PDA

View Full Version : SUMATRA coming in PF Singapore MAP



LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 10:42 AM
Czech it out...looks like we may see OCEAN and ISLANDS to fly over to get to target (flying either way)...

Starshoy:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes, weird, but we probably will have to live with it (tm), or use only IJN land based campaign there <simhq talking about lack of Japanese Army bombers>. Anyway, the map which I will use is slightly fictionalised version of Singapore with two fictional Japanese a/f in the North and <span class="ev_code_yellow">one Dutch airfield in Sumatra.</span> With this setup we can have about a month of campaign, which can be pretty playable because of multiple ground targets in a reasonable distance from your airfield.

~ http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=001768
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Break out a map, there are some islands we must fly over between Malaya and Sumatra (hopefully <span class="ev_code_green">Jungle Green</span>, not <span class="ev_code_yellow">Okinawa Map Yellow</span> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).

Lets hope the Singapore map extends far enough east and southeast to include the fascinating and mission-useful islands of Riau Archipelago -- Island Archipelagos offer unique air warfare environment most needed over the PF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

SUMATRA MAP~> http://www.caingram.info/Sumatra/Smtra-htm/sumatra-map.htm

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 11:33 AM
*bump*

This is going to be a great map, being able to take off from land, fly across water to another land mass with target.

Airmail109
03-23-2005, 11:58 AM
Lexx Im gonna be making a historical campaign for Sumatra and Java! Just to let you know....BACK OFF lol!!!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Actually Lexx do u want to make one co-operatively!
I have a special interest in that area of the fighting! Have a great book......descriebing what went on their at an almost day to day level! which will be great for missions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 01:28 PM
Sounds good, I can help design some missions. I don't have any detailed references to this campaign though.

RAC_Pips
03-23-2005, 01:58 PM
For those folks interested in this campaign, but don't have books on the subject, go here.
http://www.j-aircraft.com/jring/

Provides excellent detail on the Dutch East Indies Campaign of 1941-42.

Da_Godfatha
03-23-2005, 03:38 PM
Seeing is believing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 03:38 PM
Direct link to Dutch East Indies campaign~> http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/

This is an Aussum informative website, ya'll czech it out.

Airmail109
03-23-2005, 04:58 PM
Lexx the book "bloody Shambles" is awesome for sources on the air war over south east asia 1941-42. Some of the stories are fantastic!!!!!!!1 Im really looking forward to this map!!!!!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 05:43 PM
Ya...Rumour posted that Singapore will be ~400km http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-23-2005, 11:23 PM
Aimail, if the map permits, have you considered Spicing up a Singapore campaign with the HMS Indomitable Option? That was supposed to provide air cover for Force-Z but, in classic RN style, ran aground instead. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It could provide a good RN flying Option, and something extra to challenge the Japanese player (I'm having enough challenges landing Hurricane on Illustrious though).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ordered as the fourth ship in the "Illustrious" Class, Indomitable had her design revised so that she could operate 45 aircraft instead of 33.
:
:
HMS Indomitable's service history commenced with her sailing to the West Indies for work-up in November 1941. Had it not been for her grounding in Jamaica while working up in November 1941, Indomitable might well have been sunk the following month, as she was originally intended to join the battleship Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser Repulse at Singapore - and both those ships were sunk in December 1941
:
:
In May 1942, HMS Indomitable sailed to Madagascar to attempt to seize a French Navy base at Diego Suarez in order to prevent the Japanese from using it as a submarine base. The <span class="ev_code_yellow">Sea Hurricanes in their first hostile operations</span> were successful in their escort duties and managed to destroy 3 Morane Saulnier MS406 fighters on the ground.

