| indierockclimber | 06 May 2013 5:24 a.m. PST |
Link: link Here's some teaser pics:
|
| Desert Fox | 06 May 2013 6:42 a.m. PST |
GREAT looking fields! How did you make them? |
| indierockclimber | 06 May 2013 6:44 a.m. PST |
JR Miniatures' rice paddies :) |
| War In 15MM | 06 May 2013 8:02 a.m. PST |
|
| Louie N | 06 May 2013 8:28 a.m. PST |
The battlefield looks excellent. The pictures with the frog laying down the barrage were very impressive. Thank you for sharing the report. |
| Skeptic | 06 May 2013 8:45 a.m. PST |
Nice bat. rep., as always. However, the caption-length-sideways compression-of-pictures issue has recurred in IE 8… |
| Darby E | 06 May 2013 9:25 a.m. PST |
Nice looking game! Bummer on all the MIAs though. One for Westy to gnash his teeth over. Do MIAs cost lots of lost VPs for FWF or major gains for the Communists? (unimportant note on helicopter nomenclature: if it has both rockets and flex guns/mini guns and is a C model it's a Frog. If it has more than 28 rockets and no outboard mounted guns or has the XM3 rocket system and is most likely a B model it's a Hog (though most were upgraded to C model before the H and Ms came online). If it is a Hog with a 40mm "chunker" it's called a Heavy Hog. If it's a CH-47 then it's a Phrog, while an H34 is a Dog or Huss. A LOH originally refereed to the OH13s Sioux and OH23G Raven until the OH6 "Loach" was introduced in 1967. The Frog/Hog confusion comes from the misnaming of a plastic model in the 70's, though I understand that some later (69-72) aviation units used the terms interchangeably) |
| indierockclimber | 06 May 2013 10:12 a.m. PST |
@Skeptic- oh no! To be honest, I have burned so much time on our layout trying to account for every browser that I'm about ready to throw in the towel. Stupid interwebs… *grumble* I'll see what I can do. |
| MajorB | 06 May 2013 10:21 a.m. PST |
However, the caption-length-sideways compression-of-pictures issue has recurred in IE 8… There's a simple answer to that – don't use IE8! Works fine in Firefox … |
79thPA  | 06 May 2013 10:38 a.m. PST |
|
| Skeptic | 06 May 2013 10:42 a.m. PST |
@MB: Thanks, but I'm not going to switch browsers for one website, which raises the question of whether a website should switch its design for one browser…  |
| indierockclimber | 06 May 2013 12:03 p.m. PST |
Thanks Guys! @Major Bum & Skeptic- it's a tricky one! I actually started using the default Blogger layout for just this reason. Do you experience the issue on other blogs?? Internet Explorer 8 users represent a solid 10% of our traffic so I definitely need to account for this if it's across all IE8 users! |
| indierockclimber | 06 May 2013 12:14 p.m. PST |
Alright sorry to clog this thread up with web design chat… but I now have top men on this issue. link Top. Men. In other news, for those of you as bitten by 'Nam as me- I created a new 'Nam subforum on the WWPD forums. |
| Darby E | 06 May 2013 12:17 p.m. PST |
Indie, you should post some of this over on the Fields Of Fire forum. A Nam, all the time! |
| Augustus | 06 May 2013 1:32 p.m. PST |
Where is the base game mat from? Felt? |
| companycmd | 06 May 2013 2:05 p.m. PST |
Nice looking fields then wrecked with those tiny men on bases that aren't clear so the terrain shows through. Too bad. |
| indierockclimber | 06 May 2013 2:20 p.m. PST |
@augustus- just a GW battle mat! @Company- When I first started FoW I so considered using clear acrylic stands! |
| nazrat | 07 May 2013 2:11 p.m. PST |
I think clear bases look horrible-- they are shiny and reflect light so as to ruin the look of the table FAR more than a different texture. |
