Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[Largus_Means]

Hey everybody, long time lurker, first time poster, and very excited about the development of MWiF.

Having been a number of years since I have played the board game version and having read these write ups just a quick question came to mind. Is there an option to upgrade the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to the 15inch guns that were equiped on the Bismark class? It would work as a 2nd stage build and replace the counter with the upgraded unit. For some reason I thought you could do this. If not, it would be an intresting option that could be included and a very neat varient. (Not sure if you would ever try it, but....)

Cheers

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Largus_Means

Hey everybody, long time lurker, first time poster, and very excited about the development of MWiF.

Having been a number of years since I have played the board game version and having read these write ups just a quick question came to mind. Is there an option to upgrade the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to the 15inch guns that were equiped on the Bismark class? It would work as a 2nd stage build and replace the counter with the upgraded unit. For some reason I thought you could do this. If not, it would be an intresting option that could be included and a very neat varient. (Not sure if you would ever try it, but....)

Cheers

Funny that you are asking this, because there are an upgrade to the Schnarhorst and another for the Gneisenau on the new 2007 MiF countersheet.
There is an imbedded system in MWiF to upgrade a ship to a future version (which is a new counter).

Gneisenau before upgrade :
Surface Combat : 5
Defense : 3
AA : 2
Shore bombardment : 2
Movement : 6
Range : 3

Gneisenau after upgrade :
Surface Combat : 7
Defense : 3
AA : 3
Shore bombardment : 3
Movement : 6
Range : 3


Schnarhorst before upgrade :
Surface Combat : 6
Defense : 3
AA : 2
Shore bombardment : 2
Movement : 6
Range : 3

Schnarhorst after upgrade :
Surface Combat : 8
Defense : 3
AA : 3
Shore bombardment : 3
Movement : 6
Range : 3


For comparison :
Bismarck :
Surface Combat : 7
Defense : 2
AA : 2
Shore bombardment : 3
Movement : 5
Range : 4

Tirpitz :
Surface Combat : 8
Defense : 2
AA : 2
Shore bombardment : 3
Movement : 5
Range : 4

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Largus_Means

Hey everybody, long time lurker, first time poster, and very excited about the development of MWiF.

Having been a number of years since I have played the board game version and having read these write ups just a quick question came to mind. Is there an option to upgrade the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to the 15inch guns that were equiped on the Bismark class? It would work as a 2nd stage build and replace the counter with the upgraded unit. For some reason I thought you could do this. If not, it would be an intresting option that could be included and a very neat varient. (Not sure if you would ever try it, but....)

Cheers

Funny that you are asking this, because there are an upgrade to the Schnarhorst and another for the Gneisenau on the new 2007 MiF countersheet.
There is an imbedded system in MWiF to upgrade a ship to a future version (which is a new counter).

Gneisenau before upgrade :
Surface Combat : 5
Defense : 3
AA : 2
Shore bombardment : 2
Movement : 6
Range : 3

Gneisenau after upgrade :
Surface Combat : 7
Defense : 3
AA : 3
Shore bombardment : 3
Movement : 6
Range : 3


Schnarhorst before upgrade :
Surface Combat : 6
Defense : 3
AA : 2
Shore bombardment : 2
Movement : 6
Range : 3

Schnarhorst after upgrade :
Surface Combat : 8
Defense : 3
AA : 3
Shore bombardment : 3
Movement : 6
Range : 3


For comparison :
Bismarck :
Surface Combat : 7
Defense : 2
AA : 2
Shore bombardment : 3
Movement : 5
Range : 4

Tirpitz :
Surface Combat : 8
Defense : 2
AA : 2
Shore bombardment : 3
Movement : 5
Range : 4

Always the last to know[:)].

Patrice, did you include these as replacement naval units when you made the modifications for the 2007 countersheets?

[NeBert]

Some questions to your Battleship Strenght-factors (mainly dealing with 'before upgrade'):

[&:] why does Scharnhorst have a better Surface Cambat Factor than Gneisenau?
both ships were equipped with the same heavy- and medium artillery (9x28cm; 12x15cm; 14x 10,5cm - note, the 10,5cm guns were also heavy AA)
[&:] the same question for Bismark and Tirpitz.
Both had the same heavy- and medium artillery (8x38,1cm; 12x15cm; 16x10,5cm)

+ a general Comment to Upgrades of Ships:
During the War most Ships (from little Gun-Boats to Aircraft Carriers) were upgraded!
At least the number of AA-Guns was incresed (small upgrade in terms of effort), sometimes the defence was strengthened (e.g. Torpedo-Bulges; medium upgrade), a few ships got better heavy artillery (Gneisenau started the conversion, Queen Elizabeth Class BB´s and some Japanese BB´s finished their conversion; large upgrade-at least one year and a lot of resources).
Other than Aircraft ships were a long term invest and they regulary needed such upgrades to keep their relative strength over the years.

