Posts made by DiveCrewCanada

Finally worked, I edited my original post to put the picts :)

I must be “special” because it still doesn’t allow me lol

(unless a “reply” is not considered a “post”)

Very nice!!!

I will definitely try to go say hello during the event.

Can you post the images I tried to post? (My account is not allowed to post links… )

@CWO:

Thanks DiveCrewCanada and Young Grasshopper for the information.� It’s good that this project is being carefully thought out ahead of time, since advance planning and testing on a large-scale project can be very helpful in avoiding problems and making the project go smoothly.�

The various points I raised in my earlier post basically come down to two issues: tipping and crowding.� For whatever they might be worth, here are some thoughts on both issues.

The prototype Malta section you’ve created will be a good test-bed for the tipping issue, and this test can be done using just two sculpts: an infantry sculpt (preferably the Japanese one, because it’s the tallest and therfore has the highest centre of gravity) and a submarine sculpt (preferably the German one, because it’s the narrowest).� My suggestion would be to systematically place the infantry sculpt (by itself, without a chip under it) on every square centimeter of the land areas to see where (and how steadily) it stands up.� Ditto for the sub on the water areas, oriented at different angles relative to the waves and positioned both on crests and in dips.� These tests would provide useful information to you on which elevations are workable and which ones aren’t.� Basically, if the Japanese infantry unit can stand up by itself somewhere, then every other land (plus air units) will be fine there too.� And likewise, if the German sub can stay upright on water parallel to a wave, then every other naval unit (plus air units) will be fine there too.

The crowding issue will be harder to test on the Malta blow-up box because, by definition, a blow-up box provides extra space for a crowded territory.� A better approach might be for YG to take advantage of the next time he plays Global 1940 to take some close-up photographs of the land territories and sea zones which, during the course of play, end up with the kind of huge traffic jams that I’ve illustrated below, using some screen shots from some of YG’s videos.� Basically, the thing to look for would be big clusters of units in small territories.� With a collection of such photos on hand, the question to analyze would then be: would the contemplated 3-D landscape, which is projected to have 10% non-usable space for unit placement, be able to handle this kind of crowding situation in such-and-such a territory?� Land is probably a bigger concern than water in that regard.� Large territories that see little military action wouldn’t be a concern; the main thing to focus on would be the smaller ones where huge battles tend to take place.� Those would probably be the ones where it would be a good idea to aim for a flatter terrain shape and a minimum (or a complete absence) of those 10%-type non-usable terrain features.�

You are certainly giving me work! LOL  here is your test:

As for the “crowding” issue, the map will be 90" X 41" (3690 sq in) compared to the OOB: 70" X 32" (2240 sq in)  It is my assumption that making the map 165% the size of the original map, will solve some of that problem :)  Would it still be problematic… we have options :)

I 3D printed those at low resolution, but I am sure you understand where I am going with this :)

the 10% mentioned as “stiff” terrain is stuff like the rockies and other important landscapes… but will only be used if it makes sense…

@Young:

@DiveCrewCanada:

@siredblood:

Seriously? …. Im in

If you are coming to the Toronto area in september, you can be sure that we will have a drink or 12 :)

That’s awesome… get him nice and sloshed before his games  :evil:

He is coming from California all the way to Toronto for your tournament?

@siredblood:

Seriously? …. Im in

If you are coming to the Toronto area in september, you can be sure that we will have a drink or 12 :)

@CWO:

@Young:

4. It is my understanding that at least 90% of all terrain will be flat enough to contain units and chips
5. and it is my understanding that the whole table with all it’s elements will be hard as rock allowing good interaction between pieces and terrain.

I’m a bit confused because I’ve just had a look at the “Malta blowup box” in the teaser pics you posted on your Twitter account.  Perhaps I’m wrong, but as far as I can tell there’s nothing flat (which I interpret as meaning completely level) or hard (which I interpret as meaning a surface that has no “yield” at all when you press on it) about the land section.  Much of the terrain consists of simulated earth and simulated grass (created using the kind of soft materials that are used by a friend of mine who’s a model railroader), on which the infantry unit and the tank and the fighter (especially the fighter) are perched at odd angles.  The infantry sculpt is resting on a pile of chips, which basically doubles the diameter of the sculpt’s round base, so it’s not clear how well the unit would stand up by itself.  There are also some simulated hedges and bushes, which are quite high and which presumably fall into the 10% of the map that you’ve said is not flat enough to hold units – but as far as the other 90% goesn the only parts that seem to be relatively flat (compared to the land sections) are the sections depicting water.  The water has a wave-like scallopped structure which certainly looks fantastic, and which should not be a problem for most ship sculpts, but which might cause the narrow and tippy submarine sculpts to keel over if they’re placed parallel to the waves rather than perpendicular to them.

Just to be clear, I think that the sample section of the 3-D map looks terrific; it’s probably the most gorgeous terrain map I’ve ever seen, and DCC is clearly very talented.  And from what you’ve said, it sounds as if you’ve raised these various issues with DCC already in a satisfactory way.

Hello CWO, (and everyone)

This is actually my first ever post on the forums… lol Yes indeed YG asked me over and over if that terrain would be suitable for game play.

I will try to explain the best I can, how I can assert that this should work just fine:

A) For the sake of explanations, I will always refer to the Malta sample pictures that YG posted on his twitter account.

B) When YG refers to 90% flat, what is meant by this statement is that the “bumps” made to give texture to the terrain will not have an angle where the chips or stacks or miniatures will flip.

C) As for the rigidity of the map, although the “core” is made of pink insulation Styrofoam, the entire land mass is then covered with plaster (that will be meshed reinforced)

D) grass, tree, etc… if you look at the Malta pics, you will see that all the ground cover, at the exception of the “tree lines” are about as thick as a sheet of paper… definitely not bouncy.  When comes to tree lines, once that flocking is applied, it is coated several time with binding agent (also known as white glue + water) making it hard as a rock after a few coats and the mix is 100% transparent)

E) The wave’s height and frequency will be adjusted to allow even a sub to be just fine… and the waves, just like ground cover, are covered with layers of another binding agent (in this instance Modpudge) making the waves a solid surface as well (dont’ want finger prints embedding themselves in the texture)

I hope this answers your question :)