Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
4k General
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Pelle Nilsson
May 3, 2012, 3:20:08 AM5/3/12
to
My entry for the 2012 Java 4k competition (iirc I mentioned working on
this a few months ago):
http://www.java4k.com/index.php?action=games&method=view&gid=400
It was my first attempt at a 4k game (that is 4096 bytes, including all
graphics and data). It was ranked 16 of 51 entries in the community vote
(omg, non-wargamers voted for a wargame!). Best thing was I learned a
few new tricks about coding (war)games, and it was a fun experience just
to see if it could be done, and to complete a project for once.
(Had some technical usenet problems, or I would have posted this
earlier.)
--
/Pelle
this a few months ago):
http://www.java4k.com/index.php?action=games&method=view&gid=400
It was my first attempt at a 4k game (that is 4096 bytes, including all
graphics and data). It was ranked 16 of 51 entries in the community vote
(omg, non-wargamers voted for a wargame!). Best thing was I learned a
few new tricks about coding (war)games, and it was a fun experience just
to see if it could be done, and to complete a project for once.
(Had some technical usenet problems, or I would have posted this
earlier.)
--
/Pelle
Message has been deleted
Pelle Nilsson
May 3, 2012, 5:14:56 AM5/3/12
to
<ade...@inbox.com> writes:
> Can you port it to HTML 5 or Flash?
No. I hope to make some kind of wargame in HTML(+SVG?) soonish, but not
port this one. I will post the (horrible mess of) source code though.
What I might do is port it to Android for fun/learning.
--
/Pelle
> Can you port it to HTML 5 or Flash?
No. I hope to make some kind of wargame in HTML(+SVG?) soonish, but not
port this one. I will post the (horrible mess of) source code though.
What I might do is port it to Android for fun/learning.
--
/Pelle
Message has been deleted
eddys...@hotmail.com
May 4, 2012, 3:55:14 AM5/4/12
to
On 3 mei, 09:20, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:
> My entry for the 2012 Java 4k competition (iirc I mentioned working on
> this a few months ago):
Ah, the good ol' days of those 4K competitions, back in the Stone Age
> My entry for the 2012 Java 4k competition (iirc I mentioned working on
> this a few months ago):
I entered a couple of those 4K ASM ones :)
> http://www.java4k.com/index.php?action=games&method=view&gid=400
>
> It was my first attempt at a 4k game (that is 4096 bytes, including all
> graphics and data). It was ranked 16 of 51 entries in the community vote
> (omg, non-wargamers voted for a wargame!).
either wargamer or non-wargamer. In my eyes that’s an invention by the
hard-core grogs to somehow distinguish themselves from “the rabble” .
IRL I find that people position themselves on a sliding scale with
respect to wargames. And before someone starts talking about “dumbed
down wargames for the masses” – that’s not what I’m talking about. The
rules of chess fit on a single page, yet nobody thinks this is an
“easy” (war)game
> Best thing was I learned a
> few new tricks about coding (war)games, and it was a fun experience just
> to see if it could be done, and to complete a project for once.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Pelle Nilsson
May 4, 2012, 4:51:51 AM5/4/12
to
"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> (omg, non-wargamers voted for a wargame!).
>
> Over the years I’ve become less of a believer of classifying gamers as
> either wargamer or non-wargamer. In my eyes that’s an invention by the
That was what I tried to hint at. Speaking about how limited the number
>> (omg, non-wargamers voted for a wargame!).
>
> Over the years I’ve become less of a believer of classifying gamers as
> either wargamer or non-wargamer. In my eyes that’s an invention by the
of "wargamers" are is probably mostly useful for developers refusing to
admit there could be other reasons for someone to not buy their
games.
--
/Pelle
eddys...@hotmail.com
May 4, 2012, 5:27:10 AM5/4/12
to
On 4 mei, 10:51, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:
BINGO !
The main reason being that underneath the convoluted interface and the
dreary "move 700 counters one-by-one" mechanics of many games there's
simply no game there, just a boring, tedious exercise in bean
counting.
I know a lot of people who like ultra-thinky games, people who like to
weigh the consequences of every move they make, every decision they
take. Yet, the funny thing is I can't recommend a single pc wargame to
them.
PC wargames by and large are either of the beer & pretzel puzzel type,
no real brainpower required or monsters where, again, no real
brainpower is required to beat the crappy AI, just lots of stamina to
be able to shuffle a thousand counters in a particular direction turn
after turn
These days when I feel like flexing my brain muscles I play games like
Caylus or Hive on my iPad because that middle tier of pc wargames,
simple mechanics but deep strategy is *seriously* underserved.
