[WarInEur] Air Game

[Henry Leroy]

Sometimes you guys (generic not specific)
sound like you want the wish chit from 'World in Flames'.

This is humor btw

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Don Lazov <dlazov at comcast.net> wrote:

>  >From the sounds of it you both are not understanding how the current
> attrition model works and are trying to devise and air war but have not
> considered the attrition air war model Steve and I have discussed.
>
> No need to make bombers attack with attrition.
>
>
> Kent & Sue Haunschild wrote:
>
> Well I'm sort of on the design team and I favor a very open approach, which
> is one reason I've been starting the threads that I have been.
>
> Some ideas are thrown up just to see how much interest there is in a change
> or refinement.  The degree of interest in an area seems to me to be the
> design team should focus its attention.  Other threads are started to see if
> specific changes are agreeable
>
> The initial step in the process is to build some consensus among the
> players as to what change is desired and why.  If we can agree on the
> approach but not the exact values for the program defaults then we need to
> make them editable.  We also need to know how many persons are interested in
> specific changes so we can prioritize them for the future.
>
> I too don't want to play with all the different errata but if we are going
> to appeal to as wide a market as possible I think to as great an extent as
> possible we need to accommodate those players.  The editor may appear rough
> to some, but it was really only developed to allow the basic structure of
> the game to be set out.  I've had two years of experience with it and can
> make it do anything I want.  My problem is realizing that I gained my
> experience as the editor gained complexity and to a novice it appears
> overwhelming.
>
> It is important for those of us on the design team in a similar position to
> mine, to remember that what we "think" is relatively simple can appear
> complex to others.  Especially when we realize that we "learned by doing"
> and then "sort of" documented the steps or process we were using.  Reading
> back through the documentation I realize we were deliberately vague in some
> areas because we wanted to be sure we had a stable bug free platform before
> players started making their own edits and confusing things to the
> point that we weren't sure if there was an underlying problem in the code or
> if the player had introduced a problem with the editor.
>
> Anyway, in addition to basic refinements of the game.  I am also in favor
> of some changes as well.  SPI had a problem with game design.  If they made
> it too complex the learning curve for players was so long that the monster
> games were basically unplayable, but over the years the company was in
> business they also learned that the core players were learning the basic
> systems and desiring even more complexity.
>
> The computer allows us to both reduce the player workload by automating or
> simplifying many tasks but also allows us to make some of the subsystems
> that were abstracted or generalized by SPI into more full fledged components
> in their own right.  In my opinion the political rules need to be
> elaborated, the airwar enhanced with airbases and different types of
> aircraft (Fighters, tactical bombers, and strategic bombers), and ranges
> added to the naval movement.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Storeforest2 at aol.com
> *To:* dlazov at comcast.net
> *Cc:* SGMINFO at aol.com ; kentsue at cox.net
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 24, 2009 7:10 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [WarInEur] Air Game
>
>   In a message dated 1/24/2009 4:47:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> dlazov at comcast.net writes:
>
> Jim,
>
> I think your missing the point. The code is ready to ship soon but you want
> to completely rip it apart before it goes to production and completely
> change the game.
>
> I totally disagree with an 'open' approach. We have a select few in the
> design team and it should be that way so we can get from square a to b with
> a zillion chefs in the kitchen.
>
> First a design team has to say we want a, b and c and then the code gets
> implemented and then we need to test it.
>
> It's really that simple.
>
>  We know the code is done and ready to ship.  We are NOT discussing
> changing the code.  We are discussing options that can be done within
> existing code.
>
> I have no idea how the design team could select a, b or c if they are not
> even presented with the idea.
>
> Your desire to not openly discuss possible options and keep it between a
> few people who have made little to no advance so far amazes me. But that is
> your opinion.  If you wish me not to discuss possible options the solution
> is to remove me from the list.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62>
> *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20090125/c2c1d677/attachment-0001.html