Unit Depictions on Screen

[wosung]

It should be "Wehrkreis", not "Wehrkries".

For German units, I would like to have mentioned, when they were sadly involved in war crimes, because it's part of there "legacy". This legacy is virulent even today. There are still international law-cases abot this. Anglo-american history tends to view the russo-german war as just a "normal" war, which it wasn't.

For example: Involvement of units of the 6th Army in Babi Jar massakers in the Ukraine, or of 1st? mountain division in the execution of italian prisoners in 1943 on the greek islands.

But that's just my point of view.

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: wosung

It should be "Wehrkreis", not "Wehrkries".

For German units, I would like to have mentioned, when they were sadly involved in war crimes, because it's part of there "legacy". This legacy is virulent even today. There are still international law-cases abot this. Anglo-american history tends to view the russo-german war as just a "normal" war, which it wasn't.

For example: Involvement of units of the 6th Army in Babi Jar massakers in the Ukraine, or of 1st? mountain division in the execution of italian prisoners in 1943 on the greek islands.

But that's just my point of view.

Good catch on the typo. I get blind after reading too much german (as I speak very little).

As for the warcrimes, IMHO, WIF avoids the whole subject and I would be surprised if Matrix Games takes another stance. But I am merely a grunt and I will wait for what Steve says.

It would interesting of course and not too difficult to find.

[CBoehm]

corps XI ...."under the watchful eye OF Eugen Ott...." you are missing the word "of"

other than that I think you did a GREAT job, kept it crisp and interesting...cant wait to sit and read through all the various units when this game comes out ! ....

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: capitan

Any advice, comments, suggestions or what not is welcome. Be brutally honest if you wish. I am trying to find a style that works. I also want to know what is interesting and what is not.

- Jesper

I think your work on descriptions for land units is excellent. It's very interesting to read for a devoted wargamer with interest in history. So keep up the great work. [:)]

I also agree with you that there is no need to write about war crimes etc. We are describing corps sized units and it would be quite difficult to say that the entire corps took part in war crimes. MWIF is a WAR game and should focus on each unit's contribution to the WAR in their descriptions. If we included war crimes then I guess every SS unit would be full of horrible war crime stories. I think that is just as bad as using Swastikas, SS runes etc. It shifts the focus to the Nazi war crimes and extinction of the Jews. I think everybody knows enough about this subject without having to be reminded of these horrors while playing wargames.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wosung
It should be "Wehrkreis", not "Wehrkries".

For German units, I would like to have mentioned, when they were sadly involved in war crimes, because it's part of there "legacy". This legacy is virulent even today. There are still international law-cases abot this. Anglo-american history tends to view the russo-german war as just a "normal" war, which it wasn't.

For example: Involvement of units of the 6th Army in Babi Jar massakers in the Ukraine, or of 1st? mountain division in the execution of italian prisoners in 1943 on the greek islands.

But that's just my point of view.

Without dismissing, minimizing, or attempting to gloss over these atrocities, I agree with Borger that MWIF is not the place for discussing them.

A unit writeup is meant to be short and discuss the historical unit in terms comparable to how the player will use it in the game. Its creation, participation in battles, and eventual dissoution (should that happen) are similar to what the players do with units while playing the game.

In particular, I like that even in the first 6 units Jesper has done, there are instances of units being destroyed and then reformed, exactly as they are in WIF: out in the front lines, destroyed in combat, back to the force pool, into production, then returning to the front lines. A few additional sentences to add flavor and keep them from all reading the same is pretty much essential.

As a general guideline, I would like to avoid content about atrocities.

[Greyshaft]

I don't understand the use of the word 'enforced' [&:]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

And a third. Last in series.

[c92nichj]

I also agree with you that there is no need to write about war crimes etc

I agree with Borger on this.
If we start writing about war crimes it is difficult to draw the line, apart from SS units, how about japaneese behaviour in China, NEI? The terror bombing of germany? The Russians behaviour in eastern Germany?

Even though all this is part of history and what did happen I do not think it is part of WiF as the game does not model any of this, maybe with the exception of the USE roll for japanese taking chineese cities.

[mlees]

I don't understand the use of the word 'enforced'

Hmm. From the context, it would appear to mean that the LI Corps was initially formed around a core of 5 infantry divisions....

But I too have not seen the word "enforced" used in this manner.

[jesperpehrson]

As you may have guessed english is not my native language. When I wrote enforced it was with some doubt. I do like the implications of giving the corps power instead of just consisting of divisions. Suggestions on how you would like to see it changed?

[christo]

ORIGINAL: capitan

As you may have guessed english is not my native language. When I wrote enforced it was with some doubt. I do like the implications of giving the corps power instead of just consisting of divisions. Suggestions on how you would like to see it changed?

how about "... consisted of 5 infantry divisions"

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: capitan

As you may have guessed english is not my native language. When I wrote enforced it was with some doubt. I do like the implications of giving the corps power instead of just consisting of divisions. Suggestions on how you would like to see it changed?

