RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/19/2004 3:47:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: o4r

Did Anybody place a 1000 HP engine on that Jadgtiger. It is running like a spot car. [:@]




Yeah well the kittens are a marvel of superior tuetonic engineering after all.....

It is really cool considering they were notorious for going through transmissions like candy....



Igor -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/19/2004 5:06:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

I like your edit. This would work in pbem too if the OOB's relected higher ROF's
Apart from the 203's and bigger guns which should not fire more than 1-2 rounds per minute.

With an ROF of 6, a 203 battery *could* get off one shot every 30 seconds for a three minute turn (which is a bit much, since you're only supposed to do that for two minutes); but only uberelites can pull it off. For veteran crews, you're looking perhaps the equivalent four shells per turn per tube for the pre-game, two during sustained fire. It might actually be a bit slow; but it seems to work out (especially given ammo limits). So far I haven't applied this to heavy naval rifles (battlewagons or railroad guns); they just don't come up all that often in the life of a battalion (even one as august as our battalions).



JJKettunen -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/19/2004 5:51:49 PM)

From Marauder's Arsenal:

"Finally, to help you explore some of the current 8.0 changes made, a new scenario was designed for you: The Paw of the Tiger. In this scenario, you will discover how deadly the big cats can be!"

Is this the reason why we have now Tiger Is with 16-26% more AP PEN than historically, and also with 52% more Accuracy, which is quite questionable. [:-]

Edit: I hope it's not the middle finger that little smiley is waving, lol.



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/19/2004 5:54:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

From Marauder's Arsenal:

"Finally, to help you explore some of the current 8.0 changes made, a new scenario was designed for you: The Paw of the Tiger. In this scenario, you will discover how deadly the big cats can be!"

Is this the reason why we have now Tiger Is with 16-26% more AP PEN than historically, and also with 52% more Accuracy, which is quite questionable. [:-]




Well I am betting the Matilda would be a world beater too if I cranked up the ratings because "it just felt right"....

:)

"see just how deadly the matilda can be!"

[8|]



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/19/2004 6:04:53 PM)

I am working on the "croissants of the Char B-1 bis" it will show you the raw power of the Char, and have some slight variations in modeling to "capture the proper spirit" of a WW2 action.....

(more to come)[sm=party-smiley-012.gif]



FlashfyreSP -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/19/2004 6:30:28 PM)

Don't forget about those "improved" Type 97 tanks the Japanese tested in the jungles...
you know, the ones with the "jungle shredder" attachment to the front (a la the hedgerow busters on the Shermans), composed of hundreds of 'used' samurai swords on a spinning drum that allowed the tank to move through the jungle at top speed AND carve a road at the same time.[X(]

And I believe they had upgunned them using some extra 88mm barrels that were shipped as a measure of good will from the ample Wehrmacht stores....[&o]



Rune Iversen -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/19/2004 7:27:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

I am working on the "croissants of the Char B-1 bis" it will show you the raw power of the Char, and have some slight variations in modeling to "capture the proper spirit" of a WW2 action.....

(more to come)[sm=party-smiley-012.gif]


My complimentary scenario will be named "Tea of the Matilda"



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/19/2004 7:34:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

I am working on the "croissants of the Char B-1 bis" it will show you the raw power of the Char, and have some slight variations in modeling to "capture the proper spirit" of a WW2 action.....

(more to come)[sm=party-smiley-012.gif]


My complimentary scenario will be named "Tea of the Matilda"



we can craft a campaign called "breakfast at tiffany's" maybe make the main force Hungarian in honor of Gavris.....



Rune Iversen -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/19/2004 7:37:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

I am working on the "croissants of the Char B-1 bis" it will show you the raw power of the Char, and have some slight variations in modeling to "capture the proper spirit" of a WW2 action.....

(more to come)[sm=party-smiley-012.gif]


My complimentary scenario will be named "Tea of the Matilda"



we can craft a campaign called "breakfast at tiffany's" maybe make the main force Hungarian in honor of Gavris.....


You mean fluvials w. 16 inch guns?



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/19/2004 7:38:45 PM)

(Post deleted for inappropriate and inflammatory content)



BruceAZ -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 1:37:03 AM)

The OOB is showing July 41 for the 76mm AT gun and this is a change from 7.0. Also the availability date for the 75mmLG40 RCL was May 1941. These dates don't look correct.

Recon
Semper Fi



Rune Iversen -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 1:41:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceAZ

The OOB is showing July 41 for the 76mm AT gun and this is a change from 7.0. Also the availability date for the 75mmLG40 RCL was May 1941. These dates don't look correct.

