RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

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

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

Message

jesperpehrson -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/22/2008 12:55:41 AM)
Landunit writeups are getting back on track. I have recieved notification from a few of the writers about the current status but I am still awaiting replies from several of them as well. If YOU are interested in collaborating in the great project now is your chance to do your bit. Send me a PM and I will assign you to frontline duty with one of the countries not yet taken care of. Uncle Steve needs you! As a side note I just noticed that some of the writeups has been published in the latest WIF annual. [:)]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/22/2008 1:19:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: capitan Landunit writeups are getting back on track. I have recieved notification from a few of the writers about the current status but I am still awaiting replies from several of them as well. If YOU are interested in collaborating in the great project now is your chance to do your bit. Send me a PM and I will assign you to frontline duty with one of the countries not yet taken care of. Uncle Steve needs you! As a side note I just noticed that some of the writeups has been published in the latest WIF annual. [:)] Capitan is coordinating land unit writeups and I am coordinating naval units writeups. The naval are roughly 50% done, and I believe that is the same status for the land units. Andy has completed all the air unit writeups (100%).

jesperpehrson -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/22/2008 12:44:24 PM)
To be honest we are doing a bit better than that :-) We have completed 735 out of 1048 writeups. That is actually 70% done!! [:D] That said there are certainly writeups that needs a touch-up but right now we are aiming for completing all writeups and then improving on them. Right now, until i know the current status of all writers, Belgium, Nat. Spain, Rep. Spain and Czeckoslovakia are open for grabs! State your claim and I will give you a kick in the right direction.

jesperpehrson -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/22/2008 1:00:22 PM)
Brasil and Argentina are also open for grabs!

jesperpehrson -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/22/2008 5:28:36 PM)
Status-report on Landunits (all countries): 743 out of 1062 units done (70%) 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! Formosa 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) Palestine 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Aden 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! New Caledonia 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Thailand 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Northern Ireland 1/1 (Capitan) DONE! Burma 2/2 (Capitan) DONE! Sweden 13/13 (Toed) DONE! Ireland 2/2 (bj_rodhe) DONE! Hungary 6/6 (Grisouille) DONE! Bulgaria 3/3 (Grisouille) DONE! France 68/68(Grisouille)DONE Greece 4/4 (Grisouille) DONE! SS-Germany 19/19 (Grisouille) DONE! Netherlands 2/2 (Grisouille) DONE! Yugoslavia 9/9 (Dale) (DONE!) Bolivia 1/1 (Jeff) (DONE!) Paraguay 1/1 (Jeff) (DONE!) Colombia 1/1 (Jeff) (DONE!) Uruguay 1/1 (Jeff) DONE! Zoya and Tito 2/2 (MarcusWatney) (DONE!) ASSIGNED but NOT DONE: USA 50/99 (Adam) Russia 125/146 (Adam) Ukraine 0/8 (Adam) Communist China 16/18 (Wosung) Nat. China 34/38 (Wosung) Korea 0/2 (Wosung) Manchuko 0/4 (Wosung) Italy 36/61 (Jimm) Libya 0/3 (Jimm) Eritrea 0/1 (Jimm) Italian Somalialand 0/2 (Jimm) Germany 92/128 (Capitan) UK 31/57 (Rob) Canada 9/10 (Rob) India 3/13 (Rob) Mexico 0/6 (Jeff) Panama 0/2 (Jeff) Venezuela 0/1 (Jeff) Chile 0/2 (Jeff) Iran/Persia 0/2 (Herulf) Portugal 0/2 (Doug) Turkey 1/13 (Doug) Austria 0/3 (SGT Rice) Ethiopia 1/6 (SGT Rice) Belgium 0/4 (Charlie Lewis) UNASSIGNED: Nat. Spain 2/14 Rep. Spain 1/14 Czeckoslovakia 1/15 Japan 64/76 Brasil 0/5 Argentina 0/3 ------------- "NEW UNITS" 16/61 Also the ART (including ART, AA and AT) for all nations is being done by STABILO 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

meisterchow -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/22/2008 5:50:11 PM)
Tried to send you a PM, but your box is full. I'll take Belgium with possibly Argentina and Brazil after that.

jesperpehrson -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/22/2008 6:20:12 PM)
Oh, did not know it could get full [:(] Will do some deleting then I will mark you down for Belgium for now then. Please browse this thread for inspiration on how a writeup can be done. Just remember that copy/paste is not permitted and try to use as many sources as possible to create original texts.

