Mistakes...

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.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 3103
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Joseignacio »

In that very article, it's implicit but should be explicit, English is a West Germanic language originally. [;)]

As the very article explains later on:
The Norman conquest of England in the 11th century gave rise to heavy borrowings from Norman French, and vocabulary and spelling conventions began to give the appearance of a close relationship with Romance languages[14][15] to what had then become Middle English. The Great Vowel Shift that began in the south of England in the 15th century is one of the historical events that mark the emergence of Modern English from Middle English.

For those who come from Latin origined languages (french, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, ...) these points are very clear and IMO they are at least 50% of English (thanks God :) )

But what I was objecting was that these guys defended that English is similar to Scandinavian with examples like the following (i'll include my own translation to spanish in red and you'll see that their arguments could be used to defend that English comes from Spanish (which obviously is not true, or from French, which makes as much sense):

Note: What I mean is NOT that English is no originally Germanic or Scandinavian but that the way they are trying to prove it is laughable.
"We can show that wherever English differs syntactically from the other Western Germanic languages -- German, Dutch, Frisian -- it has the same structure as the Scandinavian languages." Here are some examples:

* Word order: In English and Scandinavian the object is placed after the verb:

I have read the book.

Eg har lese boka.

Yo he leído el libro

German and Dutch (and Old English) put the verb at the end.

Ich habe das Buch gelesen.

* English and Scandinavian can have a preposition at the end of the sentence.

This we have talked about.

Dette har vi snakka om.

* English and Scandinavian can have a split infinitive, i.e. we can insert a word between the infinitive marker and the verb.

I promise to never do it again.

Eg lovar å ikkje gjera det igjen.

(Yo) prometo no hacerlo nunca mas.

* Group genitive:

The Queen of England's hat.

Dronninga av Englands hatt.

"All of this is impossible in German or Dutch, and these kinds of structures are very unlikely to change within a language. The only reasonable explanation then is that English is in fact a Scandinavian language, and a continuation of the Norwegian-Danish language which was used in England during the Middle Ages."

"But why the inhabitants of the British Isles chose the Scandinavian grammar is something we can only speculate on," says Jan Terje Faarlund.

I don't know enough about German to speak about whether they use group genitive or not, but I can tell you too, that in German (not only Scandinavian) you can indeed have a preposition at the end of a sentence. Example: "Rufen Sie an!"
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 3002
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Neilster »

Yeah. I should have mentioned the Norman French bit.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Froonp »

Is that forum now devoted to linguistics ? [:D]
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 3103
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Joseignacio »

Sorry for my part in the digression. :)
User avatar
Easo79
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 1:02 pm
Location: Mallorca, Illes Balears

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Easo79 »

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Is that forum now devoted to linguistics ? [:D]

mmm...you are right...I tend to disgress horribly....[&:]

Err..back to the topic. I have a very important question.

The scenario Booklet says that for a first-time player the ideal scenario is Barbarrossa, and then Guadalcanal. Do most of you, "oh!, expert WiF players" agree with that assertion?

Intuitively it would seem that Guadalcanal was a much smaller battle (and therefore easier) than Barbarrossa, that's why I am asking this. But perhaps the intricacies of the naval system more than compensates for this? But what if the program knows the rules...?
A l’hora que el sol se pon, bevent al raig de la font, he assaborit els secrets de la terra misteriosa.

Part de dins de la canal he vist l’aigua virginal venir del fosc naixement a regalar-me la boca.
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 3002
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Neilster »

Err..back to the topic. I have a very important question.

The scenario Booklet says that for a first-time player the ideal scenario is Barbarrossa, and then Guadalcanal. Do most of you, "oh!, expert WiF players" agree with that assertion?

Intuitively it would seem that Guadalcanal was a much smaller battle (and therefore easier) than Barbarrossa, that's why I am asking this. But perhaps the intricacies of the naval system more than compensates for this?