Recon
Semper Fi


Well, who would have guessed [;)]



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 1:44:55 AM)

(Post deleted for inappropriate and inflammatory content)



KG Erwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 2:15:21 AM)

BruceAZ, what do you regard as the correct dates? The Russian 76mm ATG is available to them in 1939--as I earlier stated, the Germans will use these captured weapons as soon as they can grab a few of them.
quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceAZ

The OOB is showing July 41 for the 76mm AT gun and this is a change from 7.0. Also the availability date for the 75mmLG40 RCL was May 1941. These dates don't look correct.

Recon
Semper Fi



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 2:19:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

BruceAZ, what do you regard as the correct dates? The Russian 76mm ATG is available to them in 1939--as I earlier stated, the Germans will use these captured weapons as soon as they can grab a few of them.
quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceAZ

The OOB is showing July 41 for the 76mm AT gun and this is a change from 7.0. Also the availability date for the 75mmLG40 RCL was May 1941. These dates don't look correct.

Recon
Semper Fi




You are aware that the utilization of captured stock is limited by the necessity to pool ammo, parts, components, and such and it is not just a matter of "turn those guns around boys" in the long term I hope????

or is this akin to the Raiders having Garands "just because"?



Goblin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 2:24:18 AM)

Are you seriously going to delete posts that do not agree with you or the OOB team?!?

When was sarcasm added to the list of options that are no longer valid to use in an argument or discussion?!?

I read every post here, and there was not one that deserved deleted.

I guess I will time this to see how long my post takes to get deleted...[&:]


Goblin



Rune Iversen -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 2:28:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

BruceAZ, what do you regard as the correct dates? The Russian 76mm ATG is available to them in 1939--as I earlier stated, the Germans will use these captured weapons as soon as they can grab a few of them.
quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceAZ

The OOB is showing July 41 for the 76mm AT gun and this is a change from 7.0. Also the availability date for the 75mmLG40 RCL was May 1941. These dates don't look correct.

Recon
Semper Fi




You are aware that the utilization of captured stock is limited by the necessity to pool ammo, parts, components, and such and it is not just a matter of "turn those guns around boys" in the long term I hope????

or is this akin to the Raiders having Garands "just because"?


Which is why the germans started deploying the 76.2mm from the winter/spring 42 onwards, when they had had a chance to set up a production line for ammuntion and/or rechamber/bore the guns. And of course also to mount them on various gunchassis (The Marder types of vehicles primarily)



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 2:31:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

Are you seriously going to delete posts that do not agree with you or the OOB team?!?

When was sarcasm added to the list of options that are no longer valid to use in an argument or discussion?!?

I read every post here, and there was not one that deserved deleted.

I guess I will time this to see how long my post takes to get deleted...[&:]


Goblin



Hey Gobby Erwin has other issues with me, but anyone who is a serious SPWAW fan knows I know my OOBs and I research and happily cite.

Frankly I have not done much to warrant a ban or deletion, and at a minimum I will get to disabuse Chiteng of his notion I am somehow 'protected' in that case. They made track busting MGs in 8.0 and there is an 8.2 because the community rebelled, and now we are going to get to see fully auto 75mms because someone wants them that way for the pacific and *I* am the problem?

I have largely held my tongue on OOB matters since my fall from grace and my mom's cancer, but I refuse to yield the notion that OOBs should be based on citeable research and not totally on SWAGs that have the Germans having "captured Russian eqpt." prior to the Russians and such things.

apologies,
sven



JJKettunen -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 2:56:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin
.....OOBs should be based on citeable research...


Yup. That should be the top priority with default OOBs, not player complaints nor any special "desires".



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 3:03:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin
.....OOBs should be based on citeable research...


Yup. That should be the top priority with default OOBs, not player complaints nor any special "desires".



That has ALWAYS been my position. It will remain it regardless of what happens. Matrix is a good company I am sure they will do the right thing one way or another.



KG Erwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 4:07:23 AM)

You will have ask the guy who made this change (it wasn't me).
As for the Raiders "acquiring" M1s from unsuspecting GIs, the stories I've read attest to this fact--do any of you doubt a Marine's scrounging ability?
To rest you guy's fears that the USMC was elevated to "supermen" status due to my lobbying, as a matter of fact, the average Marine Rifle Company of 1942 is indeed rated as average, NOT elite as before--this is something I DID lobby for.
If any of you want to rag on the Marines in 8.2--yeah, I played a part in getting them changed. However, since you've haven't seen them yet, then wait for the official release. After that point, I'll take the flak for the Gyrenes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

BruceAZ, what do you regard as the correct dates? The Russian 76mm ATG is available to them in 1939--as I earlier stated, the Germans will use these captured weapons as soon as they can grab a few of them.
quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceAZ

The OOB is showing July 41 for the 76mm AT gun and this is a change from 7.0. Also the availability date for the 75mmLG40 RCL was May 1941. These dates don't look correct.

