RE: South Pacific (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports



Message


Admiral Mitscher -> RE: South Pacific (11/14/2012 4:04:59 AM)

Yamato hugger.... CV 2 is Yamato hugger, it all makes sense now. I crossed swords with Yamato hugger in 2007 or 2008 under an old login, Tiger_cat I think over Fiji. Basically he was saying the same sort of rhetoric, that his philosophy on the game was correct and all others were wrong. That any mechanism that could be used to win the game was okay, playing the game with the spirit of gamesmanship was wrong and soft.




BBfanboy -> RE: South Pacific (11/14/2012 5:22:35 AM)

Whoa folks - too much old baggage being brought into this discussion! It appears past disagreements have not settled to the "agree to disagree" level.
Fair 'nuf - everyone has their own perception of things and what happened when, which morphs with time.

What I am reading here is that rroberson has often admitted where he made mistakes, including the tactical one such as having the Chinese attack in open terrain. He may not have the data available to be able to provide the list of units he bought and where he assigned them - not everyone keeps old turn files or uses Tracker. CV2's assumption that he is not providing the list because he somehow cheated is premature - and people colour their judgement of other people's behaviour by what they would do themselves.

Naming names and making accusations of others is not a good way to defend your own actions. All you need do is state clearly what you did and that you consider it fair play. If your opponent can accept that, the game goes on. If not, a compromise or a friendly parting is called for. Expectations are the victim here.

BTW CV2, I support your contention that paratroops may have been dropped by Mavis aircraft - I watched a documentary showing OSS agents dropping from a bomber via a 3-foot wide hole. The arcraft was not designed to be a transport but it operated as one, and it is conceivable that on the other side, a Mavis hatch could have been opened in flight. What a nice AA target though!




CV 2 -> RE: South Pacific (11/14/2012 3:36:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Elf wasnt on the land team. Elf also said once that changing the HQ of the 2nd air div releasing all the air units in Manchuria was working as intended once, then changed his tune on that as well. I was banned (for a month) on Yamato hugger for proving the Elf was lying on the board by posting quotes from the dev forum on the rational for the admin stacking rules in the air base stacking rules. He lies and reverses course at the drop of a hat. And I have proven it before. That dead horse wont be addressed any more. So saying the word "Elf" in reference to devs is laughable.

And who Blackhorse was on the dev team is beyond me. Dont recall him ever posting anything on the dev forum. Michael was the driving force behind the land stuff. Treespider was also. Tree and I played countless games against each other in development. And as I said, I used this changing HQ thing back then (and changing base commands also). So if it wasnt intended to be that way, it WOULD have been changed.

And as I said, the "fix" for this is so easy that too is laughable, if indeed it was "intended" to be that way. So again, spare me the "thats the way it was intended" speech. I was there. I know what was intended.




I didn't have to be present during testing, I've witnessed JWE, Don, Ian and Blackhorse all refute your claims about HQ moves in an effort to circumvent the PP system that's all I need to see.

You were banned for breaking the NDA which you agreed. You have proven giving another person your word means nothing if you get the urge to go in another direction.


Here's an interesting post by

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

I've seen it and witpqs has seen it. If you doubt it, send a PM to Elf and ask him. He designed it.


Well, not exactly. The Japanese Land OOB for the AE was designed by Joe Wilkerson and me. Don't know about any statement from Ian (Elf) about this, but if he gave any statement, he most likely only referred to the technical effects (as the manual does).

To end any speculations about our (the development team) intentions: We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands. Actually we even did some steps to prevent this especially with regard to Kwantung Army (to prevent such things 2nd Area Army does not start under Kwantung - as it historically did - and 20th Army remains permanently restricted and renames to 34th Army while historically 20th Army (HQ) moved to China in 1944 and was replaced by 34th Army in Kwantung Army). Seems tha we did not consider Air HQ's then. The 2nd Air Division is just a loophole and ostensibly not even our Beta testers realized this during the testing.

However, you've bought the game and you can do with it what you want. Anyway, it is not up to us (the developers) to decide what is 'gamey' and what is not or to criticize what you or others do with the game.

