Tutorial #4

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: oldsin
/delurk

hi, im a long time lurker on this forum, anxiously awaiting mwif.

i can see things are shaping up really well, but i found a small mistake in the
von Leeb descripion. his 1937 publication should be called "die Abwehr" (meaning "defense"),
instead of "die Abweht"; "Abweht" not actually being a german word.

it´s only a rather unimportant typo of course, but it shouldn´t be hard to fix.
keep up the good work,

michael

Thanks, I'll fix it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: trees trees
hi folks, I haven't posted much lately cuz everything has been looking real good. I like those rounded corners! (Yes, I have clipped the corners of several thousand WiF cardboard counters, so nice).

just wondering who the sample GARRison units up there belong too,
(the ones next to the Japanese MARines) in particular the one with the green center to the unit type box...I'm guessing Italy?

the TERRitorial write-up will be a bit of a pickle...rules for TERRitorial units are played a certain way that isn't exactly based on rock-solid rules interpretation. I think this may have been covered somewhere else here, perhaps in the Optional rules thread?

Yes, Italy. I'll try to add text for these pages in the next couple of days.

[trees trees]

I'm not sure I can reduce my TERRitorial question to a yes/no. Just lately I've come around to the view that when a country with a TERR force pool is conquered, all the TERR units of that country are immediately added to the conquering major powers TERR force pool. That's the way I've always played it, the way most people play it, and I believe the way Harry intended it to work. But it's not completely intuitive from the rules. By 'just lately' I mean that I now think it somewhat flows from the rules as written, in the absence of any other language saying anything different. But I think this could use a little explanation either in the optional rule write-up or as part of the units write-up, or both? or a link from the unit write-ups to the optional rule write-up?

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: oldsin

/delurk

hi, im a long time lurker on this forum, anxiously awaiting mwif.

i can see things are shaping up really well, but i found a small mistake in the von Leeb descripion. his 1937 publication should be called "die Abwehr" (meaning "defense"), instead of "die Abweht"; "Abweht" not actually being a german word.

it´s only a rather unimportant typo of course, but it shouldn´t be hard to fix.
keep up the good work,

michael

Thanks for the correction. All such help gratefully received.

NOTE TO EVERYONE: If you see any other errors in the unit descriptions then please let us know.

BTW Michael, you forgot to re-engage lurk mode at the end of your post. Does that mean you're here to stay? [;)]

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

I'm not sure I can reduce my TERRitorial question to a yes/no. Just lately I've come around to the view that when a country with a TERR force pool is conquered, all the TERR units of that country are immediately added to the conquering major powers TERR force pool. That's the way I've always played it, the way most people play it, and I believe the way Harry intended it to work. But it's not completely intuitive from the rules. By 'just lately' I mean that I now think it somewhat flows from the rules as written, in the absence of any other language saying anything different. But I think this could use a little explanation either in the optional rule write-up or as part of the units write-up, or both? or a link from the unit write-ups to the optional rule write-up?

22.4.5 Territorials (AfA option 10)

Territorials are controlled by the major power that controls their home country or erritory when they arrive as reinforcements, even if they were built by a different major power.

You return on map territorials to the force pools when their home country or territory is conquered.

Territorials may be built even before the territorial’s minor country is allowed to be reinforced (e.g. the Philippines ~ see 13.3.2, entry option 41).

[Zorachus99]

Cst/Trns/Rrg ?
 
Cost / Transport Size / Reorganization cost?
 
If so, have I been playing with militias and Terr unit (units with XXX or XXXX) as corps/army sized units, when they are actually divisional for transport size?
 
I thought divisions were unilaterally marked with XX designations and only occupied half the space of a transport ship.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Cst/Trns/Rrg ?

Cost / Transport Size / Reorganization cost?

If so, have I been playing with militias and Terr unit (units with XXX or XXXX) as corps/army sized units, when they are actually divisional for transport size?

I thought divisions were unilaterally marked with XX designations and only occupied half the space of a transport ship.

Cost to build /Turns to build/Reorganization cost (in the metric HQ/ATR/TRS reorganization points)

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Cst/Trns/Rrg ?

Cost / Transport Size / Reorganization cost?

If so, have I been playing with militias and Terr unit (units with XXX or XXXX) as corps/army sized units, when they are actually divisional for transport size?

MIL & TERR are Corps generaly.

I thought divisions were unilaterally marked with XX designations and only occupied half the space of a transport ship.

They are.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here's some text for the first 3 pages of the 4th tutorial. I have not taken new screen shots (but it is now "Die Abwehr" in the data).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The screen shots here are old but the code that generates the Unit Review form now places the title bar at the top.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

3rd and last in the series.

[CBoehm]

How come the reorg cost of HQs are listed as "1" ?? ...HQs cant be reorganized except by off.chits !

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

How come the reorg cost of HQs are listed as "1" ?? ...HQs cant be reorganized except by off.chits !

Good question!

[CBoehm]

I dont know if this is really an error or ambiguity or what, but
 
in page 2 og tutorial 4, you talk about the NATO symbols ... the GAR units are not consistent since AFAIK they use the nato symbol for a mortar-unit ...
 
Claus

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: CBoehm
How come the reorg cost of HQs are listed as "1" ?? ...HQs cant be reorganized except by off.chits !

I don't know why there is a "1" listed, but as far as I have played, the HQ units are not reorganizable in MWiF neither.
Steve, maybe you should ask Chris about this one ?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: CBoehm
I dont know if this is really an error or ambiguity or what, but
in page 2 og tutorial 4, you talk about the NATO symbols ... the GAR units are not consistent since AFAIK they use the nato symbol for a mortar-unit ...
Claus

Claus, would you happen to know a website, or better to have a picture, or another document, showing all the NATO symbols ?
I found this, but this does not seems complete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APP-6a

[CBoehm]

From resources at same Wiki-site and some googling I found these sites

http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/pi ... ap14a.html

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/korea/ebb/sym.htm

...from the above it would seem that the GAR symbol is simular to the "gun" symbol shown in link 2, in the bottom of the page under "weapons"...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: CBoehm
How come the reorg cost of HQs are listed as "1" ?? ...HQs cant be reorganized except by off.chits !

I don't know why there is a "1" listed, but as far as I have played, the HQ units are not reorganizable in MWiF neither.
Steve, maybe you should ask Chris about this one ?

I will just have the program check if the unit is an HQ and replace the reorganization cost with NA or -.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: CBoehm
From resources at same Wiki-site and some googling I found these sites

http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/pi ... ap14a.html

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/korea/ebb/sym.htm

...from the above it would seem that the GAR symbol is simular to the "gun" symbol shown in link 2, in the bottom of the page under "weapons"...

I am not gonig to change these from what WIF FE uses. Instead I'll simply say, "these are loosely based on NATO symbols and will be referred to as NATO symbols in the tutorials".

[CBoehm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am not gonig to change these from what WIF FE uses. Instead I'll simply say, "these are loosely based on NATO symbols and will be referred to as NATO symbols in the tutorials".

sounds good ...