RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

Page: << < prev 36 37 [38] 39 40 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/7/2009 7:07:29 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet
I noticed in this write up that Gneisenau & Scharnhorst have been classified as Pocket Battleships,this is wrong both were BATTLECRUISERS,will this be corrected before release of game.
Germany had 3 Pocket battleships Admiral Graf Spee,Admiral Scheer & Deutschland renamed Lutzow because Hitler did not want a ship named after Germany sunk.
Germanys 2 Battleships were Bismarck & Tirpitz.

This should be corrected. Gneisenau & Scharnhorst are definitely not Pocket Battleships.
In WiF FE sense, they are Battleships, but reality they are Battlecruisers as hellfirejet says.

Warspite 1

But my question was what write-up? - I have the master list and neither Scharnhorst nor Gneisenau are referred to as pocket-battleships. Unless Hellfirejet is reading post 1058 on this thread - in which case he`s wrong.......although he has spotted a spelling error in battlescruisers!!

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 1111

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/7/2009 7:25:28 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
But my question was what write-up? - I have the master list and neither Scharnhorst nor Gneisenau are referred to as pocket-battleships. Unless Hellfirejet is reading post 1058 on this thread - in which case he`s wrong.......although he has spotted a spelling error in battlescruisers!!

As Warspite1, I do not see which writeup referres the Scharnhorst & Gneisenau as pocket-battleships.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 1112

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/7/2009 7:30:16 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
But my question was what write-up? - I have the master list and neither Scharnhorst nor Gneisenau are referred to as pocket-battleships. Unless Hellfirejet is reading post 1058 on this thread - in which case he`s wrong.......although he has spotted a spelling error in battlescruisers!!

As Warspite1, I do not see which writeup referres the Scharnhorst & Gneisenau as pocket-battleships.

Warspite 1

To be fair, if it is post 1058 that Hellfirejet is mis-reading, on reflection I think I have not made it clear why the ships - that were originally envisaged as heavier armoured versions of the Deutschland`s became battlecruisers. I have amended as follows:

[5106 Scharnhorst - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 165,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 32 knots
.B Main armament: 9 x 11-inch (280mm), 12 x 5.9-inch (150mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 38,900 tons
.B Thickest armor: 13.75-inches (belt)
.P This is a World In Flames "what if" counter that allows the German player
to upgrade the battlecruiser Scharnhorst`s 11-inch main armament to a 15-inch
gun.
.P The Scharnhorst and her sister Gneisenau were originally intended to be
better armoured versions of the Deutschland-class pocket-battleships. However,
to avoid the ships becoming un-balanced (too heavy armour protection for too
little hitting power) a third 11-inch turret was added. As such, the revised
specification of these ships made them less like pocket-battleships and more
like battlecruisers.
.P Then, after the signing of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in June 1935,
Adolf Hitler wanted to increase the main armament to a 15-inch (381mm) gun in
order that the battlecruisers main armament would compare with that of British
capital ships. This would mean their introduction would be delayed by up to two
years and this was not something Hitler could afford to do, given his
territorial ambitions.
.P The two ships were therefore completed as heavily armoured battlecruisers
with a plan to upgrade their main armament at the first opportunity. As it
turned out, the upgrade never happened and the two ships remained with their
original main armament throughout their life.
.P Please see Counter 4771 for brief details of the Scharnhorst`s service record
in World War II.

Thanks Hellfirejet!!

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 1113

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/7/2009 8:42:10 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Rob,

There are a dozen or more references to pocket-battleships in the naval unit writeups, starting with the very first one (#4001)! You might want to do a global search for the letters 'pocket' in all the naval unit writeups to see if the use of the term is correct in each case.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 1114

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/7/2009 9:04:59 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Rob,

There are a dozen or more references to pocket-battleships in the naval unit writeups, starting with the very first one (#4001)! You might want to do a global search for the letters 'pocket' in all the naval unit writeups to see if the use of the term is correct in each case.

Warspite 1

I would ask Hellfirejet to clarify what post he was referring to before going through that amount of work - although I am sure it was 1058, in which case I most definitely did not refer to the "Ugly Sisters" as pocket-battleships

.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1115

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/7/2009 11:05:12 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Rob,

There are a dozen or more references to pocket-battleships in the naval unit writeups, starting with the very first one (#4001)! You might want to do a global search for the letters 'pocket' in all the naval unit writeups to see if the use of the term is correct in each case.

