Tutorial #6 Air Units

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here are the first 3 pages of the air unit tutorial.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I have the pictures done for pages 4 and 5 and all the elements for the pictures (yet to be assembled) for 6, 7, and 8.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

3rd and last in series. Page 4 is air transports, 5 is carrier air units, 6 is lend lease, and 7 & 8[&:]? ... well, I think you'll like those pages.[;)]

[Froonp]

About page 1, and the Black circled air to air factor, you might say that this means that this aircraft does not suffer from a penalty when fighting at night, instead of saying that it has an air to air advantage. This seems the same, but this is more true saying it the first way IMO.

Let me also say that all those tutorials are GREAT GREAT GREAT readings, and I think that they might be used only for that by new players who own MWiF and want it to help them learn WiF FE. Congratulations. ou are, with simple words and a few explanations, showing WiF F mechanics simply and interestingly. Thanks !!!!

[Griffitz62]

I think the tutorials are excellent. I'm actually enjoying reading all of them. So here comes the really nit-picky stuff.

You might want to use the same word for the different components of an air unit. For example, you are freely using the words "rating", "factor" and "#" when talking about the air, sea, tac and strat values. It might confuse new players into thinking there is a difference between rating, factor and #.

Also, when you are explaining the cost difference (like F2 and F3) and then the time to build them, you may want to connect the two thoughts by using the word "respectively". For example, page 1, 3rd paragraph "Fighter cost 2 or 3 build points (called F2 and F3) and arrive in 2 or 3 turns." Add the word "respectively at the end of that sentence.

I know this is all minor stuff, but just trying to think like a total new player. Overall this is all excellent work.

Ken

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Griffitz62
I think the tutorials are excellent. I'm actually enjoying reading all of them. So here comes the really nit-picky stuff.

You might want to use the same word for the different components of an air unit. For example, you are freely using the words "rating", "factor" and "#" when talking about the air, sea, tac and strat values. It might confuse new players into thinking there is a difference between rating, factor and #.

Also, when you are explaining the cost difference (like F2 and F3) and then the time to build them, you may want to connect the two thoughts by using the word "respectively". For example, page 1, 3rd paragraph "Fighter cost 2 or 3 build points (called F2 and F3) and arrive in 2 or 3 turns." Add the word "respectively at the end of that sentence.

I know this is all minor stuff, but just trying to think like a total new player. Overall this is all excellent work.

Ken

Thanks.

Re rating vs factor vs #, I guess this my fault for reading the rules. I noticed that WIF FE used ratnig for the air-to-air and factor for the other #s. I fnid # very helpful in cramming more words in a limited amount of space. It usually takes me 5 or 6 passes to edit my original long version down to something that fits. I'll give these a reread and see if I can establish a consistency - though it is a minor item in th egrand scheme of things.

I found refering to strength useful for the land units, and MPs for the naval units. Perhaps I can hit on something equally direct for the air units.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Griffitz62
I think the tutorials are excellent. I'm actually enjoying reading all of them. So here comes the really nit-picky stuff.

You might want to use the same word for the different components of an air unit. For example, you are freely using the words "rating", "factor" and "#" when talking about the air, sea, tac and strat values. It might confuse new players into thinking there is a difference between rating, factor and #.

Also, when you are explaining the cost difference (like F2 and F3) and then the time to build them, you may want to connect the two thoughts by using the word "respectively". For example, page 1, 3rd paragraph "Fighter cost 2 or 3 build points (called F2 and F3) and arrive in 2 or 3 turns." Add the word "respectively at the end of that sentence.

I know this is all minor stuff, but just trying to think like a total new player. Overall this is all excellent work.

Ken

I forgot to add, I wanted to stay away from saying the cost and turns match since when you are not using pilots, that isn't true. Nor is it true for land and naval units. Better to let the players think these values are uniquely determined for each unit than develop a belief that is unreliable.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here are pages 4 and 5.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

2nd and last in series. I would like to include the change in class info in the unit data panel but it is so pretty the way Chris did it for CWIF, I am reluctant to change it. Taking it as is and just shoving it into the unit data panel would be real ugly.

[Greyshaft]

You say "Look at the F4F-3 in the lower left corner"... So I looked at the lower left corner  of the F4F3 counter and saw an asterisk.
Took me a minute or two to realise that you meant the lower left corner of the tutorial screen.
Maybe that needs clarification.
Maybe it's just me...

[christo]

Regarding the ability of the carrier planes to fit on smaller carriers, I wonder if it would be better for the example to show say a class 5 carrier (eg Essex) as well as a class 4 carrier (Enterprise) <ie from the same country>. This would mean that you could show that say in 1941 a SBC-2C (picked this plane at random) would fit on the Essex but in 1942 fit on the Enterprise. The newbie would then have pictures of both carriers in front of him.
You have said this already but I wonder if actually having the carriers in front of him may make it easier.

