Matrix Games Forums

In the Royal Navy there is a rank of Captain which is quite senior ... he would expect to command more than one ship.

If Able Seaman Jones was in command of a ship, he might be addressed as 'captain' because he would be 'the captain' (note lower case) but never as Captain Able Seaman Jones. So "Report to the captain, Able Seaman Jones"

ORIGINAL: cockney

just to get this in.

Right Wright, write wright right, right. Right.

Thank you all for getting me very confused now [&:] [&:]

Haha, just kidding.

Question re the Naval write ups:
 
Is anyone doing anything with the Amphibious and Transport counters? I assume there is no intention to do write ups for these (the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the German Auxilaries excepted)? 
 
Also Steve - in Mech in Flames there are Monitors called Roberts and Roberts II. I can only see Roberts II on the Naval Unit Write Up Sheet. Can you let me know what ID no. Roberts should have please?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re the Naval write ups:

Is anyone doing anything with the Amphibious and Transport counters? I assume there is no intention to do write ups for these (the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the German Auxilaries excepted)? 

Also Steve - in Mech in Flames there are Monitors called Roberts and Roberts II. I can only see Roberts II on the Naval Unit Write Up Sheet. Can you let me know what ID no. Roberts should have please?

As far as I know, nothing is being written about the amphibious and naval transport units.

As for the Roberts, perhaps Patrice knows.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re the Naval write ups:

Is anyone doing anything with the Amphibious and Transport counters? I assume there is no intention to do write ups for these (the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the German Auxilaries excepted)?

Also Steve - in Mech in Flames there are Monitors called Roberts and Roberts II. I can only see Roberts II on the Naval Unit Write Up Sheet. Can you let me know what ID no. Roberts should have please?

I think something could be written about the amphibious fleets of different countries. I would be glad to do this. Email me with info about which ones to do.

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re the Naval write ups:

Is anyone doing anything with the Amphibious and Transport counters? I assume there is no intention to do write ups for these (the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the German Auxilaries excepted)?

Also Steve - in Mech in Flames there are Monitors called Roberts and Roberts II. I can only see Roberts II on the Naval Unit Write Up Sheet. Can you let me know what ID no. Roberts should have please?

I think something could be written about the amphibious fleets of different countries. I would be glad to do this. Email me with info about which ones to do.

Ok. Thanks.

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re the Naval write ups:

Is anyone doing anything with the Amphibious and Transport counters? I assume there is no intention to do write ups for these (the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth and the German Auxilaries excepted)?

Also Steve - in Mech in Flames there are Monitors called Roberts and Roberts II. I can only see Roberts II on the Naval Unit Write Up Sheet. Can you let me know what ID no. Roberts should have please?

I think something could be written about the amphibious fleets of different countries. I would be glad to do this. Email me with info about which ones to do.

Fred - could you let me see an example of what you have in mind when you`ve had a chance to do the first one? I would like to do the CW counters.

i haven't gotten started yet, but I think with the Commonwealth one could easily say some things about the CW's propensity for innovation in amphibious technology -- the floating tanks, the mulberries, etc -- and tie that to the later units. it might also be possible to say some things about doctrine.

Here are some screen shots showing the results of Justin's work on unit names. I threw in a description of the 2nd Guards Cavalry since there was room.

Here is what some of the German names look like. Only the 6th Pz Mot Eng has its name shortened. That is done by an automated routine I have in lpace that checks whether the name fits within the available vertical space. Justin has the name as 6th Pz Mot Eng, which is how it would look in any text message about the unit.

Here is a smattering of Commonwealth units. Justin has Aus/Can/SA and so on inserted into the names. I am not sure that is needed since the country abbreviation is shown on the right side of these units. But it doesn't usually cause problems. 21st Ind Mech is the only shortened by the program.

Note that the Militia units have nothing added to their names and the territorial units are all labeled Terr. Do you like the Afghan mountain unit about to take out Canberra?

4th and last in series.

There are several odd ducks in the US unit list, so I showed them here. The artillery types (ART/AT/AA) do not have anything added to their names.

