Matrix Games Forums

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch! Hell is now available!War in the West Wacht am Rhein AAR Deal of the Week Panzer Corps: Allied Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 12/23/2011 8:20:41 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

Bah, Youre asking who will pay for it.... taxpayers will pay for it, they always pay for
other mistakes and bad moves. Its common way of solving the problems all around the world, not only in USA

_____________________________


(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 181
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/3/2012 11:10:09 PM   
rader


Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
A quiet set of turns recently. I think it's the clam before the storm. I think an invasion of somewhere -probably Honshu- is building up at Bihoro. Recon has consistenly reported ~174 (!) enemy LCUs there, along with hundreds of ships. Thre are also over a thousand allied fighters reported there, so we are watchign the situation for now. We should see if & when these units load on their transports because the number of troops at the base should go down. Then we'll know he's coming!!






Attachment (1)

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 182
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/3/2012 11:11:51 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5808
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
krupp,

Well I respect your right to hold a different opinion. My response is simply to note that no western system of justice has found the practice of having one person act as secret accuser, secret judge and jury ( again alone ) and then executioner ( again in secret ) without ever informing the accused that they are even being accused of doing anything wrong, nevermind allowing them to mount a defence as being a firm foundation for the practice of justice. What you are describing is a vigilante - someone who acts as accuser, judge, jury and executioner without external input - and vigilante's are rather renowned for getting things wrong and "executing" the wrong people.

As to your ability to judge whether I've given advice based on information I'm privileged to.... Well I'm not entirely sure that you using yourself as the sole barometer of what other people can infer from non-privileged advice is a valid approach. In short, just because you mightn't be able to draw conclusion x from input y doesn't mean that no-one else can. That's where public discussion and involving others before an accusation is made is useful as the more people involved the more correct information can be included in an assessment and the more likely it is to be correct.

With that said while I certainly don't agree that what you are doing in terms of secretly accusing, judging and then executing without even informing the accused of any "trial" has any of the necessary safeguards required to make sure your accusations and communications are actually warranted I do have to respect that you actually came forward and owned up to your conduct. It allows a discussion to occur and while I disagree with you I certainly accord you the right to your conclusion. I'd hope though that you'd be open to having your conclusions changed since as far as I'm concerned I've not used privileged information to advise others. In fact there are people on this forum who have PMed me privately seeking advice in their games who can tell you I turned them down precisely because I was advising the other side --- but you didn't know that since you never sought to check your conclusions with me or others who could give you different information.

The reality is that the vast majority of threads I post to are ones in which the AAR authors have specifically PMed me asking me to give them strategic advice. Most of the time my condition for doing that is that I do so publicly OR if they want to keep it private out of fears of FOW breaches from certain forum members that they'll acknowledge the advice at a later date if it is appropriate to do so ( which is precisely what Greyjoy did if you look at his posts after the Hokkaido landings). I don't believe that giving a lot of advice by PM without admitting it publicly is good practice as I think it promotes a lack of accountability. I therefore insist on that as a safeguard if I'm giving substantial advice. Minor points I'm happy to clarify without that rigamarole.

I happen to know many AAR authors are barraged with PMs ( since they've told me so while seeking my advice ) in which readers of the other side offer advice and I'd have significant concerns about those PMs breaching FOW and utilising privileged info. I think people who breach FOW are much more likely to utilise these deniable PMs than to post publicly in an AAR and I know for a fact that it goes on.... but you wouldn't know about that since you made your accusations and judgements secretly without ever discussing the issue.

Bottom line: I think you need to worry far more about those who seek to discuss strategy away from the public glare of AARs than those who do so publicly. I'd also point out that not even people on here who hate me would think I'm such an idiot as to ask so publicly for information which I'd then "leak" to GJ. My basic defence is that I'm not sufficiently moronic to do what you suggest. Anyways, enough of that....

I'll also note that whoever actually made the post to rader hasn't had the integrity to post publicly ( which, personally, I think says a lot about the quality of the accusation ). In my mind, and you are of course free to disagree, a person who makes secret accusations behind the scenes about another but won't do so publicly hasn't exactly demonstrated bona fides or unimpeachable intentions. After all I could run around PMing dozens of people all manner of crap about you krupp, it wouldn't make any of it true. The less true it was and the more in breach of forum etiquette the more likely I'd be to stick to the shadows while doing that. Only if I was actually being truthful would I be willing to come out publicly and make and defend the accusation, pinning my own reputation to the line ( as accusers must if they wish to be taken seriously ).

In future Krupp I'd ask you one favour... If you think I ( or anyone else is overstepping the line ) do us the courtesy of actually PMing us ( or posting publicly to the thread ) instead of secretly accusing us. You MIGHT learn facts which change your opinion of what's going on or, at the very least, you'd give the other person the opportunity to defend and/or think about and change their actions if they think you are right and/or change your mind if you realise your intended accusation is wrong ( and let's be honest, no-one has a monopoly on rightness so it is unlikely you are going to be right 100% of the time ) and, honestly, I am more than happy to say publicly anything I'd say privately ( including discussing this issue ) as I don't go around badmouthing people behind their backs or giving advice privately I wouldn't post publicly. I suggest you should worry more about those who say things privately that they don't want being made public. I think you'll find quite a bit more questionable behaviour there.