~~> http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/Indomitable.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ploughman
03-24-2005, 02:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...in classic RN style, ran aground instead <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used to work at a MoD establishment just down the hall from the team that dealt with salvage and so on for the navy. In the 18 months I was there they had a T-42 air defence destroyer almost sink itself after hitting a well charted rock, a fleet logistics vessel lose a very expensive propeller on a rock only days out of dry dock, and an SSN hit a rock at vast expense to the taxpayer, (nothing like as bad as the USS San Francisco but expensive non the less). Those are just the ones I can remember the details of, there were at least another 3 or four incidents where ships hit submerged obstacles and sustained less spectacular damage, and one berthed T-23 frigate that got run over by a large ferry that lost control in a storm and was blown on to it. It's illuminating looking at just how much money a modern navy spends on hydrographics, the RN alone has five or six ships of varying sizes dedicated to to this role, in addition to non ship based systems and other ships that can act as surveyors although they are not dedicated to this task.

Just going to sea is dangerous enough, even without someone else deliberately trying to sink you.

GerritJ9
03-24-2005, 02:24 AM
The preview of the Singapore map that I have seen covers Singapore and most of Malaya plus the Riouw archipelago, but only a very small portion of Sumatra- Palembang is not included. Of course, the actual map we get may be quite different and may cover more of Sumatra. Here's hoping!!!!!

Aero_Shodanjo
03-24-2005, 06:37 AM
Singapore map will include Riau archipelago and a portion of Sumatra as well? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Im speechless...

But if there will be a Java map soon, I'll dance naked around a big tree under the moonlight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Thanks for the info Lexx http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Airmail109
03-24-2005, 08:11 AM
**** I was hoping for most of sumatra!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Ruy Horta
03-24-2005, 08:24 AM
If people start about what they've seen, so can I...

Judging from the glimpse that I got from that map, it is unfortunately very limited in scope.

As far as Sumatra, without the southern area, it has no use in any campaign, it needs the Palembang and the P1 and P2 airfields to have a function.

Malaya is the center piece, BUT the focus on Singapore means that the northern half is missing, I wonder what fields will be put in the northern part of the game map (if any)?

So expect a map centered around Singapore, with not enough terrain in the south to include Sumatra, not enough in the north to wage any proper campaign, so what we are left with is mainly the final phase of the battle for Singapore.

Well at least you can place some ML Brewsters in their proper historic role there.

Shame that there will be no Martin Bomber, not even as an AI a/c.

Capt._Tenneal
03-24-2005, 09:03 AM
I'm thinking even if the eventual map will give us limited options historically, maybe the land area is close enough to use it for "faked" CBI campaigns and missions ? The Malaya part, I mean.

At this point in the game, I'd settle for that and let our talented campaign and mission makers get a crack at it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
03-24-2005, 09:05 AM
let us wait , ok ?! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
03-24-2005, 09:07 AM
http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/malaya.jpg

Those are all the size of the current NG map.Obviously they could be bigger.

If they did this much bigger, what a bad choice in a series of bad choices. They could have done the slot from Guadalcanal to Rabaul and used only a fraction more land area than the NG map. There would be no need for roads at all. The Slot would have island hopping, and maximize the use of the best represented forces in game, NAVAL aviation. There are not enough IJAAF planes to really do anything that concentrates on them, unfortunately (unless the add on is adding maybe 5 IJAAF planes). Also, from a historical standpoint, the Slot is a longer time period. Singapore is limited to short early war, and short late war.

tater

Ruy Horta
03-24-2005, 09:36 AM
Tater,

The discussion wasn't about which map would give more gameplay, of course they failed miserably when it comes to understanding the 1942-43 possiblities in the Solomon chain. Here they could have had a proper campaign, with fairly limited resources instead of a multitude of maps with little game play in them.

BUT, if we talk about the Malaya/Sumatra area, one of your maps is very close to what I have see, and it is not the best solution. The problem is probably the limited 300mile range.

I do agree that without some mainstay Japanese types the whole campaign is pretty barren.

IMHO it feels like the people behind the general PF game fail again and again to give proper direction to the different and in part volunteer units building new components. The results are haphazard.