K



Should anyone be surprised you didn't offer a rebuttal?




I will say it one more time.

Hopefully you get it this time.

There is no reason to make 14th, 15th, 16th, ect army HQs changeable if not to allow them to change to Kwantung, China, or Japan. The only other choices are 4th fleet, 5th fleet, or SE fleet. So if they didnt intend for them to be able to change to an unrestricted command, why are they able to change commands at all?

And what about the allied side of the coin? Why do they have unrestricted commands within their resticted HQs? As has been said countless times, good for the goose.... But then, I guess this ONLY applies if it HELPS the allies. If it works AGAINST them, its poppycock.

And no, I didnt break the NDA. I was banned supposedly for "trolling". Which if you read the thread that actually GOT me banned, it was Elf that was in fact doing the trolling. But I was stupid and bit. I proved Elf lied. He did it again with the 2nd air div thing. He said specifically that it WAS working as intended (releasing all the Manchurian air) which is actually in direct contrast to what you see above.

Don has been pissed at me ever since I insisted they make the TF options (direct, safe, safer, ect) a default. He adamantly opposed it. He wanted the default to be Safer and that was it. If you wanted anything other than that, you had to change each TF individually. I talked Joe into taking a vote, and it passed and was put in as you see it now. Ever since that day, everything I do is evil in Dons and JWEs eyes, so I pretty much just ignore them. That wasnt the only case where we knocked heads. TF retreat directions, reacting to enemy TFs, the list goes on. Most of what was done to improve the naval stuff (from the original which you never saw) was by my hand. And Don resented it. Simple as that.

I was a tester early on. I left because they were constantly bickering over the most minor BS stuff. The straw that broke my back was the number of P-40s on one of the transports enroute to Oz on Dec 7th. They argued back and forth on that for 3-4 days. Almost a year later Joe called me up on the phone and asked me to come back. He wanted me because he knew I would stand up for what I believed in and not knuckle under to pressure.

Thats exactly WHY I was a tester. Because I wouldnt back down when I felt I was right, and this is just such a case. If it wasnt working as intended, then an easy fix is to make the HQs not changeable. I said the same thing YEARS ago, before Michaels tinkering. And yet it remains. Michael is the final word on it. Not Elf, not Joe, not Kereguelen, not Blackhorse, not Don, not JWE .....

And I havent heard Michael say it is not working as intended. Have you?




CV 2 -> RE: South Pacific (11/14/2012 3:48:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

BTW CV2, I support your contention that paratroops may have been dropped by Mavis aircraft - I watched a documentary showing OSS agents dropping from a bomber via a 3-foot wide hole. The arcraft was not designed to be a transport but it operated as one, and it is conceivable that on the other side, a Mavis hatch could have been opened in flight. What a nice AA target though!


I didnt use Mavis seaplanes. I used Mavis L transports.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/H/6/H6K_Mavis.htm

Note the "varints" at the bottom:
Variants The -L designates unarmed transport versions of the Mavis, with room for 18 passengers

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/-/C-47_Skytrain.htm
12 paratroopers is 1 "stick" in a C-47 transport plane which lists 28 troops as cargo. So the 18 in a Mavis L would certainly be enough to transport a 9 man Jap Para squad.

The Tina was nothing more than a Nell with the guns removed and a door added, and they were used to drop the paras into Malaya in the opening attacks. You really should do your research before you try to poke fun at someone. But I have the advantage of being a part of the 82nd airborne, 1st Ranger company, and assigned as an instructor at the parachute school, ranger camp, and SF training center at Ft. Benning for 3 years (I also have a combat drop to my credit, although Granda wasnt much of a "combat" drop). So I know a little bit about para operations, what was done, and what was and was not possible.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/L/3/L3Y_Tina.htm




CV 2 -> RE: South Pacific (11/14/2012 3:50:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral Mitscher

Yamato hugger.... CV 2 is Yamato hugger, it all makes sense now. I crossed swords with Yamato hugger in 2007 or 2008 under an old login, Tiger_cat I think over Fiji. Basically he was saying the same sort of rhetoric, that his philosophy on the game was correct and all others were wrong. That any mechanism that could be used to win the game was okay, playing the game with the spirit of gamesmanship was wrong and soft.


