Jazz
Inactive
WTF is this doing in an ASL forum?
I thought this thread was about ASL scenario C.WTF is this doing in an ASL forum?
No,I thought this thread was about ASL scenario C.
NATO symbols date back to the 1800s, so don't be silly. As to why I would want them. For the very simple reason that they are the STANDARD SYMBOLOGY USED BY WARGAMES FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS.NATO symbols, lol, why not Warsaw PACT symbols then. You are willing to learn 30-40+ pages of rules for a new game, but not one page of symbols. You expect the map to be correct (roads, rail lines, cities, villages, rivers, names, terrain …), you expect the OOB to be correct (Army, Corps, Divisions, Brigades, Regiments and Battalions), why would you want NATO (Post WWII) symbols in the first place?
Russ
No, the LOGICAL CHOICE is to use the STANDARD UNIT SYMBOLS that ALMOST ALL SUCH WARGAMES USE, and not make players have to learn alternative systems.Russ raises a very good point about the unit symbology, it is a WW2 Ost front game, the logical choice IMHO is to use 1942 period German and Russian unit map markings, I for one would look on modern day NATO map markings as a sale out.
That's rich. In other words, you wouldn't touch the majority of wargames published today.There has been such a huge advancement in counter art that I wouldn't even touch a game still using military symbols from the "glory days" of wargaming. How is this a "major advancement"?
You know it's not in production, right?I have read and heard that a 4th Edition of this great game (OOP for a long time) is now in Production, what if anything would we ASL lunatics like to see new (if anything), and how many would buy this new version?
Cheers
Perry
No, the logical choice is to put what the game designer wants, or as in this case proper ww2 era side orientated unit symbols. it is not hard to grasp, or understand.No, the LOGICAL CHOICE is to use the STANDARD UNIT SYMBOLS that ALMOST ALL SUCH WARGAMES USE, and not make players have to learn alternative systems.
No, the LOGICAL CHOICE is to use the STANDARD UNIT SYMBOLS that ALMOST ALL SUCH WARGAMES USE, and not make players have to learn alternative systems.
So if MMP decided to print an Advanced Squad Leader module using invisible ink, you'd be cool with that, because that's what they want? I'm assuming not. The field of wargaming is littered with designers and publishers who made poor choices somewhere along the way (and if you don't believe me, get OSG's Battle of the Bulge game).No, the logical choice is to put what the game designer wants, or as in this case proper ww2 era side orientated unit symbols. it is not hard to grasp, or understand.
Oh, my little asexual troll, I criticize MMP-related graphic design all the time. Just this week I was involved with criticizing on Consimworld the Dean Essig style of graphic design that has been in used in many of their games since the 1980s.So, since you are such an expert wargamer and seem to know what we think as well as how you like to think for us, when are we going to see you publish your own wargame? Instead of being apart of the problem, become apart of the solution and publish your own wargame. I'm also betting that if this was an MMP game, you would say not a thing about it.
Scott
Wow, do not tell my wife that. :clown: She thinks I took a year off (6 months in) from my Engineering position to work on the SOS4 game. :lier:You know it's not in production, right?
A game being in production means that its parts are being printed. Are you saying that?Wow, do not tell my wife that. :clown: She thinks I took a year off (6 months in) from my Engineering position to work on the SOS4 game. :lier:
View attachment 53077 View attachment 53078
Russ
www.fireonthevolga.com
Oh, my little asexual troll, I criticize MMP-related graphic design all the time. Just this week I was involved with criticizing on Consimworld the Dean Essig style of graphic design that has been in used in many of their games since the 1980s.
pro·duc·tion prəˈdəkSH(ə)n/ nounA game being in production means that its parts are being printed. Are you saying that?
Correct. Tired old graphics mean tire old game mechanics so move on. Mark, feel free to keep re-upping your S&T subscriptions so you feel warm and fuzzy inside.That's rich. In other words, you wouldn't touch the majority of wargames published today.
That is one hell of a laugh. The notion that using NATO symbols somehow translates to "tired old game mechanics" is ludicrous and merely shows that you have no idea what you are even talking about.Correct. Tired old graphics mean tire old game mechanics so move on. Mark, feel free to keep re-upping your S&T subscriptions so you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Nice try switching this back to ASL to support your own ideas but this discussion is about NEW GAMES published in 2016. If a game company today cannot take a few minutes to generate new counter art and decides to give you (tired old) NATO symbols, how innovative do you think they were with the game mechanics? again, played one S&T game, played them all. If ASL 3.0 was published in 2016 using 1977 graphics that would be a joke and would let you know that you don't need to pick it up as it is no better than the original. Just ask your buddy ZenRiver. And since you bring it up, ASL is like Sophia Loren - elegant and still looks good for her age - but another face lift might attract a younger crowd. TPPs are adding new things all the time to ASL - to your chagrin I might add. Embrace change, forget your wargame Stalinist myopia, and feel the BernThat is one hell of a laugh. The notion that using NATO symbols somehow translates to "tired old game mechanics" is ludicrous and merely shows that you have no idea what you are even talking about.
It is also particularly amusing since you are a player of a game that 1) as a tactical game follows the convention of not using NATO symbols, yet 2) has game mechanics that are 40 years old.