ACE PATROL for iPad...

[Giftzwerg]

As always, I feel kinda silly offering up a "review" of an app that is
initially free, and only costs about $15.00 if you buy all the campaigns
/ pilots, etc. So my first point is a simple one; if you own an iPad2+,
stop reading right now, and just get the Somme offering and play.

But the contrast with PHANTOM LEADER is just too obvious for words, so
here we go.

Sid Meier's ACE PATROL is a proper computer game, designed by a guy
who's rightly famous for designing proper computer games, and from the
moment you fire up the ACE PATROL app, you know you're in good hands.

Starting the game, you see some boilerplate about "arriving in the
Somme" as inexperienced, fledgling pilots. You pick your squadron
leader (who presumably is you). You notice that you're very
inexperienced and trained only in basic flight maneuvers, just as a
newebie flyboy would be. You're given your Airco DH.2 pusher-biplane
and sent off on the first mission, which is to bust some kraut balloons.
Hey, that was the first mission for Herr Stachel in THE BLUE MAX, too.

(At this point in PHANTOM LEADER, I was still trying to figure out how
the "Political Point Track" or the "Event Cards" related to the price of
tea in China...)

OK, the game deposits your plane over a nicely-rendered isomorphic map,
with your DH.2 selected. A helpful box appears and informs you that the
little blue arrows that appear in hexes near your airplane represent
maneuvers that you and your airplane can perform right now. Since
you're a total zero, flying-wise, and your plane is a piece of crap, you
can't do very much.

I see I've got three red balls on the "height" chain that tethers me to
the map, so I guess I'm at 300 feet or something. I click on a blue
arrow two hexes ahead, and the game shows me flying forward level for
two hexes. Click again to confirm? Yup, that works. So my plane zooms
forward two hexes. Up ahead are two German balloons. There are no
other planes around, and I don't see any opposition whatever. Time to
go in and bag a milk run mission.

Some of the blue arrows turn, some point up or down, and clicking on
these explains that I'll be banking, turning, diving, etc. Some of them
are grayed-out, and clicking on them explains that to reach that point
from where I am now, I'd have to train-up on more advanced maneuvers (or
be flying a non-shit airplane...) Right now, I'm pretty much limited to
very simple moves.

(At this point in PHANTOM LEADER, I was wondering why the fuck I was in
a phase called "Fast Pilots Attack," when I couldn't do anything except
press the "Skip this" button.)

All, right, I maneuver around to come in on the balloons from a little
above them, and try to line up carefully for a good shot. Drawing upon
my encyclopedic knowledge of balloon-busting WW1-style, I maneuver into
a position that looks promising, and one of the arrows is green.
Clicking on this, it informs me that if I confirm this maneuver, I'll
have a shot at the balloon, and a certain potential to damage it.
Pretty high chance, too, given that I maneuvered close and the balloon
can't move.

I confirm my move, and bullets fly into the balloon, and I damage it by
45%. Not bad for my first shot!

(At this point in PHANTOM LEADER, I was trying to puzzle out why the
game was rolling two dice when, apparently, only one of them counted...)

I keep moving around, zooming and turning and blazing away at the two
balloons, which eventually succumb to my gunfire. Mission complete! I
get a post-mission screen with all sorts of praise on it, and I move on.

(At this point in PHANTOM LEADER, I'd deleted it from my iPad...)

This is a pretty good game. Simple, intuitive - the interface is pure
joy - and plain fun.

The pricing strategy is straight iPad. There are "battles" which
contain up to 10 missions, and "campaigns" which contain several
battles. The British "Somme" battle is free, and serves as the intro /
demo for the game. If you want to unlock the rest of the British
campaign, it'll cost you ninety-nine cents. Purchasing the German,
British, and French campaigns are $1.99 each. There are various other
IAP packages and products which I haven't really looked at yet.

But the total cost, if I bought everything currently available, looks to
be about what I spent on PHANTOM LEADER, which gave me about $0.00 in
terms of entertainment value.

This game looks to be as good as FLIGHT COMMANDER II, and longtime
members will recall the esteem I hold for that game. It does everything
right that PHANTOM LEADER does wrong. The designer of PHANTOM LEADER
set out to design a card game with a Vietnam air war theme. Sid Meier,
in ACE PATROL, set out to make a computer wargame about WW1 air
missions.




--
Giftzwerg
***
"While Ms. Giffords certainly has my sympathy for the violence she
suffered, it should be noted that being shot in the head by a lunatic
does not give one any special grace to pronounce upon public-policy
questions, nor does it give one moral license to call people 'cowards'
for holding public-policy views at variance with one?s own."
- Kevin Williamson

[jack dempsey]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 12:55:07 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cheers,

Great review! Thanks you.
I will order my copy, as soon as I can get "our" Ipad out of my wife's
hands.

Did anyone ever play Sid's "Rail Barons". We had a grand time playing
that on my Atari 800.

His Gettysburg was a good time too! But the controls a bit much.

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master." - George Washington

[Giftzwerg]

In article <eonno898d873cog9n...@4ax.com>,
jackcham...@hotmail.com says...

> Great review! Thanks you.
> I will order my copy, as soon as I can get "our" Ipad out of my wife's
> hands.

There's a lot of depth to the gameplay. For example, the system shows
you where you can get to, and what maneuver you'll be pulling to get
there, and what kind of a shot you're likely to have along the way ...

... but you have to quickly teach yourself to think beyond that and take
in the whole situation. As in:

"OK, I can blast this Fokker with a hefty chance of 40% damage if I pull
an Immelmann - and he totally can't respond ... but where does that
leave me? I can do that, but what's this other enemy going to do?"

Often, the answer is, "He'll find me a bit below him and barely above
stall speed, and he's gonna tuck in on my six and blast the batfuck
outta me. Maybe I should dive away and hope for better days."

There's a lot of strategy here. Often you find yourself over enemy
territory, surrounded by strong defenses and belts of AAA. The enemy
can just sail over their own guns, but you've got to make sure a killer
move against an enemy plane doesn't leave you low over enemy guns, too
low to evade.

There are all sorts of missions; fighter sweeps, flying circus, ground
attack, CAP, bomber intercept, Zeppelin killing and defense, escort
missions, reconnaissance flights ... I've come across all these, and
I've just gotten into the second "battle" (set of missions) in the
British campaign.

Oh, and I've been playing on the "Rookie" setting. There are, like,
*six* more levels of difficulty. There are tons of airplanes, campaigns
for British, German, French, and Americans. And the missions are varied
enough that replayability seems high. And the whole thing is nice,
small, and intimate; nothing monstery about it whatsoever.

One of my assistants DL'd the game (he's a huge PIRATES fan...) and got
to fight The Red Baron. Man, that guy just flutters around behind you
until he gets a clear shot, while your trained-but-somewhat-green pilot
just tries to wriggle out of the trap. His pilot survived the crash,
but isn't going to be up for a mission until discharged from the
hospital.

Let's see. Is there anything I wish were included? A random "quick
battle" thingie would be nice. But that's all I can think of.
Everything else is pure fun gameplay, with a UI that's nothing short of
brilliant.

WOTY pick, right here. Arjuna? Any answers?

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 10/05/2013 8:03 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <eonno898d873cog9n...@4ax.com>,
> jackcham...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> Great review! Thanks you. I will order my copy, as soon as I can
>> get "our" Ipad out of my wife's hands.
>
> There's a lot of depth to the gameplay.

[snip]

>
> Let's see. Is there anything I wish were included? A random "quick
> battle" thingie would be nice. But that's all I can think of.
> Everything else is pure fun gameplay, with a UI that's nothing short
> of brilliant.
>
> WOTY pick, right here. Arjuna? Any answers?
>
>

I'm tending to agree. Played through the demo game at 2 this morning,
kept me going to the end with no disappointments.

Quibbles: the female and non anglo British pilots are a mysterious
inclusion, but whatever, I can look past them and my two Brit
lady-pilots did rather well for themselves. <g> Quick battle would be a
nice addition, but as you said somewhere for almost no money I can buy
every single add-on mission/improvement/whatever and that's going to be
a lot of casual game play for whatever it adds up to ($15? less?).

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 mei, 00:03, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Everything else is pure fun gameplay, with a UI that's nothing short of
> brilliant.
>
> WOTY pick, right here.  Arjuna?  Any answers?

Welcome to the world of tabletop games on a computer :)

If you feel up to it, revisit what you wrote when I mentioned the
simultaneous picking of orders as a good implementation of command
delay in a turn-based game of Wings of War.

It went something like "the fudge necessary to contain reality in a
paper wrapper."

Seems reality is overrated :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <kmhkrn$ee1$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> > Let's see. Is there anything I wish were included? A random "quick
> > battle" thingie would be nice. But that's all I can think of.
> > Everything else is pure fun gameplay, with a UI that's nothing short
> > of brilliant.
> >
> > WOTY pick, right here. Arjuna? Any answers?

> I'm tending to agree. Played through the demo game at 2 this morning,
> kept me going to the end with no disappointments.

I think the "in-app purchase" is a potential game-changer in the
wargaming world - pun intended. What are my outcomes for trying out ACE
PATROL:

- I try The Somme, and I'm not impressed. Cost me nothing. I'm not
unhappy in the slightest.

- I try The Somme, and I like it well enough, but it's not for me. I
don't move on to pay-for IAPs. I'm pleased, though.

- I try the Somme, and like it. I move on, and buy more game modules
for tiny, piffling sums. At some point, I might become bored and stop
buying. I'm completely happy.

> Quibbles: the female and non anglo British pilots are a mysterious
> inclusion, but whatever, I can look past them and my two Brit
> lady-pilots did rather well for themselves. <g>

The women were a bit jarring, but I chalked it up to the Amelia Earhardt
factor ... and Firaxis' hopes than some ladies might like to mix things
up in their biplanes.

("Non-Angelo?" I have <my name>, "Fullard," "McElroy," and "Ball."
They all look like they stepped off a wedding cake.)

