RE: Need help!!!

RE: Need help!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames

Message

Froonp -> RE: Need help!!! (10/16/2007 9:38:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin Hey Patrice. Just out of interest. How mush does this upgrade cost, and how long does it take on the circle? Andi. It follows this rule : ******************************** 4.1.4 Replacement naval units (SiF option 9) A few naval units have a gold box around their availability year. In a later year, replacement units will turn up for these units. Their availability year will also be shown in a gold box. If the original unit has been removed from the game when the replacement unit arrives, remove the replacement unit from the game. Otherwise, during any reinforcement step, you can remove the original unit from the game and add the replacement unit. Put the replacement unit in the force pool if the original unit is either in the force pool or face-down on the production circle; or Put the replacement unit in the construction pool if the original unit is in: ļ the repair pool, ļ the construction pool, ļ on the map, or ļ face-up on the production circle. ******************************** So, it costs a second cycle most of the time (when the ship has at least its hull already built) or the full price of the ship if the ship has not its hull built. A Second cycle is 1 year of time, and from 1 to 4 BP generaly (average 2-3). For the Schnarhorst & Gneisenau Sister Ships, it costs 3 BP.

NeBert -> RE: Need help!!! (10/16/2007 10:36:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp I was sure someone would ask. I think that this is because the values are calculated using a complicated formula, and that the result is a figure between 5 and 6. So the designer put a rounded down value to one of them and a rounded up value to the other. So that their sum is accurate. No problem for me! I will take it as it is as long as the whole game has the right balance. I just think that once MWIF will be spread out such things will attract a lot of people“s attention, just because it“s easier to compare the main guns rather than having a complicated equation that nobody has in his mind. Some may think (and post) the game is not very accurate and so on... To me finally it“s just a trade off between "accurate" calculating and simple comparison to balance the Unit-strength. Maybe some manual "adjustments" might avoid many questions in the future. Robert

NeBert -> RE: Need help!!! (10/16/2007 11:07:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 "Intangible" factors such as quality of the officer corps, degree of crew training, and overall officer/crew competency might also account for differing combat factors in ships that have identical armanent. Edit: For this one would need to examine the overall record of each ship's wartime service and see if their differing performances could be explained by such factors. Basicly you are right, but as far as I know MWIF has no Crew-quality factor included. I have played >War in the Pacific< where you can train your ship-crews just by sending your ship to sea, train your Pilots by flying missions etc. This is all not in this game (or did I miss something?) and if, then it should be handled separately. I posted somewhere else that the production of an Air-Unit (just as an example) could be accelerated by the player with the effect of a reduction to the Combat-Factors (due to bad Pilot-training). The reduction would be eliminated as soon as the normal productiontime is reached (surviving pilots were trained in service). The same would be possible to ships and Landunits (I think, the Militia-Units are already bad trained Landunits which can be produced faster, but they can never reach a higher level) But all of this I think is future stuff for the next century [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: Jimm ... Radar, fire control and increased AA were probably the most significant "upgrades"- although the former two are not really included in the Attack factor calcs, I believe. If Radar and fire control were not used in the calculation (who knows?) then they must be included! These equipments were definitely as important as the guns themselves (see the Night Battles around Guadalcanal in “42 - many of the US-Victories were only possible with Radar-Firecontrol). quote: I would however have an aesthetic & technical concern that the effect of changing the guns from 11" to 15" might have been slightly over-egged in the example of Scharnhorst & Gneisnau. The lighter guns were originally retained (as I understand it) to enable this class to carry a heavier armour belt. Increasing the size of the guns would presumably have to have been done at the expense of something else- perhaps speed, which is also a factor in calculating the attack factors. For Scharnhorst class this would be important as speed was one of their notable positive traits. Stability might have been another issue- the Scharnhorsts were fairly light battleships. You are right but as far as I know it was planned to replace 9 11" guns with 6 15" guns - so the overall balance was considered. On the other hand the german navy sometimes tended to equip its ships with too large guns. (e.g. some Destroyers with 6" guns - the stability of those ships was not good) quote: I guess it just grates a little to have a Scharnhorst with bigger numbers than Bismarck. I think the technical aspects of how the calcs are worked makes it difficult to have a generic upgrade within the game. Maybe as Patrice already proposed one possible additional repair-cycle per ship that doubles the AA-Faktor? Also next Century [:)] ... Robert

