Re "the designers must have done this or that or x, based on something else": I made the comment that I did about the origins of the HEAT vs AFV rule in FW based on Mike Reed's explicit comments to that effect. So yes, I did know.Don't get wrapped up in DMs product commentary. He does a lot of great stuff, and hats off to him for even trying to wade through the CH stuff.
However, he does have his bias and quirks which come out. He will not like chrome, will always discuss what is not in the product, etc. This is OK as it informs players what is and what isn't in the product, and most guys are probably smart enough to work through the bias.
The one big negative is that he has a bad habit of making bold and inaccurate claims. The designers must have done this or that or X, based on something else. He has no idea what type of collaboration went into FW. This type of stuff should not be in his reviews as he simply doesn't know, and it is irrelevant to the consumer looking at a product review.
On the HEAT discussion. I wont go into specific details, but I gave my comments on this years ago. The system actually models it well. Using probability and statistics, and the general range of BAZ engagements (sometimes beyond the ASL range) in Korea, the numbers make sense. Just take the probability of a Baz firing at max range at the front of the moving T-34. The only thing that could be different that could model the HEAT type weapons better is to make an 11 or a 12 a dud. My take is otherwise nothing needed to be done from the original design, but that is just my opinion.
That's correct.I remember reading that at least some of the North Korean units were ethnic Korean units released from China’s People Liberation Army who fought in the Chinese Civil War (which ended 1949), particularity in Manchuria. Manchuria as you know, was an area with heavy Soviet and then Japanese involvement.
Hence there were some battle-hardened NKA veterans right from the start of the Korean War.
Feel free to edit my amateurish understanding
Of course, but I don't see where anyone here has said anything different?If you're asking someone to pay money for your product, and a pretty solid chunk of money here, the buyer gets to criticize the thing he paid for.
I am sure you are correct. Though having been on the business side of it myself, and talked to others that are, no one who has dealt with customers for long ever truly believes "the customer is always right." The customer is often incredibly uninformed. To continue your example, it is easy for a customer to rant about how terrible the fonts are. Often when you dig deeper, you find his complaint has nothing to do with practicality or the ability to read the letters, but rather he just doesn't like that font. And if it turns out the font that the customer does approve of is not free but would be an additional cost for the publisher, their critique loses even more traction. Especially if it is couched such as: "I find it confusing that the publisher used such an unattractive font. It seems clear he could have tried harder to find a better alternative..."Now the creator is under no obligation to do anything about those complaints, but they ought to at least listen - you might find some of those complaints are legitimate and worth addressing.
well you didn't have to wait so long for that as you could have played with USMC fire teams in WO32 Corps Value.One interesting aspect worth mentioning is the use of Fire Teams (x3 248s), rather than Half-Squads, for Marines in the Fight for Seoul module. It will be fun experimenting with that.
Probably not a good idea to use IT rates for historical research or board game playtesting/development. But regardless, the development and playtesting of virtually ALL wargames, not just ASL products, is and has been done essentially for free. There's nothing special about ASL in this regard.Fun fact of the day. I am a project manager by day and know how to estimate the cost of a project. If the hourly cost of the labor of people working on Forgotten War development including playtesting had cost $75 per hour (a good estimate of the typical hourly cost of a IT professional in the USA), then the cost of Forgotten War development would be approximately $1 million. Which means that if Forgotten War sold 5,000 copies (and I don't know the real number), then each purchaser would pay $200 plus the cost of MMP's production and inventory and overhead expenses plus some profit margin.
The point is that development and playtesting of ASL products is essentially done for free.
Probably not a good idea to use IT rates for historical research or board game playtesting/development. But regardless, the development and playtesting of virtually ALL wargames, not just ASL products, is and has been done essentially for free. There's nothing special about ASL in this regard.
But your counter is a 9-2 while he is 9-1, means you're better at pointing out targets than him. Be proud of your leadership value.By "team" Ken means "team at large" not just the main design folk. If he meant design folk, I am the one dragging the average down...
There is no open market for playtesters and developers of Korean War tactical board wargames. In any case, I know one of the members of the team has a Ph.D. in history, but how many others have jobs or advanced education specific to this area?Of course not unique to ASL.
If you look at the kinds of jobs and levels of education and professional experience on the Forgotten War team, IT rates are a reasonable approximation of what those people would be making on the open market.