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.
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.
Warspite1
So:
- if the scenario starts after the change, then it should be the historic option i.e. the player does not get the choice (which sounds right if you are playing a historic scenario).
- but for any scenario that starts before the change, the player may choose to make the change at anytime after the change date
- As for how the AI would choose, presumably this could be kept simple and would be based upon the real life choice the IJN faced. This was based on:
- How many carriers have I lost?
- How many battleships have I lost?
For game play purposes, I am not sure the numbers to be chosen, but for a suggestion:
if 4 or more fleet carriers (from Akagi, Kaga, Soryu. Hiryu, Zuikaku or Shokaku) have been lost and the IJN have lost 3 battleships or less, then the change for both is made. If 3 or 4 fleet carriers have been lost and the IJN have lost 4 or 5 battleships, then the change for one is made. Otherwise, neither conversion happens.
The Japanese needed the carriers (or the aircraft they gave) but could not afford to have too few battleships. It is thought that many in the IJN - even perhaps Yamamoto himself until his death in 1943 - still believed the big gun naval battle would decide the Pacific War - and kept their battleships out of harms way for too much of the war, ready for the decisive battle. I do not believe they would have proceeded with the conversion if they had altready lost too many battleships, regardless of the carrier situation.
I think provided the right nos can be agreed, this keeps the solution simple and keeps a historical flavour.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Further to post 1476, this is my first draft for the Shinano, Karyu, Showa and Meiji "What If" counters:
[4333 Karyu - by Robert Jenkins]
.P World In Flames (WIF) allows the Japanese player to build all five planned
Yamato-class battleships and one "Super" Yamato-class, although in reality, only
two Yamatos were completed as such; Yamato and Musashi.
.P A third ship, Shinano, was completed as an aircraft carrier, and WIF allows
the Japanese player to build both Shinano and "the fourth Yamato", Karyu, as an
aircraft carrier.
.P Unusually, two carrier options are available. Firstly, Shinano and Karyu may
be completed with combat factors that reflect Shinano`s historic actual
specification. Counter nos. 5107 and 5108 are respectively available for this
purpose.
.P However, WIF also allows the Japanese player the option of completing Shinano
and Karyu to a "What If" specification. The rationale for this is presumably
based on the fact that Shinano was the largest aircraft carrier to be built
outside of the United States, and her size was such that she would have been
capable, in theory at least, of being completed to a much grander scale.
.P In exploring "What If" scenarios it is tempting to see what would happen if
the Japanese had had the resources available to build these ships to a standard
that would put them somewhere between the United States Navy`s Essex and Midway-
classes. Of course, just as big a problem for the Japanese in completing the
ships themselves, would have been finding the aircraft and the pilots to man
the large air groups they could have operated, but.......
.P In addition to the ahistorical Shinano and Karyu, WIF also allows the Japanese
player to build two other carriers of similar specification; Meiji and Showa. The
rationale could be that the hulls of "the fifth Yamato" and the "first Super
Yamato" could have been used as the basis for these carriers.
.P No technical specifications are available for these hypothetical carriers, but
given the combat factors the WIF designers have allocated them, they would have
been somewhere between the United States Navy`s Essex and Midway-class in size...
have fun!
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
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.
Warspite1
So:
- if the scenario starts after the change, then it should be the historic option i.e. the player does not get the choice (which sounds right if you are playing a historic scenario).
- but for any scenario that starts before the change, the player may choose to make the change at anytime after the change date
- As for how the AI would choose, presumably this could be kept simple and would be based upon the real life choice the IJN faced. This was based on:
- How many carriers have I lost?
- How many battleships have I lost?
For game play purposes, I am not sure the numbers to be chosen, but for a suggestion:
if 4 or more fleet carriers (from Akagi, Kaga, Soryu. Hiryu, Zuikaku or Shokaku) have been lost and the IJN have lost 3 battleships or less, then the change for both is made. If 3 or 4 fleet carriers have been lost and the IJN have lost 4 or 5 battleships, then the change for one is made. Otherwise, neither conversion happens.
The Japanese needed the carriers (or the aircraft they gave) but could not afford to have too few battleships. It is thought that many in the IJN - even perhaps Yamamoto himself until his death in 1943 - still believed the big gun naval battle would decide the Pacific War - and kept their battleships out of harms way for too much of the war, ready for the decisive battle. I do not believe they would have proceeded with the conversion if they had altready lost too many battleships, regardless of the carrier situation.
I think provided the right nos can be agreed, this keeps the solution simple and keeps a historical flavour.
My question did not concern the AI Opponent. That will be handled like any other build decision.
