Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


HELP REQUIRED PLEASE

Does anyone know where I can get Output, Speed and Armament details for the Catapult Armed Merchantman, Empire Morn? I need to use her for one of the ASW Carrier write-ups, but whilst I can find loads of good stuff on her career (which makes her ideal for the write-up) I can`t find these technical details...

Any assistance would be appreciated thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


HELP REQUIRED PLEASE

Does anyone know where I can get Output, Speed and Armament details for the Catapult Armed Merchantman, Empire Morn? I need to use her for one of the ASW Carrier write-ups, but whilst I can find loads of good stuff on her career (which makes her ideal for the write-up) I can`t find these technical details...

Any assistance would be appreciated thank you.

Jane's Fighting Merchantmen?

...sorry, just kidding

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Perhaps here. http://www.warshipsww2.eu/staty.php?language=E I'm not sure about that specific ship, but the class should be there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad66

What is that you mean by Output?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Sorry, that the horsepower figure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


HELP REQUIRED PLEASE

Does anyone know where I can get Output, Speed and Armament details for the Catapult Armed Merchantman, Empire Morn? I need to use her for one of the ASW Carrier write-ups, but whilst I can find loads of good stuff on her career (which makes her ideal for the write-up) I can`t find these technical details...

Any assistance would be appreciated thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve

For some reason the T in M.O.W.T has not come out and there is just a blank space where it should be. Any ideas why?

Rgds

Rob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Warspite has been doing a ton of work on the naval units. Here are two of his more recent writeups.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve

For some reason the T in M.O.W.T has not come out and there is just a blank space where it should be. Any ideas why?

Rgds

Rob

.T is a formating command.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Warspite has been doing a ton of work on the naval units. Here are two of his more recent writeups.

Rather than describing Polish ships in the writeup of the CW TRS, why not put this for the Polish CP writeup, and have something about CW shipping instead ?

Warspite 1

The reasons are numerous:

a) I was told we were not writing up CP points. I asked this question on the forum last year and it was confirmed that CP counters were not being written up.
b) In WIF terms, these Polish ships were used in the TRS role and so TRS is the right place for them. As I say in the write up, there is no Polish TRS. These ships were effectively under the control of the British in terms of their use and so being within a CW counter is not wrong.
c) There are sufficient CW counters to ensure plenty is written about CW TRS (I still need an Australian example though so PLEASE help someone).
d) I feel there were a sufficient number of these Polish vessels to warrant their inclusion in a CW counter.
e) As an Englishman, I am very aware of the contribution of the Polish men and women during WWII - mostly fighting within the RAF, British Army, RN or Merchant Navy. Recognising this in this way is something I am delighted to do.

(in reply to Froonp)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve

For some reason the T in M.O.W.T has not come out and there is just a blank space where it should be. Any ideas why?

Rgds

Rob

.T is a formating command.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve

For some reason the T in M.O.W.T has not come out and there is just a blank space where it should be. Any ideas why?

Rgds

Rob

.T is a formating command.

Steve / Andy

I don`t know what is involved for you guys to get the content onto the counter. Would it be a pain to re-submit each affected counter again with MOWT instead of M.O.W.T to avoid the formatting error?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The reasons are numerous:

a) I was told we were not writing up CP points. I asked this question on the forum last year and it was confirmed that CP counters were not being written up.

quote:

b) In WIF terms, these Polish ships were used in the TRS role and so TRS is the right place for them. As I say in the write up, there is no Polish TRS. These ships were effectively under the control of the British in terms of their use and so being within a CW counter is not wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The reasons are numerous:

a) I was told we were not writing up CP points. I asked this question on the forum last year and it was confirmed that CP counters were not being written up.

Yes, but why not make exceptions for interesting cases.

quote:

b) In WIF terms, these Polish ships were used in the TRS role and so TRS is the right place for them. As I say in the write up, there is no Polish TRS. These ships were effectively under the control of the British in terms of their use and so being within a CW counter is not wrong.

Maybe add a few things about others then. As it is now, it is only about Poles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
The reasons are numerous:

a) I was told we were not writing up CP points. I asked this question on the forum last year and it was confirmed that CP counters were not being written up.

Yes, but why not make exceptions for interesting cases.

quote:

b) In WIF terms, these Polish ships were used in the TRS role and so TRS is the right place for them. As I say in the write up, there is no Polish TRS. These ships were effectively under the control of the British in terms of their use and so being within a CW counter is not wrong.

