Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

ORIGINAL: trees

going way back to the question about the '128mm' US Heavy AA piece, don't discount the possibility that Harry simply put that spec on a counter included in WiF for a unit type the US never actually built....but could have.

hmm at my guess he made a mistake ...and really meant the 120 AA gun spoken of here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_mm_M1_gun

Perhaps Patrice can ask Harry. It is easy enough to rename the unit (in fact, the players could do that themselves).

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

ORIGINAL: trees

going way back to the question about the '128mm' US Heavy AA piece, don't discount the possibility that Harry simply put that spec on a counter included in WiF for a unit type the US never actually built....but could have.

hmm at my guess he made a mistake ...and really meant the 120 AA gun spoken of here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_mm_M1_gun

This seems like a likely explanation. The Germans had a 128mm AA gun (The 12.8 cm Flak 40), but my reference material doesn't mention any US AA guns anywhere near this size - probably because they were never used.

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: amwild

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

ORIGINAL: trees

going way back to the question about the '128mm' US Heavy AA piece, don't discount the possibility that Harry simply put that spec on a counter included in WiF for a unit type the US never actually built....but could have.

hmm at my guess he made a mistake ...and really meant the 120 AA gun spoken of here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_mm_M1_gun

This seems like a likely explanation. The Germans had a 128mm AA gun (The 12.8 cm Flak 40), but my reference material doesn't mention any US AA guns anywhere near this size - probably because they were never used.

True but 128mm converts to 5 inch which the US did use.

But then again it may have been a typeo and ment to be 120mm.

[wosung]

Short question:

Are MWIF Chinese non divisional normal INF units Corps (XXX) or Army sized (XXXX)???

According to Schodts' WIFFE counter webside, they are Army sized. Besides there are corps sized CAV, MTN, MOT, Mech, Para.

http://users.ats.dk/jsp/wif.htm

According to the unit picture in post 42 of the MWIF thread (unit descriptions) they are Corps sized.

For doing unit write ups I should know this, for linking MWIF counters to unit histories.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: wosung
Short question:
Are MWIF Chinese non divisional normal INF units Corps (XXX) or Army sized (XXXX)???
According to Schodts' WIFFE counter webside, they are Army sized. Besides there are corps sized CAV, MTN, MOT, Mech, Para.
http://users.ats.dk/jsp/wif.htm
According to the unit picture in post 42 of the MWIF thread (unit descriptions) they are Corps sized.
For doing unit write ups I should know this, for linking MWIF counters to unit histories.

What is displayed at http://users.ats.dk/jsp/wif.htm are scans of the real counters, so this is the truth.

So, the units in MWiF are wrong, and should be corrected if possible (I volunteer to do that if necessary). Some are Armies, and some are Corps.

Steve, is it possible to make non DIV MWiF units Army sized ? (with 4 "X").

[wosung]

BTW: Checked WIFFE National Chinese OOB as a whole:

2 HQ, 24 Armies/Corps (including Warlords, Mil), 7 Div, 4 Arty Div
According to rule commentaries each Chinese Army (Corps??) equals 10 divisions. So that would probably ammount to 251 divisions + 2 HQs.

In the index of "Hsu Long-hsuen et. al., The histoy of the Sino-Japanese War (1937-45)", the following Chinese Divs are listed:

198 infantry divisions (No. 1-55, 57-96, 98-149, 151-200, 207)
2 honor. divisions (No 1-2)
2 temporary divisions (No. 1-2)
52 prov. divisions (No.1-6, 10-17, 19-26, 28-29, 31, 33, 35-55, 58-59, 61-62, 64)
11 reserve divisons (No. 1-11)
37 new divisions (No. 1-4, 6-16, 19-23, 25-26, 28, 30-32, 34-39, 42-46)
12 cavalry divisons (No. 1-12)
2 prov. cavalry divisions (No. 1-2)
8 new cavalry divisions (No. 1-8)
1 temporary cavalry division (No.?)
1 training division (No.?)

