Maps for MWIF

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Map(s)

I Scale

CWIF has a map that uses a single scale for the entire world. It measures 360 by 195 for a total of 70,200 hexes. It is a good copy of the WiF map for Europe but has changed the scale for the Pacific map. The off-map boxes have also been eliminated. From the forum dialogues I have seen 3 proposals for the scale: (1) CWiF, (2) WiF, and (3) spherical. By WiF I mean a perfect copy of the maps from WiF. For a description of the spherical map I refer you to the forum on that topic.

I favor the CWiF map scale at present but have made no firm commitment. That is, I have written no code, beyond what already exists in CWiF, based on that assumption. My reasons for the CWiF map scale follows.
(1) Compared to WiF, the single scale has a nicer feel to it as you scroll from western Europe through eastern Asia. It does not have the strange disruption that occurs when you reach an off-map box.
(2) All land combat would be hex against hex, removing the need for different combat procedures (i.e., code) for units in hexes attacking enemies in off-map boxes (as in WiF).
(3) Existing code can be used (though I will need to review it all thoroughly to check that it is bug free).
(4) Keeping track of where units are is easy in CWiF. Each hex has an (x,y) position and that is that. Using WiF maps, special routines will be needed to determine the distance between units when they are on different maps. For example, some of the maps connect in the shape of a T, and what should be done about air units that want to fly over the gap between the two bars of the T?
(5) Creating a spherical map would require just that: creating a map from scratch. The discussion in the forum mentioned a lot of possibilities but eventually one would have to be chosen and then implemented. This would require thoughtful examination of the alternatives and an evaluation of their pluses and minuses vis-a-vis MWiF. To justify that effort, I would need to see a substantial benefit.
(6) Trying to make MWiF’s map perfectly match WiF’s leaves open the possibility that WiF comes out with a new add-on that has a new map and now MWiF no longer is a perfect match. Modifying such a fundamental aspect of the game as the map in order to keep MWiF in sync with WiF would be a lot of work. This is because the map underlies all the code for movement, combat, and supply. Change the map and they all have to be reexamined at the least, and rewritten at the worst.

Reasons for matching WiF warrant serious consideration.
(7) The rules as written and all the play that the game has received has been on WiF maps. Changing the maps risks changing the game’s balance. In particular, the land war between China and Japan is closely balanced and the number of units per hex (or hexes per unit?) is crucial for supply determination.
(8) Some players would like to be able to take a WiF position and set it up in MWiF, and vice-a-versa. If CWiF’s map is used that would no longer be possible.

So, what do you think about map scale?

II Artistic Rendering

The existing CWiF map is very close to the WiF map in that each hex has an underlying terrain type that is identical throughout the world. That is, a clear hex looks the same no matter where it appears. Rivers, lakes, country boundaries, and other hexside features match those in WiF as closely as possible. Each hex has a visible edge to it and the overall visual effect is the same as looking at a board wargame.

Current thoughts are to have a second map made that is more artistically pleasing. It would still have an underlying hex grid, but clear hexes might vary in texture, woods and rivers wouldn’t always conform perfectly with a hexside and so on. The primary place you see this in the current rendering of WiF terrain is for coastlines, where the artist has taken some liberties and both land and sea appear in the same hex. In CWiF the coastline hexes are all virtually identical.

From the programming point of view switching back and forth between two different renderings of the terrain is pretty easy. Someone else will have to do the art work (I was always poor with crayons). The software doesn’t really care; it never looks at the maps anyway.

So what do you think about how the map(s) should be rendered on the screen?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I Scale

For the scale, I could live with both choices (exactly WiF FE, or same scale).
If it was the same as WiF, I'd like it because it would allow to take a position from the cardboard game to the computer and vice versa. Good for testing strategies.
If it was same scale everywhere, I'd like it because it is more logical, and it would allow us to get rid of the special "Pacific Maps" Rules. Moreover, after having played 2 full 39-45 (even up to 46) campaigns on CWiF, I realized that it led to a different and interesting war in China. I don't know if it is a more realistic war, but it is lot more enjoyable. Railways are more important, lines can be turned sometime at risks, the behind zones are never safe too, there is movement, well, you must try it. It looks more like the Russian front (scaled down) and less like the 14-18 trench warfare that it looks with the pacific map. Moreover the unlimited corps breakdown option helps in the war in China.
If that was spherical, I would like for the display of the map on the screen being without gaps anywhere. Spherical map would be satisfactory because I'd know that the map is accurate everywhere, at any latitude.