Only a few days ago I was thinking about exactly the same island campaign. Instead of making PF the way they did, with sea maps and few ships (!!), pretending to bring us THE PACIFIC WAR, they could have concentrated on a number of limited campaigns. Instead of a broad scope of a/c and ships, concentrate on those that saw action during those limited campaigns.

Two great starting campaigns, could have been The Solomons and the CBI (RAF&AVG). Also the early USN carrier campaign. Focussed and clear. Russo-Japanese clashes are also pretty focussed.

Just imagine how many resources went into Hawaian map? Just a one or two mission event!!!

IMHO the orginal project manager for PF should never again be allowed to mess up the work of so many creative and dedicated people.

We should take care that this game series becomes not much more than some form of glorified aerial quake, all a/c and no context.

p1ngu666
03-24-2005, 10:04 AM
still hoping for a burma or mainland map here
fighting with various factions before and after the pacific campaign.

imo they aimed PF at americans, and its backfired...

Tater-SW-
03-24-2005, 10:10 AM
I agree. Whoever was in charge of some of that was utterly clueless. Look at the "early" guadalcanal map. Extra room south for 1 mission. The same size going NW would have allowed realistic intercepts of incoming bombers to Henderson, and tokyo express ships. Dumb.

Hawaii, was a total, complete waste. The argument goes that "everyone expects Pearl Harbor." True, but it isn't even good for 2 missions SINCE THERE ARE NO US BATTLESHIPS. Utter waste of effort. No BBs, might as well not bother with a map whose sole purpose is to bomb those BBs.

The little atolls are all fine, not a huge amount of work for those, mostly water.

The NG map was also a waste for a few reasons. One, they picked the area with the least amount of time where combat was active. Two, they should have made the forest come right to the edge of the water over 99% of the map. Three, seriously, who would have not picked the Lae area instead who knows anything at all about the SWPA?

http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/Maps/New-Guinea-Map3.jpg

tater

Capt._Tenneal
03-24-2005, 11:03 AM
Pardon my ignorance on this, but could the maps have been oriented diagonally ? If we could have maps go from NW - SE or NE - SW maybe we could fit a lot of the vital locations and still keep within the current map sizes. The diagonal map would definitely have worked in the Slot area.

Tater-SW-
03-24-2005, 11:32 AM
http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/SWPA.jpg

I made that map ages ago. The only concern is that the compasses, etc would always consider the "top" side to be north, so all our compass directions would be wrong. I'd have zero problem with that.

tater

GerritJ9
03-24-2005, 01:55 PM
Before we get TOO excited about Sumatra being included, it might be wise to have a look at the area included in the preview I have seen. Get out your school atlas and find the area enclosed by Lat. 1 and 5 deg N, Long. 101 and 105 deg E. The Sumatra area is, as I said, very small, plus that that area of Sumatra was (is?) covered by swamps and therefore hardly suited for any airfields. The Riouw islands included are Poelau Batam and Bintan plus a few others, but not the whole chain down to Singkep. In Malaya, Kota Bharu and Penang are out of the area. Area enclosed is approximately 400 x 400 km, or 1600 sq. km total. Still, it's a very worthwhile addition- you can arrange attacks on the "Prince of Wales" off Kuantan and see whether a few Buffalos over Force Z would have made a difference. Plus, defend or attack Singapore Island itself.
And of course, the actual map may be a bit different from the preview.........

Ruy Horta
03-24-2005, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I agree. Whoever was in charge of some of that was utterly clueless. Look at the "early" guadalcanal map. Extra room south for 1 mission.

The NG map was also a waste for a few reasons. One, they picked the area with the least amount of time where combat was active. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both proof that whoever was in charge could not see passed "The First Team", both the NG and Guadal maps are focussed upon (early) USN ops.

This wouldn't have been a problem if the same material was used to create different maps (shfting areas), but it wasn't.

Guess it is just kicking a dead horse, but since you/Tater are illustrating the issue in such a fine manner I think it is clear for all to see that they basically missed the point when they created all these maps.

