Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

I think almost every Central & South American country joined up on the Allied side (over the course of 41-45), just like how most of them signed on to WWI for the Entente after the Americans joined in 1917, but if I am not much mistaken not many of them actually did much in the way of contributing combat forces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

I think almost every Central & South American country joined up on the Allied side (over the course of 41-45), just like how most of them signed on to WWI for the Entente after the Americans joined in 1917, but if I am not much mistaken not many of them actually did much in the way of contributing combat forces.

Mexicans & Brazilians are quite famous for having participated to the Allied war effort, especially the Brazillians with their P-47 in Italy. Great Fighter Group it seems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

These map changes look good. I can almost recognise the terrain there.

Would it be possible to put two labels in the Christchurch hex? The town (yellow dot) is called Christchurch, the port (port symbol) is called Lyttleton. They aren't really the same city and Christchurch isn't a port (it has mud flats but no navigable waterways).

Or perhaps just add the "Lyttleton" label near the port symbol for interest's sake.

Is the "Pelennor Fields" label going to stay? It's amusing.

quote:

I concur that Wellington should not be a major port, but I think that Lyttleton should not be one either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Is the "Pelennor Fields" label going to stay? It's amusing.[
I intend it to stay. This is where the Pelennor Fields were shooted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Could someone enlighten me please as to what Baa Baa Baaa, P.Fields and Mount Doom Easter Eggs all means? - I`m lost......

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney


If there is a counter in PiF for that Marine fighter squadron (as there is with Rudel), then it might make sense, but otherwise No.

quote:

although i do recall a rule that you must be able to invade into a coastal hex from a full ocean hex -

quote:

so, summarising, if double layers of coastal hexes block invasions, there might be a case for representing the reef with coastal hexes. any gaps could represent the known channels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Fisher

good work on the maps - they look terrific. harry and patrice asked me to have a look and make any comments i might have. i am starting with Australia of course! i hope i find the time to look at them all.

quote:

and i give comments only as a punter, so take them or not as you please, i have not been involved with WiF maps for many years. so please forgive me if i am not aware of current policy on what is in or out . . .

quote:

on rockhampton, it is not right that being inland it was not a port. the fitzroy was a navigable river allowing rockhampton to function as a port from the mid 19thC, mostly supplies in and cattle out - until the river silted up and the port was transferred to the river mouth (port alma), a process completed in the 1960s. see http://www.rockhampton.qld.gov.au/rccnet/showarticle.aspx?id=9630. there were 70,000 US troops stationed there in WW2 and it was a trans-shipment point to north and south. Rockhampton was a larger port than Mackay and Cairns though. if you have townsville, cairns and mackay you should have rockhampton.

quote:

also there is the broader issue of the Great Barrier Reef; someone mentioned earlier that there is no inhibition in WiF to amphibious invasions into any coastal hex, so this may be an irrelevant aside - although i do recall a rule that you must be able to invade into a coastal hex from a full ocean hex - but it would have been difficult for the Japanese to make and sustain large landings through the reef. in HOI2 for example there are no invasion beaches at all along Queensland's east coast which means in that game you can't invade across the reef. this is a matter of judgment; assuming control of Moresby, the historical IJA invasion plan of Australia was to slip regimental/brigade sized groups through the reef to build up a bridgehead, the IJN plan (Yamamoto) was to avoid the reef entirely and dump five divisions straight on Sydney, a plan the Army was rather less keen on. typically each plan assigns the greater risk to the other service, the army requiring the navy to risk the reef and the navy demanding the army risk five divisions in a distant amphibious assault into a city. not surprisingly, no agreement was reached.

so, summarising, if double layers of coastal hexes block invasions, there might be a case for representing the reef with coastal hexes. any gaps could represent the known channels.

quote:

the only other change i would suggest is the Mt Kosciusko alpine hexside, i think it should be one hex to the west; it is too close to the coast where it is. it should be slightly to the east of a line drawn from Canberra to Melbourne. The Snowy River should probably also lose its furthest inland hex-edge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Changing terrain types for later version of MWIF sounds reasonable. Beside coastal barrier reef we also have 'useless' atoll.

quote:

If you want to change the Snowy river, the graphic does not have to be changed. Just remove the river hexside from COA. That way the CutUpBitmaps program will ignore the unwanted part of the river.