Finally, the ideal in my opinion would be :
- Single scale.
- Faithful to Earth geography (i.e. spherical), but without having strange maps with big gaps on the tops & bottoms.

II Artistic Rendering

For the artistic rendering, I definitively think that the MWiF maps (and counters too, counters especially) need to be very faithful to the WiF FE one, that is painted like it. I don't think that CWiF maps looked closely to WiF ones. The shores, riverlines and railways especially were too much "straight". I would have apreciated them to be more artistically rendered.

One funny idea would be to have an option to have the artistic rendering of the old (but very much liked) WiF5 maps.

Well, go I back to work now.

Best Regards

Patrice

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

So, what do you think about map scale?

Map scale needs to be like in WiF, and NOT the CWiF-approach. One thing that the similar-size-hexes did was create complete havoc in the pacific and in China. Like you mentioned, the entire Chinese front would have to be rebalanced, and with that you'd have to redo the entire japanese land oob, and that would mean implications for US and CW as well.

The reasons you have presented for using the same scale for the entire map is well founded and understandable, but I really dont think it is neither desireable or practical to have same-size all around the world. WiF is one of the best balanced games in the market, and if you change the map, you remove that balance. It will not be possible to use the old OOBs and port them onto the new map. So that means a new map requires new OOBs, and that will take time.

Please keep the WiF scale.

So what do you think about how the map(s) should be rendered on the screen?

Sure, that could be fun, and it would probably look great. As long as you retain the ability to switch to the old map (for those of us who want the game to have a table-top feeling if you know what I mean) and a key to quickly check the terrain. I dont want to be looking at what I believe is a clear hex, order my units there, only to find out it was a marsh hex.

[mlees]

I prefer the CWiF "single scale around the world" approach, as this eliminates the extra compouter code and/or human errors that creep in when trying to transit from one map to another, and so on.

I realise that this does affect game balance somewhat, in that Africa and China now have more room for maneuver. But it always seemed ackward to me that ethiopia was a single (off-map) hex in the board game, and was equadistant from Egypt and Somalia.

The offmap regions, to me, seem to be the stop gap measure that a table top game needed in the interests of space (and 2d maps). But with a computer, these stop gaps are no longer neccessary.

IMO, the players will be able to develope strategies for China that aren't too un-historical. However, if the game, as it is beta tested by players, seems to unbalanced by the extra room in China, additional units (territorials? Warlords?) can be added as deemed necessary.

As far as the map artwork, I would support a toggle switch to change from "classic" to "super-accelerated-shading-particle-effect-pseudo-3d" map, as the player wishes. As you correctly point out, the AI/game code won't care, just the human user(s). Also, a hot-key could be pressed for the player to be shown exactly what the terrain is in that hex. As PzH correctly points out, in some "artfull" maps, there can be confusion between forest, jungle, and marsh (shades of green), or rough, desert, and mountain (shades of brown).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Easy things first. Yes, the distinction between different terrain types has to be crystal clear and complemented with a text label somewhere on the information bar. CWIF already does the latter. I think glitzy graphics that obscure content should be a crime punishable by sizable fines.

Hard things next. Supporting the WiF map layouts is not easy. Every aspect of the rules would need a separate set of code to support the off map boxes: land, air, and sea movement, combat, and supply. Additionally, these separate implementations would have to integrate with the hex based systems. Crossing between the two are: return to base, carrier based air missions, and naval air missions from land hexes to off map boxes - just to name a few of the thornier issues to get right.

Bear with me and let's think through what would have to be done to make the unified scale work. First, I don't think the oob can be changed that much. After all, it is based on the historical record isn't it? So what we are talking about is reconfiguring the existing units and ending up with more than we have now? Would this be only the land units or would we have to change some of the air units as well (I assume the naval units are ok as is)? Obviously the Japanese and Chinese units would need to be looked at closely but does the need for changes extend to the US, CW, and USSR?

As to the concern about time, play testing different configurations of units would probably take a lot less time than redoing the underlying structure of the CWIF map and coding up all the additional rules required for off map boxes.