Warspite 1

I would ask Hellfirejet to clarify what post he was referring to before going through that amount of work - although I am sure it was 1058, in which case I most definitely did not refer to the "Ugly Sisters" as pocket-battleships .

In a quick run through of references (more than 100

) in the naval unit writeups to these 2 ships, I could see no instance where you referred to them as pocket-battleships, other than that that was the original intent for these ships before they were built as battlecruisers.

I think I'll go look at the reported bugs in MWIF code, ...

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 1116

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 10:40:50 AM

hdosbe

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/26/2006
From: Bergamo, Italy
Status: offline

I don't understand because Italian ships of the same class have different values:

- (Attak-Defense-A/A-Bomb-Move-Range)
- BB Giulio Cesare and Cavour (5-5-1-2-5-3 I suggest)
- BB Andrea Doria and Caio Duilio (6-5-2-2-5-2), very similar to the Cavour class but with a better A/A and secondary guns (90/50 instead of obsolete 100/47, 135/45 instead of obsolete 120/50), with a minor range
- BB Vittorio Veneto and Littorio (8-2-2-3-6-2)
- BB Roma and Impero (8-2-2 or 3-3-6-2), very similar to the V.V. class, may be with a little better A/A
- CA Trento and Trieste (4-6-1-2-6-2), heavy cruisers, very speed but with a powerfull armour (13.500 tons on 196,9 m)
- CA Zara, Fiume, Pola and Gorizia (4-5-1-2-6-3), heavy cruisers, more strong that the Trento class (14.800 tons on 182,8 m) with better primary guns (203/53 instead of 203/50), with a range of 5.400/16 kn instead of 4160/16
- CA Bolzano (4-6-1-2-6-2) a "beatifull mistake", very similar to the Trento class, using the same guns of the Zara class
- CA Duca d'Aosta and Eugenio di Savoia (2 or 3-6-1-1-6-2)
- CA Garibaldi and Duca d'Abruzzi (3-5-1-1 or 2-6-2 or 3), a big light cruiser class, with 10x152/55 instead of 8x152/53 of all the other Italian LC and a range of 5360/14 kn instead of 3900/14 of the Aosta class.

The name of italian Cavalry is NIZZA (Nice in French, an Italian-Ligurian city, that today is part of France, Garibaldi was born in Nizza) not MIZZA

.

Sorry for my terrific English.

Giacomo Bellucci

< Message edited by hdosbe -- 7/8/2009 10:42:06 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1117

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 11:03:35 AM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

Just to point out that, if I am not wrong, Nice, Nicea, Nicaea, Niza, Nizza originally was a greek city for about 1400 years, until it joined Liguria (the name itself comes after the greek godddess of Victory, Nik�) in the VII century.

It was a part of the roman empire the same as Carthago after the conquer, Egypt or Illyria, but I think it was not part of Italy most of the time politically (although it belonged for some years to the county of Saboya) , although it was in the very border and took part in the italian politics and wars, like other powers such as Austria. Besides, it was never part of Italy geographically or politically since Italy exists as a country.

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1118

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 11:27:39 AM

hdosbe

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/26/2006
From: Bergamo, Italy
Status: offline

Nik� was a Greek city fonded by Massilian (Marseille) on 100 b.C, when Augustus made the Italian Province (14 a.C), Nizza make part of Italy (Liguria), after made part of Ostrogotian Kingdom (483) and East Roman Empire (536, as Italy prefecture) but contested by Burgund, after made part of Longobard Italian kingdom (580-90 circa), after made part of a league with Genoa (650 circa), after�as an Italian Free Commune, was an ally of Pisa against Genoa,�after made part of Savoy as County of Nizza (1388-1861) and now is part of France; on 2100 ears of his history, Nice was 100-150 years Greek, 1750-1800 Italian and 150 French.

Today the nissard speake French but on 1861, in the city, 90% spoke Italian or Ligurian (Italian dialect) and 10% Occitan (no one spoke French), in the county 80% spoke occitan, 15% Italian or Ligurian and 5% French.