= 326 divsions

(Note that for example there existed infantry divisions and new divisions with the same divisional number at the same time, although I don't know if this was always the case)

Finally the Communist forces mentioned in the book should be substracted:

2 divisions (New 4th Army)
3-6 divisions (8th Route Army: the total of six is mentioned, but also a total of 3 divisions: the 115th ,120th and 129th divsions).

= lets say 10 divisions

That would ammount to up to 316 National Chinese Divsions altogether.

So if playtesting shows the need of more National Chinese units, according to the WIF ten-division-formula for Chinese corps/armies probably up to six more counters historically could be warranted.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: wosung
Short question:
Are MWIF Chinese non divisional normal INF units Corps (XXX) or Army sized (XXXX)???
According to Schodts' WIFFE counter webside, they are Army sized. Besides there are corps sized CAV, MTN, MOT, Mech, Para.
http://users.ats.dk/jsp/wif.htm
According to the unit picture in post 42 of the MWIF thread (unit descriptions) they are Corps sized.
For doing unit write ups I should know this, for linking MWIF counters to unit histories.

What is displayed at http://users.ats.dk/jsp/wif.htm are scans of the real counters, so this is the truth.

So, the units in MWiF are wrong, and should be corrected if possible (I volunteer to do that if necessary). Some are Armies, and some are Corps.

Steve, is it possible to make non DIV MWiF units Army sized ? (with 4 "X").

As I read the MWIF Land unit list (10/16/2006), it differenciates only between Divs (1) and non-Divs (0), with 0 and 1 being the last number in each row. But some 0-units, like Liberian army are depicted as army (XXXX), some like Chinese normal INF as corps (XXX)?!

[trees]

Some of the cardboard WiF corps/army distinctions are deliberate. The Russians grouped infantry divisions into 'armies', while cavalry units were designated 'corps'. From my limited readings on China I can't recall them using 'corps' (at all?), groups of infantry divisions were part of 'armies'. How China organized their specialist forces would be the question. But then they may never have deployed massed cavalry beyond a divisional size???

[wosung]

According to the index in Hsü, (National) Chinese units consisted of:

100 corps (No.1-100),
4 prov. corps (No. 1-3, 9),
2 route corps (No. 2, 19),
8 new corps (No. 1-8, there within New 4th Corps = Communist New 4th Army  in National Chinese nomenclature),
6 cavalry corps (No. 1-6).

According to some, obviously wrong, sources  National Chinese Army didn't use corps at all.

Apart from the independend used ones, these 120 corps were organized  in:

18 armies (No. 1-3, 8, 13-17,  19-21, 27, 29, 32, 37 + 19th and 26th Route Army) and
39 army groups, or group armies (No. 1-39, 40, with the 18th army group equals the Communist 8th Route Army in National Chinese parlance).

AFIK Russian Red Army used cavalry corps, sometimes with other units in cavalry-mechanized groups. Rifle divisions sometimes also were grouped in corps but mostly in armies. Beginning in 1942 tanks were also formed in tank corps (with brigades, not regiments), equal a German or Wally panzer/armoured division. There were even a number of artillery corps. In red army  many OOB reforms and experiments around command and administrative issues took place during the war to maximize combat effectiveness.

Regards

 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: wosung
Short question:
Are MWIF Chinese non divisional normal INF units Corps (XXX) or Army sized (XXXX)???
According to Schodts' WIFFE counter webside, they are Army sized. Besides there are corps sized CAV, MTN, MOT, Mech, Para.
http://users.ats.dk/jsp/wif.htm
According to the unit picture in post 42 of the MWIF thread (unit descriptions) they are Corps sized.
For doing unit write ups I should know this, for linking MWIF counters to unit histories.

What is displayed at http://users.ats.dk/jsp/wif.htm are scans of the real counters, so this is the truth.

