RE: [SG2] Element Description Format - draft 0.5 - RFC

I agree. Very difficult to read and easy to get a grouping off. But some
good 
ideas. I would prefer a paragraph style:

Squad Type/Identifier  (Strength)		      
Armor/Mobility/Sensors
Teams: Quality/Leadership/Morale/Fatigue, #, W, FP/I
  1) QLMF, #, elements, Weapon, FirePower/Impact
  2) QLMF, #, elements, Weapon, FP/I
Notes:
  Anything not covered

So to Use some of the examples Tom gave:

Platoon Cmdr	Indv (1)
A/M/S: 3/6/-
Teams: Q/L/M/F, #, W, FP/I
  1) V1CR, 1, AAG, 3/4
Notes:
  Platoon Commander

GMS Team 1 (2)
A/M/S:	3/6/-
Teams: Q/L/M/F, #, W, FP/I
  1) R2CR, 1, GMS, 6/6
	   1, BAR, 3/3
Notes:
  #2 is ammo carrier for 1

Rifle Sq1 (8)
A/M/S: 3/6/-
Teams: Q/L/M/F, #, W, FP/I
  1) R1CR, 4, AAG, 3/4
  2) R2CR, 3, AAG, 3/4
	   1, GAW, 7/4
Notes:

Takes up a little more room, but is easier to read.

Disclaimer: I only play Stargrunt about once per year,
so weigh any comments appropriately.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
FTSR - Infantry Division:
http://www.ftsr.org/sg2/     
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jones, Tim [SMTP:tjones@adaptivebroadband.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 3:37 AM
> To:	'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'
> Subject:	[SG2] Element Description Format - draft 0.5 - RFC
> 
> The things in its favour are:
> 
> compactness
> 
> the things not in its favour are:
>  
> terrible usability
> not in keeping with the existing standard GZF
> 
> I would not use it in any area where people have to
> read it on-line or paper due to its hopeless usability. 
> So as a human readable format it fails.
> 
> For a PBEM format it would work for an automated system
> only, but why not use an existing standard rather than invent 
> a new one, bevity in an automated system is not a requirement, 
> ease of implementation is.
> 
> --
> Tim Jones
>