Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[IKerensky_alt]

Please, could you post the comment on the "Chevalier" French ARM ? I am always on for a good laugh... And I really wonder how you will justify the unit name
 
A bit harder than the Mme Chang, chinese CV...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

Please, could you post the comment on the "Chevalier" French ARM ? I am always on for a good laugh... And I really wonder how you will justify the unit name

A bit harder than the Mme Chang, chinese CV...

Why exactly should I do this?[&:]

[Maesphil74]

Steve,
I could try the Ethiopia write up.  But I have some questions first...
Should I do a write up for all units (according to an excel file I found on Patrice his site, this should be 1 HQ INF, 3 INF units and 2 MIL units)? Is that the correct number of units?
How long should 1 write-up be?
What reference material is allowed/necessary? (is stuff from a wiki enough or do you need references from 'serious' historical material?)
If the Ethiopia units work out for me and you are happy with them; I could do some other minors.
 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Fleming

Steve,
I could try the Ethiopia write up.  But I have some questions first...
Should I do a write up for all units (according to an excel file I found on Patrice his site, this should be 1 HQ INF, 3 INF units and 2 MIL units)? Is that the correct number of units?
How long should 1 write-up be?
What reference material is allowed/necessary? (is stuff from a wiki enough or do you need references from 'serious' historical material?)
If the Ethiopia units work out for me and you are happy with them; I could do some other minors.

Great!. Thanks.

Send me an email (SHokanson@HawaiianTel.net) and I'll send you back a "getting started" for land unit writeups. That covers all the questions you posed here.

The HQ is already done - the other Ethiopian units aren't. [Graham Dodge did long writeups for all the HQs in the game.]

[Maesphil74]

I'll send you an email when I get home.
I have started reading some reference material [:)]
Seems the Belgians have played a rather important role in the training of the Ethiopian forces; which is a nice bonus trying this write-up as I'm a Belgian myself!

expect an email later today!!

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here are some writeups from new volunteers for working on the land units.

These two on Persia are from Augusti.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Second and last in the series.

These writeups on Ethiopian units are from Phil. [Because Ethiopia was conquered, they do not have a force pool, per se. I had to use the Pools form to access conquered units.]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Joel has done the writeups for the US Marines. Here is one example [I have asked him to do more writeups, and after you read this one, I think you will agree.]

[Zorachus99]

[&o][&o][&o]

[Maesphil74]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Second and last in the series.

These writeups on Ethiopian units are from Phil. [Because Ethiopia was conquered, they do not have a force pool, per se. I had to use the Pools form to access conquered units.]

Guys,
I had a lot of fun reading about these units and doing the writeup.
I'll do some more! [:D]

But I have 1 question. I never played WIF (but have read the rules and I'm learning) so I'm a bit confused about doing a writeup for a "TERR unit".
If I understand correctly TERR units are controlled by the major power controlling the TERR units home country. (according to rule 22.4.5).
The problem now is: the 2 ethiopian TERR units could be controlled by the Italian player or an allied player depending on the status (liberated/occupied) of the Ethiopian home country. What is then expected from the writeups?
Aren't these units fictious (representing the inherent manpower of the country that can be used for reserve mobilization)?

All feedback/clarifications welcome!

PS: all feedback (positive/negative) on the 3 Ehtiopians I allready did is welcome as well [;)]

[paulderynck]

I think they represent the local levies from colonies that could be fielded by any major power that controlled them. Most of them are African and would be the classic native conscripts commanded by white officers. The difference being which European country the white officers come from.
 
This is not universal though. FREX the Australian Territorials. In games where Japan conquers Australia and then builds them, they would be Fifth Columnists I guess, but having Australians fighting for the Japanese and fielding that kind of comparative combat power is really splashing in the deep end of fantasy.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Fleming

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Second and last in the series.

These writeups on Ethiopian units are from Phil. [Because Ethiopia was conquered, they do not have a force pool, per se. I had to use the Pools form to access conquered units.]