Tater-SW-
03-24-2005, 08:42 PM
Hehe, actually the First Team would have been a great focus for the game period. But you'd need to at least include the ability for mission to and from Rabaul, or at least Buin. Guadalcanal is one of the few great what-ifs of the whole war in the PTO. That particular campaign could have gone either way with changes in tactics by the IJN.

A lonely Guadalcanal map doesn't do it though, particularly from the standpoint of a dynamic campaign.

Honestly, for the SWPA, we would be well-served by a really well crafted generic map with a large stretch of blank water between the two groups of islands. Heck, they could just cut and paste already made islands to make the groups, though more bays and good anchorages would be nice (a giant version of online islands map 8 or whatever).

tater

p1ngu666
03-24-2005, 09:38 PM
i must admit i know notverymuchatall and the campaigns in the pacific, or burma really, but it sucks we haveto use that NG, or owen stanley range map to get something burmaish

the island maps dont bother me much, because quick to make, but otherwise the choice todo island maps where it was pretty 1 sided in the air, just seems odd to me

peral habour map could have just had that island? think the game is called pearl habour in russia?

Tater-SW-
03-25-2005, 08:06 AM
A generic, mountainous all land map would have been nice too. Honestly, a Burma map would be the only map that even needs roads for AI.

tater

Tater-SW-
03-26-2005, 03:25 PM
http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/na80g34887.jpg

Trees to the water. Almost everywhere.

tater

Feathered_IV
03-26-2005, 05:23 PM
Thanks for your post Tater, well spoken.

LEXX_Luthor
03-26-2005, 05:58 PM
and...No Rivers with wide flat open space on both sides of river.

Use FMB and look at New Guinea map -- top edge, left hand side. Note the steep jungle cliffs, and note how Brutally realistic the jungle looks without being mangled by Roads and Rivers with wide open "FB European" spaces on each side. FB map engine can't handle Roads and Rivers without putting wide open barren landscape on either side of Roads and Rivers. This is why I say ignore Roads and Rivers.

~~> Guadacanal Map has <span class="ev_code_yellow">NO ROADS</span> .... but can DGEN still use Guadacanal map? probably...yes!

Tater-SW-
03-26-2005, 11:32 PM
Yeah, it would be better to model no roads.

Also, the forest texture CAN go right over rivers, I've seen it a few places. In the PTO, except for maybe 100m inland from coast, the forest should just cover EVERY river. All of them.

The rivers on Guadalcanal in game you can park a CV in, even if they were only 5m wide in real life. Better to have no rivers.

tater

|CoB|_Spectre
03-27-2005, 08:19 AM
The big problem in ignoring roads comes when you consider that's where the ground forces move. If you're looking at air-to-air warfare only, it's no big deal, but most total warfare still relies on "boots on the ground". I built a co-op based on the Kokoda Trail that was almost pure air-to-ground and very challenging in that terrain. Were roads not included, a major aspect of the airwar would be sorely lacking. I believe inland waterways, particularly those rivers large enough for small watercraft, should be able to handle dynamic ship objects. The inability to interdict watercraft in remote areas, especially those with no roads, again misses an important aspect of the airwar. Btw, I don't know if it's the horizontal aspect ratio of televisions and monitors that has the development team tied to landscape-oriented maps, but a portrait oriented map could have included the historically important areas on the New Guinea map from Port Moresby (southwest corner) up to Lae (northeast corner) with about the same total area. I like the way trees overlie water on the island of Peleliu. Sure makes for a convincing mangrove swamp, doesn't it!

Tater-SW-
03-27-2005, 09:56 AM
For most areas of the PTO and SWPA, there were not many roads. For the area within the current NG map, only the road to Port Moresby even matters, and even that "road" would have been under the tree canopy for much of its length.

