Slitherine

quote:

Re: The Rabaul Problem

I don't think its really all that serious an issue, not a game-breaker by any means.

Due to the scale change on the Pac/Asia maps there are a huge number of locations that have the same issue (ie different number of hexdots til you reach a seabox, different number of hexsides that can attack hex XXX). This is just something that has to be accepted unless it makes a *radical* change that severely alters playbalance. A much bigger change is Guadalcanal becoming a 2 hex island, but even this isn't a huge worrying change.

Rabaul can still be attacked by 2 inf and 2 marine corps...the 2 marines just have to start on transports now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom

quote:

Re: The Rabaul Problem

I don't think its really all that serious an issue, not a game-breaker by any means.

Due to the scale change on the Pac/Asia maps there are a huge number of locations that have the same issue (ie different number of hexdots til you reach a seabox, different number of hexsides that can attack hex XXX). This is just something that has to be accepted unless it makes a *radical* change that severely alters playbalance. A much bigger change is Guadalcanal becoming a 2 hex island, but even this isn't a huge worrying change.

Rabaul can still be attacked by 2 inf and 2 marine corps...the 2 marines just have to start on transports now.

I agree, but we should also look at the situation from the Japanese side.

If the CW somehow garrisons Rabaul with 2 units, one of them white print, things get really tough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42
And in the case of Solomon's Islands, with the conquest of Guadalcanal port you would conquest all of the Solomons? Including San Cristobal and other isles not connected via hexside to Guadalcanal?

Yes.
The game does not show the brigades & batallions and myriad of small units that do this job over the course of the months that the game turn represent, so they are symbolised this way.
Just like when you control Warsaw & Lotz, you gain control of all Poland.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RAW-WiFFE-7.0.PDF

22.4.1 Divisions (AsA/MiF/PoliF option 2)

Asia Aflame and Mech in Flames include divisions. Treat any brigade size unit as a division.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

********************************
You also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in.
********************************

The later means that you are not obliged to conquer the cities that might be inland in a Territory surrounded by water.
There is no Territory on the WiF FE map that is likewise. There is only one Territory with a city by the way, this is Sardinia. I can't find another. This latter part of RAW could have been dropped.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

On the question of the secondary method of conquering territories (controlling all ports on all adjacent sea zones) ...

Does any territory have an inland city? Someone mentioned Sardinia, but on the map I have seen (March 2007) Sardinia has no inland city.

If the answer is No, then surely the secondary method of conquest is a subset of the primary except in territories without ports? That is to say, to fulfill the secondary conditions you would have to control all the territory's ports anyway, at which point the territory is conquered by the requirements of the primary.

If my logic is sound, then it would simplify everything if the secondary conquest technique were reserved exclusively for the conquest of islands like Nauru or larger territories without ports. The rules could then be re-drafted as simply:

"To conquer a territory with ports, it is necessary to control all ports in that territory. To conquer a territory without ports, it is necessary to control all ports on any sea-zone on which that territiry has a coastal hex."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

I do have a question with regards to the Hawaiian Islands. What isles are all considered part of this 'territory'? Is Midway included? Does conquest of Oahu(and Midway if Hawaiian) auto conquer the entire chain of islands?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Some territories without ports: Ubangi-Shari (Fr), Ugandi (CW), Ruanda-Urundi (Bel), Northern Rhodesia (CW), Southern Rhodesia (CW), Nyasaland (CW), Admiralty Islands (CW), New Ireland (CW), Nauru (CW), and Santa Cruz Islands (CW).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
Some territories without ports: Ubangi-Shari (Fr), Ugandi (CW), Ruanda-Urundi (Bel), Northern Rhodesia (CW), Southern Rhodesia (CW), Nyasaland (CW), Admiralty Islands (CW), New Ireland (CW), Nauru (CW), and Santa Cruz Islands (CW).

Ubangi-Shari (Fr), Uganda (CW), Northern Rhodesia (CW), Southern Rhodesia (CW), Nyasaland (CW) are Minor Countries. They have capital cities.

It is true that Nauru and the Santa Cruz Islands are conquered hex by hex, as they have no port nor cities. Nauru is just 1 hex, like Johnston Island, Marcus Island, Wake Island.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

On the question of the secondary method of conquering territories (controlling all ports on all adjacent sea zones) ...

Does any territory have an inland city?  Someone mentioned Sardinia, but on the map I have seen (March 2007) Sardinia has no inland city.

