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: MWiF Map Review - America

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: MWiF Map Review - America Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 5/25/2008 7:41:42 PM   
marcuswatney

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
By the way, I still have had no "Go" for the "Territory of New Guinea" change (that would also reduce the number of Territories in the game).

I didn't realise. I suggest you ask Steve direct for formal approval well before the next deadline of 15 June. The issue was well debated, and I think we all came to a very sensible consensus.


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 631
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 5/25/2008 8:20:45 PM   
Astarix

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Hampton, Minnesota
Status: offline
Patrice,

Yes, I like both changes, the river is now correctly located, and the Fargo change looks fine as well.


Jason

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 632
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 5/25/2008 8:56:50 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22075
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
By the way, I still have had no "Go" for the "Territory of New Guinea" change (that would also reduce the number of Territories in the game).

I didn't realise. I suggest you ask Steve direct for formal approval well before the next deadline of 15 June. The issue was well debated, and I think we all came to a very sensible consensus.



I try to "stay small" in decision making about the map. If both Marcus and Patrice agree on a change that should be made, well, then who am I to object?

We can make these change for June 15th if you want.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to marcuswatney)
Post #: 633
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 6/12/2008 11:45:15 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22075
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here are the changes around Duluth.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 634
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 6/12/2008 11:55:54 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are the changes around Duluth.

I'll name the 2 rivers around St Paul and I'll try to name the new lake, when I'll have the new version.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 635
RE: MWiF Map Review - America Oregon - 12/27/2008 8:31:51 PM   
fiveof6


Posts: 23
Joined: 9/3/2007
Status: offline

"The Below is the Willamette as depicted on the map, and the 2 other views are the Willamette as found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_River. The center map shows Willamette River watershed, and the rightmost one show the tributaries of the Willamette River. According to the center map, our drawing is wrong, but according to the rightmost map our drawing could be the better one to depict the waterways that can block movement.

So, is the Willamette River right ? "

You are correct to question the south end of the Willamette (Wil LAM it) River. Add one more length of river to the southeast.

Additionally, there should be one more clear hex (farmland) instead of forest to the southwest of the current southern most clear hex. It would be the center hex of the three forest hexes. While there was some forest in the hex in question, movement would not be affected due to open terrain farms.

Kevin


(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 636
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/27/2008 8:46:17 PM   
fiveof6


Posts: 23
Joined: 9/3/2007
Status: offline
Re: Grand Canyon

The four southern hexsides where the word "Grand Canyon" is labelled (plus one more to the southwest) should be considered blocked. There is no way a land based military unit could cross the river in that area, ever. It is a reverse mountain, thousands of feet straight into the ground which regularly claims tourists that get too close to the edge.

Kevin

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 637
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/27/2008 9:20:38 PM   
fiveof6


Posts: 23
Joined: 9/3/2007
Status: offline
Kitsap Penisula

The forest hex immediately west of Seattle is connected to the rest of the continent by a narrow strip of land. The only hexside that should be accessible by land is the south west. There was regular ferry service from Seattle to Bremerton, so a red connector should exist between Seattle and the forest hex to the west of Seattle.

San Juan Islands

The southern most water hex to the east of Victoria is actually littered with the San Juan Islands. The US and Britain almost fought the Pig War over this island group. http://www.sanjuanmaps.com/images/sanjuanmap-med.jpg

At the time of WWII, there was no regular ferry service to these islands so the red connecting line is unnecessary.

Kevin

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 638
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/27/2008 9:28:47 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Re: Grand Canyon

The four southern hexsides where the word "Grand Canyon" is labelled (plus one more to the southwest) should be considered blocked. There is no way a land based military unit could cross the river in that area, ever. It is a reverse mountain, thousands of feet straight into the ground which regularly claims tourists that get too close to the edge.

Kevin

I agree, unfortnately there is no game terrain suitable for the Grand Canyon. I've had already noted in my files that for MWiF 2 we should add such a terrain hex, but for MWiF 1 this is not possible.

