nantes (1829) to 1828 : Yes (clarified by Harry on 26/8/97) (Yes - CWiF) (Obvious Yes on (c) 2000 maps)
1725 to Bordeaux (1825) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)

London to Dover : Yes (obvious)
Bristol to Cardiff : No (obvious)
Hull (1440) to Sheffield (1539) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF)

0147 (Sweden, Europe) to 3146 (Sweden, Eastern Europe) : Yes (obvious, strait)

Note that the hexside between W0936 and W1036 is a lake hexside


EASTERN EUROPEAN MAP
Stockholm (3047) to 3148 : No (obvious on (c) 2000 western european map) (No - CWiF)
Hango (Finland) (2647) to 2748 : No (obvious)
2020 (Bulgaria) to 1921 (Bulgaria) : No (obvious)
1728 (Ukraine) to Nikolayev (1628) : No (me, pretty obvious)
Nikolayev (1628) to 1627 (Ukraine) : No (me, pretty obvious)
Evpatoria (1526) to Sevastopol (1425) : No (me, pretty obvious)
****************************************



c92nichj -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/7/2006 10:08:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I made a list some years ago, and asked Harry when in doubt.
Since that time, the maps were reprinted and some of these were visualy clarified.

Here is my list :
"Yes" means that the passage is allowed between the hexes, "No" means it is not allowed.
****************************************
WESTERN EUROPE MAP
0237 to Stettin (0337) : No (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)
Kiel (0638) to Bremen (0737) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)
0837 to 0937 (Netherlands) : Yes (clarified by Harry on 26/8/97) (Yes - CWiF) (Obvious Yes on (c) 2000 maps)
Amsterdam (1036) to 1037 (Netherlands) : Canal hexside (hex 1035 & 0936 are even shore bombardmentable)

Le Havre (1532) to 1531 : No (obvious) (No - CWiF)
Nantes (1829) to 1828 : Yes (clarified by Harry on 26/8/97) (Yes - CWiF) (Obvious Yes on (c) 2000 maps)
1725 to Bordeaux (1825) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF) (Obvious No on (c) 2000 maps)

London to Dover : Yes (obvious)
Bristol to Cardiff : No (obvious)
Hull (1440) to Sheffield (1539) : No (Harry personal on 29/4/98) (No - CWiF)

0147 (Sweden, Europe) to 3146 (Sweden, Eastern Europe) : Yes (obvious, strait)

Note that the hexside between W0936 and W1036 is a lake hexside


EASTERN EUROPEAN MAP
Stockholm (3047) to 3148 : No (obvious on (c) 2000 western european map) (No - CWiF)
Hango (Finland) (2647) to 2748 : No (obvious)
2020 (Bulgaria) to 1921 (Bulgaria) : No (obvious)
1728 (Ukraine) to Nikolayev (1628) : No (me, pretty obvious)
Nikolayev (1628) to 1627 (Ukraine) : No (me, pretty obvious)
Evpatoria (1526) to Sevastopol (1425) : No (me, pretty obvious)
****************************************


In all those hexpairs with a 'NO' does that also mean that the hex between them are shorebombardable and possible to supply by sea for example hex 0236?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/7/2006 10:26:56 PM)

Thanks, Patrice. I'll double check MWIF concerning these hexes.



Froonp -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/7/2006 10:45:22 PM)

quote:

In all those hexpairs with a 'NO' does that also mean that the hex between them are shorebombardable and possible to supply by sea for example hex 0236?

We need to have a close look at the map to answer that. If the sea extend into the "middle hex", it is yes, otherwise it is no.

0237 to Stettin (0337), Middle hex : 0236 : No.
Kiel (0638) to Bremen (0737), Middle hex : Hamburg : Not shorebombardable, but yes for supply because it is a port.
For the Zuider Zee, we should ask harry whether hex 0936 is invadable & shorebombardable and whether 1035 is shorebombardable (it is clearly not invadable), because my comment came from the WiF list at the time.

Le Havre (1532) to 1531, Middle hex : Rouen : has access to the sea, so Yes.
1725 to Bordeaux (1825), Middle hex : 1724 : No.

Bristol to Cardiff, Middle hex : 1735 : Yes.
Hull (1440) to Sheffield (1539), Middle hex : Leeds : No.

Stockholm (3047) to 3148, Middle hex : 0147 : No. (On my (c) 2004 maps, passage seems possible between Stockholm (3047) to 3148).
Hango (Finland) (2647) to 2748, Middle hex : 2648 : Yes.
2020 (Bulgaria) to 1921 (Bulgaria), Middle hex : Burgas : Yes.
1728 (Ukraine) to Nikolayev (1628), Middle hex : 1629 : No.
Nikolayev (1628) to 1627 (Ukraine), Middle hex : 1527 : No.
Evpatoria (1526) to Sevastopol (1425), Middle hex : 1426 : No.

For the Pacific & Asia Maps, its all new so its to Harry & Matrix & Steve to decide.




Froonp -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/7/2006 10:49:26 PM)

quote:

For the Pacific & Asia Maps, its all new so its to Harry & Matrix & Steve to decide.