Giacomo Bellucci

P.S.: I don't wont make revanchisme but it's correct to know the history (like Strasbourg is a historical German city that make part of France or Perpignan is a Catalan ispanic city in France).

< Message edited by hdosbe -- 7/8/2009 11:56:43 AM >

(in reply to Joseignacio)

Post #: 1119

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 11:49:57 AM

Joseignacio

Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

Not intending to itch or start a political discussion, just tried to correct what I thought was a mistake on your side. I still think you are wrong, but I accept your point of view. To support mine, I can quote the wikipedia (in your own language)

quote:

Anche se alcuni scavi archeologici fanno risalire i primi insediamenti di progenitori umani addirittura a 400.000 anni fa, Nizza (Nicaea) fu fondata circa 2.000 anni fa dagli abitanti di Marsiglia e ricevette il nome di Nika�a in onore alla vittoria sui liguri (Nike � il nome in greco della dea della vittoria).

Anyway, I don't want to polemize or hurt any feeling. If you don't agree with wikipedia, it's ok, Wiki is not God and anybody can disagree.

< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 7/8/2009 12:07:11 PM >

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1120

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 12:24:46 PM

hdosbe

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/26/2006
From: Bergamo, Italy
Status: offline

Amigo mio, no problem, I'm not a revanchiste; also for your (Spanish) ships I saw that ships of the same class have different values.

Before that the PC game will finish I think would be better to arrange this problem (I don't know the values of CL, but I'm afraid will be the same).

Giacomo Bellucci

(in reply to Joseignacio)

Post #: 1121

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 1:38:14 PM

hdosbe

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/26/2006
From: Bergamo, Italy
Status: offline

- (Attak-Defense-A/A-Bomb-Move-Range)
- CL Bande Nere, Barbiano, Colleoni and Giussano (not Guissano) (1 or 2-8-1-1-6-2)
- CL Diaz and Cadorna (2-8-1-1-6-2), very similar to the Bande Nere class
- CL Montecuccoli and Attendolo (2-7-1-1-6-2 or 3), range of 4.400/18 kn instead of 3.100 of Diaz
- CL Attilio Regolo class (12 ships) (1 or 2-9 or 8-1 or 2-0 or 1-7-2), real speed of 40 kn/h

, an A/A cruiser class
- CL Etna and Vesuvio (1-8 or 9-2-0 or 1-5-2 or 3) an A/A cruiser class using 2 cruiser in construction for Siam
- CL Taranto (1-8 or 9-0 or 1-0 or 1-5-3), obsolete LC
- CL Bari (1-8 or 9-0 or 1-0 or 1-5-2), obsolete LC
- CA San Giorgio (2 or 3-6-1 or 2-1 or 2-5-3), obsolete HC
- CA Pisa (decommissioned in 1937), very obsolete HC (2 or 3-6-1-1 or 2-4-2)
- CA Costanzo (not Const.) Ciano (3-5-2-1 or 2-6-3 or 4), an improved "Garibaldi" with more and modern�A/A guns and for Oceanic Fleet (A.O.I.) with a great range (for italian standards)
- CA Venezia and CA Firenze�are hypotetic ships, but they'll part of the future "Flotta d'evasione" (oceanic Fleet) with a great range and modern A/A guns (3 or 4-5-2-2-6-4)
- CL Ancona (decommissioned in 1937, but if you use Pisa I think that you'll be add Ancona), an obsolete LC (1-8-1-1-5-3)

Giacomo Bellucci

< Message edited by hdosbe -- 7/8/2009 3:53:32 PM >

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1122

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 5:24:19 PM

sajbalk

Posts: 264
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Davenport, Iowa
Status: offline

You will often find that ships of a similar class have slightly different values. MWiF is just implementing the values assigned by the paper game designer.

As to the CAV being called NIZZA, that may be correctable.

Patice will see this post.

_____________________________

Steve Balk
Iowa, USA

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1123

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 5:45:36 PM

hdosbe

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/26/2006
From: Bergamo, Italy
Status: offline

Sorry for my English, but in Italian similar is a thing and same is an other, e.g.: Zara, Pola, Gorizia and Fiume made part of the same HC class (without armament, power, armour etc. differences) but in Wif they have very different values, in some case worse than the similar Trento HC class, that were inferior in guns, armour etc..