Bottom line: I disagree with your conclusions and wish you'd discuss them with those you accuse rather than accusing them secretly without ever letting them know you are doing so but, at least you had the cojones to come out publicly and say what you are doing so I can only conclude that while I think you are misguided you are acting from honest motivations and that I have to respect. In future though I certainly would prefer you to be open about this as I'm happy to clarify any misconceptions you may have or incorrect conclusions you may draw - and then you can decide whether to accept that clarificaiton or not. I think we can all draw our own conclusions about those who have chosen to remain skulking in the shadows and not own up to their actions therein

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 183
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/4/2012 3:29:17 AM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Radar,

I hope you have your Kamakzies ready. I would expect an assault as close to Hokkaido as possible. So probably Ominato or surrounds. To gamble, I would move LOTs of troops as close to Hokkaido as possible. It's risk time, the more troops you have close to shore, the better your chance of sending him back to the sea. After your pummeling of his CVEs, I doubt he's willing to risk.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 184
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/4/2012 12:44:26 PM   
Itdepends

 

Posts: 718
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
What you are describing is a vigilante - someone who acts as accuser, judge, jury and executioner without external input - and vigilante's are rather renowned for getting things wrong and "executing" the wrong people.

I've got diddly to do with the issue- but the above tickled my funny bone given Nemo's choice of avatar

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 185
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/4/2012 1:30:38 PM   
CT Grognard

 

Posts: 693
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

(in reply to Itdepends)
Post #: 186
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/5/2012 2:23:58 PM   
krupp_88mm


Posts: 414
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

krupp,

Well I respect your right to hold a different opinion. My response is simply to note that no western system of justice has found the practice of having one person act as secret accuser, secret judge and jury ( again alone ) and then executioner ( again in secret ) without ever informing the accused that they are even being accused of doing anything wrong, nevermind allowing them to mount a defence as being a firm foundation for the practice of justice. What you are describing is a vigilante - someone who acts as accuser, judge, jury and executioner without external input - and vigilante's are rather renowned for getting things wrong and "executing" the wrong people.

As to your ability to judge whether I've given advice based on information I'm privileged to.... Well I'm not entirely sure that you using yourself as the sole barometer of what other people can infer from non-privileged advice is a valid approach. In short, just because you mightn't be able to draw conclusion x from input y doesn't mean that no-one else can. That's where public discussion and involving others before an accusation is made is useful as the more people involved the more correct information can be included in an assessment and the more likely it is to be correct.

With that said while I certainly don't agree that what you are doing in terms of secretly accusing, judging and then executing without even informing the accused of any "trial" has any of the necessary safeguards required to make sure your accusations and communications are actually warranted I do have to respect that you actually came forward and owned up to your conduct. It allows a discussion to occur and while I disagree with you I certainly accord you the right to your conclusion. I'd hope though that you'd be open to having your conclusions changed since as far as I'm concerned I've not used privileged information to advise others. In fact there are people on this forum who have PMed me privately seeking advice in their games who can tell you I turned them down precisely because I was advising the other side --- but you didn't know that since you never sought to check your conclusions with me or others who could give you different information.

The reality is that the vast majority of threads I post to are ones in which the AAR authors have specifically PMed me asking me to give them strategic advice. Most of the time my condition for doing that is that I do so publicly OR if they want to keep it private out of fears of FOW breaches from certain forum members that they'll acknowledge the advice at a later date if it is appropriate to do so ( which is precisely what Greyjoy did if you look at his posts after the Hokkaido landings). I don't believe that giving a lot of advice by PM without admitting it publicly is good practice as I think it promotes a lack of accountability. I therefore insist on that as a safeguard if I'm giving substantial advice. Minor points I'm happy to clarify without that rigamarole.

I happen to know many AAR authors are barraged with PMs ( since they've told me so while seeking my advice ) in which readers of the other side offer advice and I'd have significant concerns about those PMs breaching FOW and utilising privileged info. I think people who breach FOW are much more likely to utilise these deniable PMs than to post publicly in an AAR and I know for a fact that it goes on.... but you wouldn't know about that since you made your accusations and judgements secretly without ever discussing the issue.

Bottom line: I think you need to worry far more about those who seek to discuss strategy away from the public glare of AARs than those who do so publicly. I'd also point out that not even people on here who hate me would think I'm such an idiot as to ask so publicly for information which I'd then "leak" to GJ. My basic defence is that I'm not sufficiently moronic to do what you suggest. Anyways, enough of that....

I'll also note that whoever actually made the post to rader hasn't had the integrity to post publicly ( which, personally, I think says a lot about the quality of the accusation ). In my mind, and you are of course free to disagree, a person who makes secret accusations behind the scenes about another but won't do so publicly hasn't exactly demonstrated bona fides or unimpeachable intentions. After all I could run around PMing dozens of people all manner of crap about you krupp, it wouldn't make any of it true. The less true it was and the more in breach of forum etiquette the more likely I'd be to stick to the shadows while doing that. Only if I was actually being truthful would I be willing to come out publicly and make and defend the accusation, pinning my own reputation to the line ( as accusers must if they wish to be taken seriously ).

