Slitherine

quote:

Wasn't there a local higher command for all the CBs and Army engineers in the Pacific late in the war

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1



Re the earlier posts on this subject I have been doing some research and now have some ideas for providing write ups on the CW transports and amphibious units. However before I go too far down a blind alley, could someone clarify what is the difference between Transports and Amphibious units? From what I recall of playing many years ago, there was no real difference in terms of range or capacity and so does any one know the rationale for ADG splitting out these into two distinct types as opposed to just having a "transports" counter?

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Thanks  - so to be clear, does MWIF use option 22.4.12 alone or can a player choose either to play with or without this option?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Re the earlier posts on this subject I have been doing some research and now have some ideas for providing write ups on the CW transports and amphibious units. However before I go too far down a blind alley, could someone clarify what is the difference between Transports and Amphibious units? From what I recall of playing many years ago, there was no real difference in terms of range or capacity and so does any one know the rationale for ADG splitting out these into two distinct types as opposed to just having a "transports" counter?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ohio Jones

I might have missed it, but has there been an update on Land Unit description status in the last month or so?  I'm trying to figure out whether I can be of any assistance, since I have a little time on my hands.  Last I saw, it looked as though Spain (NAT and REP) and Czech were still unassigned...  I don't have much background with either of those nations, but learning is part of the fun!  If there's a way I can pitch in, drop me a line.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Re the earlier posts on this subject I have been doing some research and now have some ideas for providing write ups on the CW transports and amphibious units. However before I go too far down a blind alley, could someone clarify what is the difference between Transports and Amphibious units? From what I recall of playing many years ago, there was no real difference in terms of range or capacity and so does any one know the rationale for ADG splitting out these into two distinct types as opposed to just having a "transports" counter?

AMPH always have a smaller range than TRS, their range is within 2-3 when the TRS are within 3-5.
AMPH can't carry artillery, armored units and planes, TRS can carry everything.
AMPH can make their loaded unit invade, TRS cannot, except for MAR units who are special in this regard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Re the earlier posts on this subject I have been doing some research and now have some ideas for providing write ups on the CW transports and amphibious units. However before I go too far down a blind alley, could someone clarify what is the difference between Transports and Amphibious units? From what I recall of playing many years ago, there was no real difference in terms of range or capacity and so does any one know the rationale for ADG splitting out these into two distinct types as opposed to just having a "transports" counter?

AMPH always have a smaller range than TRS, their range is within 2-3 when the TRS are within 3-5.
AMPH can't carry artillery, armored units and planes, TRS can carry everything.
AMPH can make their loaded unit invade, TRS cannot, except for MAR units who are special in this regard.

Would not the AMPH be equal to the LCI?

quote:

I intend to use the amphibious counters for LCA, LCI and LCT and the transport counters for LSI and LST.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21
When I think of transport (non-amph) I picture the Queen Mary loaded to the gills with troops heading for England or the bjillion Liberty Ships that made the long journey across the Pacific.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I intend to use the amphibious counters for LCA, LCI and LCT and the transport counters for LSI and LST.

I do not agree with you Warspite1.
I think that all of those you cited represent the AMPH.

LCA : Landing Craft Assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Assault)
LCI : Landing Craft, Infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft%2C_Infantry)
LCT : Landing craft tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_craft_tank)
LSI : Landing Ship, Infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship%2C_Infantry)
LST : Landing Ship, Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship%2C_Tank)

All these are for invasions.
For me, all of these are represented by the AMPHs. All of these are capable of loading & unloading troops directly from the shore, which is exactly what an AMPH is made to do. A TRS needs a port, or an HQ acting like a temporary port facility. One could say that AMPH can't load ARM units, but I would reply that there are Tanks in all military formations, including INF, so LCT and LST are needed even for INF troops.

IMO, the TRS are simply represented by civilian or ex-civilian merchantships used by the military to transport troops & crated planes.
This is supported by the figures of the International shipping capacities of 1939 (in million tons) that are very close to those you obtain when you calculate the CP + TRS available at startup (I had discussed that with Harry a long time ago to know the rationale for the number of CP and the number of TRS at setup, especially for Minor Countries).

For example,
- the USA start the game with 27 CP and 4 TRS, which convert to (27/6)+4 = 8,5 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 8,9 million tons of shipping.
- the Netherlands start the game with 10 CP and 1 TRS, which convert to (10/6)+1 = 2,7 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 3,0 million tons of shipping.
- Japan start the game with 20 CP and 3 TRS, which convert to (20/6)+3 = 6,7 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 6,0 million tons of shipping.
- Norway start the game with 13 CP and 2 TRS, which convert to (13/6)+2 = 4,2 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 4,8 million tons of shipping.
- Italy start the game with 7 CP and 2 TRS, which convert to (7/6)+2 = 3,2 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 3,4 million tons of shipping.
- Denmark start the game with 6 CP and 0 TRS, which convert to (6/6)+0 = 1 millions of tons of shipping. John Ellis' WW2 databook p249 say that they began the war with 1,2 million tons of shipping.