meisterchow -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/22/2008 8:22:08 PM)
Since I am not currently part of the playtesting group, can I get a list of those Belgian units appearing in MWiF? I've got WiF:FE and CWiF, but I'd like to be certain of my objectives before starting. :)

jesperpehrson -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/22/2008 8:39:25 PM)
1st Infantry Corps (2671) 2nd Infantry Corps (2672) Cavalry Corps (2673) Brussels Militia (2674) The number is just for the program to identify the right writeup for the right unit.

bredsjomagnus -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/22/2008 8:53:10 PM)
Charlie Lewis, here is what i�ve got on the Belgian troops. I had the write-up for those units before. Just so that you can take what you might find interesting and ignore the rest. Look out for my bad english spelling though! Belgian Cav corp This corp consisted of 1st and 14th infantry division and the 2nd cavalry division. Besides that it had one cavaly brigade, one static infantry regement and one infantry regement with bicycles. As artillry this corp had the 19th horse artillry regement wich consisted of two battalions equipped with 75 mm guns and one battalion equipped with 105 mm guns. The 1st anti-aircraft battalion which was motorized was made up of two columns equipped with 40 mm guns and tre companies equipped with 75 mm guns. The corp had, in 10 of May 1940, its HQ positioned in St. Truiden. It lies about 55 km east of Brussels. 2nd belgian corp In 10 of May 1940 this corp consisted of 6th and 9th and 11th infantry division (three of Belgiums total 22 divison at this date), the 16th artillery regement and 3rd anti-aircraft defence battalion. The artillery regement had two artillery battalions equipped with M-13 guns (105 mm), one heavy motorized battalion equipped with M-31 guns (120 mm) and three heavy artillery battalions (not motorized) equipped with M-17 guns (155 mm). The anti-aircraft defence consisted of only one company equipped with 75 mm anti-air guns. The HQ for this corp was positioned quite close to Brussels, in Aarshot (10 May 1940) wich is only 35 km east of Brussels. 1st belgian corp In 10 of May 1940 this corp consisted of 4th and 7th infantry division (two of Belgiums total 22 divison at this date), the 14th artillery regement and 4th anti-aircraft defence battalion. The artillery regement hade one infantry mortar company equipped with 70mm Van Deuren mortars, one artillery battalion equipped with M-13 guns (105 mm), one heavy motorized battalion equipped with M-31 guns (120 mm) and three heavy artillery battalions (not motorized) equipped with M-17 guns (155 mm). The anti-aircraft defence consisted of two companies equipped with 75 mm anti-air guns. The HQ for this corp was positioned in Tongeren (10 May 1940), with lies 75 km east from Brussel, just 15 km from the Dutch boarder. /Magnus

meisterchow -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/22/2008 9:09:42 PM)
Thanks, guys, that'll get me going in the right direction. :)

warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/23/2008 9:42:03 PM)
HELP!! Can any trainspotters assist please? The Kent group of the British County-class cruisers contained 7 ships, two of which - Australia and Canberra - were built for the Royal Australian Navy. The five British had their 4-inch AA doubled and their belt armour increased from 1-inch to 4.5. What I need to know and can`t find out anywhere is - did one or both of the Aussie ships receive the same treatment before the war? Thanks in advance

wosung -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/23/2008 11:26:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 HELP!! Can any trainspotters�assist please? The Kent group�of the British County-class cruisers contained 7 ships, two of which - Australia and Canberra - were�built for�the Royal Australian�Navy.� The five British had their 4-inch AA doubled and their belt armour increased from 1-inch to 4.5.��What I need to know and can`t find out�anywhere is�-�did one or both of�the Aussie ships receive�the same treatment before the war?� Thanks in advance quote: d their 4-inch AA doubled and their belt armour increased from 1-inch to 4.5. What I need to know and can`t find out anywhere is - did one or both of the Aussie ships receive the "All the class except Canberra were reconstructed between 1935 and 1939. A 4 1/2 in cemented armor belt was added in way of the machinery spaces and transmitting station, and 4 in internal armour was added to the sides of the boiler room fan compartments." For the AA armament: MANY different changes for each ship of the Kent class, some of them individual changes, before and during the war (including different numbers and versions of 4 inches). Frex: Australia 1 quadruple pompons replaced by two octuples in October 1942. Source: Conway's all the world's fighting ships 1922- 1946, p 26-7. Regards

warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/23/2008 11:49:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 HELP!! Can any trainspotters�assist please? The Kent group�of the British County-class cruisers contained 7 ships, two of which - Australia and Canberra - were�built for�the Royal Australian�Navy.� The five British had their 4-inch AA doubled and their belt armour increased from 1-inch to 4.5.��What I need to know and can`t find out�anywhere is�-�did one or both of�the Aussie ships receive�the same treatment before the war?� Thanks in advance quote: d their 4-inch AA doubled and their belt armour increased from 1-inch to 4.5. What I need to know and can`t find out anywhere is - did one or both of the Aussie ships receive the "All the class except Canberra were reconstructed between 1935 and 1939. A 4 1/2 in cemented armor belt was added in way of the machinery spaces and transmitting station, and 4 in internal armour was added to the sides of the boiler room fan compartments." For the AA armament: MANY different changes for each ship of the Kent class, some of them individual changes, before and during the war (including different numbers and versions of 4 inches). Frex: Australia 1 quadruple pompons replaced by two octuples in October 1942. Source: Conway's all the world's fighting ships 1922- 1946, p 26-7. Regards Warspite1 Wosung - thanks but I`ve got that - but then Nelson to Vanguard Warship Design and Development states it was just the five RN Kents [:@]. I HATE it when this happens!!!

wfzimmerman -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/24/2008 2:46:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Wosung - thanks but I`ve got that - but then Nelson to Vanguard Warship Design and Development states it was just the five RN Kents [:@]. I HATE it when this happens!!! As an aside, I just read and enjoyed Nelson to Vanguard but was a bit dismayed by his rooting for the home team at times stretching credulity -- forex arguing that Vanguard and Iowa would have been evenly matched, and rather uncritically accepting the "armored hangar" arguments re CVs without discounting for the drastically reduced sortie rate.

JagWars -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/24/2008 6:13:16 AM)
From the book titled "British Cruisers of World War II, Naval Institute Press, 1987, by Alan Raven and John Roberts: Both of the Australian heavy cruisers were fitted with HACS Mk I, SIIL catapults and two .5in quadrupple AA mountings in the early 1930's, but were not significantly regitted otherwise before the outbreak of the war. They were scheduled for complete refitted during 1939 and 1940, but due to the outbreak of the war, the complete refits were never initiated. Wartime refit history: Australia: Nov 1940- Dec 1940: -four 4in single HA mountings removed -four 4in twin HA mountings fitted -type 286 radar fitted Late 1943 -two quadruple .5in MGs removed -seven single 20mm fitted -type 273 and 283 radar fitted -type 286 radar removed Early 1944 -seven single 20mm removed -seven twin 20mm fitted Early 1945 -eight single Borfors Mk III fitted Late 1945 -all 20mm removed Canberra Early 1941 -Four single pom-poms removed -four 4in HA mounting removed -two eight barrelled pom-poms fitted No further armament changes listed before loss.

warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/24/2008 9:58:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaguar From the book titled "British Cruisers of World War II, Naval Institute Press, 1987, by Alan Raven and John Roberts: Both of the Australian heavy cruisers were fitted with HACS Mk I, SIIL catapults and two .5in quadrupple AA mountings in the early 1930's, but were not significantly regitted otherwise before the outbreak of the war. They were scheduled for complete refitted during 1939 and 1940, but due to the outbreak of the war, the complete refits were never initiated. Wartime refit history: Australia: Nov 1940- Dec 1940: -four 4in single HA mountings removed -four 4in twin HA mountings fitted -type 286 radar fitted Late 1943 -two quadruple .5in MGs removed -seven single 20mm fitted -type 273 and 283 radar fitted -type 286 radar removed Early 1944 -seven single 20mm removed -seven twin 20mm fitted Early 1945 -eight single Borfors Mk III fitted Late 1945 -all 20mm removed Canberra Early 1941 -Four single pom-poms removed -four 4in HA mounting removed -two eight barrelled pom-poms fitted No further armament changes listed before loss. Warspite1 Excellent Jaguar - just the confirmation I needed - many thanks

warspite1 -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/24/2008 10:18:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Wosung - thanks but I`ve got that - but then Nelson to Vanguard Warship Design and Development states it was just the five RN Kents [:@]. I HATE it when this happens!!! As an aside, I just read and enjoyed Nelson to Vanguard but was a bit dismayed by his rooting for the home team at times stretching credulity -- forex arguing that Vanguard and Iowa would have been evenly matched, and rather uncritically accepting the "armored hangar" arguments re CVs without discounting for the drastically reduced sortie rate. Warspite1 I thought it was pretty fair overall. There were some pretty tough criticisms of the RN ships and the Admiralty decisions too. Nelson to Vanguard certainly makes clear that the number of aircraft carried were considerably less in the British ships. Could Vanguard have held her own against Iowa? Let`s be thankful we never needed to find out....[;)]

patchogue -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/25/2008 10:46:11 PM)
Surely the point with the British carriers was that flight deck damage could be repaired at sea with a cement mixer keeping the ship in battle rather than requiring a major refit.