In future Krupp I'd ask you one favour... If you think I ( or anyone else is overstepping the line ) do us the courtesy of actually PMing us ( or posting publicly to the thread ) instead of secretly accusing us. You MIGHT learn facts which change your opinion of what's going on or, at the very least, you'd give the other person the opportunity to defend and/or think about and change their actions if they think you are right and/or change your mind if you realise your intended accusation is wrong ( and let's be honest, no-one has a monopoly on rightness so it is unlikely you are going to be right 100% of the time ) and, honestly, I am more than happy to say publicly anything I'd say privately ( including discussing this issue ) as I don't go around badmouthing people behind their backs or giving advice privately I wouldn't post publicly. I suggest you should worry more about those who say things privately that they don't want being made public. I think you'll find quite a bit more questionable behaviour there.


Bottom line: I disagree with your conclusions and wish you'd discuss them with those you accuse rather than accusing them secretly without ever letting them know you are doing so but, at least you had the cojones to come out publicly and say what you are doing so I can only conclude that while I think you are misguided you are acting from honest motivations and that I have to respect. In future though I certainly would prefer you to be open about this as I'm happy to clarify any misconceptions you may have or incorrect conclusions you may draw - and then you can decide whether to accept that clarificaiton or not. I think we can all draw our own conclusions about those who have chosen to remain skulking in the shadows and not own up to their actions therein


i do believe in my defense i didnt judge or trial anyone, i passed along information about a possible compromise, i didn't specify a malevolent intent or not, I just informed that it was happening. Anyway i dont see a reason why i should have to do it publicly as it would probably just generate more drama than its worth; as about to be evidenced. But since you feel I accused you, i felt a need to reveal the happenings as im not afraid to stay behind a mask.

But regardless if you feel like you were robbed of fair trial then we shall have the trial!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(preface to this, i was paying attention to the readers of the threads, because of a recent past event regarding leaking of information, i spotted nemo in both threads several times imminently before he made posts, I have no saved evidence that i observed this, only that it would not be unreasonable to assume so anyways since he was posting in both threads, this is no way the entirety of what i saw, this is just the first part, i dont really have time to get the rest, but i think this is sufficient evidence to make my point regardless, ill withhold my judgement here and let others decide the verdict, however regardless of the outcome i think its poor tact to post detailed strategic advice in two threads at once)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The following posts are based on actual events and were transcribed without alteration except to color / bold / italic / size / formatting

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

ANDY 3/1/2010 7:39:45 AM
guess everyone is encountering this issue. I´m moving in fuel from all sides and it´s dry, completely dry. Haven´t lost halve a dozen TK (we´re in 6/42 now) and am also using over a hundred big AKs that also have tanks to carry fuel as cargo. Doesn´t help, most is sucked up by the industry, most of the rest by the merchant marine. Have sent out my carriers perhaps one or two times (in months) and never further than around Milne Bay (coming from Brisbane or Sydney). Like I´ve said, fuel stores in Australia are all dry. My opponent will be pleased I guess.
ANDY


PZB 3/2/2010 10:44:32 PM
Andy says we need to slow down; a bug prevents his armored units from taking replacements.
We need to wait for the patch or upgrade to beta? Asked him about the latter.

Don't know were his carriers are Mynok; not at Pearl cause then he would have been more active around Palmyra me thinks.
Probably Suva area! Still, I got the KB nearby - so if he wants to trap my convoy he needs to handle 6 carriers in total.
PZB


NEMO TO PZB
3/2/2010 11:57:46 PM

Is it a trap? Yes, he's lulling you into a justified sense of security ;-)
NEMO TO PZB



PZB
3/4/2010 10:02:52 PM






PZB

NEMO TO PZB
3/5/2010 12:31:38 AM
Good, it is nice to see this ambition.

Frankly, if you go into Oz you should go in with a view to crushing it entirely and simplifying your war into just two fronts -
1. Pacific vs USA
2. Western ( Java and Oz ) facing the British in India and the US ability to send troops and the USN through the Atlantic and into Capetown etc.
NEMO TO PZB



3/6/2010 9:33:55 PM
ANDY

Landing at geraldton by a small force c 2 Regiments....

Something weird going on here

A couple of Divs on East Coast now less than a Div on West Coast.

I still think its NZ but if he is its a complicated deception plan

I have the US 27th Inf Div not long arrived from West Coast en route I can send it to Geraldton or to Perth.

He needs to watch out now as he cannot pull off invasions on the hoof without the amphib bonus so if Geraldton is his main attack I should commit to stop it I just cannot believe thats the main attack
ANDY

ANDY
My pilots cannot hit the broad side of a barn !!!