Who are you and why should I care and what has this got to do with the price of tea in China?




rroberson -> RE: South Pacific (11/14/2012 5:35:29 PM)

still at this I see.

Let it go dude. Winning an argument on the internet AND a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

and as far as accusing me of cheating? Really? Now you are just letting your ego in the way.




SuluSea -> RE: South Pacific (11/14/2012 6:24:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Elf wasnt on the land team. Elf also said once that changing the HQ of the 2nd air div releasing all the air units in Manchuria was working as intended once, then changed his tune on that as well. I was banned (for a month) on Yamato hugger for proving the Elf was lying on the board by posting quotes from the dev forum on the rational for the admin stacking rules in the air base stacking rules. He lies and reverses course at the drop of a hat. And I have proven it before. That dead horse wont be addressed any more. So saying the word "Elf" in reference to devs is laughable.

And who Blackhorse was on the dev team is beyond me. Dont recall him ever posting anything on the dev forum. Michael was the driving force behind the land stuff. Treespider was also. Tree and I played countless games against each other in development. And as I said, I used this changing HQ thing back then (and changing base commands also). So if it wasnt intended to be that way, it WOULD have been changed.

And as I said, the "fix" for this is so easy that too is laughable, if indeed it was "intended" to be that way. So again, spare me the "thats the way it was intended" speech. I was there. I know what was intended.




I didn't have to be present during testing, I've witnessed JWE, Don, Ian and Blackhorse all refute your claims about HQ moves in an effort to circumvent the PP system that's all I need to see.

You were banned for breaking the NDA which you agreed. You have proven giving another person your word means nothing if you get the urge to go in another direction.


Here's an interesting post by

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

I've seen it and witpqs has seen it. If you doubt it, send a PM to Elf and ask him. He designed it.


Well, not exactly. The Japanese Land OOB for the AE was designed by Joe Wilkerson and me. Don't know about any statement from Ian (Elf) about this, but if he gave any statement, he most likely only referred to the technical effects (as the manual does).

To end any speculations about our (the development team) intentions: We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands. Actually we even did some steps to prevent this especially with regard to Kwantung Army (to prevent such things 2nd Area Army does not start under Kwantung - as it historically did - and 20th Army remains permanently restricted and renames to 34th Army while historically 20th Army (HQ) moved to China in 1944 and was replaced by 34th Army in Kwantung Army). Seems tha we did not consider Air HQ's then. The 2nd Air Division is just a loophole and ostensibly not even our Beta testers realized this during the testing.

However, you've bought the game and you can do with it what you want. Anyway, it is not up to us (the developers) to decide what is 'gamey' and what is not or to criticize what you or others do with the game.

K



Should anyone be surprised you didn't offer a rebuttal?




I will say it one more time.

Hopefully you get it this time.

There is no reason to make 14th, 15th, 16th, ect army HQs changeable if not to allow them to change to Kwantung, China, or Japan. The only other choices are 4th fleet, 5th fleet, or SE fleet. So if they didnt intend for them to be able to change to an unrestricted command, why are they able to change commands at all?

And what about the allied side of the coin? Why do they have unrestricted commands within their resticted HQs? As has been said countless times, good for the goose.... But then, I guess this ONLY applies if it HELPS the allies. If it works AGAINST them, its poppycock.

And no, I didnt break the NDA. I was banned supposedly for "trolling". Which if you read the thread that actually GOT me banned, it was Elf that was in fact doing the trolling. But I was stupid and bit. I proved Elf lied. He did it again with the 2nd air div thing. He said specifically that it WAS working as intended (releasing all the Manchurian air) which is actually in direct contrast to what you see above.