There wasn't much in the way of vehicular traffic, anyway. Or armor, for that matter. But the choice to model japanese armor when it played a tiny role in the war (along with the abysmal IJA artillery), etc is another thread ;-)

For the PTO, the Pacific is the only road that matters. Far better to model 1 truck for each side, or reuse the russian ones, and add more shipping, and for the japanese, cargo barges and luggers.

tater

|CoB|_Spectre
03-27-2005, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
...For the PTO, the Pacific is the only road that matters. Far better to model 1 truck for each side, or reuse the russian ones, and add more shipping, and for the japanese, cargo barges and luggers.

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wholeheartedly agree. Prior to PF, many was the time I used vehicles from either side to substitute for the lack of IJA assets. Anytime you need a cargo ship, it's no problem to use the one model and assign it to blue or red. I would hope Oleg's moratorium on 3rd party modeling submissions did not extend to surface vessels and objects. Obviously they would not have to meet the same criteria or complexity as aircraft, but they would definitely enhance PF. While there are some aircraft I'd like to see added, I think more shipping and maps would render bigger dividends. I've read that the mapping protocol is complex, but I wouldn't suspect it would require the same drain on team resources as would aircraft. It's one way to extend the life and interest in PF for a comparative minimum of effort.

LEXX_Luthor
03-27-2005, 06:07 PM
|CoB|_Spectre ::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The big problem in ignoring roads comes when you consider that's where the ground forces move. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For Europe yes, but not Pacific. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

That is why Pacific troop movements were usually by amphibious assault by ships and small boats attacking or just simply landing at positions up or down the coast of New Guinea.

Except for Kukoda Trail, the only real combat "troop movement" deep inside New Guinea was Wau and that was Aussom Aussie paratroopers.

What I'm saying is that Pacific did not have the mass troop movements on land that Europe had. The air war in the Pacific was about troops staying in one place unless they were transported by water.

For Kukoda Trail, I may be wrong, and I am only now learning about Pacific thanks to Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, but I have NEVER heard of air support being used by either side...I would guess because it was deep DEEP jungle that makes the Ardennes Forest look like open tank country (Be Sure). If anybody does know of air attacks used against Japanese or Awssie troops under the Kukoda Trail jungle, I'd like to hear it. Thanks~

In fact, almost ALL of air warfare in New Guinea area was attacks on enemy airfields and attacks against shipping that transported supplies and troops...this is what is meant by the Pacific being the ONLY road in the theater. Attacks against troops were done against fixed defensive positions (no roads needed) or against landing beaches (no roads needed). These could be called "static" troop movements.

|CoB|:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Were roads not included, a major aspect of the airwar would be sorely lacking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
YES! That mass troop movement on the ground in Europe, yes it was *missing* in the Pacific (the jungle islands).

Again~~> air warfare in New Guinea consisted mainly of attacks against...

Airfields.
Transport ships (and escorting ships).
Static Defensive troop positions.
Troops unloading on beach.
Other *static* troop positions (I recall reading P~39s attacking Japanes troops on Guadacanal--I think!!).

I may be wrong about this, but the main point is that Pacific Island ground combat is best simulated by placing the ground unit waypoints under the jungle--NO ROADS.

The European Rivers and European Roads are exactly why PF Pacific maps look like...Europe! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And yes, Guadacanal Map has NO ROADS, so even DGEN can use Gaudacanal Map? Yes? No?

LEXX_Luthor
03-28-2005, 07:09 PM
uh~oh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

EarthQuake off Sumatra (posted at sinhq by IanBoys

~~> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4388579.stm http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40971000/gif/_40971421_sumatra_quake2_203152.gif

HotelBushranger
03-29-2005, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For Kukoda Trail, I may be wrong, and I am only now learning about Pacific thanks to Oleg bow, but I have NEVER heard of air support being used by either side...I would guess because it was deep DEEP jungle that makes the Ardennes Forest look like open tank country (Be Sure). If anybody does know of air attacks used against Japanese or Awssie troops under the Kukoda Trail jungle, I'd like to hear it. Thanks~ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No worries. Firstly, it was the Kokoda Track, not Kukoda.