So my question - is there such an upgrade-possibility included in MWIF? Maybe some months on the production spiral to improve the AA-Faktor by 1?

Regards
Robert

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Always the last to know[:)].

Patrice, did you include these as replacement naval units when you made the modifications for the 2007 countersheets?

I think I did.

In Standard Units NAV.CSV :
Gneisenau = Unit 4768
Schnarhorst = Unit 4771

Replacement Gneisenau = Unit 5105
Replacement Schnarhorst = Unit 5106

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: NeBert

Some questions to your Battleship Strenght-factors (mainly dealing with 'before upgrade'):

[&:] why does Scharnhorst have a better Surface Cambat Factor than Gneisenau?
both ships were equipped with the same heavy- and medium artillery (9x28cm; 12x15cm; 14x 10,5cm - note, the 10,5cm guns were also heavy AA)
[&:] the same question for Bismark and Tirpitz.
Both had the same heavy- and medium artillery (8x38,1cm; 12x15cm; 16x10,5cm)

I was sure someone would ask.
I think that this is because the values are calculated using a complicated formula, and that the result is a figure between 5 and 6. So the designer put a rounded down value to one of them and a rounded up value to the other. So that their sum is accurate.

+ a general Comment to Upgrades of Ships:
During the War most Ships (from little Gun-Boats to Aircraft Carriers) were upgraded!
At least the number of AA-Guns was incresed (small upgrade in terms of effort), sometimes the defence was strengthened (e.g. Torpedo-Bulges; medium upgrade), a few ships got better heavy artillery (Gneisenau started the conversion, Queen Elizabeth Class BB´s and some Japanese BB´s finished their conversion; large upgrade-at least one year and a lot of resources).
Other than Aircraft ships were a long term invest and they regulary needed such upgrades to keep their relative strength over the years.

So my question - is there such an upgrade-possibility included in MWIF? Maybe some months on the production spiral to improve the AA-Faktor by 1?

This does not exist per see for the moment, but why not in a future expansion !
I'd suggest a repair cycle for upgrading, as a lot of ships begin the game in the repair pool, and were in reality refitted with better equipments and armaments. Saratoga for instance.

[composer99]

"Intangible" factors such as quality of the officer corps, degree of crew training, and overall officer/crew competency might also account for differing combat factors in ships that have identical armanent.

Edit: For this one would need to examine the overall record of each ship's wartime service and see if their differing performances could be explained by such factors.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Always the last to know[:)].

Patrice, did you include these as replacement naval units when you made the modifications for the 2007 countersheets?

I think I did.

In Standard Units NAV.CSV :
Gneisenau = Unit 4768
Schnarhorst = Unit 4771

Replacement Gneisenau = Unit 5105
Replacement Schnarhorst = Unit 5106

Thanks.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: composer99

"Intangible" factors such as quality of the officer corps, degree of crew training, and overall officer/crew competency might also account for differing combat factors in ships that have identical armanent.

Edit: For this one would need to examine the overall record of each ship's wartime service and see if their differing performances could be explained by such factors.

A practical example of this subject in action were the old US BBs which just about survived Pearl Harbour with heavy damage- West Virginia springs to mind- she was pretty much unrecognisable from her pre war appearance- and presumably a much more capable vessel as a result.

Radar, fire control and increased AA were probably the most significant "upgrades"- although the former two are not really included in the Attack factor calcs, I believe.

I would however have an aesthetic & technical concern that the effect of changing the guns from 11" to 15" might have been slightly over-egged in the example of Scharnhorst & Gneisnau. The lighter guns were originally retained (as I understand it) to enable this class to carry a heavier armour belt. Increasing the size of the guns would presumably have to have been done at the expense of something else- perhaps speed, which is also a factor in calculating the attack factors. For Scharnhorst class this would be important as speed was one of their notable positive traits. Stability might have been another issue- the Scharnhorsts were fairly light battleships.

I guess it just grates a little to have a Scharnhorst with bigger numbers than Bismarck.

I think the technical aspects of how the calcs are worked makes it difficult to have a generic upgrade within the game.

[Arron69]

Hey Patrice.
Just out of interest. How mush does this upgrade cost, and how long does it take on the circle?

Andi.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin

Hey Patrice.
Just out of interest. How mush does this upgrade cost, and how long does it take on the circle?

Andi.

