I'm pretty sure that's the first time I've ever dreamed I was in jail.
OK, it was more like house arrest; there were bars, but there was a place where it was more like a low fence than a cell. I think it may have been some kind of dual honor code; the prisoner pretends that the cell is effective and the guard pretends the prisoner won't try to escape.
Yeah, weird.
I could talk in this dream, though I felt that I couldn't leave while recognizing that there was no physical barrier to my doing so.
Later other people were imprisoned with me; some I knew (no one I actually know in real life), some I didn't and was a little worried about.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Arsenal of Democracy
Arsenal of Democracy is a computer game that is a spin-off of the Hearts of Iron series. It is an strategic level simulation of the period surrounding (and including) WWII.
It has a number of interesting features, several excellent ones, very few bad ones, and is a quite absorbing game to play.
Some real pros for me:
You can start as early as 1936, or well into the war. There are even several post-WWII scenarios running into the 1960's.
You can play as any nation. Yes, you can play as El Salvador or Yugoslavia if you want (there are AARs on the game's forum where people have done both), though don't expect to get far. :-)
They'd tried very hard, and IMO succeeded, in striking the proper balance between playability and realism on the economic & industrial front. A few examples: production needs a number of things, including resources (Energy, Metal, and Rare Materials), factories, and infrastructure (which acts as a multiplier for the factories - with no infrastructure a factory doesn't produce anything). You don't just order units at will - setting up a production line requires 'retooling' time (several months) during which no progress is made. Further, each serial build on a production line is a little faster (up to a point, of course). It is thus MUCH more efficient to build ten units in series than it is in parallel, though of course parallel builds are worth the trade off sometimes.
Logistics are extensive and vital, but still simple enough (and can be automated) to be used. Units require various amounts of 'supplies' and oil, and use more when in combat. You really need good supply lines to win, and they are vulnerable to attack.
The gameplay is smooth, and very addictive. Just one more week... wait, new tech, gotta retool my production... stand down the air attacks so they can upgrade... maybe I'll just keep playing 'till they're done...
The game is easy to mod. Very easy. If you can edit a text file, literally, you can mod this game. This solves the biggest problem with the game IMO...
Con:
They nerfed the USA. OK, a lot of WWII games do that. If you don't the end result is more or less a foregone conclusion. To their credit they nerfed it a lot less than some (I'm looking at YOU, Strategic Command: European Theater), and thanks to the high modability you can un-nerf the US.
My second-biggest complaint: you get messages telling you how various historical turning points turned out (annexations, treaties, incidents, etc.) which is good, but there seems to be no way in-game to figure out what the situation was! OK, everyone playing this type of game is going to know what "Germany claims Sudetenland" means, but I had to look up "The 2-26 Incident" (attempted coup in Japan, which may or may not succeed in game) and I'm something of a WWII buff! Events which you actually decide on or happen primarily to your country get explanatory text, but the notification you get when they happen to someone else seems to have no way to access that text. :-(
A single unit is a ground division, capital ship or group of lighter ships, or a wing of aircraft. The map is region-based, not hex-based (a minor con). I spend quite a lot of my time on the production screen watching my builds and managing my economy, rather less on actual combat ops. Units also need leaders (historical generals and admirals) who have varying skills and special abilities. Research teams have both skills and specialties: Boeing will research an airplane tech a lot faster than the New York Naval Yard, but the NYNY is much better at ship tech. You are actually much better off assigning a low-skill team that closely matches the tech to research it than a high-skill team that doesn't. Tech teams and your political leaders, who also have various abilities, come and go over time; quite appropriate, since a full game lasts 28 years!
All in all a great game, especially for only $20.
It has a number of interesting features, several excellent ones, very few bad ones, and is a quite absorbing game to play.
Some real pros for me:
You can start as early as 1936, or well into the war. There are even several post-WWII scenarios running into the 1960's.
You can play as any nation. Yes, you can play as El Salvador or Yugoslavia if you want (there are AARs on the game's forum where people have done both), though don't expect to get far. :-)
They'd tried very hard, and IMO succeeded, in striking the proper balance between playability and realism on the economic & industrial front. A few examples: production needs a number of things, including resources (Energy, Metal, and Rare Materials), factories, and infrastructure (which acts as a multiplier for the factories - with no infrastructure a factory doesn't produce anything). You don't just order units at will - setting up a production line requires 'retooling' time (several months) during which no progress is made. Further, each serial build on a production line is a little faster (up to a point, of course). It is thus MUCH more efficient to build ten units in series than it is in parallel, though of course parallel builds are worth the trade off sometimes.