DC-3's were used by the soldiers as "Biscuit Bombers"-dropping supplies and high speed very low down. Wasn't very successful, 60% of equipment was never recovered, but nevertheless was one of only two ways of getting supplies to the Aussies. Also, Bostons, Kittyhawks and Beaufighters were used, although I can't find exactly where it's written so I can't give details, but I think Kittyhawks were used to support the troops when they were dug in at Isurava. As to the Japanese, They at least had Betty's and Zeros, although I'm not sure if they were used in direct ground support in the jungle.

LEXX_Luthor
03-30-2005, 03:23 AM
Ploughman::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just going to sea is dangerous enough, even without someone else deliberately trying to sink you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks Plough....another byte from a rather comedic writer (David Lippman)...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>October 2nd, 1942...Panic at Tongabatu as a harbor minesweeper spots a periscope, but nobody finds anything.

Another big day for British navigators as RMS Queen Mary collides with the light cruiser HMS Curacoa and sinks her.

~> http://www.usswashington.com/dl01oc42.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gog..
03-30-2005, 03:54 AM
We must have roads in these maps, how else are we going to drive the new red and cream coloured bus were getting? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Giganoni
03-30-2005, 05:33 AM
Well, I'm at least glad they included Japanese armor and are going to include Japanese artillery. With most of the maps we have, there are few roads and few towns, but many battles in the Pacific did have roads, towns, and a sizable population. Despite faring poorly, Japanese armor took part in almost every major land battle in the Pacific. Large number of tanks in Malaya and Philippines to even Tarawa and Peleliu. Japanese artillery I believe will be very helpful in PF map making, Iwo Jima comes to mind.

Sure, we need more ships, Goshikisen has talked plenty about that, and I would perfer warships to more varieties of cargo ships.

LEXX_Luthor
03-30-2005, 11:43 AM
Yes, a Phillipine map would need roads.

Giganoni:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With most of the maps we have, there are few roads and few towns, but many battles in the Pacific did have roads, towns, and a sizable population. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We are talking about Jungle Islands that had <span class="ev_code_yellow">NO ROADS</span>, No Towns, and No Sizable Population.

No Roads will simplify map making, allowing map makers to create ~very~ large mostly water maps of simple Jungle Island Archipelago ("Archipelago" is a large collection of islands).

And, our PF Guadacanal Map has ~~> <span class="ev_code_yellow">NO ROADS</span>

...but can DGEN still use Guadacanal Map with No Roads? Yes? No?

|CoB|_Spectre
03-30-2005, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
We are talking about Jungle Islands that had _<span class="ev_code_yellow">NO ROADS</span>_, No Towns, and No Sizable Population. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">YOU</span> are talking about Jungle Islands with no roads, towns or sizeable population as being something easier for the map makers to do. For those who desire an historic PF, there were many land battles on islands <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">with</span> roads, towns and sizeable populations. Consider actions in the Phillipines, that part of New Guinea for which we don't have the map, Formosa or especially the CBI. Unless a jungle island had strategic value as an outpost, an airfield, or a resupply point, it would be of little military value. More developed areas with populations had resources worth conquering and subjugating. Japan's dependence on outside resources for their continued existence and was their justification for militaristic expansion. They didn't go to the trouble to seize and hold deserted islands just because they thought it would make nice postcards.

LEXX_Luthor
03-30-2005, 03:59 PM
|CoB|:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For those who desire an historic PF, there were many land battles on islands with roads, towns and sizeable populations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For those who desire an historic PF, there were many land battles on islands with <span class="ev_code_yellow">No Roads</span>, No Towns, and No Sizeable Populations

Pay Attention please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We are only talking about how more complex Land maps of more developed areas (Philippines, Burma) may not be possible because the map makers don't have the time now--that means No Philippines map and No Burma map. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>More developed areas with populations had resources worth conquering and subjugating. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Solomon Islands had little population.
Solomon Islands had little resources.
Solomon Islands attracted the greatest air and naval battles in the Pacific War. Why?

|CoB|:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Unless a jungle island had strategic value as an outpost, an airfield, or a resupply point, it would be of little military value. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif You are talking Guadacanal, which had ~~> <span class="ev_code_yellow">NO ROADS</span>.