In short, yes. Barbarossa will teach you about the flow of the game and the land and air combat systems. The Guadalcanal scenario actually encompasses much of the Pacific Theatre and much more than just the battle of Guadalcanal. Naval combat is a major component of this scenario.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
Extraneous
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Extraneous »

ORIGINAL: Easo79

Of course, you can think he is a reliable scholar because he is a poet. I would say that if one goes to the University Departments of Catalan Literature or Philology, and ask them about Ivan Tubau, you will get mixed answers: 50% would say he is a buffon, the other 50% would say he is a clown.

I had no need to look in the Wikipedia, because he happened to be a professor at my University, when he gained campus fame by his record of making soft porno movies and getting some sanction for sexual harassment towards a female student (a fact not included in the Wikipedia, I guess). Something along the lines: “I can not concentrate, because I see your pretty face and cannot help thinking what great blowjobs you surely do”. This is your reliable scholar.

But, obviously, it’s up to you to chose him as the objective of your scholarship predilections.

PS: I have the opportunity to gently correct you on your maths concerning the Suez Canal. If 50 ships cross the canal every day in a 11 hour run, it is pure nonsense that 10 ships would take 4 or 5 days. You turned the maths upside down. Just the same as when you invented the concept of negative probability.

I just posted the link on Catalan who they chose to quote you can take up with them. I was interested in the fact that there are over 2,000 loan words from Spanish.


As for the Suez Canal:

You might be right if those were the only 10 Italian ships needed. An average Italian infantry division (divisione binaria) had a paper strength of 13,500 men. An Italian Corps (of 2 divisions) would therefore consist of approximately 27,000 men. It would therefore take more than 10 ships to transport just the men. Unless the Italian Corps is under strength. Remember the ten Italian passenger ships can only carry 800-1,400 men each. That comes to between 8,000 and 14,000 men.

You might be right if the Italians had not joined Germany and Japan as part of the Axis.

You might be right if the British were generous enough to prioritize (over their own shipping) an Italian military convoy going through the Suez Canal during time of war.

You might be right if at that time there were no other shipping going through the Suez Canal.


As far as I have found the United States was the only country to practice an amphibious assault prior to World War 2.

I feel I was being overly generous in the way I calculated 10 Italian ships passing through the Suez Canal.


I'm Sorry I cannot take credit for the concept of negative probability scientist have done that.

ORIGINAL: Neilster
The Wikipedia article seems pretty clear. English is a West Germanic language but there have been Scandinavian influences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language

Cheers, Neilster

From Neilster's link:

"Modern English has not only assimilated words from other European languages, but from all over the world."

So English is a polyglot language.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Is that forum now devoted to linguistics ?

No Patrice just this thread.
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 3002
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Neilster »

As far as I have found the United States was the only country to practice an amphibious assault prior to World War 2.

Ever heard of Gallipoli? And of course there are all the others from ancient times onwards...the Persians at Marathon in 490 BC etc...

Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 3002
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Neilster »

I'm Sorry I cannot take credit for the concept of negative probability scientist have done that.

Care to give an example?

From Wikipedia...

"Probabilities are given a value between 0 (0% chance or will not happen) and 1 (100% chance or will happen)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability

Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Mistakes...

Post by brian brian »

Barbarossa is the easier scenario to start with, for sure, but Guadalcanal is the more important one to learn well.

But a very common mistake Wold in Flames players make is to skip straight from Barbarossa to the Global War scenario, without bothering to learn the intricacies of the naval system.

The naval system in WiF is one of the design strengths. It's not just an abstract system of points as in Third Reich or Empires in Arms. A player that knows the war at sea well will beat one that doesn't unless that player only ever plays Russia.
User avatar
composer99
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

RE: Mistakes...

Post by composer99 »

On topic:

System mastery is an important component of player skill in (M)WiF as in any game. Learning the system is IMO best done in digestible chunks.

As such, I would agree with the scenario booklet and with other veteran players posting here:
- Barbarossa is a good starting point: you learn the land/air game, the turn/impulse system, production, and even a little politics (such as it is in (M)WiF).
- Guadalcanal is an important next step: you learn the naval/air game, combined arms operations, and how to work with what you have (important for naval stuff that takes 2 years to build and 2 die rolls to sink).

I would heartily recommend (and endorse any others' recommendations) to understand both scenarios relatively well before proceeding with the main game.