Having said that he is taking a pounding at Geraldton and my Armoured Cars arrived today doubling my AV

Tomorrow I will have an Inf Div at Geraldton and more reserves are en route

Having said that its a Diversion has to be less than a Div unloading so I need to balance my response

I am watching Perth and the towns to the south as well
ANDY


ANDY
3/6/2010 10:52:30 PM

I am transferring more CD guns towards Perth as this looks and feels like a kill sack in preparation

No bombardment either he is either saving it for his real attack or is expecting me to counter attack.

Only issue with that is my fleet is weak in BB;s my losses at PH mean I need to save what I have
ANDY



PZB
3/6/2010 10:24:10 PM

Is it better / faster to unload supplies from ambibious type TFs in small ports than as cargo type?

Not sure if we should invade Port Augusta or / and Adelaide direct.
It's really painful to get ashore and it will most likely take a week to gather our troops to get moving toward Adelaide.

Melbourne and nearest nearby size 3 or bigger AF is 9-10 hexes away from Adelaide, so we should mainly have to contend with local air attacks while some mediums and heavies will stage from Melbourne.


Hmmm, this is a difficult decision!
PZB




NEMO TO ANDY
3/6/2010 11:20:49 PM


If he takes Geraldton why would he amphib invade Perth? MUch easier to just land troops at Geraldton and march down.

A question - IF he wants western Australia then he will take it. Sending troops there sounds to me like reacting too late and risking order, counter-order, disorder.

Perhaps you should just accept the loss of Perth and consolidate in south-eastern Australia? Right now I get a feeling you could be reacting INTO his plan, which is never a good idea.

NEMO TO ANDY



ANDY
3/6/2010 11:33:51 PM
Well he wont take Geraldton with the forces he has available so far not sure what he is up to
ANDY



PZB
3/6/2010 11:59:35 PM


PZB



ANDY 3/7/2010 12:27:33 AM
I am splitting 27th Div 1 Bde will join the defenders at Geraldton

A second will go to Perth and a third will sit in strat mode at the rear rail junction just in case.

I will hold 1st Motor Bde at the same rail crossroad just in case as well.

In general I am totally baffled by what PZB is up to.

This still feels liek a diversion not enough force committed.

I am reconning NE Australia not a large force build up.

Reconning from Alice Springs a force is en route but unlikely to suceed and even if it does I am backstopping at Port Augusta so even if he takes Alice Springs he wont get anywhere

This all feels and looks like a diversion so where could he strike and hurt me ???

What are his options

1. A shallow landing in and around Perth to curt off newly rushed forward replacements - maybe
2. Land along the souith coast say near Adeilade - unlikely its a long way to go without perth to fall back on and why para land on the Alice Spring line if thats your plan all he has done is draw attention to that area - so that sector is low probability pZB is to smart
3. South of Brisbane say Newcastle i.e. the coup de main ballsy but would be in range of massed AF's he aint that daft he has to know I am keeping the cream of my strike aircraft inland watching for that opportunity so thats low probablility
4. Tasmania - has possibilities but its a loooong way to go for ltd reward. Fuel will be nasty that far away it is lightly defended but its close to a lot of AF's and would give me massive off map reinforcements - I just dont see it either

I think Australia is a diversion pure and simple

None of the options make sense.

I think its NZ or Fiji is the real target isolated limited risk nasty to retake and does not require massive garrison after conquered.

I am taking steps not to pull in reinforcements for Australia from eityher of these fortresses but I am not confident enough to stop sending other forces to Australia
ANDY




NEMO TO PZB 3/7/2010 12:28:12 AM
Question... Is this a kesselschlacht operation wherein allowing him to bring formations into the Perth region will merely bring them into the jaws of your envelopement and destruction or do you not have sufficient forces at hand for this?

I'm just asking because depending on the type of operation you want to run it may not make sense to cut the railroad at Kalgoorlie quite yet.
NEMO TO PZB




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now nemo if you will please bring forth any evidence in your defense.







< Message edited by krupp_88mm -- 1/5/2012 2:42:16 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 187
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/5/2012 2:55:18 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7333
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
With all due respect. You are posting way too much stuff on an AAR. You might want to take it to another thread or PM.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to krupp_88mm)
Post #: 188
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/5/2012 6:24:16 PM   
cwDeici

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 12/6/2011
Status: offline
I often win Risk games by figuring out my opponents psychologically from innocent personality traits. There's been social talk by posters about the players in both threads, so where does the line go? The level of comm blackout depends on the norms adopted by the players on a case by case basis, and to a lesser extent community norms.
More importantly; both are honorable gentlemen acting with good intentions and now that both sides have explicated their cases Rader can take up the offer if and when he feels like it.

Anyway, you two guys are both awesome just going by avies, handles and posting styles alone, you should totally be friends despite your differences (no sarcasm)!

New Year's Blessings

-cwD

< Message edited by cwDeici -- 1/5/2012 6:54:46 PM >

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 189
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/5/2012 6:39:33 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4023
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
I would suggest moving this to another thread, or PM

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to cwDeici)
Post #: 190
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/5/2012 10:11:56 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5808
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Krupp,

1. The first comment -"he's lulling you into a justified sense of security ;-)" was simply a joke. The key word is justified. I'm hardly using it to warn of a trap, it's just a joke between two ex PBEM partners. It's a wordplay and I like wordplays. Anyone familiar with my posting over the years would know that.

