Posts made by Hepps01

Because the glass would be filling with Air while you are emptying it of liquid… then the glass can always be considered to be full!  It’s all about perspective.  :wink:

Just for anyone who has looked at T.W.W. and plays it.

We are just in the process of putting the finishing touches into the new 2.5 version.

The game has undergone some more dramatic changes.

Below is a short list of some of those…

1)  New National Power.  The “Exiled Allies” shall be a Minor Belligerent of the British.  It is a combination of the: (Free) French , Norwegians, Danish, Netherlands, Polish and Belgium.

2)  Automatic unit triggers.  Some Liberated territories will automatically release units for different countries. ie. Paris will spawn E.A. units, Syria will spawn Vichy units, Algeria will spawn E.A. units, Iraq will spawn German units, etc. etc.

3)  Roughly 20 new territories.  Some areas of the map have been expanded to better balance game-play.  United States and Canada have been completely revamped to better reflect National divisions.  A few slight additions to the European theater.  Additions to the East of Asia and some Sea Zone changes that are designed to compliment other changes in the game.

4)  Several Island chains in the Pacific have been relocated slightly in order to allow attacks from 2 different Sea Zones.  Also 2 key Island chains have been increased to 2 P.U. in value in order to promote greater interest in the Mid Pacific due to possibility of production placement.

5)  China has been pretty much re-created as a National power (only 1 change to the map in China).  The Chinese will now have 2 Lend & Lease Territories.  Eastern Szechwan will allow the British & Americans to provide units and Altay which will allow Russian Units to be given.  However, like the Russians All other Allied Powers will not be able to enter Chinese territories unless it is to liberate them from Axis Aggression.

6)  China will now have limited Research & Development capabilities.

7)  Some unit changes have been done to create better value and purpose for each.

8)  Some slight terrain effects have been altered to create better balance.

9)  Some slight P.U. modifications to territories around the map.

10)  Buildings will have the ability to have more Hit Points via Research & Development.

11)  Minor Belligerents will have the ability to produce specific units after the Major Belligerent has completed successful Research & Development.

12)  Whole new set of visual upgrades to the game.  Some re-designed unit images and a fresh new look for the entire Map.

13)  Some Starting setup changes to account for some of the changes above and to achieve a better game balance.

Keep an eye out at Triple A for the new Download.

Thanks, Hepps

Yah, Edmonton is Central Canada big.  Nice city though.  Great patch of Canada and a beautiful Province.  Want to plan a fishing trip up north there some time in the future.

I figure Calgary is probably a bit out of your range, but when I lived there there were a couple of Hobby Shops.  One I remember had a gaming room.  Can’t for the life or me remember where it was or what it’s name was.

Good luck to you.

Is that image from the movie “Scanners”?

Made me LMFAO!

Not saying you are.  I know Edmonton itself is a big(ish) city, but man if you’re rural it must suck trying to find opponents for face to face games.

BTW. I’m in Toronto, probably a little outside you commute.  :lol:

I just went and bought 5 or 6 boxes of each set so that I’d have enough units to use all the same pose.

The unit sculpts are far superior to what is in the games.

Plus with the variety that are in each box I was able to use different sculpts for the different units.  ie. Infantry, heavy Inf., Marines, Paratroopers, Engineers, Alpine, Snipers.

I’m not sure that trying to make something different requires you to remain in the box.  Many of the A&A games are lacking for the very reason that they kept the box.  All of these re-issues and yet many games are still plagued with the same issues they had 20 years ago.  ie. the need for bids, unrealistic setups, etc. etc.

Making something totally different might be a nice refreshing change.  I don’t think the issue is needing to stay the same as much as it is needing to be very clear in the operation of the new game concept (and game balance goes without saying).  Clear rules and usable charts go a long way to help players get a firm grasp and make it playable.  The process of attracting people might take longer if the game represents a significant departure, but in many cases it really doesn’t matter.  For many, anything other than a sanctioned A&A game is not an option anyway… those people would rather play A&A then a game that offers a different and/or improved experience.  So at the end of the day they aren’t your target market anyways.  But if people try something different and it works, its following will grow.

Keep going Keodis I’m interested to see what you come up with.  Design it as you envision it.  It can always be rescaled after the fact.

@MacMan131:

HOW!?

Who are you asking?  And about what?

Sweetness!

I’m neither mad or offended.  I just don’t see any methodology to your reasoning other than to create a conversation where your stand point is “I don’t believe it just because its written”.  I also have no patience for taking quotes from peoples posts and then using it out of context to drive your position further away from logic.  The only point to the conversation from your side seems to be it happens.  Of course it happens, but the study of what are the causal factors and what degree of change is a natural rate of the phenomenon (and potentially whether those factors are even controllable) and how significant our activities are on it is really the under lying issue.  And since you have stated that the information the scientific community has gathered is not valid to you, even though it has caused the leaders of the world to react to the data collected to date, then really there is no point for me to continue to participate in the discussion.

If you absolutely refuse to see the validity of what some of the worlds leading scientists are investigating, then what is the point of the conversation?  I now fully comprehend your point of view and I am satisfied that nothing I or anyone else here provides you with will convince you otherwise.  So I am finished with the topic.

