StieliAlpha

Hi Michael Nope, the RAL system (like many others, e.g. BS 4800) really is only a comparison system. Basically, somebody once made a paint spot on a paper and defined "This stone grey". You have to remember, RAL almost 100 years old. Nowadays, paint suppliers use fixed receipies, of course, to produce a standard appearance of a colour. Well, probably back then it was similar: A little of this, a little of that and we call the result "stone grey". The NHS system is more scientific. Colours are defined by sets of spectral colours. That's why NHS knows millions of different colours and RAL only 200 or so.

My assumption was, they made the uniform "greener" to stand out of the blue. Imagine green-gray on blue-green. You would hardly see the guy. But the bottom line, indeed: Colours are no fixed value. As described in the other thread: Even the RAL system is based on comparing colour mixes to a sample. Not very much scientific precision.

Don't worry about colour reproduction. You can't compare colour charts to screen appearance. Then there is the technical issue. Colours differ widely, depending on kind of application, base material, wear (in this case: washing), ageing, environment, light, etc. And the human factor: What I see, is most probably not what you see. Remember the story with the blue-golden dress, a few years ago. Actually is was black and white, but 70% of the people (including me) saw as a clear blue and golden. Finally, as Michael indicated, movies show you what you want to see. Nice example: Napoleonic Movies. The Brit's uniforms are always in bright scarlet. In fact they were more like pink, due to the washing. And patched with patches in all available colours. We had a similar discussion about the colour of tanks on scale models, on photos and real life examples, which had been dug out of the mud after 50 years. In the end, the conclusion was: As long as the model (or here your movie) looks ok, it's probably right.

I agree. I mixed up "armor quality" with "overall tank quality". Not necessarily the same.

I agree to possible issues due to lack of materials or poor quality of base materials. But I do not think, that bombing factories reduced the quality. The quantity: Sure. But quality is to a large extend given by the process. If a piece requires a lathe or turn mill, you can't replace the machines with file or saw or hammer. If you have the machines, you produce. If not, you don't. Ok, time constraints or lack of maintenance may lead to dwindling precision in production. But that again goes into quantity, not overall quality. A part either fits, or you throw it away or make it fit. If you make it fit, it will lower your output again. Welding is different, of course. This requires skill, base material, time and clean environment.

Found it: Peter Perla, The Art of Wargaming, 1990. And after a very quick refresher: He takes the "Art of educational Wargaming" back much farther in time.

Well, one might have the impression, 20 years ago the world was a much friendlier place. Too many ranting nut cases east, west, north and south. ?

Interesting discussion. But sounds like the "scientific approach" to an age-old practice. IIRC, tables tops were already used in post Napoleonic Prussian-times as training tool for Kadett's. I'll dig it out later, when I am at home.

But now you are in Google-Hell. Hehehe... ?

How did my Ozzy friend say the other day: "I would not worry NOW." ?

Hmmm, I am not quite sure what you intend and I do not think a scenario with marksmen as a "force" is very realistic. But a very small scenario, with a platoon or so, hunting the one very good marksman, may be fun.

Then what? Just harass? I do not think a "marksman" would give away his position, just to harass the enemy.

Hm, normal "sportive" military rifle contests are at 300m. With the guys lying flat on their belly under side covered against moisture by waxed canvas blankets, with a mono glass at their side to observe there shooting, with all the time they want (OK, contest shooting time is limited, but generous), shooting at "Bulletpoint" paper targets, WITHOUT incoming fire and nasty enemy trying to kill them, but admittedly with the usual tournament stress. I forgot: Those guys have PLENTY of professional training and virtually thousands of rounds fired. And well fed, rested, dry clothed... To make a very long sentence short: Unless you create superheroes, no chance they hit a moving target at 400+ meters.

I investigated a little further. Probably, you think of West End Games "Tank Leader" games. But they are scale wise larger than CC. With tank platoons as base unit, where CC has infantry squads and half squads. And individual vehicles, if it had any.

Ah, look at that. According to Boardgamegeek, AHs "We the People" was the first CDG. It is strategic level and looks indeed very much like the strategic level CDGs nowadays. And it explains, why it escaped me. Never have been very interested in the War of Independence. In that period, the Seven Years War always was my favourite.

Hm, interesting. The AH game escaped me and I thought, I knew their catalogue quite well at that time. Any chance to find out the name? Otherwise, true. One could say, that even Monopoly already carried the idea.

Hi John You don't know card driven board games? Then you should have a look at them. For me the most innovative board game idea in the last 10 or 15 years. They are played like "normal" board games. But in addition to board and counters, the players hold a hand of cards. The cards are used to activate units on the board, to give special boni in battles, to trigger historic events. In a nutshell: The cards drive the game and add a lot of chrome to the game. Of course, you always have too little or the "wrong" cards. So, you often have to take tough decisions how to use them. Shall I use them to move units? Or better boost my troops in an attack? Shall I use them to defend in a battle now and loose my chance to attack next turn? Or rather play the historic event, which may help me later on? Most card driven games are of strategic level. Combat Commander the only, as far as I know, on tactical level. I had my reservations first and waited quite a while before I bought CC in a sale. But when I finally got into it, after the first two, or so, rule revisions, CC caught me from the first battle.

Never of heard of that one, indeed. I'll have a look, when I am back home. But the older I get, the more I prefer playable games. Gone are the times, when I loved dig into 200 pages of rules.... My last "tactical game obsession" was GMTs "Combat Commander" series, a few years ago. Card driven tactical board games. Great games, once you make your peace with the idea to wait for the right cards, before you conduct an assault. Very playable and nail bitingly exciting.

Don't worry. We all have our handicap. ?

And, one has to admit, Bulletpoint loves to dig into the detail. ?

I fully agree to the ATGs. THAT makes sense to me. A little off the time frame: In Napoleonic times, it was standard procedure for artillery crews to run for cover when Cavallary charged and to return, when the dust settled. Refer to the charge of the Brit's Heavy Brigade at Waterloo for a nice example. Well, "nice" depends on from which side you look at it...

Very good, John. And follow your Doctor's advice! Do your utmost: Force yourself to play! Gee, how THAT sounds. ?

Now look at that! The Swiss Air Force lives up to their standards! Aka: Being the best of the world! Today, they intercepted an Israeli B747, because of a bomb threat. And why? They increased their availability. Now it's from 08.00h to 18.00h, five days a week. Lesson learned! A few years ago, they needed help from France, because they were only available at office hours. Between 09.00h and 17.00h. Hm, not quite sure how breakky and lunch are handled nowadays. ???

Yes, I know that story, too. Question is: Do you think it is worth to be portrayed in a micro-tactical war game? I think not, because it was just not "normal". My preference is: Let BFC get all "normal" things straight, and then take cared about the "one in a million" stuff. Hm, perhaps you want to refer to GMT's "Combat Commander" board game. They have a "Hero" Counter in some scenarios, for just such deeds. Whenever I use those heros, I feel Superman in my neck.

On the serious side: Fury was really awful. Looked good, but felt utterly wrong. More like WW1 in France. And: Too much gore.