2. If ANYONE asks about invading India or Oz I always preach the doctrine of committing fully and crushing the enemy and taking the whole country. So if anyone asked that question they'd get that same doctrinal answer. Nothing to do with what the opponent said.

3. Re Geraldton. Well I just don't see that saying that someone would choose to march from Geraldton to Perth instead of landing into the face of CD defences in Perth is anything but obvious to even the newest player. I stated the obvious - opponents often prefer to avoid prepared defences. You think that's some deep insight which proves I unconsciously was influenced by another thread. I think it is a basic, obvious truth which everyone knows. After all, who would prefer to land into prepared defences when they've already got a nearby port and march there? No-one.

4. I'm confused with this one. I don't see how PzBs post relates to my question to Andy at all. I just don't see whatever you see.

I think you are being quite paranoid ( not clinically obviously. I use it descriptively) and seeing statements of the obvious as somehow being deep insights and hints informed by other threads when either I'm stating the utter obvious or the same things I say whenever those topics come up in any thread. I think that since I always say the same thing about invading Oz or India that shows I wasn't saying anything informed by the other thread.

Also if this is the level of thing you take to be suspicious what about Canoerebel and others here who frequently post in GJs thread? Are you applying this same standard of "if the say something obvious I'll PM to warn about them"? Or am I special ?

Lastly I think there's a HUGE issue here with you posting AAR info from private AARs publicly and exposing people's direct musings about strategic situations. I think this major breach of FOW you've committed illustrates my concern about the correctness of your judgement in this area. You may want to consider how you should deal with this breach of security of both of these AArs which you've just committed.


Bottom line: I'm glad I can see what you consider proof as I think it shows i was respectively joking, stating the obvious or stating a doctrinal view ive repeated on this forum over many years. I don't see the link with the fourth item you posted so I can't comment there except to say I don't see the link at all.

Obviously you see links and proof there - I think that highlights the danger of one person acting as judge, jury and executioner since some see proof in the smallest of things and may be wrong - which I believe has happened here.


Apart from all that though you've committed a major breach of FOW for both these players by your posting and I think you should look into amending it. I don't want to state you should remove it cause I don't want you to interpret that as me trying to somehow stifle your righteous accusation. I think you should consider the breach of FOW you've committed and do what you think is right to resolve it. If I say more I'm concerned it'll be misinterpreted.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/5/2012 10:19:15 PM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 191
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/5/2012 10:27:58 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7376
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

Apart from all that though you've committed a major breach of FOW for both these players by your posting and I think you should look into amending it. I don't want to state you should remove it cause I don't want you to interpret that as me trying to somehow stifle your righteous accusation. I think you should consider the breach of FOW you've committed and do what you think is right to resolve it. If I say more I'm concerned it'll be misinterpreted.


+1

I would be seriously concerned had someone lifted large sections from my AAR and thrown them into another AAR public to my opponent.



< Message edited by obvert -- 1/5/2012 11:05:47 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 192
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/5/2012 10:41:50 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
Ah I dont wanna get to much involved in this, I play MMOs and I am A RPer so I realy had enough internet drama for my whole life.
However to say it blunt, this is the second time I see such accusations in the direction of Nemo and its the second time I see only assumptions, not even weak evidence.
Either catch Nemo with his or her (snickers) hands in the cookie jar or leave it alone. This leads only to bad blood and poisons the forum.

And yes, PMing stuff behind a persons back is also some of the usual internet drama which leads to nothing but bad blood.

Its basicaly the same like talking behind a persons back. <----I hope this sentence makes sense in English, ya know mother language and all that jazz.


_____________________________



(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 193
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/5/2012 10:55:49 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4023
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
I dont see a thing Nemo has done wrong. You are gunna run this guy off if you're not careful...I see why he isn't around as much.

You have posted ALOT of private and vital info for all to see..maybe YOU'RE in the wrong...anyways... take it somewhere else..

I view both GJ and Rader's AAR, am I a cheater too?

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 194
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 1:40:59 AM   
rader


Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
Guys, please keep this off the AAR. I don't think Nemo has done anything wrong, nor have I ever implied such a thing.


(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 195
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 1:51:56 AM   
rader


Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
Well, looks like he's loaded up at least some of the troops at Bihoro. Recon now shows only 130 (!) units there instead of ~170 as was there a couple turns ago. His shipping there looks to be all LSIs, AP, AKs, etc... assault stuff. He's going to invade somewhere, and probably soon. He's been showing all of Ominato, Hachinohe, and Akita (3 of the 4 bases in the far north of Honshu) a lot of air and shore bombardment attention recently. My guess is that it's goning to be one of these bases. But it could be farther down the coast towards Sendai, along the North coart near Nagano (olympics anyone?), or something kinda crazy like Chiba near Tokyo. Greyjoy certainly has shown that he's willing to be crazy. On the other hand, it could be the Bonins, Marianas, or Ryukus still. But I think since he's right nex to Honshu with thousands of land based fighters (and now short a bunch of CVEs), he'll probably invade somewhere as close as possible to his air support: thus the 4 far north bases are the most likely targets.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 196
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 9:17:08 AM   
Panzerjaeger Hortlund


Posts: 2700
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: krupp_88mm

Blah blah bleh



At first I thought I would stay out of this, because I dont want to feed your ego by giving you attention, and it should be obvious to most people that you are just full of sh*t. But all this damn forum-drama needs to stop.

