RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (Full Version)

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



Message

marcuswatney -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/10/2008 3:31:13 AM)

In the Royal Navy there is a rank of Captain which is quite senior ... he would expect to command more than one ship.

If Able Seaman Jones was in command of a ship, he might be addressed as 'captain' because he would be 'the captain' (note lower case) but never as Captain Able Seaman Jones. So "Report to the captain, Able Seaman Jones"



Joshuatree -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/10/2008 1:20:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cockney

just to get this in.

Right Wright, write wright right, right. Right.



Thank you all for getting me very confused now [&:] [&:]

Haha, just kidding.



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/15/2008 1:14:03 AM)

Question re the Naval write ups:

Is anyone doing anything with the Amphibious and Transport counters? I assume there is no intention to do write ups for these (the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the German Auxilaries excepted)? 

Also Steve - in Mech in Flames there are Monitors called Roberts and Roberts II. I can only see Roberts II on the Naval Unit Write Up Sheet. Can you let me know what ID no. Roberts should have please?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/15/2008 3:49:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re the Naval write ups:

Is anyone doing anything with the Amphibious and Transport counters? I assume there is no intention to do write ups for these (the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the German Auxilaries excepted)? 

Also Steve - in Mech in Flames there are Monitors called Roberts and Roberts II. I can only see Roberts II on the Naval Unit Write Up Sheet. Can you let me know what ID no. Roberts should have please?

As far as I know, nothing is being written about the amphibious and naval transport units.

As for the Roberts, perhaps Patrice knows.



wfzimmerman -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/15/2008 4:25:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re the Naval write ups:

Is anyone doing anything with the Amphibious and Transport counters? I assume there is no intention to do write ups for these (the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the German Auxilaries excepted)?

Also Steve - in Mech in Flames there are Monitors called Roberts and Roberts II. I can only see Roberts II on the Naval Unit Write Up Sheet. Can you let me know what ID no. Roberts should have please?

I think something could be written about the amphibious fleets of different countries. I would be glad to do this. Email me with info about which ones to do.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/15/2008 5:34:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re the Naval write ups:

Is anyone doing anything with the Amphibious and Transport counters? I assume there is no intention to do write ups for these (the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the German Auxilaries excepted)?

Also Steve - in Mech in Flames there are Monitors called Roberts and Roberts II. I can only see Roberts II on the Naval Unit Write Up Sheet. Can you let me know what ID no. Roberts should have please?

I think something could be written about the amphibious fleets of different countries. I would be glad to do this. Email me with info about which ones to do.

Ok. Thanks.



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/15/2008 7:39:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re the Naval write ups:

Is anyone doing anything with the Amphibious and Transport counters? I assume there is no intention to do write ups for these (the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the German Auxilaries excepted)?

Also Steve - in Mech in Flames there are Monitors called Roberts and Roberts II. I can only see Roberts II on the Naval Unit Write Up Sheet. Can you let me know what ID no. Roberts should have please?

I think something could be written about the amphibious fleets of different countries. I would be glad to do this. Email me with info about which ones to do.


Fred - could you let me see an example of what you have in mind when you`ve had a chance to do the first one? I would like to do the CW counters.



wfzimmerman -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/15/2008 7:54:25 PM)

i haven't gotten started yet, but I think with the Commonwealth one could easily say some things about the CW's propensity for innovation in amphibious technology -- the floating tanks, the mulberries, etc -- and tie that to the later units. it might also be possible to say some things about doctrine.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/15/2008 11:47:15 PM)

Here are some screen shots showing the results of Justin's work on unit names. I threw in a description of the 2nd Guards Cavalry since there was room.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/EA958BBB63594F35BF6E610B8C1F3ABF.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/15/2008 11:50:13 PM)

Here is what some of the German names look like. Only the 6th Pz Mot Eng has its name shortened. That is done by an automated routine I have in lpace that checks whether the name fits within the available vertical space. Justin has the name as 6th Pz Mot Eng, which is how it would look in any text message about the unit.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/F2F8A9A95673427BAA8E008AFEFE8D83.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/15/2008 11:54:15 PM)

Here is a smattering of Commonwealth units. Justin has Aus/Can/SA and so on inserted into the names. I am not sure that is needed since the country abbreviation is shown on the right side of these units. But it doesn't usually cause problems. 21st Ind Mech is the only shortened by the program.

