RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? - 7/29/2004 10:26:12 AM

stubby331

Posts: 268
Joined: 10/24/2001
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, While we are at it can we increase the size of the map and add Panama and Madagascar. And the map should increse enough to show the long range Japanese and German transports flying between the Home Islands and airfields the Germans have in Russia. How are my I-400 class submarines going to be of any use if I can't bomb Panama? How can I send submarines to get stuff from Germany if Germany is not even on the map? Geez Matrix wake up!

Do I detect a note of sarcasm Mog???????

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 121

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? - 7/29/2004 11:06:18 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

When I read that people are worried that it might be too easy for the Allies to retake Alaska because of the unfair amount of supply they might get I get dizzy. It's one thing to point out they might be able to support Bombers at a base that is too far away to use normal range before the arrival of the B-29 and another to realize someone is even contemplating commiting Japanese material for an invasion let alone it might fail for of all reasons excessive Allied supply.
If Alaska had no supply. And the Japanese captured it entirely the Allied reaction when it arrived would not only carry excessive supply it would contain excessive force.
There are countless things for the Japanese to worry about. They have insurmountable problems to overcome. Only by ineptude on the part of the Allies and superb handling of their side is victory even a remote possible outcome and yet here. In the infancy of the game being played we have persons worried about something so trival that in 10,000 games it will not factor into the final outcome. There is an immense amount of thought required to play the Japanese. And yet I get the feeling those who have decided to undertake the task have such a weak grasp of what they are attempting that they grasp at will-o-the-wisps rather then searching for the simple truths.

I don't know if I can ever explain it. It is prehaps one of those cases where the statement "If you have to ask there is no point in my explaining it" covers and closes the book.

I am now totally against altering the map for Alaska because I look forward with eager anticaption reading the AAR where a Japanese player reports to us he lost the war because the ALCAN highway was made 4 lanes instead of 2

< Message edited by Mogami -- 7/29/2004 4:12:45 AM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to stubby331)

Post #: 122

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? - 7/29/2004 11:18:59 AM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

When I read that people are worried that it might be too easy for the Allies to retake Alaska because of the unfair amount of supply they might get I get dizzy. It's one thing to point out they might be able to support Bombers at a base that is too far away to use normal range before the arrival of the B-29 and another to realize someone is even contemplating commiting Japanese material for an invasion let alone it might fail for of all reasons excessive Allied supply.
If Alaska had no supply. And the Japanese captured it entirely the Allied reaction when it arrived would not only carry excessive supply it would contain excessive force.
There are countless things for the Japanese to worry about. They have insurmountable problems to overcome. Only by ineptude on the part of the Allies and superb handling of their side is victory even a remote possible outcome and yet here. In the infancy of the game being played we have persons worried about something so trival that in 10,000 games it will not factor into the final outcome. There is an immense amount of thought required to play the Japanese. And yet I get the feeling those who have decided to undertake the task have such a weak grasp of what they are attempting that they grasp at will-o-the-wisps rather then searching for the simple truths.

I don't know if I can ever explain it. It is prehaps one of those cases where the statement "If you have to ask there is no point in my explaining it" covers and closes the book.

I am now totally against altering the map for Alaska because I look forward with eager anticaption reading the AAR where a Japanese player reports to us he lost the war because the ALCAN highway was made 4 lanes instead of 2

This comes across as pretty bitter and condescending. Would Alaska make a difference in most games? Probably not, as the approach down the Kuriles doesn't contain any good bases for the Allies to use. However, I don't see why there should be a supply line that didn't exist, because it does free up Allied shipping and probably troops for use elsewhere, which does make a difference.

I am not as concerned about the changes to Alaska as I am with the Aussie map, because that creates a threat to the SRA, which is the second most important part of the map for Japan, after the home islands themselves. However, the people who bring up the Alaska issue do have a valid point.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 123

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? - 7/29/2004 5:13:24 PM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, While we are at it can we increase the size of the map and add Panama and Madagascar. And the map should increse enough to show the long range Japanese and German transports flying between the Home Islands and airfields the Germans have in Russia. How are my I-400 class submarines going to be of any use if I can't bomb Panama? How can I send submarines to get stuff from Germany if Germany is not even on the map? Geez Matrix wake up!

Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, Mog?