Froonp -> RE: Need help!!! (10/16/2007 11:30:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeBert quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp I was sure someone would ask. I think that this is because the values are calculated using a complicated formula, and that the result is a figure between 5 and 6. So the designer put a rounded down value to one of them and a rounded up value to the other. So that their sum is accurate. No problem for me! I will take it as it is as long as the whole game has the right balance. I just think that once MWIF will be spread out such things will attract a lot of people“s attention, just because it“s easier to compare the main guns rather than having a complicated equation that nobody has in his mind. Some may think (and post) the game is not very accurate and so on... To me finally it“s just a trade off between "accurate" calculating and simple comparison to balance the Unit-strength. Maybe some manual "adjustments" might avoid many questions in the future. Robert Robert, this game has been out since 1996 in this version, and was sold in tens of thousands copies, so I take it that it is already widely spread out, and a lot of people's attention was already drawn to it, so I do not worry too much about the game being criticized for its accuracy [:D].

Froonp -> RE: Need help!!! (10/16/2007 11:32:35 PM)
quote: Maybe as Patrice already proposed one possible additional repair-cycle per ship that doubles the AA-Faktor? Also next Century ... Double the AA would be too much. I'd only allow it to increase by 1-2 factors.

Arron69 -> RE: Need help!!! (10/17/2007 4:19:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin Hey Patrice. Just out of interest. How mush does this upgrade cost, and how long does it take on the circle? Andi. It follows this rule : ******************************** 4.1.4 Replacement naval units (SiF option 9) A few naval units have a gold box around their availability year. In a later year, replacement units will turn up for these units. Their availability year will also be shown in a gold box. If the original unit has been removed from the game when the replacement unit arrives, remove the replacement unit from the game. Otherwise, during any reinforcement step, you can remove the original unit from the game and add the replacement unit. Put the replacement unit in the force pool if the original unit is either in the force pool or face-down on the production circle; or Put the replacement unit in the construction pool if the original unit is in: ļ the repair pool, ļ the construction pool, ļ on the map, or ļ face-up on the production circle. ******************************** So, it costs a second cycle most of the time (when the ship has at least its hull already built) or the full price of the ship if the ship has not its hull built. A Second cycle is 1 year of time, and from 1 to 4 BP generaly (average 2-3). For the Schnarhorst & Gneisenau Sister Ships, it costs 3 BP. Cheers. Andi.

brian brian -> RE: Need help!!! (10/17/2007 7:23:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 "Intangible" factors such as quality of the officer corps, degree of crew training, and overall officer/crew competency might also account for differing combat factors in ships that have identical armanent. Edit: For this one would need to examine the overall record of each ship's wartime service and see if their differing performances could be explained by such factors. quote: "Intangible" factors such as quality of the officer corps, degree of crew training, and overall officer/crew competency might also account for differing combat factors in ships that have identical armanent. Edit: For this one would need to examine the overall record of each ship's wartime service and see if their differing performances could be explained by such factors. I doubt if Harry did that level of research. But this is a great analysis on Composer99s part, which also explains why identical model planes have different factors. War is just not scientifically predictable and we are not talking about the performance of a light machine gun in Squad Leader, we are talking about the performance of very large groups of men. I also don't think you will see World in Flames moving towards much increased detail on the naval counters or training time for units; the only replacement naval counters I think you'll see in a majority of games are the Japanese super-CVs or maybe the Seydlitz CV for the Germans. If things like that are what interests you in gaming, and they are fascinating to study via a game, there are plenty of of other games that deliver that level of detail. WiF has just enough detail to give a great feel of realism, but without ever sacrificing it's most endearing quality - the elegant playability.