> Quick battle would be a
> nice addition, but as you said somewhere for almost no money I can buy
> every single add-on mission/improvement/whatever and that's going to be
> a lot of casual game play for whatever it adds up to ($15? less?).

I already bought the whole smash. Tomorrow's budget for morning coffee
from the gas station, a bagel, and a deli sandwich and soda is, like,
*totally* shot.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <326a73fc-3d65-4a18-ad4a-
ae8e54...@gm7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > Everything else is pure fun gameplay, with a UI that's nothing short of
> > brilliant.
> >
> > WOTY pick, right here.  Arjuna?  Any answers?
>
> Welcome to the world of tabletop games on a computer :)

You couldn't be more wrong.

> If you feel up to it, revisit what you wrote when I mentioned the
> simultaneous picking of orders as a good implementation of command
> delay in a turn-based game of Wings of War.
>
> It went something like "the fudge necessary to contain reality in a
> paper wrapper."
>
> Seems reality is overrated :)

What kind of boardgamey hoo-haa was I talking about, though? Card-
sorting? Dice-rolling? Chit-picking? I've forgotten; there's so much
of that poisoning the gaming well since The Prestigious Charles S.
Roberts built the first 4-4-5 Generic-Something-Or-Other counter.

There's just none of that here. The contrast with shitware like PHANTOM
LEADER could not be more pronounced. PHANTOM LEADER even *rolls dice on
the screen* to keep the ol' boardgamey horseshit flowing.

Sorry, but this game is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when
I refer to a "proper computer game."

[Giftzwerg]

In article <955157090389853702.90...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> > Let's see. Is there anything I wish were included? A random "quick
> > battle" thingie would be nice. But that's all I can think of.
> > Everything else is pure fun gameplay, with a UI that's nothing short of
> > brilliant.
> >
> > WOTY pick, right here. Arjuna? Any answers?

> Did you find any differences between your planes in practice? An apparently
> better plane became available midway through the free campaign and the
> stats looked improved, but in actual play, it seemed to be just like my old
> plane...

I found the changeover from the DH.2 to the Sopwith Pup to be very
significant, then changing to the Bristol even more so. The Pup could
turn on a dime, but the Bristol was much more boomy-zoomy. And it has
that tail gunner.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 mei, 11:15, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <326a73fc-3d65-4a18-ad4a-
> ae8e543a1...@gm7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
> > > Everything else is pure fun gameplay, with a UI that's nothing short of
> > > brilliant.
>
> > > WOTY pick, right here.  Arjuna?  Any answers?
>
> > Welcome to the world of tabletop games on a computer :)
>
> You couldn't be more wrong.

You couldn't be more wrong-informed.

> > If you feel up to it, revisit what you wrote when I mentioned the
> > simultaneous picking of orders as a good implementation of command
> > delay in a turn-based game of Wings of War.
>
> > It went something like "the fudge necessary to contain reality in a
> > paper wrapper."
>
> > Seems reality is overrated :)
>
> What kind of boardgamey hoo-haa was I talking about, though?

Wings of War <huge grin> which for all intents and purposes you're
playing right now on the iPad and loving it - welcome to the Dark Side
- we have cookies too :)

> Sorry, but this game is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when
> I refer to a "proper computer game."

Sid Meier's name on the box finally made you eat broccoli, I get it :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <0f380fb1-f7db-4054-8a70-
5efd47...@i9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > What kind of boardgamey hoo-haa was I talking about, though?
>
> Wings of War <huge grin> which for all intents and purposes you're
> playing right now on the iPad and loving it - welcome to the Dark Side
> - we have cookies too :)

Wings of War have a pretty good AI does it? Because this one sure does.

Again, I don't care if ACE PATROL runs on ground up boardgames, or
squirrel shanks, or magic pixie dust; the gameplay it shows me is pure
computer game, unmitigated by boardgamey crap.

> > Sorry, but this game is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when
> > I refer to a "proper computer game."
>
> Sid Meier's name on the box finally made you eat broccoli, I get it :)

If you can't see the difference between a boardgame simulator - PHANTOM
LEADER - and a proper computer game like this one, well, as Ed Koch once
observed, "I can explain this to you. I can't comprehend it for you."

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 mei, 11:44, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Wings of War have a pretty good AI does it?

The best - it's called "human opponent"

> Again, I don't care if ACE PATROL runs on ground up boardgames, or
> squirrel shanks, or magic pixie dust; the gameplay it shows me is pure
> computer game, unmitigated by boardgamey crap.

Boardgamey crap like discrete height blobs (we used Lego blocks)
instead of a continous height indicator ?

> > > Sorry, but this game is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when
> > > I refer to a "proper computer game."
>
> > Sid Meier's name on the box finally made you eat broccoli, I get it :)
>
> If you can't see the difference between a boardgame simulator - PHANTOM
> LEADER - and a proper computer game like this one, well, as Ed Koch once
> observed, "I can explain this to you.  I can't comprehend it for you."

I sure can see the difference, but I just find it funny that you've
finally succumbed to this "turn-based boardgamey nonsense" that
shouldn't exist in a proper computer game in a world where computers
can handle all the data.

Ok, baby steps. I'm not going to try to force you, but maybe next year
I'll introduce you again to my WotY 2011 pick "A Few Acres of Snow",
which unlike Wings of War is a proper wargame and a really good
simulation of the historical period. Unless you prefer flying busty
female pilots in a WWI biplane game of course :) (*)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

(*) There actually were women combat pilots in WWI

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/women_combat_pilots_ww1.html

[Giftzwerg]

In article <fbe9f277-aff7-4562-aa70-c7c438aa2aa7
@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Wings of War have a pretty good AI does it?
>
> The best - it's called "human opponent"

I played a mission of ACE PATROL in the car last evening while awaiting
Mrs. G. outside the hospital. I checked the trunk, but didn't find any
"human opponents" in there.

> > Again, I don't care if ACE PATROL runs on ground up boardgames, or
> > squirrel shanks, or magic pixie dust; the gameplay it shows me is pure
> > computer game, unmitigated by boardgamey crap.
>
> Boardgamey crap like discrete height blobs (we used Lego blocks)
> instead of a continous height indicator ?

Nah. Boardgamey crap like the "Place Sites" phase in PHANTOM LEADER, or
the "Fast Pilots Attack" phase, or the "Event Card" phase, or the loony
"Skip or Evade" phase, or the "Click Here For Next Phase" phase.

> > > > Sorry, but this game is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when
> > > > I refer to a "proper computer game."
> >
> > > Sid Meier's name on the box finally made you eat broccoli, I get it :)
> >
> > If you can't see the difference between a boardgame simulator - PHANTOM
> > LEADER - and a proper computer game like this one, well, as Ed Koch once

> > observed, "I can explain this to you. ï¿œI can't comprehend it for you."

>
> I sure can see the difference, but I just find it funny that you've
> finally succumbed to this "turn-based boardgamey nonsense" that
> shouldn't exist in a proper computer game in a world where computers
> can handle all the data.

Imagine, if you will, the Frank Hunter PC version of ACE PATROL:

On starting a mission, you find yourself in the "Speed Declaration"
phase, and move the sliders for all your planes - except for the ones
"Advantaged." Then we move to the "non-advantaged movement plot
phase." Then comes the "non-advantaged movement execution phase."
During this, players are allowed an "opportunity fire phase" as each
plane moves. Then comes the "Advantaged movement plot phase." Then the
"advantaged movement phase" (with opportunity phase).

Now we turn over an "event card." Which takes us to the "non-phasing
target fire phase."

Ugh.

See, we have a wonderful opportunity here to compare PHANTOM LEADER and
ACE PATROL - released for the same platform at almost exactly the same
point in time. PL is a terrifying example of how to fuck up a computer
game with lazy, boardgamey design - not even taking the trouble to
eliminate "phases" which are absolutely not relevant to the situation
(IE, why have an "attack phase" *at all* when none of the player's
airplanes are in a position to "attack" anything?!?).

Sure, there are familiar boardgame elements (turns, hexes, etc.), but
those of us pining away for computer games instead of boardgame
simulators don't mind trading away, say, a full-blown RTS combat system
for being able to play the game "hot iPad" with another person.

Two games. Same platform. Same price. One is pure boardgamey
nonsense, the other pure computer gold.

> Ok, baby steps. I'm not going to try to force you, but maybe next year
> I'll introduce you again to my WotY 2011 pick "A Few Acres of Snow",
> which unlike Wings of War is a proper wargame and a really good
> simulation of the historical period. Unless you prefer flying busty
> female pilots in a WWI biplane game of course :) (*)

Reflecting back, I think that if Meier were building PIRATES today,
there would be a couple of busty female pirate avatars to choose from,
Ann Bonny-style.

I guess someone could quibble about that, but it's just nerd-rage.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 mei, 13:17, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <fbe9f277-aff7-4562-aa70-c7c438aa2aa7

> @q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > Wings of War have a pretty good AI does it?
>
> > The best - it's called "human opponent"
>
> I played a mission of ACE PATROL in the car last evening while awaiting
> Mrs. G. outside the hospital.  I checked the trunk, but didn't find any
> "human opponents" in there.

Should have checked the ER, there's always people there, the blood is
real and in psych ward there's always people willing to provide the
background ambiance of machine gun noise :)

I have the reverse problem : can't find the time to play iPad games
because I'm playing too many FTF games.

> > > Again, I don't care if ACE PATROL runs on ground up boardgames, or
> > > squirrel shanks, or magic pixie dust; the gameplay it shows me is pure
> > > computer game, unmitigated by boardgamey crap.
>
> > Boardgamey crap like discrete height blobs (we used Lego blocks)
> > instead of a continous height indicator ?
>
> Nah.  Boardgamey crap like the "Place Sites" phase in PHANTOM LEADER, or
> the "Fast Pilots Attack" phase, or the "Event Card" phase, or the loony
> "Skip or Evade" phase, or the "Click Here For Next Phase" phase.

