World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.
this isn't the place to debate something like this, but a purchaser from a Third World country, of which I don't think there will ever be very many, wouldn't much care for the phrase "The only solution seemed to be to annex the place", which is rather Imperialistic to say the least. The bit about "the only rewards" is the same. Political history is much more a matter of perspective than military history and could be left out of the write-ups altogether, imo.
I agree with Warspite - the post immediately above.
While we can not post all ~2500 writeups, by posting a good sample of them we can gather useful feedback on how they "come across" to a variety of readers. Your points here are quite valid and should be applied to not only this one, but need to also be weighed when reading through others about territorial and militia units of minor countries.
As I have said many times before, I would much prefer to read criticisms of MWIF here, when I can do something about it, rather than later, from someone who has paid money for the game after it's released. So thanks - which is meant quite sincerely.
ORIGINAL: warspite1
There`s some good fleshing out of my original write-ups (not the Rangoon unit), although just a few points:
- I think some additional comma`s are required
- allies should be capital A
- general tidy up where P. appears where .P should be (for new paragraph) and minor typos
...
Thanks for noticing the P./.P problem - I will correct that as soon as possible, and I will also give another look about commas and other typos.
The problem I have is that I don't have a personal computer yet - I can use the one at my job to work on text/data/rtf/word/excel/etc... files, but I don't want to use it to run a game (even MWiF). So there are some checks that I'm unable to do now - I will do them as soon as I buy a personal computer (in November or December, probably)
About formatting codes (.P, .B, ...), I did an exhaustive search in the file before sending the previous version to Steve, but forgot to do this with the current one [:@]
On matters relating to the texts themselves, I will send a mail to David right away - I'm sure he will read all comments with attention. Sometimes we exchange 4 mails for 1 single sentence, so you can be assured the work is taken seriously - well, most of the time [:D]
And on a more general note, do not hesitate to send me PMs or e-mails when you notice typos or spelling mistakes in the land unit write-ups. I will read them carefully. Anyway, as English isn't my native language, I always read English carefully [;)]
Alain, aka Caquineur, talkative as expected from a French Southerner
I have a minor quibble about the 2nd Canadian Arm history. The last sentence in the paragraph just above the bullet points reads, "For the last two months of the year the five divisions, united for the first time, freed the Netherlands from occupation and famine." From the context of the earlier sentences in the same paragraph I believe the author meant the "For the last two months of the war" and not "For the last two months of the year." It's a minor point.
No sane man can afford to dispense with debilitating pleasures; and no ascetic can be considered reliably sane.
Some brief responses to the comments on some of the land descriptions that I have been expanding. First I am taking the information more or less from my books so apologies if they are more military than political.
Warspite: Your entry on the 5th Canadian Corps was not removed. I instead shifted it to the description on the 3rd (or 4th? - my memory fails) to which it would be more appropriate. If a 5th Corps had ever been needed to be formed the issue of limited conscription would have vanished many years before! I was also trying to ensure that each entry contained different information on the vexing question of Canadian conscription - for example the whole convulated issue of the lack of support for conscription in Quebec is covered in the Montreal Militia counter.
Brian-Brian and Warspite: The issue of how to describe past events is not within my purview. However (happily throwing in my two-cents) my experience is that members of the 'third world' much prefer to have imperialism/colonialism described as it was in all its sorry grandeur and calamity rather than brushed over. Further in the case of Burma I felt it was important to a player to realise that that the colonial aggression implicit in phrases such as 'annex' and 'only rewards' was essential to understanding why Burma collapsed in the way it did. In the Rangoon and the other Burma counter text I emphasise that the British were never able to form loyal 'native' troops comparable to those of India, Kenya or Nigeria. Instead because of the lasting anger generated in the Burmese ruling and religious classes it was necessary to import Gurkha soldiers instead.
ItBurns: You are absolutely right. Mea Culpa - it should of course be 'the last two months of the WAR'!
Finally Warspite: once I have finished the commonwealth land I will with glee pounce upon your RN right-ups and see if I can make the same sort of helpful comments that you have of my work!
Warspite: I tracked down the entry that contained your material on Canadian conscription. I moved it to the 3rd Corps - shown below but obviously in text not displayed form.