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 124

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? - 7/29/2004 5:51:00 PM

Moquia

Posts: 174
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, While we are at it can we increase the size of the map and add Panama and Madagascar. And the map should increse enough to show the long range Japanese and German transports flying between the Home Islands and airfields the Germans have in Russia. How are my I-400 class submarines going to be of any use if I can't bomb Panama? How can I send submarines to get stuff from Germany if Germany is not even on the map? Geez Matrix wake up!

Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, Mog?

Was he sarkastic

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 125

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? - 7/29/2004 5:58:26 PM

Mark VII

Posts: 1838
Joined: 8/11/2003
From: Brentwood,TN
Status: offline

Mogami is somewhat correct. War in Alaska and up in those parts is near impossible considering the weather conditions. So there should not be any West Coast invasions via Alaska (ala PACWAR) cause it really was not feasable. I would hope that WitP makes war up there very difficult requiring lots and lots of supply with combat and just living up there causing a higher % of units going damaged.

I think he is also implying lets fix the map problems where it really matters(OZ)(air distance to PM) and maybe leave the Alaska map problem to another patch once the rest of the game is running smoother.

Personally I would like to see Australia and the distance to PM fixed in the upcoming patch, Alaska can wait. The Matrix boys cannot fix everything and get out this patch soon or when ever.

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 126

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? - 7/29/2004 9:13:46 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I'm sorry I often forget people can look at the same object and see different things.

Make a cattle trail to Alaska it will change nothing. Unlike Oz where the Allies have to ship the supply that Darwin will draw (and if the Allied player decides he is going to use Darwin he will send the supply) Alaska will draw from an unlimited pool. (Supply in SF will be in 100k's or millions) A base only draws the supply it requires. So no matter what the waste Alaska will draw supply. It will draw no more with a 4 track bullet train line then with a foot path. As long as the route permits supply to move it will make no difference to Alaska.
The allied player will not even notice the difference.

Then there is the time element. Japan does not have time to secure Alaska. I don't even get interested in players who wish to conquer China because at least the forces to try are already on hand. It won't make a change really no matter the outcome but at the same time it does not require any wonder strategy.

Now understand I don't care if a Japanese player goes to Alaska or not. My point is there is no reason for such a planner to worry about the Allied supply. Unless you make it so no supply can move you are wasting your time. We won't even discuss the things that could have done in such a case but are not allowed because it was never needed and so never done. Just how long these Japanese worry wart think it would have taken the USA to open a route had their been a need is something they can debate amonst themselves. I say put the line there "just because" it would have been done had it ever been needed. You can create a RR line in game in WITP. (If I was Japanese I'd ask for a Bangkok to Rangoon RR on the map because it will not help the Allies early on but by 1944 it existed and was important. It takes a while for Japan to build the forces and bases required to find in Burma. Of all the RR that actually had an impact in the war it seems to be the one never mentioned.
If the Allies had really needed it and if they felt the shipping could not do the job or was required for other jobs they could just lay a pipeline from Alice Springs to Darwin for fuel supply. They laid longer pipelines where they needed them.
Of course the game only includes what was built actually. In many places it allows for bases to be built that were never built.

Fix the Oz map if it bothers people. But worry about Alaska? Whats the point? If the map can be done by a fan thats great as long as both players use it there is no problems. (But remember it's not the graphics that matter it is the data assigned to each hex. )

If any Japanese Operation fails in Alaska it will not because it was too easy for the Allies to move supply. "Free up Allied transport" Your kidding right? What a few AK? Alaska is so close to all that that supply that a few AK can maintain it and here is the real stickler. The Alaskan bases will only draw the supply they require no matter what the connection. (THis applies to the fears in Darwin as well) Offensive supply will still have to be shipped in. The base will not draw it. If the Allies are going to base B-17 in Darwin they will have to ship in supply via AK. Not as much as if there were no connection but exactly the same amount no matter what kind of connection exists.
If the Allies need to mount offensive operations in Alaska it will be using supply shipped in AK no matter what. Better connections allow for easier defensive maintenance. (The base will draw excess supply from connected bases to met it's requirements)

I really don't wish to be smug,, condensending or bitter. I'm afraid there might be some misunderstanding that after investing a great deal of time and effort into a plan a player will encounter this and feel betrayed. I want them to understand up front.
The best way to plan any operation is to allow for the possibilty you enemy will have good supply lines. (unless you yourself cut them)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mark VII)

Post #: 127

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? - 7/30/2004 4:02:43 AM

akbrown

Posts: 43
Joined: 9/6/2000
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Hi Mogami,

I started to redo the Australian map mainly because I am interested in historical accuracy. The present Australian map is wildly innaacurate, and I have great difficulty reconciling that fact with a game that in most other ways is (or tries to be) very accurate and detailed from a historical perspective. When a game drills down to the level of individual squads, weapon types, aircraft production and upgrades, etc. etc. having thousands of kilometers of railway in places it didn't exist is extrememly 'out of place' in my opinion. This not only affects Darwin but all of the bases in the Aussie Northwest.