Always knew there were different kinds of crap - some that stink and
others that are golden fertilizer :)

> > > > > Sorry, but this game is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when
> > > > > I refer to a "proper computer game."
>
> > > > Sid Meier's name on the box finally made you eat broccoli, I get it :)
>
> > > If you can't see the difference between a boardgame simulator - PHANTOM
> > > LEADER - and a proper computer game like this one, well, as Ed Koch once

> > > observed, "I can explain this to you. I can't comprehend it for you."

>
> > I sure can see the difference, but I just find it funny that you've
> > finally succumbed to this "turn-based boardgamey nonsense" that
> > shouldn't exist in a proper computer game in a world where computers
> > can handle all the data.
>
> Imagine, if you will, the Frank Hunter PC version of ACE PATROL:

Oh, the horror.

I wonder why you always pick the worst examples of "boardgamey crap",
even when there are plenty of modern boardgames out there which do
away with a lot of that stuff, but refuse to give perfectly good
conversions AND good wargames like Hammer of the Scots or A Few Acres
of Snow their due.

Oh, I forgot : no AI - the kiss of death.

If only they invented a way to connect to other people across the
globe from your electronic gaming platform ...

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[GJK]

I've read with interest and a little smile on my face over the years the debate between Eddy and Gifty as to what constitutes a "solid wargame" or a "WOTY" winner. The answer here is really easy and I suspect that most of us have seen this contrast between these two wargamers but I'll offer my observations here. First off, this is in no way a swipe at either Eddy or Gifty, though I know Gifty (especially) will have his keyboard humming with response in the Gifty way. :)

You two are completely different types of wargamers. Eddy sounds like the type of player that I would categorize myself as. I enjoy a game that is more of a study of a historical situation than an abstraction. I don't mind, in fact even favor, reading a rulebook and learning the mechanics of a game; be it a computer game or (more preferably) a boardgame. I enjoy playing face to face with another human as opposed to the "AI" of a computer. I don't mind putting in the leg work for a game and that usually means heavy highlighting and note taking on a xerox copy of the paper rules. My ASL rulebook proudly sits on my wargaming book shelf and I will read from it often. Getting together with a group of other wargamers to play wargames is a treat, even though I don't get to do it often enough. I am fortunate however to have a 14yr old son that enjoys wargaming and will sit through my explanation of how to play "Up Front", "ASL" or "Civil War Brigade Series" games. He usually wins too, which shows my skill level at playing wargames. It's about the entertainment factor and the social aspect of gaming for me (and I suspect for Eddy as well).

Gifty on the other hand came from that background, as most of us did since it was pre-computer wargaming days. But today, Gifty neither has the patience nor the desire to study a game. Reading a 30+ page rulebook is far out of the question. Playing a simple, abstract game against a semi-competent AI opponent is his preferred, nay, only, choice of play method. I dare say that for Gifty, an "exceptional UI" is one that is easy to and quick to figure out. If he can't master the game by simply going through a quick tutorial, it's overly complex and not worth the effort. Most likely it has a lousy UI because of this too. Boardgames are simply archaic because, well, you have to read rules and unless you have Jacko's monkey staying at your house, it has no "AI".

Does this mean that Eddy is more of a "wargamer" than Gifty? Maybe. I do feel confident in saying however that I know that Gifty could easily pick up a complex boardgame and master it if that is what he desired to do. Time and patience may be the limiting factor for him. That's understandable. I do question his argument that a boardgame or any game that has a complex UI is a crap game however.

A simple study of this is the argument in this thread comparing ACE PATROL to PHANTOM LEADER. I have played neither so I'm speaking out of a bit of ignorance here, but I've studied the game play for PHANTOM LEADER (thinking of picking up a copy of the boardgame) so I know that it's a fairly complex game that would take some effort to master. From the reviews that I've read, if that time is spent mastering the rules, then the player is in for quite a rewarding experience. ACE PATROL looks to be an iPad version of "Wings of Glory" (or "Wings of War" as it was called previously, as Eddy pointed out). I have the tabletop version of those games and my son and I will play it every now and then for a "lighter" wargame. It's quick and easy to learn and there is some brilliance in the manner of pre-selecting your maneuvers and seeing the results play out. This type of game play suits Gifty much more than PHANTOM LEADER and there is nothing wrong with that UNLESS you start to criticize the latter because of it. For me, simplicity doesn't translate to "better UI" or "better game" because of it unless that is what you are looking for. ACE PATROL may be a notch above ANGRY BIRDS in my comparison of wargaming titles, but it's what works for Gifty. No need to criticize him for it. Conversely, complexity doesn't at all relate to a masterpiece wargame either. I was interested in picking up the boardgame title "STREETS OF STALINGRAD" but have read countless reviews that state that even though it is one of the most attractive games on the market, it is simply an overly complex mess to try and play.

So to conclude, I finally felt that I wanted to jump in here after chuckling at the ongoing argument of what constitutes a WOTY type of game. Not laughing at the participants of the discussion but at the fact that they are arguing apples and oranges and thus will never meet in agreement unless that is understood between them. Yes, there will be some games that will appeal to both but at the extremes, they will not agree on the same title.

Game on fella's, I do enjoy your conversations and for that, you are both wonderful contributors to the wargaming hobby!

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 mei, 14:01, GJK <j...@garykrockover.com> wrote:
>
> I've read with interest and a little smile on my face over the years the debate between Eddy and Gifty as to what constitutes a "solid wargame" or a "WOTY" winner.

The bill is in the mail - entertainment isn't cheap you know :)

> You two are completely different types of wargamers.  Eddy sounds like the type of player that I would categorize myself as.  I enjoy a game that is more of a study of a historical situation than an abstraction.  I don't mind, in fact even favor, reading a rulebook and learning the mechanics of a game; be it a computer game or (more preferably) a boardgame.  I enjoy playing face to face with another human as opposed to the "AI" of a computer.

Yes and no - I don't mind abstraction, I even prefer it, because what
matters to me is if a wargame can put me in the shoes of my historical
counterpart. And a game which manages this with less bookkeeping and
overhead is then prefered over one with a myriad of pointless tasks,
instead of decision making points i.e. the commander's job.

As to the type of games I play : I play everything, from the lightest
party-game to tabletop games with hundreds of pages of rules and only
about 10% of the games I play I would actually categorize as wargames.
Still 10% means 3-4 games a month, which is more than what most of
those so-called real wargamers who hang out in many wargame forums
manage :)

As I get into contact with so many different mechanics, I tend to look
beyond them, and even look beyond the graphics and UI to see what is
getting represented here and largely base my opinion of the game on
what I see happening on the battlefield compared to what my history
books tell me was possible and plausable at the time.

[insert rant about Cold War Commander and why despite all the
statistics and minute differentations between all the different
vehicle types it sucks to high heaven]

>  It's about the entertainment factor and the social aspect of gaming for me (and I suspect for Eddy as well).

Yup - if you let me pick between a "safe" move and a glorious cavalry
charge that'll either win or lose me the game you'll hear the sound of
the trumpets blaring out each and every time :) - why ? because that
look of desperation in your oppoent's eyes when you manage to roll
double-sixes *again* is priceless.

Winning is a secondary objective when I’m playing games and this goes
beyond wargaming.

Scene from last Friday – boardgame night

“Eddy, are you playing Terra Mystica with us ?”

“No thanks, I’ve had it with that game”

“But, but, you *won* the last 2 games you played of it with us ???”

“Exactly – I feel there’s nothing more to explore – I’m done with it”

Some people have a hard time understanding this.

>  ACE PATROL looks to be an iPad version of "Wings of Glory" (or "Wings of War" as it was called previously, as Eddy pointed out).

Wings of War was the old name, before the Italian publisher fubar'ed
the golden goose by only releasing Italian planes - as if the world
was waiting for those <rolls eyes>

> I have the tabletop version of those games and my son and I will play it every now and then for a "lighter" wargame.

Oh, you need to get the new X-Wing game from FFG then - it's Wings of
War notched up a bit, plenty of chrome added and set in the Star Wars
universe. I got a demo of it a couple of weeks ago and loved it. Watch
a video of it and apply credit card :)

>  Conversely, complexity doesn't at all relate to a masterpiece wargame either.

Exactly. Quiet the contrary in fact - 30 years of wargaming has made
me deeply suspicious of overly complex designs, which are usually
unplayable, thus largely untested and for me are a red flag that the
designer instead of really grokking the period and the battle elected
to obfuscate this by throwing more data at it.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <c6906fa6-9545-43f0...@googlegroups.com>,
ju...@garykrockover.com says...

> Gifty on the other hand came from that background, as most of us did
since it was pre-computer wargaming days. But today, Gifty neither has
the patience nor the desire to study a game. Reading a 30+ page
rulebook is far out of the question. Playing a simple, abstract game
against a semi-competent AI opponent is his preferred, nay, only, choice
of play method. I dare say that for Gifty, an "exceptional UI" is one
that is easy to and quick to figure out. If he can't master the game by
simply going through a quick tutorial, it's overly complex and not worth
the effort. Most likely it has a lousy UI because of this too.
Boardgames are simply archaic because, well, you have to read rules and
unless you have Jacko's monkey staying at your house, it has no "AI".

***

No. You're missing the point.

First off, ain't nothing "casual" about HTTR / COTA / BFTB. They're
some of the most complex and involved simulations existing, and are
hand's down my favorites. So it's far too facile to dismiss the issue
as, "Eddy is willing to do the hard but necessary work of manual-study
to play a game, whereas lazy ol' Giftzwerg just wants ANGRY BIRDS."

No. My position is that a *real* computer game - a pure one - wouldn't
need a manual at all. If you wanted to succeed at the game, and do
well, you would only need the education and training *the real guy being
simulated* needs.

Consider MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIMULATOR. You could sit a real airline pilot
down at my laptop, hand him the joystick, inform him that twisting it
was the rudder ... and that's it, he'd be mastering MSFS in about 60
seconds. No manual needed, because he's already read the only manual
that counts - The Real Airplane Manual.

