Darren J Pierson

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hundminen: Hey Pudsterman: Was she a blonde too? Seems like there's an awful lot of that going around. I wonder how many history teachers or professors ended up in history due to the process of elimination, rather than genuine interest. Just my $.03 (Canadian)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just to jump in for a second to defend my profession, but very few history professors end up in the field due to the process of elimination. (Sadly, I can't say the same for history teachers, although there are some very good ones out there.) Besides questioning why history is implied to be the default field (similar to: if you can't do anything else, anybody can do history) I must say that spending the 5 to 7 years to get a Ph.D. in the field isn't a sign of elimination. Certainly, she made a big, dumb mistake, but professors are only human too. I would be curious to know what was her field of speciality. There are a lot of them out there. Anyway, I'm not trying to excuse her mistake, after all, I do NATO history, but most of us do this because we love it, not because we couldn't do anything else. Unfortunately, we also have a lot of idiots that love the field too and got Ph.D.s as well. Not flaming, just defending the field. Darren J. Pierson (my 2 cents, adjusted for inflation) [This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 03-31-2000).]

Fionn, Please accept my sympathies for your loss. Darren

I think PTO would be great. Of course, it would have to include the China-Burma-India theatre as well. Plus, you could always throw in the Soviets at the end of the war! Besides, think of how satisfying it would be (from a gamer's/challenge point of view) if you led the Japanese to victory over the Marines. Of course, when you put the Canadians in, you *must* model the RCMP unit(s) that were sent out. Just think of seeing a mounted cavalry charge with all of those dress serge uniforms! Just kidding, I know that the RCMP units didn't wear that, but just think what the POTD graphics would look like!! Darren [This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 02-14-2000).] [This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 02-14-2000).]

Babra and Major Tom, Thanks for the info. I will try to track those down. Darren

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Didn't you see "The Wars?" Best mini-series I ever saw. Not sure if it qualifies as gung ho though, what with the main character being a weenie and all... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, no I haven't seen "The Wars?" AFAIK. Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Darren

I'll go for April 17. (Modified tax day)(in the U.S.at least ) [This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 02-09-2000).]

Long and sometimes meandering post below. One of the nice things about this board is the global perspective that gets shared that allows some of us to expand our horizons a bit. (When the board isn't trying to barbeque somebody as seems to be happening a lot lately ) I must admit though that I am surprised at all of the anti-American comments that keep popping up, especially regarding the movies. As a Canadian living in the U.S. (and teaching U.S. history at the college level, btw) I feel that I tend to see both sides of the issue and I readily admit that most American students are woefully unfamiliar with non-U.S. history. (Of course, they are about the same with U.S. history as well.) However, I don't feel that it is fair to attack American movies for being pro-American. As mentioned earlier, by Los, I think (my apologies if I am wrong) there would be nothing wrong for the British to do their own movie with a British slant. When I saw SPR, I loved it, but I must admit that I felt a small twinge of "Hey! Canada was there too!" But, it was an American movie made for profit. Isn't it a little unfair to jump on Americans for making a movie for themselves? No one would really care if Canadians produced a gung ho pro-Canadian movie. (Of course, who would ever know? ) Unfortunately, I don't think that Eastern Front movies have much of an appeal in the U.S. movie market, and that is what Hollywood has to deal with to a large extent. Mr. Spielberg made a great movie for his intended audience. Besides, even with all of SPR's flaws, I can't tell you how many college freshmen it has motivated to read books on the subject and even ask questions in class. For that, I will be eternally grateful to Mr. Spielberg. I would love to see more historically accurate movies out there, but most movie makers aren't historians and never will be. (Nor should they be.) Simply put, it isn't their jobs to be historians. I cringe at some of their efforts, but I welcome the interest that it spawns. I was lucky enough to attend a talk last week by John F. Marszalek who wrote the book that the movie Assault at West Point was based on, and he said he was very lucky to have a director/producer who really cared about accuracy. A very atypical experience, to say the least, and even then the movie took a path that the historian would not have done. (Focusing on the two defense attorneys.) Anyway, I will wind down now. I just wanted to point out that I think it is a little unfair to criticize Americans for being pro-American, especially *in their entertainment* and that is what SPR and TRL were, entertainment. BTW, this is not targeted at anyone in particular and is not meant as an attack on anyone. Just enjoying a good healthy debate. [This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 02-09-2000).] [This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 02-09-2000).]

Re: Britain's almost war with Russia over Finland tss: You are absolutely correct. I can remember Churchill saying how "interesting" that would have been in his history of WWII. Perhaps it was because of the timing (prior to the fall of France) and Britain had gotten cocky, but this close call illustrates just how foolish countries can be. Good politicians have to know when to back down, as unpalatable as that is to many. Darren [This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 02-01-2000).]