jesperpehrson -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/27/2008 12:13:06 AM)
Here is a Belgian writeup from Charlie Lewis! [image]local://upfiles/21761/27A50CDAA16F4518992A98A81672E07B.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/27/2008 1:25:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: capitan Here is a Belgian writeup from Charlie Lewis! [image]local://upfiles/21761/27A50CDAA16F4518992A98A81672E07B.jpg[/image] Very nice.

meisterchow -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (6/27/2008 5:13:29 AM)
Ooo, it looks nice all official and stuff. [:D] Makes the typos really glaring. [:(] I'll fix those and resubmit tomorrow. I'm also going to do some digging to see if I can ferret out any operational details, but so far all my sources just gloss over the Belgian phase and focus on the efforts of the Anglo-French armies.

Orm -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (7/2/2008 5:29:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: capitan [image]local://upfiles/21761/27A50CDAA16F4518992A98A81672E07B.jpg[/image] This looks very nice. But it also made me think about the size of the Belgian army and I couldn't get the math to add. So what I have to say is in no way critisism on the writeup but more a question about math. With these exellent writeups it becomes easy to compare the units of WIF with the historical OOB (Order Of Battle) and numbers of soldiers in the units. In WIF Belgium has 3 corps and 1 reserve corps. The writeup says the "1st corps" has 2 divisions and some 14000 men. Since I haven't seen the writeup for the other corps I asume for this argument that they have 3 divisions each and 22000 soldiers. That gives the entire Belgian WIF army 11 divisions with 80000 men including the reserve. Oxfords Companion to WWII says the Belgian field army had 22 divisions with some 600000 men in may 1940 (fully mobilized). I verified those numbers with another source. That makes a discrepancy between WIF and history that becomes very obvious with a small army like Belgium and such nice unit writeups. Should this be mentioned somewhere? Perhaps a small writeup on each minor country? Maybe an information screen could be added to most minor countries in the declaration of war step that included the historical date the minor entered the war and the status at that point of its armed forces. -Orm

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (7/2/2008 5:35:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: capitan [image]local://upfiles/21761/27A50CDAA16F4518992A98A81672E07B.jpg[/image] This looks very nice. But it also made me think about the size of the Belgian army and I couldn't get the math to add. So what I have to say is in no way critisism on the writeup but more a question about math. With these exellent writeups it becomes easy to compare the units of WIF with the historical OOB (Order Of Battle) and numbers of soldiers in the units. In WIF Belgium has 3 corps and 1 reserve corps. The writeup says the "1st corps" has 2 divisions and some 14000 men. Since I haven't seen the writeup for the other corps I asume for this argument that they have 3 divisions each and 22000 soldiers. That gives the entire Belgian WIF army 11 divisions with 80000 men including the reserve. Oxfords Companion to WWII says the Belgian field army had 22 divisions with some 600000 men in may 1940 (fully mobilized). I verified those numbers with another source. That makes a discrepancy between WIF and history that becomes very obvious with a small army like Belgium and such nice unit writeups. Should this be mentioned somewhere? Perhaps a small writeup on each minor country? Maybe an information screen could be added to most minor countries in the declaration of war step that included the historical date the minor entered the war and the status at that point of its armed forces. -Orm Does Oxford Companion give any details about the 22 divisions and 600,000 men, or just the total counts?

Orm -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (7/2/2008 5:56:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Does Oxford Companion give any details about the 22 divisions and 600,000 men, or just the total counts? I am afraid the Oxford Companion has very little information as it is an reference book. It says about the armed forces: "Mobilization had begun on 25 August 1939 and by May 1940 Belgium's armed forces amounted to a field army of 18 infantry divisions, 2 divisions of Chasseurs Ardennais (partly motorized), and 2 motorized cavalry d�visions, amounting to some 600,000 men in all. It lacked anti-aircraft artillery, its armour amounted to just 10 tanks, and of the 250 aircraft (90 fighters, 12 bombers, 120 reconnaissance planes) at its disposal only 50 were relatively modern types. There was no navy, only a number of small vessels for fishery protection and patrol duties. King L�opold acted as C-in-C of the armed forces and during the winter of 1939-40 limited discussions were initiated with the French and British military commands"