What I am unsure about is how to interpret the available date on the counter (a year) versus the scenario start date. Ships take 2 years to build, so if a naval unit's available date is 1943 and the scenario starts in 1944, the naval unit is placed in the construction pool as if it has completed its first year. The player gets a half-built ship at no cost in build points.
How should the replacement units be handled in this regard? Take the same example given above. Has the replacement unit been 'started' and in the construction pool? Or has it been completed? Or is the original unit still on the map? Note that some of these units are listed in the setup instructions as starting in the construction pool or arriving as reinforcements.
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.
Warspite1
So:
- if the scenario starts after the change, then it should be the historic option i.e. the player does not get the choice (which sounds right if you are playing a historic scenario).
- but for any scenario that starts before the change, the player may choose to make the change at anytime after the change date
- As for how the AI would choose, presumably this could be kept simple and would be based upon the real life choice the IJN faced. This was based on:
- How many carriers have I lost?
- How many battleships have I lost?
For game play purposes, I am not sure the numbers to be chosen, but for a suggestion:
if 4 or more fleet carriers (from Akagi, Kaga, Soryu. Hiryu, Zuikaku or Shokaku) have been lost and the IJN have lost 3 battleships or less, then the change for both is made. If 3 or 4 fleet carriers have been lost and the IJN have lost 4 or 5 battleships, then the change for one is made. Otherwise, neither conversion happens.
The Japanese needed the carriers (or the aircraft they gave) but could not afford to have too few battleships. It is thought that many in the IJN - even perhaps Yamamoto himself until his death in 1943 - still believed the big gun naval battle would decide the Pacific War - and kept their battleships out of harms way for too much of the war, ready for the decisive battle. I do not believe they would have proceeded with the conversion if they had altready lost too many battleships, regardless of the carrier situation.
I think provided the right nos can be agreed, this keeps the solution simple and keeps a historical flavour.
My question did not concern the AI Opponent. That will be handled like any other build decision.
What I am unsure about is how to interpret the available date on the counter (a year) versus the scenario start date. Ships take 2 years to build, so if a naval unit's available date is 1943 and the scenario starts in 1944, the naval unit is placed in the construction pool as if it has completed its first year. The player gets a half-built ship at no cost in build points.
How should the replacement units be handled in this regard? Take the same example given above. Has the replacement unit been 'started' and in the construction pool? Or has it been completed? Or is the original unit still on the map? Note that some of these units are listed in the setup instructions as starting in the construction pool or arriving as reinforcements.
Warspite1
Okay - I will have a look at this this evening.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Steve, this is my take on the rule (hope I`ve answered the right question [X(] this time).
I think if we take the case of Hyuga and Ise specifically, then there are
two scenarios where they are indirectly or directly affected; Brute Force and
Darkness Before Dawn:
[Before the scenario begins] - Jan/Feb 1942
Hyuga and Ise replacement units arrive and as "both BB`s are on the map", the
replacement units go in the construction pool.
Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942
- Hyuga and Ise are still BB`s ready for placing on the Pacific/Asia map by the
Japanese player at the start of the scenario (although presumably he can
choose to replace on the very first turn instead of placing on the map (see below)).
- The replacement units remain in the construction pool ready for when the
Japanese player or the AI chooses to convert to a carrier/battleship.
- If the Japanese player that turn or subsequently chooses to convert, then the
cost of doing so is the 2nd cycle cost i.e. because the replacement counter is
being placed from the construction pool it takes its 2nd cycle cost (3pts) and
no. of turns indicated (6 turns).
- The BB counters are removed from the game immediately
- At the end of the 6th turn, the replacement units appear as a reinforcement
Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943
- Hyuga and Ise replacement units are face-up on the production cycle and will
appear on the map in Sep/Oct (Ise) and Nov/Dec (Hyuga) at no extra cost (this
mirrors their historical conversion).
- the BB counters have been removed from the game and never appear.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Steve, this is my take on the rule (hope I`ve answered the right question [X(] this time).
I think if we take the case of Hyuga and Ise specifically, then there are
two scenarios where they are indirectly or directly affected; Brute Force and
Darkness Before Dawn:
[Before the scenario begins] - Jan/Feb 1942
Hyuga and Ise replacement units arrive and as "both BB`s are on the map", the
replacement units go in the construction pool.
Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942
- Hyuga and Ise are still BB`s ready for placing on the Pacific/Asia map by the
Japanese player at the start of the scenario (although presumably he can
choose to replace on the very first turn instead of placing on the map (see below)).
- The replacement units remain in the construction pool ready for when the
Japanese player or the AI chooses to convert to a carrier/battleship.