How about..."was formed around 5 infantry divisions"? That implies that these divisions were the core of the corps ([:'(]) but not what it entirely contained.

Excellent write-ups capitan. Your english is first class.

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: capitan
As you may have guessed english is not my native language. When I wrote enforced it was with some doubt. I do like the implications of giving the corps power instead of just consisting of divisions. Suggestions on how you would like to see it changed?

How about..."was formed around 5 infantry divisions"? That implies that these divisions were the core of the corps ([:'(]) but not what it entirely contained.

Excellent write-ups capitan. Your english is first class.

Cheers, Neilster

I would need to know more about the relationship between the 5 divisions and the corps to choose the correct phrase.

However, if it is as Neilster surmises, then I would simply say "5 divisions formed the core of the corps with auxillary units attached occasionally."

There is no requirement on how many words you use to express a thought here. Afterall this is prose, not poetry.

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: christo

how about "... consisted of 5 infantry divisions"

I guess that would be fine, for generic purposes.

However, in reality, the corps may not have stayed at 5 Infantry divisions. Indeed, throughout the war, most of the combatants Armies, Corps, and even Divisions manpower and TOE fluctuated based on operational concerns and troop availablility. That level of detail is not truly simulated by WiF, though.

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: mlees

ORIGINAL: christo

how about "... consisted of 5 infantry divisions"

I guess that would be fine, for generic purposes.

However, in reality, the corps may not have stayed at 5 Infantry divisions. Indeed, throughout the war, most of the combatants Armies, Corps, and even Divisions manpower and TOE fluctuated based on operational concerns and troop availablility. That level of detail is not truly simulated by WiF, though.

This was one of the main reason why I did not want to use consist of but I guess it is a detail not very important. The divisions in every corp varies so often that it would take a page of its own to just demonstrate it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: capitan

ORIGINAL: mlees

ORIGINAL: christo
how about "... consisted of 5 infantry divisions"

I guess that would be fine, for generic purposes.

However, in reality, the corps may not have stayed at 5 Infantry divisions. Indeed, throughout the war, most of the combatants Armies, Corps, and even Divisions manpower and TOE fluctuated based on operational concerns and troop availablility. That level of detail is not truly simulated by WiF, though.

This was one of the main reason why I did not want to use consist of but I guess it is a detail not very important. The divisions in every corp varies so often that it would take a page of its own to just demonstrate it.

Ok. Then let's just say that: "The number of divisions in this corps, like other corps, varied greatly during the war. ... 5 divisions ...". The last is whatever you wanted to add about the 5 divisions.

I have a very simple view of writing for the most part. If something is difficult to get down in words, then I talk about it out loud, as if I were explaining it to someone. Often this means that I end up using more words, but I can communicate what I want to say more clearly.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: mlees

ORIGINAL: christo
how about "... consisted of 5 infantry divisions"

I guess that would be fine, for generic purposes.

However, in reality, the corps may not have stayed at 5 Infantry divisions. Indeed, throughout the war, most of the combatants Armies, Corps, and even Divisions manpower and TOE fluctuated based on operational concerns and troop availablility. That level of detail is not truly simulated by WiF, though.

I have been asking Capitan for some numbers to go with the land unit descriptions. The air and naval units descriptions have all those numbers about speed, armament, engines, weight, and defensive armor. The land unit descriptions look a little naked to my eye without some indication of size. It might be a fool's errand though.

[jesperpehrson]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: mlees

ORIGINAL: christo
how about "... consisted of 5 infantry divisions"

I guess that would be fine, for generic purposes.

However, in reality, the corps may not have stayed at 5 Infantry divisions. Indeed, throughout the war, most of the combatants Armies, Corps, and even Divisions manpower and TOE fluctuated based on operational concerns and troop availablility. That level of detail is not truly simulated by WiF, though.

I have been asking Capitan for some numbers to go with the land unit descriptions. The air and naval units descriptions have all those numbers about speed, armament, engines, weight, and defensive armor. The land unit descriptions look a little naked to my eye without some indication of size. It might be a fool's errand though.

The thing is that I agree with that. I would love to have the layout of the naval units but the corps is a very organic construction. It has no constant, at all. I am not sure what numbers could be interesting judging by that.

If anyone have any good ideas of what I could put into matrix for each landunit I would be grateful. Any idea is welcome and I will see if I can find that number

Right now my thoughts are this:
1. Raised when?
2. What fronts?
3. When disbanded?

Then I add any extra information I can find. I sometimes go by information on some interesting commander, sometimes by some interesting battle and sometimes some freak fact I can get my hands on.

I am sure that when I will start on the more famous corps there will be plenty of information but these are the grunts, the backbone and I do use any scrap I can find.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

A couple of units from today's allotment for formatting.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

2nd and last in the series. I finished formatting the Soviet air units today and started on the German air. I also did most of the German navy.

[CBoehm]

I can see from the reorg cost of the Pe-8 ...that variable reorg cost is not considered a standard ...hmm