I know that Alaska is more peripheral to the game but the arguments about historical accuracy apply equally.

I understand that it takes time and effort to change something like this, which I why I have offered to help on more than one occasion. It would be fantastic if the terrain types and communication routes for each hex were stored in a text file and uploaded into the game, instead of being hard coded and innaccesible, as that would mean we could do EVERYTHING ourselves, but I suspect that it may not be easy to change the game code to work in that way.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 128

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 7/30/2004 5:13:23 AM

akbrown

Posts: 43
Joined: 9/6/2000
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Thanks for the input jrcar. I still have some refinement to do and extra info like this is very valuable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

I don't have much problem with your revised figures, they are certainly an improvement!

It is my understanding that Melbourne was the main industrial city in Australia ahead of Sydney (this was done deliberately during the war as Sydney was seen as being to exposed to attack).

I suspected that was the case. I will do some readjustment.

quote:

Newcastle was important, as was Whyalla (as a source of resources, that had to be sent by ship, to Newcastle).

I believe that Port Kembla was also important at the time, possibly as a location for some resources and heavy industry (subtracted from Sydney). A quick look at an official history book also showed that it was equipped with coastal defences. What I wonder though is how many additional bases can/should we include?

quote:

Brisbane didn't have a lot of HI, nor did any north Queensland City.

Canberra had none :) (it was still mostly sheep paddocks) - so no resources either.

I didn't want to cut down Brisbane and Canberra too much more, so that they are completely useless. Maybe I should cut down HI in Brisbane. As for resources, I see them as representing primary resources as well to a certain extent, so I do believe that less industrial places like Canberra and Brisbane should have a certain amount of resources to represent their own (limited) production as well as the primary production from the region around them. Capturing these regions would be of SOME benifit to their captors.

quote:

Why oil at Alice Springs? I know some oil was extracted from shale in NSW, and the exploration was done in Victoria (my grandfather was involved with that) but I've been unable to find any other references.

My placement of the oil in Alice Springs was entirely based on the only map I had which showed oil as being present at Mereenie. I have since found out that it was not exploited until the mid 1960s, so it is incorrect. The only suitable place to locate it seens to be just west of Sydney. Again is it worth having a separate base for Lithgow (it had some armaments production as well I believe)? Or should it just be added to Sydney?

Also, 75 oil seems like a lot for such a small scale operation as the NSW shale oil production. Is it justified? Should it be reduced to, say, 25? I didn't alter it as I didn't want to alter play balance but maybe it should be changed?

quote:

The key areas of HI were where the Railways had major workshops, they were one of the few places where things like tanks could be built. Most manufactured goods were imported.

The map looks good, I'd be tempted to remove the road to Derby and Broome though....

I have left the 'road' (represented by a track) for now, but I may change it after looking at some more source material. I will visit the state library this afternoon to examine some period maps for more information.

Thanks again for your input.

(in reply to jrcar)

Post #: 129

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 7/30/2004 5:36:01 AM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

I'm all for historical accuracy. It's actually vitally important to me if I'm playing an historical wargame. In the case of the inaccurate maps though, I have to think that the designers had reasons for doing things as they did. The maps are so "inaccurate", I see no other explanation.

In the case of Australia, maybe the reason the rail goes through to the north is to offset the fact that you can't load Australia Command units on transports. I don't think you should have to pay 1000+ points to send Australian units to go defend part of Australia. Without rail everywhere, moving home defense units would be a total nightmare. An unfair nightmare for an allied player.

Once again, I'm all for accurate maps but I want to be sure there aren't unintended consequences that hurt gameplay much more than whatever minor & cosmetic improvements they might make towards accuracy.

< Message edited by mjk428 -- 7/29/2004 7:37:20 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to akbrown)

Post #: 130

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 7/30/2004 6:12:42 AM

stubby331

Posts: 268
Joined: 10/24/2001
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

quote:

In the case of Australia, maybe the reason the rail goes through to the north is to offset the fact that you can't load Australia Command units on transports. I don't think you should have to pay 1000+ points to send Australian units to go defend part of Australia. Without rail everywhere, moving home defense units would be a total nightmare. An unfair nightmare for an allied player.

