I must admit that I've rather caught the YouTube 'bug', and I am really enjoying putting together videos to upload to the Wargaming Miscellany channel!
The latest is the next instalment in the story of the Franco-Prussian War of 1810, and covers the twin Battles of the Northern Frontier. Because it covers two battles, it lasts just over twelve minutes, but I hope that it isn't too long. (I have been told that five minutes is the average time viewers will spend watching a YouTube video.)
I have scheduled the latest video to upload at 10.00am this morning ... and it should be available to watch by the time you read this blog post.
The video can be seen using this link.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteThe orbats for each side are helpful. Something to think about when photographing future battles might be including flags on each unit (subject to them being period appropriate) to make identification of units even easier.
Whether to describe the events in your commentary in game terms (the Prussian Guard lost 1 Strength Point) or real life ones (the Prussian Guard suffered significant casualties) is very much a matter of personal taste, so your choice. But - at the risk of lengthening the commentary - you could do both, for example:
'The Prussian Guard suffered significant casualties; that is, a loss of one Strength Point.'
The one thing I would not say is to describe artillery or musketry that did not result in a Strength Point loss as 'missing' its target. That sounds too much like a skirmish between individual soldiers. In the context of a battle, failure to convert a 'hit' into a Strength Point loss means that the fire caused only slight or negligible casualties - not enough to affect the morale or combat effectiveness of the target - so had no appreciable effect, rather than that every shot missed its target, which would be most unlikely.
Best wishes,
Arthur
Arthur1815 (Arthur),
DeleteThanks very much for the very helpful suggestions. I will try to incorporate them as and when I can. I think that the resulting videos will be better than the current ones I have produced.
That's not to say that I'm unhappy with the videos I have made to date, but they were very much a product of me being on a steep-ish learning curve. I've learned so much in a very short time, and I fully expect that if I carry on making videos, they will get a lot better over the next few months.
All the best,
Bob
Another enjoyable video, it seems like you're getting some momentum with the project. By way of hopefully constructive commentary, I agree with Arthur in that I wouldn't say shooting units missed, rather the fire was ineffective. Also, the pacing of your photo updates was I think a little off. Several times during the video you described actions that were not supported by the photo as the update came after you finished describing the action. I think this was a little confusing, I would consider advancing the photos before or during the description of the action. I'm looking forward to the next installment.
ReplyDeleteMark Cordone,
DeleteChers! Thanks for your very helpful suggestions. The problem with the photos and the narrative is that I am relying on notes I took some time ago, and I’m having to work backwards to try to tie everything together … not always as successfully as I would like.
This has been a steep learning curve for me, and I hope that each video is better than its predecessor. With luck, the next one will be ready to be uploaded at some point over the weekend.
All the best,
Bob
PS. Producing these videos has reminded me just how effective the 3 x 3 FPPW rules are, especially if one wants to fight campaigns.
I would make a couple suggestions regarding the visuals.
ReplyDeleteYour pix are great and very consistent.
You talk about the actions of a turn but there's no visual indication of what's going on. You could add cotton wool for units firing or maybe instead use superimposed arrows showing who is firing and what their target is. Add a little visual feedback too for units that take hits. There's a lot of consideration given to visual feedback in action games and a little in your videos would go a long way. Maybe you could put the unit's SP in a small square for one side and in a small circle for the other. Nothing that blocks the view, just a little white shape with the unit's SP in the corner of the space superimposed over the photo.
No need for sound effects, flashy transitions or animation. Let's not make this into a lieutenant's power point presentation! It might be worth it to add a little music at what is called "bed level". This is -20dB, or just quiet enough so you, the speaker, aren't competing with the music but the music fills in gaps of silence. There's lots of royalty free music available out there. I think YouTube even has a channel devoted to it. Find something suitably martial, record it and you're set. I'd love to volunteer my help if you'd have it.
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteThanks very much for your suggestions. I am using photos that I took some time ago, but if I was starting from scratch, I's like to include some of the ideas you include in your comment.
I had not considered adding any sort of soundtrack as I thought that it might be too intrusive. I did add some to a couple of the videos on my personal YouTube channel, but those videos have no voice overs. This is certainly something that I will look into.
Thanks again for your helpful suggestions.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteI am very glad that things are beginning to look up for you. I find the point that Arthur made above about using the words "hit" or "miss" to describe combat between two units utterly fascinating. I have often used such words even to describe two units attacking each other in melee. One issue is that these words are so short and useful and applicable in terms of the game mechanics, although I agree they are less useful in picturing an engagement between sometimes a considerable number of troops. I wonder if you have any suggestions for other words that could be used in their place?
All the very best,
Steve
Steve,
DeleteLooking back at my written battle reports on my blog and in my books, I have tended to use 'miss' for artillery fire and 'ineffective' for gunfire. However, my usage is somewhat inconsistent and I really ought to find some expressions that convey the same message without being too repetitive.
All the best,
Bob
Crumbs Bob ! 3?!? I best get to watching before I’ve got a whole list to catch up on !!!
ReplyDeleteDemitri Ioannou,
DeleteYou'd better hurry! The next installment will be following soon!
All the best,
Bob