As we can see by looking at these numbers, we see that CP and TRS are all acounted for in the same category of "Merchant shipping". CP are dedicaced to transporting resources and BP, and TRS to transport combat units. There even was a rule in an old WiF edition that allowed to convert one into the other, at the expense of loss of capacity due to the conversion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
However, the distinction I have tried to make is between those vessels that have the ability to actually take the troops and equipment overseas - the trs - and having got there, those vessels that land the combat teams - the Amphs. For example, I cannot imagine the Royal Ulsterman getting anywhere close to the shore but the craft she carried were designed exactly for that. Equally I accept that the Amphs are not going to do much over long distances (Torch) without "motherships" like Royal Ulsterman. So there is an argument for including the "mothership" in the Amphs but this was not my preferred route.

quote:

The reason is that if I take this latter approach there is tons to write about the Amphs and in my view very little to write about the trs - apart from the Queens which have there own counter - which is why I have sought to split them out. The everyday trs ship - whilst vital - do not make for interesting reading. There is also the fact that things evolved over time. I do not know this but I doubt the Royal Ulsterman carried Landing Craft for the Norwegian operation? If not then she would be a trs at that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
However, the distinction I have tried to make is between those vessels that have the ability to actually take the troops and equipment overseas - the trs - and having got there, those vessels that land the combat teams - the Amphs. For example, I cannot imagine the Royal Ulsterman getting anywhere close to the shore but the craft she carried were designed exactly for that. Equally I accept that the Amphs are not going to do much over long distances (Torch) without "motherships" like Royal Ulsterman. So there is an argument for including the "mothership" in the Amphs but this was not my preferred route.

I think that, WiF being such large scaled game, you should not look at AMPH as ships that can actualy take troops to the shore. AMPH simply are everything that makes a non MAR unit able to strategicaly invade. so mother ships as you call them are AMPH. The actual barges (LST, LSI) are unable to make cross ocean travels, while their motherships are, so both of them are the AMPH.

quote:

The reason is that if I take this latter approach there is tons to write about the Amphs and in my view very little to write about the trs - apart from the Queens which have there own counter - which is why I have sought to split them out. The everyday trs ship - whilst vital - do not make for interesting reading. There is also the fact that things evolved over time. I do not know this but I doubt the Royal Ulsterman carried Landing Craft for the Norwegian operation? If not then she would be a trs at that time.

I agree there is less to write about TRS than AMPH, but this should not be a reason to include in the TRS category ships that belong to the AMPH category.
There are some things we can write about the TRS : For example, the size of the merchantman navy in 1939 is one interesting information that can be put there, the history about the Liberty Ships too. I'm sure there are some various freighters or troop transports informations that can be gathered too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21


One particular note of interest is that the US Merchant Marine of WWII had a higher wartime percentage of casualties than any other US service. 1 in 26 killed in the line of duty.

Sabre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
However, the distinction I have tried to make is between those vessels that have the ability to actually take the troops and equipment overseas - the trs - and having got there, those vessels that land the combat teams - the Amphs. For example, I cannot imagine the Royal Ulsterman getting anywhere close to the shore but the craft she carried were designed exactly for that. Equally I accept that the Amphs are not going to do much over long distances (Torch) without "motherships" like Royal Ulsterman. So there is an argument for including the "mothership" in the Amphs but this was not my preferred route.

I think that, WiF being such large scaled game, you should not look at AMPH as ships that can actualy take troops to the shore. AMPH simply are everything that makes a non MAR unit able to strategicaly invade. so mother ships as you call them are AMPH. The actual barges (LST, LSI) are unable to make cross ocean travels, while their motherships are, so both of them are the AMPH.

quote:

The reason is that if I take this latter approach there is tons to write about the Amphs and in my view very little to write about the trs - apart from the Queens which have there own counter - which is why I have sought to split them out. The everyday trs ship - whilst vital - do not make for interesting reading. There is also the fact that things evolved over time. I do not know this but I doubt the Royal Ulsterman carried Landing Craft for the Norwegian operation? If not then she would be a trs at that time.

I agree there is less to write about TRS than AMPH, but this should not be a reason to include in the TRS category ships that belong to the AMPH category.
There are some things we can write about the TRS : For example, the size of the merchantman navy in 1939 is one interesting information that can be put there, the history about the Liberty Ships too. I'm sure there are some various freighters or troop transports informations that can be gathered too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob

FYI Canada had the fourth largest navy (I'm including the merchant navy) in WW2. Are we only worth a measley 1 counter?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob

Warspite1,

Try this Canadian government link for starters: http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=history/other/merchant/hist

FYI Canada had the fourth largest navy (I'm including the merchant navy) in WW2. Are we only worth a measley 1 counter?



GSB

quote:

ORIGINAL: capitan

I am back in buisness and will start looking into who is active and not on thursday (barring a mass hungover). We will make a push to finish the land writeups! Any volounteers to do some writing for MWIF? IF so send me a PM!