So, onto the fundamental question. Can MWIF differ from WIF and still be considered valid? I look back to the changes that have been made to WIF since I bought my first copy (Edition 2) and they are both numerous and enormous. The game has evolved over the 20 years since its birth. In almost every case the improvements have been for the better though I personally always found them to be annoying at first because I had to learn a whole bunch of new stuff. Play balance always changed slightly with the new rules - which is to be expected or else why make any changes?

I believe a unified map would improve the game. Ok, stop reading, take a deep breath, count to 10, think of the calm waters on a placid lake. The Chinese theater of operations in WiF has so few units that one or two combat results can tip the balance of power dramatically in one turn. Roll right and win. Roll wrong and lose. Expanding the number of hexes in China and increasing the number of units on both sides should make it less of an all or nothing on each combat result. There are house rules that I have read that impose severe restrictions on the Chinese theater simply to prevent any dramatic result in China. I don't agree with those house rules but I am very sympathetic as to why they were created. What I would like is for the China to play the same way Europe does: better decisions lead to better results but probability plays a crucial role. It is only over time and after hundreds of decisions that the better player is determined.

I have to take my wife to work right now but we can continue this discussion.

Steve

[mlees]

Bear with me and let's think through what would have to be done to make the unified scale work. First, I don't think the oob can be changed that much. After all, it is based on the historical record isn't it? So what we are talking about is reconfiguring the existing units and ending up with more than we have now? Would this be only the land units or would we have to change some of the air units as well (I assume the naval units are ok as is)? Obviously the Japanese and Chinese units would need to be looked at closely but does the need for changes extend to the US, CW, and USSR?

I agree with the rest of your post, but I wonder at this paragraph, sir. The force pools as included in the final version of the game include a ton of units that were not built (air, and land, as well as sea), but could have been. (Based on what info? I have no idea. Its easy to speculate on what ships might have been built based on what was ordered, but then later cancelled. How they guessed what to include for air and land is where I am clueless.) The potential manpower in China, U.S., the African colonies, and so on, I believe, were still largely untapped.

Since the table top game includes many units that were not actually built, why are you hesitant to do so? The players are still going to be restriceted to a total force that they can afford through the economic/production capabilities of their powers as it is. I am not advocating an unlimited force pool, but a few units can introduced as deemed necessary by the game designers/developers without crashing the system, IMO.

In regards to China, for example. If, in deciding that a single scale world map (as in CWiF) is they way to go, and that this changes the dynamics of the Sino-Japanese war in an undesirable manner, than maybe adding "Warlords", land units who are assigned to a city, who cost little or nothing to build, who cannot leave China (or the city), who have no ZOC (but cancel Japanese ZOC in their hex) to act as speed bumps. Give the Japanese some warlords for Manchuria/Korea. Just pulling ideas out of the air. (Dons flame retardant suit.)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I agree that using colors alone to distinguish terrain is bad. Many people are color blind and I want them to buy MWIF too. The books on designing human interface systems emphasize shape and texture in addition to color for identifying objects. This is one of the reasons the pieces in WiF are so great. They give you a ton of information about each unit and used the graphic icons to provide a fine level of difference between units. Color is an important part but it is only a part. Thanks for reminding me.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

You're right, the force pools expand beyond what was created historically. Please keep trying to educate me. As to the new plane types, there were a lot of works in progress when the war ended - the movie Aviator makes that point quite well.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Artistic rendering.

It might be possible to have several different bitmaps for terrain and let the players choose which one to use. It could be different for each player in a game.

I have to think about how nicely sculpted coastlines could be modified on the fly to accommodate changing bitmaps - it is not immediately obvious to me how to achieve that. It would be nice though.

[Griffitz62]

I would prefer the WiF maps, but I certainly appreciate the benefits of a unified scale. On the other hand, I would be concerned about how the game is played in the PTO and balance issues. I know all of this is being looked at so I won't drone on. Just wanted to offer my opinion that I would prefer the MWiF maps to be the same as the WiF maps, but it's NOT a deal breaker for me.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Any specifics about play balance in the PTO is of interest to me. There seem to be a few more sea areas in CWIF that include sections to complete the rest of the world. However, I haven't layed them out side by side and done a detailed comparison. Obviously all the important (for movement, combat, and logistics) sea areas were included in WiF. So, we seem to be only talking about land hexes. Your thought about how addng more land hexes in the PTO might affect play balance would be appreciated.