Taking Spain would be combat.  Non-combat movements do no involve territories changing hands.

I’m done.

Having a discussion with you makes about as much sense as putting an ashtray on a bicycle.

@Gargantua:

Question #3:
Do scientists continue to tell us that mankind is 100% responsible for climate change? Answer = YES

You seem to want to “discuss” a topic in a totally polarized fashion.  Most scientific research is not based on whether humanity is 100% responsible for climate changes (there is already a 99.9% consensus amongst scientists that the planetary climate fluctuates over time), but rather to examine to what degree our actions have on it.  It is also a rather flimsy stand point to fall back on “a trillion years” of historical climate variations that we can neither prove or quantify.  So examining the issue requires us to examine the only things we know with a high degree of certainty.  Most papers contain many qualifying statements that acknowledge there are elements of uncertainty.  However most scientific sources draw similar conclusions.

So how is a blanket “denial” attitude a proactive approach?

Are you the primary shareholder in a Multinational oil production firm who might be facing huge issues with increased operating costs?  Because you argue against even the idea that our actions might have environmental implications like it could devalue your stock value.

@Gargantua:

Who are we to be so arrogant to think that we totally control a rock that is mindlessly spinning through the universe at 55,000 mph.

Personally, I think it is equally arrogant (or should I say ignorant) to think we have no impact on our environment when we represent the largest anomaly in the planets natural history.  At no point in our planets history have we seen as significant an amount of change to the planets behavior based on one species presence & actions.  Your reference to the periodic occurrence of Ice Ages represents a fairly weak argument for ignoring climate change as a purely natural re-occurring phenomenon.  I subscribe to the idea that… “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”…and while we may not be 100% sure of just how much our actions are contributing to global climate change, we can be certain that we are having an impact.  Furthermore, preceding Ice Ages were the product of natural events such as super volcanic eruptions spewing volcanic ash into the atmosphere, and meteor impacts… these were catastrophic environmental changes that happened instantly… the fact that our influence is a long process(relative to extinction level events) does not mean its not happening.

Now, whether you believe the content of the movie or more importantly question the motives behind its creators, that is really a completely different discussion.  I however tend to listen to what the scientific community has to say on these matters.  And the vast majority of them tend to say the same thing.  We are contributing to changes in our planets behavior.

Helpful, but to late for me.

After looking at the map I am conceding my game to Bacala.  Too many early mistakes and losses based on information I was not aware of (my own fault).

Good game Bacala.  Very well played.

As a suggestion…. Perhaps for future rounds instead of making the opponent selection completely random based on the preceding rounds outcome…there should be some allowance for player experience. If players have a wealth of experience on a specific game perhaps it would make sense to only pair them with opponents who also have played the game before.  From first hand experience playing some one who is already experienced on a map was pretty funny (sad) and I’m not sure either of us enjoyed or were richer for the experience.

Totally agree on all points.

Argentina has been over looked in every incarnation of the game.  It seems only Europe is ever really examined in any detail.

I’d agree that Portugal is far more a Allies leaning neutral then it is a Axis leaning neutral.

Seems like the Coalition players are steam-rolling!  :wink:

Looking forward to the next round.

@Young:

“Do I want to watch it, even if I’ve seen it already?”

Well that doesn’t really make it a qualifier by my standards.  I’ll watch old re-broadcasts of golfing championchips on a Sunday morning when I’m hung-over over anything else… that doesn’t make them my “favorites” or great.

And on the subject of Blade Runner… yes (depending on your era)  I can see that watching it might be not as spectacular as others(especially when it was so critically acclaimed).  But then again if A.I. made your list… personally a movie I felt was the same, sans violence and real sense of a bleak future but with better graphics… then it really does come down to a sense of subjective perspective.  If Blade Runner had the technology that Spielberg used, then there wouldn’t even be a debate.

But again, it’s all subjective to the viewer.

At minimum I will say that of the 333 movies you listed, I share your view with well over 200. (didn’t count)

Truth be told that is why I didn’t really list any “to be removed” from the original list.

From my perspective, a list like this is HIGHLY subjective thing.

For myself I use three basic criteria to evaluate a movie’s “value” for myself…

1. Overall cohesiveness of the movie… ie. Does the story, cinematography, sound track, narration etc. etc… make sense and work together.  ie. Shawshank Redemption (need I say more? The movie had every element that makes a great movie)

2. Cast… Do the actors make the movie… ie. Edward Norton MADE American History X.  Not to say other actors couldn’t have filled the role, but at the end of the day Norton made you compelled to have sympathy and compassion for an otherwise anti-hero character and brought depth to what would otherwise be a black and white issue (pun intended).

3. Does the movie move you?  (This will easily be the most subjective of the categories)  The story needs to speak to you… and nothing in the first two criteria will do anything for you if this element is missing.  I will cite a few movies that I think are questionable (for this exact reason)  A River Runs through It (I will die knowing those hours were lost), South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut (offered to those who South Park doesn’t speak to), Water World (Costner couldn’t convince me that ice is cold).  Again a highly subjective category.

My last thought on this subject?

Was Blade Runner in there?  Cause if it wasn’t…