Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Fisher
also, i worry about scapa flow. surely the base for the main battle fleet had rail supply. according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_North_Line there is a railway that ended at thurso on the coast opposite, with a ferry to the islands and "The line did become strategically important during World War I and World War II as part of a supply route for Scapa Flow, Orkney: Jellicoe's Express linked Thurso directly with London (Euston) and Portsmouth". there is probably a case for putting in the rail line from inverness to thurso and a crossing arrow from the mainland to scapa flow/orkneys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I would feel more comfortable if it were normal to supply Scapa Flow overland.  However, we always have to be aware that if you make a place too easy, the enemy tends to use it against you.  In Third Reich, Scapa Flow was connected to Scotland by a crossing-arrow, and all this did was to encourage a Sealion paradrop against Scapa Flow!

As Lerwick is not a two-front port, I do think the zone boundary should run at least one hex east of the Shetlands to underline this fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

I would feel more comfortable if it were normal to supply Scapa Flow overland.  However, we always have to be aware that if you make a place too easy, the enemy tends to use it against you.  In Third Reich, Scapa Flow was connected to Scotland by a crossing-arrow, and all this did was to encourage a Sealion paradrop against Scapa Flow!

As Lerwick is not a two-front port, I do think the zone boundary should run at least one hex east of the Shetlands to underline this fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Does Lerwick even need to be a port?  The Shetland Bus set off from there, but precious little else.

The problem is that the zone boundary as presently placed looks totally artificial.  To avoid the accusation of a fudge, zone boundaries either need to steer clear of island groups entirely (as with the Faroes) or make them two-zone land-masses (like the Orkneys).  Having Scapa Flow look two ways but Lerwick only westwards is, from the cartographic point of view, inconsistent.

If Lerwick were deleted as a port, then the zone boundary could pass through the centre of the Shetlands, making much more sense.

Secondly: why is there a political boundary between Northern Ireland and Britain?  Northern Ireland is not a territory, but an integral part of the United Kingdom, just as Alaska is an integral part of the United States.  The full title of the state is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and since the map has United Kingdom in big red letters, then Northern Ireland needs to be included.  If for some reason you insist on treating Northern Ireland as a separate territory, then the mainland should be re-designated Great Britain, and, for consistency, Scotland and the Isle of Man should be created as separate territories too.

Likewise, ownership of Shetlands and Orkney would be better described as UK rather than Gbr.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Does Lerwick even need to be a port?  The Shetland Bus set off from there, but precious little else.

quote:

The problem is that the zone boundary as presently placed looks totally artificial.  To avoid the accusation of a fudge, zone boundaries either need to steer clear of island groups entirely (as with the Faroes) or make them two-zone land-masses (like the Orkneys).  Having Scapa Flow look two ways but Lerwick only westwards is, from the cartographic point of view, inconsistent. If Lerwick were deleted as a port, then the zone boundary could pass through the centre of the Shetlands, making much more sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Germany and the Netherlands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

And I'm still begging for the hex NE of Liege to be shown correctly as part of the Netherlands (with the resource shifted to Dusseldorf).

To illustrate just how seriously wrong the map is at present: in reality Aachen is on the triple border between Germany, Begium and the Netherlands!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

If it is agreed that the change will not significantly affect play, can we please do it?

As a Briton who has worked extensively in the Netherlands, this error is as irritating to me as my drawing Alaska without its long tail stretching down towards Vancouver would be to an American.

The reason the fort was built at Eben Emael was that it (and Liege) guarded the only easy avenue of attack for invading German forces, between the rough terrain of the Ardennes and what-was-expected-to-be-neutral Netherlands.  As the map stands at the moment, this strategic imperative is completely absent.

By shifting the resource one hex east so it is still German, and then giving the vacated hex (Maastricht) to the Netherlands, you will also be giving Germany back the tactical incentive to attack the Netherlands in 1940, as was done historically.

When I am considering whether to buy a game, the first thing I look at is the map.  Its accuracy gives me an indication of the likely level of research  throughout the game.  That in turn guides my buying decision.  So it is not just a matter of chrome.

quote:

If it is agreed that the change will not significantly affect play, can we please do it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

quote:

If it is agreed that the change will not significantly affect play, can we please do it?

It very much affects play.

It makes the German push into the Low Countries and France much harder. It guarantees the Allies the Dyle river line in force and probably a defended Maas river line too, and also makes Brussels hold out for easily 1 or 2 more impulses. Germany also loses the only airbase hex that a 109 can intercept over Antwerp/Rotterdam/Amsterdam until they can rebase forward(do not underestimate this impact). All this could add a full turn or more to the conquest of France, a domino effect from making Germany crack one more extra river/city line of defences with less air cover.

What this does is *force* Germany into a 1939 DoW on the Netherlands, just to try to get to its normal start line for 1940 Belgium, giving France much more breathing room. The Western Campaign is already rather skewed to the Allies; France is way too strong in 1940. Yes, the map in that area isn't perfect, but making it even harder on Germany is definitely not the direction that needs to be pushed.

A Low Countries DoW in J/F40 is common (3 months earlier then historical) and yet France more often then not still lasts past J/A 1940 (a month or more later then historical). The French defence does not need strengthening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung
Now something completely different: The tiny island between the harbor Rostock and the island Rügen in the Baltic Sea: "Wollin" could be replaced by "Usedom", which is the much more known Western island. (Ehrm, I never heard of Wollin and I'm German.) Besides, the Heeresversuchsstelle Peenemünde was on Usedom, not on Wollin. And: The shape of the island could be more lengthy. Actually Usedom and Wollin nearly cover the whole Bay of Stettin (Kleines/Großes Haff).

quote:

I do agree that it forces Germany to DOW the Netherlands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
I agree with Marcus here. Maybe we should contact Harry Rowland in ADG and ask what he thinks. I think this change should become a part of the WIFFE map errata similar to the change we already did with the Cernauti hex in Romania. If we get Harry's permission to give the hex NE of Liege to Holland and move the resource to Düsseldorf then it will become an official part of WIFFE and not only MWIF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen
Maybe we should contact Harry Rowland in ADG and ask what he thinks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree



From a dutch point of view I do have a question about this map. You are using the name "Zuider Zee" (offically written as "Zuiderzee") The dike itself was finished at may 1932, and opened to the public at sept. 1933.
On 20 sept. 1932 the name "Zuiderzee" was history, from now on it was a lake called "IJsselmeer"

IJsselmeer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IJsselmeer

So yeah, from '32 on it was "IJsselmeer" --->IJsselmeer (sometimes translated as Lake ¨¦ssel, alternative international spelling: Lake Yssel