Guys,
I had a lot of fun reading about these units and doing the writeup.
I'll do some more! [:D]

But I have 1 question. I never played WIF (but have read the rules and I'm learning) so I'm a bit confused about doing a writeup for a "TERR unit".
If I understand correctly TERR units are controlled by the major power controlling the TERR units home country. (according to rule 22.4.5).
The problem now is: the 2 ethiopian TERR units could be controlled by the Italian player or an allied player depending on the status (liberated/occupied) of the Ethiopian home country. What is then expected from the writeups?
Aren't these units fictious (representing the inherent manpower of the country that can be used for reserve mobilization)?

All feedback/clarifications welcome!

PS: all feedback (positive/negative) on the 3 Ehtiopians I allready did is welcome as well [;)]

A lot of the territorial units have already been done. You might read some of them for examples of how they were handled by other writers.

[grisouille_slith]

Capitan, I sent you my last description of land units the 30 March. Did you received them?

I have no news from you [:(]

[Caquineur]

Many thanks to all the authors of these unit descriptions !
I really like them.

There's just something that I think should be changed, and I hope not being misunderstood here, as I'm French and not used to writing in English, in the unit descriptions : for example in the second paragraph describing Tehran's militia, instead of "England", IMO it would be better to say "United Kingdom" - if I'm not mistaken, the United Kingdom is a country, and England is one of her components. I think it would be more correct towards the Welsh, the people of Northern Ireland and the Scots, who are citizens of the UK, not citizens of England.

And, on the same subject, if some unit descriptions mention "Russia" instead of "the USSR", maybe a more precise wording would be better there as well.

And finally, there may be cases where "the Commonwealth" should be used instead of the United Kingdom...

Just my two pence [;)]

Alain

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I think they represent the local levies from colonies that could be fielded by any major power that controlled them. Most of them are African and would be the classic native conscripts commanded by white officers. The difference being which European country the white officers come from.

This is not universal though. FREX the Australian Territorials. In games where Japan conquers Australia and then builds them, they would be Fifth Columnists I guess, but having Australians fighting for the Japanese and fielding that kind of comparative combat power is really splashing in the deep end of fantasy.

Not true! Heaps of blokes would join up and once armed and given ammunition they would promptly shoot their Japanese officers and head for the bush to join the resistance [;)]

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Caquineur

Many thanks to all the authors of these unit descriptions !
I really like them.

There's just something that I think should be changed, and I hope not being misunderstood here, as I'm French and not used to writing in English, in the unit descriptions : for example in the second paragraph describing Tehran's militia, instead of "England", IMO it would be better to say "United Kingdom" - if I'm not mistaken, the United Kingdom is a country, and England is one of her components. I think it would be more correct towards the Welsh, the people of Northern Ireland and the Scots, who are citizens of the UK, not citizens of England.

And, on the same subject, if some unit descriptions mention "Russia" instead of "the USSR", maybe a more precise wording would be better there as well.

And finally, there may be cases where "the Commonwealth" should be used instead of the United Kingdom...

Just my two pence [;)]

Alain

Thanks. This is easy to do with a text editor finding all the instances so they can be judged one byb one.

[warspite1]

But I have 1 question. I never played WIF (but have read the rules and I'm learning) so I'm a bit confused about doing a writeup for a "TERR unit".
If I understand correctly TERR units are controlled by the major power controlling the TERR units home country. (according to rule 22.4.5).

[/quote] Warspite 1

Fleming - this was my first stab at the Canadian Territorial (needs revising when the naval units are done but - this is the general idea).