I've said for years that the purest kind of wargame would be based on
the DOOM FPS engine. OK, you're taking the place of General Patton
during the Saar campaign. You're inside a room at a French chalet
that's been rigged up as your command post. You've got tons of maps, a
bunch of telephones and radios, and a host of aides. Information pours
in, and aides tell you about it and plot it on maps. You say your
orders, either into a phone or to an aide.

That's it. No manual needed. You could put me in Patton's HQ in 1944,
and I could totally handle the interface. Of course, I'd lose the
battle, and get most of my men killed, but that's because I don't have
Patton's real-world training.

But sit the real General Patton down at some boardgame, and he'd be
going, "what the fucking fuck is a 'supply allocation phase'!??! What
the hell are 'air asset support point factors'?"

My point is that boardgames reduce military realities to simple concepts
that can be stuffed into a wee paper manual, and at every turn shoe-horn
reality into neat little tables, charts, chits, cards and squares.

Show this to Patton and what's he gonna say? "I always get to play the
little shoe?"

> Does this mean that Eddy is more of a "wargamer" than Gifty? Maybe.
I do feel confident in saying however that I know that Gifty could
easily pick up a complex boardgame and master it if that is what he
desired to do. Time and patience may be the limiting factor for him.
That's understandable. I do question his argument that a boardgame or
any game that has a complex UI is a crap game however.

***

Here's the disconnect, though; as many times as I say it, no one ever
seems to get the fact that I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH BOARDGAMES.

Here's how I put it in another long-ago thread:

"Designing a computer game around a paper boardgame instead of military
reality is like designing your holodeck sexual romp around Georgie's
blow-up rubber love doll instead of Counselor Troi."

> A simple study of this is the argument in this thread comparing ACE
PATROL to PHANTOM LEADER. I have played neither so I'm speaking out of
a bit of ignorance here, but I've studied the game play for PHANTOM
LEADER (thinking of picking up a copy of the boardgame) so I know that
it's a fairly complex game that would take some effort to master.

OK, so compare it to FLIGHT SIMULATOR 2. Slavish port of a card game
(with a Vietnam war theme) to a proper computer game simulating an air
campaign.

> This type of game play suits Gifty much more than PHANTOM LEADER and
there is nothing wrong with that UNLESS you start to criticize the
latter because of it.

***

I'm sorry, but PHANTOM LEADER is just garbage. Dude, they throw you
into a "phase" where you can't do anything except click the "go to next
phase" button! The idiots who programmed this should be shot twice.
Similarly, they throw the player into a "place sites" phase where no
"sites" can be placed because it's not the player who "places sites."

But, hey, that phase has totally gotta stay in there, *because it was in
the paper version*. It makes no sense whatsoever outside that context.

> For me, simplicity doesn't translate to "better UI" or "better game"
because of it unless that is what you are looking for. ACE PATROL may
be a notch above ANGRY BIRDS in my comparison of wargaming titles, but
it's what works for Gifty. No need to criticize him for it.

***

The art of UI design is to mask complexity. At $ork, I just supervised
the installation of an enormous, eco-friendly, computer controlled and
monitored HVAC system for a 75,000 square foot campus. It's the most
insanely complicated thing imaginable, with solar energy, natural gas,
electricity, a thousand sensors, and weather data flowing in from NOAA.

You know how you control it? Through a web page with about 50 different
temperature settings. If you know who sits in the zone marked "B2B
Sales Rooms," you're 100% trained-up on operating a couple million bucks
worth of gear.

But is the system, as it stands, simple? Or complex? From the point of
view of the guy who put it all together (IE, me...) it's insanely
complicated and involved coordinating the efforts of different
installers and whole industries.

But from the point of view of the operator, it could not be more simple.

In other words, it's the ANGRY BIRDS interface controlling WAR IN THE
EAST.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <23abc550-29d5-4eaf-990a-93399f01a795
@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Imagine, if you will, the Frank Hunter PC version of ACE PATROL:
>
> Oh, the horror.
>
> I wonder why you always pick the worst examples of "boardgamey crap",
> even when there are plenty of modern boardgames out there which do
> away with a lot of that stuff, but refuse to give perfectly good
> conversions AND good wargames like Hammer of the Scots or A Few Acres
> of Snow their due.
>
> Oh, I forgot : no AI - the kiss of death.

Yep. First and foremost, a proper computer game needs an AI.
Dealbreaker.

> If only they invented a way to connect to other people across the
> globe from your electronic gaming platform ...

It takes me an hour just to round up my Corps of Flatterers here at
$ork; the last thing I want in my entertainment life is organizing a
trans-global gaming session.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 mei, 15:45, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> No.  My position is that a *real* computer game - a pure one - wouldn't
> need a manual at all.  If you wanted to succeed at the game, and do
> well, you would only need the education and training *the real guy being
> simulated* needs.

I actually agree with this - but unfortunately this leaves many
wargames which have a lot of, let's call them "natural" rules out in
the cold. How many pages of rules does Third Reich have ? Close to
100 ? But if you read the specific chapter on Malta, Gibraltar or the
Suez canal *and* you know your history they make sense - so the
rulesabsorb easily because they're natural, logical, historical.

Every good wargame has this kind of thing where history and rules
weave into each other in such a way they become natural.

> I've said for years that the purest kind of wargame would be based on
> the DOOM FPS engine.  OK, you're taking the place of General Patton
> during the Saar campaign.  You're inside a room at a French chalet
> that's been rigged up as your command post.  You've got tons of maps, a
> bunch of telephones and radios, and a host of aides.  Information pours
> in, and aides tell you about it and plot it on maps.  You say your
> orders, either into a phone or to an aide.

Peter Turcan made a game like that 2 decades ago - something
Napoleonic, I forget the name - it failed commercially beause most
people demand a bit more than the pure command experience. In a
certain sense we're very much alike, both aiming for the same "command
experience" target, but I'm coming at it from an abstraction and
streamlining design-for-effect philosophy whereas you prefer total
immersion and real-world data & effects.

> But sit the real General Patton down at some boardgame, and he'd be
> going, "what the fucking fuck is a 'supply allocation phase'!??!  What
> the hell are 'air asset support point factors'?"

I'm betting he knew. For instance : in Market-Garden (IRL) all air
asset points where assigned to close air support of the dropped
airborne divisions and it has been argued since that a better result
would have been achieved if they had gone on German movement
interdiction missions instead. Or a part of them. You get my point.

> My point is that boardgames reduce military realities to simple concepts
> that can be stuffed into a wee paper manual, and at every turn shoe-horn
> reality into neat little tables, charts, chits, cards and squares.

The means and tools used are irrelevant, look at the outcome - if a
battle develops in a belieavable way, it's a good game/simulation, if
not it isn't.

> Here's the disconnect, though; as many times as I say it, no one ever
> seems to get the fact that I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH BOARDGAMES.

We get that - but I for one am still wondering about why that is given
that many paper boardgames easily trump almost everything that has
been released for the digital platforms so far. Lack of AI ? Fair
enough if it weren't for the fact that I could get an online wargame
going 24/7

> "Designing a computer game around a paper boardgame instead of military
> reality is like designing your holodeck sexual romp around Georgie's
> blow-up rubber love doll instead of Counselor Troi."

All the more reason you should go and play FTF games with Counselor
Troi :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 mei, 15:48, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It takes me an hour just to round up my Corps of Flatterers here at
> $ork; the last thing I want in my entertainment life is organizing a
> trans-global gaming session.

I get that, unfortunately given the state of AI design, this is akin
to saying you prefer watching "Space Monsters from Outer Space" over
"Aliens" because the former is already on your harddisk, while the
latter requires you to go searching for it in your digital tv's
webshop.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <13da679c-4757-4e63-924c-30b76a23ed18
@z14g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > "Designing a computer game around a paper boardgame instead of military
> > reality is like designing your holodeck sexual romp around Georgie's
> > blow-up rubber love doll instead of Counselor Troi."
>
> All the more reason you should go and play FTF games with Counselor
> Troi :)

I bring up the holodeck because the most mind-blowingly good wargame of
all would be an enormous computer simulation where the holodeck was the
interface.

If you had enough sci-fi computing power to actually put you at Waterloo
*as* Napoleon, experiencing the battle *as* Napoleon, wouldn't that be
the best wargame imaginable?

Of course, computers aren't there yet, but the farther they take me from
a paper map festooned with counters and charts and dice and the closer
they take me to actually sitting on my war-horse, shouting orders in
French, the better off I am.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 mei, 16:34, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <13da679c-4757-4e63-924c-30b76a23ed18

> @z14g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > "Designing a computer game around a paper boardgame instead of military
> > > reality is like designing your holodeck sexual romp around Georgie's
> > > blow-up rubber love doll instead of Counselor Troi."
>
> > All the more reason you should go and play FTF games with Counselor
> > Troi :)
>
> I bring up the holodeck because the most mind-blowingly good wargame of
> all would be an enormous computer simulation where the holodeck was the
> interface.

If that kind of holodeck existed, I wouldn't use it for playing
wargames :)

As one pundit once said : the holodeck would be man's last invention
because it would be impossible to convince me to ever leave it and do
some actual work to keep society going.

> If you had enough sci-fi computing power to actually put you at Waterloo
> *as* Napoleon, experiencing the battle *as* Napoleon, wouldn't that be
> the best wargame imaginable?
>
> Of course, computers aren't there yet, but the farther they take me from
> a paper map festooned with counters and charts and dice and the closer
> they take me to actually sitting on my war-horse, shouting orders in
> French, the better off I am.

IRL he mostly sat down in a chair and scribbled orders on a piece of
paper :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <0640acd1-f473-48f1-8345-8f5094e741a7
@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > It takes me an hour just to round up my Corps of Flatterers here at
> > $ork; the last thing I want in my entertainment life is organizing a
> > trans-global gaming session.
>
> I get that, unfortunately given the state of AI design, this is akin
> to saying you prefer watching "Space Monsters from Outer Space" over
> "Aliens" because the former is already on your harddisk, while the
> latter requires you to go searching for it in your digital tv's
> webshop.

