Thanks for all that time and effort you put in Mal, I for one
certainly appreciate it, and have much respect for your dedication
and endurance.

--- In GenQuarters@yahoogroups.com, "Mal Wright (Gallopingjack)"
<mgwright@...> wrote:
>
> Andy, I did so many hundreds of those logs, (Thousands actually)
that its a
> bit hard to remember each. But generally I tried to help players
> differentiate between one thing and another. Plus the colours used
were for
> impact, once again to assist players find what they want and thus
speed the
> game up for them.
>
> Except for a couple of South American countries, virtually all the
navies
> were done. Where possible as many variations of a class or an
individual
> ship were provided, thus enabling players to use them for any
period of WW2.
> With some navies that mean doing all the ships and all the ships
several
> times. With the huge navies such as the USN in WW2 that was not
always
> possible. Instead I tried to provide every possible variation my
research
> could find. Even so the US file is huge, as was the British RN. It
took two
> years to do them all, and it required a seven days a week
commitment at
> first. Later I dropped it to five days a week because the task was
becoming
> too overwhelming.
>
> I don't know if the ODGW site mentions it. But the logs are also
done in a
> manner that will help you sort them out, should you have a whole
group of
> cards get mixed up. That is why border colours vary. It is also why
> distinctive deck colours are used, and variations between classes.
Thus it
> was my hope that when used on the tabletop the players would not
have too
> much trouble telling various classes of the same nation from each
other. My
> testers also helped on that, for which I am very grateful.
>
>  
> Mal Wright
> Non-torsii subligarium
> (Dont get your knickers in a twist)
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Andy Siviter
> Date: 9/01/2009 1:26:30 AM
> To: GenQuarters@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [GenQuarters] Re: Couple of Quick GQ3 Questions
>
> Thank you Mal.
>
> Does that mean the use of the bold outline boxes was an error, or
was
> it used to differentiate between the 5.9's and the 4.1's?
> (for me personally, 2 different sizes of thin outline boxes would
> have done that better).
>
> Btw, brilliant job on the deluxe ship logs, the amount work that
> saves for later war scenarios, especially where ships vs aircraft
or
> subs apply.
> I'll look forward to the US and Japanese ones.
>
> regards,
>
> Andy
>
> --- In GenQuarters@yahoogroups.com, "Mal Wright (Gallopingjack)"
> <mgwright@> wrote:
> >
> > The lack of Armour for the 5.9" guns on pocket battleships is
> because they
> > only had gun shields, not turrets.
> >
> >  
> > Mal Wright
> > Non-torsii subligarium
> > (Dont get your knickers in a twist)
> > -------Original Message-------
> >
> > From: Andy Siviter
> > Date: 8/01/2009 9:59:22 PM
> > To: GenQuarters@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [GenQuarters] Couple of Quick GQ3 Questions
> >
> > having finally gotten my games room back, I have finally been
able
> to
> > play the GQ3 I bought as soon as came out.
> > So far it seems everything I hoped it would be :)
> >
> > 2 points came to my notice concerning secondary batteries on the
> > ships logs.
> >
> > Firstly the German pocket battleships show armoured (thicker
> outline)
> > boxes on the display, but no smaller font armour factor.
> > Which is correct? I assume the 5.9" guns were armoured to a
degree
> > and the 4.1" not as for the later German capital ships, but what
is
> > their armour value?
> >
> > Secondly, the later US battleships seem to show the reverse -
they
> > list an armour value for the 5" DP guns, but the boxes on the
ships
> > log appear to be the unarmoured (thin outline) type.
> >
> > I purchased the deluxe ship logs, and noticed the Pocket
> battleships
> > were still without an armour value the the 5.9" guns.
> >
> > Hopefully one or more of you "old campaigners" will have already
> > noticed and resolved these issues :)
> >
> > Thanks for your help,
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>