- If the Japanese player that turn or subsequently chooses to convert, then the
cost of doing so is the 2nd cycle cost i.e. because the replacement counter is
being placed from the construction pool it takes its 2nd cycle cost (3pts) and
no. of turns indicated (6 turns).
- The BB counters are removed from the game immediately
- At the end of the 6th turn, the replacement units appear as a reinforcement
Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943
- Hyuga and Ise replacement units are face-up on the production cycle and will
appear on the map in Sep/Oct (Ise) and Nov/Dec (Hyuga) at no extra cost (this
mirrors their historical conversion).
- the BB counters have been removed from the game and never appear.
I think I agree.
Replacement arrival year is 1942. Scenarios that start before then clearly have the BB versions on the map and the CV versions are in the Future Force Pool (not the construction pool).
Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the BBs since the earliest the CVs could arrive would be Jan/Feb 1943. The CVs are in the Reserve Pool.
Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943
Scenario says they start in production to arrive face up in Nov/Dec 1943, so that must be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.
Decline and Fall begins in May/Jun 1944
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.
===
So, the general rule is that:
1 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is prior to the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the original unit is placed on the map and the replacement unit is placed in the reserve pool.
2 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is on or after the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed on the map and the original unit is removed from the game.
3 - if the scenario has the unit in the production/construction pool on or after the replacement arrival date (replacement arrival date = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed in the production/construction pool and the original unit is removed from the game.
My only lingering doubt is whether the game contains replacement units that were never historically built.
Steve, this is my take on the rule (hope I`ve answered the right question [X(] this time).
I think if we take the case of Hyuga and Ise specifically, then there are
two scenarios where they are indirectly or directly affected; Brute Force and
Darkness Before Dawn:
[Before the scenario begins] - Jan/Feb 1942
Hyuga and Ise replacement units arrive and as "both BB`s are on the map", the
replacement units go in the construction pool.
Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942
- Hyuga and Ise are still BB`s ready for placing on the Pacific/Asia map by the
Japanese player at the start of the scenario (although presumably he can
choose to replace on the very first turn instead of placing on the map (see below)).
- The replacement units remain in the construction pool ready for when the
Japanese player or the AI chooses to convert to a carrier/battleship.
- If the Japanese player that turn or subsequently chooses to convert, then the
cost of doing so is the 2nd cycle cost i.e. because the replacement counter is
being placed from the construction pool it takes its 2nd cycle cost (3pts) and
no. of turns indicated (6 turns).
- The BB counters are removed from the game immediately
- At the end of the 6th turn, the replacement units appear as a reinforcement
Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943
- Hyuga and Ise replacement units are face-up on the production cycle and will
appear on the map in Sep/Oct (Ise) and Nov/Dec (Hyuga) at no extra cost (this
mirrors their historical conversion).
- the BB counters have been removed from the game and never appear.
I think I agree.
Replacement arrival year is 1942. Scenarios that start before then clearly have the BB versions on the map and the CV versions are in the Future Force Pool (not the construction pool).
Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the BBs since the earliest the CVs could arrive would be Jan/Feb 1943. The CVs are in the Reserve Pool.
Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943
Scenario says they start in production to arrive face up in Nov/Dec 1943, so that must be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.
Decline and Fall begins in May/Jun 1944
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.
===
So, the general rule is that:
1 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is prior to the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the original unit is placed on the map and the replacement unit is placed in the reserve pool.
2 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is on or after the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed on the map and the original unit is removed from the game.
3 - if the scenario has the unit in the production/construction pool on or after the replacement arrival date (replacement arrival date = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed in the production/construction pool and the original unit is removed from the game.
My only lingering doubt is whether the game contains replacement units that were never historically built.
EDIT: tweaked #3.
Warspite1
1. That should be Construction Pool not Reserve Pool.
I will look for other Replacement Units to see if there is any other treatment.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Steve, this is my take on the rule (hope I`ve answered the right question [X(] this time).
I think if we take the case of Hyuga and Ise specifically, then there are
two scenarios where they are indirectly or directly affected; Brute Force and
Darkness Before Dawn:
[Before the scenario begins] - Jan/Feb 1942
Hyuga and Ise replacement units arrive and as "both BB`s are on the map", the
replacement units go in the construction pool.
Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942
- Hyuga and Ise are still BB`s ready for placing on the Pacific/Asia map by the
Japanese player at the start of the scenario (although presumably he can
choose to replace on the very first turn instead of placing on the map (see below)).
- The replacement units remain in the construction pool ready for when the
Japanese player or the AI chooses to convert to a carrier/battleship.