The same for Italian BB, CA and CL, MWif will be an historical game or not?

You'd like to play with a game in which a Polikarpov I-15 is stronger than a Focke-Wulf Fw 190?

Giacomo Bellucci

< Message edited by hdosbe -- 7/8/2009 5:50:13 PM >

(in reply to sajbalk)

Post #: 1124

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 6:15:56 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hdosbe

Sorry for my English, but in Italian similar is a thing and same is an other, e.g.: Zara, Pola, Gorizia and Fiume made part of the same HC class (without armament, power, armour etc. differences) but in Wif they have very different values, in some case worse than the similar Trento HC class, that were inferior in guns, armour etc..

The same for Italian BB, CA and CL, MWif will be an historical game or not?

You'd like to play with a game in which a Polikarpov I-15 is stronger than a Focke-Wulf Fw 190?

Giacomo Bellucci

There can be variations within the same class. So, 10 high school students can all go to the same school, and can be in the same class/grade in that school, though obviously they are not all the same student. The same is true for ships.
---
I do not know how Australian Design Group arrived at the numbers for the different units in the game. I am certain that WIF players have been commenting (complaining?) about them since ADG printed the very first counter sheet - perhaps even before it was dry!

I have nothing to do with those discussions, since my hands are more than full getting the program to work.
---
As for correcting spelling mistakes, yes we will do that, but again, it is not my call and I leave it up to Patrice and the group of players he has helping him make decisions on what I consider 'cosmetics'. For example, the spelling of the place names on the map have been modified over the years (we try to go with the English/American usage at the time of the war).
===
Finally, all posts/comments are read and seriously considered. The game has been much improved over the years it has been in development because individuals, such as yourself, have provided additional information and advice. Thanks.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1125

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 9:25:52 PM

hdosbe

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/26/2006
From: Bergamo, Italy
Status: offline

I agree, but to give 2-5-2-1 to the Fiume (2 of A/A without special AA guns and only 1 of SB with 9 x 203 guns is foolish) and in the same time 4-6-2-1 to the Trento, older with many less armour and obsolete 203 guns is very strange; I've made many research on Italian Ships during the IIWW (I'm going to write an enciclopedical size uchrony about them) and I can assure you that all the values given to our ships are a big ridicolous mistake.

I understand that in the same class of ships there could be some little difference but a FIAT BRAVO TD1.9 (150 HP) don't make (when new) 75 km/h more than an identical car (2-3 km/h is the max. differnce) and a new FIAT BRAVO TD1.9 don't make 50 km/h less than a FIAT BRAVO 1.7 TD (90 HP)!!!!

May be that 20 years ago ADG don't use internet, but with WIKIPEDIA you can control my words, and discover that all values are a mistake (and I noticed the same problem with French ships and,but I've to deep, American and CW, and may be German and Japaneese).

It's not a secondary problem.

Giacomo Bellucci

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1126

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 9:43:54 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hdosbe

I agree, but to give 2-5-2-1 to the Fiume (2 of A/A without special AA guns and only 1 of SB with 9 x 203 guns is foolish) and in the same time 4-6-2-1 to the Trento, older with many less armour and obsolete 203 guns is very strange; I've made many research on Italian Ships during the IIWW (I'm going to write an enciclopedical size uchrony about them) and I can assure you that all the values given to our ships are a big ridicolous mistake.

I understand that in the same class of ships there could be some little difference but a FIAT BRAVO TD1.9 (150 HP) don't make (when new) 75 km/h more than an identical car (2-3 km/h is the max. differnce) and a new FIAT BRAVO TD1.9 don't make 50 km/h less than a FIAT BRAVO 1.7 TD (90 HP)!!!!

May be that 20 years ago ADG don't use internet, but with WIKIPEDIA you can control my words, and discover that all values are a mistake (and I noticed the same problem with French ships and,but I've to deep, American and CW, and may be German and Japaneese).

It's not a secondary problem.

Giacomo Bellucci

Well, it is secondary to me. My contract is to enable people to play the game using the computer - which is not easy to do.

The numbers on the counters can be changed by the players if they want to. So, you can make all the modifications you think are best for when you play the game.