[2121] [3 Can]
.T 3rd Canadian Mechanised Corps [font="times new roman"].P The Canadians formed two overseas corps during WWII. Since 3 divisions (the 6th, 7th and 8th) remained in Canada they were available to form a third corps. However there was no need to concentrate them in one place. For most of the war the 6th Division served on the west coast, the 7th Division the east coast and the 8th was created as a back-up the the 6th, command the remaining units in British Columbia. It even included an armoured train which ran along the coast near Prince Albert in the north. Another limitation was the lack of the qualified staff officers needed for a new command As a result a 3rd Canadian Mechanised Corps never came into existence. Had it been formed it is likely that there would have been a high proportion of armoured troops since the government feared heavy losses.[/font] [font="times new roman"].P This was because while conscription took place in Canada in WWII, the Canadian government initially agreed to send only volunteers overseas (non-volunteers would serve within Canada). Although this resulted in a good quality force, it was clear that volunteers alone could not provide the Canadian Army with sufficient replacements to cover combat losses.[/font]
.P As a result the government held a referendum, the results of which meant that all conscripted troops could be sent overseas. This did not actually happen until November 1944.
I have a minor quibble about the 2nd Canadian Arm history. The last sentence in the paragraph just above the bullet points reads, "For the last two months of the year the five divisions, united for the first time, freed the Netherlands from occupation and famine." From the context of the earlier sentences in the same paragraph I believe the author meant the "For the last two months of the war" and not "For the last two months of the year." It's a minor point.
ORIGINAL: mariandavid
ItBurns: You are absolutely right. Mea Culpa - it should of course be 'the last two months of the WAR'!
I think it would be better to write something like "The British never raised local forces in Burma on the scale of an infantry corps such as the Burma MIL unit represents. Their rule in Burma was neither as long-term or as peaceful as in other parts of their empire, and it was not (add "considered"? did the British think that?) as likely that Burmese citizens would have made good soldiers fighting for the British side in a similar manner as the Indian Army. The one Burmese infantry division raised, the 1st, bore this out when...." That really would be enough neutral (hopefully) background on Burma for the game I think. To casually just use the verb 'annex' the way Winston Churchill would have described the place wouldn't just upset Third World citizens; to use the verb 'conquer' might be closer to the truth but might upset someone else, but do we even need to consider how British rule came to Burma in the 19th century for a WWII game? History is water under the bridge, but that doesn't mean we have to look at it through the same lenses as the people who made the history. WWII was the end of empires, and to open such a topic, one much more fraught with emotions, can only irritate people from one political viewpoint or another unless it is handled oh so delicately. The disintegration of the 1st Burmese Infantry and the retreat of the one good Indian division is something more like the notional units in the game, imo. Maybe they did make those two units into a specific corps though, I don't know.
edit: for the arrival of the Chinese, enabling the British retreat somewhat, could we get some props in there for "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell too, if we have the British commanders named?
Finally Warspite: once I have finished the commonwealth land I will with glee pounce upon your RN right-ups and see if I can make the same sort of helpful comments that you have of my work!
Warspite1
Mariandavid - that would be good thank you [:)]. As I say, the feed-back has fallen off of late and yet have subsequently seen errors in some of my write ups [:(]. It would be good therefore to have another pair of eyes looking at these. I find checking someone else`s work easier than my own - I guess because I know what I intended to say and sort of go into skim read mode.....
Thanks again - and please keep the land units coming.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Brian Brian: As I said I think we disagree (and who knows who is right) as to what the attitude of peoples who were an unwilling part of an empire would be to a description of it; I honestly think that they would prefer flat statements! On your helpful alternatives (and Alain and I will look at both of the Burma items). The trouble is that I am considering the 1st Burma Division as part of an Indian Corps marker; the two militia/territorial counters (only one has been presented) only cover local units - it was here that the aversion of the urban (especially) Burmese showed.
In the game I assume that a 1 or 2 point unit (typical militia/terrorial) are not formed divisions and corps - the key in Burma is to note that these are mainly Indian and British - not Burmese. Were I a present day Burmese (and I am so glad that I am not!!) I would be offended if this was not shown or if the reason why was not presented.
I agree that it would be nice to consider as you say "History is water under the bridge, but that doesn't mean we have to look at it through the same lenses as the people who made the history." Unfortunately when doing a game the way they did look through the lens is fundamental and cannot be ignored, while both gamers and readers deserve to know why. As another example - how can one possibly explain the lack of local support for the Allies in the Netherlands East Indies in 1941 and then again in 1945 without stating the cruel truth of the character of the Dutch occupation, followed by the perceived betrayal by and equally cruel actions of the Japanese.