So, can DGEN still use Guadacanal Map with No Roads? Yes? No?

p1ngu666
03-30-2005, 06:26 PM
think theres little road in burma, compaired to its size, and yes moving river traffic would be good...

id like red and blue transport ships in fmb list, just to speed stuff up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
03-30-2005, 06:28 PM
ill have a gander at the atlas and maps of ww2 book i picked up today at oxfam bookshop http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-30-2005, 06:38 PM
Burma Rivers are Cool -- for Burma Map. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

What we need is Multiple Island ocean map that lets player island-hop forward (or retreat) during a campaign.

Our PF Hawaii Map is 1000km wide, and already loaded down with two (2) large islands and tons of FB European Building Objects on one of the islands, and Hawaii loads *much* faster than FB Gulf of Finland map. There is room to work with here over large Simple Multiple~Island maps over 1000km.

Giganoni
04-01-2005, 01:38 AM
I'm sorry Lexx, I don't care about Jungle maps, most of the maps we have for PF are just that. The thread title says Sumatra, if they make Sumatra, that is a map that would have roads, towns and historically was extremely important to the Japanese war effort. You may have been talking about jungle maps, I wasn't. No reason to try and correct me when we aren't discussing the same thing.

Gog..
04-01-2005, 02:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Giganoni:
Well, I'm at least glad they included Japanese armor and are going to include Japanese artillery. . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey!, Don't forget that neat red and cream bus! It's the bomb! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

nearmiss
04-01-2005, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
http://members.spinn.net/~merrick/Stuff/na80g34887.jpg

Trees to the water. Almost everywhere.

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Treess to the water. Almost everywhere - IN THE WORLD. Trees grow better along the banks of rivers, streams and coastlines. That's just a fact.

I've never understood why we have all these large open spaces in the IL2 Series. It has never made any sense.

The English countryside is pretty well going to blow all the old conventions of IL2 in the BOB, that is if Oleg addresses the landscape realistically.

The Landscape in IL2 has always been well done as far as elevations and hows it rendered. It's just impossible to think anyone could have waged war in the huge expansive areas of open area as depicted in IL2 series.

The Pacific Fighters has really missed the boat as far as landscape, terrain, etc. It's just sterile and otherwise boring.

I was watching the TV SHOW SURVIVOR in Palau. My gosh, Palau is awesome, pristine looking and look nothing like IL2 series.

SO...nuff said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

LEXX_Luthor
04-01-2005, 08:37 PM
nearmiss:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Pacific Fighters has really missed the boat as far as landscape, terrain, etc. It's just sterile and otherwise boring. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, if you look at Normanby Island on the lower right of New Guinea map, we see the Perfect PF map terrain. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif FB map engine is Ideal for Pacific environment. This contradicts "conventional webboard wisdom" which states PF map engine is not suitable for Pacific. If we think about the problems in our PF maps, we find its only because the map makers bent over forward trying hard to model Europe in the Pacific Island maps, with the exception of....

Normanby Island

Normanby Island terrain would allow map makers to easily make a Rabaul-Solomons map, even at 1:2 map scale as suggested by Buzzsaw or even 1:4 scale as suggested by SaQSoN.

Giganoni:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm sorry Lexx, I don't care about Jungle maps, most of the maps we have for PF are just that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
None of the PF maps are large Multiple Island Archipelago maps, where "archipelago" is a large collection of islands. PF has only some islands close to each other surrounded by Empty Water, and none of these allow land based island hopping campaign.

The largest distance between islands is the ~200km between the top and bottom of the Marianas islands in the Marianas map, and these are almost Bare Naked and not jungle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We are talking about easy to make Normanby Island style PF mapping applied to the Solomons Archipelago for example, or if scaled down possibly, Normanby Island mapping applied to New Guinea-to-Guadacanal map.