Note that the Militia units have nothing added to their names and the territorial units are all labeled Terr. Do you like the Afghan mountain unit about to take out Canberra?

[image]local://upfiles/16701/CB3580FE0A5747F380324D04167B58E7.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/15/2008 11:57:07 PM)

4th and last in series.

There are several odd ducks in the US unit list, so I showed them here. The artillery types (ART/AT/AA) do not have anything added to their names.

Many thanks to Justin for these improvements.[&o][&o]

[image]local://upfiles/16701/19F3582B73E343328E9F584E8033ACEE.jpg[/image]



Joshuatree -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 12:16:10 AM)

Looking great.

Shouldn't 'Das Reich' in the 2nd Guards Cavalry write up be: "Das Reich" ?
Also in the fifth paragraph; Guards cavalry --> Guards Cavalry



Froonp -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 12:18:32 AM)

Well, I agree this is not a ugly as I though it would be.

But...
Maybe the "st", "nd", "rd" and "th", should be deleted, as they take space and renders the digits harder to understand immediately, especially when the whole is written on a counter side. "3rd" "2nd" when written on a side first looks like a word to me, that I have to decode to "third" or "second". A single "3" or "2" digit would have been preferable.

Also, I wonder how this looks in lower levels of zooms. Isn't the overall large amount of gibbering small written text kind of spoiling the counter now, or does this reads nicely ?


Anyway, I'm so sorry that solution was chosen, I was so sure that the "type" addition would have been enough in forms that would have needed them, with filters so that it is not written unecessarily for ART, HQ or planes for example. Now the type are written twice, once in the "name" and once in the "type". We may see some interesting 2nd Arm Div ARM DIV or L Garr GARR in some places where names & types will be used. Before this was restricted to a couple of MAR & PARA units, now it has spread all over the countermix. Great. [:(]



Plainian -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 12:21:47 AM)

6th Pz Mot Engineer? So the unit is armoured and motorised? Never seen both unit designations together like this? Wonder what the German readers will make of this?

I'd prefer to see Gd for Guard rather than GD but thats just me.

I do like the use of different justification methods for unit descriptions. Shorter descriptions are centralised over the unit icon whereas long descriptions are centralised over the entire width of the counter. Very clever and it works very well Steve.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 1:38:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Plain Ian

6th Pz Mot Engineer? So the unit is armoured and motorised? Never seen both unit designations together like this? Wonder what the German readers will make of this?

I'd prefer to see Gd for Guard rather than GD but thats just me.

I do like the use of different justification methods for unit descriptions. Shorter descriptions are centralised over the unit icon whereas long descriptions are centralised over the entire width of the counter. Very clever and it works very well Steve.



Ah, a keen eye. Yes, that is how the centering is done. I wonder about it every once in a while, but changing that code holds zero interest for me.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 1:41:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, I agree this is not a ugly as I though it would be.

But...
Maybe the "st", "nd", "rd" and "th", should be deleted, as they take space and renders the digits harder to understand immediately, especially when the whole is written on a counter side. "3rd" "2nd" when written on a side first looks like a word to me, that I have to decode to "third" or "second". A single "3" or "2" digit would have been preferable.

Also, I wonder how this looks in lower levels of zooms. Isn't the overall large amount of gibbering small written text kind of spoiling the counter now, or does this reads nicely ?