Maybe add a few things about others then. As it is now, it is only about Poles.

Warspite1

I have almost 250 naval counters to write about - if anyone wants to be responsible for CP counters - please be my guest.

If I read your second comment right, are you under the assumption that there is only one write up for all TRS counters? If so then this is not the case. Each counter has a separate write up. There are 14 British, 1 Canadian and 1 Australian TRS counter. I have used one of the 14 British counters as a tribute to the Polish. The other 13 CW counters contain stories about the following ships that were used in a TRS role (either troops or equipment): Aquitania (troop convoys from Australia), Lancastria (evacuation from western France of the second BEF), Laconia (her sinking while carrying thousands of talian POW`s), Franconia (evacuation from Norway), HMS Athene (aircraft transportation), Empire Star (evacuation from Singapore), Pennland (evacuation from Greece), Khedive Ismail (tragic sinking after which hundreds of survivors were depth charged by their own side) , Monarch of Bermuda (typical WS convoy), Clan Fraser (transport of troops to Greece), Strathaird (Australian - Middle East convoy), Empire Song (Tiger Convoy) and Queen Mary / Queen Elizabeth (general history).

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
If I read your second comment right, are you under the assumption that there is only one write up for all TRS counters? If so then this is not the case. Each counter has a separate write up. There are 14 British, 1 Canadian and 1 Australian TRS counter. I have used one of the 14 British counters as a tribute to the Polish. The other 13 CW counters contain stories about the following ships that were used in a TRS role (either troops or equipment): Aquitania (troop convoys from Australia), Lancastria (evacuation from western France of the second BEF), Laconia (her sinking while carrying thousands of talian POW`s), Franconia (evacuation from Norway), HMS Athene (aircraft transportation), Empire Star (evacuation from Singapore), Pennland (evacuation from Greece), Khedive Ismail (tragic sinking after which hundreds of survivors were depth charged by their own side) , Monarch of Bermuda (typical WS convoy), Clan Fraser (transport of troops to Greece), Strathaird (Australian - Middle East convoy), Empire Song (Tiger Convoy) and Queen Mary / Queen Elizabeth (general history).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Page 2 of 2.

By the way, Robert's writeups on the combat ships are more detailed than these.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


My native tongue is dutch so I discovered a small typo in this screenshot:
"Konigin Emma" should be "koningin Emma"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I just went through the land unit writeups today and there are still a bunch that are missing. Now these are pure glitz, and have no effect on releasing the game. However, if anyone would like to write a description for the units that currently have a pure blank page, that would be nice. Here is a short summary of what remains:

Minor countries:
Mexico
Panama
Venezuela
Brazil
Bolivia
Chile
Argentina
Portugal
Turkey
Ukraine
Czechoslovakia
Ethiopia

Major powers:
US: a couple dozen units, including all the marine units
Japan: a couple dozen
USSR: a couple dozen
Germany: 4 dozen
France: a half dozen
Italy: 3 dozen
British: 3 dozen

===
I make it to be roughly 300-350 units remaining, which means that we have writeups for 700-750 already done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I just went through the land unit writeups today and there are still a bunch that are missing. Now these are pure glitz, and have no effect on releasing the game. However, if anyone would like to write a description for the units that currently have a pure blank page, that would be nice. Here is a short summary of what remains:

Minor countries:
Mexico
Panama
Venezuela
Brazil
Bolivia [Done]
Chile
Argentina
Portugal
Turkey
Ukraine
Czechoslovakia
Ethiopia

Major powers:
US: a couple dozen units, including all the marine units
Japan: a couple dozen
USSR: a couple dozen
Germany: 4 dozen
France: a half dozen
Italy: 3 dozen
British: 3 dozen [Warspite1]

===
I make it to be roughly 300-350 units remaining, which means that we have writeups for 700-750 already done.

Warspite1

Steve, as you may recall I began the Canadian, Indian and UK units (with a few exceptions - artillery and generals) before getting the opportunity to do the naval units and getting too immersed in those. If you would prefer someone to do the remaining outstanding CW units then I fully understand. My preference - if you are okay with this - would be for me to return to these units once the CW naval are done. My goal would be to bring the land units up to a higher standard than my first efforts and complete the remaining units to the same format.

Given the timeframe to launch I suspect that would mean the outstanding ones not finished off until after launch and added in a patch. How would you feel about that?