(in reply to fiveof6)
Post #: 639
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/27/2008 9:39:07 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8184
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Re: Grand Canyon

The four southern hexsides where the word "Grand Canyon" is labelled (plus one more to the southwest) should be considered blocked. There is no way a land based military unit could cross the river in that area, ever. It is a reverse mountain, thousands of feet straight into the ground which regularly claims tourists that get too close to the edge.

Kevin

I agree, unfortnately there is no game terrain suitable for the Grand Canyon. I've had already noted in my files that for MWiF 2 we should add such a terrain hex, but for MWiF 1 this is not possible.

Wouldn't an alpine hexside serve?

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 640
RE: MWiF Map Review - America Oregon - 12/27/2008 9:47:19 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
First, thanks Kevin for answering my 7 months old question about Oregon

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6
quote:



"The Below is the Willamette as depicted on the map, and the 2 other views are the Willamette as found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_River. The center map shows Willamette River watershed, and the rightmost one show the tributaries of the Willamette River. According to the center map, our drawing is wrong, but according to the rightmost map our drawing could be the better one to depict the waterways that can block movement.

So, is the Willamette River right ? "


You are correct to question the south end of the Willamette (Wil LAM it) River. Add one more length of river to the southeast.

Well, I was questioning the layout of the river, not the length. I think I'll leave it the way it is and not lengthen it. I'll consider that the rest of the River is not lager enough to warrant a WiF River hexside (this is where the Australian observers should gang on me saying that by this reasoning, there should be no river hexsides in Australia -- I know, I know, but ADG wanted them, so let's leave them here.

quote:

Additionally, there should be one more clear hex (farmland) instead of forest to the southwest of the current southern most clear hex. It would be the center hex of the three forest hexes. While there was some forest in the hex in question, movement would not be affected due to open terrain farms.

Kevin

About this clear hex, I'm happy that you talk about it, you know why ?
Because initialy, on the CWiF map where the MwiF map comes from, this hex is a clear hex.
Someone in the initial steps of the map editing suggested that this hex is changed to Forest, which was done. Now you come and tell me we should not have. So what to do ? Your argument that "While there was some forest in the hex in question, movement would not be affected due to open terrain farms." is sound, and this added to the fact that originaly if was a clear hex makes me want to do that change.

Any other opinion about that hex ?

(in reply to fiveof6)
Post #: 641
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/27/2008 9:49:11 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Re: Grand Canyon

The four southern hexsides where the word "Grand Canyon" is labelled (plus one more to the southwest) should be considered blocked. There is no way a land based military unit could cross the river in that area, ever. It is a reverse mountain, thousands of feet straight into the ground which regularly claims tourists that get too close to the edge.

Kevin

I agree, unfortnately there is no game terrain suitable for the Grand Canyon. I've had already noted in my files that for MWiF 2 we should add such a terrain hex, but for MWiF 1 this is not possible.

Wouldn't an alpine hexside serve?

The problem would be that the depiction of an Alpine hexside would be incongruous here, in the desert.

Edit : But you're right that this Grand Canyon hexside would have the same effects as an Alpine hexside.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 642
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/27/2008 10:08:13 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Kitsap Penisula

The forest hex immediately west of Seattle is connected to the rest of the continent by a narrow strip of land. The only hexside that should be accessible by land is the south west. There was regular ferry service from Seattle to Bremerton, so a red connector should exist between Seattle and the forest hex to the west of Seattle.

San Juan Islands

The southern most water hex to the east of Victoria is actually littered with the San Juan Islands. The US and Britain almost fought the Pig War over this island group. http://www.sanjuanmaps.com/images/sanjuanmap-med.jpg

At the time of WWII, there was no regular ferry service to these islands so the red connecting line is unnecessary.

Kevin

Well, if I understood correctly your comments, you suggest to remove the crossing arrow that is NW of Seatle to put it W of Seatle, that's it ?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to fiveof6)
Post #: 643
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/27/2008 11:58:26 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22075
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Re: Grand Canyon

The four southern hexsides where the word "Grand Canyon" is labelled (plus one more to the southwest) should be considered blocked. There is no way a land based military unit could cross the river in that area, ever. It is a reverse mountain, thousands of feet straight into the ground which regularly claims tourists that get too close to the edge.