- If the Japanese player that turn or subsequently chooses to convert, then the
cost of doing so is the 2nd cycle cost i.e. because the replacement counter is
being placed from the construction pool it takes its 2nd cycle cost (3pts) and
no. of turns indicated (6 turns).
- The BB counters are removed from the game immediately
- At the end of the 6th turn, the replacement units appear as a reinforcement
Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943
- Hyuga and Ise replacement units are face-up on the production cycle and will
appear on the map in Sep/Oct (Ise) and Nov/Dec (Hyuga) at no extra cost (this
mirrors their historical conversion).
- the BB counters have been removed from the game and never appear.
I think I agree.
Replacement arrival year is 1942. Scenarios that start before then clearly have the BB versions on the map and the CV versions are in the Future Force Pool (not the construction pool).
Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the BBs since the earliest the CVs could arrive would be Jan/Feb 1943. The CVs are in the Reserve Pool.
Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943
Scenario says they start in production to arrive face up in Nov/Dec 1943, so that must be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.
Decline and Fall begins in May/Jun 1944
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.
===
So, the general rule is that:
1 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is prior to the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the original unit is placed on the map and the replacement unit is placed in the reserve pool.
2 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is on or after the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed on the map and the original unit is removed from the game.
3 - if the scenario has the unit in the production/construction pool on or after the replacement arrival date (replacement arrival date = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed in the production/construction pool and the original unit is removed from the game.
My only lingering doubt is whether the game contains replacement units that were never historically built.
EDIT: tweaked #3.
Warspite1
1. That should be Construction Pool not Reserve Pool.
I will look for other Replacement Units to see if there is any other treatment.
Warspite1
Shinano is an interesting one - with her three counters!!
- In Brute Force, she must be in the Force Pool i.e. she joined that pool as a BB in 1940.
- The Japanese player has not laid her down and so she remains there at the start of the scenario.
- The Japanese player can now "replace" her with one of two CV`s at any point in the future. Because her original unit is in the Force Pool, both replacement units start in the Force Pool too and the normal two cycles of cost and time are required for her to be built.
(Note: need to code the ability of a player to change their mind - i.e. start of 1942 the Japanese player lays down Shinano BB. At a point in the future (end of a cycle?) he decides to change to one of the two CV`s).
- In Darkness Before Dawn CV Shinano is face down in the production cycle. THIS MUST BE THE HISTORICAL SHINANO I ASSUME - counter 5107. The BB is removed from the game. She will enter the construction pool at the end of her cycle and the player will pay her 2nd cycle cost (and no. of turns) to get her on the map. Again, the Japanese player must be able to switch from the historical to the ahistorical CV at a point in the future (at the end of a cycle only?) by paying the extra cost.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Steve, further to my post above, I think this is the total list of replacement ships to worry about coding. Do you need me to do anything with these research wise?
Japanese
Ise
Hyuga
Karyu x 2
Shinano x 2
German
Gneisenau
Scharnhorst
Seydlitz
French
Guichen
De Grasse
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Steve, further to my post above, I think this is the total list of replacement ships to worry about coding. Do you need me to do anything with these research wise?
Japanese
Ise
Hyuga
Karyu x 2
Shinano x 2
German
Gneisenau
Scharnhorst
Seydlitz
French
Guichen
De Grasse
I need to know which of these units were actually built and if so, when.
Steve, further to my post above, I think this is the total list of replacement ships to worry about coding. Do you need me to do anything with these research wise?
Japanese
Ise
Hyuga
Karyu x 2
Shinano x 2
German
Gneisenau
Scharnhorst
Seydlitz
French
Guichen
De Grasse
I need to know which of these units were actually built and if so, when.
Warspite1
Neither French ship was built - either the cruiser OR the replacement light
carrier. In reality, De Grasse was laid down as a cruiser, but in the WIF Global
war scenario she is in the Force Pool - NOT face down on the production
track. Both the cruiser and replacement unit for both ships ALWAYS start in the
Force Pool (Replacement units arrive - Guichen in 1941 and De Grasse in 1940)*.
Neither Scharnhorst or Gneisenau were converted to their up-gunned replacement
units. Both Replacement units start in Construction Pool (Gneisenau from 1940 and
Scharnhorst 1941) except the decline and fall scenario (Scharnhorst was sunk by
then) and so both BB and replacement unit is removed from the game.
Seydlitz was never built as either a cruiser or carrier. She starts the Global
war scenario as a CA in the Construction Pool. The replacement CV comes into the
Construction Pool in 1942. All scenarios that start in 1942 onwards have Seydlitz
in the Construction Pool as a CV - the CA is removed from the game from 1942.