Anyway, I'm so sorry that solution was chosen, I was so sure that the "type" addition would have been enough in forms that would have needed them, with filters so that it is not written unecessarily for ART, HQ or planes for example. Now the type are written twice, once in the "name" and once in the "type". We may see some interesting 2nd Arm Div ARM DIV or L Garr GARR in some places where names & types will be used. Before this was restricted to a couple of MAR & PARA units, now it has spread all over the countermix. Great. [:(]


I will eliminate that if I know where it occurs. Before adding ARM DIV was needed to identify the unit, but it should no longer be necessary.



warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 2:22:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

i haven't gotten started yet, but I think with the Commonwealth one could easily say some things about the CW's propensity for innovation in amphibious technology -- the floating tanks, the mulberries, etc -- and tie that to the later units. it might also be possible to say some things about doctrine.

Warspite1

Okay - when you make a start please let me have a look at the kind of thing you intend to write - I just want to ensure we are on the same wavelength in the interests of uniformity.



michaelbaldur -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 4:26:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

4th and last in series.

There are several odd ducks in the US unit list, so I showed them here. The artillery types (ART/AT/AA) do not have anything added to their names.

Many thanks to Justin for these improvements.[&o][&o]

[image]local://upfiles/16701/19F3582B73E343328E9F584E8033ACEE.jpg[/image]



the american engineer is named : 2nd mtn div ..... isnīt that wrong



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 4:41:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur




the american engineer is named : 2nd mtn div ..... isnīt that wrong


Yes. In fact I had noticed that and Justin is fixing it. Stupid of me to put that unit on the screen shot.[:(]



michaelbaldur -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 4:44:26 AM)

I got something right .... [:D]



Froonp -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 10:14:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Plain Ian

6th Pz Mot Engineer? So the unit is armoured and motorised? Never seen both unit designations together like this? Wonder what the German readers will make of this?

I think that this unit should not be named 6th Pz Mot Engineer.
The wheels on this counter are here to show that it uses the mot hex costs, but that do not make it a MOT unit. It is an ENG unit. Calling it 6th Pz Engineer is better. Moreover this removes the weirdness that Ian has described.



wosung -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 11:09:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Plain Ian

6th Pz Mot Engineer? So the unit is armoured and motorised? Never seen both unit designations together like this? Wonder what the German readers will make of this?

I think that this unit should not be named 6th Pz Mot Engineer.
The wheels on this counter are here to show that it uses the mot hex costs, but that do not make it a MOT unit. It is an ENG unit. Calling it 6th Pz Engineer is better. Moreover this removes the weirdness that Ian has described.



Ze German reader?

Well the combination of "armoured" and motorized in this case is, somehow, not exactly wrong.

Because armoured halftrack carriers (Skfz 250, 251 etc) were complicated, ressource-expensive vehicles, only a few of them could be built. Thus in most cases in a Panzer Div. only 1 out of 4 Grenadier Bat. were equipped this way (armoured). The other 3 Bats plus the Panzerpionier Bat. (armoured engineers) often were using trucks, confiscated from all German occupied Europe, lots of them French ones. Thus most sub-units of a Panzer Division (armoured Div) just tended to be only motorized.

Plus being severely outproduced in the second half of the war German units tended to demodernize, switching from truck back to horse. So even the label armoured engineer cavalry wouldn't be too far away from reality.

Besides, what is looking stranger to me is the Eng "Div" label. The biggest German Eng units seemed to be Brig.-sized (see the feldgrau.com webside, but no further info there). This would fit into the WIF Divsion/Brigade scheme. Other sources only refer to Regiment-sized Eng. units. And the Panzer Div normally only had Bat.-sized Eng. unit.

Regards




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 11:39:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Plain Ian

6th Pz Mot Engineer? So the unit is armoured and motorised? Never seen both unit designations together like this? Wonder what the German readers will make of this?