'd say it's more like watching "Space Monsters from Outer Space" instead
of going to an opera.

Or a soccer game.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <172dfd40-babc-45dc-8a75-
1c01d6...@h1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > I bring up the holodeck because the most mind-blowingly good wargame of
> > all would be an enormous computer simulation where the holodeck was the
> > interface.
>
> If that kind of holodeck existed, I wouldn't use it for playing
> wargames :)
>
> As one pundit once said : the holodeck would be man's last invention
> because it would be impossible to convince me to ever leave it and do
> some actual work to keep society going.

One suspects, though, that a holodeck wouldn't be free. After all, even
now I'd rather be out hiking than going to work ... but hiking don't pay
da bills.

> > If you had enough sci-fi computing power to actually put you at Waterloo
> > *as* Napoleon, experiencing the battle *as* Napoleon, wouldn't that be
> > the best wargame imaginable?
> >
> > Of course, computers aren't there yet, but the farther they take me from
> > a paper map festooned with counters and charts and dice and the closer
> > they take me to actually sitting on my war-horse, shouting orders in
> > French, the better off I am.
>
> IRL he mostly sat down in a chair and scribbled orders on a piece of
> paper :)

That's all well and good for him. I'm going to run around, shouting and
waving my arms.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 mei, 17:09, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <0640acd1-f473-48f1-8345-8f5094e741a7

> @w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > It takes me an hour just to round up my Corps of Flatterers here at
> > > $ork; the last thing I want in my entertainment life is organizing a
> > > trans-global gaming session.
>
> > I get that, unfortunately given the state of AI design, this is akin
> > to saying you prefer watching "Space Monsters from Outer Space" over
> > "Aliens" because the former is already on your harddisk, while the
> > latter requires you to go searching for it in your digital tv's
> > webshop.
>
> 'd say it's more like watching "Space Monsters from Outer Space" instead
> of going to an opera.
>
> Or a soccer game.

Well, if you ever change your mind about FTF gaming : Vermont's Green
Mountain Gamers are again organizing a game day - with a BBQ

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/974933/game-n-grill-green-mountain-gamers-vt

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:17:49 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I guess someone could quibble about that, but it's just nerd-rage.
>
>--
>Giftzwerg

BWAHAHAHAA!

This whole NEWSGROUP! is all about nerd-rage. (Hahahaha!)
And who's the nerd with the most rage????


Chortle. Snuck!

.
.
----------------------------------------------
No matter how you shake and dance,
the last two drops go down your pants.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:15:43 -0400, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>hat's all well and good for him. I'm going to run around, shouting and
>waving my arms.
>
>--
>Giftzwerg
>***

Of course :-})>

Just play your natural game.

(BTW - What's the early 19thC for "fuckwit"? You'll need to know that.)
.
.
If I could do it all over, I'd do it all over you.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <tskqo8luajrhfjok1...@4ax.com>,
n...@thistime.net says...

> >hat's all well and good for him. I'm going to run around, shouting and
> >waving my arms.

> Of course :-})>
>
> Just play your natural game.
>
> (BTW - What's the early 19thC for "fuckwit"? You'll need to know that.)

True. A useful word in any context. Or century.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Journalism is about covering important stories.
With a pillow, until they stop moving."
- David Burge

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 10/05/13 7:15 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <326a73fc-3d65-4a18-ad4a-
> ae8e54...@gm7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
>>> Everything else is pure fun gameplay, with a UI that's nothing
>>> short of brilliant.
>>>
>>> WOTY pick, right here. Arjuna? Any answers?
>>
>> Welcome to the world of tabletop games on a computer :)
>
> You couldn't be more wrong.
>

[snip]

The "old fashioned" 70s board wargames like Air Force, Dauntless/etc let
a plane conduct a range of manoeuvres based on it's
speed/altitude/previous manoeuvres/etc, just like a real life plane.
That same sort of model got ported over to the computer in Flight
Commander 2. Excellently ported over - no rolling dice, drawing card etc
animations required, it's on a computer FFS. Ace Patrol follows nicely
in this tradition.

This sort of game often got "improved" though by the "new" "modern"
Euro" wargames, where you can only conduct a particular manoeuvre if you
happened to draw the right card out of the deck. How would that work
with air combat? Can't turn left, sorry don't have the card. Simulates
what? A pilot having some kind of stroke? That's a straw man, but it
exists in plenty of non air war games.

Thankfully Wings of War didn't (from what I remember, it's buried at the
back of a cupboard) work that way - the cards were just to measure
distance/angle etc on the table, all of a plane's set were available to
use each turn, their relative scarcity reflecting the plane's abilities.
It was just the data that was in a table on one card in the 70s games
printed more colourfully & less efficiently over many little cards.
Young people, they no comprehend information in tables. Apparently.

Bought the Brit campaign. 99c. Hey big spender...

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 10 mei, 23:07, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <tskqo8luajrhfjok13olsur8re74blu...@4ax.com>,

> n...@thistime.net says...
>
> > >hat's all well and good for him.  I'm going to run around, shouting and
> > >waving my arms.
> > Of course  :-})>
>
> > Just play your natural game.
>
> > (BTW - What's the early 19thC for "fuckwit"? You'll need to know that.)
>
> True.  A useful word in any context.  Or century.

I'll help you guys out : "Con" - pronounced like the first two
characters of the word "company" - the "n" is silent - and for the
terminally curious : it's derived from a woman-specific part of the
human anatomy of which there is even an English cognate :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Øystein Tvedten]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> Oh, you need to get the new X-Wing game from FFG then - it's Wings of
> War notched up a bit, plenty of chrome added and set in the Star Wars
> universe. I got a demo of it a couple of weeks ago and loved it. Watch
> a video of it and apply credit card :)
>

> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

WHich is sadly the closest we will ever get to another X-Wing game :(

*�pines for the days when the X-Wingcomputer series was the best Space combat
game around* (not saying space sim, because I-War I+II rules that
genre ;) )

øystein
--
Roy Batty: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships
on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the
dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
like tears in rain. Time to die.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 mei, 10:20, oyste...@ifi.uio.no (Øystein Tvedten) wrote:
>
> WHich is sadly the closest we will ever get to another X-Wing game :(
>
> * pines for the days when the X-Wingcomputer  series was the best Space combat
> game around* (not saying space sim, because I-War I+II rules that
> genre ;) )

Here's a video of the game Eclipse on the iPad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue1Ymbnpmo4

It's based on a boardgame - no surprises there :) - which I've played
a couple of times and it's a pretty decent space 4X game

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <kmk9qj$22n$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> >> Welcome to the world of tabletop games on a computer :)
> >
> > You couldn't be more wrong.
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> The "old fashioned" 70s board wargames like Air Force, Dauntless/etc let
> a plane conduct a range of manoeuvres based on it's
> speed/altitude/previous manoeuvres/etc, just like a real life plane.
> That same sort of model got ported over to the computer in Flight
> Commander 2. Excellently ported over - no rolling dice, drawing card etc
> animations required, it's on a computer FFS. Ace Patrol follows nicely
> in this tradition.

That was the major selling point, to my mind. In fact, the only
improvement I could see in FC2, after playing ACE PATROL, would be to
update the graphics to the "3D" effect here. I generally don't give a
rip about graphics, but seeing the attitudes and angles presented on the
game screen is nicely immersive.

They missed a couple of tricks, though. A nifty bit of chrome would
have been to allow players to paint their own airplanes, rather than
accepting the default / accent combos or the paintjobs that come with
the "ace" IAPs. And a random battle generator would be nice - or even a
mission / campaign builder. That the latter is not included leads me to
hope that further campaigns at similar prices might be forthcoming.

> This sort of game often got "improved" though by the "new" "modern"
> Euro" wargames, where you can only conduct a particular manoeuvre if you
> happened to draw the right card out of the deck. How would that work
> with air combat? Can't turn left, sorry don't have the card. Simulates
> what? A pilot having some kind of stroke? That's a straw man, but it
> exists in plenty of non air war games.

Any time someone mentions "cards" I think back to UNCLE WIGGILY, playing
against my mom when I was four; she had the uncanny knack of drawing the
card that read, "Go to the 5&10 Cent Store," which, for those unfamiliar
with this classic game, put the lucky player close enough to the end of
the trail to make victory virtually certain.

To this day, I think she was marking the cards.

But, yeah, I hate this. "Oh, look, I have the 'Nubians Desert' card!"
I play it and one of Hannibal's counters goes away. Never mind that my
forces are nowhere near the Nubians - and the Nubians are in *Gaul*
2,000 miles across an ocean from anywhere they could *spend* my bribes -
the counter just evaporates and the Nubians are "miracled" back home,
fat with HD televisions and shiny new iPhones.

> Thankfully Wings of War didn't (from what I remember, it's buried at the
> back of a cupboard) work that way - the cards were just to measure
> distance/angle etc on the table, all of a plane's set were available to
> use each turn, their relative scarcity reflecting the plane's abilities.
> It was just the data that was in a table on one card in the 70s games
> printed more colourfully & less efficiently over many little cards.
> Young people, they no comprehend information in tables. Apparently.

Remember AIR FORCE with the giant fans of flight envelope information
that looked like the seating chart at the Hollywood Bowl? AF and
DAUNTLESS were fun games - and nothing as hideous as the awful PHANTOM
LEADER - but there was never the sense that you were fighting an air
battle.

That's what FC2 and now ACE PATROL give me, and what most proper
computer games give me, the ability to look right past the interface to
the situation being modeled.

> Bought the Brit campaign. 99c. Hey big spender...

Mrs. G. is going to blow her stack when she finds out what I've spent on
ACE PATROL:

Somme Battle ----------- free
All Campaign Pack ------ $3.99
Ace Package ------------ $4.99 (I like colory-planes)
Total: -----------------$11.97

That blows my wine budget for ... Tuesday.