Luckily for me new companies are jumping into that market hole left by
the traditional pc wargame publishers so I'm really looking forward to
enjoying well-developed games like Washington's War, Engage,
Sekigahara, Manoeuvre, Paths of Glory and even the World at War series
on the tablets.
From the traditional developers and on the pc : Commander : The Great
War and perhaps Brother Against Brother, but that's it.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
The main reason being that underneath the convoluted interface and the
dreary "move 700 counters one-by-one" mechanics of many games there's
simply no game there, just a boring, tedious exercise in bean
counting.
I know a lot of people who like ultra-thinky games, people who like to
weigh the consequences of every move they make, every decision they
take. Yet, the funny thing is I can't recommend a single pc wargame to
them.
PC wargames by and large are either of the beer & pretzel puzzel type,
no real brainpower required or monsters where, again, no real
brainpower is required to beat the crappy AI, just lots of stamina to
be able to shuffle a thousand counters in a particular direction turn
after turn
These days when I feel like flexing my brain muscles I play games like
Caylus or Hive on my iPad because that middle tier of pc wargames,
simple mechanics but deep strategy is *seriously* underserved.
Luckily for me new companies are jumping into that market hole left by
the traditional pc wargame publishers so I'm really looking forward to
enjoying well-developed games like Washington's War, Engage,
Sekigahara, Manoeuvre, Paths of Glory and even the World at War series
on the tablets.
From the traditional developers and on the pc : Commander : The Great
War and perhaps Brother Against Brother, but that's it.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
May 4, 2012, 5:50:48 AM5/4/12
to
In article <646f0064-670e-460b-9b5e-3feced74a392
@n1g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> Over the years I?ve become less of a believer of classifying gamers as
> either wargamer or non-wargamer. In my eyes that?s an invention by the
> hard-core grogs to somehow distinguish themselves from ?the rabble? .
> down wargames for the masses? ? that?s not what I?m talking about. The
I do. So easy, in fact, that computers can beat the best human players
in the world. If the IBM Deep Blue guys tried to build a machine to
play ASL, they'd blow a fuse.
Heck, my *phone* can beat me at chess on any skill setting over eight or
so.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"We all know about 'undocumented workers.' Now we have Elizabeth
Warren, the undocumented Indian."
- Howie Carr
@n1g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> Over the years I?ve become less of a believer of classifying gamers as
> either wargamer or non-wargamer. In my eyes that?s an invention by the
> hard-core grogs to somehow distinguish themselves from ?the rabble? .
> IRL I find that people position themselves on a sliding scale with
> respect to wargames. And before someone starts talking about ?dumbed
> down wargames for the masses? ? that?s not what I?m talking about. The
> rules of chess fit on a single page, yet nobody thinks this is an
> ?easy? (war)game
I do. So easy, in fact, that computers can beat the best human players
in the world. If the IBM Deep Blue guys tried to build a machine to
play ASL, they'd blow a fuse.
Heck, my *phone* can beat me at chess on any skill setting over eight or
so.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"We all know about 'undocumented workers.' Now we have Elizabeth
Warren, the undocumented Indian."
- Howie Carr
eddys...@hotmail.com
May 4, 2012, 6:06:34 AM5/4/12
to
On 4 mei, 11:50, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <646f0064-670e-460b-9b5e-3feced74a392
> @n1g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <646f0064-670e-460b-9b5e-3feced74a392
>
> > Over the years I?ve become less of a believer of classifying gamers as
> > either wargamer or non-wargamer. In my eyes that?s an invention by the
> > hard-core grogs to somehow distinguish themselves from ?the rabble? .
> > IRL I find that people position themselves on a sliding scale with
> > respect to wargames. And before someone starts talking about ?dumbed
> > down wargames for the masses? ? that?s not what I?m talking about. The
> > rules of chess fit on a single page, yet nobody thinks this is an
> > ?easy? (war)game
>
> I do. So easy, in fact, that computers can beat the best human players
> in the world. If the IBM Deep Blue guys tried to build a machine to
> play ASL, they'd blow a fuse.
Ok, how about Go ? Even less rules and no computer yet that can beat
> > Over the years I?ve become less of a believer of classifying gamers as
> > either wargamer or non-wargamer. In my eyes that?s an invention by the
> > hard-core grogs to somehow distinguish themselves from ?the rabble? .