But the art of the map and the game engine (who is deciding if passage is possible or not) has to be consistent.

For Sheffield & Hull, the art is far from consistent with the impossible passage.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 10:23:20 AM)

After a hiatus of 4 weeks the graphics guy is back. Here are some screen shots showing the new mountain and swamp. Comments?

The weird lines around the coastal hexes are gone. I moved the sea boxes. It is mostly the mountains that are new though.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/CCD07C1F803442858F5312EB857DDF4B.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 10:25:52 AM)

Here is a closer view at zoom level 6. The previous shot was at 4. I changed the font for the river names: smaller and italics.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/6E3C0D2BAB2545E89955F9BAF5A3A880.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 10:28:03 AM)

Here are a mix of terrain types at level 8 zoom (maximum). This is somewhere in deepest Africa. The swamp has been modified because it was too similar to the clear terrain.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/A83EB7BD110C46B68F8F43C12B7C9BEF.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 10:30:16 AM)

The last in the series. I haven't repositioned the labels for cities et al in this portion of the map. My concern is the similarity between the swamp and forest.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/8C4BFDD383414D65B4B91C482478BE81.jpg[/image]



Caranorn -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 3:06:59 PM)

The swamp looks good to me, quite different from the forest.



Froonp -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 3:17:57 PM)

quote:

The last in the series. I haven't repositioned the labels for cities et al in this portion of the map. My concern is the similarity between the swamp and forest.

For me they are too close.
I think that the forest should be darker green.
Anyway, the swamp is going the good direction.



Froonp -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 3:27:33 PM)

quote:

Here are some screen shots showing the new mountain and swamp. Comments?

The mountains are going in the right direction IMHO, as the swamps.
The mountains now really seem to have a relief.
But IMO it should be more visible, it isn't visible enough.

For the sea boxes, I still feel they would look much better if they were larger and if they touched each others. Moreover, the WiF rule talks about the sea box designating the whole 0 to 4 arrangement of sections. Seeing this maps, you could think there are 10 boxes. This could be confusing. Or you could draw a line around them so that we know its only one sea box.



buckyzoom -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 3:54:57 PM)

The maps are beautiful. I agree that there should be more contrast between the forest and the swamp. I also think this is true for the contrast between clear and forest and clear and swamp. Would a darker green forest and darker blue swamps help with this? Have you had any feedback from folks who are color blind?



lomyrin -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 6:37:43 PM)

I agree with Patrice's post #260 regarding the map contrasts and the seaboxes.

Lars



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 7:05:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
For the sea boxes, I still feel they would look much better if they were larger and if they touched each others. Moreover, the WiF rule talks about the sea box designating the whole 0 to 4 arrangement of sections. Seeing this maps, you could think there are 10 boxes. This could be confusing. Or you could draw a line around them so that we know its only one sea box.


WIF FE used a single stencil for all the sea boxes. It contained the 5 sections within that stencil. They used it, as is, whenever they needed sea boxes which resulted in them placing it at some odd angles in the Red , Baltic and Caspian Seas. The sections within the WIF FE sea boxes were oversized because they had to be. They contained naval units from both sides and it often happened that 20 or more units would be stacked in one section of the sea box. Indeed, many times I wished they were even larger so I could pick up one stack of units without knocking over the units in adjoining sea sections.

The rules may talk about placing units in a sea box but what they really say is that you place them in a section of the sea box.

Drawing a line around the group of 5 sea boxes is awkward in the 3 sea areas I mentioned above. I do not see the gain here since each sea box section is clearly labeled. How adding another box around the boxes increases the clarity, beyond what the labels provide, escapes my understanding.

I do firmly believe that separating the Axis from the Allied units in the sea area is a very good thing. Having each sea box section split into two pieces will help players understand what is going on during the game.

I do want to add to the interface of what is displayed and how it is displayed when a player wants to examine units within a sea area in detail. But that is a task for another day.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 7:06:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

The last in the series. I haven't repositioned the labels for cities et al in this portion of the map. My concern is the similarity between the swamp and forest.

For me they are too close.
I think that the forest should be darker green.
Anyway, the swamp is going the good direction.


Look at the Africa screen shot to see my concern about just simply making the forest darker. It then starts to look like the jungle.



SurrenderMonkey -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 7:12:31 PM)

Hi Shannon,

Well, for what it's worth, I think the maps look TERRIFIC. Let's not aim so high that we endanger any other area of development. Sheesh - the screenshots make the map look far more than adequate. Very nice. Thanks. [:)]



ParJ -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 7:14:35 PM)


I'm new as a Forum poster, but I've followed the discussion for some time now. I've plaed the CWiF game (Barbarossa) and are at least somewhat familiar with the scale used in that game (I've tried Guadalcanal as well, but didn't like the fact that naval units wasn't shown on the map).

