Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[michaelbaldur]

I got something right .... [:D]

[Froonp]

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 think that this unit should not be named 6th Pz Mot Engineer.
The wheels on this counter are here to show that it uses the mot hex costs, but that do not make it a MOT unit. It is an ENG unit. Calling it 6th Pz Engineer is better. Moreover this removes the weirdness that Ian has described.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

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 think that this unit should not be named 6th Pz Mot Engineer.
The wheels on this counter are here to show that it uses the mot hex costs, but that do not make it a MOT unit. It is an ENG unit. Calling it 6th Pz Engineer is better. Moreover this removes the weirdness that Ian has described.

Ze German reader?

Well the combination of "armoured" and motorized in this case is, somehow, not exactly wrong.

Because armoured halftrack carriers (Skfz 250, 251 etc) were complicated, ressource-expensive vehicles, only a few of them could be built. Thus in most cases in a Panzer Div. only 1 out of 4 Grenadier Bat. were equipped this way (armoured). The other 3 Bats plus the Panzerpionier Bat. (armoured engineers) often were using trucks, confiscated from all German occupied Europe, lots of them French ones. Thus most sub-units of a Panzer Division (armoured Div) just tended to be only motorized.

Plus being severely outproduced in the second half of the war German units tended to demodernize, switching from truck back to horse. So even the label armoured engineer cavalry wouldn't be too far away from reality.

Besides, what is looking stranger to me is the Eng "Div" label. The biggest German Eng units seemed to be Brig.-sized (see the feldgrau.com webside, but no further info there). This would fit into the WIF Divsion/Brigade scheme. Other sources only refer to Regiment-sized Eng. units. And the Panzer Div normally only had Bat.-sized Eng. unit.

Regards

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wosung

ORIGINAL: Froonp

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 think that this unit should not be named 6th Pz Mot Engineer.
The wheels on this counter are here to show that it uses the mot hex costs, but that do not make it a MOT unit. It is an ENG unit. Calling it 6th Pz Engineer is better. Moreover this removes the weirdness that Ian has described.

Ze German reader?

Well the combination of "armoured" and motorized in this case is, somehow, not exactly wrong.

Because armoured halftrack carriers (Skfz 250, 251 etc) were complicated, ressource-expensive vehicles, only a few of them could be built. Thus in most cases in a Panzer Div. only 1 out of 4 Grenadier Bat. were equipped this way (armoured). The other 3 Bats plus the Panzerpionier Bat. (armoured engineers) often were using trucks, confiscated from all German occupied Europe, lots of them French ones. Thus most sub-units of a Panzer Division (armoured Div) just tended to be only motorized.

Plus being severely outproduced in the second half of the war German units tended to demodernize, switching from truck back to horse. So even the label armoured engineer cavalry wouldn't be too far away from reality.

Besides, what is looking stranger to me is the Eng "Div" label. The biggest German Eng units seemed to be Brig.-sized (see the feldgrau.com webside, but no further info there). This would fit into the WIF Divsion/Brigade scheme. Other sources only refer to Regiment-sized Eng. units. And the Panzer Div normally only had Bat.-sized Eng. unit.

Regards

Perhaps the XX is wrong? XX denotes division, while X denotes brigade.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Perhaps the XX is wrong? XX denotes division, while X denotes brigade.

The XX is not wrong in game terms, WiF FE has ENG abstracted to DIV scale units. But as far as I know, no country has DIV scaled ENG units.

[wosung]

X Brigade would be more plausible.

Perhaps Jespher/Captain, or whoever is in charge for the write-ups of German land units has already done this particular one and knows more?

Regards

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Perhaps the XX is wrong? XX denotes division, while X denotes brigade.

The XX is not wrong in game terms, WiF FE has ENG abstracted to DIV scale units. But as far as I know, no country has DIV scaled ENG units.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Perhaps the XX is wrong? XX denotes division, while X denotes brigade.

The XX is not wrong in game terms, WiF FE has ENG abstracted to DIV scale units. But as far as I know, no country has DIV scaled ENG units.

Besides perhaps the USA, sort of. Wasn't there a local higher command for all the CBs and Army engineers in the Pacific late in the war (Tinian or Saipan)?!

Regards

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Perhaps the XX is wrong? XX denotes division, while X denotes brigade.

The XX is not wrong in game terms, WiF FE has ENG abstracted to DIV scale units. But as far as I know, no country has DIV scaled ENG units.

Thanks.

Then I would say that using 'Div' is ok since it correctly matches the use of the term in the WIF rules.