=====
Off topic:

It transpires that, as a mathematical concept, negative probability is "a thing" (as the kids say these days), mostly used in financial modelling and quantum mechanics (both IMO apropos).

It's fair to say I don't see it having any particular relevance to MWiF, but it is out there.
~ Composer99
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Easo79
ORIGINAL: Froonp

Is that forum now devoted to linguistics ? [:D]

mmm...you are right...I tend to disgress horribly....[&:]

Err..back to the topic. I have a very important question.

The scenario Booklet says that for a first-time player the ideal scenario is Barbarrossa, and then Guadalcanal. Do most of you, "oh!, expert WiF players" agree with that assertion?

Intuitively it would seem that Guadalcanal was a much smaller battle (and therefore easier) than Barbarrossa, that's why I am asking this. But perhaps the intricacies of the naval system more than compensates for this? But what if the program knows the rules...?
Naval operations in WIF are quite different from other systems modeling naval operations and combat in WW II. ADG's design for WIF takes some getting used to. Some examples:

Port attacks take place before naval movement! This means that you have to devote an impulse (partial turn) to move the Japanese fleet into position next to Hawaii, and then wait for the following impulse to launch the port attack on Pearl Harbor.

Naval units moving through a sea area can be intercepted by enemy naval units already present in the sea area and forced to engage in combat - in the middle of the naval movement phase.

All naval combat depends on successful search rolls by one or both sides. Gigantic fleets can occupy the same sea area and yet no combat takes place during the impulse, or possibly even during the full 2 month game turn.

Surprise is a major factor in the outcome of all naval combat. Small naval forces can do damage to forces 2+ times their size if the die rolls are such that the smaller force achieves surprise. You always have to be prepared to lose ships at sea in combat, regardless of how majestic your fleet appears before engaging in combat.

The power of air units in naval combat in WIF is enormous. This is historically accurate, and a fact that Churchill was slow to learn - and reluctant to accept. In his 6 volume set on WW II he keeps going on and on about battleships. In the later volumes of the set he adds carriers to his lists of important naval forces.

Then there are invasion, creating, maintaining, and protecting convoy pipelines.

In general, the war between the US and Japan is 95% naval operations. Guadalcanal lets a new player learn how the WIF system works.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Extraneous
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Extraneous »

ORIGINAL: Neilster
As far as I have found the United States was the only country to practice an amphibious assault prior to World War 2.

Ever heard of Gallipoli? And of course there are all the others from ancient times onwards...the Persians at Marathon in 490 BC etc...

Neilster

[:D] Gallipoli and Marathon were PRACTICE? [:D]

Amphibious warfare (wikipedia)

The term amphibious first emerged in the USA during the 1930s after design of the Landing Vehicle Tracked where the first prototypes were named Alligator and Crocodile, though neither species are amphibian. Amphibious warfare includes operations defined by their type, purpose, scale and means of execution. In the British Empire at the time these were called combined operations which were defined as "...operations where naval, military or air forces in any combination are co-operating with each other, working independently under their respective commanders, but with a common strategic object." All armed forces that employ troops with special training and equipment for conducting landings from naval vessels to shore agree to this definition.
University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
ORIGINAL: Neilster
As far as I have found the United States was the only country to practice an amphibious assault prior to World War 2.

Ever heard of Gallipoli? And of course there are all the others from ancient times onwards...the Persians at Marathon in 490 BC etc...

Neilster

[:D] Gallipoli and Marathon were PRACTICE? [:D]

Amphibious warfare (wikipedia)

The term amphibious first emerged in the USA during the 1930s after design of the Landing Vehicle Tracked where the first prototypes were named Alligator and Crocodile, though neither species are amphibian. Amphibious warfare includes operations defined by their type, purpose, scale and means of execution. In the British Empire at the time these were called combined operations which were defined as "...operations where naval, military or air forces in any combination are co-operating with each other, working independently under their respective commanders, but with a common strategic object." All armed forces that employ troops with special training and equipment for conducting landings from naval vessels to shore agree to this definition.
Not for those who were there.