Japanese units - see previous posts for Ise, Hyuga and Shinano. Karyu was never
built as either a BB or either of her two CV replacements. Both replacement
options join the game in 1943 and join the BB counter in the Force Pool,
regardless of scenario.
Note: May want to check with Patrice which Shinano CV counter is used in scenarios
where she appears on the production chart - assume its the historical version.
* Apologies for stating the obvious but this whole post just refers to scenarios. In an
actual game, where a replacement unit appears depends on what has gone before
e.g. Ship sunk = remove replacement unit - ship still in force pool = replacement
goes to force pool - ship on map = replacement to construction pool etc etc - see
rule 4.1.4.
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Steve, further to my post above, I think this is the total list of replacement ships to worry about coding. Do you need me to do anything with these research wise?
Japanese
Ise
Hyuga
Karyu x 2
Shinano x 2
German
Gneisenau
Scharnhorst
Seydlitz
French
Guichen
De Grasse
I need to know which of these units were actually built and if so, when.
Warspite1
Neither French ship was built - either the cruiser OR the replacement light
carrier. In reality, De Grasse was laid down as a cruiser, but in the WIF Global
war scenario she is in the Force Pool - NOT face down on the production
track. Both the cruiser and replacement unit for both ships ALWAYS start in the
Force Pool (Replacement units arrive - Guichen in 1941 and De Grasse in 1940)*.
Neither Scharnhorst or Gneisenau were converted to their up-gunned replacement
units. Both Replacement units start in Construction Pool (Gneisenau from 1940 and
Scharnhorst 1941) except the decline and fall scenario (Scharnhorst was sunk by
then) and so both BB and replacement unit is removed from the game.
Seydlitz was never built as either a cruiser or carrier. She starts the Global
war scenario as a CA in the Construction Pool. The replacement CV comes into the
Construction Pool in 1942. All scenarios that start in 1942 onwards have Seydlitz
in the Construction Pool as a CV - the CA is removed from the game from 1942.
Japanese units - see previous posts for Ise, Hyuga and Shinano. Karyu was never
built as either a BB or either of her two CV replacements. Both replacement
options join the game in 1943 and join the BB counter in the Force Pool,
regardless of scenario.
Note: May want to check with Patrice which Shinano CV counter is used in scenarios
where she appears on the production chart - assume its the historical version.
* Apologies for stating the obvious but this whole post just refers to scenarios. In an
actual game, where a replacement unit appears depends on what has gone before
e.g. Ship sunk = remove replacement unit - ship still in force pool = replacement
goes to force pool - ship on map = replacement to construction pool etc etc - see
rule 4.1.4.
Thanks. Let me see if I got this right, ... only the Japanese ungrades actually happened. I can code that easily enough.
I need to know which of these units were actually built and if so, when.
Warspite1
Neither French ship was built - either the cruiser OR the replacement light
carrier. In reality, De Grasse was laid down as a cruiser, but in the WIF Global
war scenario she is in the Force Pool - NOT face down on the production
track. Both the cruiser and replacement unit for both ships ALWAYS start in the
Force Pool (Replacement units arrive - Guichen in 1941 and De Grasse in 1940)*.
Neither Scharnhorst or Gneisenau were converted to their up-gunned replacement
units. Both Replacement units start in Construction Pool (Gneisenau from 1940 and
Scharnhorst 1941) except the decline and fall scenario (Scharnhorst was sunk by
then) and so both BB and replacement unit is removed from the game.
Seydlitz was never built as either a cruiser or carrier. She starts the Global
war scenario as a CA in the Construction Pool. The replacement CV comes into the
Construction Pool in 1942. All scenarios that start in 1942 onwards have Seydlitz
in the Construction Pool as a CV - the CA is removed from the game from 1942.
Japanese units - see previous posts for Ise, Hyuga and Shinano. Karyu was never
built as either a BB or either of her two CV replacements. Both replacement
options join the game in 1943 and join the BB counter in the Force Pool,
regardless of scenario.
Note: May want to check with Patrice which Shinano CV counter is used in scenarios
where she appears on the production chart - assume its the historical version.
* Apologies for stating the obvious but this whole post just refers to scenarios. In an
actual game, where a replacement unit appears depends on what has gone before
e.g. Ship sunk = remove replacement unit - ship still in force pool = replacement
goes to force pool - ship on map = replacement to construction pool etc etc - see
rule 4.1.4.
Thanks. Let me see if I got this right, ... only the Japanese ungrades actually happened. I can code that easily enough.
