By and large I like the set list, it doesn't have everything I want and it has a few things I don't but I think it does a good job of compromising on the varying views of the community expressed throughout the process. There are a lot of units on here I didn't know I wanted until now and I especially like the two proposed neutrals. I'd be willing to move forward with that set list as is.
I like the direction you're going with the starters and admirals. Again you have managed to find a compromise on the competing views of the community expressed here and elsewhere. My comment would be I want more in those sets. I'd like way more admirals to start with and I'd like the starter set to encompass more aspects of the game, like subs, torpedo boats, patrol bombers, etc.
Do you envision starters and admirals as being a part of the same development and printing of the full deck or two separate projects?
Short answer, yes.
My approach to all of this is on the basis of community as whole involvement/representation. Multiple teams, multiple objectives to me are a recipe for problems. If youve looked at my set g proposal, im hoping to have steady progression through the process. The team acting as QC and to keep us focused. Long Answer, yes - too many cooks spoil the broth
Edit- re printing. Im anticipating a digital release. Simply because of the financial burdens bourne by members of the community to get printing done. However, i would aim to develop set+starter in way that is compatible with printing if that changes
That said, its not unreasonable to get a clear set of admiral card parameters set and agreed. So people can use those guidelines themselves for homebrews ect.
I totally agree that we shouldn't have two teams working this simultaneously, I just wasn't sure if you intended them to be done as one project or one after the next. Either way you have my full support and help if needed.
Navypedia lists i hsien instead of yat sen. But same ship.
Mtbs, 2 reasons Newer, class unlimited.
The destroyers they had were over 30 years old and there were only 2. The 3rd was wrecked in the 20s. The chinese fleet had mutiple flotillas of mtbs and the seem to have put up a fight, more so than the bigger ships
I totally agree that we shouldn't have two teams working this simultaneously, I just wasn't sure if you intended them to be done as one project or one after the next. Either way you have my full support and help if needed.
I think the starter is a pretty valuable starting point.
That said, a protracted development period isnt good either
Ocean was proposed in 1944. The au governmemt was hoping theyd be a gift from the uk. But didnt work out Sydney and melbourne were purchased in 1946 or 7 and sydney was deliver a year later. Melbourne was rebuilt and delivered later.
Wasted slots for me are things that only make it in because theyre on a class list in conways ect. When ships with different characteristics miss out