Fair point.

But, if I was given the choice, I'd rather fix the map and live with marching some units to where they need to be. That being said, IF matrix wanted to fix both (ie let Australian home defence units load on transports as long as the destination is somewhere in Austrlalia), I wouldnt complain.

But, lets fix the map first and then see how much the problem youve mentioned affects everything.

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 131

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 7/30/2004 6:41:36 AM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

In the case of Australia, maybe the reason the rail goes through to the north is to offset the fact that you can't load Australia Command units on transports. I don't think you should have to pay 1000+ points to send Australian units to go defend part of Australia. Without rail everywhere, moving home defense units would be a total nightmare. An unfair nightmare for an allied player.

Nobody is saying that you can't have a road North from Alice Springs to Darwin. You can move units up to Darwin on that. There will be some issues in getting those units to Broome or the other northern bases, along a track connection. But it can still get done.

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 132

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 7/30/2004 6:54:04 AM

akbrown

Posts: 43
Joined: 9/6/2000
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

I'm all for historical accuracy. It's actually vitally important to me if I'm playing an historical wargame. In the case of the inaccurate maps though, I have to think that the designers had reasons for doing things as they did. The maps are so "inaccurate", I see no other explanation.

I would be very interested to see information from the game producers on why the innacuracies are there, especially if it was for playability reasons.

quote:

In the case of Australia, maybe the reason the rail goes through to the north is to offset the fact that you can't load Australia Command units on transports. I don't think you should have to pay 1000+ points to send Australian units to go defend part of Australia. Without rail everywhere, moving home defense units would be a total nightmare. An unfair nightmare for an allied player.

Once again, I'm all for accurate maps but I want to be sure there aren't unintended consequences that hurt gameplay much more than whatever minor & cosmetic improvements they might make towards accuracy.

That is a very good point, and a reason for leaving the trails and roads connecting the mainland bases sych as Broome, instead of removing them completely. Even with a connecting trail I am guessing it would take several months to march a unit to Broome. Perhaps air transport is a reasonable alternative until shipping can take over? I am not sure. This may prevent me from adding Exmouth, which is very remote, also.

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 133

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 7/30/2004 3:26:31 PM

akbrown

Posts: 43
Joined: 9/6/2000
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Here is a fourth, and maybe final, version of my suggested map of Australia.

There are only a few minor changes to this map from the previous version, which I have added after examining some maps from the period at a library. The changes are:

- Changed the road from Broken Hill to the East into a railway, and added a connection towards Melbourne.

- Changed the road connection between Devonport and Hobart into a railway.

- Made Charleville, Daly Waters and Katherine into existing, albeit very small, bases, as they had existing civilian infrastructure (airports).

- Added Exmouth as a dot base. There is no road/track connection to it, and it cannot be developed very much, but I think there is some justification to add it in as it was used as a submarine refuelling base for subs operating out of Perth (Fremantle), and it was also used as an airbase. The Japanese attacked the base severeal times so it could not have been too insignificant. It is still pretty minor though, so it would not be a major setback if it was not included.

- Moved Whyalla to its correct position.

I have also modified my suggested base values as follows:

- Slightly increased the air values for some of the Northern bases, as they started to operate B-17s very early in the Pacific campaign.

- Moved the oil resources back to Perth (50) and to Sydney (25). Perth did not produce oil, but it was the entry port for oil from the Middle East, which is not, and cannot, be represented in the game by actual convoys. Middle East oil was shipped to Australia after the DEI oil became unavailable. The Sydney oil represents the small NSW shale oil industry.

- Reduced the heavy industry in Queensland, and increased in in Melbourne and Adelaide.

