quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
Well, the language might be strict and very specific but it has to be for such things.

quote:

.
.
.
So how did it happen?

Well, Maine's law says the following activities do not qualify for overtime pay: "The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce; (2) Meat and fish products; and (3) Perishable foods."

The drivers said the lack of a comma between "shipment" and "or distribution" meant the legislation applied only to the single activity of "packing", rather than to "packing" and "distribution" as two separate activities.

And because drivers distribute the goods, but do not pack them, they argued they were therefore eligible for overtime pay - backdated over several years.

A district court had earlier ruled in favour of the dairy firm.

But circuit judge David J Barron overturned that, writing: "We conclude that the exemption's scope is actually not so clear in this regard.

"And because, under Maine law, ambiguities in the state's wage and hour laws must be construed liberally in order to accomplish their remedial purpose, we adopt the drivers' narrower reading of the exemption."
.
.
.

quote:

ORIGINAL: z1812

There is a kind of hybrid move sequence that I have come across. It is a system that breaks down a turn into a number of smaller actions. Each unit on each side alternates and has one action until both sides have used all their actions. This completes the turn sequence. I quite like it. However my preference is still for wego.

quote:

ORIGINAL: z1812

This thread started out as a reasonable discussion about wego.

It seems to have resolved to Curtis being right and everyone else being wrong.

I will continue to take part...............but I will not be responding to any of his posts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: z1812

There is a kind of hybrid move sequence that I have come across. It is a system that breaks down a turn into a number of smaller actions. Each unit on each side alternates and has one action until both sides have used all their actions. This completes the turn sequence. I quite like it. However my preference is still for wego.

It sounds interesting. Can you point out some game(s) that use it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: z1812

There is a kind of hybrid move sequence that I have come across. It is a system that breaks down a turn into a number of smaller actions. Each unit on each side alternates and has one action until both sides have used all their actions. This completes the turn sequence. I quite like it. However my preference is still for wego.

It sounds interesting. Can you point out some game(s) that use it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: z1812

There is a kind of hybrid move sequence that I have come across. It is a system that breaks down a turn into a number of smaller actions. Each unit on each side alternates and has one action until both sides have used all their actions. This completes the turn sequence. I quite like it. However my preference is still for wego.

It sounds interesting. Can you point out some game(s) that use it?

Alternate activation, for ex, CH's ATS series, Pz Grenadier, etc. usually popular in tactical scales.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69
...
Speaking of Avalanche Publishing, I also like their WEGO approach for the operational part of "The Great War at Sea" and the interesting IGOUGO asymmetric system for the tactical battles (even if the series suffers from the endemic inability by AP to write understandable manuals...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: z1812

There is a kind of hybrid move sequence that I have come across. It is a system that breaks down a turn into a number of smaller actions. Each unit on each side alternates and has one action until both sides have used all their actions. This completes the turn sequence. I quite like it. However my preference is still for wego.

It sounds interesting. Can you point out some game(s) that use it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And, if you had checked the original post, you would know that I posted similarly historical results from Germany 1945 and Soviet Union 1941. And those are just the examples I had movies made of.

So you've cherry-picked the handful of scenario play-throughs that you found closely resembled historical results...so what? Other play throughs have undoubtedly resulted in wildly ahistorical results. You understand that just posting the results that support your argument is completely irrelevant, right? Do you think that's how data analysis works? Before drawing any conclusions you need to look at all the results, which you do not, and cannot possibly, have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

What is "historicity" if not a "scenario" played once - and thus not comparable with anything similar?

We will never know how the Allies' performance in '44-'45 fell on an hypothetical "probability curve". Maybe they rolled two six-sided dice, were unlucky, and got a "3". Maybe had Market-Garden been a bit more lucky they could have been in Berlin for Christmas. Maybe, had the campaign be played ten times, we would have discovered that the Allies won the war earlier eight times out of them. We will never know.

What we do know is that "the historical result was 3". So we build a top-down model that has 3 as the average: two six-sided dice with only 1s and 2s on their faces. This way we concede that the Allies can got a "2" or a "4", with the historical "3" as the most probable result. But we can't refuse the idea that the model is skewed: you can't shop it around as "correct", because we can't compare what it models (i.e. the real campaign) with anything. It was artificially built to get a specific result.

They were rolling a billion dice. That limits the standard deviation a bunch. There's no way anyone can deny that my France 1944 playtest results were spectacular!

Again, no.

quote:

And still they talked more about the Fulda-Frankfurt corridor than about NATO plans for the siege of Vladivostok. Who knows? Maybe they had faith in their models [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And, if you had checked the original post, you would know that I posted similarly historical results from Germany 1945 and Soviet Union 1941. And those are just the examples I had movies made of.

So you've cherry-picked the handful of scenario play-throughs that you found closely resembled historical results...so what? Other play throughs have undoubtedly resulted in wildly ahistorical results. You understand that just posting the results that support your argument is completely irrelevant, right? Do you think that's how data analysis works? Before drawing any conclusions you need to look at all the results, which you do not, and cannot possibly, have.

