Tithe: Another vapid post to increase CR's post count.
Do I go for maximum disruption or a much less ambitious, but very strong and tight perimeter? Nemo would argue for the former; others for the latter. I'm somewhere in the middle, trying to push the envelope until John stops me. I'm gonna take some losses when John gets his act together - that's almost inevitable.
If you do anything less than going for maximum disruption you're throwing your immense strategic victory away and settling for something minor and non-transformative. Obviously that's still better than what 90 to 95% of people would have gained from your previous situation ( most wouldn't have tried what you tried and most would have settled in to defend Sabang and environs abandoning all ambition). You are pushing for more but you are still acting as Montgomery ( worried about what the other guy will do unto him ) than Patton ( making the other guy worry about whats being done unto him ).
In the real war who did the Germans fear most? Who actually achieved more? Who actually gained more per soldier lost? The answer for all of these things is Patton. The Germans were far and away the most effective general staff organisation our civilisations have ever seen and Patton was pretty much the only enemy commander they faced whom they viscerally feared because they knew he could tear them up in unpredictable ways which were almost impossible to defend against. Hell they'd have given him a Panzer Korps in their army at any stage and I can't think of another US or British CO I could say that for.
I'd like to offer a situation from a current game:
I made a very bold and risky move in Burma. People were aghast at the loss potential and, once again, started talking about insensitivity to losses and some myth about me taking huge losses in games. I pointed out that I'd probably end up taking Burma on the cheap. Now, some time later I'm just about to take Pegu after it has been abandoned by the Japanese. I lost fewer than a dozen transports and in the ground fighting in Burma - because of the superior position I gained I've lost well under 100 squads while destroying several hundred squads of enemy troops. I did take some unfortunate losses when 6 ships were sunk by air attack on the first day since I was making the attack without air cover but even counting those Burma has been taken extremely cheaply and quite quickly and my army is in brilliant shape to push through and exploit into the enemy's strategic depth whilst leaving about 3 enemy divisions trapped and dying in my rear.
This is the sort of victory you get if you push on until the enemy stops you instead of pushing on until your own insecurity stops you. I'm not trying to pollute your AAR with exploits from another but I do think that a real world example just might make you see that the path to low casualties isn't always the safe path. Overall I'm quite certain that temerity and safety now will cost you greater losses over the next 6 months than dash.
As to whether or not John3rd is benefitting from OPSEC breaches...
1. Clearly someone has told him that you've raised this issue. I would ask him how he found out. If he found out through PMs then I think that's highly worrying since then people ARE, demonstrably, discussing what you are writing in your thread with him. Sure, they mightn't be saying what they think is game-relevant material but they ARE breaching that important line whereby they don't mention ANYTHING which happens in your AAR to him. It is also very worrying if they are doing this by PM. If they have nothing to hide then they should be posting it publicly to his AAR. If they are PMing then christ only knows what they're giving away without intending to.
Note: This is the best case situation whereby these people aren't intending any breaches... Unintentional breaches etc DO happen and even discussing the success of this plan via PM with him IS, IMO, a significant breach of conduct as a good player can make a lot from even such posts. I am quite certain I'd be able to deduce quite a bit from such PMs were I to receive them.
2. If there are posts there in public then that's better since that provides community review of what is said. I'd imagine it is via PM though since it'll be the natural tendency of people to gravitate towards saying this sort of thing privately. They should fight this tendency and post these sorts of things publicly to his AAR or not contact him at all.
I think what will have happened is that there were discussions via PM commenting on the game which gave him information through deduction and general background without ever veering towards anyone intentionally breaching OPSEC. People can deduce a lot from WHAT people ask about and WHEN and at what RATE. A flurry of PMs asking him to post pics of the NORPAC situation since he "hasn't updated that in a while" all coming in within a week of eachother realtime unmatched by any spike in other ignored areas is, to me, a clear sign that my opponent is looking at a NORPAC invasion.
Each individual PMer would be able to say, "I didn't breach OPSEC" ( and they'd be right ) but taken together even the slowest forumite couldn't help but see a clear pattern and draw the appropriate conclusions. My sense is that what we're looking at is the end result of this sort of PMing where individual PMs don't breach OPSEC but taken together they add up to a clear picture.
2. One reason I wouldn't play him is that he, along with JWE/Symon both defended FatR when he, on two separate occasions, admitted posting my entire strategic plans to my opponent- via PM. He defended him and justified his actions in ruining two PBEMs and stating that if I played another he would feel perfectly justified in breaching OPSEC and posting my plans again ( this is one reason I play only people I know wouldn't read such a PM and it played a part in me leaving ).
Bottom line: He chooses to associate himself closely with the one person in our community who has, himself, admitted that he breaches OPSEC with malicious intent. I think that asking him if FatR has ever discussed your game with him is a sensible precaution. I'd go so far as to ask him not to discuss the game with FatR at all. Why? Well even if you trust John3rd ( which is your choice ) I think past history has shown you cannot trust FatR ( by his own admission ).
I don't imagine that that's the cause of this though although FatR hasn't logged in since 9th June and so one could draw correlations there. As I said, I think this is the result of multiple people PMing with each PM abiding by the letter of the rules but the pattern and rate of PMs adding up to a clear intelligence picture.
I've seen this in the responses in which people have all focused on each individual post and few have spoken to the issue of the ebb and flow of PMs as being the indicator ( which is what I'm assuming happened ).
So, did John or any individual poster cheat? No. But did posters give away the plan via the ebb and flow and pattern of PMs? Highly likely, yes. Does it explain what happened given the facts we are aware of? Absolutely.
I'd be quite willing to bet that if you maintain your stricter OPSEC in future John3rd will continue to be surprised as this peaking of "innocent" questions via PM ( each of which, individually, is innocent ) won't, when taken together, tip him off again.
So, no real blame here. Just people being people and John putting stuff together but also something which IS amenable to management - as we've just seen. I wouldn't play John for all sorts of reasons but if I were playing him I would make him not discussing the game with FatR a stringent condition. You may wish to consider the same as I wouldn't put anything past FatR given his past, self-admitted, conduct.
< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 6/25/2013 12:26:04 AM >
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.