Matrix Games

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?

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!

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

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

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

I officially give up/

Later.

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.

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.

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