On dear and lovable Joe Stillwell - my understanding is that the Chinese divisions (notably the ones that helped save the Burma Army) and Joe himself are already covered. Both Slim and Alexander stated that these Chinese soldiers were as good as any in the British/Indian/Gurkha armies.
Okay - am officially hacked off with this naming of ships malarchy[&:] [:(] [&:] [:(]
Does anyone know what Karyu is named after? My guess is:
- Yamato-class were named after provinces (Yamato, Musashi and Shinano)
- I cannot see there was a Karyu Province, however, Karyu was never officially named
- Had she been built she would almost certainly have been converted to an aircraft carrier
- Therefore ADG have given her the name of a Dragon (Fire Dragon?) in line with naming convention for carriers (Note Shinano kept her name as she had already been named before construction altered to a carrier).
- Sounds plausible? or a load of old.......
As you can perhaps tell, I should not be writing this post as I am tired and irritable and have spent too long researching one small fact, which I cannot find the answer to anywhere so please help....someone...please!!
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Karyu: I think it makes perfect sense - this is a late-war ship/conversion and it matches the use of the same word for the simltaneous planned conversion of the Me 262 jet fighter.
Okay here is my revised Yamato-class battleship counter (I assume there is a cost differential for building the ahistorical Shinano/Karyu as compared to the historical Shinano)?
[4364 Karyu - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 150,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 27 knots
.B Main armament: 9 x 18.1-inch (460mm), 12 x 6.1-inch (155mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 69,990 tons
.B Thickest armour: 16.1-inch (belt)
.P The two completed ships of the Yamato-class, Yamato and Musashi, were the
biggest battleships ever built. In total, five such ships were planned for the
Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN); Shinano was completed as an aircraft carrier, ship
No.111 was cancelled in 1942 when about 30% complete, and ship No. 797 was
cancelled in the same year; before she had even been ordered.
.P The ships were so large that special lifting gear had to be built in order to
lift the armour plates and gun barrels, and indeed the dockyards themselves
needed work to allow them to accomodate such vessels. All of this work had to be
carried out in secret to deny information to foreign powers; and the Japanese
were successful in this regard.
.P As designed, these leviathans mounted nine 18.1-inch guns in three triple
turrets and a secondary armament of twelve 6.1-inch guns. The anti-aircraft (AA)
armament consisted of twelve 5-inch guns in addition to the numerous close-range
AA weapons. In 1943 Yamato had six secondary guns removed and these were replaced
with the same number of 5-inch weapons, while both Yamato and her sister had their
close-range AA weaponry augmented from time to time from 1943 onwards.
.P Despite their size, the ships were still capable of 27 knots thanks to the
150,000 hp provided by their four geared turbines and twelve boilers, and they
also boasted an 8,000 mile cruising range.
.P No less than seven aircraft could be stored in the hangar deck located at the
the stern of these ships, although it was usual for a lesser number to be
carried. Two catapults were fitted on deck to assist the launching of the
aircraft.
.P Armour protection was equally impressive with around a third of their total
weight taken up by armour plate. They were designed to withstand 18-inch shells
and bombs of up to 2,200lbs by virtue of having belt armour 16.1-inch thick and
deck armour up to 9-inches thick. Despite this, as with every ship, there was
always a compromise to be made and the Yamatos armour was not invulnerable.
Firstly, their torpedo protection was not as comprehensive as contemporary
battleships, with a thinner anti-torpedo bulge fitted. The Second problem centred
around the armour distribution. In order to cut down on the armour plate
required, the ships were designed with a very broad beam - just under 128ft -
which meant that the designers could fit the ships guns, magazines, machinery etc
into a shorter space than on a more conventional, longer layout. This area was
then protected by an "armoured box", created by attaching two 11.8-inch bulkheads
to the side armour. This meant that the bow and stern were unarmoured and in the
event of damage to either area, the idea was that watertight compartments would
protect the ships from sinking. The problem for the Yamatos was that these
compartments were too big and the pumps were unable to cope with the volume of
water.
.P The plans for the second two vessels allowed for thinner armour protection
than was available to the first two ships and they would have used a new 4-inch
AA gun, replacing the disappointing 5-inch gun.
.P Despite their problems, the Yamatos were still highly impressive battleships, and it is
intriguing to guess what effect they would have had on the course of the Pacific
war had Yamato and Musashi been used more aggressively, before the US Navy air
power became overwhelming.