meisterchow -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (7/2/2008 6:06:24 PM)
The information I found which enabled me to compile the descriptions of 1st Corps, 2nd Corps and the Cavalry Corps also indicate the Belgian Army to have a strength of about 150,000 men with an additional 5 Corps, a Corps-sized Force K, and an independent divison not accounted for by WiF. I'm not a part of the ADG design group and my name is not Harry Rowland, so I can't explain why Belgium gets less than half of its historical forces in the game. I do know that it is extremely difficult to get any kind of detailed information on the operational history of the Belgian army. My guess is that the units included in WiF are there to represent the Belgian army as a whole, but because historically the Belgian front collapsed so completely and so quickly that to include all 9 Corps of the Belgian army would be too much strength to the Belgians without a complex raft of rules to allow the collapse to even be possible.

meisterchow -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (7/2/2008 6:14:17 PM)
Also, given that each Belgian Corps numbered about 14-15,000 men, it's entirely possible that the scale used by ADG compressed the Belgian Army into those 3 corps that are present in the game.

jesperpehrson -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (7/2/2008 9:19:48 PM)
Fascinating Orm, I suppose the smaller countries are poorly represented in WIF because of the scale, as Charlie also says. About the writeups in general, we should be careful to subject them to the academic scrutiny, they are not meant to be academic but instead they are supposed to give colour and entertainment. That said I am sure all the writers are grateful for any observations or insights that can improve the accuracy of the texts. In this particular case however I believe we are shortchanged by ADGs design and the scale of the game.

Orm -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (7/2/2008 10:49:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: capitan Fascinating Orm, I suppose the smaller countries are poorly represented in WIF because of the scale, as Charlie also says. About the writeups in general, we should be careful to subject them to the academic scrutiny, they are not meant to be academic but instead they are supposed to give colour and entertainment. That said I am sure all the writers are grateful for any observations or insights that can improve the accuracy of the texts. In this particular case however I believe we are shortchanged by ADGs design and the scale of the game. I also belive it is intended by ADG that the Belgian Army is smaller than historical OOB would suggest. The fantastic unit writeups has however made me to want more. I am getting greedy by looking at all the nice things Steve and all you others brings to this site. Would it be to hard to get a small writeup for some (all?) minor countries in addition to the writeups of the counters? I would gladly volonteer my writing skills (or lack of it) on some of them if the overburdened Matrix team could find a way to include them. -Orm

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land (7/2/2008 11:26:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: capitan Fascinating Orm, I suppose the smaller countries are poorly represented in WIF because of the scale, as Charlie also says. About the writeups in general, we should be careful to subject them to the academic scrutiny, they are not meant to be academic but instead they are supposed to give colour and entertainment. That said I am sure all the writers are grateful for any observations or insights that can improve the accuracy of the texts. In this particular case however I believe we are shortchanged by ADGs design and the scale of the game. I also belive it is intended by ADG that the Belgian Army is smaller than historical OOB would suggest. The fantastic unit writeups has however made me to want more. I am getting greedy by looking at all the nice things Steve and all you others brings to this site. Would it be to hard to get a small writeup for some (all?) minor countries in addition to the writeups of the counters? I would gladly volonteer my writing skills (or lack of it) on some of them if the overburdened Matrix team could find a way to include them. -Orm I am sure that Capitan will accept additional help.[;)] The structure right now is to separate writeups by units. So there are air, naval, and land unit writeups. For the territorial units (land counters) we found so little history (some of them did nothing during the war) that Capitan decided to do a paragraph or two on each country as part of their territorial unit writeups. For the naval unit writeups, Warspite1 has been giving a description of each class as a sort of preamble to the units themselves. So each unit of the Lion class contains a description of the Lion class and then details about the specific unit. For some of the reserve/garrison units another author, again faced with little history about the unit, took 6 or 7 paragraphs about the country's (in this case the USA) pre-war doctrine on how they expected to create a war-time military after full mobilization. It was also done for Sweden as I recall. So, though it would be sort of squeezing it in, one possibility would be to do something similar for the minor countries, taking a 'longish' description of their armed forces during the war and spreading it out over several units (land or naval). But I have no strong feelings about this; I'm merely throwing ideas out. Capitan, and others, can decide.

Page: << < prev 29 30 [31] 32 33 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.310547