Kevin

I agree, unfortnately there is no game terrain suitable for the Grand Canyon. I've had already noted in my files that for MWiF 2 we should add such a terrain hex, but for MWiF 1 this is not possible.

Wouldn't an alpine hexside serve?

The problem would be that the depiction of an Alpine hexside would be incongruous here, in the desert.

Edit : But you're right that this Grand Canyon hexside would have the same effects as an Alpine hexside.

I am not so sure that the effects would be comparable to alpine. The abilty of mountain units to traverse the grand canyon doesn't seem reasonable to me.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 644
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/28/2008 12:01:24 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22075
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

Kitsap Penisula

The forest hex immediately west of Seattle is connected to the rest of the continent by a narrow strip of land. The only hexside that should be accessible by land is the south west. There was regular ferry service from Seattle to Bremerton, so a red connector should exist between Seattle and the forest hex to the west of Seattle.

San Juan Islands

The southern most water hex to the east of Victoria is actually littered with the San Juan Islands. The US and Britain almost fought the Pig War over this island group. http://www.sanjuanmaps.com/images/sanjuanmap-med.jpg

At the time of WWII, there was no regular ferry service to these islands so the red connecting line is unnecessary.

Kevin

Well, if I understood correctly your comments, you suggest to remove the crossing arrow that is NW of Seatle to put it W of Seatle, that's it ?




Whether a ferry makes the run seems to be more a function of population and economic viability, rather than the physical closeness of the land masses - to enable a military formation to cross. However, I agree that the two are likely to coincide. I just don't want the presence/absence of a ferry route to be the deciding factor/criterion.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 645
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/28/2008 12:19:43 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am not so sure that the effects would be comparable to alpine. The abilty of mountain units to traverse the grand canyon doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Well, on the contrary, it seemed reasonable to me.
Is it that impossible to cross, even for specialized montaineers troopers ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 646
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/28/2008 12:23:00 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22075
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am not so sure that the effects would be comparable to alpine. The abilty of mountain units to traverse the grand canyon doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Well, on the contrary, it seemed reasonable to me.
Is it that impossible to cross, even for specialized montaineers troopers ?

I've never been there, but from looking at pictures, yes, it is impassable. I'm not saying that a few extraordinary individuals wouldn't be able to cross, but I doubt that a military formation of thousands of men could accomplish it with all their equipment.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 647
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/28/2008 12:32:28 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am not so sure that the effects would be comparable to alpine. The abilty of mountain units to traverse the grand canyon doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Well, on the contrary, it seemed reasonable to me.
Is it that impossible to cross, even for specialized montaineers troopers ?

I've never been there, but from looking at pictures, yes, it is impassable. I'm not saying that a few extraordinary individuals wouldn't be able to cross, but I doubt that a military formation of thousands of men could accomplish it with all their equipment.

Even one that are specificaly trained to pass across impassable mountain areas ? They are trained to climb and then descend impasasble places, in snow weather, so why wouldn't they be able to cross the Grand Canyon, after all it is the reverse, a descent and then a climb, under sunny weather . Maybe in the width of an hex (70-80 km) are they able to find an easier path that regular people can't spot ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 648
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/28/2008 12:44:43 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22075
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am not so sure that the effects would be comparable to alpine. The abilty of mountain units to traverse the grand canyon doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Well, on the contrary, it seemed reasonable to me.
Is it that impossible to cross, even for specialized montaineers troopers ?

I've never been there, but from looking at pictures, yes, it is impassable. I'm not saying that a few extraordinary individuals wouldn't be able to cross, but I doubt that a military formation of thousands of men could accomplish it with all their equipment.

Even one that are specificaly trained to pass across impassable mountain areas ? They are trained to climb and then descend impasasble places, in snow weather, so why wouldn't they be able to cross the Grand Canyon, after all it is the reverse, a descent and then a climb, under sunny weather . Maybe in the width of an hex (70-80 km) are they able to find an easier path that regular people can't spot ?

When you get to the bottom, there is a river to cross.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 649
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/28/2008 12:48:07 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am not so sure that the effects would be comparable to alpine. The abilty of mountain units to traverse the grand canyon doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Well, on the contrary, it seemed reasonable to me.
Is it that impossible to cross, even for specialized montaineers troopers ?