So, the units in MWiF are wrong, and should be corrected if possible (I volunteer to do that if necessary). Some are Armies, and some are Corps.

Steve, is it possible to make non DIV MWiF units Army sized ? (with 4 "X").

Currently the designation of army versus corp for units is:

- all HQ are Army groups XXXXX
- all divisions are divisions XX (duh)
- corps XXX versus army XXXX is taken from the country data (SU, MI, MA). File structure shown below; not part of GA.

I believe all special unit infantry units (para, mountain, etc.) are corps, but I would have to look that up in the code. You could simply look at the review of units form to confirm that.

So presently, I think this is in the 'map' data, since it concerns countries. [Not my data format design.]

==========
Governed areas:
- ID, name, parent ID, starting controlling country ID, center hex (row, column), Europe, Africa, Asia, Pacific, America (all boolean), # of cities and ports, conqueror ID, current controlling county ID, whether it has hexes, last city/port captured ID.

Sub-countries:
- Same as governed areas, plus:
3 letter name abbreviation, Partisan controller ID, force pool ID, unit color, icon color, land NATO outline color, land NATO interior color, strength text color, unit size color, letter/division color, outline elite flag, infantry armies/not corps, armor armies/not corps, partisans, partisans chance, partisans active, convoy points, contested, garrison, partisans count

Minor countries:
- Same as sub countries, plus:
Capital (Column, Row), Neutral this year

Major countries:
- Same as minor countries.
===========================

[Froonp]

Sub-countries:
- Same as governed areas, plus:
3 letter name abbreviation, Partisan controller ID, force pool ID, unit color, icon color, land NATO outline color, land NATO interior color, strength text color, unit size color, letter/division color, outline elite flag, infantry armies/not corps, armor armies/not corps, partisans, partisans chance, partisans active, convoy points, contested, garrison, partisans count

Minor countries:
- Same as sub countries, plus:
Capital (Column, Row), Neutral this year

Major countries:
- Same as minor countries.

I put the "infantry armies/not corps" parameter to -1 for China (it was at 0), and I started a new game, but the Chinese INF Corps stay at XXX in the Unit dialog box.
This parameter is at -1 for Russia and Japan, and the "armor armies/not corps" is at -1 for Russia.

What am I doing wrong ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Sub-countries:
- Same as governed areas, plus:
3 letter name abbreviation, Partisan controller ID, force pool ID, unit color, icon color, land NATO outline color, land NATO interior color, strength text color, unit size color, letter/division color, outline elite flag, infantry armies/not corps, armor armies/not corps, partisans, partisans chance, partisans active, convoy points, contested, garrison, partisans count

Minor countries:
- Same as sub countries, plus:
Capital (Column, Row), Neutral this year

Major countries:
- Same as minor countries.

I put the "infantry armies/not corps" parameter to -1 for China (it was at 0), and I started a new game, but the Chinese INF Corps stay at XXX in the Unit dialog box.
This parameter is at -1 for Russia and Japan, and the "armor armies/not corps" is at -1 for Russia.

What am I doing wrong ?

There are 3 Chinas: China, Nationalist China, and Communist China. You need to modify the last 2, which are probably in the Subcountries file. China itself has no units, but is needed at times because all Chinese units have some things in common (e.g., when they are set up at the start of a game).

[Froonp]

There are 3 Chinas: China, Nationalist China, and Communist China. You need to modify the last 2, which are probably in the Subcountries file. China itself has no units, but is needed at times because all Chinese units have some things in common (e.g., when they are set up at the start of a game).

Great it worked !! [:D]

I jumped on the occasion because I had noticed a long time ago that the Chinese units were not of the right size in MWiF, but I never went farther as to change that.

Thanks for pointing this out Wosung.

[mldtchdog]

Question: doing write ups for Swiss army.
The counter list shows the IV Inf (1928), II Inf (33), III MTN (37) and GD Inf (1940) plus the MIL's.

The historical Swiss army consisted of the I, II amd III Corps pre 1938. The IV corps wasn't activated until late 1939.

