Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (
More info?)
Gregor Whiley wrote:
> These maps are not meant to be an exercise in strict cartography, they
> are an abstraction constructed according to the requirements of our
> game system. We give the highest priority to recreating the correct
> military result for combat, not reproducing terrain with total
> fidelity , which in any case is not really possible with our map
> scale. It's also a fact that real rivers don't run neatly along
> hex-sides, so hard choices often have to be made with their
> representation.
I agree with you, but, still, I cannot understand the rationale behind
some of your choices.
For instance, in your game the Rome-Naples railroad can be easily
interrupted by conquering the Anzio hex, which is at odd with what
really happened; moreover, the pivotal role of Cisterna di Littoria is
not apparent.
The town of Cisterna mattered because it lied at the intersection of
Rome-Naples railroad, National Route 7, and Anzio-Valmontone route (you
can clearly see all these LOCs in the [3] picture)... but in your map
(as far as I can understand from screenshots):
1) National Route 7 (Rome-Terracina) is not shown (though it was the
only available route to withdraw German troops from the southern part of
the Pontina flatland)
2) Anzio-Valmontone route is not shown either, though it was the theatre
of great german losses during their withdrawal from the northern part of
Pontina flatland.
3) The Rome-Naples railroad is misplaced.
> For instance, the coastal terrain,
> which is given the Plain terrain type, doesn't look very rocky to me,
> especially when compared with the hills and mountains with which Italy
> is so well provided.
I beg your pardon, but I still think "plain" hexes should have no
"bumps" in it.
> I've just had a quick read through the relevant parts of the British
> History of the Second World War: Volume V, The Mediterranean and the
> Middle East, and it, though comprehensive in its account, fails to
> mention the amount of water in the Mussolini Canal. However, the canal
> formed an important part of the initial Allied defense lines, and a
> portion running North from the coast formed the eastern perimeter of
> the bridgehead for quite some time, so it was obviously an important
> feature to the troops on the ground at the time.
If you take a look at a picture taken *within* the canal ([1]) and one
taken *outside* it ([2]), you may notice the very low water level (as it
is often the case) and infere two things of tactical importance:
1) The canal was easy to ford, even on foot.
2) The canal was a very good defensive feature in a flat landscape.
Hence, if I were you, I'd change the canal from "river" hex to
"anti-tank ditch" hex or "trench" hex or something similar... this in
the interest of playability, not cartography.
As a general remark, I see your map as depicting too constrained a
terrain: the Anzio beachhead was "tank country", with croplands, open
forests, good lines of sight and few water obstacles... bar the south
part of the plain of course, which was flooded on purpose by the Germans
(as you correctly depicts on your map).
> I will check with Ian Trout, who creates the underlying map structure,
> about the Latina/Littoria naming issue.
Thanks. I hold the view that you can produce a much better map with a
little more effort.
Anyway, I understand that scale is a limiting factor when modelling the
war in Italy, with battles fought on very narrow stretches of territory
in an otherwise fairly long country.
Regards,
[1]
http://home.hiwaay.net/~magro/anzio.jpg
[2]
http://www.45thdivision.org/Pictures/Photo_Gallery/wartime/Tbirds_along_Mussolini_canal_may44.jpg
[3]
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-A-Anzio/img/USA-A-Anzio-13.jpg
(by the way, the upper part of the photo depicts the terrain where two
Darby's Rangers Battalions were annihilated).
--------------------
Luca Morandini
www.lucamorandini.it
--------------------