Ive played against Nemo, and we had one of our games completely ruined because of someone like you. Someone who thought Nemo was cheating, and decided to "warn" me about that, so he sent me a PM, completely breaching AAR FOW, and thus ruined the game for both me and Nemo. Needless to say, his ramblings about "cheating" was completely fabricated, existed only in his own head and was just plain stupid. Much like your accusations here.

Nemo is a very good AE-player, one of the very best. Perhaps that is why you and a handful of others think he is cheating, you simply cannot fathom that someone can be good at playing the meta-game, understand war at the operational and strategic level, while at the same time understand the game engine and how combat works. You all behave like some illiterate dark-age townspeople crying witchcraft over that which you do not understand.

This is my first and only post directed at you. I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you, so you need not bother to reply. Just know that in my eyes you are an annoying, dishonest imbecille.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to krupp_88mm)
Post #: 197
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 2:10:50 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4023
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Agreed Rader... I really hope this would go somewhere else.

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to Panzerjaeger Hortlund)
Post #: 198
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 5:26:14 PM   
desicat

 

Posts: 310
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: online
Rader, You seemed to have whittled his invasion site down to just about anywhere.....

Your verbiage leads me to believe that you think GJ is operating under the assumption that he has total control of the initiative and you have to react to him (This sentence sounds like Pinocchio in Shrek 2). You already taught him a lesson with the CVE sinkings, is he giving you another opportunity somewhere?

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 199
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 5:53:38 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 1946
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Rader, You seemed to have whittled his invasion site down to just about anywhere.....


I don't know Rader that will but I get a sense of him through others AAR's. I suspect that he has the equivalent of the SHO plans that dictated Japan's response to potential lines of Allied advance. If and when an invasion comes one of those plans goes into effect. I think there is a bit of planning complication for the IJN in that a potential Honshu invasion could come on either coast. That makes placing the IJN a little more difficult. If the invasion comes on the wrong coast the IJN is slightly out of position. As splitting the IJN is not really helpful Rader can either guess , or put IJN in a compromise position that would delay response, but keep that response intact.

_____________________________

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 200
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 5:58:08 PM   
rader


Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
Ok, his invasion did after all turn out to be a feint. A feint of nothing more than a bunch of unloaded LCTs, at least on AK, and an ancient CL. The rest seem ot have returned to Bihoro. It wasn't much, but of course it was enough to lure 600 Japanese planes to thir death under a blanket of allied figthers

I think doing this kind of thing is at least midly abusive of the naval strike targetting routine, so it generated a back and fourth of friendly emails which I thought I should post to explain the situation. I got Greyjoy's persmission to post these. I'm curious what people think about this.

/////////////////////////////////
Me:

I thought you might try something like this eventually. I'm not angry at you or anything, but I do think it is kind of abusing the code to send a large number of worthless ships to loiter at one of my bases under heavy LRCAP. I know we both take advantage of stupid naval strike targeting to some extent. I also know that in RL the allies were planning to lure Japanese strike aircraft out before an invasion to try to shoot them down. But the difference is that the allies were going to use some real bait like CVs and battleships loaded with anti-aircraft guns and fighters - which were actually valuable targets in themselves and prone to draw a large strike. Moreover, the Japanese were very much aware of the scheme, and were planning to be very careful to save their strike aircraft for legitimate targets (although I agree that FOW would play some role in creating uncertainty as to what was a legitimate target). In a situation like this, it would have been pretty obvious to the Japanese that the gaggle of small ships at anchor offshore buzzing with fighters was a trap - at least after the first strike went in. I can possibly imagine a small Japanese strike getting sucked in, but I can't see the Japanese sending piecemeal wave after wave for 2 days vs. such a target in light of the losses. It's even worse than that, because while a valuable target draws a large strike that tends to get through intact, small targets tend to draw many small strikes, which as we've seen, incur disproportionate casualties and have basically no chance of inflicting any damage.

I wish there was some switch on strike aircraft where you could set some kind of conditional attack orders ("attack only CVs/BBs/invading ships/etc., or "don't attack ships with heavy fighter cover"). But there isn't, and in these situations, I have no choice. I have to choose to give naval attack (letting something like this happen) orders or not (letting legitimate threats saill by with no response). If I choose to set them to react, then my (very stupid) computer commanders are perfectly happy to send in wave after wave to get slaughtered against worthless targets with strong CAP who clearely aren't posing any threat. There is no particular reason you couldn't repeat such an excercise indefinitely.