.P The fourth Yamato was never offically named. The Japanese word Karyu is
translated as Fire Dragon, and it is likely that ADG used this name as the ship
would almost certainly have been completed as an aircraft carrier had her
construction not been cancelled. IJN naming convention meant aircraft carriers
were mostly named after dragons.
.P World In Flames allows the Japanese player to build all five planned Yamatos,
including this fourth ship, Karyu. As an alternative to completion as a
battleship, she is also available for conversion to an aircraft carrier. To this
end she can be built in one of two ways; either as her sister Shinano appeared
historically (see Counter 5108), or, at higher cost, as a more powerful carrier
type (see Counter 4333).
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Warspite:
Suggest adding after - 'unable to cope with the volume of water.' "Of course this was equally a problem with other battleships designed on the 'all or nothing' principle, such as the American Iowa class, but these benefitted from having more efficient fixed electric as well as many portable diesel pumps".
Also suggest a new wording for the last section of the following paragraph "and they would have replaced their 5" anti-aircraft mounts with the very effective and fast firing twin 3.9" guns, weapons already in use on the Akizuki class destroyers."
Cannot remember - does the Karyu show different armour and AA rating compared with the Yamato?
Suggest adding after - 'unable to cope with the volume of water.' "Of course this was equally a problem with other battleships designed on the 'all or nothing' principle, such as the American Iowa class, but these benefitted from having more efficient fixed electric as well as many portable diesel pumps".
Also suggest a new wording for the last section of the following paragraph "and they would have replaced their 5" anti-aircraft mounts with the very effective and fast firing twin 3.9" guns, weapons already in use on the Akizuki class destroyers."
Cannot remember - does the Karyu show different armour and AA rating compared with the Yamato?
Warspite1
Thank-you for the feed-back.
1. I will not add this - the intro for these ships is already quite long and the lack of pump ability is stated. For reasons of brevity I generally do not compare ship to ship.
2. Will definitely add this - thanks [:)]. This is the sort of detail I am lacking for the Japanese generally.
3. I do not know either - but the accuracy of some of the unit values (see previous posts on this thread (hdosbe post 1117 onwards for example)) are debatable at best! For this reason I have generally avoided reference to the counter values.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
One extreme to another! From the largest battleship class ever built to an early carrier:
[4349 Hosho - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 30,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25 knots
.B Main armament: 4 x 5.5-inch (140mm), 2 x 3-inch (76mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 21
.B Displacement (full load): 10,000 tons
.B Thickest armour: n/a
.P Hosho was the first Japanese aircraft carrier. She was built with
technical assistance provided by the British, and was completed in the same year
- 1922 - that the Americans completed their first carrier, Langley.
.P Hosho began life as a naval oiler named Hiryu, but her conversion to a carrier
was ordered in 1920. As Japan`s first such vessel, she featured a very basic
design that provided the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) with much experience that
was to be incorporated into later designs. The technical details above are as at
her completion.
.P Hosho featured a full length flight deck supported by pillars at each
extremity. She had one lift that serviced a single, long and narrow hangar. This
hangar layout restricted the number of aircraft she could carry to just twenty-
one. As aircraft became bigger during the inter-war years, so the limited
carrying capacity of Hosho fell further. At the time of Pearl Harbor, she could
only carry eleven aircraft.
.P Although built with a small, starboard-mounted island, this was removed in the
twenties as pilots found it too much of an obstacle when landing on her narrow
flight deck.
.P Beginning the naming convention for most future Japanese aircraft carriers,
the English translation of her name was Swooping Dragon.
.P By the start of the Second World War, Hosho was no longer a front-line carrier
and she was relegated to training duties to provide deck-landing experience. Her
armament was altered during the war and she ended the war with just six 25mm anti
-aircraft guns.
.P Hosho took part in just one operation during the war; Midway. She carried
eight Nakajima B5N torpedo bombers and sailed with Admiral Yamamoto`s main body.
This force played no part in the Midway battle which saw all four Japanese fleet
carriers employed in the operation, sunk (see Kaga).
.P Hosho survived the war and was scrapped in 1947.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Here is my take on what ADG have tried to do with with Fuji and Shikishima. I think Meiji and Showa are completely fictional ships as they are just too powerful to be "improved" Taihos - and so will write something accordingly on these, (and the Shinano and Karyu) and post later.
