Addressed to Nobody in Particular but

[troopie]

Can we stop with the petty picking on OOBS? I do not believe that the designer should include every unofficial modification, one-off, casual pick-up, and paper project.

Unofficial modification. I once saw a photo of Australian lorries delivering supplies in North Africa. They were usually unarmed. Every lorry had a Bren gun mounted on the back or a .303 rifle in a passenger door mount.

One-off. As some here know, my father served in the SA Armoured Corps in WW2, for a good while on Marmon-Herrington ACs. At one point, related in his diary, they took off the Boys AT rifle and replaced with a captured 28mm squeeze bore. They tore that off and replaced it with a 2 pdr, IIRC, when they couldn't get any more ammunition. I have searched for years, and as far as I could find, there was NO other South African armoured car so equipped. The designer should NOT have to include that.

Casual pick-up. Officially the rifle section has one LMG. Lt. Kruger wants two, and sends two lads to the armoury to get one. Or in stead of a .303, one of the troopies has an elephant gun.

Paper Project. The German E-100 is an example/ AFAIK, no metal was EVER cut for it.

troopie

[Wiking]

I am inclined to agree with the sentiment, though with one qualification: The E-100 is probably fine as long as it's a custom OOB someone is doing and not just demanding the designers include it because reasons.

[Pibwl]

I am probably Don's worst pain here but as for me, I'm trying to avoid unofficial modifications, one-offs, casual pick-ups and paper projects.

On the other hand, sometimes vehicles built/modified in a short series could have an impact, that makes them worth to be added (like German Dicker Max)

I, for one, suggested last year to add 6 Carden-Loyd Mk.VI tankettes to Belgium, bought in 1932, which were their only tanks apart from FT in early period. By 1934, they were converted to tank destroyers, and were in service by the time of the German invasion, so they might have destroyed something (Polish #702 TK-SD can serve as a pattern, with 2-men crew)

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

I am probably Don's worst pain here but as for me, I'm trying to avoid unofficial modifications, one-offs, casual pick-ups and paper projects.

When it gets to the point I'm sick of looking at the game I've dedicated 18+ years to because of unending rivet counting BS that's when all these "suggestions" to "improve" the game to make it "more historically accurate" become counter productive

When I can't find the time to investigate changes to make the game better for all players because more and more of my ( increasingly limited ) time available is taken up making essentially trivial OOB changes to satisfy a tiny minority then those requests become counter productive as that just hastens the day when the "unofficial modifications, one-offs, casual pick-ups and paper projects" start.

I've been doing my best to accommodate these requests because I naively thought that eventually there would be an end but they go on and on and on but now I'm seeing items like photos show a soldier with a bren but there is no bren in the unit and my patience for things like this is nearing an end ( actually that ship sailed a year or two ago ) as it seems there is no end.....just increasingly trivial "suggestions"

I have 129 OOB's to maintain and improve that cover a timespan of 95 years and MBT is more demanding as weapons and units go in an out of service but I've dealt with what would print out to 53 pages of SPWW2 changes most of which are irrelevant to the majority of players and 53 pages is an "easy" year but it starting to feel like 53 more nails in the coffin and I would LOVE to hear if there is ANYONE playing this game ( Besides Michael ..I can't see how he finds any time to actually "play the game".. ) that think the game is in any way improved by adding " 6 Carden-Loyd Mk.VI tankettes to Belgium" when there are ALREADY T.13 TD's in the OOB in 1934 and I would also be interesting in anyone who has actually used them in a game because we all know players just have to play as Belgium in the late 1930's.

WORST MISTAKE we ever made was starting the OOB's in 1930 and that only came about because someone wanted to get the Spainish Civil war into the game and.....why not start in 1930 ? I seriously doubt anymore than a tiny handful of players have ever bother playing a game before 1940 simply because there aren't any interesting tanks before then

So the bottom line here is constant nitpicking is counter productive and some people just can't take a hint

Don

[void1984]

Originally Posted by DRG

WORST MISTAKE we ever made was starting the OOB's in 1930 and that only came about because someone wanted to get the Spainish Civil war into the game and.....why not start in 1930 ? I seriously doubt anymore than a tiny handful of players have ever bother playing a game before 1940 simply because there aren't any interesting tanks before then

So the bottom line here is constant nitpicking is counter productive and some people just can't take a hint

While I agree with your main message, I'm the player who plays mainly in '39 and quite a lot in '38.

[DRG]

Well..........that's good to hear ( seriously.....it's good to hear ) but do you really miss those Belgian Carden-Loyd Mk.VI tankettes that only existed for a short time before they were sent to the shop and converted to TD's that are a poor cousin to the T.13 TD's already in the game ?

Don

[void1984]

I don't care. I play Poland those years.

[Wiking]

I play a great deal of 1939. I also play early 1930's but mostly as the Japanese, so some Belgian tankettes don't matter much to me.

[DRG]

I am glad to hear the early years are getting some play by at least 2 players

[void1984]

I'm Polish and in Poland late '30s are very popular among players. Reason for that bias is obvious.