Regarding the British guarantee to Poland: Certainly if the only concern of the British was to guarantee Poland's security then declaring war on both Germany and the Soviet Union makes sense, but even the British acknowledged that they were also fighting for their own national interests. Sometimes the interests of two nations can coincide. Of course, a British declaration of war on the Soviets while at war with Germany would have been a suicidal decision. That would not have helped the Poles at all. Finally, the British did push very hard at the war's end to get a free Poland, but it was moot as has been pointed out by other posters. Stalin was not going to be moved out of Poland. I'm not sure what Britain could have really done in 1939 to save Poland. Darren

Long post warning! Most of my ideas have already been posted, but why let a lack of originality stop anyone? First up, I think that every game option/command that a player can hit needs to be in the manual. That might sound like an obvious statement, but I can't tell you how many games I have hunted throughout the manual to find out what some small icon or choice really meant. Second, a tutorial is a must, IMO. You want to ease new users into the system. I remember ASL's training chapter (what was it in, Paratrooper?) A tutorial with something like a Drill Sgt. putting you through your paces while teaching you the system would be cool, informative and set the right tone. Third. For crying out loud, give us an index!!!!!!! Nothing screams low quality to me than companies that don't put indexes into the manual. When I am playing, I want to look up the command and find it w/o fighting the whole book! Fourth. I like the unbound three hole punch format. That way I can put it in a binder and have it handy. Plus, as pointed out earlier, it stays open to the page you want. What I really like about this format is that as BTS and others add info/appendices for the system, I can print them out and put them right in the same book. It would be really great if everyone used a similar format so that it would all look great. (Does this remind anyone of the ASL manual? Like I said, no points for originality here!) Fifth. Being a history grad student, I love historical info. Plus, I think that a short history section (or, better yet, a long one) gives a gamer an insight into how the designers see the historical period. BTS has done a fine job aiming for realism, but history is always an interpretation, and understanding how the developers see their universe is helpful. Sixth. The best part of good board wargames to me was always the designer's notes. This board is great, but the product shouldn't require master lurker status like I have to understand it. Well, my apologies for being so long winded, but when I finally step out of the shadows, I get verbose. Thanks. Darren J. Pierson [This message has been edited by Darren J Pierson (edited 01-03-2000).]

Okay, I downloaded and installed DirectX 7 but no change. Darren

Just to put in my two cents worth here: While the men don't look "real" they are the best in a game of this type by far. I really enjoyed scrolling around the screen and watching some of the soldiers' heads turn to look at me (okay, the camera <g>). I do agree, however, that the interface for moving the camera seems a little odd for me, but it isn't fair to judge it until I get enough time to get used to it. So far, I am really enjoying the demo quite a bit. Darren

Good Point. I am using DirectX 6.1. Darren Gotta learn those little faces, I see. <g>

Gentlemen, I really like the demo so far, but I have had a couple of problems that seem to be video related, but I'm not sure if they are driver related. (Okay, so I'm not a computer guru <g>) When I start the demo, the screen goes black and nothing ever comes up except a white arrow cursor. If I click around long enough, I get into the options screen with fog of war, etc., settings. Once I find the start button by accident, the program asks for where the scenarios are (or something like that). Anyway, then the normal windows 98 file window comes up for me to select the proper directory, etc. This works, except all of the icons (such as the file folders, etc.,) are above the files (and into the top part of the dialog window) and are distorted. Once I get into the game itself, however, the program seems to run fine. I did notice, however, that if I hit the escape key and then return to the game, the edges of the screen flicker. If this isn't a video driver problem, then I apologize for wasting your time. My system specs are: Gateway PII-400 64 meg 3dfx Voodoo Banshee Video AGP Card The drivers for the Banshee are as follows: (This may be not what your are looking for, so let me know what you need) GDI Driver Version 4.10.01.0232-1.00 Glide 2X Driver Version 2.60.00.0126 Glide 3X 3.10.00.0126 Open Gl Driver 4.00 (not accelerated) Direct 3D Driver Version 4.10.01.0232-1.00 Like I said, if this isn't a driver problem, my apologies. Thank you. Darren

Fionn, Once again, like in the other thread on this topic, I would like to thank you for your help in getting our names into the game. I don't think that everyone realizes that the whole point of your efforts were to allow us, the customers, to get *our* names into the game and not simply to be historically accurate. With all of the detail BTS is putting into the game, I guess I can understand those who want to apply it to this as well, but I think that if people really understood what you were doing they would be more understanding. (okay, that sentence was a little redundant.) So, just to repeat myself one more time: Thanks again for all of your help, and don't let them get to you!!!

Fionn, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your efforts in getting our names put into the game. I have been lurking here since the Computer Squad Leader days and have been following the proceedings with great interest. I figured it was finally time to step from the shadows. Once again, thanks for your help and effort. I am certainly looking forward to the game.