[Hortlund]

Well, basically in WiF, the Chinese front becomes very static very fast, because there are alot of mountains and rivers, and (relatively) few hexes. That means that it is very easy to defend, and very hard to attack. The movement cost for the pacific/asia maps also ensure that most units can only take one step at a time, and sometimes not even that (i e they become flipped for moving a hex).

This is good, because in real life, the Chinese front was horribly static.

What happens if you double the number of hexes in China, is that you suddenly have room to manuever. It is also easier for the Japanese player to concentrate forces at one part of the front and overwhelm the Chinese player.

Japan spends 1939-1941 doing pretty much nothing but fighting in China. I dont see why a japanese player would not put his entire army in China, and by doing that knock China out of the war before 1941. This happens from time to time in the normal game too, mostly when the japanese player gets lucky with a couple of dice rolls. But it would happen more frequently if we "open up" China by making it European-scale, without adding more troops.

It is quite clear (to me at least) that if we double the size of the asian map, we will need to add units to prevent an overal "thinning" of the Chinese frontline. And here is where we will run into balancing problems, because suddenly we are adding troops to China and Japan. Ok, so we add a bunch of japanese units to balance China. But the Japanese player decides to go after the Soviets instead. Ok..what now...do we add Soviet units? Then what about Germany? Etc etc.

Not to mention that the Japanese - USSR situation presents similar concerns as Japan - China. It is not too uncommon to have a Jap-USSR war in the early game.

Bottom line is, if we change the map-scale, we will have to add troops to Japan/China/USSR. If we add troops to Japan/USSR, we will have to look at US/CW/Germany. Basically we will have to rebalance a huge chunk of the OOB, and for what reason really? The game is designed with different scales for pacific, and it works.

I understand the concerns with getting a uniform map and all that. But I remain very sceptical to changing the scale.

[Froonp]

Map scale needs to be like in WiF, and NOT the CWiF-approach. One thing that the similar-size-hexes did was create complete havoc in the pacific and in China. Like you mentioned, the entire Chinese front would have to be rebalanced, and with that you'd have to redo the entire japanese land oob, and that would mean implications for US and CW as well.

The reasons you have presented for using the same scale for the entire map is well founded and understandable, but I really dont think it is neither desireable or practical to have same-size all around the world. WiF is one of the best balanced games in the market, and if you change the map, you remove that balance. It will not be possible to use the old OOBs and port them onto the new map. So that means a new map requires new OOBs, and that will take time.

I disagree strongly with you on this one.
Have you ever played a complete 39-45 game using CWiF and its single scale maps ?
I have, twice, and I did not felt what you described. 2 games are not enormous neither, and I could be wrong, but I'm true with what I tell you.
No havoc in the Pacific, no loss of balance in China, no need to redo the japanese or chinese oob (because of unlimited corps breakdowns).
The Naval war in the Pacific is not more different (with maybe a few more islands, that should be deleted from the Computer game because it allow for more air bases than in WiF FE single scale).
The new maps makes the war in China more like the war in Russia, with less mobile forces, less railines, less HQs, less cities, less planes and worse terrain. Armies hang around the rare railines and around their rare HQs, and try to extend on its wings to envelop the enemy, who does the same and try to take advantage of any weakening of the centers. On rare occasion a cavalry runs on the rear areas and has to be dealt with, but it is very soon oos and easy meal.
After having played the Pacific theater the "single scale" way, it is a pain in the butt to play it again the "Pacific scale" way.

Best Regards

[Froonp]

Supporting the WiF map layouts is not easy. Every aspect of the rules would need a separate set of code to support the off map boxes: land, air, and sea movement, combat, and supply. Additionally, these separate implementations would have to integrate with the hex based systems. Crossing between the two are: return to base, carrier based air missions, and naval air missions from land hexes to off map boxes - just to name a few of the thornier issues to get right.

Strange thing [:)]
Off map boxes, and pacific map scales exist in WiF FE for only one reason : Space constrains, limit in the room available to lay down the maps.
It would be crazy to incorporate in a computer game things that exist only due to physical limits.
Even Harry the WiF FE creator supports this and says that if he could, he would have done WiF with a single scale map and no off map boxes.