Don has been pissed at me ever since I insisted they make the TF options (direct, safe, safer, ect) a default. He adamantly opposed it. He wanted the default to be Safer and that was it. If you wanted anything other than that, you had to change each TF individually. I talked Joe into taking a vote, and it passed and was put in as you see it now. Ever since that day, everything I do is evil in Dons and JWEs eyes, so I pretty much just ignore them. That wasnt the only case where we knocked heads. TF retreat directions, reacting to enemy TFs, the list goes on. Most of what was done to improve the naval stuff (from the original which you never saw) was by my hand. And Don resented it. Simple as that.

I was a tester early on. I left because they were constantly bickering over the most minor BS stuff. The straw that broke my back was the number of P-40s on one of the transports enroute to Oz on Dec 7th. They argued back and forth on that for 3-4 days. Almost a year later Joe called me up on the phone and asked me to come back. He wanted me because he knew I would stand up for what I believed in and not knuckle under to pressure.

Thats exactly WHY I was a tester. Because I wouldnt back down when I felt I was right, and this is just such a case. If it wasnt working as intended, then an easy fix is to make the HQs not changeable. I said the same thing YEARS ago, before Michaels tinkering. And yet it remains. Michael is the final word on it. Not Elf, not Joe, not Kereguelen, not Blackhorse, not Don, not JWE .....

And I havent heard Michael say it is not working as intended. Have you?




I'll highlite what Kereguelen stated.

quote:

We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands.


I think most would agree Keregeun meant PP's instead of VPs giving the content of the thread in which this appeared.



That's all I need to see. You were a tester he was on the development side. I think I'll trust what he has publicly written.


The way I understood it you were banned for breaking the NDA.


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

You guys realize YH was banned for breach of trust after posting Dev Forum conversations here on this forum for all to see right?



I think going forward it's safe to say we disagree. Your claims have been refuted any number of times in numerous threads by folks on the developmental side.

That's good enough for me.








BBfanboy -> RE: South Pacific (11/14/2012 8:03:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

BTW CV2, I support your contention that paratroops may have been dropped by Mavis aircraft - I watched a documentary showing OSS agents dropping from a bomber via a 3-foot wide hole. The arcraft was not designed to be a transport but it operated as one, and it is conceivable that on the other side, a Mavis hatch could have been opened in flight. What a nice AA target though!


I didnt use Mavis seaplanes. I used Mavis L transports.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/H/6/H6K_Mavis.htm

Note the "varints" at the bottom:
Variants The -L designates unarmed transport versions of the Mavis, with room for 18 passengers

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/-/C-47_Skytrain.htm
12 paratroopers is 1 "stick" in a C-47 transport plane which lists 28 troops as cargo. So the 18 in a Mavis L would certainly be enough to transport a 9 man Jap Para squad.

The Tina was nothing more than a Nell with the guns removed and a door added, and they were used to drop the paras into Malaya in the opening attacks. You really should do your research before you try to poke fun at someone. But I have the advantage of being a part of the 82nd airborne, 1st Ranger company, and assigned as an instructor at the parachute school, ranger camp, and SF training center at Ft. Benning for 3 years (I also have a combat drop to my credit, although Granda wasnt much of a "combat" drop). So I know a little bit about para operations, what was done, and what was and was not possible.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/L/3/L3Y_Tina.htm


Whoa - I was supporting one of your arguments and you think I was poking fun? I think you are projecting your personality to me - I do not like to belittle people or see them belittled. I was trying to say I see your point and I would accept it if I were your opponent.

As for your stuff above, if a plane takes off from water it is a seaplane. I know you meant the transport variant and that is what I meant too.
My mention of OSS drops from allied bombers was meant to illustrate that all that is necessary for the drop is a hatch that can be opened in flight. No argument from me about the lift capacity of the Mavis-L and the possibility of using it for para drops. Hope that clears it up.

As for the rest - your style of play and motives for the game were different from your opponent, so it just wasn't working for both sides. Best to let it go as a match that didn't gel.




CV 2 -> RE: South Pacific (11/15/2012 1:12:55 AM)


Yeah, I read that part when it wasnt big. Anything Elf has ever said is pretty much BS (proven), so I give that as much credence as, well say I have zero respect for him and leave it at that. I guess I typed too many words for you to have read this part though:

quote:


If it wasnt working as intended, then an easy fix is to make the HQs not changeable. I said the same thing YEARS ago, before Michaels tinkering. And yet it remains. Michael is the final word on it. Not Elf, not Joe, not Kereguelen, not Blackhorse, not Don, not JWE .....

