@marshmallowofwar thanks to both you and @AndrewAAGamer for clarifying. Thought I had a sneaky way to slow him down, but will have to give it some more thought!
Please let my son and I talk again. Debate over Sea Zone 106
-
Can someone please help settle a dispute over an ambiguous land/sea zone boundary that will determine the outcome of our game?
(I tried to include a pic and link of area in question but I get a message that I am not allowed to)
New Foundland/Labrador appears to have a short strip of land that run along Sea Zone 106. My son is sure that a strip of water a creeks width buffers NF/L from touching SZ106.
Some could argue that it may be an error on the map-maker that there is a trace (a pixel wide) where SZ106 boundary is separated from the land. I believe it is clear that NF/L is supposed to be linked to Sea Zone 106 and the map-make would not make such an error where the expanse is 1/4 inch in length (equal to many other short strips of land that link to a Sea Zone.I’m sure many of you have come across this. Is there an official chart that defines every Sea Zone that is linked to a territory, so we can settle this debate and finish our game?
This came up because I planned my move to fly Brit bomber to join an attack in the Med Sea and needed to move thru 6 zones to pull it off. My son countered that it takes 2 zones to get from NF/L into SZ106.
I need overwhelming evidence to support one way or the other. Thank you.
-
Welcome to the forum, WolfPack. :-)
Newfoundland/Labrador is adjacent to SZ 116 only.
It is not adjacent to SZ 106 as officially clarified here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=19919.msg671734#msg671734
-
I must ask… What situation has developed in your game where the answer to this question significantly impacts the outcome?
-
Is it possible to allow me to post a picture of exactly where I am referring to on the map? I think you may change your mind that NF doesn’t border SZ106.
Regarding the situation in game: to contain a massive Italian naval buildup in the Mediterranean my last hope is to have my bomber in NF take out a target to secure Gibraltar. The failure to do so will likely allow Italy to attack a weakened US that has most of its assets tied up in France and Germany. If the area in the map drawing showing a sizable stretch of oceanfront the size of Connecticut bordering SZ105 is a mistake - then the Bomber can not reach.
Thanks for answers
-
I think you may change your mind that NF doesn�t border SZ106.
The coastline is above the line separating sea zone 116 from 106.
It might not be obvious to everyone’s eyes, that’s why this issue got officially clarified already back in 2010! -
If you look carefully, you will see that the border between the two sea zones runs just below the Newfoundland Labrador coast (as P@nther pointed out) and makes landfall at the border between Newfoundland Labrador and Quebec. This results in the four spaces (Newfoundland Labrador, Quebec, sea zone 116, and sea zone 106) meeting at a point, so Newfoundland Labrador is not adjacent to sea zone 106.
-
And to add a supplementary reason to the ones already mentioned by P@nther and Krieghund, consider the following argument.
The area under dispute shows two borderlines: the yellow terrestrial one between Newfoundland/Labrador and Quebec, and the blue maritime one between SZ 116 and SZ 106. The yellow one runs horizontally west-to-east, then make a 90-degree turn and runs vertically southward. The blue one runs horizontally east-to-west, and connects with the vertical component of the yellow one, forming a right angle.
In most places on the map, the end-points of borderlines are clear and unambiguous. WolfPack points out, correctly, that this particular intersection of two borderlines in question isn’t clear and unambiguous: the point at which the yellow and blue lines meet is a fuzzy dark line rather than a hard transition from yellow to blue. And it’s quite correct that this creates ambiguity, as is shown by the fact that an official clarification once had to be issued on the matter. WolfPack’s “I think you may change your mind that NF doesn’t border SZ106” follow-up post seems to indicate that he doesn’t agree with the official clarification. The supplementary argument I’d make, therefore, has to do with the concept of the mapmaker’s probable intent.
If you imagine that the yellow and blue lines are solid red – i.e. if you draw a long vertical red line through the middle of the vertical yellow one and a long horizontal red line through the middle of the horizontal blue one – there’s no question that they form a right angle and that the territory of Newfoundland/Labrador lies entirely within that right angle, and thus that there’s no connection between Newfoundland/Labrador and SZ 106. This would fit with Theory A: the mapmakers intended for that right angle to be a hard, clean border, but an unintended graphic error made the border look confusingly fuzzy. This explanation has the virtue of being both simple and plausible.
Theory B, on the other hand, goes like this: the little fuzzy dark line between the yellow line and the blue line was deliberately put there by the mapmakers in order to connect Newfoundland/Labrador to SZ 106. This theory seems neither simple nor plausible. If the mapmakers genuinely wanted to connect Newfoundland/Labrador to SZ 106, why would they do so by using a “pixel-wide trace” technique which is used nowhere else on the map, and which is so open to debate, rather than by cleanly and unambiguously giving Newfoundland/Labrador a coastline on SZ 106, which would have been quite easy to do?
Suggested Topics