I've never been there, but from looking at pictures, yes, it is impassable. I'm not saying that a few extraordinary individuals wouldn't be able to cross, but I doubt that a military formation of thousands of men could accomplish it with all their equipment.

Even one that are specificaly trained to pass across impassable mountain areas ? They are trained to climb and then descend impasasble places, in snow weather, so why wouldn't they be able to cross the Grand Canyon, after all it is the reverse, a descent and then a climb, under sunny weather . Maybe in the width of an hex (70-80 km) are they able to find an easier path that regular people can't spot ?

When you get to the bottom, there is a river to cross.

Ah

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 650
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/28/2008 4:37:18 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8184
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am not so sure that the effects would be comparable to alpine. The abilty of mountain units to traverse the grand canyon doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Well, on the contrary, it seemed reasonable to me.
Is it that impossible to cross, even for specialized montaineers troopers ?

I've never been there, but from looking at pictures, yes, it is impassable. I'm not saying that a few extraordinary individuals wouldn't be able to cross, but I doubt that a military formation of thousands of men could accomplish it with all their equipment.

Even one that are specificaly trained to pass across impassable mountain areas ? They are trained to climb and then descend impasasble places, in snow weather, so why wouldn't they be able to cross the Grand Canyon, after all it is the reverse, a descent and then a climb, under sunny weather . Maybe in the width of an hex (70-80 km) are they able to find an easier path that regular people can't spot ?

When you get to the bottom, there is a river to cross.

Ah

What about the Quatara Depression terrain feature then?

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 651
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/28/2008 10:50:20 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
What about the Quatara Depression terrain feature then?

the Qatara Depression is an hex terrain, not an hexside. Grand Canyon needs an impassable hexside.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 652
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/28/2008 6:36:36 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8184
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
What about the Quatara Depression terrain feature then?

the Qatara Depression is an hex terrain, not an hexside. Grand Canyon needs an impassable hexside.

Hmmm, good thing we don't see units near there in our games very often. It is drawn more like a hexside limitation then a hex limitation, but indeed the TEC says the hexes cannot be entered except by aircraft.

I guess you'll have to use lake hexsides (in the desert so no danger of freezing - except for blizzard) and then put a marine symbol in a circle with a stroke through it in each one as well.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 12/28/2008 6:37:21 PM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 653
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/29/2008 1:01:16 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22075
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
What about the Quatara Depression terrain feature then?

the Qatara Depression is an hex terrain, not an hexside. Grand Canyon needs an impassable hexside.

Hmmm, good thing we don't see units near there in our games very often. It is drawn more like a hexside limitation then a hex limitation, but indeed the TEC says the hexes cannot be entered except by aircraft.

I guess you'll have to use lake hexsides (in the desert so no danger of freezing - except for blizzard) and then put a marine symbol in a circle with a stroke through it in each one as well.

Let's just wait fro MWIF product 2. We want to add an Atoll terrain type and perhaps a hexside terrain type that prevents invasions - such as southern Australia's high deserts and coastal waterways that pose simply too great an obstacle.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 654
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/29/2008 7:04:36 AM   
JagWars


Posts: 121
Joined: 7/1/2000
From: Eureka, Missouri, USA
Status: offline
I was quite late with this evidently, most of my comments were already addressed by others.


< Message edited by Jaguar -- 12/29/2008 7:07:55 AM >

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 655
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/30/2008 1:13:54 PM   
Peter Stauffenberg


Posts: 403
Joined: 2/24/2006
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline
Is it possible to use Alpine hexsides for Grand Canyon in MWIF 1 pending a separate terrain type for MWIF 2?  I don't think you will see that many mountain units near Grand Canyon anyway so using Alpine hexsides indicate that the Grand Canyon is impassable for most units. I guess that is better than just allowing every type of unit to cross the canyon as if it was just a river.

Or does it look cheesy to see white alphine hexside symbols in a desert area?

While we're at it, are there other impassable areas elsewhere in the world that's not formed by steep mountains (Alpine hexsides) or the Quattara depression type of terrain?