It follows this rule :

**********************************
4.1.4 Replacement naval units (SiF option 9)
A few naval units have a gold box around their availability year. In a later year, replacement units will turn up for these units. Their availability year will also be shown in a gold box.
If the original unit has been removed from the game when the replacement unit arrives, remove the replacement unit from the game.
Otherwise, during any reinforcement step, you can remove the original unit from the game and add the replacement unit.
Put the replacement unit in the force pool if the original unit is either in the force pool or face-down on the production circle; or
Put the replacement unit in the construction pool if the original unit is in:
ï the repair pool,
ï the construction pool,
ï on the map, or
ï face-up on the production circle.
**********************************
So, it costs a second cycle most of the time (when the ship has at least its hull already built) or the full price of the ship if the ship has not its hull built. A Second cycle is 1 year of time, and from 1 to 4 BP generaly (average 2-3). For the Schnarhorst & Gneisenau Sister Ships, it costs 3 BP.

[NeBert]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I was sure someone would ask.
I think that this is because the values are calculated using a complicated formula, and that the result is a figure between 5 and 6. So the designer put a rounded down value to one of them and a rounded up value to the other. So that their sum is accurate.

No problem for me! I will take it as it is as long as the whole game has the right balance.
I just think that once MWIF will be spread out such things will attract a lot of people´s attention, just because it´s easier to compare the main guns rather than having a complicated equation that nobody has in his mind.
Some may think (and post) the game is not very accurate and so on...
To me finally it´s just a trade off between "accurate" calculating and simple comparison to balance the Unit-strength. Maybe some manual "adjustments" might avoid many questions in the future.

Robert

[NeBert]

ORIGINAL: composer99

"Intangible" factors such as quality of the officer corps, degree of crew training, and overall officer/crew competency might also account for differing combat factors in ships that have identical armanent.

Edit: For this one would need to examine the overall record of each ship's wartime service and see if their differing performances could be explained by such factors.

Basicly you are right, but as far as I know MWIF has no Crew-quality factor included. I have played >War in the Pacific< where you can train your ship-crews just by sending your ship to sea, train your Pilots by flying missions etc. This is all not in this game (or did I miss something?) and if, then it should be handled separately.
I posted somewhere else that the production of an Air-Unit (just as an example) could be accelerated by the player with the effect of a reduction to the Combat-Factors (due to bad Pilot-training). The reduction would be eliminated as soon as the normal productiontime is reached (surviving pilots were trained in service). The same would be possible to ships and Landunits (I think, the Militia-Units are already bad trained Landunits which can be produced faster, but they can never reach a higher level)
But all of this I think is future stuff for the next century [;)]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

...
Radar, fire control and increased AA were probably the most significant "upgrades"- although the former two are not really included in the Attack factor calcs, I believe.

If Radar and fire control were not used in the calculation (who knows?) then they must be included!
These equipments were definitely as important as the guns themselves (see the Night Battles around Guadalcanal in ´42 - many of the US-Victories were only possible with Radar-Firecontrol).

I would however have an aesthetic & technical concern that the effect of changing the guns from 11" to 15" might have been slightly over-egged in the example of Scharnhorst & Gneisnau. The lighter guns were originally retained (as I understand it) to enable this class to carry a heavier armour belt. Increasing the size of the guns would presumably have to have been done at the expense of something else- perhaps speed, which is also a factor in calculating the attack factors. For Scharnhorst class this would be important as speed was one of their notable positive traits. Stability might have been another issue- the Scharnhorsts were fairly light battleships.

You are right but as far as I know it was planned to replace 9 11" guns with 6 15" guns - so the overall balance was considered.
On the other hand the german navy sometimes tended to equip its ships with too large guns. (e.g. some Destroyers with 6" guns - the stability of those ships was not good)

I guess it just grates a little to have a Scharnhorst with bigger numbers than Bismarck.

I think the technical aspects of how the calcs are worked makes it difficult to have a generic upgrade within the game.

Maybe as Patrice already proposed one possible additional repair-cycle per ship that doubles the AA-Faktor?
Also next Century [:)] ...

Robert

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: NeBert

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I was sure someone would ask.
I think that this is because the values are calculated using a complicated formula, and that the result is a figure between 5 and 6. So the designer put a rounded down value to one of them and a rounded up value to the other. So that their sum is accurate.

No problem for me! I will take it as it is as long as the whole game has the right balance.
I just think that once MWIF will be spread out such things will attract a lot of people´s attention, just because it´s easier to compare the main guns rather than having a complicated equation that nobody has in his mind.
Some may think (and post) the game is not very accurate and so on...
To me finally it´s just a trade off between "accurate" calculating and simple comparison to balance the Unit-strength. Maybe some manual "adjustments" might avoid many questions in the future.

