GreenAsJade

Online & controlled: would be fantastic. If it's too much, and you want a coordinator so that it's not passed around and mangled: I can do that. GaJ

Can I paraphase to make sure I understand? You're offering that if we fill out a spreadsheet with TSD details of scnearios that were at TSD, then you will import that and make it look as if the original author put the scenario at TSDII ... IE make it look as if it was transferred straight from TSD to TSDII ? That sounds like an excellent way to go. Surely those who are calling for the TSD scenarios to be posted will help with putting in the details in this way... GaJ

GaJ </font>

It is worth noting that all the scenarios we're talking about are ones that *the original author already submitted to TSD for general distribution*. It's a bit of a long bow to think that they would then complain about them being placed at TSDII. Especially when I'm sure if there was some eccentric person who felt like they didn't want their scenario at TSDII, then GJK could take it off in a flash! GaJ

I really like the "Uploader Substitute Dude" account idea. Here is something posted over at We Band of Brothers GaJ

"Find the MIA" is a nice idea. Having people upload other people's work in the uploader's name I think opens the door to unhappiness. I'd rather see the capability to upload on behalf of another author. In fact, you could actually separate out "the person who is logged in" from "the author" (at the moment the assumption is that they are the same person). Can anyone articulate why it is a bad idea to enable this? I can ony vaguely anticipate some of the arguments, but because I don't think it's the case myself, I can't make a convincing argument! GaJ

So we come to a question: should people be able to upload to TSDII _other_ people's scenarios under the _other_ person's name!? I can see the argument why not, but OTOH I think that the benefits might outweigh the drawbacks. Something to chew over perhaps? GaJ

Ooops - just noticed this request It's perhaps worth commenting that I'm not too keen on having to go to a different forum for reading discussions about CM related things. Here's the place where I come for that. The TPG forum (on which TSDII is modelled) has the added disadvantage that it is not threaded, so it's really hard to keep track of who is saying what to whom: the context of most "threads" of conversation has disappeared off the bottom of the page by the time even quite regular visitors get back. TSDII fourm will probably not suffer so much from that in the first few days, because everyone will be applauding and giving feedback: that's all one thread. But as soon as other "side discussions" start, it will have the same problem. Regards, GaJ (edited to make it more polite, which is was intended to be from the start! I've copied my comments over to TSDII forum, and am putting any further feedback there, as requested). [ December 31, 2005, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Small comment: you might make it clear that a second review of the same sceanario replaces the first (doesn't add another review). GaJ

I very much like this banner. I would put it right down next to the text box where the person is about to type (believe it or not, I didn't even notice it the first time I came to the review page: my eyes went straight to "where do I type?" GaJ

With respect to the rating system: here's a comment I passed to Gary by email a little while back ... just airing it here to get it on public record. I would really like to see the review rating separated out based on whether you are reviewing as two-player or VS AI play. I want it separated out that way so that I can sort results based on review ratings that were given for the kind of play I'm interested in. I think it is sub-optimal to be combining ratings from players who played vs AI with players who played 2 player. These are completely different things and will give a completely different play experience. GaJ

OK - next comment: the rating systsem SHOULD NOT suppose that the quality of a scenario is based on whether you feel like playing the scenario again. I *never* (or almost never) play a scenario a second time, no matter how much I like it. The rating of a scenario should be based on whether you enjoyed it, not whether you plan to play it again. I feel strongly about this one. Definitely need to fix these words. GaJ

Gary - this is looking AWESOME! I'm working my way through trying it out now. First issue: the "download" page tells me that the purpose of downloading the scenario is to provide feedback to the author. Actually, that's not the case for TSDII, right? That's the case for TPG. For TSDII the purpose of downloading the scenario is to play it and enjoy it. Even better if the person decides to provide feedback after. More comments to follow, I'm sure. None meant as criticism in any way, just constructive feedback. Thanks for the fantastic work! GaJ [ December 31, 2005, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Sure. And doesn't this key frustration of yours indicate how poorly aimed your criticism was. How on earth can someone who makes *RANDOM REINFORCEMENT* scenarios be accused of script writing!? I'm all for saying what you don't like. Just don't open fire on people who are 'doing good'. Especially when it reveals your ignorance about what they're doing. GaJ [ December 26, 2005, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Jason, you're a goose. I wonder if you even visited the random reinforcement site to see what it is that this is all about. It's a specialty. It's not a control freak thing. It's not polution. Geez - they're on his own site, not someone else's. They are completely and fully described. They don't waste your time pretending to be something they are not. There are plenty of poor designers out there to pour scorn on. Choose your targets more carefully. GaJ

FWIW, not one but two guides to PBEMH are now available on the web: An Unoffical Guide for PBEMH PBEMH - A Primer (both are Word documents) GaJ

I'd love to help. Drop me an email. The way it really works well is when you double click on the attachment in the email and it opens the game automatically for you. If it's not doing that, then it's not set up right. Let's get it right for you! (There's a "how to use PBEMH" thread at WeBoB, but that's down for maintenance right now... I'll find the link when it comes back!) GaJ

Fair enough. I loose the semantic battle. I had to try. But suck on this one: it accepts "10" (Of course, the whole thing is academic, because, it doesn't say "between 1 and 10", those were my words. It says "(1-10)" GaJ

So if someone says "pick a number between 1 and 10", you really rule out 1 and 10!?

I'm not sure he was being sarcastic, but he should have been if he wasn't (if you get my drift). I thought Max was close to the mark - Stuarts just aren't designed for fighting Tigers! GaJ.

You definitely have too much time on your hands! (Jack: there were *three* Tigers)

Who's grass mod is that? (Sorry! )

It was a Firefox problem: seems that when Firefox opens PDF in a tab, the links in that PDF don't work. Not that I'm any the wiser now I've figured it out, since I don't speak German!!! :eek: GaJ

Under the words "Operational Order" are the words "(Radio Dispatch)", but they are just text, it seems...

How do you get the Axis radio transmission from the field orders (Hell at Waldam) ? I only get a document... Ta, GaJ [ December 12, 2005, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]