> > IRL I find that people position themselves on a sliding scale with
> > respect to wargames. And before someone starts talking about ?dumbed
> > down wargames for the masses? ? that?s not what I?m talking about. The
> > rules of chess fit on a single page, yet nobody thinks this is an
> > ?easy? (war)game
>
> I do. So easy, in fact, that computers can beat the best human players
> in the world. If the IBM Deep Blue guys tried to build a machine to
> play ASL, they'd blow a fuse.
the best human players despite IBM throwing millions at it ?
My point is that pc wargamers confuse convoluted systems with deep
strategy games. The boardgames I play are practically all 80% think,
20% execution. Point me to 1 pc wargame, apart from Command Ops, where
you have the same ratio.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
May 4, 2012, 7:31:05 AM5/4/12
to
In article <ebb4bb94-2f58-4eee-a39a-3fadc12b2b08
@m15g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
@m15g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > I do. So easy, in fact, that computers can beat the best human players
> > in the world. If the IBM Deep Blue guys tried to build a machine to
> > play ASL, they'd blow a fuse.
>
> Ok, how about Go ? Even less rules and no computer yet that can beat
> the best human players despite IBM throwing millions at it ?
>
> My point is that pc wargamers confuse convoluted systems with deep
> strategy games. The boardgames I play are practically all 80% think,
> 20% execution. Point me to 1 pc wargame, apart from Command Ops, where
> you have the same ratio.
STEAM AND IRON. And it's more like 99% think, 1% execution.
> > in the world. If the IBM Deep Blue guys tried to build a machine to
> > play ASL, they'd blow a fuse.
>
> Ok, how about Go ? Even less rules and no computer yet that can beat
> the best human players despite IBM throwing millions at it ?
>
> My point is that pc wargamers confuse convoluted systems with deep
> strategy games. The boardgames I play are practically all 80% think,
> 20% execution. Point me to 1 pc wargame, apart from Command Ops, where
> you have the same ratio.
Message has been deleted
eddys...@hotmail.com
May 4, 2012, 7:49:37 AM5/4/12
to
On 4 mei, 13:31, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <ebb4bb94-2f58-4eee-a39a-3fadc12b2b08
> @m15g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <ebb4bb94-2f58-4eee-a39a-3fadc12b2b08
>
> > > I do. So easy, in fact, that computers can beat the best human players
> > > in the world. If the IBM Deep Blue guys tried to build a machine to
> > > play ASL, they'd blow a fuse.
>
> > Ok, how about Go ? Even less rules and no computer yet that can beat
> > the best human players despite IBM throwing millions at it ?
>
> > My point is that pc wargamers confuse convoluted systems with deep
> > strategy games. The boardgames I play are practically all 80% think,
> > 20% execution. Point me to 1 pc wargame, apart from Command Ops, where
> > you have the same ratio.
>
> STEAM AND IRON. And it's more like 99% think, 1% execution.
Fine, and now a game that looks like it was made this millenium.
> > > I do. So easy, in fact, that computers can beat the best human players
> > > in the world. If the IBM Deep Blue guys tried to build a machine to
> > > play ASL, they'd blow a fuse.
>
> > Ok, how about Go ? Even less rules and no computer yet that can beat
> > the best human players despite IBM throwing millions at it ?
>
> > My point is that pc wargamers confuse convoluted systems with deep
> > strategy games. The boardgames I play are practically all 80% think,
> > 20% execution. Point me to 1 pc wargame, apart from Command Ops, where
> > you have the same ratio.
>
> STEAM AND IRON. And it's more like 99% think, 1% execution.
Graphics not important - my lower behind.
And even if you can scrape a half a dozen titles together, this is
just insignificant compared to the 40-50 pc wargame titles that get
released each year, each of them suffering from the 10% think, 90%
mindlesly shuffling stuff around syndrome.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
May 4, 2012, 9:16:51 AM5/4/12
to
In article <537b1dec-4979-480c-aed6-73877914b081
@o6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > > My point is that pc wargamers confuse convoluted systems with deep
> > > strategy games. The boardgames I play are practically all 80% think,
> > > 20% execution. Point me to 1 pc wargame, apart from Command Ops, where
> > > you have the same ratio.
> >
> > STEAM AND IRON. And it's more like 99% think, 1% execution.
>
> Fine, and now a game that looks like it was made this millenium.
> Graphics not important - my lower behind.