Christo

[Klingon]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Griffitz62
I think the tutorials are excellent. I'm actually enjoying reading all of them. So here comes the really nit-picky stuff.

You might want to use the same word for the different components of an air unit. For example, you are freely using the words "rating", "factor" and "#" when talking about the air, sea, tac and strat values. It might confuse new players into thinking there is a difference between rating, factor and #.

Also, when you are explaining the cost difference (like F2 and F3) and then the time to build them, you may want to connect the two thoughts by using the word "respectively". For example, page 1, 3rd paragraph "Fighter cost 2 or 3 build points (called F2 and F3) and arrive in 2 or 3 turns." Add the word "respectively at the end of that sentence.

I know this is all minor stuff, but just trying to think like a total new player. Overall this is all excellent work.

Ken

Thanks.

Re rating vs factor vs #, I guess this my fault for reading the rules. I noticed that WIF FE used ratnig for the air-to-air and factor for the other #s. I fnid # very helpful in cramming more words in a limited amount of space. It usually takes me 5 or 6 passes to edit my original long version down to something that fits. I'll give these a reread and see if I can establish a consistency - though it is a minor item in th egrand scheme of things.

I found refering to strength useful for the land units, and MPs for the naval units. Perhaps I can hit on something equally direct for the air units.

You could put in the standard disclaimer, that the terms "#", "rating", and "factor" all refer to the numerical value in the indicate position on the counter, and are used interchangably for the sake of not using the exact same word over and over again...

[Froonp]

About page 4, you might say that the CVP are shown in profile, but that the angle of the plane does not impose a role on it. Some people believed that the more pitched ones were bombers, and the more horizontals were fighter, which is wrong. The Swordfish in your example can be used as a fighter, I mean, contribute with his 2 Air to Air Factor to the fighter force.

Well, what I wrote may seem crazy if one does not know that in WiF FE, the aircraft depicted on the counter does not represent the only aircraft type composing the counter, it represents the aircraft type that is the most numerous within that counter. So, that Swordfish has some fighters planes component too.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

You say "Look at the F4F-3 in the lower left corner"... So I looked at the lower left corner  of the F4F3 counter and saw an asterisk.
Took me a minute or two to realise that you meant the lower left corner of the tutorial screen.
Maybe that needs clarification.
Maybe it's just me...

1 minute or 2 staring at the asterisk !!! [:D][:D]
Wow, I'm impressed [:)]
I did not have the problem myself, but maybe that's just me [:D]

[CBoehm]

Regarding the airtransports ...maybe its too detailed ...but the LARGE transports like the Skymaster & Gigant have their range halfed ...when utilizing their 'large' capacity to either transport an INF corps OR to reorganize with 2 reorg-points ...
&nbsp;
Regarding carrier air missions ...maybe you should mention that they have 2 basic operations ...on sea ...(the missions that you mention) or fly in over land ...either to bomb ships or units or as a fighter...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: christo
Regarding the ability of the carrier planes to fit on smaller carriers, I wonder if it would be better for the example to show say a class 5 carrier (eg Essex) as well as a class 4 carrier (Enterprise) <ie from the same country>. This would mean that you could show that say in 1941 a SBC-2C (picked this plane at random) would fit on the Essex but in 1942 fit on the Enterprise. The newbie would then have pictures of both carriers in front of him.
You have said this already but I wonder if actually having the carriers in front of him may make it easier.

Christo

Thanks. But I'll leave this as is. I like having this page match the earlier one on carriers.

I appreciate that your suggestion would be clearer, but I will rely on that little box in the bottom left corner of the page to explain things. Personally, I had a lot of trouble figuring out what this rule was all about when I first read the rules on carrier planes. That's why I made a big deal about the air units changnig class being a unique concept.

I am also rather agressively trying to show as many different units and major powers as I can. One thing that becomes apparent when doing this, is that less than 8% of the 1200+ air units will be shown in the tutorials.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

You say "Look at the F4F-3 in the lower left corner"... So I looked at the lower left corner  of the F4F3 counter and saw an asterisk.
Took me a minute or two to realise that you meant the lower left corner of the tutorial screen.
Maybe that needs clarification.
Maybe it's just me...

Off in the weeds again smelling the flowers, Dorothy?

I'll refer to the box instead of the F4F-3.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

Regarding the airtransports ...maybe its too detailed ...but the LARGE transports like the Skymaster & Gigant have their range halfed ...when utilizing their 'large' capacity to either transport an INF corps OR to reorganize with 2 reorg-points ...

Regarding carrier air missions ...maybe you should mention that they have 2 basic operations ...on sea ...(the missions that you mention) or fly in over land ...either to bomb ships or units or as a fighter...

I should have put in about the range being halved.

I intentionally glossed over that carrier air units can fly missions on land. Its complicated and subtle.

Note that I have not mentioned how air units move into sea box sections. Again, that was willful; I'm leaving it for the tutorial on air movement.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here are 4 more pages of the 6th tutorial - hot off the presses.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

What can I say? The Axis at war?