And I havent heard Michael say it is not working as intended. Have you?




obvert -> RE: South Pacific (11/15/2012 10:33:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2


Yeah, I read that part when it wasnt big. Anything Elf has ever said is pretty much BS (proven), so I give that as much credence as, well say I have zero respect for him and leave it at that. I guess I typed too many words for you to have read this part though:

quote:


If it wasnt working as intended, then an easy fix is to make the HQs not changeable. I said the same thing YEARS ago, before Michaels tinkering. And yet it remains. Michael is the final word on it. Not Elf, not Joe, not Kereguelen, not Blackhorse, not Don, not JWE .....

And I havent heard Michael say it is not working as intended. Have you?



You seem very intent on your own interpretation of this possibility. One simple question. If it was intended for the player to be able to purchase units more cheaply then why didn't the 'price' just get lowered? Why the extra work-around with changing multiple HQs as you advocate?

Another question; why is this so necessary for you to argue for when it doesn't seem to be something any other players are arguing for? It is not integral to a Japanese or an Allied game to have units cheaper than their stated value. Plenty of players have played without this luxury. In my game PPs are valuable because I can't buy what I want all of the time. I'm in 9/43 and still haven't bought out all of the stuff over the AV limit in Manchuria. I trust the integrity of my opponent that he is also buying units at full price and thus has a similar set of tough decisions in front of him. This seems to simulate at least in a small way the types of decisions and negotiations behind the scenes about where these troops went in reality.

Obviously if you want to use the game even farther outside of this semi-realistic framework that's great, just make sure your opponent is on the same page early on. Then its no problem. Just don't assume everyone does or should accept this in the same way that you do and we're all okay.




CV 2 -> RE: South Pacific (11/15/2012 3:41:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2


Yeah, I read that part when it wasnt big. Anything Elf has ever said is pretty much BS (proven), so I give that as much credence as, well say I have zero respect for him and leave it at that. I guess I typed too many words for you to have read this part though:

quote:


If it wasnt working as intended, then an easy fix is to make the HQs not changeable. I said the same thing YEARS ago, before Michaels tinkering. And yet it remains. Michael is the final word on it. Not Elf, not Joe, not Kereguelen, not Blackhorse, not Don, not JWE .....

And I havent heard Michael say it is not working as intended. Have you?



You seem very intent on your own interpretation of this possibility. One simple question. If it was intended for the player to be able to purchase units more cheaply then why didn't the 'price' just get lowered? Why the extra work-around with changing multiple HQs as you advocate?

Another question; why is this so necessary for you to argue for when it doesn't seem to be something any other players are arguing for? It is not integral to a Japanese or an Allied game to have units cheaper than their stated value. Plenty of players have played without this luxury. In my game PPs are valuable because I can't buy what I want all of the time. I'm in 9/43 and still haven't bought out all of the stuff over the AV limit in Manchuria. I trust the integrity of my opponent that he is also buying units at full price and thus has a similar set of tough decisions in front of him. This seems to simulate at least in a small way the types of decisions and negotiations behind the scenes about where these troops went in reality.

Obviously if you want to use the game even farther outside of this semi-realistic framework that's great, just make sure your opponent is on the same page early on. Then its no problem. Just don't assume everyone does or should accept this in the same way that you do and we're all okay.


Same thing for the allies in India. That is assuming they dont want to attach their ground units to air HQs.

What I personally do, since everyone thinks Im just abusing the system (never mind the fact that as I already pointed out I havent released units to combat before their full price release dates) is the fact that after I release the units I intend to release, I move the HQs again, and start placing these units into other army HQs.

For example: I put 16th army into General Defense (Japan) early on. Somewhere along the line in late 42 when I have the PPs available, I transfer 52nd, 53rd, and 54th divs into it. Later when 19th army HQ is available (Jan 43) I transfer 16th army to 2nd area army. Then transfer the 3 divs to 19th army for 25% (meaning their total is now 50%).

