Australia & New Zealand Map

[delatbabel]

My inclination would be to put alpine hexsides on the W, NW, and NE edges of the hex in which the word "Waimakariri" begins. I know that it's not possible to put one on the NW edge because that's an edge between a mountain and a forest hex (although I would be inclined to make the hex containing Westport a mountain hex, the coastal strip is quite narrow there and the general area is very mountainous).

That wouldn't be 100% accurate but would more closely represent the challenges facing anyone crossing between the W and E coasts of the South Island of New Zealand.

Google maps gives a good terrain shot, here:

http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&ll=- ... 97&t=p&z=9

That covers the terrain N and NE of Lake Tekapo. There is no way across there, unless you have your mountaineering boots on and a team of sherpas. North of that you get to the Lewis Pass, about where Maruia is marked on this map:

http://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&ll=- ... 97&t=p&z=9

North East of that again you have nothing, unless you go up the coast route to Blenheim and then across. From the north & west of Maruia Springs on the Lewis Pass you can cut inland towards Nelson and the top of the South Island, it's a difficult trail but not impassable. That essentially takes you into the Westport hex and out towards the north east again.

For interest's sake, the alpine hexside between lakes Pukaki and Tekapo contains Mount Cook, this is where you'll see a statue of Sir Edmund Hillary, he did a lot of climbing there both before and after his ascent of Everest.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

A slightly closer look at the North Island.

Not close enough [:D].
Size 6 texts are not showing [:D].

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

A slightly closer look at the North Island.

Not close enough [:D].
Size 6 texts are not showing [:D].

It was zoom 5.

[marcuswatney]

Surely Auckland should be a two-front port?  I understood it was a major Allied base and rear-area logistics centre during the war, the assembly point for new divisions coming from the States.  Wasn't it from Auckland that the Guadalcanal campaign was launched and supplied?  So it is very odd that at present Auckland is on one sea zone only, but Wellington is on two (...and if the Wellington/Christchurch debate results in Wellington being upgraded to a major port, then Wellington will usurp Auckland's role in the war).

Or does that tiny little inlet on the southwest corner of Auckland's hex permit naval movement from the port to the west?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney
Surely Auckland should be a two-front port?  I understood it was a major Allied base and rear-area logistics centre during the war, the assembly point for new divisions coming from the States.  Wasn't it from Auckland that the Guadalcanal campaign was launched and supplied?  So it is very odd that at present Auckland is on one sea zone only, but Wellington is on two (...and if the Wellington/Christchurch debate results in Wellington being upgraded to a major port, then Wellington will usurp Auckland's role in the war).

Or does that tiny little inlet on the southwest corner of Auckland's hex permit naval movement from the port to the west?

Auckland is a port on 2 adjacent sea areas, Tasman Sea (to the west) and New Zeland Coast (to the east). The Port Graphic is draw on the east side, but ships can enter or leave that port from both sea areas.

In reality and as drawn on the MWiF map Auckland is on the east side, but the original WiF FE maps had it to the tip of the northern island, so it was visualy sat on both sea areas. So it has been setup as connected to both sea areas.

As a side note, the Wellington/Christchurch debate won't result in Wellington upgraded to Major Port. At best it will result in Christchurch being downgraded to Minor Port, but I won't touch Wellington.

[marcuswatney]

The question of the (un)importance of the location of a port symbol in a hex has come up before, but I do think it remains an ambiguity where a hex has two coasts that don't link up in that hex.  Effectively, players are being asked to treat Auckland like Kiel, when there isn't actually a canal there at all.
 
There are two ways to make it less ambiguous.  One would be to re-draw the front-boundary so that it approaches via Great Barrier and touches Auckland's northern apex    Or ... the isthmus upon which Auckland is built is only ten kilometres wide, so perhaps redraw the hex to make the neck much more narrow and then shift the port symbol to where the city dot is presently, so it is equi-distant from each coastline.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

The question of the (un)importance of the location of a port symbol in a hex has come up before, but I do think it remains an ambiguity where a hex has two coasts that don't link up in that hex.  Effectively, players are being asked to treat Auckland like Kiel, when there isn't actually a canal there at all.

There are two ways to make it less ambiguous.  One would be to re-draw the front-boundary so that it approaches via Great Barrier and touches Auckland's northern apex    Or ... the isthmus upon which Auckland is built is only ten kilometres wide, so perhaps redraw the hex to make the neck much more narrow and then shift the port symbol to where the city dot is presently, so it is equi-distant from each coastline.

Yes.

I think the city icon can be moved to position 9 or 0 and the port to 21 to accomplish this.

[marcuswatney]

Do the Cocos appear? They were not important - just cable and meteorolical stations - but they were occasionally bombed by Betties.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Do the Cocos appear? They were not important - just cable and meteorolical stations - but they were occasionally bombed by Betties.

Which Cocos ?
Those Cocos ?

[Froonp]

Or this Coco ?

