Jump to content

JasonC

Members
  • Content Count

    8,438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

JasonC last won the day on October 16 2019

JasonC had the most liked content!

7 Followers

About JasonC

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 04/01/1966

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    288777908

Converted

  • Location
    Phoenix, AZ USA
  • Interests
    Strategy, history, history of thought, science
  • Occupation
    Software

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. IanL - Right, you just focus on the abuse and insult and campaigning to never improve anything. Check.
  2. IanL - I'd say roughly 90% of threads around here consist of new or old players making legitimate comments about aspects of the game that could be improved, then for their pains getting abused and insulted at length by experienced players who do nothing to improve it, nor for that matter to improve the neighborhood. That BTS occasionally listens anyway is entirely to their credit. If the peanut gallery decided, we'd all still have the CMBO cartoonishly invulnerable infantry we started with 15 years ago.
  3. IanL - "used to hex games where if your unit has LOS to the enemy your unit can see the enemy and can fire on the enemy" Ever played Jim Day's "Panzer"? Hex games have come a long way. Let's just say that perception of them is a bit out of date...
  4. Board wargames can design for effect and get this sort of thing right pretty effortlessly. The spotting rules in Jim Day's Panzer from GMT, for example, work extremely well, well enough that I've been "porting" them to older game systems that didn't include the right effects or give them the right strengths. And yes board wargames are easier to "patch" - Panzer needs some "area fire" options are previous contacts, for example, that have been lost in the meantime because one side or other went prone, and similar. As usual, the engineering approach that promises greater realism from bottom up
  5. Consider Wicky's picture. Yes light penetrates some distance into the trees, with wide gaps between the physical obstacles of the trunks, and no higher foliage to speak of. But look across the field at the distant treeline on the next hill over. Scan along it. How deep can you really see into that treeline? It isn't a matter of physically blocking every photon. It is a matter of the human eye being hopelessly unable to pick up any shape in that solid, high, blocking line, down in the shadow under the canopy. The eye focuses involuntarily on the lines of high contrast. We have actual edge
  6. Ban away, brave one. You don't rule the internet, but feel free to wall off your little corner and stick fingers in your ears. There are players who know more than scenario designers, and their are customers who know more than publishers. The latter are frequently in the dark on the point, confusing role with an expertise. Feel free to take your ball and go home at any time. Until then, I will think what I actually think and say it too. Thicker skins improve learning, thinner ones stagnant. Entirely up to you.
  7. So how would this be done right? Double the length of the front. Double the time. Double the depth of the map, Russian to German side, with most of the extra depth on the German side of the river. Cut the initial Russian force to 2/3rds of that shown, despite the wider front. The frontage should include at least one bend of the river toward the Russians - that shown is sufficient - and a neighboring sector that might have less of that. The initial German force should be 4/3rds as strong on the wider sector, and deeper. The Germans should get another 2/3rds at the back of the map 30 minut
  8. Sgt Joch - you don't even understand what I am saying, so it is completely unsurprising that you don't get it. You claim the scale is "correct for that part of the front", but don't notice how impossible that claim is. What part of the front? Why that part, in left to right distance? Why that depth front to back? Why this amount of time? You say the 3 hour prep fire is clearly out of scope, without noticing that this destroys your claims of accuracy at the outset. Saying "I realize this is pants" in the designer's notes doesn't change the fact that it is pants. You are left presenting th
  9. Lille - I know I can win it, and how. I just have zero interest in such nonsense. To Sgt Joch I call historical BS. Map scale and Russia side fire support in that scenario each have nothing to do with history.
  10. Since he wouldn't get out of my chair, it was all labor lost, in my case. Lessons for other designers - don't write scripts. Don't try to force the player to do this or that. You can't force him to do anything. Reduce the force to space you were thinking of by a factor of 2 or 3, and look at the map again that way. To see whether you need to do it again, not to undo it. You get one chance - screw it up and you will never get another. Scenarios should be playable. Set up shouldn't take 3 hours. No, your set up isn't perfect and doesn't help - see above under "get out of the player's cha
  11. Personally, I took a look at the starting situation, briefly reviewed the overpacked number of units, saw what the script writing scenario designer expected, and closed the file. Just stupid beyond words, and not something I was going to indulge.
  12. Surface commerce raiders were ineffective. The first few may have more than covered their costs but they could not scale, and any further investment in them would just hand surface combat victories to the British navy. The Germans did however have a second effective form of economic warfare - mines. They were at least as effective as the u boats using torpedos in the early war, whether laid by u boats or by e boats, by plane, etc. The British deployed some effective countermeasures, but Germany could have continued that tech race, or renewed it after loss of the ASW campaign in the Atlant
  13. Joch - the RM was highly overvalued, and most economists use 4.2 RM to 1 dollar, not the official exchange rate, to convert them to dollars. That is the purchasing power parity number. The VIIC class sub price was 1.9 million to 2 million RMs, depending on the year. Subs were much less expensive than the much larger merchant ships they were sinking. 1200 ton subs take out multiple 5000 to 10000 ton merchant ships. The price of the sub is higher per ton of displacement, to be sure, but not by enough to make up that 4-8 to 1 size ratio, let alone that ratio times the 2.5 plus to 1 ratio
  14. JonS - I can agree that it is the likely source of the discrepancy, if other sources accounted for 20% of Allied shipping losses. Seems high to me, but possible. Mines might be miscounted in that division either way, since most of them are fairly attributed to the u boats that laid them, but weren't around to see the result At any rate, I don't think it changes the conclusion. If a u boat got 2.5 merchant ships instead of 3.3 merchant ships, on top of the cost of fielding equal number of escorts to drive them off, it was still costing the allies many times what the u boats cost to field.
  15. Sure that's a nice report. About an item where all the facts are known. I doubt every ship lost is known that thoroughly. You can be completely accurate about known cases and just not have anything on 500 more that happened, but you can't find those details. But an aggregate arrived at with much less detail - from sailings and arrival data only, for example - might readily notice. Without ever being able to fill out that form.
×
×
  • Create New...