I have placed all the data for the units in CSV (comma separated values) files which can be edited using a text editor (e.g., NotePad) or a spreadsheet program (e.g., Excel). You just change the combat and movement factors for the units to what you think are best, and the program will not complain. In fact, the AI Opponent will respond to the changes correctly too.

If you want a long term solution, then you need to contact Australian Design Group. They are the final arbitrators for changes to the units (and rules).

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 7/8/2009 9:44:17 PM >

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1127

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 9:47:43 PM

Mike Parker

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

Giacomo,

I think you are missing the point. The numbers and names on the counters were set by the designer of the board game this is based off of. So Steve has no choice in the matter, he goes with what the game designer put on the actual cardboard counters.

Also don't get too wrapped up in the relationship with the ship name and the factors on the counter, there was a time when ships didn't have names :) man was it fun arguing over which ship was which then!

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1128

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 9:55:41 PM

hdosbe

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/26/2006
From: Bergamo, Italy
Status: offline

Do you think that can I contact ADG? and in affirmative case who have I contact?
Thanks.
Mino (is shorter than Giacomo Bellucci)

(in reply to Mike Parker)

Post #: 1129

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 10:06:57 PM

MajorDude

Posts: 199
Joined: 1/20/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
... You just change the combat and movement factors for the units to what you think are best, and the program will not complain. In fact, the AI Opponent will respond to the changes correctly too.

...

Scary (lol)...

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1130

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 10:07:08 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hdosbe

I agree, but to give 2-5-2-1 to the Fiume (2 of A/A without special AA guns and only 1 of SB with 9 x 203 guns is foolish) and in the same time 4-6-2-1 to the Trento, older with many less armour and obsolete 203 guns is very strange; I've made many research on Italian Ships during the IIWW (I'm going to write an enciclopedical size uchrony about them) and I can assure you that all the values given to our ships are a big ridicolous mistake.

I understand that in the same class of ships there could be some little difference but a FIAT BRAVO TD1.9 (150 HP) don't make (when new) 75 km/h more than an identical car (2-3 km/h is the max. differnce) and a new FIAT BRAVO TD1.9 don't make 50 km/h less than a FIAT BRAVO 1.7 TD (90 HP)!!!!

May be that 20 years ago ADG don't use internet, but with WIKIPEDIA you can control my words, and discover that all values are a mistake (and I noticed the same problem with French ships and,but I've to deep, American and CW, and may be German and Japaneese).

It's not a secondary problem.

Giacomo Bellucci

Warspite 1

Giacomo - I think you are right in a lot of what you say, and the problem is not confined to the ships - some of the aircraft factors seem out of place too.

However, as Steve says, this is a computer version of the board game - and it is from the board game that the factors come from so this is not the place to be making these complaints; rather this should be addressed to ADG.

I`m sure I recall when I first got Ships In Flames back in 1995(!) that ADG tried to put some explanation around what made a ship a certain rating as opposed to another e.g it was more about the overall package (although that admittedly does not account for why, for example, Fiume should differ from her sisters, when as far as I can tell none of them had any modifications to their specs). May be some of it is play balance.

All that said, this is a strategic game and Ships, Planes, Cruisers et al In Flames have all been added over the years to give the game greater scope and what I think is called "Chrome". They (ADG) have brought us a truly brilliant game and if some of the factors appear odd..well I for one can live with that and does not detract from the breathtaking quality of the game.

The only exception of course is the ridiculous low factors given to HMS Warspite; everyone knows she was the finest battleship of World War II

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 7/8/2009 10:21:01 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1131

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 10:23:51 PM

Gurggulk

Posts: 41
Joined: 5/28/2009
Status: offline

Giacomo,

The boardgame WiF from which MWiF is spawned from has had many Editions over the years. As was already pointed out, the orginal game had no names on the ships or air units, just values. Because the game forces a Blind draw of units when getting built, having units with various factors builds a certain suspense to the economics of the game. If all were just rated by "hardware", Many units would just be clones of each other. I also like to think there is some value in the units to account for leadership, training, morale. Which are much more difficult to calculate into any game.