[jesperpehrson]

It was hardly the Costa Rican one [:D] Where they even in the war?

[composer99]

I think almost every Central & South American country joined up on the Allied side (over the course of 41-45), just like how most of them signed on to WWI for the Entente after the Americans joined in 1917, but if I am not much mistaken not many of them actually did much in the way of contributing combat forces.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: composer99

I think almost every Central & South American country joined up on the Allied side (over the course of 41-45), just like how most of them signed on to WWI for the Entente after the Americans joined in 1917, but if I am not much mistaken not many of them actually did much in the way of contributing combat forces.

Mexicans & Brazilians are quite famous for having participated to the Allied war effort, especially the Brazillians with their P-47 in Italy. Great Fighter Group it seems.

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: composer99

I think almost every Central & South American country joined up on the Allied side (over the course of 41-45), just like how most of them signed on to WWI for the Entente after the Americans joined in 1917, but if I am not much mistaken not many of them actually did much in the way of contributing combat forces.

Mexicans & Brazilians are quite famous for having participated to the Allied war effort, especially the Brazillians with their P-47 in Italy. Great Fighter Group it seems.

Well yes Brazil and Mexico is a different story altogether. Read about em in the writeups when you get the game! [:D]

Yeah I think most countries jumped on the bandwagon when the Allied victory was near but I cannot imagine Costa Rica joining the war around when Japan was bombing Pearl Harbour.

[marcuswatney]

On the beach at Rio de Janeiro (Copacabana) there is a lovely war memorial depicting the triumphant advance of the Brazilian ground force (brigade strength I think) through Italy, with such large arrows and starbursts that you would imagine the Brazilians liberated Italy all on their own!
 
Yes, there was an unseemingly haste to declare war on Germany in order to get a seat at the conference table.  I think the last nation to declare war was Turkey in February 1945!

[Mziln]

The Brazilian Expeditionary Force (Portuguese: Força Expedicionária Brasileira, or FEB) was the 25,300-man force formed by the Brazilian Navy, Army and Air Force that fought alongside the Allied forces in the Italian Campaign of World War II.


The Brazilian 1st Division of the FEB was under the command of 15th Army Group of Field Marshal Harold Alexander (later succeeded by General Mark Clark), via the U.S. Fifth Army of Lieutenant General Mark Clark (later succeeded by Lieutenant General Lucian Truscott) and the U.S. IV Corps of Major General Willis D. Crittenberger. The overall organisation of the Allied and German armies in Italy at the time can be found on the Gothic Line order of battle entry.

The Brazilian Air Force component was under the command of XXII Tactical Air Command, which was itself under the Mediterranean Allied Tactical Air Force.

The FEB headquarters functioned as an administrative headquarters and link to the Brazilian high command and War Minister General Eurico Gaspar Dutra in Rio de Janeiro.

General Mascarenhas de Moraes (later Marshal) was the commander of the FEB with General Zenóbio da Costa as commander of the division's three regimental Combat Teams ("RCT") and General Cordeiro de Farias as commander of the Artillery.

The FEB was (theoretically) organized as a standard American infantry division, complete in all aspects, down to its logistical tail, including postal and banking services. It comprised the 1st, 6th and 11th RCTs, each one equivalent to 5,000 men having three battalions, composed of four companies each.

[Froonp]

Based on comments on this thread, and on my 1940 atlases, I made some modifications to southern Australia. Shark Bay will be made desert as well as Victoria Mouths (is that it ?) made swamp during Steve's next pass at changing coastlines and rivers, in 2 weeks. Here I mostly only modified railways.

[Froonp]

Made some changes here too as advised by forum comments. Alpine hexes added, and railway moved near the coast S of Westport. I did not downgrade Christchurch as minor port yet, it is still in the proposed changes list though. I'm undecided.

[delatbabel]

These map changes look good. I can almost recognise the terrain there.

Would it be possible to put two labels in the Christchurch hex? The town (yellow dot) is called Christchurch, the port (port symbol) is called Lyttleton. They aren't really the same city and Christchurch isn't a port (it has mud flats but no navigable waterways).

Or perhaps just add the "Lyttleton" label near the port symbol for interest's sake.

Is the "Pelennor Fields" label going to stay? It's amusing.

I concur that Wellington should not be a major port, but I think that Lyttleton should not be one either.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

These map changes look good. I can almost recognise the terrain there.

Would it be possible to put two labels in the Christchurch hex? The town (yellow dot) is called Christchurch, the port (port symbol) is called Lyttleton. They aren't really the same city and Christchurch isn't a port (it has mud flats but no navigable waterways).

Or perhaps just add the "Lyttleton" label near the port symbol for interest's sake.

Is the "Pelennor Fields" label going to stay? It's amusing.

I intend it to stay. This is where the Pelennor Fields were shooted.

I concur that Wellington should not be a major port, but I think that Lyttleton should not be one either.

Any other New Zealander to confirm this ?