I would think that Grand Canyon is not the only place in the world where a big river has dug out deep canyons. I think I saw photos of quite impassable weird terrain in e. g. China.

< Message edited by Borger Borgersen -- 12/30/2008 1:28:40 PM >

(in reply to JagWars)
Post #: 656
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/31/2008 4:14:04 AM   
Anendrue


Posts: 817
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am not so sure that the effects would be comparable to alpine. The abilty of mountain units to traverse the grand canyon doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Well, on the contrary, it seemed reasonable to me.
Is it that impossible to cross, even for specialized montaineers troopers ?

I've never been there, but from looking at pictures, yes, it is impassable. I'm not saying that a few extraordinary individuals wouldn't be able to cross, but I doubt that a military formation of thousands of men could accomplish it with all their equipment.

Even one that are specificaly trained to pass across impassable mountain areas ? They are trained to climb and then descend impasasble places, in snow weather, so why wouldn't they be able to cross the Grand Canyon, after all it is the reverse, a descent and then a climb, under sunny weather . Maybe in the width of an hex (70-80 km) are they able to find an easier path that regular people can't spot ?


I bolded the portion I am replying too. I have been to the canyon three times. Only a small specialized force could attempt a crossing there. Company size or smaller could be successful. Moving a battalion across it would be ludicrous at best. Heavy equipment would be out of the question. Bridging is impossible from the south to north rim. You would have to treat it as an impassable hexside. The code from the alpine hexside could be used except you would strip any ability for movement and combat across it from all units excpt air of course.

_____________________________

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 657
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/31/2008 6:38:08 AM   
fiveof6


Posts: 23
Joined: 9/3/2007
Status: offline
"Well, if I understood correctly your comments, you suggest to remove the crossing arrow that is NW of Seatle to put it W of Seatle, that's it ?"


If I had to choose one or the other, then yes I would move the NW line from Seattle to straight east. If both could be included, then that would be more accurate. Also, if the little inlet of water that cuts into the west side of the hex 1 west of Seatlle could be extended down the entire west side of the hexside before hooking east, then it would be more accurate.

After looking closer at your included attachment, I noticed another change might be warranted. The Alpine hexside should be moved one hexside straight east, between the forest hex SE of Victoria and the mountain hex two west of Seattle.

There is no difficulty moving north-south on the coastline so perhaps the coastal terrain should be should be forest, east-west requires more effort. However, the abundance of roads and railroads east-west would mitigate the effects of any mountains except southern Oregon. One would have had little difficulty moving a military unit through the coast range on the many roads and railroads that crossed the coastal mountains. Most of the coast range is 700-1500 feet with some areas in S Oregon not accessible due to the depth of the mountains, and fewer rivers and roads.

I apologize for joining the discussion so late, but I'm not exactly sure what the standard is for terrain being considered Mountains. The above Alpine hexside is needed (Mt Olympus at about 7,000 ft), but outside that hexside, the rest of the Washington/Oregon coast range gradually builds to about 2000 feet with highest "peaks" no higher than 3,000 feet, with large rivers cutting through it about every 50 miles or so.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 658
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/31/2008 6:46:03 AM   
fiveof6


Posts: 23
Joined: 9/3/2007
Status: offline
"The code from the alpine hexside could be used except you would strip any ability for movement and combat across it from all units excpt air of course."

Could Alpine graphic be renamed?  I don't know how the graphics would work, but would the current Alpine graphic combined with the river be made to equal the above characteristics?

Kevin

(in reply to fiveof6)
Post #: 659
RE: MWiF Map Review - America - 12/31/2008 8:31:59 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22075
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiveof6

"The code from the alpine hexside could be used except you would strip any ability for movement and combat across it from all units excpt air of course."

Could Alpine graphic be renamed?  I don't know how the graphics would work, but would the current Alpine graphic combined with the river be made to equal the above characteristics?

Kevin

I think kludging something out of the current terrain types is a poor solution. Let's just wait for MIWF product 2. This will be important for the add-on America in Flames (not part of product 1).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to fiveof6)
Post #: 660
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: MWiF Map Review - America Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.266