Proposed Bases

Base          Oil   Res    HI   Man   Port    Air  Fort
----          ---   ---    --   ---   ----    ---  ----
Perth          50   400   200     7   5(5)    4(5)    3
Exmouth                               0(1)    0(3)    0
Broome                                1(3)    4(5)    1
Derby                                 1(2)    1(4)    1
Wyndham                               1(2)    1(4)    1
Darwin               10               4(3)    4(5)    2
Alice Springs                                 1(4)    0
Thurs Island                          1(1)    1(1)    0
Cooktown                              2(3)    1(3)    1
Cairns               30               5(5)    3(5)    1
Townsville          100           1   5(5)    3(5)    3
Chart Towers                                  6(9)    1
Rockhampton         200    30     1   4(5)    4(5)    3
Brisbane            350   100     6   6(9)    8(9)    5
Newcastle           350   200     4   1(1)    1(5)    3
Sydney         25   600   750    21  10(9)    8(6)    5
Canberra            300           4           4(5)    0
Melbourne           500   750    17  10(9)    8(6)    5
Geelong             100   200     4   1(1)    1(5)    3
Devonport                         1   4(3)    1(3)    1
Hobart               50    30     2   4(3)    3(3)    2
Adelaide            250   350     5   5(5)    4(5)    3
Whyalla             600   200         1(1)    1(4)    1
Auckland NZ         200   200    18   6(6)    6(6)    3 
Albany               60           1   3(5)    1(5)    1
Geraldton                         1   1(1)    1(5)    1           
Katherine                                     1(5)    0
Daly Waters                                   1(5)    0
Cloncurry           400                       1(5)    0
Coen                                          0(5)    0
Charleville          10                       1(5)    0                   
Broken Hill         600                       1(4)    0

TOTAL          75  5110  3010    73 81(87) 83(153)   51

Attachment (1)

(in reply to akbrown)

Post #: 134

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 7/31/2004 10:51:11 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

You've created a very impressive map of Australia. I hope Matrix decides to use some, or all of your modifications in upcoming patches.

_____________________________

(in reply to akbrown)

Post #: 135

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 7/31/2004 9:25:55 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

I'm all for historical accuracy. It's actually vitally important to me if I'm playing an historical wargame. In the case of the inaccurate maps though, I have to think that the designers had reasons for doing things as they did. The maps are so "inaccurate", I see no other explanation.

In the case of Australia, maybe the reason the rail goes through to the north is to offset the fact that you can't load Australia Command units on transports. I don't think you should have to pay 1000+ points to send Australian units to go defend part of Australia. Without rail everywhere, moving home defense units would be a total nightmare. An unfair nightmare for an allied player.

Once again, I'm all for accurate maps but I want to be sure there aren't unintended consequences that hurt gameplay much more than whatever minor & cosmetic improvements they might make towards accuracy.

IF this is the case (and I don't know that for a fact), then it is the result of a poor choice
the designers made earlier when trying to figure out how to prevent a-historic free
transfers from one command to another. Instead of doing something simple and sen-
sible, like charging PP's if you tried to UNLOAD a unit in a port belonging to a different
command; they did it backwards and charged for LOADING it. Thus the silly situation
of the Austrailian Command NOT being able to move it's own units within it's own area.
It shouldn't cost the Austrailians to move their own troops within the limits of their own
command (and it doesn't if they do it overland---proving the designers agree with that
thought), but they trapped themselves with an earlier bad decision.

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 136

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/1/2004 6:46:56 AM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

I'm all for historical accuracy. It's actually vitally important to me if I'm playing an historical wargame. In the case of the inaccurate maps though, I have to think that the designers had reasons for doing things as they did. The maps are so "inaccurate", I see no other explanation.

In the case of Australia, maybe the reason the rail goes through to the north is to offset the fact that you can't load Australia Command units on transports. I don't think you should have to pay 1000+ points to send Australian units to go defend part of Australia. Without rail everywhere, moving home defense units would be a total nightmare. An unfair nightmare for an allied player.

Once again, I'm all for accurate maps but I want to be sure there aren't unintended consequences that hurt gameplay much more than whatever minor & cosmetic improvements they might make towards accuracy.

IF this is the case (and I don't know that for a fact), then it is the result of a poor choice
the designers made earlier when trying to figure out how to prevent a-historic free
transfers from one command to another. Instead of doing something simple and sen-
sible, like charging PP's if you tried to UNLOAD a unit in a port belonging to a different
command; they did it backwards and charged for LOADING it. Thus the silly situation
of the Austrailian Command NOT being able to move it's own units within it's own area.
It shouldn't cost the Austrailians to move their own troops within the limits of their own
command (and it doesn't if they do it overland---proving the designers agree with that
thought), but they trapped themselves with an earlier bad decision.

True, putting in a rule where units of restricted commands could not enter a base hex outside of that command would have been better.

Good work on the map! I hope we have enough bases left in the database to make it work. I know that the Komandorski Islands can be taken out of the current map, because they are actually Russian possessions. Maybe one or two more of the smaller Aleutian Island bases can also be removed.