Warspite1
Only three of the four Japanese happened (Ise, Hyuga and Shinano - of these only Ise and Hyuga were actually "replaced" Shinano was converted while in production) and of the remaining six, four were not built at all (Guichen, DeGrasse, Seydlitz and Karyu) - actual or replacement. The remaining two were built but their replacement unit was not used (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau).
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Neither French ship was built - either the cruiser OR the replacement light
carrier. In reality, De Grasse was laid down as a cruiser, but in the WIF Global
war scenario she is in the Force Pool - NOT face down on the production
track. Both the cruiser and replacement unit for both ships ALWAYS start in the
Force Pool (Replacement units arrive - Guichen in 1941 and De Grasse in 1940)*.
Neither Scharnhorst or Gneisenau were converted to their up-gunned replacement
units. Both Replacement units start in Construction Pool (Gneisenau from 1940 and
Scharnhorst 1941) except the decline and fall scenario (Scharnhorst was sunk by
then) and so both BB and replacement unit is removed from the game.
Seydlitz was never built as either a cruiser or carrier. She starts the Global
war scenario as a CA in the Construction Pool. The replacement CV comes into the
Construction Pool in 1942. All scenarios that start in 1942 onwards have Seydlitz
in the Construction Pool as a CV - the CA is removed from the game from 1942.
Japanese units - see previous posts for Ise, Hyuga and Shinano. Karyu was never
built as either a BB or either of her two CV replacements. Both replacement
options join the game in 1943 and join the BB counter in the Force Pool,
regardless of scenario.
Note: May want to check with Patrice which Shinano CV counter is used in scenarios
where she appears on the production chart - assume its the historical version.
* Apologies for stating the obvious but this whole post just refers to scenarios. In an
actual game, where a replacement unit appears depends on what has gone before
e.g. Ship sunk = remove replacement unit - ship still in force pool = replacement
goes to force pool - ship on map = replacement to construction pool etc etc - see
rule 4.1.4.
Thanks. Let me see if I got this right, ... only the Japanese ungrades actually happened. I can code that easily enough.
Warspite1
Only three of the four Japanese happened (Ise, Hyuga and Shinano - of these only Ise and Hyuga were actually "replaced" Shinano was converted while in production) and of the remaining six, four were not built at all (Guichen, DeGrasse, Seydlitz and Karyu) - actual or replacement. The remaining two were built but their replacement unit was not used (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau).
The code for replacements works fine as is. I am only concerned about setting up the correct units in the scenarios that start later. I'll define those changes later today.
Having just come back from a humbling visit to Westminster Abbey and a trip to see the Garden of Remembrance (shrouded in Poppies and crosses, stars of St David etc) and The Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, I feel the need to post a Royal Navy write-up and to say thank you [&o].
[4583 Hood - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 144,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 31 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 15-inch (381mm), 14 x 4-inch (102mm) AA guns
.B Displacement (full load): 46,200 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (Belt)
.P HMS Hood or the "Mighty Hood" was the last battlecruiser built for the
Royal Navy (RN). The RN wanted a class of four, fast, lightly armoured but
powerfully armed ships and the original design was completed before the fleet
encounter at Jutland in 1916. At Jutland the deficiencies in the battlecruiser
concept were exposed when the RN had three such ships blow up with huge loss of
life. As a result, the design for this class was altered to allow for additional
armour.
.P Despite this re-design, Hood`s three planned sister ships were cancelled at
the end of World War I and infact Hood was only completed to enable the RN to
gain experience of a number of new features she would test.
.P Her increased armour and other modifications received between the wars meant
that she sat considerably lower in the water than originally intended. This gave
her a reputation as a wet ship, although in fact, she proved a stable gun
platform for her excellent 15-inch main armament, of which she was fitted with
eight, in four twin turrets.
.P Hood combined elegant design with impressive size and between the wars, she
was a great success in "showing the flag" around the world. It could be argued
that her reputation was allowed to cloud peoples mind to the reality of her
design shortcomings; and not just in the Admiralty. It is interesting to hear the
views from survivors of the Bismarck as to how Hood was truly feared by the
Kriegsmarine.
.P Although she had numerous upgrades during her life, Hood only had one major
refit and that was at the end of the twenties. During the thirties it was
realised that she needed a major overhaul. This would have included replacement
of her machinery and a significant strengthening of her horizontal armour, which
was spread too thin and so did not provide protection where it was most needed.
Finally, in an effort to improve her anti-aircraft (AA) weaponry, she would have
had all secondary guns removed in favour of eight, twin, dual-purpose 5.25-inch
turrets and six, 8-barrel pompoms.