[GJK]

> Remember AIR FORCE with the giant fans of flight envelope information
> that looked like the seating chart at the Hollywood Bowl?  AF and
> DAUNTLESS were fun games - and nothing as hideous as the awful PHANTOM
> LEADER - but there was never the sense that you were fighting an air
> battle.
>

I don't know why I'm defending PHANTOM LEADER because I have only seen
others play it but I think this is where you are again comparing
apples and oranges. PHANTOM LEADER isn't a game of aerial combat or
flight sim on a mapboard. It's a game where you are in charge of Air
Ops and must select the best resources for any given mission and then
execute that mission. If you're looking for a game where you turn
your little planes in circles until you can finally line up a shot,
then play ACE PATROL, not PHANTOM LEADER.

Also, upstream you mentioned that HTTR/COTA/BFTB were "some of the
most complex and involved simulations existing". I'm sure that under
the hood they have lots of very detailed and complex programming going
on, but for the player the game is very simple to play. It's almost
like just selecting the AI to play itself and then sitting back and
watching. Sure, you tell units to go this way and then go that way
and then the game sims the battles. Yawn. But this is exactly the
type of game that suits you and thus is why it is your personal fav.
You want the computer to do the work for you and at the end when you
get the "Your side is victorious" message, you feel a sense of
accomplishment because of your prowless as a gamer. And that's cool-
it's probably smarter to have it that way. I think that the point
that me and Eddy are trying to make is that you are cutting off a very
wide spectacle of excellent games because frankly you're too lazy to
put in the effort to learn to play them. You don't have the time, the
energy, the desire. I get that. That's fine. What gets me is when
the game becomes shit because you won't invest the time to learn it.

I quote:

> No. My position is that a *real* computer game - a pure one - wouldn't
need a manual at all. If you wanted to succeed at the game, and do
well, you would only need the education and training *the real guy
being
simulated* needs.

If that's the case, then how do you play any war"game"? Unless
you're going to tankers school or air combat flight school, then
you're having to learn within the framework of what a games designer
has used to keep structure and playability in a game that *tries* to
simulate something (be it on the computer or on paper). Usually that
means turns and phases in an IGOUGO or a WEGO game. You prefer games
where that is as hidden from the player as possible which means the
computer does most of the leg work. Nothing wrong with that; most
people probably prefer that. I like know what phase of what turn I'm
in and having to calculate how much time I have to obtain an objective
in order to win the game. Not very realistic, but it's my preferred
method of playing. I can't stand computer games that do everything
for me. Again, to me it's like turning on the AI for both sides and
just watching. But I'm not going to say that HTTR/COTA/BFTB are piece
of shit games because I can opt to have very little interaction with
them. No, they're brilliant and best selling games but not ones for
me.

You lose credibility with me when rating games because the scale is
"Gifty gets it and it's easy: 10" down to "Gifty has no idea and it's
too much work: 1".

This is a fun debate, and nothing personal against you. ;)

[dougb]

re: card driven games I think a key factor is the way that the cards are utlilized.

I've played boardgames with cards that drove me nuts because the cards unduly limited my or my troops ability to do things that should have been automatic. The best example of this is Combat Commander which I initially enjoyed, but then I got fed up with it because of situations where my troops couldn't fire at an enemy advancing in the open because of the lack of a fire card.

Another example was a Civil War game where attacks could be arbitrarily cancelled by the opponents play of a card. At the scale of the game that pretty much put the end to a season's offensive. I also found alot of problems with a game called Stalin's War where the cards contributed to serious ahistorical results in the game system.

On the other a hand (LOL) I have a game called Fields of Fire which is solitaire any pretty much everything is driver by cards (including the randomized results). I've found that game creates an absolutely terrific narrative of Company Command. The primary limitation created by the cards is on the amount of commands that you have to activate platoons or squads. Combined with the Command and Control rules (lack of radios means that squads need to be activated individually when not stacked with their platoon hqs), the limitations appear to be reasonable in terms of the historical aspect being modelled.

Doug

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

Thank you Eddy.


So, "Con" or Cul"?
Only YOU, the commander, can decide!
.
.
------
When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <c931d089-6436-4cb8-b2f6-d3458630d7e2
@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, ju...@garykrockover.com says...

>
> > Remember AIR FORCE with the giant fans of flight envelope information
> > that looked like the seating chart at the Hollywood Bowl?  AF and
> > DAUNTLESS were fun games - and nothing as hideous as the awful PHANTOM
> > LEADER - but there was never the sense that you were fighting an air
> > battle.

> I don't know why I'm defending PHANTOM LEADER because I have only seen
> others play it but I think this is where you are again comparing
> apples and oranges. PHANTOM LEADER isn't a game of aerial combat or
> flight sim on a mapboard. It's a game where you are in charge of Air
> Ops and must select the best resources for any given mission and then
> execute that mission.

What soured me - immediately - about PHANTOM LEADER is that it's such a
flagrantly *slavish* port of the boardgame that it's clear that
absolutely no thought was given to actually using the power of a
computer program to do anything except reproduce every compromise
necessary to get a concept working in paper format.

For example, the "place sites" phase is obviously included in the
boardgame for the Vietnamese (or solo) player to array defenses around
the target. But *why include this phase in the computer version*?!?
You can't *do* anything. Similarly, why does the computer offer up
*two* "attack" phases when it "knows" full well that none of the
player's aircraft are in range and even *able* to attack?

> If you're looking for a game where you turn
> your little planes in circles until you can finally line up a shot,
> then play ACE PATROL, not PHANTOM LEADER.

Actually, I was looking for both. FLIGHT COMMANDER 2 is a great example
of a proper computer game that allows the player to study the next
mission ordered by superior HQ, determine what pilots, armament, and
support is necessary to carry out the mission, and then - horror of
horrors! - "turn your little planes in circles until you can finally
line up a shot."

What I found was a boardgame so painfully generic that you could just
change the counters and events and have a nifty boardgame called, CAR
SALESMAN. "Oh, no! I drew the "Buyer Upside-down in Trade" Event
Card!!!!"

> Also, upstream you mentioned that HTTR/COTA/BFTB were "some of the
> most complex and involved simulations existing". I'm sure that under
> the hood they have lots of very detailed and complex programming going
> on, but for the player the game is very simple to play.

... if you want it to be, and want an accurate simulation of the obvious
fact that a division commander should not - and *cannot* - micromanage
the deployment of individual platoons or sections.

> It's almost
> like just selecting the AI to play itself and then sitting back and
> watching. Sure, you tell units to go this way and then go that way
> and then the game sims the battles. Yawn.

Bool-sheet. In each of these games you can issue individual orders to
each and every counter on the board, every single *minute*, if you like.
You can even zero-out the orders delay as though a division commander
had a magic radio and his men were just wee chess pieces.

> But this is exactly the
> type of game that suits you and thus is why it is your personal fav.
> You want the computer to do the work for you and at the end when you
> get the "Your side is victorious" message, you feel a sense of
> accomplishment because of your prowless as a gamer. And that's cool-
> it's probably smarter to have it that way. I think that the point
> that me and Eddy are trying to make is that you are cutting off a very
> wide spectacle of excellent games because frankly you're too lazy to
> put in the effort to learn to play them. You don't have the time, the
> energy, the desire. I get that. That's fine. What gets me is when
> the game becomes shit because you won't invest the time to learn it.

<laughter>

Can you seriously be of the opinion that the problem here is that I'm
too lazy, shiftless, and slothful to put in the effort necessary to
appreciate a product which, in my incredible stupidity, I imagined to be
something that would *entertain* me?

Heck, if I wanted to expend that kind of effort, I'd probably be the IT
director at the 12th largest corporation in the state, managing a yearly
budget of more than $5,000,000.

... wait, what?

> I quote:
>
> > No. My position is that a *real* computer game - a pure one - wouldn't
> need a manual at all. If you wanted to succeed at the game, and do
> well, you would only need the education and training *the real guy
> being
> simulated* needs.
>
> If that's the case, then how do you play any war"game"? Unless
> you're going to tankers school or air combat flight school, then
> you're having to learn within the framework of what a games designer
> has used to keep structure and playability in a game that *tries* to
> simulate something (be it on the computer or on paper).

If the game were realistic enough, I would play it *badly*. Is this a
trick question?

> You lose credibility with me when rating games because the scale is
> "Gifty gets it and it's easy: 10" down to "Gifty has no idea and it's
> too much work: 1".

And that's fine. My objective here, though, is not to rack up
"credibility points" with anyone; being told I'm fulla shit is, by now,
part and parcel of my USENET experience.

No, my basic point in this debate is that in virtually every other genre
of computer game, the boardgame has been completely abandoned in favor
of a more direct modeling of the real world.

For example, there used to be all sorts of sports boardgames. When I
was in high school, we played STRAT-O-MATIC to death. But suppose we
wanted to design a game where the player could manage a big-league
baseball team.

The "boardgamey" approach would be where the player managing the Red Sox
would first fill out his lineup card, then proceed to the first at-bat
by entering the "at-bat" phase. The player would enter the role of the
pitcher, and select a pitch from the "pitcher ability" card. The pitch
would then be "thrown," and dice would be rolled after modifying the die
roll for "pitcher fatigue," "pitcher familiarity to batter," "injury
table," "sun angle," and "windup or stretch."

The player managing the batter would play cards for "pitch
anticipation," and the game would continue, pitch-by-pitch, until some
result or other was indicated by rolling against the "to hit" table, or
playing a "hit" card ...

Bleagh. Beam me outta here, Scotty.

If Arjuna was asking me to sketch out a proper computer baseball manager
game, I would start by realizing that real-world manager has *zero*
realistic control over a ball pitched to a batter. Oh, sure, you can
send in signals to the pitcher; "intentional walk," or "pitch around
this guy," or "infield in," or "keep the runner honest," but ultimately,
the "pitcher" counter, in real life, makes 35 *million* dollars a year -
and commands this sum because he's forgotten more than any manager will
ever know about how to pitch a baseball to a batter.