Jimm -> RE: Need help!!! (10/18/2007 12:54:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeBert ... If Radar and fire control were not used in the calculation (who knows?) then they must be included! These equipments were definitely as important as the guns themselves (see the Night Battles around Guadalcanal in “42 - many of the US-Victories were only possible with Radar-Firecontrol). According to the notes in the SiF annual by Bradley Perret, who was involved with Harry in putting the factors together, neither were included in the formulae, although radar was "dealt with outside the factors, because it was fitted progressively through the war", and fire control was ignored due to lack of data although US AA firecontrol was accounted for in the good US fleet AA factors. I think the radar decision probably overrates the Italian fleet- the Regia Marina didnt bother with it till far too late! As for F/C you may have a point but to be fair the Yanks dont need much help with their factors, they already have the best navy by miles. quote: You are right but as far as I know it was planned to replace 9 11" guns with 6 15" guns - so the overall balance was considered. On the other hand the german navy sometimes tended to equip its ships with too large guns. (e.g. some Destroyers with 6" guns - the stability of those ships was not good) Not only the Germans. I've read that there was at least one inter-war British battleship which suffered structural damage when firing full salvoes. I wish I could find the reference now to confirm that! I also seem to think there may have been difficulties with the big guns on the Deutchland class too. Serves to illustrate that even if it was a planned upgrade- (which it undoubtably was, they actually started to do the work on Gneisnau) - it wouldnt necessarily follow that you would get a better ship out of it.

mlees -> RE: Need help!!! (10/18/2007 9:51:29 PM)
quote: I've read that there was at least one inter-war British battleship which suffered structural damage when firing full salvoes. The British Nelson class, with the three main turrets all mounted forward of the superstructure, suffered bridge superstructure damage when the main guns were trained too far aft. http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/nelson_class.htm

Greyshaft -> RE: Need help!!! (10/19/2007 5:47:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees The British Nelson class, with the three main turrets all mounted forward of the superstructure, suffered bridge superstructure damage when the main guns were trained too far aft. Lack of rear firepower wasn't a problem... British Battleships always point their bows to the enemy

Arron69 -> RE: Need help!!! (10/19/2007 5:10:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees quote: I've read that there was at least one inter-war British battleship which suffered structural damage when firing full salvoes. The British Nelson class, with the three main turrets all mounted forward of the superstructure, suffered bridge superstructure damage when the main guns were trained too far aft. This was due to a stupid gun setup. the two first guns where on elevated platforms, but the last was not. This meant that the rearmost gun could not fire on the enemy if it was directly in front or to the rear of Nelson. But in a broadside it could bring all the guns in. This oviusly stupid gun setup was latter reguarded as major screw up. Andi. Edit:typos.

Jimm -> RE: Need help!!! (10/19/2007 9:05:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin quote: ORIGINAL: mlees quote: I've read that there was at least one inter-war British battleship which suffered structural damage when firing full salvoes. The British Nelson class, with the three main turrets all mounted forward of the superstructure, suffered bridge superstructure damage when the main guns were trained too far aft. This was due to a stupid gun setup. the two first guns where on elevated platforms, but the last was not. This meant that the rearmost gun could not fire on the enemy if it was directly in front or to the rear of Nelson. But in a broadside it could bring all the guns in. This oviusly stupid gun setup was latter reguarded as major screw up. Andi. Edit:typos. Well, not necessarily. The 3 turrets forward setup on the Nelsons was in order to reduce the length of the main armoured belt- hence allow the ships to be relatively very well armoured for less cost. It was not in order to bring more firepower to bear forwards. The main requirement of a battleship was to bear all guns to bear in a broadside, which it was obviously able to do. In a traditional layout, only two turrets would be able to fire directly forward in any event. The implications of British naval culture- "We chase, they run" is clearly seen in the lack of main armament to the rear. What is braver is the same assumption made by the French Dunquerque and Richelieu classes which followed the same layout in the words of Perrett:- " ...the implications that the French battleships would only chase is perhaps the most heroic assumption in the history of naval architecture..."

composer99 -> RE: Need help!!! (10/19/2007 10:08:57 PM)
That would have been a heroic assumption only if French planners were expecting to go to war with Britain within the lifetime of those battleships. It was also two centuries or so too late an evolution in their style. [:'(]