I didn't cherry pick anything. Those are the only playtests that I made. Of course different results could probably be obtained if players make vastly different choices than historical or one player is much better than the other. But neither was the case in those playtests. And the results all clearly had excellent historocity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And, if you had checked the original post, you would know that I posted similarly historical results from Germany 1945 and Soviet Union 1941. And those are just the examples I had movies made of.

So you've cherry-picked the handful of scenario play-throughs that you found closely resembled historical results...so what? Other play throughs have undoubtedly resulted in wildly ahistorical results. You understand that just posting the results that support your argument is completely irrelevant, right? Do you think that's how data analysis works? Before drawing any conclusions you need to look at all the results, which you do not, and cannot possibly, have.

I didn't cherry pick anything. Those are the only playtests that I made. Of course different results could probably be obtained if players make vastly different choices than historical or one player is much better than the other. But neither was the case in those playtests. And the results all clearly had excellent historocity.

Amazing. He nailed the confutation to his own theory without even realising it [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

...

About 50 years ago, when a teenager, I gave up playing tabletop wargames at a club because all I saw was old men arguing about what was or wasn't realistic.

...

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

...

About 50 years ago, when a teenager, I gave up playing tabletop wargames at a club because all I saw was old men arguing about what was or wasn't realistic.

...

It's a pretty though question. Are 0s and 1s more comparable to war than cardboard?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeepBlack

My faith was so much stronger then
I believed in fellow man
And I was so much older then
When I was young

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grognerd_INC

You know, I recognized the lyrics almost, was gonna ask the song title, must be something I've heard a bit, almost think it's Pink Floyd but not quite sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Forget turn sequences - what about using a logarithmic distance scale.

https://vintagewargaming.blogspot.com/2009/04/following-three-posts-are-series-of.html?m=0


Thanks Grandad.

Oh, and another thing.. this is what AARs and stuff looked like.

https://vintagewargaming.blogspot.com/search/label/Bish%20Iwaszko?m=0


And we had to make our 20 sided dice by hand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
And, if you had checked the original post, you would know that I posted similarly historical results from Germany 1945 and Soviet Union 1941. And those are just the examples I had movies made of.

So you've cherry-picked the handful of scenario play-throughs that you found closely resembled historical results...so what? Other play throughs have undoubtedly resulted in wildly ahistorical results. You understand that just posting the results that support your argument is completely irrelevant, right? Do you think that's how data analysis works? Before drawing any conclusions you need to look at all the results, which you do not, and cannot possibly, have.

I didn't cherry pick anything. Those are the only playtests that I made. Of course different results could probably be obtained if players make vastly different choices than historical or one player is much better than the other. But neither was the case in those playtests. And the results all clearly had excellent historocity.

Amazing. He nailed the confutation to his own theory without even realising it [&:]

aye which is part of the problem. I believe he is too intelligent to make some of his posts in good faith, therefore its all just playing silly games and trolling the forums

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I didn't cherry pick anything. Those are the only playtests that I made. Of course different results could probably be obtained if players make vastly different choices than historical or one player is much better than the other. But neither was the case in those playtests. And the results all clearly had excellent historocity.

Amazing. He nailed the confutation to his own theory without even realising it [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I didn't cherry pick anything. Those are the only playtests that I made. Of course different results could probably be obtained if players make vastly different choices than historical or one player is much better than the other. But neither was the case in those playtests. And the results all clearly had excellent historocity.

Amazing. He nailed the confutation to his own theory without even realising it [&:]

?? How does that refute my claim? That a game can be played deliberately or incompetently to produce an ahistorical result some how refutes that it can be, and has been, played correctly to a historical result when played historically and competently? That's nonsense!

And I want to point out that the results I've listed are only a sample of historical results I've obtained with IGOUGO. I just haven't made movies, or, in some cases, even AARs, with them.

I also have very historical results with these:

Cambrai 1917
Kaiserschlacht 1918 (full size and the mini version)
Denmark Strait 1940
Pearl Harbor 1941
Midway 1942
Savo Island 1942
Cape Esperance 1942
Okinawa 1945

That's nine (or ten) samples in favor of IGOUGO.

For the nth time: Where is the evidence for WEGO!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I didn't cherry pick anything. Those are the only playtests that I made. Of course different results could probably be obtained if players make vastly different choices than historical or one player is much better than the other. But neither was the case in those playtests. And the results all clearly had excellent historocity.

Amazing. He nailed the confutation to his own theory without even realising it [&:]

?? How does that refute my claim? That a game can be played deliberately or incompetently to produce an ahistorical result some how refutes that it can be, and has been, played correctly to a historical result when played historically and competently? That's nonsense!

quote:


And I want to point out that the results I've listed are only a sample of historical results I've obtained with IGOUGO. I just haven't made movies, or, in some cases, even AARs, with them.

I also have very historical results with these:

Cambrai 1917
Kaiserschlacht 1918 (full size and the mini version)
Denmark Strait 1940
Pearl Harbor 1941
Midway 1942
Savo Island 1942
Cape Esperance 1942
Okinawa 1945

That's nine (or ten) samples in favor of IGOUGO.

For the nth time: Where is the evidence for WEGO!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
Real life . . . [8|]