Charles2222
Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am NOT an "ALLIED FAN-BOY". I am a "HISTORY FAN-BOY".
Me thinks you protest too loudly . Sounds like a guilty plea. Come on Mike, does it really require so much energy to see the opposite point of view? Doesn't it make sense that an IJ fanboy considers your outlook incorrect? I mean if he sees you as incorrect, he's not any more comforted by your claims to be objective here. Frankly that quote I worked off of had to be one of the most pidgeon-holed fanboyish comments I've ever seen here as it's attempting to put those who disagree in a corner. I would hate to see how a fanboy would treat the same situation. I haven't studied you too well over time, to figure you out (nor do I care to), so maybe you do know better about your lack of fanboyness, but to say what you said, as I said, was if nothing else a MAJOR slip in your quest for some historic objectivity.
quote:
You seem to think that the only changes that should be considered are ones which will help the Japanese achieve some kind of "parity" with the Allies
As I said, I'm not into studying you, or much of anyone else for that matter (though some post so much it's almost impossible to not notice a very distinct pattern) but you're using another weapon here aren't you? Is that objective? You try to make me and the rest of the IJ faboys to look bad by claiming we want parity; somethign most of us have never claimed. You think Betties at 900 are parity. I've also seen the looney idea that we shouldn't allow IJN Tf's to bombard on invasions. That's just pplain stupid, and falls into the same category. If you want a stupid opponent like that then try the AI (though I doubt it's even that stupid). It's probably entirely consistent with the pattern you're backing to also say you jumped on the Glens shouldn't be able to navy search trend. I think I've voiced the following idea before, but did it occur to you, that whether those tings were done by the IJN or not, that the allie had to respect that?????????? Why would an IJ player want to have every nut and bolt dictated to him as to what he can do on this strange way of thinking, because it leaves IJ with no defense at all; quite ludicrous I'm sorry. As I said before, with the rarity point-of-view, the bomb should be striken from play as well; Being objective and all as you are, surely you see that reasoning.
Given the reasoning that both sides should be able to do what they 'could' historically, we can certainly see how the sky is the limit, particularly for the allies, as we might have a Japan fighting which didn't have Germany declare war and the entire allied forces against it (with the very distinct caveat that I don't think they would have attacked had it not been for assurances from Berlin. We can see a number of things that didn't take place because of what was happening to the Germans [didn't invade the USSR in '42 because the Germans didn't do so good in the winter of '41]).
quote:
I want to see EVERYTHING that is "broken" get fixed. Yeah, but you damage your cause towards that when you make a statement unreasonable to a IJ fanboy, however corrct you take yourself to be, when you state that disgareeing is tantamount to wanting 'balance'. I have a new one for you. How about the allied fanboy wants balance too, only, they want the front end of the war with all the balance, thereby robbing IJ of much of their advantage, and then doesn't care too much about the rest? I haven't seen a IJ fanboy one who wants most of the CV's removed (a primary allied advantage). I see little about the Corsair being overrated such as a fanboy might. It's like the allied fanboy (whether you're one or not) wants to have it both ways, they want parity or advantage during the clear advantage years for IJ, probably because they're sick of IJN opponents not wanting to play through all of the drudgery of the later years, and then want to play the clean up years too. I'm sorry the war isn't more transitional like in the USSR, where each side at least gets shots at some good offensives in different seasons. It's just going to take people being patient with long periods of being at disadvantage and apparently a lot of people can't handle that (not implying you BTW).
quote:
In fact, your entire arguement seems to be "how many IJ players would play if all they had to look forward to was to get beaten?" My answer is all those players who want to play the JAPANESE!
I did say "IJ" players did I not? IJ means Imperial Japan. Besides, that's not really an argument I've made, though others have. No, my point put more succinctly would be what IJ player would play wehn they'r left practicallt defenseless. They can't bombard with invasions, they can't fly Glens, and they can't torpedo with Betties out to 900 (that isn't a complete list either), What more is there left to denuding them during their glory years? I just can't decide which was more ill, the need to stop a naton from bombarding who was clearly often looking for surface fleet battles (hence had the shells to bombard on invasions) or trying to pick on a lowly float plane for crying out loud. Man am I ever glad I don't play PBEM! Some of this Pacific theatre knowledge some of the adherents have, has led them to want the most extraordinary restrictions just because it didn't happen all that much. I can't remember so little respect given to that mere granule of hypothetics in my entire wargaming life; no exaggeration. It's beyond morbid I'm sorry to say.
quote:
A real Japanese player want's to "test his mettle" against the actual accomplishments of the real Japanese.