What do "graphics" have to do with anything? The "graphics" in chess is
nothing more than chess-piece shapes on a board.
And I would observe here that in a well-designed computer game there's
no way to know how "convoluted" things are, because the "convolutions"
are hidden from the gamer. I would argue the opposite, in fact; the
most "convoluted" PC wargames are *boardgame simulators*.
> And even if you can scrape a half a dozen titles together, this is
> just insignificant compared to the 40-50 pc wargame titles that get
> released each year, each of them suffering from the 10% think, 90%
> mindlesly shuffling stuff around syndrome.
Come now. There are *hundreds* of PC titles in the "think as long as
you like, then execute" category. How about CARRIERS AT WAR? PANZER
COMMAND: KHARKOV? Everything from SSG. Just about every Tiller game,
for that matter. COMBAT MISSION, all iterations. FLIGHT COMMAND II.
WC:NAW. WARSHIP. BATTLECRUISER. FLASHPOINT: GERMANY.
Shall I keep typing?
[Indeed, the *only* wargame I think I own that even comes close to
"mindlessly shuffling stuff around" would be the various CLOSE COMBAT
titles - and even here the extremely tactical nature of the game system
makes time pressure not only appropriate but essential.]
And why is the ratio of "80% think, 20% execute" PC games to "mindlessly
shuffling things around games" remotely interesting?
This is like saying "the number of decent restaurants is insignificant
compared to the hundreds of shitty fast-food joints that open every
year." So what? As long as the customer can tell the difference, the
ratio is pointless.
@o6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > > My point is that pc wargamers confuse convoluted systems with deep
> > > strategy games. The boardgames I play are practically all 80% think,
> > > 20% execution. Point me to 1 pc wargame, apart from Command Ops, where
> > > you have the same ratio.
> >
> > STEAM AND IRON. And it's more like 99% think, 1% execution.
>
> Fine, and now a game that looks like it was made this millenium.
> Graphics not important - my lower behind.
nothing more than chess-piece shapes on a board.
And I would observe here that in a well-designed computer game there's
no way to know how "convoluted" things are, because the "convolutions"
are hidden from the gamer. I would argue the opposite, in fact; the
most "convoluted" PC wargames are *boardgame simulators*.
> And even if you can scrape a half a dozen titles together, this is
> just insignificant compared to the 40-50 pc wargame titles that get
> released each year, each of them suffering from the 10% think, 90%
> mindlesly shuffling stuff around syndrome.
you like, then execute" category. How about CARRIERS AT WAR? PANZER
COMMAND: KHARKOV? Everything from SSG. Just about every Tiller game,
for that matter. COMBAT MISSION, all iterations. FLIGHT COMMAND II.
WC:NAW. WARSHIP. BATTLECRUISER. FLASHPOINT: GERMANY.
Shall I keep typing?
[Indeed, the *only* wargame I think I own that even comes close to
"mindlessly shuffling stuff around" would be the various CLOSE COMBAT
titles - and even here the extremely tactical nature of the game system
makes time pressure not only appropriate but essential.]
And why is the ratio of "80% think, 20% execute" PC games to "mindlessly
shuffling things around games" remotely interesting?
This is like saying "the number of decent restaurants is insignificant
compared to the hundreds of shitty fast-food joints that open every
year." So what? As long as the customer can tell the difference, the
ratio is pointless.
eddys...@hotmail.com
May 4, 2012, 9:55:27 AM5/4/12
to
On 4 mei, 15:16, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> What do "graphics" have to do with anything?
Have you looked at the graphics in SAI ?
>
> What do "graphics" have to do with anything?
My dog has a better colour sense, and he's like all dogs colourblind.
> And I would observe here that in a well-designed computer game there's
> no way to know how "convoluted" things are,
the average pc wargame are getting used in some calculation or other.
Oh, I know that mantra of the pc taking care of the number crunching,
but I call bs on that because those games become incredibly difficult
to design properly.
Too much data == bad
> I would argue the opposite, in fact; the
> most "convoluted" PC wargames are *boardgame simulators*.
screenshots and specs of that Kickstarter Bulge game ... not.
> > And even if you can scrape a half a dozen titles together, this is
> > just insignificant compared to the 40-50 pc wargame titles that get
> > released each year, each of them suffering from the 10% think, 90%
> > mindlesly shuffling stuff around syndrome.
>
> Come now. There are *hundreds* of PC titles in the "think as long as
> you like, then execute" category.
time is spend thinking.