4338 Shikishima - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 180,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 33 knots
.B Main armament: 16 x 3.9-inch (100mm), 51 x 25mm guns
.B Aircraft: 84 (Operational maximum 53)
.B Displacement (full load): 39,000 tons
.B Thickest armour: 6-inch (belt)
.P After the losses suffered at Midway, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN)
drew up ambitious plans to replace, and then expand, their fleet aircraft carrier
force. These plans included building five improved Taiho-class armoured carriers
under their 1942 Supplementary Programme. This was in addition to two improved
Taihos - nos 801 and 802 - that had already been announced under their original
1942 programme. The plans were never anything more than a dream; the limitations
of Japanese industry and the lack of raw materials to hand, ensured that these
ships never left the drawing board. Even had the IJN found the materials to
complete them, there were insufficient naval pilots capable of manning their
aircraft late in the war.
.P Nevertheless, World In Flames allows the Japanese player to explore some "what
if" situations, and this includes the option to build one or more of these
proposed carriers; including carrier nos 801 and 802.
.P Taiho was the first and only Japanese carrier that copied the Royal Navy`s
(RN) armoured flight deck concept. The Japanese version was not quite as
comprehensive as that employed by the RN in that only the flight deck (and not
the hangars themselves) was armoured, with a maximum depth of 3.14-inches. The
upper hangar deck was unarmoured and the lower, fitted with 1.25-inch of armour
plate.
.P Visually, Taiho looked different from most Japanese carriers, having a funnel
built on the island structure and featuring an enclosed bow, so improving
seaworthiness. The ship was fast, with over 33 knots achieved in trials, thanks
to the 180,000 hp her boilers generated.
.P Taiho could operate over eighty aircraft, although this was reduced to fifty-
three for operational efficiency. Two hangars were fitted and these were served
by two lifts. As usual, no catapult was fitted to assist take-off, but a total of
fourteen arrester wires were provided to help bring aircraft down safely.
.P For defence the Japanese replaced the disappointing 5-inch anti-aircraft (AA)
gun, which had been the mainstay of the fleet, with a more impressive 3.9-inch
weapon. There was no alteration to the close-range weaponry however, and the
limited, 25mm gun was chosen for this role.
.P The improved Taihos would have had a longer flight-deck, increased AA weaponry
and improved anti-torpedo defence. These improvements are included in the
technical specification above. They would not have carried an increased number of
aircraft.
.P These ships were never officially named, but ADG have provided them with
suitable names from Japanese naval history; Fuji is named after Mount Fuji, the
highest mountain in Japan, and one of their three holy mountains. Shikishima is
named after an ancient poetical name for Japan. These names were given previously
to two battleships, both of which took part in Japan`s most famous naval victory,
the Battle of Tsushima in 1905.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Question re a statement I have made below - am I correct in saying a player has a choice to convert Ise or Hyuga? - or do they have to if the ships are still in play at the date the conversion actually took place?
[4328 Hyuga - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 80,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25.3 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 14-inch (356mm), 16 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 22
.B Displacement (full load): 38,065 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (belt)
.P Hyuga and her sister Ise unusually have their write-ups spread over two
counters each. The two battleships were converted into battleship-carriers in
1943, and World In Flames allows the Japanese player to convert one or both of
these battleships in this way. Alternatively, the Japanese player may choose for
one or both of them to remain as battleships.
.P This counter provides the technical specification for Hyuga post her 1943
refit, and provides a summary of her war career from then until her sinking. The
battleship counter, 4362, provides her technical specification at the start of
World War II and outlines her service record up until her conversion.
.P The Imperial Japanese Navy`s (IJN) crushing defeat at Midway left them short
of air power at sea. In order to bridge this shortage, pending new carriers
becoming available, the IJN decided to convert Ise and Hyuga into battleship-
carriers. Work began on Ise in February 1943 and her sister, three months later.
Ise was completed in August, and Hyuga in November.
.P In order to achieve this transformation, the ships had their two aft, main
turrets removed and in their place, was constructed a two hundred and thirty feet
long flight deck. Below this was constructed a hangar, which was served by a
single lift. By using both the hangar and the flight deck, twenty-two aircraft
could be accomodated. Two catapults were fitted to assist take-off, but there was
no means of landing aircraft on the short flight deck. Aircraft had either to be
landed on a carrier, recovered from the sea (if using floatplanes) or landed at a
friendly airbase.