This is bad enough when it takes place at your own base: i.e., leaving a bunch of useless targets at your own base under fighter cover to suck in enemy strikes. This is something we both do, because we know that the other side can't set aircraft to strike with ranges that would include heavily protected enemy bases so long as there are at least a couple of worthless target ships there. Naval strike assignment will hapily send in naval strikes vs. thse worthless targets until you run out of aircraft. Thus, effectively, you can't conduct naval strikes on enemy TFs at a range longer than the nearest heavily CAPed base. The situation gets sillier when you send worthless target ships to open ocean hexes with heavy CAP. This allows you to 'surprise' enemy strike aircraft that are already set with naval strike orders and compel them to impale themselves on your CAP. But it seems to me especially silly to send worthless ships directly into enemy bases with heavy LRCAP to compel enemy strike aircraft to impale themselves.

Again, I'm not mad at you, I just wanted to raise the issue with you and get your thoughts. If you had sent battleships, CVs, lots of big transports (even unloaded), or something like that to one of my bases (i.e., something that would look like a "real threat"), I don't think there would be an issue. I think the issue is only when we use obvisouly worthless ships to compel naval strikes to impale themselves without risking anything valuable. This seems a lot like abusing the code to me.

//////////////////////////////////
Greyjoy:

I can agree with you on certain degree but this isn't exactly the case imho. Under my point of view this was a "good" elaborated and complex feint. Wasnt' just sending useless ships to an enemy base. I tried to lure you under the perception that i was invading exactly that day (fake loadings and fake movements from Bihoro to Kushiro, troops strat moving up and down in Hokkaido etc) - btw i cannot understand your lack of naval search assets in my waters...my ships were moving completely undetected...-
And i took great risks to mount this feint cause my ships had to stay in ocean waters - but in range of your naval bombers - without any cover to make you believe i was really moving to invade. If i hadn't done that you would have simply waited not risking you precious bombers.
We've done the so called CAP traps for the whole game...it's part of the game mechanics and i don't think there's any difference to place a CAP trap with a fake invading convoy or a CAP trap at one of my own base in a crowded environment like the solomons for example.
My opinion is that it's part of the game. Many many times i have to costrain myself not to place my bombers on naval strike in range of your bases for the same reason.
In this environement, like Okkaido-Honshu...where our bases are so close to each other...CAP traps are a risk we both run when we decide to set our bombers on naval strike.
It's the very same issue of picket TFs (that i learnt to use from you :-) ) and other things like that.

However...as you might guess my opinion is different from yours on this specific point.

But i understand you are pissed (i would be very pissed if i was you).

Should we HR this for the future? What would be a "fair" HR in your opinion?

//////////////////////////////
Me:

I have Japanese coastwatchers at Kushiro and Bihoro (actually every port in Hokkaido I think) that report all your naval presence at these ports every turn with pretty good acuracy. I was watching your load up and move with great interest (and my recon over your base helps too). I thought it was about 30% likely you would invade somewhere (and probably Hachinohe because it is clear terrain, closer to your bases than Akita, and you've been giving it a lot of attention recently). But I thought more likely it was a feint of some kind, and I actually thought there was a very good chance (maybe better than 50%) chance that you would invade down the coast at Sendai or something, or along the North coast. Thus I have to stay alert and defend everywhere. And it is true that I can see you put a lot of effort into a deception with all these movements (I saw the number of units at Bihoro go from 175 to 130, telling me you were loading up 2 turns ago and then moved to Kushiro with a big invasion force). And that's the main reason I'm not actually angry about it: you did set up a good feint. I thought there was a good chance it WAS a feint, but prudence demands that I take such moves seriously nonetheless.

The problem is that there is absolutely no way I can tell the difference between a feint and an invasion during the time I need to give orders. It only becomes clear when the turn runs. Therefore I can either give orders to my bombers to strike, or not to strike. Then you can choose to either sail in with real targets or just a bunch of crappy ships. I don't see why you wouldn't just keep doing the same thing with useless ships every turn. Eventually I will have to stand down my bombers. And then you are free to invade with no risk of intervention. This is extremely abusive, because the fact is that the naval strike commanders would/should make a judgement of whether or not the target is worth risking the strike, and the computer frankly does a terrible job of this. What you did was a historically planned ploy, however what is not modelled is the fact that the Japanese were aware that the allies would try such a thing and decided not to send their bombers after the first allied ships spotted, but would hold them back until it became clear that an invasion was actually taking place. If I could set my bombers to "don't attack unless you spot CVs, or the allies actually land troops ashore" (the actual "historical" setting) of course I would. I feel that you are taking advantage of the fact that I can't do this. I do think the CAP trap thing at your own bases that we both is bad enough and I wish it wansn't part of the code. But what you should do now, is keep a constant presense of crappy ships at all my northern bases so that I can never set naval strike orders. And then you can just wait until my bombers are stood down and invade without facing any possibility of naval strike. Absolutely crazy.