A *real* manager rightly leaves the pitching to the pitcher. A computer
simulating a baseball manager should rightly do likewise.

So yeah, mea culpa, I would remove a metric fuck-ton of decisions from
the player, simply because the real-world manager *can't possibly
control this*. Does this "make the computer do the leg-work <yawn!>"?

Yes. Just as in the real world, the real-world players have to do the
leg-work. Giving the player only the realistic control a real-world
manager makes the game *more* interesting ... unless you think that
managing the Red Sox with the World Series on the line is "<yawn>".

> This is a fun debate, and nothing personal against you. ;)

That is, after all, why we're here.

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 12/05/13 2:17 AM, dougb wrote:
> re: card driven games I think a key factor is the way that the cards
> are utlilized.
>
> I've played boardgames with cards that drove me nuts because the
> cards unduly limited my or my troops ability to do things that
> should have been automatic. The best example of this is Combat
> Commander which I initially enjoyed, but then I got fed up with it
> because of situations where my troops couldn't fire at an enemy
> advancing in the open because of the lack of a fire card.
>

People love to say it means your troops are cowering or distracted or
something -- all of them? Why? *All of them!?* -- but it happens all the
time in short scenarios. Get cards, find out you can't fire, sit around,
lose, enjoy the "narrative".

> Another example was a Civil War game where attacks could be
> arbitrarily cancelled by the opponents play of a card. At the scale
> of the game that pretty much put the end to a season's offensive. I
> also found alot of problems with a game called Stalin's War where
> the cards contributed to serious ahistorical results in the game
> system.
>

There were rave reviews of Stalin's War, but I worked out in my first
play that there were a few cards in the German deck that couldn't be
stopped & which pretty much guaranteed attacks. The German hand size is
big enough that he can cycle through the deck to get the required cards,
while the Russian's hand is small enough that he can't afford to hold
onto them. Get your panzers next to Leningrad & Moscow, play the two
cards, game over. Simulating nothing at all.

All of which also drove me round the twist. (And part of what's kept me
away from boardgames for a while now.)

> On the other a hand (LOL) I have a game called Fields of Fire which
> is solitaire any pretty much everything is driver by cards
> (including the randomized results). I've found that game creates an
> absolutely terrific narrative of Company Command. The primary
> limitation created by the cards is on the amount of commands that you
> have to activate platoons or squads. Combined with the Command and
> Control rules (lack of radios means that squads need to be activated
> individually when not stacked with their platoon hqs), the
> limitations appear to be reasonable in terms of the historical
> aspect being modelled.
>
> Doug
>

I looked at this game with interest from a distance but never got it,
lots of comments about unfathomable/unreadable/unindexed rules. Has it
been updated, or is it just work-outable?

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com

[dougb]

Hi Mike,

The out of the box rules for Fields of Fire were a disaster. The version 2 rules are much better and while the game is still a challenge to learn the payoff in gameplay and immersion IMO makes it well worthwhile. I'm actually looking forward to volume 2 which will have the Marines campaigning in the Pacific, Korea and Vietnam. I'd love to see someone fit the system of limited command and control to Combat Miission or Combat Commander.

Doug

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 mei, 15:18, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:

> I heard it is limited to nine turns only... Would you say it is easier or
> harder than Master of Orion?

Easier. Which makes it harder in some sense as you can see what your
opponents are doing and you're all fishing in the same tech upgrade
pool. But this also means that this isn't a game with a bazillion
parameters so the emphasis once again lies on decison making instead
of micro-management.

The two things I don't like about the boardgame are void in the iPad
version : the fiddlyness and the time it takes to play versus the
inherent luck factor which at times can screw you. Now, the latter is
a problem in a 4 hour+ boardgame play, but the digital version moves
along a lot faster and digital opponent don't mind if you give up
halfway through a game.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 mei, 18:17, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
> re: card driven games I think a key factor is the way that the cards are utlilized.
>
> I've played boardgames with cards that drove me nuts because the cards unduly limited my or my troops ability to do things that should have been automatic.  The best example of this is Combat Commander which I initially enjoyed,

Told you so :)

> On the other a hand (LOL) I have a game called Fields of Fire which is solitaire any pretty much everything is driver by cards (including the randomized results).  I've found that game creates an absolutely terrific narrative of Company Command.  The primary limitation created by the cards is on the amount of commands that you have to activate platoons or squads.  Combined with the Command and Control rules (lack of radios means that squads need to be activated individually when not stacked with their platoon hqs), the limitations appear to be reasonable in terms of the historical aspect being modelled.

No commander in history fought with the army he wanted, he fought with
the army he got. That's why I like games where cards provide input
randomness : commander, these are the things you can do, now make the
best of it using these limited resources. Now, there's a limit to what
should and what definitely shouldn't be card-driven. A "be able to
fire at enemy squad moving in the open" card is just nuts, but having
air assets a particular turn or not definitely is both entertaining,
challenging and historically accurate.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 mei, 20:23, "Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)" <n...@thistime.net>
wrote:

>
> So, "Con" or Cul"?
> Only YOU, the commander, can decide!

As a kid I had devoured the graphic novels of "Baekelandt", a
historical figure akin to Robin Hood whose exploits took place in the
Napoleonic era, so I already knew the basics of French swear words in
that era and spend some time reading some of the more dustier pages
on the 'net to get up to speed on the subject again.

As with everything some survived (con, merde) and some have become
totally outdated (sacrebleu) - I'm planning to use some of the more
quaint ones on my wife's French relatives - just for laughs :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 mei, 03:03, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> What soured me - immediately - about PHANTOM LEADER is that it's such a
> flagrantly *slavish* port of the boardgame that it's clear that
> absolutely no thought was given to actually using the power of a
> computer program to do anything except reproduce every compromise
> necessary to get a concept working in paper format.

> Bool-sheet.  In each of these games you can issue individual orders to
> each and every counter on the board, every single *minute*, if you like.
> You can even zero-out the orders delay as though a division commander
> had a magic radio and his men were just wee chess pieces.

Sure, but who'd want to play like that ? If you want the WWII division
commander experience you play with "painfully realistic delay" and
just order battalion HQ units. I like that playstyle very much.

> No, my basic point in this debate is that in virtually every other genre
> of computer game, the boardgame has been completely abandoned in favor
> of a more direct modeling of the real world.

Not really true - Dungeon hack & slashes like Diablo are pretty
boardgamey - only bigger in scope and the latest Civ games sure looks
like a boardgame. In fact it's just first person <shooters, racers,
sports, anything> games that try and succeed in real world modeling.

> For example, there used to be all sorts of sports boardgames.  When I
> was in high school, we played STRAT-O-MATIC to death.  But suppose we
> wanted to design a game where the player could manage a big-league
> baseball team.

Have you seen any games in the ".. manager" series ? They're just big
huge boardgames - and you don't get to control every little detail of
the game.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Holdit]

In article <c002c5c8-99fc-4b42-a3b7-
8e65b5...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

"'Allo!, 'Allo!" ?

:-)

Holdit



--
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others
of whom I made the most careful and particular enquiry."
- Thucydides (Peloponnesian War)

"I've just jazzed mine up a little."
- Spike Milligan (World War 2)

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 13 mei, 11:21, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
> In article <c002c5c8-99fc-4b42-a3b7-
> 8e65b5035...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 mei, 20:23, "Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)" <n...@thistime.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > So, "Con" or Cul"?
> > > Only YOU, the commander, can decide!
>
> > As a kid I had devoured the graphic novels of "Baekelandt", a
> > historical figure akin to Robin Hood whose exploits took place in the
> > Napoleonic era, so I already knew the basics of French swear words in
> > that era and  spend some time reading some of the more dustier pages
> > on the 'net to get up to speed on the subject again.
>
> > As with everything some survived (con, merde) and some have become
> > totally outdated (sacrebleu)  - I'm planning to use some of the more
> > quaint ones on my wife's French relatives - just for laughs :)
>
> "'Allo!, 'Allo!"  ?

Yup - my spoken French is on par with officer Crabree's :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[CaligulasHorse]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 5:08:46 PM UTC+9:30, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> > > (BTW - What's the early 19thC for "fuckwit"? You'll need to know that.)
>
> >
>
> > True.  A useful word in any context.  Or century.
>
>
>
> I'll help you guys out : "Con" - pronounced like the first two
>
> characters of the word "company" - the "n" is silent - and for the
>
> terminally curious : it's derived from a woman-specific part of the
>
> human anatomy of which there is even an English cognate :)

I'm not sure that captures the essence of "fuckwit", for which the best definition is:

"Somebody having a large range of choices of ways to behave that will benefit both others and himself, who nevertheless chooses to be a total fuckwit."

[dougb]

Eddy I think we're in complete agreement that there's a limit to just what should and should not be card driver.

In Fields of Fire I'm free to do whatever I want with my troops once activated within the constraints of the number of activations I've drawn and the command and control rules. If my platoon HQ isn't in the same basic area as its subordinate squads and there's no radio contact then it cannot activate the squads. In the 1st campaign in Normandy no squads are running around with radios so the player is pretty restricted in how he manouvers. By Vietnam they're all in contact by radio so there's a lot more flexibility.

The one thing I cannot do, because of the activations, is to move every unit anywhere I want to during a turn - something that can be done in Combat Mission, and even though it's not turn based, to somewhat similar effect in Close Combat.

Doug

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

The meaning of "con" changed over time (medieval to today) and for the
past 200 years it can best be translated as stupid or idiot, usually
in association with a specific action of that person so I think it's
actually a pretty good translation of "fuckwit"

In 2008 then French President Nicolas Sarkozy was caught on camera
saying, "Casse-toi, pauvre con!" ("Get lost, idiot") to a man who
refused to shake his hand.