.P She was earmarked to follow the battleship Queen Elizabeth and to be the next
in line for a major modernisation. Unfortunately, the outbreak of World War II
meant that this never happened and as a result the Hood that was sent in May 1941
to intercept and stop the Bismarck - Germany`s newest operational battleship -
was little changed from the battlecruiser, designed during World War I.
.P The four ships of the class were all to have been named after famous Admirals
of the RN: Hood, Rodney, Howe and Anson, with Hood named after Samuel Hood,
famous for his exploits in the French Revolutionary Wars and the American War of
Independence.
.P HMS Hood was completed in May 1920. At the outbreak of World War II she was
part of the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron, Home Fleet, along with the Renown and the
Repulse. Initially she was deployed on convoy defence and patrol and
interception duties in the North Western Approaches. She came under air attack
for the first time on the 26th September, while escorting the damaged submarine
Spearfish back to the UK (see Submarine Counter 4734). She received slight
damage from a 500lb bomb during this action. In October, she took part in an
unsuccessful search for the German battlecruiser Gneisenau and the cruiser Köln
off the Norwegian coast (see HMS Repulse) and the following month she was part
of the Home Fleet that screened the return of an Iron Ore Convoy from Narvik,
escorted by the cruiser Aurora and four destroyers. Hood then took part in the
unsuccessful search for Gneisenau and her sister Scharnhorst, after the sinking
of the armed merchant cruiser Rawalpindi (see ASW Counter 4698 and HMS
Newcastle). At the end of the year and into 1940, Hood was one of the ships
tasked with escorting the Canadian troop convoys into home waters, and she mixed
this duty with continued patrol and interception work.
.P At the end of March 1940 Hood underwent a refit, during which she had her
remaining 5.5-inch secondary armament removed, and upon completion, she was
selected to join the newly formed Force H, as Flagship of Admiral Somerville (see
HMS Enterprise). Force H was based in Gibraltar, and Hood escorted military
convoy US.3 on her way there (see Transport Counter 4717). At the beginning of
July, Hood had the unenviable duty to lead Force H in the attack on the Vichy-
French Fleet at Mers-El-Kebir (see HMS Enterprise). At the end of that month, she
took part in Hurry; an operation to deliver fighter aircraft to Malta (see HMS
Argus). This was her last operation as part of Force H, and she returned to the
UK at the start of August, being replaced in Force H by Renown.
.P Hood was returned to the Home Fleet to undertake both anti-invasion patrol
and also interception duties. In November she was sent to try and intercept the
Admiral Scheer after the sinking of the Jervis Bay (see ASW Counter 4698) but no
engagement ensued. January 1941 saw her receive a refit for the purpose of
fitting her with radar, and her first role upon her return was to deploy south
of Iceland to guard against the possibility of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau escaping
back to Germany, following their break-out (see HMS Nelson).
.P Then in May, Hood was to take part in her final operation. The German
battleship Bismarck and her heavy cruiser escort Prinz Eugen, attempted to break-
out into the Atlantic, where they would seek to inflict as much damage and
disruption against the Atlantic convoy routes as possible. The German ships used
the Denmark Strait as their gateway. However, the heavy cruisers Norfolk and
Suffolk were patrolling in that area and managed to pick the German ships up on
radar. The cruisers were able to keep track of the enemy and this enabled Hood
and the new battleship, Prince of Wales, to sail to intercept. The British ships
were under the command of Vice-Admiral Holland in Hood.
.P On the 24th May, the RN ships were sailing at 29 knots, with Prince of Wales
roughly 800 yards to the right and rear of Hood. When contact was made, the
German ships had "crossed the T" and so were able to bring all their main
armament to bear against the RN ships, which had the use of just their forward
guns. Holland decided to close the range as quickly as possible before turning at
short range to bring his rear guns into the battle. He knew that at closer range
the Hood would be less susceptible to plunging shells; her big weakness given the
lack of horizontal armour over her vital areas. Hood opened the firing at 0552hrs
that morning at a range of just over 25,000 yards.
.P When the order to engage was given, Prinz Eugen was mistakenly made the target
by both British ships. Captain Leach, aboard the Prince of Wales, realised the
error but for reasons unknown, Hood apparently failed to change target. However
this is subject to debate as survivors from Bismarck insist Hood had engaged them
that morning. Whatever the truth, Hood failed to hit either ship. Curiously, the
commander of the German fleet, Admiral Lütjens, aboard the Bismarck, was slow in
ordering fire to be returned and Bismarck`s captain, Ernst Lindemann was the one
that gave the order, allegedly declaring, "I will not let my ship get shot out
from under my arse!". Both German ships then concentrated their fire on the Hood.