Horaf -> RE: Need help!!! (11/1/2007 12:44:56 AM)
What is the current standing of the Unit Descriptions? I may be able to help with some.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Need help!!! (11/1/2007 1:18:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Horaf What is the current standing of the Unit Descriptions? I may be able to help with some. There are a handful of air unit writeups undone (< 20). Mostly these are for the units newly added to the counter sheet. Subhunters mostly (I think). There are slightly less than half of the land unit writeups remaining. Somewhere in this thread is Capitan's most recent list of what remanis to be done. Or you could send him an email. I am unsure about the naval units. Terje has been honchoing that for me, but I haven't seen his most recent list of what remains to be done. A couple of weeks ago Graf Zeppelin (sp?) sent me 60+ that he has done for the US! So, pick your chose. For land units, PM Capitan. For the others PM me.

Greyshaft -> RE: Need help!!! (11/1/2007 1:58:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets There are a handful of air unit writeups undone (< 20). Mostly these are for the units newly added to the counter sheet. Subhunters mostly (I think). I am looking to finish off the air units when Nebert and I have the Test Plan up and running. I need to revise the existing air units anyway - got some new WWII books[:)]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Need help!!! (11/1/2007 5:53:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets There are a handful of air unit writeups undone (< 20). Mostly these are for the units newly added to the counter sheet. Subhunters mostly (I think). I am looking to finish off the air units when Nebert and I have the Test Plan up and running. I need to revise the existing air units anyway - got some new WWII books[:)] Excellent news.

grisouille_slith -> RE: Need help!!! (11/1/2007 1:35:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Horaf What is the current standing of the Unit Descriptions? I may be able to help with some. Hey Horaf If you want to make some land write-ups, it would be better to send an email to capitan as the latest list available was posted the 8/25/2007 (see page 15 in this thread). Things have changed since this date [:)]. For example, I've made Greece, Hungary and Bulgaria + France - Maybe over people have also worked on other countries.... So the list isn't upto date! Regards

jesperpehrson -> RE: Need help!!! (11/2/2007 6:01:02 PM)
What Grisouille says is true, I have been lagging behind somewhat but I am working to keep up (aside from my daytime work of course hehe). I am currently on a trip to Spain but I will be back soon and I will get going on updating the list for our communal final assault on the landunits. It is going to be a glorious fight! Horaf, if you feel like it the South Americans are mostly untouched and will need some serious attention, particularly Brazil and Argentina. PM me your email and I will get you started. - Jesper

Largus_Means -> RE: Need help!!! (11/2/2007 6:21:34 PM)
If you need any help with write-ups on naval units, Im sure I could help out. I have an extensive library on WW2 navies and could maybe find some info on the more obscure ships. Let me know if I can do anything. Cheers

Horaf -> RE: Need help!!! (11/2/2007 6:42:29 PM)
PM to capitan sent!

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Need help!!! (11/2/2007 8:00:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Largus_Means If you need any help with write-ups on naval units, Im sure I could help out. I have an extensive library on WW2 navies and could maybe find some info on the more obscure ships. Let me know if I can do anything. Cheers I will do that today.

jesperpehrson -> RE: Need help!!! (11/4/2007 5:05:48 AM)
Horaf has been instructed in the way of the Writeup-Jedis! We are few but our struggle is important! May the source be with you (but do not copy it).