If the answer is No, then surely the secondary method of conquest is a subset of the primary except in territories without ports? That is to say, to fulfill the secondary conditions you would have to control all the territory's ports anyway, at which point the territory is conquered by the requirements of the primary.

If my logic is sound, then it would simplify everything if the secondary conquest technique were reserved exclusively for the conquest of islands like Nauru or larger territories without ports.  The rules could then be re-drafted as simply:

"To conquer a territory with ports, it is necessary to control all ports in that territory. To conquer a territory without ports, it is necessary to control all ports on any sea-zone on which that territiry has a coastal hex."

quote:

To use your example:

To automatically conquer Nauru (a territory without ports) at the same time as the Santa Cruz Islands (CW)(a territory without ports), you would have control all ports on any sea-zone on which that territory has a coastal hex.

In other words: Truk, Ponape, Kwajakein, Majuro, Tarawa, Nukufetau, Port Vila, Espritu Santo, and Henderson Field.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney
Does any territory have an inland city?  Someone mentioned Sardinia, but on the map I have seen (March 2007) Sardinia has no inland city.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

To use your example:

To automatically conquer Nauru (a territory without ports) at the same time as the Santa Cruz Islands (CW)(a territory without ports), you would have control all ports on any sea-zone on which that territory has a coastal hex.

In other words: Truk, Ponape, Kwajakein, Majuro, Tarawa, Nukufetau, Port Vila, Espritu Santo, and Henderson Field.

Just a remark.
I can't see how RAW can be read to result in the above. Can you tell me where this would be explained ?

Does this comes from that :

13.7.1
******************************
You also conquer a territory if you control every port and coastal city in every sea area the territory has a coastal hex in.
******************************

So, if you conquer Truk, Ponape, Kwajakein, Majuro, Tarawa, Nukufetau, Port Vila, Espritu Santo, and Guadalcanal, then you controll all port-less Territories of the Solomons Islands ? (which is Nauru only) ?

That's it ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

New Ireland problem (continued)
 
There have been some valid comments posted here, about inadvertent changes caused by the different scale (air-ranges etc), but I think these affect both sides equally.

Different players have different styles.  For me, the special ability of MAR which I value is their ability to 'go walkies' along island chains.  I value this more than their non-halving in invasions.

In a game where the Allies have suffered significant naval losses, it is very comforting to be able to still mount some sort of limited offensive in the south using predominantly marines and land-based air ... or to force the Japanese to at least garrison against such a threat.

The great wash of pale blue hexes around Rabaul in WiF FE (see Post 51) allows marines to isolate Rabaul north and south as was done historically without committing the navy.  The change of scale in MWiF has destroyed this feature, whether via the Admiralty Islands to the north, or via Woodlark to the south.  That, I agree, is inevitable.  But I don't think we should go on to destroy the one land-bridge that would legitimately remain if the map were drawn accurately, through New Ireland and Rabaul itself.

In WiF FE, a marine can technically march all the way from Guadalcanal to the northwest corner of New Guinea by a choice of routes.  At the moment there is no route at all.

Apart from that, the map is plain wrong, which, frankly, given the vast effort expended to make this the best WWII computer-game ever, irritates me.  A channel 30 - 50 km wide is depicted as if it were 90 km wide.  The southernmost hex of New Ireland should be one hex east of Rabaul, as any atlas will confirm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The simplest way I see this could be solved, would be to have the New Britain Island extended 1 hex to the NW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
The simplest way I see this could be solved, would be to have the New Britain Island extended 1 hex to the NW. But I'm not sure that we still have the possibility of doing that, that is, change coastlines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The simplest way I see this could be solved, would be to have the New Britain Island extended 1 hex to the NW.

Presumably, you mean extend New Britain one hex northeast and put Rabaul in that new hex?

quote:

I rather assumed that the reason making changes is tedious is the need to define to the computer the function of each hex, where the coastline goes, etc, rather than the actual artwork. So I thought re-defining just four hexes without port or city would be quicker than shifting Rabaul.

quote:

As I originally proposed, the second hex of New Ireland would have to be identified as exiting to the southeast rather than the east, with the third and fourth hexes redefined as being one hex to the southwest. Likewise, Lihir. So that is really only three and a half hexes to edit, surely not such a burden measured against the staggering challenge of the AI?

quote:

Basically, while preferring twisting New Ireland clockwise 20 or 30 degrees as described above, I will vote for any solution which closes the gap between Rabaul and New Ireland. The MWiF curvature of New Britain is already a bit extreme, but if the choice is between extending the island NE just a little way (with Rabaul shifted there) or doing nothing, then I will shut my mouth and be grateful for your generosity!