.P It is believed that the first hit on the battlecruiser came from the 8-inch
shells of Prinz Eugen rather than from Bismarck, whose first three salvoes
missed. A hit on Hood started a fire that spread across the boat-deck and reached
the ready-use ammunition lockers. The boat-deck soon became an inferno as 4-inch
shells and 7-inch UP rocket mines began detonating. Holland ordered that the
fire be left until the ammunition had all detonated in order to ensure the safety
of the damage control parties. A shell then passed through Hood`s spotting top
and this further reduced her ability to accurately fire back.
.P Bismarck used her secondary armament against the Prince of Wales, but kept
her main guns ranged against Hood. Prinz Eugen switched fire to Prince of Wales
after her 6th salvo. Prince of Wales meanwhile continued to fire at Bismarck.
As mentioned previously, it cannot be certain which ship Hood was firing at, but
her shells were still missing both enemy vessels and the RN ships were now in
serious trouble. The enemy had found their range and so as soon as he believed it
safe to do so, Holland gave the order to turn his ships to port and allow the
rear guns into action. The moment the turn began, disaster struck. According to
Captain Leach, Bismarck’s 5th salvo had hit around the base of Hood`s mainmast.
Within a second or two, there was a huge explosion, with a thin, funnel shaped
flame shooting out from the boat-deck. This was followed by her being covered in
smoke. Hood rolled to port and began to sink very quickly, breaking in two as she
did so. It was less than nine minutes since the battle had commenced.
.P Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales had completed her turn to port and now found
herself sailing directly for what remained of the Hood. She took immediate
evasive action to avoid the wreckage, ceasing firing momentarily as she did so.
Because the two RN ships were sailing so close, the Bismarck was easily able to
switch fire accurately to Prince of Wales, and the battleship was lucky to
survive a 15-inch hit underneath her armour belt, when the shell failed to
explode. She also took a direct hit against her bridge that killed all men there
with the exception of two, one of whom was Captain Leach.
.P However, Bismarck was not having it all her own way and the Prince of Wales
scored three hits, one of which was against a forward oil tank and this was to
force Lütjens to cancel his mission and head for France. Prince of Wales laid a
smoke screen and broke off the engagement as she was having problems with her
main armament. Lütjens refused to allow his ships to pursue her, and at 0609hrs,
the Germans ceased firing.
.P The exact cause of the loss of the Hood will probably never be known. The
most likely explanation is that a 15-inch shell from the Bismarck penetrated her
4-inch magazine which then blew the ship apart. Regardless of the exact cause,
the fact remains that out of a crew of 1,418 men, only three survived. A tragic
end to a famous ship.
.P Although the Hood was gone and the Prince of Wales out of action, the hunt for
the Bismarck was only just starting (see HMS Rodney).
Now Maitland, now's your time!
Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Could I ask that you post some more land write ups please?
Thank-you
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 I can't post formatted land write ups for the time being [:(]
On the other hand, I should be able to add some new writeups by David and Eric (Grisouille) in the master file, and send it to Steve, by the end of next week, so maybe Steve will post some of them. I haven't had as much time as I would had liked to work for MWiF last week(due to real-life work) but next week should be OK.
Here is David's comment when he sent me the first draft 10 days ago : "I suspect that the Palestine entry will need careful attention - maybe even post on the forum first for input?".
ORIGINAL: Caquineur
Here is David's comment when he sent me the first draft 10 days ago : "I suspect that the Palestine entry will need careful attention - maybe even post on the forum first for input?".
Wasn't it already posted here in February 2008 ? I have copies of 2 versions that were posted on the 11 and the 12.
ORIGINAL: Caquineur
Here is David's comment when he sent me the first draft 10 days ago : "I suspect that the Palestine entry will need careful attention - maybe even post on the forum first for input?".
Wasn't it already posted here in February 2008 ? I have copies of 2 versions that were posted on the 11 and the 12.
If you have copies of 2 versions that were posted on the 11 and 12, well then I guess it was already posted [:D]
- or else there is something fishy going on on this forum [&:]
On a more serious note (one can't spend his days joking about the relativity theory, can they ?), David and I were referring to David's version - he's "rewriting" some of the Commonwealth write-ups (with Steve's approval, of course)
Froonp: What I am doing is adding some information on the specific military units to the general information already in the earlier versions. For example on Palestine I add details on the joint Jew/Arab pioneer and commando units and the Jewish Palestine Regiment to that already in on the Jewish Brigade Group.
Most of the stuff is on the really obscure entries such as the militia and territorials