I think that this unit should not be named 6th Pz Mot Engineer.
The wheels on this counter are here to show that it uses the mot hex costs, but that do not make it a MOT unit. It is an ENG unit. Calling it 6th Pz Engineer is better. Moreover this removes the weirdness that Ian has described.



Ze German reader?

Well the combination of "armoured" and motorized in this case is, somehow, not exactly wrong.

Because armoured halftrack carriers (Skfz 250, 251 etc) were complicated, ressource-expensive vehicles, only a few of them could be built. Thus in most cases in a Panzer Div. only 1 out of 4 Grenadier Bat. were equipped this way (armoured). The other 3 Bats plus the Panzerpionier Bat. (armoured engineers) often were using trucks, confiscated from all German occupied Europe, lots of them French ones. Thus most sub-units of a Panzer Division (armoured Div) just tended to be only motorized.

Plus being severely outproduced in the second half of the war German units tended to demodernize, switching from truck back to horse. So even the label armoured engineer cavalry wouldn't be too far away from reality.

Besides, what is looking stranger to me is the Eng "Div" label. The biggest German Eng units seemed to be Brig.-sized (see the feldgrau.com webside, but no further info there). This would fit into the WIF Divsion/Brigade scheme. Other sources only refer to Regiment-sized Eng. units. And the Panzer Div normally only had Bat.-sized Eng. unit.

Regards



Perhaps the XX is wrong? XX denotes division, while X denotes brigade.



Froonp -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 12:13:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Perhaps the XX is wrong? XX denotes division, while X denotes brigade.

The XX is not wrong in game terms, WiF FE has ENG abstracted to DIV scale units. But as far as I know, no country has DIV scaled ENG units.



wosung -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 12:15:50 PM)

X Brigade would be more plausible.

Perhaps Jespher/Captain, or whoever is in charge for the write-ups of German land units has already done this particular one and knows more?

Regards



Froonp -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 1:49:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Perhaps the XX is wrong? XX denotes division, while X denotes brigade.

The XX is not wrong in game terms, WiF FE has ENG abstracted to DIV scale units. But as far as I know, no country has DIV scaled ENG units.



[image]local://upfiles/10447/6CEE8E9928584FC0BE96D15F1FA2CAFF.jpg[/image]



wosung -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 2:54:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Perhaps the XX is wrong? XX denotes division, while X denotes brigade.

The XX is not wrong in game terms, WiF FE has ENG abstracted to DIV scale units. But as far as I know, no country has DIV scaled ENG units.


Besides perhaps the USA, sort of. Wasn't there a local higher command for all the CBs and Army engineers in the Pacific late in the war (Tinian or Saipan)?!

Regards



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 8:50:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Perhaps the XX is wrong? XX denotes division, while X denotes brigade.

The XX is not wrong in game terms, WiF FE has ENG abstracted to DIV scale units. But as far as I know, no country has DIV scaled ENG units.

Thanks.

Then I would say that using 'Div' is ok since it correctly matches the use of the term in the WIF rules.

I think of the additional text on the counters as redundant communication to new players about the units. So, instead of 1 with a NATO symbol of X and XX above the NATO symbol, the counter now has 1st Inf Div. I have been playing games that use the NATO symbols since Tactics II in the early 1960's, but I suspect players who are new to the war game genre, might find the extra text very helpful.



Zorachus99 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (5/16/2008 9:08:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Plain Ian

6th Pz Mot Engineer? So the unit is armoured and motorised? Never seen both unit designations together like this? Wonder what the German readers will make of this?

I'd prefer to see Gd for Guard rather than GD but thats just me.

I do like the use of different justification methods for unit descriptions. Shorter descriptions are centralised over the unit icon whereas long descriptions are centralised over the entire width of the counter. Very clever and it works very well Steve.




I did a final pass on these units with special designations. Units such as Ariete no longer have the Inf Designation, and the Mot has been removed so that the engineer is now 6th Pz Eng. I'm expecting much less truncation. Units are all readable during setup [8D]



Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.71875