I can live with not being able to set naval bombers with attack orders in range of your bases. But I do think that naval bombers ought to be able to cover my own bases without much chance of sacrificing themselves in droves for no reason against useless targets. The crux of the matter here is that there is no player control over the decision of what types of targets to strike, and the AI does a horrible job at handling this.

As for HRs, I think this falls more under the "don't do things to intentionally abuse the code", but since I prefer concrete rules to general guidelines, I'm not really sure of what would be specific enough. As I said, I think feints to lure out bombers to die under CAP are probably ok, provided the threats are "credible enough" and the targets are reasonable ones that the bomber commanders would decide to actually go after. To some extent, I think the situation does fall under our existing HR about not using tons of small ships to confuse the targetting routine, but this isn't perfect.

I am tempted to say that you shouldn't be able to remain on station at an enemy base, but it's not really the base part that's a problem. If you had done it one hex offshore, I don't think it would be any better.

I think basically CAP traps for naval strikes is a whole different situation from CAP traps for bombing ground targets. This is because any time you bomb ground target (airfield, city, port, land unit), you have complete control of which hex you fly to and thus choose if you want to brave the CAP or not (and you can even fly right over tons of CAP to hit a base in the rear). But with naval strikes, your stupid AI commanders make the decisions of whether to brave the CAP or not, and the targets move during the turn resolution.

Unfortunately, all this makes it hard to come up with a single rule that would prevent abuses. But it would be something like not being able to use CAP traps for naval strikes outside your own bases unless you include air combat TFs with a certain # of aircraft in the CAP trap or be actually conducting a "serious" invasion. I suppose you could add LRACP from air bases or whatever. This being, the only way the allies would have actually used naval strike CAP traps in real life (and did actually do so at Formosa) was to use carriers to run the CAP. This is because without the "real" threat, the strike aircraft could simply decide not to fly - but you don't have the option in the game :(

The problem with something like this is that it leaves open the definitions of what is a CAP trap, and how do you define a "real" threat or "serious" invasion.

And again, I'm really not mad at you and I don't think you thought you were abusing the rules too badly today. It's just that it is a particular weakness in the rules that you can actually just totally nullify any ability I have to defend my bases by consistenly doing these types of "feints" every turn -- indeed sitting directly in my bases with tons of crappy ships until you want to actually invade. And there aint a damn thing I can do about it. I can't issue orders to my commanders to be more cautious, or really do anything differently at all - apart from telling them to ignore any invasion and let the allies land for free.

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 201
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 6:06:06 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
No way GJ did anything wrong. I mean, my goodness. Rader, you've done plenty of things that were pretty "unusual" in this game, ranging from scores of AA units in single hexes to sending five divisions across the Owen Stanleys (I know you don't think there was anything unusual about that, but I certainly do, so it's one of those "eye of the beholder" things), etc.

You guys are fighting at close range now, with all kinds of problems created by that and by the two-day turn cycles. It makes things tough on you, but that's the nature of the beast. GJ's feint was perfectly appropriate.

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 202
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 6:28:19 PM   
Rapunzel


Posts: 141
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline
From my point of view GJ move was ok. It is a game and you can not replay history. In rl every commander would be much more carful with their troops, planes and ships. This rule is broken every turn in the game.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 203
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 7:12:16 PM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline
I have to agree here, I don't think GJ did anything unusual or abusive. There were feints in the real war (battle of the Philippines sea for example), etc. Likewise this isn't a history simulator, so if GJ wants to do something that didn't happen much or at all in the war, but *could have* then I think its pretty reasonable.

Likewise I don't think this is an abuse of the system. THe fact that your naval air reacted a feint is, imho, correct. No way they could tell it was a feint until after they sortied.

(in reply to Rapunzel)
Post #: 204
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 9:17:31 PM   
Olorin


Posts: 645
Joined: 4/22/2008
From: Greece
Status: offline
post withdrawn

< Message edited by Olorin -- 1/8/2012 11:46:52 AM >


_____________________________

"Drang nach Osten"
--A TOAWIII AAR--

(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 205
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 9:32:15 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
GreyJoy hasn't marched an army into Burma.

(in reply to Olorin)
Post #: 206
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 9:40:11 PM   
Olorin


Posts: 645
Joined: 4/22/2008
From: Greece
Status: offline
post withdrawn

< Message edited by Olorin -- 1/8/2012 12:18:54 AM >


_____________________________

"Drang nach Osten"
--A TOAWIII AAR--

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 207
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 9:42:34 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7333
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Hmmmm. Well you two are both pretty considerate of the other's opinion. That is what makes this a great fight. However, you can't be just a little bit pregnant. A CAP trap is a CAP trap and you both have used them in the past. (and we all pretty much use them) It is pretty hard to determine which would be OK and which would not. You and GJ have to decide to either allow them or not. Simple as that. Any other course would just lead to misunderstandings and regret. And if they are allowed then his trap in this case was legit. Not because it was fair but because the precedent has already been set. My two cents.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 208
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 9:44:34 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I didn't accuse anybody of being gamey and I haven't hijacked the thread. I simply replied to rader's request for feedback.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 209
RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/6/2012 10:10:36 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4023
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
and he's not a JFB...

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125