Not sure it's a fair comparison, as on the first version, both dragon and lettering look like drafts only. If both were cleaned up with simpler lines, I think it would become a more difficult choice.
I do like the aurora in the background sky of the first logo; very "arctic". Maybe adding something of this sky to Aaron's dragon and text - and I think it would be worth incorporating into both the colour and black-and-white versions - and cleaning up the "wobbly" lettering as cowboyleland suggested could be the way forward?
Post by cowboyleland on Jul 20, 2015 7:00:59 GMT -9
Gotta be honest: I don't like it as well as the first. At first I thought it was because the letters are too hard to read. Then I thought "you can't read the Nike swoosh" so now I see it as two logos. You could decide to use either but they don't seem well tied together. The way "games" underlines the graphic in the first version ties them together. I watched a TED talk a little while ago about flag design. A good flag is distinctive 1"x2" at arms length and a child can draw it from memory. I think good logos are a bit like good flags.
It should be noted that every time I have been part of an organisation that is looking to choose or update their logo my ideas have always been voted down, so I guess I don't represent the short term majority view. In the long term, I stick to my signature line.
On the other hand, maybe it's the herd that is crazy.
I agree with cowboyleland. The second version's lettering looks messy. Can't help feeling that the curl on the lower part of the dragon's wing would be better incorporated into the name too - as the top of the "G", or even the "D", perhaps. There seems no connection between the two "features" on the second version otherwise, while the letters touching the dragon's wing in the first version also don't look right.
Post by cowboyleland on Jul 23, 2015 12:03:29 GMT -9
www.ted.com I think it started out as a bunch of smart people in the world taking 20min to tell each other what they were thinking about lately. Now it is a bit broader than that, but it is very cool. Check it out!
On the other hand, maybe it's the herd that is crazy.
Post by arcticdragongames on Sept 10, 2015 7:51:06 GMT -9
Play Test #44-47, AK Battle Brothers Con Demos
Gamers: Met some enthusiastic gamers at the con who had fun playing Tank Shock.
Me: I played with one less card than them to equal the playing field. Really wasn’t necessary as my incessant blather about the virtues of Return Fire, optimal use of terrain, etc. caused me to make some poorly thought out decisions, such as starting a game by moving two tank units right into range of the Anti-Tank Infantry and the Jagdpanther, LOL!
Medium: Tabletop, paper models.
Objective: Two scenarios were on the demo table. The small and simple scenario had 8 Partisan units with a Mortar in a village that was being raided by 4 Wehrmacht Cavalry units (yes, lots of cavalry forces were used in WWII) with 2 Elite Fallschirmjaeger units positioned as a blocking force at the other end of the village. Four people played this scenario. One of the four players took the time to play the big scenario with all the tanks, motorized infantry and Anti-Tank Guns.
Action Cards: The Action Cards were self-explanatory; the players did not need to read the rules to use the cards. The cards will have less text when graphic symbols are developed.
Mechanics, Terrain, etc.: The 2.5-D terrain was popular. The 2.5-D terrain made it intuitively obvious when line of sight was blocked kept the flow of the game moving. The simultaneous combat with Return Fire was welcomed as was the mechanic of the Defending player being allowed to play a React card when their units were fired on “This is like it is always my turn.” Drafting Action Cards vs. being stuck with random draws was also popular.
Sustain: This was the first con for Tank Shock demos. Will do more demos at more cons.
Post by arcticdragongames on Sept 20, 2015 21:07:46 GMT -9
Here is a draft of the Tank Shock "elevator pitch" that I will present to publishers and put on sell sheets. Do you have any recommendations? Thanks!
"Tank Shock is a card driven tabletop wargame. The cards feature images from WWII posters. Standee paper models are used for squads and platoons. There are many specialized types of infantry and there are tanks, tank hunters, armored cars and motorized troop transports that have thematic strengths and weaknesses and balanced point values. The mechanics are easy to use and simulate a wide range of challenging tactical decisions. Successful gameplay is based on drafting the best combination of Action Cards, using units to mutually support each other with fire and maneuver and playing the Action Cards with good timing. Combat is resolved simultaneously. The defending player has the option to react by playing a card from his hand that can improve his units’ survivability or lethality."
Last Edit: Sept 25, 2015 19:22:25 GMT -9 by arcticdragongames: cowboyleland made good recs.
Post by arcticdragongames on Mar 22, 2016 12:20:11 GMT -9
Just finished reading "Over the Abyss" by Colonel I.G. Starinov of the Red Army. Detailed first hand accounts of partisan/saboteur mine warfare in the Spanish Civil War and WWII.This book strongly validates the special abilities of the Partisan troop types in Tank Shock. When a Partisan unit eliminates an enemy unit, the opponent must discard an Action Card from his hand. This represents the ability of the Partisans to wage economic warfare by sabotaging resources and disrupting command & control. The Partisans also have to discard an extra Action Card in order to play any Support card. This represents their logistical limitations. Additionally, they only have a firing range of 2 hexes, vs. the 3 hex range of conventional Infantry. They are very effective in raids and ambushes but are very limited in sustained combat operations.
Wehrmacht digital image by Lucas Neves of CWF, Partisan image from juniorgeneral.org
Post by arcticdragongames on Jul 7, 2016 21:52:39 GMT -9
Made a self supporting building for a game we are play testing for another company but am liking the concept of elevated terrain so much that it will be added to Tank Shock. Initial thoughts for Building, Elevated: Armored Fighting Vehicles and Motorized Vehicles are plus 2 to hit by Infantry. Infantry are minus 2 to hit. The urban environment is armor restrictive terrain due to thinner armor topside and the elevation limitations of guns.
Vermin King: Not the style you are looking for, but try a search for 'paper theatre' or 'paper theater', and you will find a few pages of epinal figures. Not many, but I know there are a few
May 14, 2019 5:08:58 GMT -9
shep: Does anyone know where to find decent individual minis of late Roman Republic era civilians? From senator to slave, every mini would be great, as long as they are not legionaires or generals or other military (Praetorian Guard and Roman Vigiles excluded)
May 14, 2019 4:20:32 GMT -9
wyvern: Nah, just rewatched the 1931 Universal "Dracula" movies (the Lugosi one and the Spanish version)
May 1, 2019 12:20:34 GMT -9
Vermin King: did you do your bonfire?
Apr 30, 2019 10:08:38 GMT -9
woosh: also, where can i find cool ships and mechs? im looking particularly for any spider tanks or spider mechs. ive seen the site with all the mechwarrior papercrafts and ive made a couple of those but none of them are especially spider-like
Apr 7, 2019 12:38:49 GMT -9
woosh: ebbles sent me here when i asked about his ud41 utility dropship, and that hed seen a mod that had 4 engines, which id like to try
Apr 7, 2019 12:37:22 GMT -9
woosh: i was typing up a thread and it said it was too big. soooo whatever
Apr 7, 2019 12:36:03 GMT -9