.T Canadian Territorial
.P This unit is not a unit that existed in WWII. Territorial units represent, along with Militia units, additional forces that could/were available to a country in WWII in addition to her combat Corps and Divisional units.
.P Out of a population of approximately 11.5 million, 1.1 million Canadians served in the armed forces in the Second World War and of these circa 750,000 made up the Army. Those enlisting for service represented about 40% of the male population between the ages of 18 and 45.
.P However, taken as a percentage of the population, Canada's total military personnel represents a proportionately smaller mobilisation than that which occurred in Great Britain, the Dominion of Australia, or the Dominion of New Zealand. Approximately half of Canada's army and three-quarters of its air-force personnel never left the country, compared to the overseas deployment of approximately three-quarters of the forces of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.
.P The reason for such a large number never leaving Canada was that although the Canadian government introduced conscription, it promised only volunteers would go overseas. This policy was only changed towards the end of the war (by referendum) when it was clear that combat losses in Italy and France could not be replaced by volunteers alone. It was only from November 1944 that non-volunteers were sent.
.P However the above is not to denigrate the role of the oldest Dominion in the British Commonwealth.
.P On 25 August 1939, units of the Canadian Militia were called out to defend vital locations throughout Canada due to the developing crisis in Europe. Following the German invasion of Poland on 1st September 1939, Canada mobilised the Canadian Active Service Force, a corps of two divisions. She formally declared war on the 10th September 1939.
.P Between 1st September and 10th September, Canada used its neutral status to purchase $20 million worth of arms from the then neutral United States before entering the war alongside the mother country.
.P In addition to her military contribution, the war production from Canadian industry was vital. Canada employed over 1m workers in essential war industries. When Britain lost the bulk of her fighting vehicles on the beaches of Dunkirk, it was to Canada that Britain turned.
.P In total Canadian industry produced over 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms.
.P Total value of war production was $10bn or $100bn today.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Caquineur

Many thanks to all the authors of these unit descriptions !
I really like them.

There's just something that I think should be changed, and I hope not being misunderstood here, as I'm French and not used to writing in English, in the unit descriptions : for example in the second paragraph describing Tehran's militia, instead of "England", IMO it would be better to say "United Kingdom" - if I'm not mistaken, the United Kingdom is a country, and England is one of her components. I think it would be more correct towards the Welsh, the people of Northern Ireland and the Scots, who are citizens of the UK, not citizens of England.

And, on the same subject, if some unit descriptions mention "Russia" instead of "the USSR", maybe a more precise wording would be better there as well.

And finally, there may be cases where "the Commonwealth" should be used instead of the United Kingdom...

Just my two pence [;)]

Alain

Warspite 1

This can be quite tricky in practice! What I have tried (and sometimes no doubt failed!) to do is use the appropriate terms for each situation. For example, generally when I write about the "Soviet Union" but when writing about the Arctic convoys, its "Russian convoys" only because its the most common way of describing them in history books.

When describing the British Empire/Commonwealth in an Army context then I generally use British Army - even where troops used for a particular attack may be non-British e.g. some East African engagements. This keeps things simple and at then of the day the troops were under British command. Australian troops in the Pacific would be Australian Army while Australian and Indian Units in Malaya would be British Army. Individual units are referred to by their home country within the text e.g. Austrlalian 6th Division attacked blah blah

For naval units I use Royal Navy unless the operation/action was specifically an operation by another Dominion. However, I make clear where a ship comes from in the text. E.g. in the Mediterranean I may write about the Royal Navy cruiser squadron consisting of Liverpool, Gloucester, HMAS Hobart etc.

There is little reason to use England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. British or more accurately UK should be used.
Again, there can be occasions where the individual country is required - but this is rare.

Clear as mud no doubt [:D]

[Maesphil74]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Fleming - this was my first stab at the Canadian Territorial (needs revising when the naval units are done but - this is the general idea).

Thanks for that warspite.
I finished the Ethiopian TERR along those lines 'not an actual unit' 'local recruiting of Italians'.

cheers,

[obermeister]

Just wanted to say you all are doing a fantastic job with these unit writeups.  Are you really doing this kind of work for all 5000 or so units in the game?  Even the kind of detail being given to minor countries, wow!