Digest Number 1016

[armybuilder at yahoogroup]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/IMSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, email

armybuilder-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 4 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. CAV AB File Update?
From: "siefertma" <siefertma@wi.rr.com>
2. Composition Group question
From: "jlmartin_excel_net" <jlmartin@wi.rr.com>
3. Re: Composition Group question
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
4. Re: Composition Group question
From: "John L. Martin" <jlmartin@wi.rr.com>


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:08:46 -0000
From: "siefertma" <siefertma@wi.rr.com>
Subject: CAV AB File Update?

Hey all:

I was curious if anyone was working on updating the CAV AB file with
info from Journal Of Recognition Vol 2?

Thanks
Mark A. Siefert



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 21:40:06 -0000
From: "jlmartin_excel_net" <jlmartin@wi.rr.com>
Subject: Composition Group question

I'm working on a file that has two composition groups for the
purposes of roster validation:

Special (<= 40%) of army size
Normal...which is everything else and has no restrictions

So my file puts the two composition buttons on the left side of the
AB screen and it works fine.

BUT...the Normal group has quite a long list and things don't look
very good.

There are subcategories I could use for Normal (Infantry, Cavalry,
etc.) and ideally I like buttons for the sub groups but they would
have to map back to the two main composition groups for validation.

Is such a thing possible?
TIA




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 19:26:55 -0800
From: Colen McAlister <colen@wolflair.com>
Subject: Re: Composition Group question

At 01:40 PM 11/3/2003, you wrote:
>I'm working on a file that has two composition groups for the
>purposes of roster validation:
>
>Special (<= 40%) of army size
>Normal...which is everything else and has no restrictions
>
>So my file puts the two composition buttons on the left side of the
>AB screen and it works fine.
>
>BUT...the Normal group has quite a long list and things don't look
>very good.
>
>There are subcategories I could use for Normal (Infantry, Cavalry,
>etc.) and ideally I like buttons for the sub groups but they would
>have to map back to the two main composition groups for validation.
>
>Is such a thing possible?

If 'everything else' has no restrictions, could you simply make 'Infantry',
'Cavalry', 'War Machines', 'Transforming Robots' etc groups of their own
and give them each no restrictions?


--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:14:21 -0600
From: "John L. Martin" <jlmartin@wi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Composition Group question

----- Original Message -----
From: "Colen McAlister" <colen@wolflair.com>
To: ab@support.wolflair.com
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: [AB] Composition Group question


>
> If 'everything else' has no restrictions, could you simply make
'Infantry',
> 'Cavalry', 'War Machines', 'Transforming Robots' etc groups of their own
> and give them each no restrictions?
>

Part of the problem with working on a file for a long time is the easy
solution escapes you. Doh!

I was worried that units like Paladins are special and also cavalry. I
wanted them listed under Cavalry rather than Special but now think better of
it since it would be more difficult for the user to know what was special
and what isn't

Thanks for the idea!
John
E-mail & WM: jlmartin@wi.rr.com
URL: http://home.wi.rr.com/jlmartin
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it."
Robert E. Lee





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/