> How about CARRIERS AT WAR?
part
> PANZER COMMAND: KHARKOV?
A poster child for scrolling and panning and tilting and having to
deal with a badly designed UI where your units are represented by
silhouets and you have to click on them to see "oh, yeah, that was
that unit".
> Everything from SSG.
The design includes a software magnifying glass ... 20-20 vision here,
but if I play them longer than an hour I get a headache.
> Just about every Tiller game,
kidding me ?
> for that matter. COMBAT MISSION, all iterations.
> FLIGHT COMMAND II.
Never played that one
> WC:NAW.
There's a game in there ? Who'd have thunked
> FLASHPOINT: GERMANY.
Oh, you got a good one - congrats.
> Shall I keep typing?
You better start taking a good look at modern boardgame design.
> [Indeed, the *only* wargame I think I own that even comes close to
> "mindlessly shuffling stuff around" would be the various CLOSE COMBAT
> titles - and even here the extremely tactical nature of the game system
> makes time pressure not only appropriate but essential.]
>
> And why is the ratio of "80% think, 20% execute" PC games to "mindlessly
> shuffling things around games" remotely interesting?
about moving the 516th kitchen company east 3 hexes each turn ? Is
this a trick question ?
> This is like saying "the number of decent restaurants is insignificant
> compared to the hundreds of shitty fast-food joints that open every
> year." So what? As long as the customer can tell the difference, the
> ratio is pointless.
open each year can be stored in 2 bits and that you somehow oppose
the proposal that prospective restaurant owners don't cook themselves
but hire a renowned chef.
Something does not compute.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
May 4, 2012, 12:09:55 PM5/4/12
to
In article <5baef3b1-3a92-46a1-856e-
2c0ca0...@k13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > What do "graphics" have to do with anything?
>
> Have you looked at the graphics in SAI ?
>
> My dog has a better colour sense, and he's like all dogs colourblind.
Who cares? I certainly don't. The graphics look like ships plotted on
a map - *the exact "graphics" Admiral Hipper was presented with*.
> > And I would observe here that in a well-designed computer game there's
> > no way to know how "convoluted" things are,
>
> LOL - you can bet your grandma that all the reams of data you see in
> the average pc wargame are getting used in some calculation or other.
> Oh, I know that mantra of the pc taking care of the number crunching,
> but I call bs on that because those games become incredibly difficult
> to design properly.
>
> Too much data == bad
Is there a lot of data in BFTB?
My point is that I don't care how much "data" - or pixie dust, or
muffler bearings, or tins of wind - is under the hood of a computer
game; I care what information I get, and how I interact with the system.
What goes on in the bowels of the CPU is no more interesting to me than
the fabulously complex public water system necessary to service the
town; so long as water comes out when I move the little handle, I'm
happy.
> > I would argue the opposite, in fact; the
> > most "convoluted" PC wargames are *boardgame simulators*.
>
> ROTFL - yeah, that's the first thing I thought when I saw the
> screenshots and specs of that Kickstarter Bulge game ... not.
GUNS OF AUGUST.
> > Come now. There are *hundreds* of PC titles in the "think as long as
> > you like, then execute" category.
>
> That's not what I said. I said games where the majority of the gaming
> time is spend thinking.
And I gave you a list of examples where I spend a great amount of time
thinking. Perhaps you just think more quickly than I do, but I can't
argue things from your perspective, just mine.
> You better start taking a good look at modern boardgame design.
Why? I'm not interested in playing boardgames, either on a table or a
PC.
> > And why is the ratio of "80% think, 20% execute" PC games to "mindlessly
> > shuffling things around games" remotely interesting?
>
> Because playing a wargame is all about the command experience, not
> about moving the 516th kitchen company east 3 hexes each turn ? Is
> this a trick question ?
You're dodging the issue. My point is that I don't care if 1,000,000
crappy games are released every year - I'm not going to buy them. So
long as a few I want to buy appear, I'll be happy.
> > This is like saying "the number of decent restaurants is insignificant
> > compared to the hundreds of shitty fast-food joints that open every
> > year." So what? As long as the customer can tell the difference, the
> > ratio is pointless.
>
> Yeah, the only problem is that the number of decent restaurants that
> open each year can be stored in 2 bits and that you somehow oppose
> the proposal that prospective restaurant owners don't cook themselves
> but hire a renowned chef.
But why should I care how many *bad* restaurants there are, so long as I
can identify the good ones and patronize them?