Recon
Semper Fi




You are aware that the utilization of captured stock is limited by the necessity to pool ammo, parts, components, and such and it is not just a matter of "turn those guns around boys" in the long term I hope????

or is this akin to the Raiders having Garands "just because"?



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 4:11:23 AM)

Wow so we are now going to make OOB changes based on non TO&E hearsay? Hey KG this is not a flame, but the USA Infantry was known to keep MG-34/42s according to "sources" do we get to get them included in the OOBs??? I mean rumor also has it that a LOT of US half-tracks had massive modifications done like mounting flamethrowers and extra MGs?

Any chance of that making it into the scrub?

I mean because everyone knows there are hundreds of pics of deployed marine raiders in the field with Garands early floating around right?


Right?

So what is the benchmark for OOBs?

Hearsay or TO&E?
quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

You will have ask the guy who made this change (it wasn't me).
As for the Raiders "acquiring" M1s from unsuspecting GIs, the stories I've read attest to this fact--do any of you doubt a Marine's scrounging ability?
To rest you guy's fears that the USMC was elevated to "supermen" status due to my lobbying, as a matter of fact, the average Marine Rifle Company of 1942 is indeed rated as average, NOT elite as before--this is something I DID lobby for.
If any of you want to rag on the Marines in 8.2--yeah, I played a part in getting them changed. However, since you've haven't seen them yet, then wait for the official release. After that point, I'll take the flak for the Gyrenes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

BruceAZ, what do you regard as the correct dates? The Russian 76mm ATG is available to them in 1939--as I earlier stated, the Germans will use these captured weapons as soon as they can grab a few of them.
quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceAZ

The OOB is showing July 41 for the 76mm AT gun and this is a change from 7.0. Also the availability date for the 75mmLG40 RCL was May 1941. These dates don't look correct.

Recon
Semper Fi




You are aware that the utilization of captured stock is limited by the necessity to pool ammo, parts, components, and such and it is not just a matter of "turn those guns around boys" in the long term I hope????

or is this akin to the Raiders having Garands "just because"?




Kevin E. Duguay -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 4:34:38 AM)

harlekwin,

You mean like this? Oh Sorry! I forgot that now it's almost impossible to post anything of substance. Maybe if I change it into a Zip file then rotate, compress, de-compress, then un-Zip, re-name, stand on my head and spit, I'll get to show you a pic of a M2 Halftrack mounting a M6 Fargo turret w/shield and 2 MG's, one water cooled. Maybe I'll just post it at Yahoo SP color mods.[:(]



KG Erwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 4:46:29 AM)

Harlekwin, you have predetermined that no matter what we do, it must be wrong, since you didn't do it yourself. You didn't volunteer to help on the latest updates, yet you love to complain it isn't right, in your view.
All of this just invalidates your arguments. You're just like the guy who didn't vote but yet gripes about the choice that was made. You were there, back in "the good old days", and what was right then must be right now. Now, if that's the case, then we should all still be playing with SPWaW 1.0.
No, your "go-back to the old way" argument doesn't wash.
I'll agree with you on one thing--the so-called "play balance" issue for PBEM play. This is the number one bugaboo in the whole process. I do NOT play SPWaW except vs the AI--now, 8.2 does have improved AI force choices. This is a definite improvement.
The OOB team has gone around and around on the Sherman-Panther cost vs effectiveness issue. The final result was weighed for the PBEM players, for better or worse.
We're also gone round about the captured T34s, the bazookas vs infantry, the MG track-disabling issue, and a host of other matters. We've gotten these resolved, but of course, not everyone will be happy.
You were there, at one time, so you know how these things go.
Bryan will be addressing the changes we made very soon. The team exchanged a voluminous amount of research & test material, and we're close to submitting the final results to Matrix.
There is much more involved in the 8.2 patch, but I'm not at liberty to discuss that at present.
However, despite all the criticisms, justified or not, the suggestions, which we listened to, and the database errors, which we corrected, I will give a kudos to every member of the team. For long-time and new fans of SPWaW, this will indeed be the best OOB set ever offered, naysayers be damned. We will stand by our work, and will respond to your comments once they are publically released.