Robert

Robert, this game has been out since 1996 in this version, and was sold in tens of thousands copies, so I take it that it is already widely spread out, and a lot of people's attention was already drawn to it, so I do not worry too much about the game being criticized for its accuracy [:D].

[Froonp]

Maybe as Patrice already proposed one possible additional repair-cycle per ship that doubles the AA-Faktor?
Also next Century ...

Double the AA would be too much. I'd only allow it to increase by 1-2 factors.

[Arron69]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin

Hey Patrice.
Just out of interest. How mush does this upgrade cost, and how long does it take on the circle?

Andi.

It follows this rule :

**********************************
4.1.4 Replacement naval units (SiF option 9)
A few naval units have a gold box around their availability year. In a later year, replacement units will turn up for these units. Their availability year will also be shown in a gold box.
If the original unit has been removed from the game when the replacement unit arrives, remove the replacement unit from the game.
Otherwise, during any reinforcement step, you can remove the original unit from the game and add the replacement unit.
Put the replacement unit in the force pool if the original unit is either in the force pool or face-down on the production circle; or
Put the replacement unit in the construction pool if the original unit is in:
ï the repair pool,
ï the construction pool,
ï on the map, or
ï face-up on the production circle.
**********************************
So, it costs a second cycle most of the time (when the ship has at least its hull already built) or the full price of the ship if the ship has not its hull built. A Second cycle is 1 year of time, and from 1 to 4 BP generaly (average 2-3). For the Schnarhorst & Gneisenau Sister Ships, it costs 3 BP.

Cheers.
Andi.

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: composer99

"Intangible" factors such as quality of the officer corps, degree of crew training, and overall officer/crew competency might also account for differing combat factors in ships that have identical armanent.

Edit: For this one would need to examine the overall record of each ship's wartime service and see if their differing performances could be explained by such factors.

"Intangible" factors such as quality of the officer corps, degree of crew training, and overall officer/crew competency might also account for differing combat factors in ships that have identical armanent. Edit: For this one would need to examine the overall record of each ship's wartime service and see if their differing performances could be explained by such factors.

I doubt if Harry did that level of research. But this is a great analysis on Composer99s part, which also explains why identical model planes have different factors. War is just not scientifically predictable and we are not talking about the performance of a light machine gun in Squad Leader, we are talking about the performance of very large groups of men. I also don't think you will see World in Flames moving towards much increased detail on the naval counters or training time for units; the only replacement naval counters I think you'll see in a majority of games are the Japanese super-CVs or maybe the Seydlitz CV for the Germans. If things like that are what interests you in gaming, and they are fascinating to study via a game, there are plenty of of other games that deliver that level of detail. WiF has just enough detail to give a great feel of realism, but without ever sacrificing it's most endearing quality - the elegant playability.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: NeBert

...
If Radar and fire control were not used in the calculation (who knows?) then they must be included!
These equipments were definitely as important as the guns themselves (see the Night Battles around Guadalcanal in ´42 - many of the US-Victories were only possible with Radar-Firecontrol).

According to the notes in the SiF annual by Bradley Perret, who was involved with Harry in putting the factors together, neither were included in the formulae, although radar was "dealt with outside the factors, because it was fitted progressively through the war", and fire control was ignored due to lack of data although US AA firecontrol was accounted for in the good US fleet AA factors.

I think the radar decision probably overrates the Italian fleet- the Regia Marina didnt bother with it till far too late! As for F/C you may have a point but to be fair the Yanks dont need much help with their factors, they already have the best navy by miles.

You are right but as far as I know it was planned to replace 9 11" guns with 6 15" guns - so the overall balance was considered.
On the other hand the german navy sometimes tended to equip its ships with too large guns. (e.g. some Destroyers with 6" guns - the stability of those ships was not good)

Not only the Germans. I've read that there was at least one inter-war British battleship which suffered structural damage when firing full salvoes. I wish I could find the reference now to confirm that! I also seem to think there may have been difficulties with the big guns on the Deutchland class too.

Serves to illustrate that even if it was a planned upgrade- (which it undoubtably was, they actually started to do the work on Gneisnau) - it wouldnt necessarily follow that you would get a better ship out of it.

[mlees]

I've read that there was at least one inter-war British battleship which suffered structural damage when firing full salvoes.

The British Nelson class, with the three main turrets all mounted forward of the superstructure, suffered bridge superstructure damage when the main guns were trained too far aft.

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/nelson_class.htm

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: mlees

The British Nelson class, with the three main turrets all mounted forward of the superstructure, suffered bridge superstructure damage when the main guns were trained too far aft.

Lack of rear firepower wasn't a problem... British Battleships always point their bows to the enemy