Do you have a historical map of New Britain and New Ireland that you can post, so that readers can see what it is that concerns me? My map, stretching from Lae to San Cristobal, is paper-only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney
I rather assumed that the reason making changes is tedious is the need to define to the computer the function of each hex, where the coastline goes, etc, rather than the actual artwork. So I thought re-defining just four hexes without port or city would be quicker than shifting Rabaul.

As I originally proposed, the second hex of New Ireland would have to be identified as exiting to the southeast rather than the east, with the third and fourth hexes redefined as being one hex to the southwest. Likewise, Lihir. So that is really only three and a half hexes to edit, surely not such a burden measured against the staggering challenge of the AI?

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The simplest way I see this could be solved, would be to have the New Britain Island extended 1 hex to the NW.

Presumably, you mean extend New Britain one hex northeast and put Rabaul in that new hex?

I rather assumed that the reason making changes is tedious is the need to define to the computer the function of each hex, where the coastline goes, etc, rather than the actual artwork. So I thought re-defining just four hexes without port or city would be quicker than shifting Rabaul.

As I originally proposed, the second hex of New Ireland would have to be identified as exiting to the southeast rather than the east, with the third and fourth hexes redefined as being one hex to the southwest. Likewise, Lihir. So that is really only three and a half hexes to edit, surely not such a burden measured against the staggering challenge of the AI?

Basically, while preferring twisting New Ireland clockwise 20 or 30 degrees as described above, I will vote for any solution which closes the gap between Rabaul and New Ireland. The MWiF curvature of New Britain is already a bit extreme, but if the choice is between extending the island NE just a little way (with Rabaul shifted there) or doing nothing, then I will shut my mouth and be grateful for your generosity!

Do you have a historical map of New Britain and New Ireland that you can post, so that readers can see what it is that concerns me? My map, stretching from Lae to San Cristobal, is paper-only.

quote:

Long time no hear. Welcome back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcprom

quote:

Long time no hear. Welcome back.

Thanks, and congratulations on all the work done. The maps are gorgeous and the interface is really pleasant.

If I might suggest something, why not open a thread on play-testing with the new scale?

The obvious scenario which could be play-tested first is the Chinese war from May-June 1937 to November-December 1941.

I know the time frame starts before MWIF. However, play-testers could possibly handle the MJ37-SO39 part with printed China-only maps and their own counters from WIF:FE?

In addition to their comments, the number of land attacks per turn for each side would be interesting.

IMHO, if you get the Chinese war right (with an adequate mix of system-wide small modifications on breakdowns, divisions, territorials and garrisons?, handling of losses in land combat?, supply?), the rest (Burma/Malaysia/India, Japanese war wih Russia, US invasion of Japan...) is going to work pretty well.

Jerome

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Patrice, your sketch looks really good - much better than I expected.  Let's go for it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Patrice, your sketch looks really good - much better than I expected.  Let's go for it!

2 full days without comments about the Solomons ? Would we have reached perfection with an enlarged New Britain ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

Could you send me the C.BMP file so I can examine it more closely?

We could make these changes as part of the Mar 15th update to the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Patrice,

Could you send me the C.BMP file so I can examine it more closely?

We could make these changes as part of the Mar 15th update to the map.

I uploaded it to the FTP.
I maintain a list of features that were submitted for us to change, and that we accepted :

Solomons : New Britain redrawn.
Make Bougainville SE Jungle (TERR file, change the 3rd digit for 125,184 from 5 to 4 for jungle).
Australia : Make hexes 147,141, 148,141, 148,142, 149,141, 150,140, and 151,140 desert hexes (TERR file, change the 3rd digit from 2 to 7 for desert) (this is the area around Shark Bay, in western Australia).
Australia : Make hexes 164,176 a swamp (TERR file, change the 3rd digit from 3 to 6 for swamp) (I think thay call that the Victoria mouths).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Patrice, your sketch looks really good - much better than I expected.  Let's go for it!

2 full days without comments about the Solomons ? Would we have reached perfection with an enlarged New Britain ?