It probably isn't overstating the case to say that all wars in the Mediterranean in ancient times involved some invasions from ship to shore. I've just finished reading a book on ancient civilizations and their operations in the Med sure had a lot of fighting over control of islands.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 3002
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Neilster »

The term might have been coined later but amphibious invasions had been occurring for thousands of years.

Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
Extraneous
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Extraneous »

Merriam-Websters online dictionary

Amphibious

1: combining two characteristics

2 a: relating to or adapted for both land and water <amphibious vehicles>
b: executed by coordinated action of land, sea, and air forces organized for invasion <an amphibious landing>; also : trained or organized for such action <amphibious forces>

3: able to live both on land and in water <amphibious plants>

I have given you definitions of Amphibious not invasions and not landings.

I have shown you that Amphibious was not used as a military term prior to 1930.



I will make my statement even more clear:

Between 1930 and the start of World War 2. For the start of World War 2 you may use either the start of Second Sino-Japanese War (July 7, 1937) or the German invasion of Poland (September 1, 1939).

No country other than the United States PRACTICED for a sea born landing, combined attack, sea born attack, or sea born invasion against an proposed enemy opponent.


University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
User avatar
Greyshaft
Posts: 1979
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:59 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Greyshaft »

ORIGINAL: Neilster
The term might have been coined later but amphibious invasions had been occurring for thousands of years.

Neilster
There is a significant difference between an amphibious invasion and an opposed amphibious invasion. Mankind has certainly been unloading ships at enemy-held islands for millenia then marching inland to seek battle, but that is a significantly different event to having your galley shot out from under you and then being dragged under by the weight of your chainmail. I'm not saying opposed landings didn't happen before 1915, but it was mainly in WWII that technology was specifically harnessed to getting the troops off the beaches while under enemy fire.
/Greyshaft
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 3002
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Neilster »

I know. I was replying to the original assertion.

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 3103
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: Neilster
As far as I have found the United States was the only country to practice an amphibious assault prior to World War 2.

Ever heard of Gallipoli? And of course there are all the others from ancient times onwards...the Persians at Marathon in 490 BC etc...

Neilster
[:D][:D][:D]
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 3103
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Mistakes...

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Extraneous
ORIGINAL: Neilster



Ever heard of Gallipoli? And of course there are all the others from ancient times onwards...the Persians at Marathon in 490 BC etc...

Neilster

[:D] Gallipoli and Marathon were PRACTICE? [:D]

Amphibious warfare (wikipedia)

The term amphibious first emerged in the USA during the 1930s after design of the Landing Vehicle Tracked where the first prototypes were named Alligator and Crocodile, though neither species are amphibian. Amphibious warfare includes operations defined by their type, purpose, scale and means of execution. In the British Empire at the time these were called combined operations which were defined as "...operations where naval, military or air forces in any combination are co-operating with each other, working independently under their respective commanders, but with a common strategic object." All armed forces that employ troops with special training and equipment for conducting landings from naval vessels to shore agree to this definition.
Not for those who were there.

It probably isn't overstating the case to say that all wars in the Mediterranean in ancient times involved some invasions from ship to shore. I've just finished reading a book on ancient civilizations and their operations in the Med sure had a lot of fighting over control of islands.


Continuously. In the old times, here, in the Mediterranean, ships were conceived for centuries more like a way to move soldiers who would do the raids, invasions, et al than like weapons.

There are thousands of years of amphibious assaults. I guess Gilgamesh made some by the Euphrates...[:D]

Really, sometimes the encyclopedists tend to became pretty nationalistic, an open mind needs to be aware and judge when something is a plain nonsense.

Just the Spanish Marines were created in 1537 specifically for amphib warfare, and it's the older known in the world created specifically with this purpose, when there was no sunset in the Spanish Empire and amph warfare was essencial.
First Period

The battles that the marines served in during this very busy period included:

Algiers expedition (1541).
Battle of Lepanto (1571).
Tunisia expedition (1573).
The conquest of Terceira Island (Azores) (1582).
Great Britain expedition (1599).
San Salvador (Brazil) expedition (1625).

But of course there have been plenty of amph invasions before Marines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Navy_Marines
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”