There is also a relationship in the Naval Combat Table and AA table that make the ships of all nations reflect their naval power. X number of ships = X fire power, vs X number of Ships. Italian Light ships in general have a slight advantage in Surface combat vs Most allied Navies, of an equal size. But are much less effective vs Air power, compared to Allied navies. The Japanese Navy has the best Bang for the buck in the Light Ship catagory.

Look at the names as a sign post of what was considered an important point in WW2 naval history. It is not so much if this unit is faster, slower, more powerful or less. In the overall picture, if you lined up all the naval units end to end, and used the ratings given, you would find it makes sense. any Problems i may have had in the past, melted away long ago, because the game works. And the Naval combat system works because of the Unit makeup of each nation.

In a game thats been around more than 20years, the unit values are not going to change.

Im glad you posted your thoughts and feelings about how you view the naval units. You may not be pleased with what you see as incompatable with your knowledge, but believe me when i say, you will find the game engaging, because of the values you are given to work with.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 1132

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 10:50:06 PM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hdosbe

Do you think that can I contact ADG? and in affirmative case who have I contact?
Thanks.
Mino (is shorter than Giacomo Bellucci)

Go here: http://www.a-d-g.com.au/

click on: "Have your say"

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1133

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/8/2009 11:13:32 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: hdosbe

Do you think that can I contact ADG? and in affirmative case who have I contact?
Thanks.
Mino (is shorter than Giacomo Bellucci)

Go here: http://www.a-d-g.com.au/

click on: "Have your say"

Or send a mail here :
adg@spitfire.com.au

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 1134

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/9/2009 9:48:41 AM

hdosbe

Posts: 24
Joined: 5/26/2006
From: Bergamo, Italy
Status: offline

Dear Shannon,

I understand that it's not your match, and excuse me but I think that we must try to adjust some problem before the game will be ready.

I've written to ADG my doubts and remarks.

Ciao

Mino

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 1135

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/9/2009 3:00:10 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

The other thing to note is that the naval counters include not just the named ships but also some escorting destroyers. So seemingly inexplicable differences in unit quality may be due to differences in the destroyer complement in addition to less tangible factors such as morale, leadership, training, etc.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1136

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/9/2009 4:00:12 PM

micheljq

Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

One of my friends always complaints about the british mosquitoe fighters, they were twin engines in real life but in WiF they are not considered twin engines and consequently don't have the malus for twin engines.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 1137

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/9/2009 6:50:29 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hdosbe

Dear Shannon,

I understand that it's not your match, and excuse me but I think that we must try to adjust some problem before the game will be ready.

I've written to ADG my doubts and remarks.

Ciao

Mino

There are dozens of these 'controversies'. For example, Luxembourg is not part of the European map; there is an island in the Baltic that historically belonged to Denmark but on the map belongs to Sweden. The years that units arrive have been argued about. There have been thousands (ten of thousands?) of comments about the rules - the latest clarification and correction list I have seen from Patrice has over 350 individual questions answered by Harry Rowland.

The quest to make the game more realistic seems endless. For my part, I have drawn a line in the sand and said: "these are the specifications for MWIF." Really, that was essential to keep me from losing my mind.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1138

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/9/2009 7:33:07 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hdosbe

Dear Shannon,

I understand that it's not your match, and excuse me but I think that we must try to adjust some problem before the game will be ready.

I've written to ADG my doubts and remarks.

Ciao

Mino

Warspite1

There is no way at this stage of the development that a review of unit factors can be carried out - the potential for altering pay balance for one thing is to great.

Best thing Mino is to listen to others on this thread and don`t worry about it

- the game is, I mean really is BRILLIANT despite these anomalies.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to hdosbe)

Post #: 1139

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 7/9/2009 9:04:17 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

One of my friends always complaints about the british mosquitoe fighters, they were twin engines in real life but in WiF they are not considered twin engines and consequently don't have the malus for twin engines.

This is because, as the P-38 for example, the Mosquito was judged quite able to fight single engined fighters without penalty. You must recognise that a Mosquito or a P-38 was a different affair from a Me110 or a Ju88 or a Beaufighter.

It is wrong to say that in WiF they are not considered twin engines, because they have the twin engine fighters price. So they ARE considered twin engined. It's just that they fight single engined fighters as well as another fighter.

(in reply to micheljq)

Post #: 1140