Hopefully that will be enough slack to fill out Australia, if there is not room for more bases than there are right now.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 137

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/2/2004 12:20:00 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

I like the final map, but I would have to argue with the fort levels for both Sydney and Melbourne as both cities had had extensive works done to them stretching right back to the 1870's as a result of the Russian scare in 1862. Fort levels for both should be 9.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 138

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/2/2004 12:23:07 PM

Onime No Kyo

Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

I like the final map, but I would have to argue with the fort levels for both Sydney and Melbourne as both cities had had extensive works done to them stretching right back to the 1870's as a result of the Russian scare in 1862. Fort levels for both should be 9.

I'm kinda sorry for posting this but I almost fell out of my chair just now. Russian scare? To Australia? Could you please fill this stupid, undeserving youngster in on this.

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 139

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/2/2004 1:35:23 PM

jrcar

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline

During the Crimenan war... A Russian Squadron had visited a few years earlier, remember they had a base near Japan.

Dave I don't think those forts would count as 9's ... 6-7 maybe. The gear was out of date and initially ammo stock low, plus not that many guns.

The Defence did improve as the war went on especially inner Sydney harbour which had waterfront Pill boxes, something I have never seen around Melbourne.

Cheers

Rob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

I like the final map, but I would have to argue with the fort levels for both Sydney and Melbourne as both cities had had extensive works done to them stretching right back to the 1870's as a result of the Russian scare in 1862. Fort levels for both should be 9.

I'm kinda sorry for posting this but I almost fell out of my chair just now. Russian scare? To Australia? Could you please fill this stupid, undeserving youngster in on this.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)

Post #: 140

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/2/2004 3:22:03 PM

akbrown

Posts: 43
Joined: 9/6/2000
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar
Dave I don't think those forts would count as 9's ... 6-7 maybe. The gear was out of date and initially ammo stock low, plus not that many guns.

The Defence did improve as the war went on especially inner Sydney harbour which had waterfront Pill boxes, something I have never seen around Melbourne.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave
I like the final map, but I would have to argue with the fort levels for both Sydney and Melbourne as both cities had had extensive works done to them stretching right back to the 1870's as a result of the Russian scare in 1862. Fort levels for both should be 9.

Hmmm. I know there were fortifications around Melbourne and Sydney. I have seen some of the forts built to defend Melbourne at Point Nepean for example. But were they really at the maximum possible strength in 1941? Isn't 9 the highest possible level in the game? Shouldn't that equate to the cities being ringed by fortifications so extensive that they cannot be improved further?

Also, the fortification levels can be improved during the game with engineers, so I expect that they would increase further during play. On that topic - does anyone know how quickly they would be built up? I have not yet played the game past the first few turns (waiting for OOB updates to be done before looking for PBEM).

I guess a high number can be justified due to the sheer amount of fortification present as well as its strength. Maybe they should be bumped up by 1 or 2? Any other Aussies with better knowledge that I able to give an opinion? Maybe a concensus can be reached?

< Message edited by akbrown -- 8/2/2004 1:24:12 PM >

(in reply to jrcar)

Post #: 141

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/3/2004 3:18:05 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

I like the final map, but I would have to argue with the fort levels for both Sydney and Melbourne as both cities had had extensive works done to them stretching right back to the 1870's as a result of the Russian scare in 1862. Fort levels for both should be 9.

I doubt that with some of the works being 80 years out of date they should qualify as
a level 9. And some of that work is represented in the permanent CD installations in
those places (the 9.2's and such). I think the "fortification level" represents prepared-
ness as well as digging in..., and while they were certainly ahead of the game over
other areas (the CD guns were practiced and stocked due to the threat of German
Raiders for the previous 2 years) I would bet that much remained to be done before
the situation was "as good as it could be made".

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 142

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/3/2004 4:30:00 AM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: akbrown

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar
Dave I don't think those forts would count as 9's ... 6-7 maybe. The gear was out of date and initially ammo stock low, plus not that many guns.

The Defence did improve as the war went on especially inner Sydney harbour which had waterfront Pill boxes, something I have never seen around Melbourne.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave
I like the final map, but I would have to argue with the fort levels for both Sydney and Melbourne as both cities had had extensive works done to them stretching right back to the 1870's as a result of the Russian scare in 1862. Fort levels for both should be 9.