2c0ca0...@k13g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > What do "graphics" have to do with anything?
>
> Have you looked at the graphics in SAI ?
>
> My dog has a better colour sense, and he's like all dogs colourblind.
a map - *the exact "graphics" Admiral Hipper was presented with*.
> > And I would observe here that in a well-designed computer game there's
> > no way to know how "convoluted" things are,
>
> LOL - you can bet your grandma that all the reams of data you see in
> the average pc wargame are getting used in some calculation or other.
> Oh, I know that mantra of the pc taking care of the number crunching,
> but I call bs on that because those games become incredibly difficult
> to design properly.
>
> Too much data == bad
My point is that I don't care how much "data" - or pixie dust, or
muffler bearings, or tins of wind - is under the hood of a computer
game; I care what information I get, and how I interact with the system.
What goes on in the bowels of the CPU is no more interesting to me than
the fabulously complex public water system necessary to service the
town; so long as water comes out when I move the little handle, I'm
happy.
> > I would argue the opposite, in fact; the
> > most "convoluted" PC wargames are *boardgame simulators*.
>
> ROTFL - yeah, that's the first thing I thought when I saw the
> screenshots and specs of that Kickstarter Bulge game ... not.
> > Come now. There are *hundreds* of PC titles in the "think as long as
> > you like, then execute" category.
>
> That's not what I said. I said games where the majority of the gaming
> time is spend thinking.
thinking. Perhaps you just think more quickly than I do, but I can't
argue things from your perspective, just mine.
> You better start taking a good look at modern boardgame design.
PC.
> > And why is the ratio of "80% think, 20% execute" PC games to "mindlessly
> > shuffling things around games" remotely interesting?
>
> Because playing a wargame is all about the command experience, not
> about moving the 516th kitchen company east 3 hexes each turn ? Is
> this a trick question ?
crappy games are released every year - I'm not going to buy them. So
long as a few I want to buy appear, I'll be happy.
> > This is like saying "the number of decent restaurants is insignificant
> > compared to the hundreds of shitty fast-food joints that open every
> > year." So what? As long as the customer can tell the difference, the
> > ratio is pointless.
>
> Yeah, the only problem is that the number of decent restaurants that
> open each year can be stored in 2 bits and that you somehow oppose
> the proposal that prospective restaurant owners don't cook themselves
> but hire a renowned chef.
can identify the good ones and patronize them?
Mike Kreuzer
May 5, 2012, 12:29:48 AM5/5/12
to
On 5/05/2012 2:09 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
[snip]
semi wargames there are if that's all there is. And it isn't thanks to
NWS & others.
The semi wargames do make for hilarious forum reading though:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3094316
Gormless customers: Can I save a game?
Iain McNeil: "There is no save in mission but it should multi task
pretty well so just leave it running."
Gormless customers: Huh? It needs to be able to save.
Iain McNeil: "Completely agree and it is on the wish list but its not
a simple task."
<snicker> Cooking food's on the wish list, but it's not as easy at
looks, we keep falling over each other and catching fire. That's one
restaurant to avoid.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com | www.wargamedispatches.com
[snip]
>>
>> Yeah, the only problem is that the number of decent restaurants that
>> open each year can be stored in 2 bits and that you somehow oppose
>> the proposal that prospective restaurant owners don't cook themselves
>> but hire a renowned chef.
>
> But why should I care how many *bad* restaurants there are, so long as I
> can identify the good ones and patronize them?
>
>
Exactly right. I only care about how many panzer general clone sequel
>> Yeah, the only problem is that the number of decent restaurants that
>> open each year can be stored in 2 bits and that you somehow oppose
>> the proposal that prospective restaurant owners don't cook themselves
>> but hire a renowned chef.
>
> But why should I care how many *bad* restaurants there are, so long as I
> can identify the good ones and patronize them?
>
>
semi wargames there are if that's all there is. And it isn't thanks to
NWS & others.
The semi wargames do make for hilarious forum reading though:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3094316
Gormless customers: Can I save a game?
Iain McNeil: "There is no save in mission but it should multi task
pretty well so just leave it running."
Gormless customers: Huh? It needs to be able to save.
Iain McNeil: "Completely agree and it is on the wish list but its not
a simple task."
<snicker> Cooking food's on the wish list, but it's not as easy at
looks, we keep falling over each other and catching fire. That's one
restaurant to avoid.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com | www.wargamedispatches.com
0 new messages