.P The ships were designed to carry a mix of D4Y2 "Judy" dive-bombers and E16A1
"Paul" reconnaissance/dive-bomber aircraft, although as the war progressed it
became ever more difficult to find sufficient pilots and aircraft.
.P In addition to the changes made above, as part of their conversion, the Ise-
class ships had their 5.5-inch secondary armament removed and replaced with 5-
inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns. Their 25mm close-range AA weaponry was also
increased significantly at this time, and more so as the war progressed.
.P UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Question re a statement I have made below - am I correct in saying a player has a choice to convert Ise or Hyuga? - or do they have to if the ships are still in play at the date the conversion actually took place?
[4328 Hyuga - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 80,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25.3 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 14-inch (356mm), 16 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 22
.B Displacement (full load): 38,065 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (belt)
.P Hyuga and her sister Ise unusually have their write-ups spread over two
counters each. The two battleships were converted into battleship-carriers in
1943, and World In Flames allows the Japanese player to convert one or both of
these battleships in this way. Alternatively, the Japanese player may choose for
one or both of them to remain as battleships.
.P This counter provides the technical specification for Hyuga post her 1943
refit, and provides a summary of her war career from then until her sinking. The
battleship counter, 4362, provides her technical specification at the start of
World War II and outlines her service record up until her conversion.
.P The Imperial Japanese Navy`s (IJN) crushing defeat at Midway left them short
of air power at sea. In order to bridge this shortage, pending new carriers
becoming available, the IJN decided to convert Ise and Hyuga into battleship-
carriers. Work began on Ise in February 1943 and her sister, three months later.
Ise was completed in August, and Hyuga in November.
.P In order to achieve this transformation, the ships had their two aft, main
turrets removed and in their place, was constructed a two hundred and thirty feet
long flight deck. Below this was constructed a hangar, which was served by a
single lift. By using both the hangar and the flight deck, twenty-two aircraft
could be accomodated. Two catapults were fitted to assist take-off, but there was
no means of landing aircraft on the short flight deck. Aircraft had either to be
landed on a carrier, recovered from the sea (if using floatplanes) or landed at a
friendly airbase.
.P The ships were designed to carry a mix of D4Y2 "Judy" dive-bombers and E16A1
"Paul" reconnaissance/dive-bomber aircraft, although as the war progressed it
became ever more difficult to find sufficient pilots and aircraft.
.P In addition to the changes made above, as part of their conversion, the Ise-
class ships had their 5.5-inch secondary armament removed and replaced with 5-
inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns. Their 25mm close-range AA weaponry was also
increased significantly at this time, and more so as the war progressed.
.P UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Obviously, the player has the option if the scenario starts before the conversion.
My guess is that they should be converted 'automatically' if the scenario starts after the conversion. There is no code to support that at the present.[:(] FOr example, the Hyuga arrives as a reinforcement in Nov/Dec 1943. I assume that should be the replacement. Similarly, the Hyuga that sets up in Decline and Fall should also be the replacement. Yes?[&:]
Question re a statement I have made below - am I correct in saying a player has a choice to convert Ise or Hyuga? - or do they have to if the ships are still in play at the date the conversion actually took place?
[4328 Hyuga - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 80,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25.3 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 14-inch (356mm), 16 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 22
.B Displacement (full load): 38,065 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (belt)
.P Hyuga and her sister Ise unusually have their write-ups spread over two
counters each. The two battleships were converted into battleship-carriers in
1943, and World In Flames allows the Japanese player to convert one or both of
these battleships in this way. Alternatively, the Japanese player may choose for
one or both of them to remain as battleships.
.P This counter provides the technical specification for Hyuga post her 1943
refit, and provides a summary of her war career from then until her sinking. The
battleship counter, 4362, provides her technical specification at the start of
World War II and outlines her service record up until her conversion.
.P The Imperial Japanese Navy`s (IJN) crushing defeat at Midway left them short
of air power at sea. In order to bridge this shortage, pending new carriers
becoming available, the IJN decided to convert Ise and Hyuga into battleship-
carriers. Work began on Ise in February 1943 and her sister, three months later.
Ise was completed in August, and Hyuga in November.