I have some opinions that I need to ventilate:

- Regarding Off map boxes

I have played the WIF boardgame 39-45 scenario close to 10 times during the last 16 years. I have seen every version of the game during this time, but I haven't seen an off map box in a game for at least 5 years. We play with the two European maps, the two Asia/pacific maps, the Africa map, Americas and the Scandinavian extension map. This eliminates all off map boxes for the game, but introduces another scale for the Americas map. I can see why a uniform scale would be pleasing to the developer as well to anyone playing the game since the original maps would have very distinct borders. Add any texture you like (I'm like Neo from the Matrix movies when it comes to WiF, I only see the ones and zeros, or in this case the original WiF graphics from 1989 when I bought my first WiF game) but make sure it can be switched off (to "vanilla style").

- Divisions and breakdown

This can easily be solved. In addition to the standard WiF counters and divisions that can be used anyway you please, you could allow additional breakdown of units but the unit broken down into a division would be placed in a "Breakdown Pool" (there are not enough different pools in WiF, so let's add another one). That Corps (or Army in case of Russia) would not be available in the forcepool and can only be placed on the map as part of a reforming of two divisions. That would solve any issue anyone would have against the different scale in Asia. You can decide if you want to have more of weaker units or fewer normal strenght units. This would balance itself.

- Movement

In our last game we used a "house rule" (at least I think it was) where the movement between hexes cost half of the hex you're in and half of the hex you're moving to. This evens out swamps and other difficult terrain without impacting the play balance. I was a bit sceptic before we started the game (mostly because of the manual calculation of movement cost) but it turned out to be a great and enjuyable rule change.

- Force pools/available units

This should not be tampered with, because this would really impact play balance more than the map scale.


That's it for me for now. But I might post another note later in 2006.

/Oto



c92nichj -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 7:26:40 PM)

I love the new terrain, especially the mountain which is now as close to perfect as it can get. I disagree with Patrice about having it look more brainy.
Swamp is also much better I like it a lot.
I also like the way you solved the sea sections, have to disagree with Patrice on this one as well.


So get the artist start working on the coastlines instead of messing around with the terrain :)

Nicklas



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 7:27:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oto02
I'm new as a Forum poster, but I've followed the discussion for some time now. I've plaed the CWiF game (Barbarossa) and are at least somewhat familiar with the scale used in that game (I've tried Guadalcanal as well, but didn't like the fact that naval units wasn't shown on the map).

I have some opinions that I need to ventilate:

- Regarding Off map boxes

I have played the WIF boardgame 39-45 scenario close to 10 times during the last 16 years. I have seen every version of the game during this time, but I haven't seen an off map box in a game for at least 5 years. We play with the two European maps, the two Asia/pacific maps, the Africa map, Americas and the Scandinavian extension map. This eliminates all off map boxes for the game, but introduces another scale for the Americas map. I can see why a uniform scale would be pleasing to the developer as well to anyone playing the game since the original maps would have very distinct borders. Add any texture you like (I'm like Neo from the Matrix movies when it comes to WiF, I only see the ones and zeros, or in this case the original WiF graphics from 1989 when I bought my first WiF game) but make sure it can be switched off (to "vanilla style").

- Divisions and breakdown

This can easily be solved. In addition to the standard WiF counters and divisions that can be used anyway you please, you could allow additional breakdown of units but the unit broken down into a division would be placed in a "Breakdown Pool" (there are not enough different pools in WiF, so let's add another one). That Corps (or Army in case of Russia) would not be available in the forcepool and can only be placed on the map as part of a reforming of two divisions. That would solve any issue anyone would have against the different scale in Asia. You can decide if you want to have more of weaker units or fewer normal strenght units. This would balance itself.

- Movement

In our last game we used a "house rule" (at least I think it was) where the movement between hexes cost half of the hex you're in and half of the hex you're moving to. This evens out swamps and other difficult terrain without impacting the play balance. I was a bit sceptic before we started the game (mostly because of the manual calculation of movement cost) but it turned out to be a great and enjuyable rule change.

- Force pools/available units

This should not be tampered with, because this would really impact play balance more than the map scale.


That's it for me for now. But I might post another note later in 2006.

/Oto


I agree with all that you wrote. Your description of the division breakdown rule is how I intend to implement it (it will be an option, like so many others).

However, as to changing the movement rules, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of house rules in the world of WIF. I would be astonished if there aren't dozens of them that are excellent additions to the WIF FE rules (RAW). However, I have a set task before me, which is to implement WIF FE. As currently defined there are 76 optional rules in MWIF product 1. Any attempt to increase that number (or change what they are) is going to have to wait until product 1 is in players' hot little hands.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 7:29:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

So get the artist start working on the coastlines instead of messing around with the terrain :)

Nicklas


A sore point, to say the least.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Maps for MWIF (1/19/2006 8:34:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey

Hi Shannon,

Well, for what it's worth, I think the maps look TERRIFIC. Let's not aim so high that we endanger any other area of development. Sheesh - the screenshots make the map look far more than adequate. Very nice. Thanks. [:)]



Thank you.

My work on the graphics is a diversion for me from the harder stuff. When I need a break, I look at my list of "Gee, it would be nice" for graphics stuff and mess around with it for a half hour or so. I try to always have easy stuff available to work on from time to time - especially when I find I am beating my head against a brick wall with a coding problem.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.859375