[Froonp]

The Chinese theater of operations in WiF has so few units that one or two combat results can tip the balance of power dramatically in one turn. Roll right and win. Roll wrong and lose. Expanding the number of hexes in China and increasing the number of units on both sides should make it less of an all or nothing on each combat result. There are house rules that I have read that impose severe restrictions on the Chinese theater simply to prevent any dramatic result in China. I don't agree with those house rules but I am very sympathetic as to why they were created. What I would like is for the China to play the same way Europe does: better decisions lead to better results but probability plays a crucial role. It is only over time and after hundreds of decisions that the better player is determined.

This is what I felt while playing single scale CWiF, and having much more fun in China than with WiF FE.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

You're right, the force pools expand beyond what was created historically. Please keep trying to educate me. As to the new plane types, there were a lot of works in progress when the war ended - the movie Aviator makes that point quite well.

Don't forget about the unlimited division breakdown too. This sole option solves it all if it was needed. Even if the war in China evolves to a division sized war, no worries, it is the same for both sides.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Don't forget about the unlimited division breakdown too. This sole option solves it all if it was needed. Even if the war in China evolves to a division sized war, no worries, it is the same for both sides.

Eh...what? Surely we are not having an unlimited division breakdown in MWiF? That would be a really bad idea.

[Froonp]

What happens if you double the number of hexes in China, is that you suddenly have room to manuever. It is also easier for the Japanese player to concentrate forces at one part of the front and overwhelm the Chinese player.

Japan spends 1939-1941 doing pretty much nothing but fighting in China. I dont see why a japanese player would not put his entire army in China, and by doing that knock China out of the war before 1941. This happens from time to time in the normal game too, mostly when the japanese player gets lucky with a couple of dice rolls. But it would happen more frequently if we "open up" China by making it European-scale, without adding more troops.

This is not what happens.
The railines and the cities are so scarce in China, and the HQ so few, that you cannot use all that room that the single scale gives you. The mountain terrain stays mountain too, and the weather stay the same, and you are often disrupted while moving.
If the Japanese masses his army on one area in China, the Chinese has the time to see him massing his army, and only have to mass his in front of the japanese one. There are hundreds, or thousands, of undefended "frontline" miles on the single scale map War in China, but it does not need to be defended, because there is no attacker.
Attackers are constrained by the railines, mountains, and few HQ, they cannot use all the room. Moreover, the Japanese army is a lot less mobile than the German army.
Only the Communist situation is quite tricky at game start (as it can be in WiF FE is the Communist does bad setup), but it is not desperate at all, givent the fact that with the single scale map, the japanese start much far away from them. The Japanese army in Manchuria for example is 1-2 full turn away from the action in China with thee new maps.

Cheers !

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Don't forget about the unlimited division breakdown too. This sole option solves it all if it was needed. Even if the war in China evolves to a division sized war, no worries, it is the same for both sides.

Eh...what? Surely we are not having an unlimited division breakdown in MWiF? That would be a really bad idea.

This option already exists in CWiF, and it is quite good. There is no problem with it. It adds flexibility, allowing you to break down Hungarians Corps for example if needed.
The rule is that you can breakdown corps in divisions regardless of what divisions are left in the force pool, but you can only buy WiF FE divisions. The divisions you buy are limited.
Panzerjaeger, have you played CWiF already ?!?

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
This option already exists in CWiF, and it is quite good. There is no problem with it. It adds flexibility, allowing you to break down Hungarians Corps for example if needed.
The rule is that you can breakdown corps in divisions regardless of what divisions are left in the force pool, but you can only buy WiF FE divisions. The divisions you buy are limited.
Panzerjaeger, have you played CWiF already ?!?

Look, I dont really care about CWiF ok. We are here to make MWiF.

Yes, I played CWiF, and you know what, I think it sucked. I thought it was completely unplayable and I cannot understand how anyone would sit through a 39-45 solitare campaign of it. And just because some feature was included in CWiF does not say anything whatsoever about whether it should be included in MWiF or not.

Now, as for the divisions. WiF is designed to be corps/armies. If you allow a player to break down his entire army into divisions it becomes unplayable. Sure, no one in his right mind would do that because you would lose alot of combat power. BUT, a Japanese player might want to do something like that for his first turn attacks in the pacific. And guess, what, it would be bad... In WiF you are forced to decide where to use your divisions, and those divisions can become precious indeed, good as they are, to soak up losses, or invade out of supply places etc.