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 4:57:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Harlekwin, you have predetermined that no matter what we do, it must be wrong, since you didn't do it yourself. You didn't volunteer to help on the latest updates, yet you love to complain it isn't right, in your view.
All of this just invalidates your arguments. You're just like the guy who didn't vote but yet gripes about the choice that was made. You were there, back in "the good old days", and what was right then must be right now. Now, if that's the case, then we should all still be playing with SPWaW 1.0.
No, your "go-back to the old way" argument doesn't wash.
I'll agree with you on one thing--the so-called "play balance" issue for PBEM play. This is the number one bugaboo in the whole process. I do NOT play SPWaW except vs the AI--now, 8.2 does have improved AI force choices. This is a definite improvement.
The OOB team has gone around and around on the Sherman-Panther cost vs effectiveness issue. The final result was weighed for the PBEM players, for better or worse.
We're also gone round about the captured T34s, the bazookas vs infantry, the MG track-disabling issue, and a host of other matters. We've gotten these resolved, but of course, not everyone will be happy.
You were there, at one time, so you know how these things go.
Bryan will be addressing the changes we made very soon. The team exchanged a voluminous amount of research & test material, and we're close to submitting the final results to Matrix.
There is much more involved in the 8.2 patch, but I'm not at liberty to discuss that at present.
However, despite all the criticisms, justified or not, the suggestions, which we listened to, and the database errors, which we corrected, I will give a kudos to every member of the team. For long-time and new fans of SPWaW, this will indeed be the best OOB set ever offered, naysayers be damned. We will stand by our work, and will respond to your comments once they are publically released.

quote:

ere is much more involved in the 8.2 patch, but I'm not at liberty to discuss that at present.
However, despite all the criticisms, justified or not, the suggestions, which we listened to, and the database errors, which we corrected, I will give a kudos to every member of the team. For long-time and ne



so essentially, rather than answer why "some pigs are more equal than others" you feel it better to attack the fact that I understood better than you can hope to the perils of fanboyhood?

Your choice......but oddly KG we had full disclosure of sources and did not casually dismiss any critique out of hand...must be a new fangled notions trumping old outdated instructions.


I'll ask again.....why did the USMC OOB get "special preference" for ex-TO&E mission outlays?

What were the universal standards applied to requirements for inclusion in the OOBs? I mean hey guy it is your show?

but like I posted elsewhere on this site.....

why not a simple proof, and move on to CL/CA....you can try to morph this into a total "nyet" on my part to the new 8.2 oobs until you are blue in the face it does not hold water.....

the only thing I say 'nyet' to out of hand is total arbitrariness.....

having individual benchmarks for what is being represented inthe OOBs leads to games becoming apples and oranges.....


or do all of the infantry units now get multiple weapon volleys?



Goblin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 5:00:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Harlekwin, you have predetermined that no matter what we do, it must be wrong, since you didn't do it yourself. You didn't volunteer to help on the latest updates, yet you love to complain it isn't right, in your view.
All of this just invalidates your arguments.


So if a person did not volunteer to be on the OOB team, his arguments and criticism are not legitimate or valid? That counts most every gamer here then, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
However, despite all the criticisms, justified or not, the suggestions, which we listened to, and the database errors, which we corrected, I will give a kudos to every member of the team. For long-time and new fans of SPWaW, this will indeed be the best OOB set ever offered, naysayers be damned. We will stand by our work, and will respond to your comments once they are publically released.


The team only listened to suggestions AFTER the flawed release of 8.0, when they could have saved alot of time and effort. Best OOB offered? I suppose to the guys who volunteered, got their own pet OOB's into it, and have 'valid' arguments (because they were invited onto the OOB team). Naysayers be damned?!?!? What the heck happened to not being offensive or rude?!? Now we are to be damned for not liking a handful of people experimenting on OOB's that worked just fine?

If thats what you are going to wish on people that disagree with your view points, then I am done with this place. You now have one less person to worry about disagreeing with you. You should be very happy. Got rid of one of the guys who wanted the game to stay good, and got your own pet OOB's included, because you were on the team and had a 'valid' point of view.



Jeff Norton -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 5:05:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Harlekwin, you have predetermined that no matter what we do, it must be wrong, since you didn't do it yourself. You didn't volunteer to help on the latest updates, yet you love to complain it isn't right, in your view.
All of this just invalidates your arguments.