Do we worry about the time frame inconcistancies? Also assuming that the I Corps=GD corps in game terms. the only reference to guard units were voluntary boarder guard companies (later brigades) which were inherent to all corps staffing.


Adam

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: mldtchdog
Question: doing write ups for Swiss army.
The counter list shows the IV Inf (1928), II Inf (33), III MTN (37) and GD Inf (1940) plus the MIL's.

The historical Swiss army consisted of the I, II amd III Corps pre 1938. The IV corps wasn't activated until late 1939.

Do we worry about the time frame inconcistancies? Also assuming that the I Corps=GD corps in game terms. the only reference to guard units were voluntary boarder guard companies (later brigades) which were inherent to all corps staffing.

Adam

In the rest of this post, bear in mind that I am working with only the information displayed on the counters --- but I agree with your guess that I Corps is the GD Corps. It is probably just an honorific, typically used in European armies, for an elite Corps (e.g., Old Guard, Middle Guard, Young Guard from Napoleon). The border guard label would be more to do with a unit's assignment/responsibilities.

Don't worry about the differences in years. We have found dozens (if not hundreds) within the units already. ADG needed to have units arrive in certain years for building the force pools appropriately. Matching them up perfectly with historical units was undoubtedly sacrificed as the lesser distortion. For example, what should be done if all the units receive improved equipment and an influx of more men? It appears that making the early units weak and the later units strong accomplishes that simulation.

Of course, this leaves you peering into with some muddy water, trying to do unit writeups. As always, my advice is be frank and factual. The I Corps was formed in year yyyy and in 1939 - 1945 it consisted of xxx men. They were held in reserve/deployed ..... If the difference between the counter and the historical unit is so big that it bothers you, then say that too.

For the Swedes, the writer had very little WWII (or WWI) experience to write about, so he went back further in the Swedish army's history for odd tidbits of information. Just an idea.

[Frederyck]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

[ re: Zeppelins - DO NOT go see the movie "Flyboys" just so you can see a nice CGI version of a WWI dogfight between French bi-planes, German tri-planes, and one Zeppelin, as cool as the trailer looked. That was one of the worst clichéd, stereotypical, hackneyed, crappiest movies I've ever seen.

Just found this reference to Flyboys. My sister worked on the CGI special effects on that one, and she told me not to go and see it as she thought the movie was "really really bad".

[jesperpehrson]

Good news! Adam has finished the Swiss units and he has made a swell job with them!

Unfortunatly I am swamped at the university for another 12 days so I will not be able to do anything with them or any other writeups til then. So stay tuned the 6th of december for some early christmaspresents! [:D]

[max2]

Capitan,

Steve said you still need a hand with unit descriptions -- I am volunteering for the job. Let me know what needs to be done and how it needs to be done, and I'll get to it.

Thanks,
Max

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: max2

Capitan,

Steve said you still need a hand with unit descriptions -- I am volunteering for the job. Let me know what needs to be done and how it needs to be done, and I'll get to it.

Thanks,
Max

See post #31 in this thread for the list to choose from. I believe the assignments are still correct, though some more work has been completed since then (e.g., Adam has done the Swiss).

You could start small with a country that has only a few units or jump into deeper water (e.g., the French). What really determines this, is what you are interested in. You might want to read some of the descriptions in the posted screen shots to get the flavor of the writeups. There is also a lot of discussion about what to do when the country/unit didn't really participate in the war (e.g., fictional, what-if units, and neutrals like Sweden and Chile).

[jesperpehrson]

Heya Max,

glad to hear that you wanna help out!

As Steve said the list on page two is more or less updated (just the Swiss not accounted for).

If I could make a wishlist I would be really grateful if you feel like doing the Russians or the English. If you prefer to do something else that is good too though.

Send me a PM with what you feel like and I will give you some idea of how we are working and some guidelines for formatting and all that.

- Jesper