I shift units into army commands that operate together. In order to do this at full price, the game would have to get into 1948.

I dont happen to think this is too realistic. Frankly I dont care if anyone else happens to think that it is. The simple truth is, you can NOT organize your forces the way they were historically organized paying full price for them. One of the reasons my attacks were so successful in China, and failed at places like Kodiak was simply because I had the unit operating as a unit in China, where as in Kodiak the 1st div is under 25th army, and 2nd div is under 16th army and the army HQs are in Java and Burma. I had to bring up the 5th div to help them out. It took 3 divs to kill 1 regiment because of army organization. Whereas in China I killed a dozen enemy corps with 4 divs and 2 bdes. Why? Because they were all in the same army, with their army HQ present, and their upper command HQ within command range. This affects combat A LOT whether people believe it or not.

I use the 25% to get my forces aligned in a historical manner. They fight better if they operate as a unit. And as I said, you simply can NOT do it paying full price to shift a unit through 2 or 3 commands.

This means moving divs to the HQs you want them in and HQs into the HQs you want them in. Example 16th army and 19th army under 2nd area army, under Southern Army. And not only divisions. Artillery is EXPENSIVE relative to its effect. AA is cheap (thank God), and base forces arent too outrageous. You cant make all the moves you need to make paying full price if you want a semblance of a historical deployment. Simple as that.




SuluSea -> RE: South Pacific (11/15/2012 5:58:29 PM)

......................................

You using the system only to use forces in an historical manner??[image]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6jUc3bQV2Rw/Tc3L30KXtxI/AAAAAAAAAMc/MVSGSl3HL_c/s1600/tumblr_lkzitlavvk1qeypkd.gif[/image]


I officially give up/

Later.





CV 2 -> RE: South Pacific (11/16/2012 12:37:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

......................................

You using the system only to use forces in an historical manner??

I officially give up/

Later.




Probably a good idea. Again, the units and the dates I sent into battle:

Paying "full price" for a division means you can get about 1 a month. Look again at when I sent released units into battle:
14th div in Feb 42 (2 months in).
8th and 9th divs in Apr 42 (4 months in).
1st div in Jul 42 (7 months in).
20th in Aug 42 (8 months in).
24th in Oct 42 (10 months in).

Meanwhile in the background I was organizing my defenses and shifting armys. Could using this be abused? Sure, it COULD be. Did I? Absolutely not. Japs can release a division every 9-10 days and toss them into the fray if they wanted to abuse the system. I didnt abuse the system. Why? Because as I have already said, I use it for a historical reorganization of my troops.

And OH MY GOD shame on me for tying to be historical in my deployments!!!!!!!

And may I point out that time and time again, I have asked what units allied players release THEIR units to, if they pay "full price" and not one of you has been man enough to admit you do not pay "full price". I know you do not pay full price. You'd be stupid to when you dont have to.




SuluSea -> RE: South Pacific (11/16/2012 2:12:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2
And may I point out that time and time again, I have asked what units allied players release THEIR units to, if they pay "full price" and not one of you has been man enough to admit you do not pay "full price". I know you do not pay full price. You'd be stupid to when you dont have to.


I prefer to play the Japanese side my friend and don't look for loopholes to bypass paying full price. [:D]



In the past when I've played the Allied side in PBEMs in scenario 1 I've always used self imposed house rules outside of the already negotiated ones..

No RN ships in the Pacific other than historical in their same time frame.
No RAF planes in China.
No Marines other than their historical area of operations.
No magical reinforcement of the Luzon forces by use of outside supply.

To name some that come to mind immediately. My game play would suffer a little but I always felt giving the other side a fair shake was more important than winning at all costs.













CV 2 -> RE: South Pacific (11/16/2012 3:11:56 AM)

As do I -
No sac bombing of China by either side - If I wanted to "win at all costs" the best way is to bomb the Chinese factories and kill China.
No bombing of Chinese ground units by more than 1 squadron per hex (more of a movement interdiction than killing troops). Same notation.
No 4E bombers on naval attack. PERIOD.
My paras I use in a historical manner.
I dont use my PAs for torpedo attacks.