Yes, and you do that by being allowed some deviation from the strictest interpretation of history. If the Glen subs didn't naval search, isn't that an obvious failing that a real IJ player should correct? It's like saying that the allies shouldn't defend PH better if given the chance. I don't see how you can test your mettle against the real Ij if you do the exact same things. Sheeh. When will IJ be instructed to only attack the places that IJ did, and then call that testing your mettle?
quote:
Stick to the "fan-boy scenarios" which will always abound as long as the game editor exists.
Just to make it personal Mike, I don't EVER play scenarios (except for big ol' 15), nor do I play or use mods. Not one iota of this game have I altered (unless you consider re-running the start to get something even slightly resembling the historic PH attack result, as that. Something which has the distinction of being the only canned attack in the entire game, and it even makes IJ pitiful in 90% of the runs). Does that surprise you that I don't play fanboy scenarios? It ought not to, considering how I've argued against the excesses I've seen. Perhaps it's the better path to let all the allied fanboys have their way and I confin myself to 'fanboy' scenarios. In the larger scheme of things I can't say that wouldn't be too wrong. Unfortunately I can't stand mods, and further more if it really is a mod borne to excess of some sort, I don't know why I would want to play it. Clearly what's right for me (Betty torps range and such) isn't right for you. Clearly what I consider objective, you do not. I'm not so eager to consider myself a non-fanboy either, as I can see the other point of view thinking that, bu tone thing keeps me knowing that I'm largely right: the very fact that I'll be playing allied one day. Why would I want to trash my playing that side by letting an IJ fanboy run roughshod and give them invincible units by the time I end up playing allied? I perfectly willing to let my AI IJ opponent do all the Beety torp'ing and Glen searches they want, because I consider that a fair use. Frankly I would probably put more effort into the allied point-of-view, but the often used excuse of rarity of use is nonsensical in a number of ways (but not all), and I've seen the allied fanboys much more domineering and quick to use all the psychological tricks in the book for me to ignore it and let it pass.
If I were the allies, off of the top of my head, I would want the 4E bomber excess curtailed, and also I want them ineffectual against shipping at sea. Clearly I can change both those things by not using those excess bombers as much as I can, and also just not turn them into anti-shipping missions hardly at all. As I'm not keen on modding, there's nothing I would have different with Japan, although as the allies I would cringe a bit if the AI was thrashing the USSR for example. If anythign that makes sense for restricting Japan it should be that the other theatres deal with triggers as the West Coast does, but hopefully in terms of the current state of the AI it will not do that.
I also don't care too much as to how these things affect PBEM, because I see PBEM desires often being at odds with the desires playing AI brings (the Glen issue is a major case in point).
quote:
But let those who want to take on the actual Historic Challange have their fun as well.
You have the notion, apparently, I suspect, that YOU have the historic POV. I frankly don't think ANYBODY does. The allied players, many of them that post, for example, are way too keen on assuming that Japan always had junky stuff and has to prove otherwise. It's like Japan has to prove they didn't rape their wife. To them, that's history. To me, it's something else again. To you, something else. I don't know about all your issues for sure, but in comparing myelf to a good number of the allied fanboy side (I haven't got too deeply into comparing to IJ fanboys as not playing allied limits that POV for me, besides all the other reasons I gace earlier) I know their desires are apart from what this game is. IOW, if you're wanting deviation forom what it is, irrespective of whether you think it's historic or not, why don't "those guys" make their mod and call it historic? Surely some of the IJ fanboys have done this thinking the very same thing. Even if I agreed with the allied fanboy, or objective you on every single point, your POV "isn't" this game. This game is a mixture of hypothetical and historic. I think it can be somewhat better in achieving that aim, but the burden of making it pure fantasy, or pure historic is not on this game, but on those who want to make it either extreme of the fanboys. And no, claiming "our side" or ourselves as historic doens't help, because it's not meant to be entirely that way, no matter how unfair or fanboyish it is to not want it as we want it. Now paint me as a histo/hypo fanboy if you must, because as far as this game is concerned that's apparently what I am.
quote:
Your viewoint is incredably selfish. "Make the game I want to play..., reality be damned!" seems to sum it up. Why can't you let the rest of us (the majority from the poll results) have our game as well? Then everybody can be happy.
I'm sorry if being a histo/hypo fanboy makes me look selfish, but that's the game we have in front of us. Please Mike, it's not worth a cornary. If you would turn a bit more into a histo/hypo fanboy you too would be a bit calmer. Peace ol' boy.
|
Printable Version
RE: History or Balance - 
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