I think of the additional text on the counters as redundant communication to new players about the units. So, instead of 1 with a NATO symbol of X and XX above the NATO symbol, the counter now has 1st Inf Div. I have been playing games that use the NATO symbols since Tactics II in the early 1960's, but I suspect players who are new to the war game genre, might find the extra text very helpful.

[Zorachus99]

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.

I did a final pass on these units with special designations. Units such as Ariete no longer have the Inf Designation, and the Mot has been removed so that the engineer is now 6th Pz Eng. I'm expecting much less truncation. Units are all readable during setup [8D]

[Norman42]

Wasn't there a local higher command for all the CBs and Army engineers in the Pacific late in the war

US Army Engineers are (and were) actually organized into a Corp level unit, the US Army Corps of Engineers. However, they are usually attached to other field corps and divisions in semi-independant battalion sized units.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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.

Warspite 1

Re the earlier posts on this subject I have been doing some research and now have some ideas for providing write ups on the CW transports and amphibious units. However before I go too far down a blind alley, could someone clarify what is the difference between Transports and Amphibious units? From what I recall of playing many years ago, there was no real difference in terms of range or capacity and so does any one know the rationale for ADG splitting out these into two distinct types as opposed to just having a "transports" counter?

Thank you.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: warspite1



Re the earlier posts on this subject I have been doing some research and now have some ideas for providing write ups on the CW transports and amphibious units. However before I go too far down a blind alley, could someone clarify what is the difference between Transports and Amphibious units? From what I recall of playing many years ago, there was no real difference in terms of range or capacity and so does any one know the rationale for ADG splitting out these into two distinct types as opposed to just having a "transports" counter?

Thank you.

Warspite 1

The primary difference is that the TRS type units deals with heavy and light loads, that unload in ports with formal unloading capabilities. The AMPH type unit consists of all the types of ships using during combat landings onto coastal non-port hexes. Variousl type of ferries etc.

Just remember you can only invade with INF type units, though there are two notable excetions of MAR ARM.

MAR can invade from TRS or AMPH.

One of the most distinguishing things about the units is their range and speed, and that there is a Queens type unit.

[warspite1]

Thanks  - so to be clear, does MWIF use option 22.4.12 alone or can a player choose either to play with or without this option?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Thanks  - so to be clear, does MWIF use option 22.4.12 alone or can a player choose either to play with or without this option?

With or Without. But assume With for the purpose of unit descriptions.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Re the earlier posts on this subject I have been doing some research and now have some ideas for providing write ups on the CW transports and amphibious units. However before I go too far down a blind alley, could someone clarify what is the difference between Transports and Amphibious units? From what I recall of playing many years ago, there was no real difference in terms of range or capacity and so does any one know the rationale for ADG splitting out these into two distinct types as opposed to just having a "transports" counter?

AMPH always have a smaller range than TRS, their range is within 2-3 when the TRS are within 3-5.
AMPH can't carry artillery, armored units and planes, TRS can carry everything.
AMPH can make their loaded unit invade, TRS cannot, except for MAR units who are special in this regard.

[michaelbaldur]

amph can debark into a coastal hex ... transporters only into a port or hQ
amph cam embark from a coastal hex ...transporters only from a port or hQ

[Ohio Jones]

I might have missed it, but has there been an update on Land Unit description status in the last month or so?  I'm trying to figure out whether I can be of any assistance, since I have a little time on my hands.  Last I saw, it looked as though Spain (NAT and REP) and Czech were still unassigned...  I don't have much background with either of those nations, but learning is part of the fun!  If there's a way I can pitch in, drop me a line.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Ohio Jones

I might have missed it, but has there been an update on Land Unit description status in the last month or so?  I'm trying to figure out whether I can be of any assistance, since I have a little time on my hands.  Last I saw, it looked as though Spain (NAT and REP) and Czech were still unassigned...  I don't have much background with either of those nations, but learning is part of the fun!  If there's a way I can pitch in, drop me a line.

I'll contact Capitan and see what's what. Finding you something to work on shouldn't be hard.[:D]

Welcome to the forum and thanks for offering to help.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Re the earlier posts on this subject I have been doing some research and now have some ideas for providing write ups on the CW transports and amphibious units. However before I go too far down a blind alley, could someone clarify what is the difference between Transports and Amphibious units? From what I recall of playing many years ago, there was no real difference in terms of range or capacity and so does any one know the rationale for ADG splitting out these into two distinct types as opposed to just having a "transports" counter?

AMPH always have a smaller range than TRS, their range is within 2-3 when the TRS are within 3-5.
AMPH can't carry artillery, armored units and planes, TRS can carry everything.
AMPH can make their loaded unit invade, TRS cannot, except for MAR units who are special in this regard.

Would not the AMPH be equal to the LCI?