I tend to match my opponents "gamyness". If they play a "clean" game, so do I. If they abuse the system, I do as well. Note Robs running Chinese units well into my rear where they had no hope of doing anything. I matched this by sending my armor unit to cut the rails to western Oz.

Tit for tat. Again, look at when I committed my units to battle. Nothing "gamey" about that. But he was attempting to do "Watchtower" in Jan 42 moving marines into Guadalcanal. So I responded by moving some of my uncommitted released troops into the Solomons (Munda, Shortlands, ect) to prevent him from doing any gamey moves like that in this area. I didnt hit Alaska until he started improving Adak. I did it to secure my flank. Simple as that. Western Oz, same deal. Carrier raids by the Brits caused me to secure my southern flank by taking out Perth.

I play more of a historical game than ANYONE I have ever played, except Treespider...

There are more. So please, dont make the mistake of thinking that you are somehow Holier than Thou. Likewise, dont make the mistake of thinking I am a "win at all costs" type of person. Because you'd be wrong...




Alfred -> RE: South Pacific (11/16/2012 3:19:40 AM)

I pay full retail which clearly identifies me as a "stupid" player. To make my stupidity even more obvious, using hindsight, I did not realise that the call had gone out for "stupid" players to identify themselves as such.

I suppose if I really understood how the game operates and I were not stupid, I could pay the discount rate, keep the released units out of action until they could have been bought paying full retail, and in the interim, with all those saved PPs from not paying full retail, use them on subtle things which an opponent would not easily pick up on, such as changing leaders or base attachments.

If I could also plan for the future, I could use those extra PPs gained by not paying full retail, to resurrect destroyed units or change aircraft types. But nah I'm too "stupid" to think those things through.

I'm also "stupid" for having believed the devs (in a thread I quoted a few months back) when they said that sufficient PPs are received to unrestrict Allied units by their historical release dates to the frontlines. On reflection, perhaps not so much "stupid" as "naive" in believing the devs spoke truthfully, now that I am told they are untruthfull by an apparently authoritative source. Authoritative sources have no need to provide any primary source documents to back up their pronouncements, because let's face it, only a non-authoritative source needs to "prove" their credentials with primary sources.

Oh well, as us "stupid" players are few in number because apparently everbody does not do the stupid things I/we do, I will take solace in knowing that I belong to a very small, dare I say it, elite group of players.

Alfred




BBfanboy -> RE: South Pacific (11/16/2012 3:24:53 AM)

Seems like everyone has made all the points/claims and refutations that need to be made. Can we let this one die now?




rroberson -> RE: South Pacific (11/16/2012 6:14:48 PM)

quote:

Tit for tat. Again, look at when I committed my units to battle. Nothing "gamey" about that. But he was attempting to do "Watchtower" in Jan 42 moving marines into Guadalcanal. So I responded by moving some of my uncommitted released troops into the Solomons (Munda, Shortlands, ect) to prevent him from doing any gamey moves like that in this area. I didnt hit Alaska until he started improving Adak. I did it to secure my flank. Simple as that. Western Oz, same deal. Carrier raids by the Brits caused me to secure my southern flank by taking out Perth.


okay, i said i wouldnt say anything else because frankly this is beyond stupid. But now you are saying "I" am the gamey player.

That is beyond funny.

Seriously crawl back into your hole. You have been outed. No one believes you. You can continue to come here and justify your play style a thousand different ways. But no one believes you. You buy your units out early by bending the rules. You know it. I know it. And now everyone who plays this game knows it.

Good luck in your future endeavors, but drop it.




1EyedJacks -> RE: South Pacific (11/16/2012 7:57:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I pay full retail which clearly identifies me as a "stupid" player. To make my stupidity even more obvious, using hindsight, I did not realise that the call had gone out for "stupid" players to identify themselves as such.

Alfred


LMAO!!! I dribbled coffee on my keyboard - and I really-really hate to waste good coffee.






Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.515625E-02