Many thanks to Justin for these improvements.[&o][&o]

Looking great.
 
Shouldn't 'Das Reich' in the 2nd Guards Cavalry write up be: "Das Reich" ?
Also in the fifth paragraph; Guards cavalry --> Guards Cavalry

Well, I agree this is not a ugly as I though it would be.

But...
Maybe the "st", "nd", "rd" and "th", should be deleted, as they take space and renders the digits harder to understand immediately, especially when the whole is written on a counter side. "3rd" "2nd" when written on a side first looks like a word to me, that I have to decode to "third" or "second". A single "3" or "2" digit would have been preferable.

Also, I wonder how this looks in lower levels of zooms. Isn't the overall large amount of gibbering small written text kind of spoiling the counter now, or does this reads nicely ?


Anyway, I'm so sorry that solution was chosen, I was so sure that the "type" addition would have been enough in forms that would have needed them, with filters so that it is not written unecessarily for ART, HQ or planes for example. Now the type are written twice, once in the "name" and once in the "type". We may see some interesting 2nd Arm Div ARM DIV or L Garr GARR in some places where names & types will be used. Before this was restricted to a couple of MAR & PARA units, now it has spread all over the countermix. Great. [:(]

6th Pz Mot Engineer? So the unit is armoured and motorised? Never seen both unit designations together like this? Wonder what the German readers will make of this?

I'd prefer to see Gd for Guard rather than GD but thats just me.

I do like the use of different justification methods for unit descriptions. Shorter descriptions are centralised over the unit icon whereas long descriptions are centralised over the entire width of the counter. Very clever and it works very well Steve.

ORIGINAL: Plain Ian

6th Pz Mot Engineer? So the unit is armoured and motorised? Never seen both unit designations together like this? Wonder what the German readers will make of this?

I'd prefer to see Gd for Guard rather than GD but thats just me.

I do like the use of different justification methods for unit descriptions. Shorter descriptions are centralised over the unit icon whereas long descriptions are centralised over the entire width of the counter. Very clever and it works very well Steve.

Ah, a keen eye. Yes, that is how the centering is done. I wonder about it every once in a while, but changing that code holds zero interest for me.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, I agree this is not a ugly as I though it would be.

But...
Maybe the "st", "nd", "rd" and "th", should be deleted, as they take space and renders the digits harder to understand immediately, especially when the whole is written on a counter side. "3rd" "2nd" when written on a side first looks like a word to me, that I have to decode to "third" or "second". A single "3" or "2" digit would have been preferable.

Also, I wonder how this looks in lower levels of zooms. Isn't the overall large amount of gibbering small written text kind of spoiling the counter now, or does this reads nicely ?


Anyway, I'm so sorry that solution was chosen, I was so sure that the "type" addition would have been enough in forms that would have needed them, with filters so that it is not written unecessarily for ART, HQ or planes for example. Now the type are written twice, once in the "name" and once in the "type". We may see some interesting 2nd Arm Div ARM DIV or L Garr GARR in some places where names & types will be used. Before this was restricted to a couple of MAR & PARA units, now it has spread all over the countermix. Great. [:(]

I will eliminate that if I know where it occurs. Before adding ARM DIV was needed to identify the unit, but it should no longer be necessary.

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

i haven't gotten started yet, but I think with the Commonwealth one could easily say some things about the CW's propensity for innovation in amphibious technology -- the floating tanks, the mulberries, etc -- and tie that to the later units. it might also be possible to say some things about doctrine.

Warspite1

Okay - when you make a start please let me have a look at the kind of thing you intend to write - I just want to ensure we are on the same wavelength in the interests of uniformity.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

4th and last in series.

There are several odd ducks in the US unit list, so I showed them here. The artillery types (ART/AT/AA) do not have anything added to their names.

Many thanks to Justin for these improvements.[&o][&o]

the american engineer is named : 2nd mtn div ..... isn´t that wrong

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur




the american engineer is named : 2nd mtn div ..... isn´t that wrong

Yes. In fact I had noticed that and Justin is fixing it. Stupid of me to put that unit on the screen shot.[:(]