| Angel Barracks | 21 Oct 2010 11:11 p.m. PST |
Based on my earlier question: TMP link
It seems that there is no universally accepted way of defining a games level and that quite possibly no-one cares for that kind of label anyway.
Is the need for a level description worthwhile when so many people disagree as to what a specific level is? Is it better to describe in a sentence what the level is rather than a single word definition? For example: "In this game you control 10 companies of infantry that make up a battalion." - Michael. |
| Cerdic | 21 Oct 2010 11:23 p.m. PST |
I prefer to know what the basic unit of manouvre is. Squad, battalion, brigade, whatever. |
| quidveritas | 21 Oct 2010 11:54 p.m. PST |
Cerdic has it right. Don't leave em guessing or worse, disappointed. Spell it out up front. mjc |
| MajorB | 22 Oct 2010 1:39 a.m. PST |
When describing a game, define your terms clearly and there will be no problem. For example:
"The basic unit in this game is a battalion."
"The player commands a division." The term "level" to be of any use has to be further explained in every case since there is more than one usgae! |
| Cosmic Reset | 22 Oct 2010 4:30 a.m. PST |
Neither good, nor bad. It just needs to be explained, more or less as Margard states above. |
| Martin Rapier | 22 Oct 2010 4:52 a.m. PST |
We'll never agree on a common definition, so just be clear what you mean and don't assume that your definition is the same as someone else.s We know from years of TMP postings that in this case, it probably isn't. |
| nazrat | 22 Oct 2010 5:51 a.m. PST |
Methinks you are getting WAY too wrapped up in semantics. Just play the game! 8)= |
| Angel Barracks | 22 Oct 2010 6:03 a.m. PST |
I am not bothered at all by what it is labelled as.
I wanted to know what the general public think. I am not even bothered some of my French flags are not painted with blue poles!! But when dealing with others it is nice to have an idea of their expectations. It seems that I should just refer to it as Bricole level. |
| arthur1815 | 22 Oct 2010 7:19 a.m. PST |
You can't go wrong stating things clearly, upfront, using unambiguous words. Say who the player is meant to be, in your example the battalion commander, and explain the smallest discrete unit/group of men that will be represented in the rules. A man:figure ratio may also be necessary if the rules rely on the number of figures, rather than the area occupied by a base. |
| adub74 | 22 Oct 2010 9:46 a.m. PST |
I agree with the usefulness of standards. One of the greatest inventions for the computers was when someone decided to color code the mouse, keyboard, and speaker plugs. Holy cow did that save some time. Didn't HAVE to be done. Didn't NEED to be done. But I, and I bet a whole bunch of IT guys, really appreciate it being done. This hobby is really odd in its standards. One of the few that actually exist is scale such as 2mm, 6mm, 10mm, 15mm 25mm, 28mm, 40mm, etc… Which, as we all know, aren't actually scales but sizes. The only time true scales come into play is with cross-hobby stuff like rail roads or plastic army men or model kits. And we also know that the sizes are supposed to be measured from the bottom of the boot to the eyes. A concept which raises people's dander to no end. And finally, we all know that every mfr cheats the scale. Figures with more detail are considered better and increase sales. Figures with more detail get that detail by turning a 25mm into a 26mm wich grows to a 27mm. My personal theory is that the idea of standardizing scale (was it back in the 70's when the boot to eye concept was published?) did so poorly that no one has seriously moved to standardize any other concept. Rather, everyone prefers to grope around in the dark than be responsible for the hobbies next 'scale' argument. |
| Caesar | 22 Oct 2010 10:56 a.m. PST |
I'm all for giving no information whatsoever about any products. Maybe I'm buying 28mm or they could be 3mm. Maybe these are WWII rules or they are Medievals. |
| Scorpio | 22 Oct 2010 11:25 a.m. PST |
We'll never agree on a common definition, so just be clear what you mean and don't assume that your definition is the same as someone else.s Precisely. Standardization won't realistically happen. And trying to pin labels on things is only going to cause headaches. |
| Jay Arnold | 23 Oct 2010 8:26 p.m. PST |
Standardization won't realistically happen. It did with the model railroad hobby a looooong time ago. There is no realistic reason why it couldn't in ours. It's all a matter of somebody stepping up and taking the challenge. Not it. |
| Angel Barracks | 23 Oct 2010 10:05 p.m. PST |
It did with the model railroad hobby a looooong time ago. There is no realistic reason why it couldn't in ours. It's all a matter of somebody stepping up and taking the challenge. Did it?
They adopted a universal scale standard, N, Z, OO, HO gauge etc. But did they ever agree on how many trains equalled a fleet, how many carriages equalled a train, how many locomotoves equalled a train, how many shunters equalled a marshalling yard. And then. If you had 2 trains was that skirmish level, if you had an entire network/company of trains, was that corporate level, and if you had a whole country worth of trains, was that national level? I am not sure they have, please enlighten me though.
:)
|