As with most insults it's also heavily context-sensitive and can be
used jokingly among friends.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Holdit]

In article <fd10bb87-c922-4d6b-a10e-
5209d8...@gw5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

Also "faire le con", to do something stupid..."une connerie", a stupid
act, decision, saying..."un connard", a stupid person. Not sure how that
last differs from the short "con".

A very versatile word, really. But then, aren't swear words nearly
always? :-)

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 13 mei, 15:56, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
>
> Also "faire le con", to do something stupid..."une connerie", a stupid
> act, decision, saying..."un connard", a stupid person. Not sure how that
> last differs from the short "con".

I’m not a native French speaker so the intricate details probably
elude me, but AFAIK “connard” always refers to a person, while “con”
can also refer to the action or situation which is stupid / idiotic.

> A very versatile word, really. But then, aren't swear words nearly
> always? :-)

Nothing beats German swearwords though – German swearwords sound as if
you really, really mean it with every fiber of your being.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 13 mei, 15:27, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> The one thing I cannot do, because of the activations, is to move every unit anywhere I want to during a turn - something that can be done in Combat Mission, and even though it's not turn based, to somewhat similar effect in Close Combat.

… and in pretty much every other computer wargame out there as well -
which is totally ridiculous from a historical and realism pov.

And some wonder why I think modern boardgame design outclasses pc
wargame design …

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Holdit]

In article <3c55e5cb-3a22-4e29-8e97-
615f85...@gm7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> On 13 mei, 15:56, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
> >
> > Also "faire le con", to do something stupid..."une connerie", a stupid
> > act, decision, saying..."un connard", a stupid person. Not sure how that
> > last differs from the short "con".
>

> I?m not a native French speaker so the intricate details probably
> elude me,

I used to be fluent in a previous life, and I wouldn't be too far off
the mark now, even years later. I never really got the swearing down,
though. I guess when you're working mostly with priests and pilgrims...

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 13 mei, 16:23, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
> In article <3c55e5cb-3a22-4e29-8e97-
> 615f85ab4...@gm7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
> > On 13 mei, 15:56, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
>
> > > Also "faire le con", to do something stupid..."une connerie", a stupid
> > > act, decision, saying..."un connard", a stupid person. Not sure how that
> > > last differs from the short "con".
>
> > I?m not a native French speaker so the intricate details probably
> > elude me,
>
> I used to be fluent in a previous life, and I wouldn't be too far off
> the mark now, even years later. I never really got the swearing down,
> though. I guess when you're working mostly with priests and pilgrims...

My "tour of duty" in the airfarce was spent among mostly french-
speaking NCO’s – so I learned all the swear-words rather quickly :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

One of the more bizarre ones which has always stayed with me (don't ask from where it came nor why I should still
remember it) is "Nom d'un petit chien bleu!".
"Espe(acute)ce de chameau" always seems to have an effect. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
------------------------------------------------------------------

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 13 mei, 22:03, "Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)" <n...@thistime.net>
wrote:
>

> One of the more bizarre ones which has always stayed with me (don't ask from where it came nor why I should still
> remember it) is "Nom d'un petit chien bleu!".

"chien" is comparable to when Anglo's say "shoot" when they actually
mean "shit" - chien == chier == shitting

"bleu" is the replacement word for dieu (god) in the same vain, see my
example of sacrebleu == sacred god == goodness gracious

But why it's a small dog (petit) ?? - beats me :)

> "Espe(acute)ce de chameau" always seems to have an effect. :)

They're reputed to be very stupid animals :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[CaligulasHorse]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 2:25:07 AM UTC+9:30, Giftzwerg wrote:
> As always, I feel kinda silly offering up a "review" of an app that is
>
> initially free, and only costs about $15.00 if you buy all the campaigns
>
> / pilots, etc. So my first point is a simple one; if you own an iPad2+,
>
> stop reading right now, and just get the Somme offering and play.
>
>
>
> But the contrast with PHANTOM LEADER is just too obvious for words, so
>
> here we go.
>
>
>
> Sid Meier's ACE PATROL is a proper computer game, designed by a guy
>
> who's rightly famous for designing proper computer games, and from the
>
> moment you fire up the ACE PATROL app, you know you're in good hands.
>
>
>
> Starting the game, you see some boilerplate about "arriving in the
>
> Somme" as inexperienced, fledgling pilots. You pick your squadron
>
> leader (who presumably is you). You notice that you're very
>
> inexperienced and trained only in basic flight maneuvers, just as a
>
> newebie flyboy would be. You're given your Airco DH.2 pusher-biplane
>
> and sent off on the first mission, which is to bust some kraut balloons.
>
> Hey, that was the first mission for Herr Stachel in THE BLUE MAX, too.
>
>
>
> (At this point in PHANTOM LEADER, I was still trying to figure out how
>
> the "Political Point Track" or the "Event Cards" related to the price of
>
> tea in China...)
>
>
>
> OK, the game deposits your plane over a nicely-rendered isomorphic map,
>
> with your DH.2 selected. A helpful box appears and informs you that the
>
> little blue arrows that appear in hexes near your airplane represent
>
> maneuvers that you and your airplane can perform right now. Since
>
> you're a total zero, flying-wise, and your plane is a piece of crap, you
>
> can't do very much.
>
>
>
> I see I've got three red balls on the "height" chain that tethers me to
>
> the map, so I guess I'm at 300 feet or something. I click on a blue
>
> arrow two hexes ahead, and the game shows me flying forward level for
>
> two hexes. Click again to confirm? Yup, that works. So my plane zooms
>
> forward two hexes. Up ahead are two German balloons. There are no
>
> other planes around, and I don't see any opposition whatever. Time to
>
> go in and bag a milk run mission.
>
>
>
> Some of the blue arrows turn, some point up or down, and clicking on
>
> these explains that I'll be banking, turning, diving, etc. Some of them
>
> are grayed-out, and clicking on them explains that to reach that point
>
> from where I am now, I'd have to train-up on more advanced maneuvers (or
>
> be flying a non-shit airplane...) Right now, I'm pretty much limited to
>
> very simple moves.
>
>
>
> (At this point in PHANTOM LEADER, I was wondering why the fuck I was in
>
> a phase called "Fast Pilots Attack," when I couldn't do anything except
>
> press the "Skip this" button.)
>
>
>
> All, right, I maneuver around to come in on the balloons from a little
>
> above them, and try to line up carefully for a good shot. Drawing upon
>
> my encyclopedic knowledge of balloon-busting WW1-style, I maneuver into
>
> a position that looks promising, and one of the arrows is green.
>
> Clicking on this, it informs me that if I confirm this maneuver, I'll
>
> have a shot at the balloon, and a certain potential to damage it.
>
> Pretty high chance, too, given that I maneuvered close and the balloon
>
> can't move.
>
>
>
> I confirm my move, and bullets fly into the balloon, and I damage it by
>
> 45%. Not bad for my first shot!
>
>
>
> (At this point in PHANTOM LEADER, I was trying to puzzle out why the
>
> game was rolling two dice when, apparently, only one of them counted...)
>
>
>
> I keep moving around, zooming and turning and blazing away at the two
>
> balloons, which eventually succumb to my gunfire. Mission complete! I
>
> get a post-mission screen with all sorts of praise on it, and I move on.
>
>
>
> (At this point in PHANTOM LEADER, I'd deleted it from my iPad...)
>
>
>
> This is a pretty good game. Simple, intuitive - the interface is pure
>
> joy - and plain fun.
>
>
>
> The pricing strategy is straight iPad. There are "battles" which
>
> contain up to 10 missions, and "campaigns" which contain several
>
> battles. The British "Somme" battle is free, and serves as the intro /
>
> demo for the game. If you want to unlock the rest of the British
>
> campaign, it'll cost you ninety-nine cents. Purchasing the German,
>
> British, and French campaigns are $1.99 each. There are various other
>
> IAP packages and products which I haven't really looked at yet.
>
>
>
> But the total cost, if I bought everything currently available, looks to
>
> be about what I spent on PHANTOM LEADER, which gave me about $0.00 in
>
> terms of entertainment value.
>
>
>
> This game looks to be as good as FLIGHT COMMANDER II, and longtime
>
> members will recall the esteem I hold for that game. It does everything
>
> right that PHANTOM LEADER does wrong. The designer of PHANTOM LEADER
>
> set out to design a card game with a Vietnam air war theme. Sid Meier,
>
> in ACE PATROL, set out to make a computer wargame about WW1 air
>
> missions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Giftzwerg
>
> ***
>
> "While Ms. Giffords certainly has my sympathy for the violence she
>
> suffered, it should be noted that being shot in the head by a lunatic
>
> does not give one any special grace to pronounce upon public-policy
>
> questions, nor does it give one moral license to call people 'cowards'
>
> for holding public-policy views at variance with one?s own."
>
> - Kevin Williamson

[CaligulasHorse]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:18:28 PM UTC+9:30, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
> The meaning of "con" changed over time (medieval to today) and for the
>
> past 200 years it can best be translated as stupid or idiot, usually
>
> in association with a specific action of that person so I think it's
>
> actually a pretty good translation of "fuckwit"

Fair enough!

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:55:32 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 13 mei, 22:03, "Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)" <n...@thistime.net>
>wrote:
>>
>> One of the more bizarre ones which has always stayed with me (don't ask from where it came nor why I should still
>> remember it) is "Nom d'un petit chien bleu!".
>
>"chien" is comparable to when Anglo's say "shoot" when they actually
>mean "shit" - chien == chier == shitting

Aha! c'est enfin l'explication!! I didn't know "chier".

>
>"bleu" is the replacement word for dieu (god) in the same vain, see my
>example of sacrebleu == sacred god == goodness gracious
>
>But why it's a small dog (petit) ?? - beats me :)

Perhaps the target is only a little shit, rather than a gross one? A Franco instead of a Hitler?

>
>> "Espe(acute)ce de chameau" always seems to have an effect. :)
>
>They're reputed to be very stupid animals :)
>
>Greetz,
>
>Eddy Sterckx

.
.
=============================================================
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.