jesperpehrson -> RE: Need help!!! (11/4/2007 5:27:12 AM)
Status-report on Landunits (all countries): 556 out of 1062 units done (52%) DONE: Siberian Russia 4/4 (Adam) DONE! Finland 8/8 (Adam) DONE! Rumania 10/10 (Adam) DONE! Mongolia 1/1 (Adam) DONE! Switzerland 6/6 (Adam) DONE! Phillipines 1/1 (Adam) DONE! Afghanistan 2/2 (Adam) DONE! Australia 8/8 (Michaelbaldur) DONE! New Zeeland 3/3 (Michaelbaldur) DONE! South Africa 5/5 (Michaelbaldur) DONE! Denmark 1/1 (Michaelbaldur) DONE! Norway 3/3 (Michaelbaldur) DONE! Poland 14/14 (Michaelbaldur) DONE! AOI 1/1 (Mziln) DONE! Croatia 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Ecuador 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Peru 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! French Somalia 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Ivory Coast 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! French Sudan 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Senegal 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Middle Congo 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Niger 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Indo-China 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! N. East Indies 2/2 (Capitan) DONE! Belgian Congo 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Saudi Arabia 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Iraq 2/2 (Capitan) DONE! Liberia 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Cameroon 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Gabon 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Madagascar 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Morroco 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Algeria 2/2 (Capitan) DONE! Tunisia 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Syria 2/2 (Capitan) DONE! Sudan 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Nigeria 2/2 (Capitan) DONE! Sierra Leone 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! British Somalialand 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Egypt 2/2 (Capitan) DONE! Kenya 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Uganda 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Tanganyika 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Northern Rhodesia 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Southern Rhodesia 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Sweden 13/13 (Toed) DONE! Ireland 2/2 (bj_rodhe) DONE! Hungary 6/6 (Grisouille) DONE (but not redacted) Bulgaria 3/3 (Grisouille) DONE (but not redacted) France 68/68(Grisouille)DONE (but not redacted) Greece 4/4 (Grisouille) DONE (but not redacted) ASSIGNED but NOT DONE: USA 50/99 (Adam) Russia 124/146 (Adam) Ukraine 0/8 (Adam) Communist China 16/18 (Wosung) Nat. China 34/38 (Wosung) Korea 0/2 (Wosung) Manchuko 0/4 (Wosung) Formosa 0/1 (Wosung) Italy 22/61 (Jimm) Libya 0/3 (Jimm) Eritrea 0/1 (Jimm) Italian Somalialand 0/2 (Jimm) Canada 1/10 (Michaelbaldur) India 1/13 (Michaelbaldur) Burma 0/2 (Michaelbaldur) Germany 73/128 (Capitan) Thailand 0/1 (Capitan) Palestine 0/1 (Capitan) Aden 0/1 (Capitan) New Caledonia 0/1 (Capitan) Belgium 0/4 (BredsjöMagnus) Nat. Spain 2/14 (SPerdomo) Yugoslavia 1/9 (Dale) Zoya and Tito 0/2 Dale) Northern Ireland 0/1 (IrishDrago0nGuards) Japan 11/76 (Hazpak) SS-Germany 0/19 (Grisouille) UK 9/57 (bj_rodhe) Brasil 0/5 (Horaf) Argentina 0/3 (Horaf) UNASSIGNED: Mexico 0/6 Panama 0/2 Colombia 0/1 Venezuela 0/1 Bolivia 0/1 Paraguay 0/1 Uruguay 0/1 Chile 0/2 ----------- Iran 0/2 Netherlands 0/2 Portugal 0/2 Turkey 1/13 LOW PRIORITY: Ethiopia 1/6 Rep. Spain 1/14 Czeckoslovakia 1/15 Austria 0/3 ------------- "NEW UNITS" 7/61 Also the ART (including ART, AA and AT) for all nations is UNASSIGNED. Anyone who like to pitch in with any of the unassigned countries is welcome to take part! Just send me a PM and I will help you get started! - Capitan

jesperpehrson -> RE: Need help!!! (11/4/2007 5:37:30 AM)
The list above should be more or less up to date. If I forgot anything I might need to be reminded (perhaps I missed some email).

jesperpehrson -> RE: Need help!!! (11/5/2007 12:28:00 AM)
MichaelB has finished the final polish! Three cheers for him!

Greyshaft -> RE: Need help!!! (11/7/2007 3:56:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: capitan MichaelB has finished the final polish! Three cheers for him! 'polish' or 'Polish' [:D]

doctormm -> RE: Need help!!! (11/7/2007 5:15:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: capitan MichaelB has finished the final polish! Three cheers for him! 'polish' or 'Polish' [:D] He's polished off the Polish?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Need help!!! (11/7/2007 5:42:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: doctormm quote: ORIGINAL: Greyshaft quote: ORIGINAL: capitan MichaelB has finished the final polish! Three cheers for him! 'polish' or 'Polish' [:D] He's polished off the Polish? Bu twho finished the Finnish?

michaelbaldur -> RE: Need help!!! (11/7/2007 5:51:05 AM)
alot of black humor[;)]

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.1875