Logistics are extensive and vital, but still simple enough (and can be automated) to be used. Units require various amounts of 'supplies' and oil, and use more when in combat. You really need good supply lines to win, and they are vulnerable to attack.
The gameplay is smooth, and very addictive. Just one more week... wait, new tech, gotta retool my production... stand down the air attacks so they can upgrade... maybe I'll just keep playing 'till they're done...
The game is easy to mod. Very easy. If you can edit a text file, literally, you can mod this game. This solves the biggest problem with the game IMO...
Con:
They nerfed the USA. OK, a lot of WWII games do that. If you don't the end result is more or less a foregone conclusion. To their credit they nerfed it a lot less than some (I'm looking at YOU, Strategic Command: European Theater), and thanks to the high modability you can un-nerf the US.
My second-biggest complaint: you get messages telling you how various historical turning points turned out (annexations, treaties, incidents, etc.) which is good, but there seems to be no way in-game to figure out what the situation was! OK, everyone playing this type of game is going to know what "Germany claims Sudetenland" means, but I had to look up "The 2-26 Incident" (attempted coup in Japan, which may or may not succeed in game) and I'm something of a WWII buff! Events which you actually decide on or happen primarily to your country get explanatory text, but the notification you get when they happen to someone else seems to have no way to access that text. :-(
A single unit is a ground division, capital ship or group of lighter ships, or a wing of aircraft. The map is region-based, not hex-based (a minor con). I spend quite a lot of my time on the production screen watching my builds and managing my economy, rather less on actual combat ops. Units also need leaders (historical generals and admirals) who have varying skills and special abilities. Research teams have both skills and specialties: Boeing will research an airplane tech a lot faster than the New York Naval Yard, but the NYNY is much better at ship tech. You are actually much better off assigning a low-skill team that closely matches the tech to research it than a high-skill team that doesn't. Tech teams and your political leaders, who also have various abilities, come and go over time; quite appropriate, since a full game lasts 28 years!
All in all a great game, especially for only $20.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Ground Zero
OK, here goes:
I think if the people backing the Mosque near Ground Zero were smart, they'd apologize, say it was obviously too much too soon, and build their Mosque elsewhere. Not because they're wrong, but because Islam really needs some good PR in the US.
They need to prove that there are two kinds of Muslims, and that the fanatics aren't running the show. Right now there isn't much, if any, evidence to that effect.
We go into Saudi Arabia at their request to defend them from their neighbors and somehow we're suddenly defiling sacred ground. Yet when they want to build near a crater where they killed hundreds of our civilians that's OK, because it isn't sacred ground.
We give arms and training to local people defending themselves from invaders, and they turn on us, instead of fighting against the people who invaded them. And it is our fault because we trained them.
We see people cheering after the towers fell. We see women being beaten for showing their faces, or wearing pants. We see people who strap bombs to their bodies and blow up civilians.
This kind of thing paints a picture if Islam, and it isn't a flattering one. If the people trying to build the Mosque want to separate themselves from that picture, they need to start using a different brush, and this is a perfect chance.
In the end, however, I think the Mosque will be built, and the picture will remain the same.
I think if the people backing the Mosque near Ground Zero were smart, they'd apologize, say it was obviously too much too soon, and build their Mosque elsewhere. Not because they're wrong, but because Islam really needs some good PR in the US.
They need to prove that there are two kinds of Muslims, and that the fanatics aren't running the show. Right now there isn't much, if any, evidence to that effect.
We go into Saudi Arabia at their request to defend them from their neighbors and somehow we're suddenly defiling sacred ground. Yet when they want to build near a crater where they killed hundreds of our civilians that's OK, because it isn't sacred ground.
We give arms and training to local people defending themselves from invaders, and they turn on us, instead of fighting against the people who invaded them. And it is our fault because we trained them.
We see people cheering after the towers fell. We see women being beaten for showing their faces, or wearing pants. We see people who strap bombs to their bodies and blow up civilians.
This kind of thing paints a picture if Islam, and it isn't a flattering one. If the people trying to build the Mosque want to separate themselves from that picture, they need to start using a different brush, and this is a perfect chance.
In the end, however, I think the Mosque will be built, and the picture will remain the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