So if a person did not volunteer to be on the OOB team, his arguments and criticism are not legitimate or valid? That counts most every gamer here then, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
However, despite all the criticisms, justified or not, the suggestions, which we listened to, and the database errors, which we corrected, I will give a kudos to every member of the team. For long-time and new fans of SPWaW, this will indeed be the best OOB set ever offered, naysayers be damned. We will stand by our work, and will respond to your comments once they are publically released.


The team only listened to suggestions AFTER the flawed release of 8.0, when they could have saved alot of time and effort. Best OOB offered? I suppose to the guys who volunteered, got their own pet OOB's into it, and have 'valid' arguments (because they were invited onto the OOB team). Naysayers be damned?!?!? What the heck happened to not being offensive or rude?!? Now we are to be damned for not liking a handful of people experimenting on OOB's that worked just fine?

If thats what you are going to wish on people that disagree with your view points, then I am done with this place. You now have one less person to worry about disagreeing with you. You should be very happy. Got rid of one of the guys who wanted the game to stay good, and got your own pet OOB's included, because you were on the team and had a 'valid' point of view.

Well, that's *why* I moved on to SPWW2 and SPMBT....



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 5:46:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

BruceAZ, what do you regard as the correct dates? The Russian 76mm ATG is available to them in 1939--as I earlier stated, the Germans will use these captured weapons as soon as they can grab a few of them.
quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceAZ

The OOB is showing July 41 for the 76mm AT gun and this is a change from 7.0. Also the availability date for the 75mmLG40 RCL was May 1941. These dates don't look correct.

Recon
Semper Fi




You are aware that the utilization of captured stock is limited by the necessity to pool ammo, parts, components, and such and it is not just a matter of "turn those guns around boys" in the long term I hope????

or is this akin to the Raiders having Garands "just because"?


Which is why the germans started deploying the 76.2mm from the winter/spring 42 onwards, when they had had a chance to set up a production line for ammuntion and/or rechamber/bore the guns. And of course also to mount them on various gunchassis (The Marder types of vehicles primarily)




Yeah I know Rune. It is also how the germans put their captured stocks of Browning Hi-powers to use and converted captured French gear into German use. There are dates when standardized capture availability was integrated into the TO&E.

What we have now is essentially the "field expedient dates" of when battlefield captures could potentially be turned against the enemy during a battle replacing the dates when a genuine coagulated integration of captured equipment began having logistical legs formally in the german force structure. This is part of what I am alluding to when I ask, "why are there several individual benchmarks?" for several OOBs. Either Ivan should also have immediate access to captures before integration, or he should have to wait for coagulation into special capture units like happened with the Panther.


Fact is there doesn't seem to be any consistency even on what "captures" are modeling.

Is it, "hey Hans the PZIII broke down let's borrow this T-34 for awhile!"?

If so wouldn't it make sense to have a higher rate of attrition/breakdown/relaibility due to mechanical failure and a lack of a support structure since we are showing the 'expedient' nature?

Is it, "Hey herr speer it is a wonderful idea you had making platoons of captured T-34s replacements that our tank production can't make up?"

in which case it would take a period of time for a support structure for the use to be put in place.....? (as rune alluded to)


ah well just my two pence, and my opinion does not count anymore, and besides which the work is largely done.

Pity the OOBs are gonna be finalized with a hodge-podge....

Thanks to the scrub team for all your hard work.

regards,
sven

p.s. I know how thankless the job is/can be quite well.



KG Erwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 6:04:48 AM)

My, my, my, the groaners and complainers are out in force tonight. Not one of you have even seen any of the changed OOBs, have you? Not a single one of you.
On what do you base your criticisms, then? Ideas that have been bandied about by players? My comments? My comments are based on preliminary experiments, which are not necessarily representative of the final product.



harlekwin -> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions (2/20/2004 6:09:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

My, my, my, the groaners and complainers are out in force tonight. Not one of you have even seen any of the changed OOBs, have you? Not a single one of you.
On what do you base your criticisms, then? Ideas that have been bandied about by players? My comments? My comments are based on preliminary experiments, which are not necessarily representative of the final product.




YYYSW....

No but of course neither have you guys been making disclosures.

What do we have to base the competence on?

Treadbusting MGs of doom.

Personally I will take your word that everything is fixed, standarized, and proofread perfectly.

Hey I am gullib...er uh 'trusting' that way.

but since you are the guru and I am in the old folks home how's about answering any of my questions on standardization of standards so that OOBs are all modeling the same basic types of things....

what is the universal baseline for inclusion of captures in the oob?

Why do only some OOBs have integrated captures?

Help a senile guy out.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.703125