Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[hdosbe]

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
 
 

[hdosbe]

- (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 [X(], 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

[sajbalk]

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.

[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

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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.

[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

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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).

[Mike Parker]

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!

[hdosbe]

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

[MajorDude]

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)...

[warspite1]

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 [:D]

[Gurggulk]

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.

[paulderynck]

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"

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

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

[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

[composer99]

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.

[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.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

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.

[warspite1]

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 [8D] - the game is, I mean really is BRILLIANT despite these anomalies.

[Froonp]

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.