Hmmm. I know there were fortifications around Melbourne and Sydney. I have seen some of the forts built to defend Melbourne at Point Nepean for example. But were they really at the maximum possible strength in 1941? Isn't 9 the highest possible level in the game? Shouldn't that equate to the cities being ringed by fortifications so extensive that they cannot be improved further?

Also, the fortification levels can be improved during the game with engineers, so I expect that they would increase further during play. On that topic - does anyone know how quickly they would be built up? I have not yet played the game past the first few turns (waiting for OOB updates to be done before looking for PBEM).

I guess a high number can be justified due to the sheer amount of fortification present as well as its strength. Maybe they should be bumped up by 1 or 2? Any other Aussies with better knowledge that I able to give an opinion? Maybe a concensus can be reached?

I think you guys are mixing up what the game means by fortifications, with traditional coastal defense forts. In the game context, fortifications are trenches, pillboxes, tank traps, etc. The kind of stuff you are talking about is coastal defense fortifications, that are represented by the various "forts" in the game. For example, if you go out on the Marin Headlands, across the Golden Gate from San Francisco, you will find Forts Cronkite and Baker, which are the old coastal defense emplacements, built to guard the entrance to the SF Bay.

It's pretty extensive stuff, even 60 years later. You can walk up and down the headlands, and see the observation and fire direction bunkers dug into the tops of the cliffs, and further back are the actual emplacements. 12" naval mortar pits, 12" and 14" naval rifle emplacements. Their is one huge casement, dug into a hill for what I think was a pair of 14" naval rifles, that is really impressive to walk around in. All this stuff is included in the "Fort Winfield Scott" coastal defense unit that is the coastal defense unit protecting San Francisco in the game.

But that is not the same thing as fortifications that are designed to impede an army advance. The whole coastal defense system north of SF wouldn't have done much for defense of the area from ground attack, except to provide some shelter for HQs, supplies and hospitals in some of the casements. And to do that, you would have to chase the coastal defense gunners out of their positions.

It may be that a couple Aussie cities need to have coastal defense fort units added, if the guns were still operational in WW2, but the cities were not fortified in the land combat sense of the word.

(in reply to akbrown)

Post #: 143

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/3/2004 5:59:29 AM

stubby331

Posts: 268
Joined: 10/24/2001
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

FYI...

Rottnest Island just off Fremantle had a main battery consisting of two turreted mkX, 9.2-inch breech loading guns emplaced in concrete with an underground magazine, an engine room, plotting rooms and concrete observation posts.

A supporting battery on the southeastern tip of the Island was armed with two six-inch Mark XI guns.

Later in the war, this system was upgraded with radar.

The structures were built to Army specifications in 1937 by civilian Army contractors, for the Commonwealth Department of the Interior.

As part of the Commonwealth decision to increase and improve coastal artillery defences, two defence gun batteries were located on the Island. The primary function of these was to protect the port of Fremantle and prevent enemy vessels from entering the south passage. The battery at Bickley on the south-eastern tip of the Island was armed with two six-inch Mark XI guns. During the Second World War, defence facilities at the Battery were increased to include anti-aircraft defences, concrete gun emplacements, battery emplacements, battery command and observation posts, and night searchlights. Also at Bickley were two mock guns and a dummy railway line built from old sleepers.

On 30 July 1936, land at Bickley was acquired and paid for by the Commonwealth. Work had already begun on the Island in 1935 with the lengthening and strengthening of the old jetty and the construction of a light narrow-gauge railway. This railway ran from the jetty to the batteries at Bickley and Oliver Hill to facilitate the installation of guns and the erection of fortifications. Kingstown Barracks, named after the original Kingstown site in the vicinity, was designed in 1936 by the Department of the Interior Works and Services Branch in New South Wales.
Construction of the complex was commenced in 1937 and included accommodation for four warrant officers or sergeants, and 72 rank and file personnel. The buildings were completed in 1937-38. The complex also included a small hospital, Officers Mess, canteen, engine shed and store, workshop, and single and married officers' quarters. In addition were two smaller brick administration buildings designed in 1937 which, together with the Barracks, enclosed a central parade ground.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 144

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/3/2004 6:36:07 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

Where did you get that map from? I could have used that during the development of the game 5 months ago.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to stubby331)

Post #: 145

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/3/2004 6:41:36 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

Well I guess it is a case of how you define what a fort level is............Port Phillip had Point Nepean, Queensclif, south channel fort and fort Gellibrand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

During the Crimenan war... A Russian Squadron had visited a few years earlier, remember they had a base near Japan.