.P In order to achieve this transformation, the ships had their two aft, main
turrets removed and in their place, was constructed a two hundred and thirty feet
long flight deck. Below this was constructed a hangar, which was served by a
single lift. By using both the hangar and the flight deck, twenty-two aircraft
could be accomodated. Two catapults were fitted to assist take-off, but there was
no means of landing aircraft on the short flight deck. Aircraft had either to be
landed on a carrier, recovered from the sea (if using floatplanes) or landed at a
friendly airbase.
.P The ships were designed to carry a mix of D4Y2 "Judy" dive-bombers and E16A1
"Paul" reconnaissance/dive-bomber aircraft, although as the war progressed it
became ever more difficult to find sufficient pilots and aircraft.
.P In addition to the changes made above, as part of their conversion, the Ise-
class ships had their 5.5-inch secondary armament removed and replaced with 5-
inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns. Their 25mm close-range AA weaponry was also
increased significantly at this time, and more so as the war progressed.
.P UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Obviously, the player has the option if the scenario starts before the conversion.
My guess is that they should be converted 'automatically' if the scenario starts after the conversion. There is no code to support that at the present.[:(] FOr example, the Hyuga arrives as a reinforcement in Nov/Dec 1943. I assume that should be the replacement. Similarly, the Hyuga that sets up in Decline and Fall should also be the replacement. Yes?[&:]
is it hard to make it a simple choice for the player doing setup.
Question re a statement I have made below - am I correct in saying a player has a choice to convert Ise or Hyuga? - or do they have to if the ships are still in play at the date the conversion actually took place?
[4328 Hyuga - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 80,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25.3 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 14-inch (356mm), 16 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 22
.B Displacement (full load): 38,065 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (belt)
.P Hyuga and her sister Ise unusually have their write-ups spread over two
counters each. The two battleships were converted into battleship-carriers in
1943, and World In Flames allows the Japanese player to convert one or both of
these battleships in this way. Alternatively, the Japanese player may choose for
one or both of them to remain as battleships.
.P This counter provides the technical specification for Hyuga post her 1943
refit, and provides a summary of her war career from then until her sinking. The
battleship counter, 4362, provides her technical specification at the start of
World War II and outlines her service record up until her conversion.
.P The Imperial Japanese Navy`s (IJN) crushing defeat at Midway left them short
of air power at sea. In order to bridge this shortage, pending new carriers
becoming available, the IJN decided to convert Ise and Hyuga into battleship-
carriers. Work began on Ise in February 1943 and her sister, three months later.
Ise was completed in August, and Hyuga in November.
.P In order to achieve this transformation, the ships had their two aft, main
turrets removed and in their place, was constructed a two hundred and thirty feet
long flight deck. Below this was constructed a hangar, which was served by a
single lift. By using both the hangar and the flight deck, twenty-two aircraft
could be accomodated. Two catapults were fitted to assist take-off, but there was
no means of landing aircraft on the short flight deck. Aircraft had either to be
landed on a carrier, recovered from the sea (if using floatplanes) or landed at a
friendly airbase.
.P The ships were designed to carry a mix of D4Y2 "Judy" dive-bombers and E16A1
"Paul" reconnaissance/dive-bomber aircraft, although as the war progressed it
became ever more difficult to find sufficient pilots and aircraft.
.P In addition to the changes made above, as part of their conversion, the Ise-
class ships had their 5.5-inch secondary armament removed and replaced with 5-
inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns. Their 25mm close-range AA weaponry was also
increased significantly at this time, and more so as the war progressed.
.P UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Obviously, the player has the option if the scenario starts before the conversion.
My guess is that they should be converted 'automatically' if the scenario starts after the conversion. There is no code to support that at the present.[:(] FOr example, the Hyuga arrives as a reinforcement in Nov/Dec 1943. I assume that should be the replacement. Similarly, the Hyuga that sets up in Decline and Fall should also be the replacement. Yes?[&:]
is it hard to make it a simple choice for the player doing setup.
I just looked at the code for selecting units for placement on the map during setup.
The program already checks to see if there is a replacement unit and either moves it into the reserve pool (so the player has it available as a replacement at the start of the scenario's second turn) or into the future force pool (which is checked at the start of each Jan/Feb turn for moving replacement units into the reserve pool).
The change that is needed in the code is fairly simple.
The program needs to decide, based on the replacement unit's availability year, whether to use the original ship or the replacement ship when setting up units: on the map, in the production pool, or in the construction pool.
How should the replacement unit's availability year and the scenario's start date be used to make that decision? I am open to recommendations.