Dave I don't think those forts would count as 9's ... 6-7 maybe. The gear was out of date and initially ammo stock low, plus not that many guns.

The Defence did improve as the war went on especially inner Sydney harbour which had waterfront Pill boxes, something I have never seen around Melbourne.

Cheers

Rob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

I like the final map, but I would have to argue with the fort levels for both Sydney and Melbourne as both cities had had extensive works done to them stretching right back to the 1870's as a result of the Russian scare in 1862. Fort levels for both should be 9.

I'm kinda sorry for posting this but I almost fell out of my chair just now. Russian scare? To Australia? Could you please fill this stupid, undeserving youngster in on this.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to jrcar)

Post #: 146

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/3/2004 7:45:21 AM

stubby331

Posts: 268
Joined: 10/24/2001
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Where did you get that map from? I could have used that during the development of the game 5 months ago.

The map is from the excellent book entitled "The Gunners, A history of the Royal Australian Artillery".

The map is from 1944, but, most of Australia's Coastal defence's were already in place by the start of WW2. The Federal government had actually spent quite a bity of money pre war greatly improving the defences of the major ports all around Australia. Hence my post regards Fremantles defences.
BTW, Rottnest Islands guns and underground magazines etc are all still there, you can go on tours (good stuff too, Ive been

).

FYI.. One of my great uncles was a radar mechanic and served on Rottnest during the war (IIRC the radar was introduced in 43).

I have posted this map before, Ive been beating this drum for 2-1/2 freakin years but gave up because no one was listening to me. (sorry for the outburst, I must be feeling sensitive, give me a break, its my birthday).

There is a wealth of information on Australias Coastal defence units out there (actually known to Australians as Fortress units).

have a look at;

http://www.awm.gov.au/database/collection.asp

From here you can search & view the complete photo database of the Australian War Memorial.

Click on Collections search.

Type in "Fremantle Fortress" in the search engine, Then Select WW2 in the conflicts drop down box, then click search....

But, I agree, Coastal defence Fortress's does not make a city fortified. But it should make it damn hard for any bombardment missions planned.

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 147

RE: Road, rail to Darwin - 8/3/2004 3:17:13 PM

akbrown

Posts: 43
Joined: 9/6/2000
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

From what I have read in this forum, coastal defences do make it tough for bombardment missions. The CD info you have, Stubby, looks ideal for tweaking the OOB if it is needed (haven't checked myself). But the OOB doesn't concern me too much because it can be modded. Same goes for fortification levels - or does it? I am not that familiar with the WitP editors.

I also think that there is a lot more than coastal defences in making up fort levels, so maybe the adjusted levels I have are not too bad? But for me the main issue is the map itself, and especially the communication routes.

I am hoping very much that Matrix/2by3 are sympathetic to my (and some of our) views.

(in reply to stubby331)

Post #: 148

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? - 8/3/2004 3:24:22 PM

Spartan07

Posts: 335
Joined: 5/26/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

Would it not just be easier to change Australia to match our map?

You never kmow unless you ask:)

_____________________________

Mike - Nego

(in reply to stubby331)

Post #: 149

RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? - 8/3/2004 11:12:50 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

One of the reasons I enjoy playing good wargames is because of the ability to play around with historical possibilities. A map as ahisotircal as hte WitP Australia depiction does detract from that joy to some extent. THe rest of the game is goos enough for me to overlook it, but I would rather play with a corrected map, if it doesn't detract from game balance.

Perhaps a revamping of the road classifications is in order, with an addition of one more type:

track - unimproved road - improved road - highway/railsystem

The Kukoda Track is an excellent excample of a track, with the present crawling speed of troops on a track feeling right for that route. However, the roads to Darwin and Cooktown, while primitive by US standards, were significantly better than the Kukoda track, IIRC. An unimproved road would be the route between Alice Springs, Darwin (well the southern end of the North Australia Railway) and Cloncurry, rather than the improved road that presently moves troops too quickly. I would set the unimproved road troop movement speed about halfway between the present track and road speeds. I would also change the track to Cooktown to an unimproved road.

I would also get rid of the railway running from Darwin towards Perth. Add in an unimproved road towards Broome rather than a track if the RR was for play balance, much like AKBrown's map, but with the change in road types.

Just my two cents worth. This would help the game achieve the feel that I like.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Spartan07)

Post #: 150

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved?